Also wanted to point out after testing flashes here are my findings:
SF-24D - only works on M and A modes. BUT on A mode it's more accurate/reliable then the SF26 on TTL mode. A mode is more reliable on the Q then on the M or S.
SF-26 - Works on TTL mode, and is a horrible manual flash.. On TTL mode it's not as good as the SF-24D on A mode!! BUT TTL mode seems to work better on the M240 then the SF-24D does on the M240.
Bottom line, if I had to do it again, I'd buy a SF-24D for my Q, and a SF-26 for my M240. Seriously, in a variety of tests, that's how I felt. Though my flash use and your flash use may be different. Different techniques different end results.. You get the idea.
Hostly though the I40 nissan has a pretty easy manual mode dial, and although the nissan flash only works on manual, it's quick to adjust and gives you enough of what you need to get through an indoor event.
I don't want to mention the SF58 it looks ridiculous on anything but the S.
Will also add, I never feel more cheated by Leica then when I'm buying batteries and flashes.. Flashes especially though. You get so little for so much.
rscheffler wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fair amount of Q parts outsourcing/manufacture outside of Germany. I have not read anything concrete, but would not be surprised if the lens is primarily made in Japan. Certainly enough of the camera is assembled in Germany to warrant the made in Germany designation, true for pretty much all Leica products, from my understanding (i.e. a lot of sub-assembly in Portugal).
The biggest cut corner is probably uncorrected lens performance - the significant amount of distortion. A tradeoff in favour of smaller size and lower cost to manufacture.
I wouldn't necessarily call any of this cutting corners, ...Show more →
How much lens distortion would it take for you to call it cutting corners? 15%? 20%? More?
rattymouse wrote:
How much lens distortion would it take for you to call it cutting corners? 15%? 20%? More?
I'm on the fence about this.. On one hand, I think Leica should be held to higher standards. If not for anything, but the price and fact that they're always spouting ultimate quality (in my mind lenses are optics, so quality optics are optics that haven't been digitally corrected, no matter the argument for or against doing so).
On the other hand, people want Leica to come down in price, and want them to turn out a camera every 6 months like Sony does.. So even if they're slightly higher priced then Sony, and slightly better optically then Sony.. I don't think the majority of the market would mind. At least those who put ergonomics high on their list of dislikes when it comes to Sony.
So with all that said... I think the best course of action would be for Leica to find a happy medium Q interchangeable system.. Do what they have to do to make a good end product. And then just focus the run off tech into quality M products. As in, make a basic M camera with all the new processor tech from the Q, but then say, charge for an external EVF that matches the Q in quality, but you pay to stick it on your M, and your M doesn't sacrifice usability and RF or size because people want an EVF jammed in there.
They had the R and M system for a long time.. Lets face it, the Q could be the new R (If I could put R lenses on the current Q camera, I would!). The S-system was never that, because it's in a different price/quality bracket.
uhoh7 wrote:
Today the Rx100 rules the backcountry, but we know the vast gap in image quality between that camera and a good FF. The fragile RX1 is also not meant for the backcountry
I really don't understand how you can say such a thing. I own(ed) the RX100, RX100m3 and the RX1. The RX1 feels rock solid. Not only when comparing it to the RX100, but in general. A solid all metal body and lens. If you consider that to be fragile, what do you want? A kevlar camera?
adamdewilde wrote:
Also wanted to point out after testing flashes here are my findings:
SF-24D - only works on M and A modes. BUT on A mode it's more accurate/reliable then the SF26 on TTL mode. A mode is more reliable on the Q then on the M or S.
SF-26 - Works on TTL mode, and is a horrible manual flash.. On TTL mode it's not as good as the SF-24D on A mode!! BUT TTL mode seems to work better on the M240 then the SF-24D does on the M240.
Bottom line, if I had to do it again, I'd buy a SF-24D for my Q, and a SF-26 for my M240. Seriously, in a variety of tests, that's how I felt. Though my flash use and your flash use may be different. Different techniques different end results.. You get the idea.
Hostly though the I40 nissan has a pretty easy manual mode dial, and although the nissan flash only works on manual, it's quick to adjust and gives you enough of what you need to get through an indoor event.
I don't want to mention the SF58 it looks ridiculous on anything but the S.
Will also add, I never feel more cheated by Leica then when I'm buying batteries and flashes.. Flashes especially though. You get so little for so much. ...Show more →
Thanks for the rundown on flash performances.
