Tariq Gibran wrote:
I would be curious to see how much native distortion the lens has before digital correction. It was suggested on Dpreview that the reason for the so so corner performance at distance is because of a lot of distortion correction being carried out automatically. Does Leica list the native optical distortion of the lens anywhere?
No idea.. And this is something that if Leica doesn't want you to know, you won't. Since it's not like you can take the lens and stuff it onto an A7 body :P
Maybe someone a little more tech orientated could look at the MTF charts? Or I could shoot a brick wall and you could all discuss? Though if Leica is making in camera corrections it might not do you any good to look at my shots.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hmm, that's odd. Often one can use a different raw converter than Adobe - or open a dng with an older version of Adobe software - which will show an uncorrected file. I suspect eventually someone will post an uncorrected for distortion test but it's odd none of the reviews I have seen have done so (maybe Leica has somehow prevented this after all).
Just seen all this.. Ok, if we can trick the camera I'm willing.
EDIT: Ok, downloading RAWtherapee, will try it on a few files. I still think Leica should have just used their 28cron optics, I wouldn't have minded. Will see what results I get for the way I shoot.
Ok, so it took me a minute to download and figure out the program.
Sorry I didn't have any stopped down RAW files as I was indoors all day yesterday due to the rain.
So what I did was this, I took a shot where there were lots of lines etc. And I have the JPG from camera linked below, I also then took the RAW file and opened it in RAWtherapee, where I just unchecked and zeroed out EVERY setting. All sharpness, all corrections on every tab.. So this is as neutral as I could get it. NOW I know that there's DOF at play here, so we really can't tell what's going on with sharpness in the corners, but you can see how the bloat is corrected very easily. Especially flip back and forth while staring at the bottom of the escalator.
Just to add, for the way I shoot, this won't bother me one bit. But it does beg the question, who else is using strong corrections like this?
Anyway here are the files, they're named, I'd download them and open them in Preview and flip back and forth.
(sorry about the subject I was just cooped up all day yesterday)
Actually looking back and forth at the images, you'd think that Leica would just have the lens bleed over the image circle by a bit, and call it a 30mm lens?
It's a good amount of pixels lost due to in camera stretching. Well at least if you've accidentally cut off someones toe, you can go into RAWtherapee and find it.
flick back and forth at the images and look at the yellow borders on the step in front of your feet.
a lot of correction going on, it reminds me of the Fujifilm 18/2, but that was practically a pancake lens. Crop, but still...
I dunno... it's hard for me to estimate the actual amount of distortion from this particular image, but my initial impression is that its not as bad as the Sony FE28 or the various micro 4/3 lenses.
I wonder if the vignetting is from the lens hood or from the lens itself... assuming it's not the hood, have you tried comparing the results when shooting something close vs infinity?
edwardkaraa wrote:
Me no like software corrections
Hi Edward, though I basically agree, through the years, as digital correction has become more and more common, I've come to accept that it's a fact of life. Lens design is give and take. Though moving around pixels in digital correction is going to degrade the image more or less, I don't mind that much anymore. It's the end result, where the pixels hit the screen/paper so to speak, that counts.
To be fair this is a non issue for 99% of the buyers. Only purists like myself who expect a lens to be 100% optically corrected would mind. For most people only the end result matters. When I expressed my disappointment in the Batis thread about the 85 being software corrected for distortion I didn't receive much sympathy and many actually found advantages in that the lens can be more flattering for portraits with correction turned off.
peterv wrote:
Hi Edward, though I basically agree, through the years, as digital correction has become more and more common, I've come to accept that it's a fact of life. Lens design is give and take. Though moving around pixels in digital correction is going to degrade the image more or less, I don't mind that much anymore. It's the end result, where the pixels hit the screen/paper so to speak, that counts.
Wow, we posted simultaneously and look what I wrote
edwardkaraa wrote:
To be fair this is a non issue for 99% of the buyers. Only purists like myself who expect a lens to be 100% optically corrected would mind. For most people only the end result matters. When I expressed my disappointment in the Batis thread about the 85 being software corrected for distortion I didn't receive much sympathy and many actually found advantages in that the lens can be more flattering for portraits with correction turned off.
Can also depend on subject and composition. The pincushion distortion of the FE 24-70 at the long end made my daughter look like an anorexia patient
snowboarder wrote:
Yeah, I'm starting to think the whole "made in Germany" thing is... you know what.
To me also this is a major factor and yes, you just saved me $4250
If "I'm allowed" to apply that much correction, I feel if I put my 28 Cron on the new A7R II,
who knows? I could beat that maybe?
Not if the sensor topping is the same/similar to the a7R. The 28 Cron smears terribly through about f/8 for infinity scenes. You'll have to mod the a7RII, if that mod ever becomes available. That's not the case for corrected Q images.
This is probably going to become a lot more common now - software correction of image 'defects' as part of the overall package (allowing smaller physical designs).
I would mind for an interchangeable lens to need softwarecorrection, but for a compact camera I don't care that much. Especially if the RAW file is corrected already so that you never notice in common use.
atwl77 wrote:
I dunno... it's hard for me to estimate the actual amount of distortion from this particular image, but my initial impression is that its not as bad as the Sony FE28 or the various micro 4/3 lenses.
I wonder if the vignetting is from the lens hood or from the lens itself... assuming it's not the hood, have you tried comparing the results when shooting something close vs infinity?
I'm back I can upload more if people want. But looking at the images, I don't think I would care if they want to correct my file or not. I wouldn't shoot with the Q if I wanted to make large gallery prints. The S-system kills it, and I quite like what I get out of the 21SEM (rendering wise) so I could/would use that instead.
snowboarder wrote:
Yeah, I'm starting to think the whole "made in Germany" thing is... you know what.
To me also this is a major factor and yes, you just saved me $4250
If "I'm allowed" to apply that much correction, I feel if I put my 28 Cron on the new A7R II,
who knows? I could beat that maybe?
Maybe, but I bought this for simplicity of use.. I think other then around 4 problems that I can list.. It's perfectly smart, and I dare say the smarted AF camera I've used. Again aside from 4 issues which I'll probably get around to listing now that I've spent 4 hours straight with it. Shooting like I'd shoot an M or S or Canon or Nikon.
rscheffler wrote:
Not if the sensor topping is the same/similar to the a7R. The 28 Cron smears terribly through about f/8 for infinity scenes. You'll have to mod the a7RII, if that mod ever becomes available. That's not the case for corrected Q images.
This is probably going to become a lot more common now - software correction of image 'defects' as part of the overall package (allowing smaller physical designs).
Agree can't have it all.. Unless you're willing to spend even bigger bucks. Look at the Otus 55 vs 50APO. Both good, one very small but twice as much $$.
Bijltje wrote:
I would mind for an interchangeable lens to need softwarecorrection, but for a compact camera I don't care that much. Especially if the RAW file is corrected already so that you never notice in common use.
I didn't even care until you all brought it up. Really I'm not to offended.. I'm actually thinking that my LR is broken or something though, because files are coming into LR looking like that RAW converter I'm using. The JPGS look totally different as of now.
