Overgaard Posted December 22, 2008 Share #121 Posted December 22, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) In discussing digital lens correction, one should consider how one will do on the Apple running system 20.0 in some years. Hasselblad for one isn't known for backward compatibility in Phocus, FlexColor or any other regard. And in other areas, try to run a Leica S1 from 1996 on todays computer. Can be done but only using outdated equipment (because the image was scanned by SilverFast directly to an attached computer). What a joke to have a lens that is outdated because the software is not updated anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here s2 and d3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted December 23, 2008 Share #122 Posted December 23, 2008 Me??? If anything, your response was a knee-jerk reaction as it wasn't relevant to anything I posted. I presume you are implying that you don't think your lenses could benefit from any type of software correction. Good for you. Do you also want to deny Leica any opportunity to have software correction in its bag of tricks when designing new lenses? OK so I gather your answer is "no". I asked in response to your remark: I bet there is no lens that could not benefit from some type of software correction as I am not aware of any lens that has zero distortion, zero aberrations, and zero vignetting. because if you have not used a Leica APO lens you might not realize how good lenses can be. A lens that is diffraction-limited from center to edge at full aperture doesn't need software correction. EDIT: I forgot to mention distortion and vignetting. They're easy to forget when there's none detectable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 23, 2008 Share #123 Posted December 23, 2008 because if you have not used a Leica APO lens you might not realize how good lenses can be. A lens that is diffraction-limited from center to edge at full aperture doesn't need software correction. So let's say I didn't realize how good a lens can be. What of it? How is that relevant to my posts? The only reason I posted was to point out that Leica was already not above using software to correct for lens/sensor issues in a current camera. Rather than being "pure and natural" so to speak. So if you don't like the idea of software correction, take it up with Leica. I never said that Leica didn't make very good lenses. And I would think that it would be pretty hard to notice significant distortion in any long tele lens under most applications. Here is a type of optical correction that you may not have thought of. DXO's has volume anamorphosis correction. Handy even with a "perfect"lens for w/a group shots or when there are round objects near the corner of a frame shot with a wide angle. Volume Anamorphosis correction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 23, 2008 Share #124 Posted December 23, 2008 So let's say I didn't realize how good a lens can be. What of it? How is that relevant to my posts? Let's refresh your memory. Here's what you wrote: I bet there is no lens that could not benefit from some type of software correction as I am not aware of any lens that has zero distortion, zero aberrations, and zero vignetting. I'm making you aware of a lens that has "zero distortion, zero aberrations, and zero vignetting." That's how it relevant to your posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 23, 2008 Share #125 Posted December 23, 2008 Let's refresh your memory. Here's what you wrote: I'm making you aware of a lens that has "zero distortion, zero aberrations, and zero vignetting." That's how it relevant to your posts. I see that you choose one sense out of context then pound on it over and over again ignoring the thrust of the post. Why do you do that? In any case, I don't believe that "zero distortion, zero aberrations, and zero vignetting" is possible with any lens. Whether you think it is significant enough to warrant correction is your opinion. Maybe you are right especially with specific lenses, but so what? I don't believe you or I have the facilities to scientifically test for this. Also consider at every distance at every aperture. In any case, are you then extrapolating that Leica as a camera company could not benefit from software correction? Let's say that a given lens is 95% "perfect" they shouldn't go for a few percentage points more? The reality is that extreme wide angles and shift lenses will be a bit more challenging - especially on the S2's high resolution larger chip. As I pointed out above, if you are so pure as to refuse to have optical correction, you would also have to deny yourself the benefits of geometric and volume anamorphosis correction which are pretty nice features in my book. Because they too are not pure and natural and push pixels around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 23, 2008 Share #126 Posted December 23, 2008 I don't believe that is possible with any lens. That's why I asked if you have used a Leica APO lens. You won't believe until you see for yourself. Try a 280mm f/4 APO and tell us what you see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 23, 2008 Share #127 Posted December 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can tell you that one Doug. I will just flat out say it, Best 