Tariq Gibran wrote:
No doubt that comes down to money/profit.
Indeed Tariq. I think for the budget allocated to this lens, it is as good as it gets. Correcting distortion would have made it more expensive to manufacture. Of course I fault Leica for not allocating more budget, at the expense of making the camera more expensive but everyone expects Leica to be expensive anyway. The Q is actually surprisingly cheap by Leica standards. For this particular lens, I suspect that corners could have been better with optical correction, but I'm no expert. But I really would love to know from the experts, maybe the suede or Toothwalker, if they believe otherwise.
Don't sell your GR quite yet Earl, it'll come in handy for those long exposures.
yeah I'm starting to think that maybe I should hold into rushing to the Q, going through my LR library I discovered that most of my favourite shots were taken at either 21mm or 35mm and 50mm and TBH the X100T sounds tempting to me again so I might get that one instead but for now, GR, Hexar RF and A7 with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm or 75mm are my travel gears for now
This thread has seen discussion of (1) 28mm being an odd (and too wide for some) focal length choice and (2) whether Leica had to compromise too much on lens performance to hit this aggressive price point. Makes you wonder if they should've chosen a less difficult focal length for this thing.
I think that the issue of focal length is very personal and really depends on your individual style. For me 28mm is more versatile than 35mm but I can adapt to using either fairly easily.
A few taken today with the Q - I really like how sharp and usable this lens is wide open. I have no doubt that the 28/1.4 Sumillux is even better but using the Q in terms of ergonomics is real pleasure vs the EVF on the M240.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Indeed Tariq. I think for the budget allocated to this lens, it is as good as it gets. Correcting distortion would have made it more expensive to manufacture. Of course I fault Leica for not allocating more budget, at the expense of making the camera more expensive but everyone expects Leica to be expensive anyway. The Q is actually surprisingly cheap by Leica standards. For this particular lens, I suspect that corners could have been better with optical correction, but I'm no expert. But I really would love to know from the experts, maybe the suede or Toothwalker, if they believe otherwise. ...Show more →
I'm not sure where the money is going for this camera. FF sensors are not that expensive anymore, although we dont know where Leica sources their sensor. Perhaps it is an uber expensive one we know nothing about rather than an off the shelf Sony. The EVF sounds nice but can't be worth the bulk of this camera. The lens seems severely compromised from a construction point of view so that's not where the cost is. Given all this, I'm not sure I'd call this a cheap camera.
Lee Saxon wrote:
This thread has seen discussion of (1) 28mm being an odd (and too wide for some) focal length choice and (2) whether Leica had to compromise too much on lens performance to hit this aggressive price point. Makes you wonder if they should've chosen a less difficult focal length for this thing.
I'll admit to not being a Leica guy and the Q is wildly uninteresting to me, but the lens is the one thing they nailed from my perspective.
Coincidentally my walk-around kit is an X-A1 with the 18/2, a rather similar setup from a conceptual point.
mawz wrote:
I'll admit to not being a Leica guy and the Q is wildly uninteresting to me, but the lens is the one thing they nailed from my perspective.
I happen to love 28 as well (the 1% of the time I'm not using my 100/2.8 or 180/2) but it's certainly relevant that more than a few people (people much more likely to buy a Leica than us) in this thread and elsewhere disagree.
I think the next M is going to bring autofocus to the M-mount with an implementation like the Q. It will take old M glass, but they'll start to reissue the latest M glass- and a 35mm would be a prime candidate. By bringing out the Q with 28, they leave the 35mm slot open. Since I think that the wider the lens, the more effective and usable an electronic viewfinder is, that makes sense that the Q would have the 28mm and the New M would be brought out with 35mm and 50mm M lenses with AF.