Question about the SF-26 on the M240: How do you find recycle times? I'm currently using the Metz 20C2 as my "small and pocketable flash" option but its recycle times are atrocious. I miss a lot of shots while waiting for the thing to cycle, especially after a full power blast (for ceiling bounce).
adamdewilde wrote:
I'm on the fence about this.. On one hand, I think Leica should be held to higher standards. If not for anything, but the price and fact that they're always spouting ultimate quality (in my mind lenses are optics, so quality optics are optics that haven't been digitally corrected, no matter the argument for or against doing so).
On the other hand, people want Leica to come down in price, and want them to turn out a camera every 6 months like Sony does.. So even if they're slightly higher priced then Sony, and slightly better optically then Sony.. I don't think the majority of the market would mind. At least those who put ergonomics high on their list of dislikes when it comes to Sony.
So with all that said... I think the best course of action would be for Leica to find a happy medium Q interchangeable system.. Do what they have to do to make a good end product. And then just focus the run off tech into quality M products. As in, make a basic M camera with all the new processor tech from the Q, but then say, charge for an external EVF that matches the Q in quality, but you pay to stick it on your M, and your M doesn't sacrifice usability and RF or size because people want an EVF jammed in there.
They had the R and M system for a long time.. Lets face it, the Q could be the new R (If I could put R lenses on the current Q camera, I would!). The S-system was never that, because it's in a different price/quality bracket. ...Show more →
I think the right thing to do for all manufacturers, and obviously for a "Leica" or "Zeiss", is to at the very least list the types and amounts of digital corrections automatically being carried out on a lens by design. Put it right there in the spec so the consumer knows exactly what he or she is buying and let the consumer decide for themselves. This should be no different than the requirement to list any other important specification. There are standards for battery life megapixels, sensitivity, optical versus interpolated resolution (in the case of scanners) etc. and there should be a standard for this. As it is now, it comes off as a bit of a scam/ cover up - even more-so when the MTF data sheets are now not even believable (as in the case of the Zeiss Batis lenses where the measurements for distortion and vignetting are taken after digital correction) and ultimately that will hurt the reputation of these companies (particularly so with Leica and Zeiss).
Jun 24, 2015 at 07:27 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the right thing to do for all manufacturers, and obviously for a "Leica" or "Zeiss", is to at the very least list the types and amounts of digital corrections automatically being carried out on a lens by design. Put it right there in the spec so the consumer knows exactly what he or she is buying and let the consumer decide for themselves. This should be no different than the requirement to list any other important specification. There are standards for battery life megapixels, sensitivity, optical versus interpolated resolution (in the case of scanners) etc. and there should be a standard for this. As it is now, it comes off as a bit of a scam/ cover up - even more-so when the MTF data sheets are now not even believable (as in the case of the Zeiss Batis lenses where the measurements for distortion and vignetting are taken after digital correction) and ultimately that will hurt the reputation of these companies (particularly so with Leica and Zeiss). ...Show more →
I agree Tariq, and hopefully Zeiss will correct their datasheets to reflect both the corrected and uncorrected data. In the case of the Batis lenses they clearly aren't hiding this data as they gave it to Lloyd Chambers and he published it on his public (non-pay) blog. So it is out there for anyone who wants to do a google search. It would be easy enough for them to just report it on their datasheets as well. I think part of the problem is that m4/3rds lenses and some Fuji lenses have been doing digital correction for a few years and no standard requiring disclosure has emerged. Eventually these lenses are tested and we see the extent of the correction, but it does seem like one of those things that should be reported on the spec sheet.
I think the Q and the Batis lenses could still deliver great performance despite the correction. I think the samples in this thread speak well for the Q and the samples from the Batis lenses look great too, but we will also know the limits more as these lenses are used more and I think for certain types of applications they will have some limits, but I think we will have to wait to see that. If in general the Q and Batis deliver excellent performance and the limits aren't too severe I don't think the correction will hurt the brands, but we will have to wait a bit more I think to see how that pans out.
By the way the reporting of corrected distortion and vignetting by Zeiss on the datasheets didn't start with the Batis lenses, they did the same thing on the Touits. The 12 and 32 both have moderately high barrel distortion natively, but the datasheets report the much more moderate corrected distortion.
atwl77 wrote:
Thanks for the rundown on flash performances.