300mm range lens EVER. Not joking it will kill anything out there and yes I mean anything. Leica created magic on this lens, no question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 23, 2008 Share #128 Posted December 23, 2008 Leica created magic on this lens, no question That's exactly what I'm gonna say, Guy. I'm afraid that some of the Leica R lenses are SO GOOD and they've effectively create a huge hurdle even hard for Leica themselves to jump over. The APO 180/2.8 R is another great example, if you take a look at the MTF charts, it is doing better at f/2.8 than the S lens at f/3.5 and beat the S lens hands down at f/5.6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 23, 2008 Share #129 Posted December 23, 2008 Well I had a love affair with the 180 F2 cron. Man that was a sweet lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted December 23, 2008 Share #130 Posted December 23, 2008 Well I had a love affair with the 180 F2 cron. Man that was a sweet lens Ditto - it was a frightening optic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 23, 2008 Share #131 Posted December 23, 2008 Well the bottom line is Leica makes some really great glass in the Apo's and ASPH lenses in both the R and M models and I am sure the S lenses will be very nice too. But they have a few not so hot ones also but overall in the system wide of glass compared to others they certainly average way above the rest. Let's just face it they are a optic company first and foremost and that has never changed even today. camera's are like a after thought really. Don't get me wrong they make some great camera's but after you tour Solms you come away exactly with the same impression I did . It's a optic company bottom line and it is all driven by that and every product made that is the main element ( no pun intended). But i could give you a list a R glass that is not the best at certain things to and same with the M lenses. As I said a long time ago there are very few dog's in the house. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted December 23, 2008 Share #132 Posted December 23, 2008 C'mon Guy, which are the M lenses which fail to impress you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted December 23, 2008 Share #133 Posted December 23, 2008 I have the Apo-Elmarit 180mm (in fact my only R-lens left) and also the 90AA for the M, both lenses are incredible but the MTFs of the 90AA are "worse" but I have never experienced the slightest practical difference in IQ! I think comparing MTFs on this high level (like S-Elmar vs. Apo-Elmarit) isn't practical - or am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted December 23, 2008 Share #134 Posted December 23, 2008 Oh, the 180/2 is on my list for the spring. Also thought about the 180/3.4 APO as a light way to achieve not the look of 180/2 but the tele capabilities. Never knew the 180mm f/2.8 APO was that great, only tried the first edition 180mm f/2.8 non-APO which was very heavy and not very special. But speaking of which, MEISTER HAMBURG MEISTER CAMERA Hamburg: Home has four of those 180/2.8 APO as demo models from the Leica Academie for 1,500 € including one years grantee. R-lenses really are economical these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 23, 2008 Share #135 Posted December 23, 2008 C'mon Guy, which are the M lenses which fail to impress you? LOL . Honestly one for sure I did not like was the new 28mm elmarit 2.8 . Hated the color rendering from it. I know kind of strange. There are more M lenses better than the R though. The R has a few lenses that don't hit the high charts but most that are just killer good. yes i left myself a hanging rope when I said that but hey gotta be honest about this stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 23, 2008 Share #136 Posted December 23, 2008 I think comparing MTFs on this high level (like S-Elmar vs. Apo-Elmarit) isn't practical - or am I wrong? Well, 99% of the price differences of luxury goods are always justified by the last 1% difference in quality, right? I have three 180mm lenses and 5 90mm models, M and R, these are the ones I'm most interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 23, 2008 Share #137 Posted December 23, 2008 Well, 99% of the price differences of luxury goods are always justified by the last 1% difference in quality, right It's that last 10% that costs 90% extra - whether it's photography, hi-fi or hookers (so I'm led to believe). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 23, 2008 Share #138 Posted December 23, 2008 It's that last 10% that costs 90% extra - whether it's photography, hi-fi or hookers (so I'm led to believe). You're indeed correct, Steve ... that's the idea in every greedy business. LOL Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 23, 2008 Share #139 Posted December 23, 2008 It isn't greed in all cases, it's complexity. I know it's easy, and fashionable, to be cynical these days, but quality costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 23, 2008 Share #140 Posted December 23, 2008 It isn't greed in all cases, it's complexity. I know it's easy, and fashionable, to be cynical these days, but quality costs. I didn't mean to be cynical at all, Steve ... but complexity doesn't always add to quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.