Heresy? Ok, if I'm going to burn I think they'll bring out an M-AF ultra wide zoom too- something like a 16-40, or a 14-35. You'd use an aux finder anyways, so an electronic one isn't that much of a stretch. Assuming that it doesn't have a hybrid viewfinder like the X100T.
rattymouse wrote:
I'm not sure where the money is going for this camera. FF sensors are not that expensive anymore, although we dont know where Leica sources their sensor. Perhaps it is an uber expensive one we know nothing about rather than an off the shelf Sony. The EVF sounds nice but can't be worth the bulk of this camera. The lens seems severely compromised from a construction point of view so that's not where the cost is. Given all this, I'm not sure I'd call this a cheap camera.
But remember that Sony's RX1 is super expensive too (moreso, in fact, as it's surely cheaper to make in Japan, from plastic, without an EVF, and using an in-house sensor). I imagine it has to do with volume (small niche).
anselwannab wrote:
I think the next M is going to bring autofocus to the M-mount with an implementation like the Q. It will take old M glass, but they'll start to reissue the latest M glass...
I mentioned the exact same thing in one of these Q threads. And they'll keep one M body as a proper M240 successor that has a rangefinder and add one based on the Q which is just a MILC. It could be what keeps Leica relevant. I'm not optimistic they will do it, but I do think it's what they SHOULD do.
Ratty: it's a Leica! It doesn't really matter how much it costs Leica to make. If they sell it too cheap, people will wonder what's wrong with it and probably won't take it seriously.
Lee: you can buy the RX1 in Japan for around $1500-1600 new. I was very tempted, but someone said they might be Japanese menu only, but I never bothered to confirm this.
Nicholas: love the set! One thing the Q's Lux does that the 28 Lux-M can't, is easy close focusing. 1/10,000 shutter on #3! What do you think is the optimum aperture for the types of images you're doing of buildings, if it's not for effect, such as shallow depth of field?
anselwannab: that would be interesting, even if only to see how Leica manages the marketing, as it would be an extremely divisive evolution of the M system. My feeling is it might be a bit too early. Maybe another generation or two, unless there really is an interchangeable lens version of the Q. The AF would have to be cutting edge for a MILC.
Lee Saxon wrote:
But remember that Sony's RX1 is super expensive too (moreso, in fact, as it's surely cheaper to make in Japan, from plastic, without an EVF, and using an in-house sensor). I imagine it has to do with volume (small niche).
Yes, but Sony spent money on the lens. The amount of distortion is miniscule compared to the Leica. The Sony is optically corrected and can be used without any software correction. Try that with the Leica and you get a quasi fish eye result.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I mentioned the exact same thing in one of these Q threads. And they'll keep one M body as a proper M240 successor that has a rangefinder and add one based on the Q which is just a MILC. It could be what keeps Leica relevant. I'm not optimistic they will do it, but I do think it's what they SHOULD do.
An autofocus Leica M will be an epic fail. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard people say that they wish that their rangefinder was an autofocus camera.
rattymouse wrote:
Yes, but Sony spent money on the lens. The amount of distortion is miniscule compared to the Leica. The Sony is optically corrected and can be used without any software correction. Try that with the Leica and you get a quasi fish eye result.
...
But why would you ever do that with the Leica? it makes no sense to use the camera in a way that it was not designed for and then complain about the result. From what I have seen so far, the impact of the degradation due to software correction is minimal in actual use. In close to mid range shots I'm hard pressed to find any impact, and at infinity it's still among the better 28mm lenses I've used.
The lens is actually quite well made, and is very quick and intuitive in actual use, both in AF and MF as well as Macro mode. The image clarity is excellent. No, it's not a 28 Summicron (or 28 Summilux-M), it's a different lens, with it's own character. I for one am glad that Leica made it.
CVickery wrote:
But why would you ever do that with the Leica? it makes no sense to use the camera in a way that it was not designed for and then complain about the result. From what I have seen so far, the impact of the degradation due to software correction is minimal in actual use. In close to mid range shots I'm hard pressed to find any impact, and at infinity it's still among the better 28mm lenses I've used.
The lens is actually quite well made, and is very quick and intuitive in actual use, both in AF and MF as well as Macro mode. The image clarity is excellent. No, it's not a 28 Summicron (or 28 Summilux-M), it's a different lens, with it's own character. I for one am glad that Leica made it.
