-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
D
dalethorn
Guest
Tried .... so .... hard .... to .... resist...
D
dalethorn
Guest
Well, I won't try to fool you. I would like to see the expression on the guy's face at Leica Miami as he rang up a few of those today. I suspect he's going to celebrate tonight.
asiafish
All-Pro
I've been very happy with the X Vario and X 113, but this new Q would replace both quite nicely and could likely serve well as an only camera for most trips.
D
dalethorn
Guest
I had the X1 (my most prolific producer) but not the X-113. I really liked the X1 body shape, like the old cameras. Maybe one of these days I might get one of the X-113's with a special finish. I used a Nikon Coolpix A (fixed 28 mm effective focal length) for awhile, and my only objection to it was how it got a little too noisy in low light. The X1 didn't seem nearly as bad.
Leica Q raw files are cooked like in m43 eg non-reversible in adobe. I opened one raw file in PS6 and looked w/o distortion. When I opened in the raw therapee it shows like this (exif says f8):
View attachment 10598
View attachment 10598
Last edited by a moderator:
D
dalethorn
Guest
Hmm ... do you expect this to be straightened out eventually (no pun intended)?
It is the lens, eg it has distortion and does not cover the full sensor (dark corners at f8). I saw this with Canon g7x and but that is much cheaper P&S. Check the dpreview first impressions on lens performance:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/7
"Lens sharpness is impressive even wide open, and appears to reach peak sharpness in the center around f/4 to f/5.6. But even by f/2.8, you're most of the way to the sharpness of f/5.6.
Even wide open, the resolving power of the lens is enough to induce aliasing with the AA-less 24MP sensor. Corners, however, are notably less sharp wide open compared to the sharpest they get - at f/5.6. What's particularly interesting is that corners never quite sharpen to the tack sharp levels of sharpness achieved by more centrally-located objects. We have a feeling part of this is due to the mandatory distortion corrections applied to the Raw file by ACR. We took a look at the uncorrected Raw in RawDigger, and sure enough there's a good deal of barrel distortion that requires correction for a proper, rectilinear image. This correction of distortion requires stretching of the image at the edges/corners, which requires resampling of pixels, ultimately leading to some sharpness cost. Still, performance is rather spectacular across most of the field, and the small cost in edge/corner performance is - we think - is only likely to bother the most discriminating of pixel-peepers. It's also worth noting that optical correction of distortion in-lens would likely have increased the size/bulk of the camera and, furthermore, wouldn't necessarily guarantee sharpness benefits at corners. In other words, every introduction of an optical element has pros and cons."
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/7
"Lens sharpness is impressive even wide open, and appears to reach peak sharpness in the center around f/4 to f/5.6. But even by f/2.8, you're most of the way to the sharpness of f/5.6.
Even wide open, the resolving power of the lens is enough to induce aliasing with the AA-less 24MP sensor. Corners, however, are notably less sharp wide open compared to the sharpest they get - at f/5.6. What's particularly interesting is that corners never quite sharpen to the tack sharp levels of sharpness achieved by more centrally-located objects. We have a feeling part of this is due to the mandatory distortion corrections applied to the Raw file by ACR. We took a look at the uncorrected Raw in RawDigger, and sure enough there's a good deal of barrel distortion that requires correction for a proper, rectilinear image. This correction of distortion requires stretching of the image at the edges/corners, which requires resampling of pixels, ultimately leading to some sharpness cost. Still, performance is rather spectacular across most of the field, and the small cost in edge/corner performance is - we think - is only likely to bother the most discriminating of pixel-peepers. It's also worth noting that optical correction of distortion in-lens would likely have increased the size/bulk of the camera and, furthermore, wouldn't necessarily guarantee sharpness benefits at corners. In other words, every introduction of an optical element has pros and cons."
asiafish
All-Pro
This is common in all recent mirrorless cameras and for Leica started with the X Vario and continued with the X 113, both of which have considerable distortion that is corrected with software.
X Vario has less, especially at 50mm and longer where the lens is better than most M lenses. X113 is weak in the corners as well, and my guess is that the lens on the Q is based on the lens in the X, which is a good thing as the X, despite its faults, has a beautiful and very cinematic rendering to it.
