Re: Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
tzhang4284 wrote:
If you look at leicas apo-m line - there’s been a release every 5 to 10 years and the image quality has gotten better with every release.
And, the price point to bring to market is about double for the APO versions. The offering provides options for the consumer in this interchangeable platform. The market for D-Lux may not warrant the development of an APO Zoom beyond the level of optics currently in the D Lux.
The other thing about "image quality" is that those APO M lenses are not being designed as "multi-purpose" ... i.e. read as multi-focal length + Macro. When you have such a lens, the designer must make choices with regard to where / how to optimize / balance the performance across such a range. That decision of design ... likely has more influence on the optic staying the same, than many other things.
Optics are pretty much well known to be a series of compromises in complexity. I recall having various zooms that were optimized differently. Some were optimized toward the shorter end, and were more compromised at the long end. Other designers took the approach that the long end was more optimized and the MFD was compromised. Yet others, took the approach of mid-range was optimized and the bookends were modestly compromised.
Those were design philosophy decisions ... much more so than innovation constraints. The physics of optics presents a variety of quid pro quo factors. I understand that things "improve", but in reality it isn't that they really improve, it is that the designers make different choices, regarding their philosophy for the optic. The physics of optics hasn't changed ... only design decisions of what / where to optimize the quid pro quo factors.
How much use of ASPH glass vs. correction / under correction of SA ... that's a designer choice. Some folks tend to prefer the use of ASPH, but the quid pro quo of doing so comes in the onion rings and transitions. Some folks prefer more SA, others less SA. So, which camp one is in philosophically ... design decisions are made wrt to how the designer desires the lens to render. Once that design philosophy for that optic is achieved ... need for changing it?
Again, I see little impetus for expecting redesign of the D-Lux optic.
Short version ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They seemingly got it where they wanted it, and are keeping it there. Judging from the images and praise that other (well respected) users of this little gem are yielding, yeah ... it ain't broke (seemingly, imo). Rather, it's Goldilocks, right where they wanted it to be.
Others will dissent, and rail the designers for lack of change. I tend to appreciate that they landed it where they wanted it in the first place.
Re: Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
tzhang4284 wrote:
If you look at leicas apo-m line - there’s been a release every 5 to 10 years and the image quality has gotten better with every release.
And, the price point to bring to market is about double for the APO versions. The offering provides options for the consumer in this interchangeable platform. The market for D-Lux may not warrant the development of an APO Zoom beyond the level of optics currently in the D Lux.
The other thing about "image quality" is that those APO M lenses are not being designed as "multi-purpose" ... i.e. read as multi-focal length + Macro. When you have such a lens, the designer must make choices with regard to where / how to optimize / balance the performance across such a range. That decision of design ... likely has more influence on the optic staying the same, than many other things.
Optics are pretty much well known to be a series of compromises in complexity. I recall having various zooms that were optimized differently. Some were optimized toward the shorter end, and were more compromised at the long end. Other designers took the approach that the long end was more optimized and the MFD was compromised. Yet others, took the approach of mid-range was optimized and the bookends were modestly compromised.
Those were design philosophy decisions ... much more so than innovation constraints. The physics of optics presents a variety of quid pro quo factors. I understand that things "improve", but in reality it isn't that they really improve, it is that the designers make different choices, regarding their philosophy for the optic. The physics of optics hasn't changed ... only design decisions of what / where to optimize the quid pro quo factors.
How much use of ASPH glass vs. correction / under correction of SA ... that's a designer choice. Some folks tend to prefer the use of ASPH, but the quid pro quo of doing so comes in the onion rings and transitions. Some folks prefer more SA, others less SA. So, which camp one is in philosophically ... design decisions are made wrt to how the designer desires the lens to render. Once that design philosophy for that optic is achieved ... need for changing it?
Again, I see little impetus for expecting redesign of the D-Lux optic.
Short version ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They seemingly got it where they wanted it, and are keeping it there. Judging from the images and praise that other (well respected) users of this little gem are yielding, yeah ... it ain't broke (seemingly, imo). Rather, it's Goldilocks, right where they wanted it to be.
Others will dissent, and rail the designers for lack of change. I tend to appreciate that they landed it where they wanted it in the first place.
YMMV
Oct 03, 2024 at 07:00 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16654793 « Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released! »
need for changing it?