Question about the SF-26 on the M240: How do you find recycle times? I'm currently using the Metz 20C2 as my "small and pocketable flash" option but its recycle times are atrocious. I miss a lot of shots while waiting for the thing to cycle, especially after a full power blast (for ceiling bounce).
I have the Metz20C2 and I think the recycle times feel slightly better from the SF26. But to be honest, the on paper specs might tell a different story, I haven't checked. For some reason, the SF24D seems faster then the SF26. Again I haven't checked the specs.. Maybe it's the power output that's changing, which is messing with my grasp of recycle times. I've not scientifically tested it.. Only just played with it for an hour or so to get a feel for all the flashes.
Honestly, I'm more incline to just use manual flashes, or something like a Profoto B1 unit. I haven't tried the B1 and the Q yet to see if I can get 1/1600 shutter sync. But I will sometime soon I guess. Will report back when I do.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the right thing to do for all manufacturers, and obviously for a "Leica" or "Zeiss", is to at the very least list the types and amounts of digital corrections automatically being carried out on a lens by design. Put it right there in the spec so the consumer knows exactly what he or she is buying and let the consumer decide for themselves. This should be no different than the requirement to list any other important specification. There are standards for battery life megapixels, sensitivity, optical versus interpolated resolution (in the case of scanners) etc. and there should be a standard for this. As it is now, it comes off as a bit of a scam/ cover up - even more-so when the MTF data sheets are now not even believable (as in the case of the Zeiss Batis lenses where the measurements for distortion and vignetting are taken after digital correction) and ultimately that will hurt the reputation of these companies (particularly so with Leica and Zeiss). ...Show more →
Agreed. I thought so, and voiced it on the other forum, and was bashed.. I think manufacturers need to be a bit more transparent. Though a large majority of the market for these cameras comes from end users who will NEVER know what's going on.. And even if you told them, they wouldn't understand or care. I just think it starts to ruin the market for professionals who need/demand optically superior lenses.. Whatever the reason may be.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree Tariq, and hopefully Zeiss will correct their datasheets to reflect both the corrected and uncorrected data. In the case of the Batis lenses they clearly aren't hiding this data as they gave it to Lloyd Chambers and he published it on his public (non-pay) blog. So it is out there for anyone who wants to do a google search. It would be easy enough for them to just report it on their datasheets as well. I think part of the problem is that m4/3rds lenses and some Fuji lenses have been doing digital correction for a few years and no standard requiring disclosure has emerged. Eventually these lenses are tested and we see the extent of the correction, but it does seem like one of those things that should be reported on the spec sheet.
I think the Q and the Batis lenses could still deliver great performance despite the correction. I think the samples in this thread speak well for the Q and the samples from the Batis lenses look great too, but we will also know the limits more as these lenses are used more and I think for certain types of applications they will have some limits, but I think we will have to wait to see that. If in general the Q and Batis deliver excellent performance and the limits aren't too severe I don't think the correction will hurt the brands, but we will have to wait a bit more I think to see how that pans out....Show more →
This is a good point. And I will be honest here. The corrections on the Q, don't hurt my view of the Q. As I like the results I'm getting enough. HOWEVER, the camera corrections hurt my view of Leica as a company who doesn't make compromises when it comes to quality.. I see digital corrections (in this specific case) as a compromise. And I really just want one company out there to not care about compromise. To many companies already do.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes but it was never a secret. Zeiss has Always made it clear the graphs were after correction.
The problem is the MTF measurement though since the data sheets made publicly available directly through Zeiss (for Batis) do specify that distortion and lens shading are measured post digital correction via the A7r/ processing but the actual MTF does not take that digital correction into consideration. Thus, the MTF graph is not accurate if one actually uses the digital corrections (the MTF is of course not taken with an A7r body but with something like the specialized Zeiss MTF-Tester K8). I think this is a bit misleading to the uninformed. If one is not aware that the MTF graph is compromised by the digital correction used for the other measurements in the data sheet, they might not know that the MTF graph they are looking at is only accurate when digital corrections are not used. Zeiss are mixing "clean" optical MTF's with the digitally corrected graphs for distortion and lens shading. The common sense solution is of course to just list the clean, optical measurements of distortion and lens shading as Steve suggests on that data sheet.