X Vario has less, especially at 50mm and longer where the lens is better than most M lenses. X113 is weak in the corners as well, and my guess is that the lens on the Q is based on the lens in the X, which is a good thing as the X, despite its faults, has a beautiful and very cinematic rendering to it.
D
dalethorn
Guest
Myself, I'd expect that considering the extreme fit of sensor to small camera. But reviews are given to at least as much distortion as the lenses, and we'd be better served if they spelled it out more clearly. For example, the difference between the description of Leica's Noctilux lens in the promo literature, and the description in the owner's literature.
Armanius
Bring Jack back!
I'm not getting one. Really. Seriously.
D
dalethorn
Guest
Just out of curiosity, what's your typical everyday carry now?
Ray Sachs
Legend
Heh heh heh heh...
I think I recently told you I wasn't feeling any GAS or lust for new gear. Then this damn camera appears...
I can't afford one, don't really have any need (the Coolpix A and the way I shoot with my DF cover the same ground every bit as well), but damned if I don't WANT one. I won't buy it in the foreseeable future, but if the used prices get reasonable enough over the next 2-3 years, I can't promise I won't at some point...
-Ray
Armanius
Bring Jack back!
I've been very uninspired as of lately. But my last camera used was the LX100 at a wedding two weeks ago. I shot 4K video instead of taking stills.
Had a trip to Cancun a couple of months ago and brought the EM1 and a new pink GF7 that I bought for my wife. We ended up just using the GF7 the entire trip.
I was using the EM1 primarily for a while. But I go through phases about my feelings towards m4/3 cameras. Sometimes I think it's plenty good for my purposes. But sometimes, I feel like a snob and feel that it's not good enough.
Armanius
Bring Jack back!
Looks like it took a new Leica to pull me back into the forum!!! Although A7Rii is tempting too.
My M9 has been gathering dust for a while. I need to send it in for repairs. I could sell it to finance a Q. But I can't seem to let go of my fetish with the M9's CCD sensor. Still the best in my opinion (at base ISO).
I wish the focal length on the Q was 35mm. 28 is a bit wide for me. But I know you love 28!
My impression after reading some real buyers impressions and looking at lots of Q shots:
It's a Panasonic dressed as M. Many nice features. But the lens is not remotely in the league of the 28 Cron. Big distortion addressed in camera. Edges and corners show the effects of this in landscape and architecture. On the street should be great. Best EVF ever on a camera. Fast fast AF (I hate AF).
It's a very cool rig, and I am desperate for a true M in that footprint, but it's not a M.
and what letter comes after "P"?
It's a Panasonic dressed as M. Many nice features. But the lens is not remotely in the league of the 28 Cron. Big distortion addressed in camera. Edges and corners show the effects of this in landscape and architecture. On the street should be great. Best EVF ever on a camera. Fast fast AF (I hate AF).
It's a very cool rig, and I am desperate for a true M in that footprint, but it's not a M.
and what letter comes after "P"?
Mijo
Veteran
- Apr 11, 2013
I handled a Q this weekend and was pretty impressed, though I haven't messed around with the test shots I took yet. Been saving up for a used M9 or M9P, to use as a color digital body, and thought the Q might be a good alternative. I suspected that the 28mm FL wouldn't be wide enough, for large graffitti in tight alleys (vs. the SEM 18mm), and that was pretty much confirmed this weekend. What I found interesting is that when I used the lux 21mm I thought that this FL was close to the 18mm that the 28mm might be enough. It's amazing how much 10mm of a FL really effects the FOV. I'm disappointed to read, from uhoh, that the lens of the Q isn't on the same level of the 28mm cron.
All in all, I still like the Q even though it really isn't for me. IMO, the Q is a really good entry point for someone interested in Leicas that doesn't want to get too invested in a multiple bodies and or lenses.
All in all, I still like the Q even though it really isn't for me. IMO, the Q is a really good entry point for someone interested in Leicas that doesn't want to get too invested in a multiple bodies and or lenses.
asiafish
All-Pro
The Q (as well as X and T) is not made by Panasonic.
Similar threads
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Minolta AL-E, removing Top Cover to clean the Viewfinder.- Started by BrianS
- Replies: 3
-
