Q3 Lens Distortion

[Miltz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had the Q3 since August and I love the camera. I've had the Q and Q2 and know all about the lens, software correction, focal length etc. This has been talked about to death and this isn't what this is about. Over the weekend I had some client work which involved shooting items with straight lines, squares and rectangles etc. When I got home and started processing the images I realized how much distortion all the images had, and unfortunately it wasn't correctable. In my "everyday" shooting, it's something that you don't notice, but for critical work where straight lines are important I would avoid the Q3. I need to get back with another camera to reshoot this, that's how bad it looks. No amount of post software correction can fit it, it just becomes a wavy mess. For those wondering I shot the images at approx 35mm focal length at a distance to avoid most of the distortion and stretched corners, but it didn't really help. This is the first issue I've had with the Q3 in the field. And no it's not distortion from the items being too close, these were big and far enough away. What I'm wonder is does Leica correct each lens individually or do all the Q lenses have equal distortion? 

[Advertisement]

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

[AndreasG]

Could you please show us an example photo here, or would this collide with your client's work?

[Miltz]

1 hour ago, AndreasG said:

Could you please show us an example photo here, or would this collide with your client's work?

It’s a private art collection and they don’t want it shown. I will say the color reproduction is excellent with only a slight magenta bias with certain pieces. 

[Qwertynm]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Miltz:

What I'm wonder is does Leica correct each lens individually or do all the Q lenses have equal distortion? 

To my little understanding of lens design is that sample variation does exist from unit to unit but in my experience only in term of sharpness. I‘d say that lens distortion comes from the design itself and is not affected by sample variation from one unit to another. 

do you have a good tripod mount like the Arca Swiss C1 to position your camera exact? Have you tried activating the guided mode in LR to let perspective control of the Q3 do its thing?

[David Wien]

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!

Miltz,

I took this one recently with my Q3 in a public collection. It was handheld (1/50 sec) and I corrected the perspective in PhotoLab 6. I dont see the problems of which you complain; but maybe my standards are not as high as yours.

David

 

[Marc B-C]

2 hours ago, Miltz said:

It’s a private art collection and they don’t want it shown. I will say the color reproduction is excellent with only a slight magenta bias with certain pieces. 

Perhaps you can take a similar photo of not a private collection and let us have a look at that?

Could it be caused by use of the electronic shutter?

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This post is @David Wien and it just crossed. I was too slow . . .

That is my experience as well.

Its a pitty that @Miltz cannot show examples. 

@Miltz Is it maybe pissible that you shoot a fully different subject that shiw the effect that you claim? That would be helpful.

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by M11 for me

[AndreasG]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb David Wien:

and I corrected the perspective in PhotoLab 6

Could you show the above image without correction please?

[David Wien]

This is the OOC jpg, reduced to the same size as the one I showed above. ISO 2500, f/5, 1/50 sec, 0EV.

David

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!

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, Miltz said:

I've had the Q3 since August and I love the camera. I've had the Q and Q2 and know all about the lens, software correction, focal length etc. This has been talked about to death and this isn't what this is about. Over the weekend I had some client work which involved shooting items with straight lines, squares and rectangles etc. When I got home and started processing the images I realized how much distortion all the images had, and unfortunately it wasn't correctable. In my "everyday" shooting, it's something that you don't notice, but for critical work where straight lines are important I would avoid the Q3. I need to get back with another camera to reshoot this, that's how bad it looks. No amount of post software correction can fit it, it just becomes a wavy mess. For those wondering I shot the images at approx 35mm focal length at a distance to avoid most of the distortion and stretched corners, but it didn't really help. This is the first issue I've had with the Q3 in the field. And no it's not distortion from the items being too close, these were big and far enough away. What I'm wonder is does Leica correct each lens individually or do all the Q lenses have equal distortion? 

Which post processor did you use to apply automatic distortion correction?

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, AndreasG said:

Could you show the above image without correction please?

Why? The camera does not work without corrections.

[AndreasG]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

Why? The camera does not work without corrections.

It is about the correction in PP, not in the camera.

[earleygallery]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I am here for the "why go and shoot an art collection where zero distortion is of utmost importance with a Q3" comments...

The Q has a wideangle lens, so this is a valid point. It's really not the best tool for the OP's task.

[SrMi]

34 minutes ago, AndreasG said:

It is about the correction in PP, not in the camera.

Only JPEGs get corrected in the camera. Raw files get corrected in the post-processor.

[Rick in CO]

43 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

The Q has a wideangle lens, so this is a valid point. It's really not the best tool for the OP's task.

Review the leica published data for the Q lens - there is quite some distortion.  Although the Q's distortion may decrease as the field is cropped down, maybe a 50mm Cron/Lux lens would be more suitable for copying art.

[Opaea]

I confirm there is a lot of distortion. The lens is not as good as the camera and I think Leica could upgrade the lens event the price should increase too. 
it doesn’t really affect my global satisfaction but for instance my canon r5 with the 15/35 RF lens has less distorsion at 24 or 28 mm

[Knorp]

Admittedly, the lens is far from ‘perfect’, but what kind of optical distortion are we talking about here ? Barrel ? Pincushion ? Mustache ?

The only distortion I had to deal with was perspective distortion and that was easily fixed in PP.

[pcgarner]

Have you tried Dxo's ViewPoint? I shoot a fair amount of square/rectangular imagery and correct everything using VP. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[LocalHero1953]

Pics - or it didn't happen!

I'm not arguing either way, but comments about distortion are nothing without the visuals. Let's see them. And they have to be with the Leica digital correction included; post processing with software that doesn't apply the necessary corrections is also meaningless, so say what s/w was used, and if the normal Leica corrections were applied. We've seen too many gross Q images where the proper digital correction has not been applied.

Edited January 22, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Le Chef]

2 hours ago, Opaea said:

I confirm there is a lot of distortion. The lens is not as good as the camera and I think Leica could upgrade the lens event the price should increase too. 
it doesn’t really affect my global satisfaction but for instance my canon r5 with the 15/35 RF lens has less distorsion at 24 or 28 mm

Peter Karb designed the lens for the Q series to: a) be designed with the use of software to correct distortions or errors in the glass, b) have an integrated leaf shutter built into the lens, c) to include OIS in the lens, d) to be as compact as reasonably possible.

if you want to know what an only optically corrected equivalent would cost, take a look at an SL lens which would cost a little over $5,000. That’s the lens on its own, to which you would need to add the cost of the camera body.