Lightroom or Capture one or another system per leica Q3?

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

The 26 mm content of the Q3 is of low quality, and can be displayed in LR as well. 

Huh? Meaning? The Q3 files are great!

[jaapv]

Yes they are excellent but the bit between 26 and 28 mm are redundant pixels designed to be used for the digital part of the lens formula, not to be used for the resultant image.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, angelo rosana said:

I recently got a Leica Q3 and I'm undecided between Lightroom Classic, which allows me to manage the photo archive, and Capture One. 
I underline that I am an amateur photographer.

Lightroom.

It is simple, includes PS, is being enhanced regularly, includes excellent AI Denoise, has a lot of tutorials, and supports Leica features. AFAIK, only Adobe software supports Leica's crop modes and Perspective Control. 

[SrMi]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes they are excellent but the bit between 26 and 28 mm are redundant pixels designed to be used for the digital part of the lens formula, not to be used for the resultant image.

I believe that people have observed 26mm after SDC. The "low-quality" data that you refer to is wider than 26mm, as far as I know. BTW, the extra data is being used by DxO to produce the wider final image.

[Anbaric]

I much prefer 'perpetually' licensed software but there are a couple of issues with way that Capture One now handle it that would make me think twice. If I understand the recent licence changes correctly, the support period has been reduced to a matter of months (for what is, after all, very expensive software). Not only does that mean you will no longer be getting any feature upgrades that used to come with the 'dot releases', not to mention support for new cameras, but there apparently won't be any bug fixes once this narrow window has closed. So if some routine OS update is pushed to your machine and breaks a key feature, you'll be on your own.

The other thing is an issue of trust. Last month, C1 announced they were killing the free 'Express' versions at very short notice (they will apparently stop working when the software phones home at the end of this month). There had never been any previous indication that this was even possible, let alone likely. Any investment in time Express users have made in saving their non-destructive edits will be lost, and any purchased Styles will be worthless unless they stump up for a subscription or a 'perpetual' licence. Treating your users with this sort of contempt trashes goodwill, and leaves 'perpetual' licence customers wondering if the same thing will happen to them when their software is eventually flagged as 'obsolete'. All of this seems designed to drive customers towards more lucrative subscriptions, which seems to be the master plan of the private equity investors who have now acquired the company and are milking it for all it is worth.

The term 'perpetual' in general is now a misnomer when it comes to many software licences. Anything that requires online activation can no longer be installed if the company stops providing this service (as many Adobe CS3 users have discovered), and anything that phones home regularly to check its licence status can be killed altogether if the company decides it has reached its 'end of life'. Usually there'll be something in the small print of the EULA that says the company can do what it likes. A court may disagree, but how many people are likely to take legal action over older software? It's probably best to think of most 'perpetual' licences as long-term pre-paid subscriptions of unknown length.

Edited January 14 by Anbaric

[jaapv]

51 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I believe that people have observed 26mm after SDC. The "low-quality" data that you refer to is wider than 26mm, as far as I know. BTW, the extra data is being used by DxO to produce the wider final image.

Yes it could be a bit wider FOV depending on the lens compared to and the focus distance ( it should be infinity by definition ) A conventional 28 mm lens will be something like 32 mm at 1 meter. The Q3 lens is 28 -corrected- throughout the focusing range as it is an internal focus lens. 

[Blues Bird]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best raw converter/ editing software  is the one you are really familiar with. Choose either of the usual suspects, learn it thoroughly and develop a workflow the suits you needs and makes you quick.

I never heard of people looking at a photo and saying: „Quite nice, but I really wished the photographer had used C1 instead of LR.“

 

 

[jaapv]

No but I was just looking at photos of houses for sale by pros and could not help  thinking “this  is sh!t processing” - and misleading focal lengths too. 

[Anbaric]

There's an awful lot of terrible processing out there, but it's not generally the software that's at fault. If you have sliders for every parameter, somebody is always going to think their pictures will look better if they turn everything up to 11.

[LocalHero1953]

Some years ago I acknowledged all the recommendations for Capture One and tried to switch from Lightroom (which I found just fine). I found C1 confusing, unintuitive and impenetrable, so switched back to LR.  I write this not in praise of LR ( which I find logical, intuitive and powerful), but rather to emphasise that the best software is what you are used to and what you know how to get the best from. 

Written by a satisfied Adobe subscription payer. It’s what I’m used to. 

Edited January 14 by LocalHero1953

[reynoldsyoung]

50 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Some years ago I acknowledged all the recommendations for Capture One and tried to switch from Lightroom (which I found just fine). I found C1 confusing, unintuitive and impenetrable, so switched back to LR.  I write this not in praise of LR ( which I find logical, intuitive and powerful), but rather to emphasise that the best software is what you are used to and what you know how to get the best from. 

Written by a satisfied Adobe subscription payer. It’s what I’m used to. 

I couldn't agree more, Hero...it's what you're used to.  I was a LR user for years and along came C1.  I (visually) thought C1 processed a better image.  I was hooked on C1, learned enough to create good (enough) images and never looked back.  It has evolved into a wonderful product with tons of support.  And, not "...it's what I'm used to."  And, that's the truth!  Ha!

[jaapv]

One thing never mentioned: continuous incremental updates take far less effort to learn to use than huge biannual ones that upend half the program. 

[SAronian]

On 1/14/2024 at 11:41 AM, jaapv said:

The corrections are not a simple crop like you are applying in DXO - it involves pixel shifting and distortion correction. The Photoshop version is the correct one; look, for instance, at the lower edge of the gate: distorted in both DXO versions. If you look very carefully you can see that it is even visible near the centre, the PS one looks more flat and less protruding in the middle.The detail in the cooler things and roof edge is better defined, even on these small jpgs.

I actually see the opposite with the DxO version showing a flatter plane across the image with less center protrusion. Not saying we know which one is more accurate, just that software choice will have a noticeable affect on your RAW images. Most likely Adobe's collaboration with Leica will have an Adobe processed RAW image matching the in-camera processed JPEG leading me to believe that is what Leica intended.

The GIF below compares the Photoshop Default with DxO's Image Cropped to Original Ratio.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Don't you see the pincushion distortion in the lower edge gate of the gate in DXO? You can even see the shift in the lower lefhand corner where the images don't overlap.