Tariq, that's a good point that also came to mind. Maybe future MTF, distortion and vignetting charts can include both pre and post correction calculations. At the least it would give some photographers information they can weigh towards achieving the results they envision. While I wouldn't care about the repetitional consequences this might present, I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers would be wary of this. It could be seen as admitting a weakness that would then be exploited/manipulated by competitors, fanboys in forums, etc.
rscheffler wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fair amount of Q parts outsourcing/manufacture outside of Germany. I have not read anything concrete, but would not be surprised if the lens is primarily made in Japan. Certainly enough of the camera is assembled in Germany to warrant the made in Germany designation, true for pretty much all Leica products, from my understanding (i.e. a lot of sub-assembly in Portugal).
The biggest cut corner is probably uncorrected lens performance - the significant amount of distortion. A tradeoff in favour of smaller size and lower cost to manufacture.
I wouldn't necessarily call any of this cutting corners, ...Show more →
rattymouse wrote:
How much lens distortion would it take for you to call it cutting corners? 15%? 20%? More?
I don't feel it's cutting corners in the sense of reducing operational reliability or usability. From the images I've seen so far at 100%, I can see what looks like image degradation and pixel smearing in the very outer corner areas. For my uses, that would be acceptable. I don't know how much distortion would be necessary for a greater part of the image to be unacceptable. It would likely depend on sensor resolution, raw lens performance and image content.
It would also depend how I'm using it. If I was shooting a lot of 'organic' landscapes, theoretically I could find a raw converter that disables or ignores the software correction, allowing me to extract the full raw performance of the lens.
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree Tariq, and hopefully Zeiss will correct their datasheets to reflect both the corrected and uncorrected data. In the case of the Batis lenses they clearly aren't hiding this data as they gave it to Lloyd Chambers and he published it on his public (non-pay) blog. So it is out there for anyone who wants to do a google search. It would be easy enough for them to just report it on their datasheets as well. I think part of the problem is that m4/3rds lenses and some Fuji lenses have been doing digital correction for a few years and no standard requiring disclosure has emerged. Eventually these lenses are tested and we see the extent of the correction, but it does seem like one of those things that should be reported on the spec sheet.
I think the Q and the Batis lenses could still deliver great performance despite the correction. I think the samples in this thread speak well for the Q and the samples from the Batis lenses look great too, but we will also know the limits more as these lenses are used more and I think for certain types of applications they will have some limits, but I think we will have to wait to see that. If in general the Q and Batis deliver excellent performance and the limits aren't too severe I don't think the correction will hurt the brands, but we will have to wait a bit more I think to see how that pans out....Show more →
adamdewilde wrote:
This is a good point. And I will be honest here. The corrections on the Q, don't hurt my view of the Q. As I like the results I'm getting enough. HOWEVER, the camera corrections hurt my view of Leica as a company who doesn't make compromises when it comes to quality.. I see digital corrections (in this specific case) as a compromise. And I really just want one company out there to not care about compromise. To many companies already do.
Maybe another reason this hasn't bugged me much is because I already expect a lot of compromises when it comes to Leica. The entire Leica experience is somewhat masochistic. There are times I wonder why I bother, since I could theoretically shoot everything I currently do with something else. Then, like today, while editing a wedding shot on Canon and Leica, the Canon images are fine but they feel technically sterile. I get a warmer, richer, more endearing feeling about the images shot on the Leica...
davewolfs wrote:
Lloyd says the Canon 5DSR is a better monochrom than the Monochrom 246. His only defense for the Monochrom is if you need their lenses.
"Only" haha. Pick a focal length between 12 and 135, and tell me one where the Canon system will shoot better.
But I will also venture in to heresy, and I hope my friends who all love BW will forgive me. The great modern lenses are all about color. They drink and emit incredibly rich tones. Zeiss M and Leica especially. Sure they are also about sharpness across the frame as close to WO as possible. But the color advances are greater yet in my opinion.
I do enjoy my friends incredible skill with MM etc, but BW is usually a last resort for me, when I can't make a shot work for my own easy eye.
How many times as M9 been called "old". Do you see what Werner does with M8?
It's the glass, and unless you must have AF or a "zoom", or video, Canikony is pale to M.