I wouldnt do that (use the lens without software). The question is rather, why the $4000 cost? Leica lenses are typically very expensive because they are very well designed, either using expensive glass or intricate designs. This lens has an extreme amount of distortion. Essentially the designers designed a lens that has a very large defect in it, and then removed that defect using software correction. I guess some people are comfortable paying for this software. That is where the cost must be then, because it surely is not in the lens design.
The Sony RX1 was used as an example because Sony's design does not require the use of software to make an acceptable image. The Q does and that difference, to me is significant, all because the Q's price is so extravagant. I can't see what you are paying for except perhaps the software code. This is unprecedented IMO.
rattymouse wrote:
I wouldnt do that (use the lens without software). The question is rather, why the $4000 cost? Leica lenses are typically very expensive because they are very well designed, either using expensive glass or intricate designs. This lens has an extreme amount of distortion. Essentially the designers designed a lens that has a very large defect in it, and then removed that defect using software correction. I guess some people are comfortable paying for this software. That is where the cost must be then, because it surely is not in the lens design.
The Sony RX1 was used as an example because Sony's design does not require the use of software to make an acceptable image. The Q does and that difference, to me is significant, all because the Q's price is so extravagant. I can't see what you are paying for except perhaps the software code. This is unprecedented IMO.
I believe you are overstating your case. Use of software correction is almost commonplace these days. You have assumed that Leica has designed a rather poor lens primarily to keep the cost down, and used software to correct the problem. I would suggest that Leica has designed an excellent lens with specific imaging attributes that can be easily corrected in software. I see no indication that Leica has used inexpensive components in designing or building this lens.
It is useful to compare with the RX1 to see the different design approach, as well as the imaging attributes that were achieved. However, I think it is a mistake to try and equate on a cost basis since we really have no idea about the actual costs. I recall discussion when the RX1 was introduced that Sony was selling each camera at a loss. Leica, as a small player, does not have deep enough pockets to produce such a "halo" product.
rattymouse wrote:
An autofocus Leica M will be an epic fail. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard people say that they wish that their rangefinder was an autofocus camera.
Right, but you're talking about the 47 people who buy the current M rangefinder. Making just that camera is not sustainable. The prices are already out of control. Leica knows it, that's why they have all those rebadged Panasonics and why they attempted to create a MILC system with the T (looks like that's a failure).
rattymouse wrote:
The Sony RX1 was used as an example because Sony's design does not require the use of software to make an acceptable image.
I tend to agree with you about the lens choice Leica made here being not a great one, but I'm not sure we can really be sure the RX1 doesn't use correction. A lot of the corrections (even with the M240, a lot of Leica purists still deny those exist) are "baked in" even with raw, and there's no way to turn them off or even know that they exist.
CVickery wrote:
I believe you are overstating your case. Use of software correction is almost commonplace these days. You have assumed that Leica has designed a rather poor lens primarily to keep the cost down, and used software to correct the problem. I would suggest that Leica has designed an excellent lens with specific imaging attributes that can be easily corrected in software. I see no indication that Leica has used inexpensive components in designing or building this lens.
The examples of uncorrected Q images that I have seen show massive distortion, almost to the point of looking like a fish eye lens. Distortion values of 10% or greater are bandied about. I would never suggest a lens with such a high amount of distortion is "excellent". To call a design like this "excellent" simply devalues the meaning of this word.
If the lens produced <1% distortion like the Sony then my opinion would be radically different.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I tend to agree with you about the lens choice Leica made here being not a great one, but I'm not sure we can really be sure the RX1 doesn't use correction. A lot of the corrections (even with the M240, a lot of Leica purists still deny those exist) are "baked in" even with raw, and there's no way to turn them off or even know that they exist.
I'm just curious what are the baked in corrections you are talking about. As a Leica M user myself, I've never heard anything about them. Now you make me very curious.
