idusidusi Posted September 28 Share #61  Posted September 28 Advertisement (gone after registration) 14 hours ago, farnz said: I was one of the ones who was always 'sold' on the Q but wanted and waited for a ~50 mm lens. To be able to shoot up to 150 mm is just a bonus. Pete. I was never a fan of 28mm, but 43mm I think will be almost perfect for everything except anything wider than 43mm. 150mm I would like to see that as soon as my dealer has one. One can always upscale the file too. Intriguing - looking forward to seeing this camera. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28 Posted September 28 Hi idusidusi, Take a look here The new Leica Q3 43 - Review by Jonathan Slack. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #62 Â Posted September 28 Jono, a question. I assume you have good connections to Leica. Do you know or can you ask Leica to inform, if their published, excellent MTF curves for the Q cameras are before or after applying the digital correction of distortion? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted September 28 Share #63 Â Posted September 28 The MTF curves are anyway calculated and not measured . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanHay Posted September 28 Share #64  Posted September 28 A bit of a first world issue for me I know - I like the idea of the Q3 43, everything seems right for what I want - but I really don’t like the grey finish. Is this so that Leica users can spot a Q3 43 in a crowd? I would be using the handgrip but the case is not an option for me. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #65  Posted September 28 5 minutes ago, M11 for me said: The MTF curves are anyway calculated and not measured . . . good point but Leica easily could also include the calculation of the distortion correction to the published MTF otherwise a MTF without the distortion correction is a bit of misleading (the amount of optical distortion before correction is quite substantial as one can see below) 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! 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/412737-the-new-leica-q3-43-review-by-jonathan-slack/?do=findComment&comment=5633162'>More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 28 Share #66  Posted September 28 I'm happy they do employ digital distortion correction - by eliminating it as a optical factor, it allows for better design for colour and resolution in the lens. Specifying a lens for a fixed-lens camera without digital correction leaves the designer with one hand tied behind their back, and a lesser outcome in the final image. M lenses do not have digital correction because they are designed for a dual role with digital and film bodies - and no digital correction is possible with the latter! So it's not surprising that Leica is able to make lenses for the Q and SL that equal or beat M lenses in the final image. (Of course M lenses have qualities other lenses cannot match - notably size). 6 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 28 Share #67  Posted September 28 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, chrismuc said: good point but Leica easily could also include the calculation of the distortion correction to the published MTF otherwise a MTF without the distortion correction is a bit of misleading (the amount of optical distortion before correction is quite substantial as one can see below) 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! Misleading? No, it isn't. ALL that matters is the final image. If someone is daft enough to deliberately remove the corrections for a final image then they get what they get. What else matters besides the final DNG file? Part of the optical design of ALL modern mirrorless lenses includes software corrections. Welcome to the 21st century. This reminds me of a forum (I shalt not name), in the 80's when someone complained the use of fluorite glass was cheating. Same sh**, different shovel. Gordon 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
db24fps Posted September 28 Share #68  Posted September 28 1 hour ago, PanHay said: A bit of a first world issue for me I know - I like the idea of the Q3 43, everything seems right for what I want - but I really don’t like the grey finish. Is this so that Leica users can spot a Q3 43 in a crowd? I would be using the handgrip but the case is not an option for me.  This came up in the main 43 discussion topic, but these seem like a good (and safe) solution that can be applied without leaving any damage/residue when later removed: https://alphagvrd.com/products/leica-q3-protection-skin-cover-wrap?srsltid=AfmBOoqifCSMrpGbrQlxwWDUEofhaC3W8XVIHCHhmAgOuxj9TAd9NQ70 You need not deal with the top and bottom plate vinyl coverings in the packs if you don't want to, but each pack seems to include the 'matrix black' body cover as standard (which conveniently looks to be the easiest covering to apply without potential error). If I decide that I don't like the 43's finish then I will consider ordering one of these at some point. There's a Q3 video on their installation page. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #69  Posted September 28 6 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: Misleading? No, it isn't. ALL that matters is the final image. If someone is daft enough to deliberately remove the corrections for a final image then they get what they get. What else matters besides the final DNG file? Part of the optical design of ALL modern mirrorless lenses includes software corrections. Welcome to the 21st century. This reminds me of a forum (I shalt not name), in the 80's when someone complained the use of fluorite glass was cheating. Same sh**, different shovel. Gordon I am fully aware of that Gordon. But why would you publish a MTF which would not relate to the final image. Does that make any sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 28 Share #70  Posted September 28 30 minutes ago, chrismuc said: I am fully aware of that Gordon. But why would you publish a MTF which would not relate to the final image. Does that make any sense? As far as I'm aware the published MTF's are the ones of the final DNG file (ie: after corrections), no? Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWColor Posted September 28 Share #71 Â Posted September 28 23 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: As far as I'm aware the published MTF's are the ones of the final DNG file (ie: after corrections), no? Gordon As such, the in camera correction is a feature and not a crutch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #72  Posted September 28 23 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: As far as I'm aware the published MTF's are the ones of the final DNG file (ie: after corrections), no? Gordon I don't know, unfortunately all lens brands (apart Zeiss) publish simulated, not measured MTF curves, none of them (as far as I know) openly states if the published MTF curves are before or after applying distortion correction, Sigma at least publish MTF curves with and without diffraction considered (without actually does not make any sense because the physics of diffraction always will slightly reduce the contrast, especially at the today's very high MTF contrast values). I am not at all against software correction of distortion, I apply all kinds of post production lens corrections in the raw converter (distortion, LaCA, camera tilt and roll and keystone) at every single image or relevance, I just would like to know what's happening (being a physicist myself :-)). My experience: if the pure optical performance of a lens with a rather high value of distortion is very good (means high MTF values towards the image corners) like e.g. the Sigma DG DN 85f1.4 Art or the Q 43, the corner sharpness is still very good after application of the distortion correction. If the corner MTF of the pure lens is not so great, like e.g. the Sigma 20f2 or the Fujifilm XF 16f2.8, the corner sharpness is less satisfying after application of the distortion correction. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #73  Posted September 28 comparing the distortion of some lenses of different formats and brands (when opening a file w/o distortion correction in ACR and applying the distortion correction there) Fujifilm GFX lenses have consistently exceptionally low distortion Sigma 35f2 and 65f2 are maybe most comparable to the Q43 lens: they are not very large, the 35 has quite low distortion, the 65 very low distortion, the 35f2 is optically good, the 65f2 is great Q lenses distortions ... hmm 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! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/412737-the-new-leica-q3-43-review-by-jonathan-slack/?do=findComment&comment=5633318'>More sharing options...
Al Brown Posted September 28 Share #74 Â Posted September 28 Great and meaningful review @jonoslack. Â 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 28 Share #75  Posted September 28 2 hours ago, chrismuc said: comparing the distortion of some lenses of different formats and brands (when opening a file w/o distortion correction in ACR and applying the distortion correction there) Fujifilm GFX lenses have consistently exceptionally low distortion Sigma 35f2 and 65f2 are maybe most comparable to the Q43 lens: they are not very large, the 35 has quite low distortion, the 65 very low distortion, the 35f2 is optically good, the 65f2 is great Q lenses distortions ... hmm 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! Low distortion does not mean that a lens is better. A lens with more distortion may produce better output after SDC. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted September 28 Share #76  Posted September 28 4 hours ago, db24fps said:  This came up in the main 43 discussion topic, but these seem like a good (and safe) solution that can be applied without leaving any damage/residue when later removed: https://alphagvrd.com/products/leica-q3-protection-skin-cover-wrap?srsltid=AfmBOoqifCSMrpGbrQlxwWDUEofhaC3W8XVIHCHhmAgOuxj9TAd9NQ70 You need not deal with the top and bottom plate vinyl coverings in the packs if you don't want to, but each pack seems to include the 'matrix black' body cover as standard (which conveniently looks to be the easiest covering to apply without potential error). If I decide that I don't like the 43's finish then I will consider ordering one of these at some point. There's a Q3 video on their installation page. I’m not a huge fan of the gray so I ordered just the matrix black rubber grips from this company (no vinyl coverings,) $10 shipped. Will report back when received and installed. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 28 Share #77  Posted September 28 (edited) 33 minutes ago, SrMi said: Low distortion does not mean that a lens is better. A lens with more distortion may produce better output after SDC. Indeed. Since distortion is something that is easy to correct digitally, why compromise other corrections that have to be done optically? The charts above appear to show that Leica recognises this ( since Leica demonstrably knows how to remove distortion optically when it has to). Edited September 28 by LocalHero1953 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 28 Share #78  Posted September 28 5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: Indeed. Since distortion is something that is easy to correct digitally, why compromise other corrections that have to be done optically? The charts above appear to show that Leica recognises this ( since Leica demonstrably knows how to remove distortion optically when it has to). +1 However, we cannot assume that a lens performs better when more SDC is applied in the raw converter 🤣. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted September 28 Share #79  Posted September 28 7 hours ago, PanHay said: A bit of a first world issue for me I know - I like the idea of the Q3 43, everything seems right for what I want - but I really don’t like the grey finish. Is this so that Leica users can spot a Q3 43 in a crowd? I would be using the handgrip but the case is not an option for me. one first world solution would be to pick one up in Japan. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/412737-the-new-leica-q3-43-review-by-jonathan-slack/?do=findComment&comment=5633620'>More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted September 28 Share #80  Posted September 28 50 minutes ago, SrMi said: +1 However, we cannot assume that a lens performs better when more SDC is applied in the raw converter 🤣. it is equivalent if the distortion correction is applied by the camera and written into the EXIF of by the raw converter in the 'past', lenses had maybe 1-4% distortion now they have eventually have 10-15% distortion to correct it, the resolution in the corners will drop by that amount plus the losses of interpolation, no way out yes it's a kind of compensated by the high contrast at 40 lp/mm towards the corners of top level today's lens designs, still I would prefer less optical distortion in the first place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now