The Q is a damn fine attempt at shortcuts in the modern vein, but good as NIco's and Adams shots are, I prefer the M9/28 cron, sorry.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The problem is the MTF measurement though since the data sheets made publicly available directly through Zeiss (for Batis) do specify that distortion and lens shading are measured post digital correction via the A7r/ processing but the actual MTF does not take that digital correction into consideration. Thus, the MTF graph is not accurate if one actually uses the digital corrections (the MTF is of course not taken with an A7r body but with something like the specialized Zeiss MTF-Tester K8). I think this is a bit misleading to the uninformed. If one is not aware that the MTF graph is compromised by the digital correction used for the other measurements in the data sheet, they might not know that the MTF graph they are looking at is only accurate when digital corrections are not used. Zeiss are mixing "clean" optical MTF's with the digitally corrected graphs for distortion and lens shading. The common sense solution is of course to just list the clean, optical measurements of distortion and lens shading as Steve suggests on that data sheet....Show more →
Tariq, I agree with you in principle. But the truth is we don't know how Zeiss is measuring the MTF of the Batis. They are designed for the thick Sony sensor glass. If they measure MTF on an optical bench the performance would also be distorted, not in a good way. My guess is that they measure the performance on the highest resolution body available, which in this case was the a7r2. I did suspect the loxia MTF to be measured on a Sony body as well. To be sure someone should send an email to CS in Oberkochen.
rscheffler wrote:
Tariq, that's a good point that also came to mind. Maybe future MTF, distortion and vignetting charts can include both pre and post correction calculations. At the least it would give some photographers information they can weigh towards achieving the results they envision. While I wouldn't care about the repetitional consequences this might present, I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers would be wary of this. It could be seen as admitting a weakness that would then be exploited/manipulated by competitors, fanboys in forums, etc.
I don't feel it's cutting corners in the sense of reducing operational reliability or usability. From the images I've seen so far at 100%, I can see what looks like image degradation and pixel smearing in the very outer corner areas. For my uses, that would be acceptable. I don't know how much distortion would be necessary for a greater part of the image to be unacceptable. It would likely depend on sensor resolution, raw lens performance and image content.
It would also depend how I'm using it. If I was shooting a lot of 'organic' landscapes, theoretically I could find a raw converter that disables or ignores the software correction, allowing me to extract the full raw performance of the lens.
---------------------------------------------
Maybe another reason this hasn't bugged me much is because I already expect a lot of compromises when it comes to Leica. The entire Leica experience is somewhat masochistic. There are times I wonder why I bother, since I could theoretically shoot everything I currently do with something else. Then, like today, while editing a wedding shot on Canon and Leica, the Canon images are fine but they feel technically sterile. I get a warmer, richer, more endearing feeling about the images shot on the Leica......Show more →
Thanks for saying that.. Sometimes I think it's all in my head.
I know that I use Leica M cameras because I like using rangefinders.. And no matter how technologically advanced system X gets, I'll always love rangefinders (might not always use them, but will always love em).
But it's good to know that other people feel the way I feel about the subjective side of the end result. I'm glad it's not all in my head
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes but it was never a secret. Zeiss has Always made it clear the graphs were after correction.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The problem is the MTF measurement though since the data sheets made publicly available directly through Zeiss (for Batis) do specify that distortion and lens shading are measured post digital correction via the A7r/ processing but the actual MTF does not take that digital correction into consideration. Thus, the MTF graph is not accurate if one actually uses the digital corrections (the MTF is of course not taken with an A7r body but with something like the specialized Zeiss MTF-Tester K8). I think this is a bit misleading to the uninformed. If one is not aware that the MTF graph is compromised by the digital correction used for the other measurements in the data sheet, they might not know that the MTF graph they are looking at is only accurate when digital corrections are not used. Zeiss are mixing "clean" optical MTF's with the digitally corrected graphs for distortion and lens shading. The common sense solution is of course to just list the clean, optical measurements of distortion and lens shading as Steve suggests on that data sheet. ...Show more → edwardkaraa wrote:
Tariq, I agree with you in principle. But the truth is we don't know how Zeiss is measuring the MTF of the Batis. They are designed for the thick Sony sensor glass. If they measure MTF on an optical bench the performance would also be distorted, not in a good way. My guess is that they measure the performance on the highest resolution body available, which in this case was the a7r2. I did suspect the loxia MTF to be measured on a Sony body as well. To be sure someone should send an email to CS in Oberkochen.
Edward, from what I recall, Roger at Lensrentals demonstrated it was a matter of including a flat piece of optical glass behind the lens for his MTF measuring device to simulate the effects different sensor toppings have on lens performance measurement.
I own(ed) the RX100, RX100m3 and the RX1. The RX1 feels rock solid. Not only when comparing it to the RX100, but in general. A solid all metal body and lens. If you consider that to be fragile, what do you want? A kevlar camera? 
