Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Leica T-Type 701  (Read 12287 times)
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 764



« Reply #80 on: April 29, 2014, 05:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

What I would really love to see is a photographer's mobile phone. A dedicated camera first, phone second I think would be a big hit, all done in the Leica T/Mac Style.

Last Saturday we went to the Hollywood Bowl to see Black Sabbath. Had great seats, first row from the media area so decent enough view to shoot some images to send to friends and family.

Like everyone in the crowd I taped away at will. Standing next to me was a 25/30 year old woman, with a Leica M8. Now an M8 isn't really a concert camera, but you could tell she knew what she was doing.

Why stop her? Because she was holding a real camera.

IMO

Thumbs up on the camera-centric smartdevice.

Hope Sabbath played "War Pigs."   Wink

It must be rough to do security at shows nowadays with all that recordin' & photographin' & videoin' & copyright violatin' goin' on. Gotta stop someone, dammit!

-Dave-
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 29, 2014, 05:42:00 PM »
ReplyReply

What I would really love to see is a photographer's mobile phone.  A dedicated camera first, phone second

Maybe an updated version of this eight-year-old one?

Jim
Logged

OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 426


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2014, 03:47:22 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6

I'll refrain from comment and look forward to comments by more discerning, Leica-aware, contributors.
Roy
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2014, 09:51:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Overall, we have no problem with Leica using this technology - incorporating software corrections into lens designs has enabled the creation of a range of very good lenses that wouldn't have been feasible if only glass were used. The only thing that we'd take issue with is the company claiming not to use this approach, when it so clearly is.

I actually thought it was common knowledge that Leica also did this…

Why else would M glass be better on M cameras than on other cameras?
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #84 on: May 02, 2014, 10:00:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I actually thought it was common knowledge that Leica also did this…

Common knowledge or not (there may be some denial involved) software correction goes back at least to the Leica DMR.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2014, 02:49:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Common knowledge or not (there may be some denial involved) software correction goes back at least to the Leica DMR.

And I thank the Gods for it.
Logged

OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 426


WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 03, 2014, 11:27:22 AM »
ReplyReply

The DPR article begins:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor.

No one would suggest that Leica shouldn't use software correction, I believe. But it's hypocritical to suggest that you produce a lens that doesn't require such correction whilst actually incorporating it in order to compensate for some fairly extreme deficiencies - and then charging a preposterous sum for a slow, variable aperture, kit zoom.

This sort of bull5h!t is why many people are justifiably cynical about Leica in its current incarnation as a manufacturer of baubles like this one.
Roy
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 03, 2014, 01:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The DPR article begins:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor.

If Leica stressed that the T lenses have optical corrections rather than software corrections and this has since been shown to be false then that is totally unacceptable.

Why Leica would stress this when their M series lenses (and S lenses?) use software corrections is beyond me.

Clarification needed.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2014, 01:14:39 PM by KLaban » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 764



« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2014, 02:25:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The DPR article begins:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor.

No one would suggest that Leica shouldn't use software correction, I believe. But it's hypocritical to suggest that you produce a lens that doesn't require such correction whilst actually incorporating it in order to compensate for some fairly extreme deficiencies - and then charging a preposterous sum for a slow, variable aperture, kit zoom.

This sort of bull5h!t is why many people are justifiably cynical about Leica in its current incarnation as a manufacturer of baubles like this one.

Given that Leica does indeed employ software lens correction in various cameras—and has made no effort whatsoever to hide this...hell, they've even highlighted it—my guess is DPR has misunderstood what it claims to have been "told."

People who rag on Leica re. their pricing, or view their products as baubles, don't seem to get that the company's primary target market is the affluent. They're not trying to appeal to a broad demographic. Now you can certainly object to that as a strategy...but it's been a successful one and it's why the company still exists.

-Dave-
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 03, 2014, 04:40:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Given that Leica does indeed employ software lens correction in various cameras—and has made no effort whatsoever to hide this...hell, they've even highlighted it—my guess is DPR has misunderstood what it claims to have been "told."

I can think of no other plausible explanation.

 
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 03, 2014, 06:38:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".

Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.

We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 426


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 05, 2014, 01:11:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".

Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.

We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.

Cheers,
Bernard
You are missing the point. Probably intentionally.
Roy
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 06, 2014, 12:47:38 AM »
ReplyReply

You are missing the point. Probably intentionally.
Roy

Roy,

I am very happy about the 2 Leica R APO lenses I have converted to F mount, that's the extend of my relationship with Leica and I don't see why I would invest more in the brand based on their current line up and pricing strategy. This being said, my first hand experience tends to confirm their overall claims of optical excellence.

So I think you are just reading too much in what can only reasonnably be assumed to have been a misunderstanding. You seem to see Leica a certain way and are just interpreting doubtful information in such a way that it fits in your pre-defined model.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 06, 2014, 03:35:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".

Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.

We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.

Cheers,
Bernard

The problem I have, if indeed DPR claims are true, is that Leica lied, plain and simple. And this is serious, especially given their prices and claims that the lenses are corrected optically, not requiring software to do so.

What I suspect is that only the zoom is software corrected, prime lenses should not require software correction, or if so, only a minimal amount.

I am fine with software correction (which for example I use to correct some distortion and CA from my Zeiss 21 ZE), what I criticize are false claims.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 06, 2014, 05:41:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Some things I don't get.

For 7 years I've been using Contax/Zeiss lenses on my contax 645 with an aptus 22, Leaf Valeo, Phase -30+, and P21+.

Now I use them with the Leica Convertor on the S2.

I've rarely see any need for correction in post, except for the rare CA when shooting wide open in bright back light.

The Zeiss are always brutally sharp, actually a little too sharp though sharper than the Leica 120 I own, though the leica (to me) has a prettier character.

Now the flip side of this is my 43 lenses and cameras.   I have a bag full of Olympus m43 primes I use on the em-1, em-5 and gh3's.

On the Olympus and panasonic they are sharp, crazy sharp, but they seem to lack some character and I'm sure there are a lot of behind the scenes correction going on in the camera, or the lens/camera or the lens/camera/software.

The reason I think this is when I mount Leica M mount lenses on the m43 cameras, the leica lenses display softness, severe ca but used on an m8 they are fine.

Also Interesting is the Pansonic lenses aren't quite as sharp, especially the zooms but have much nicer roll off and character to them the the Zeiss/Pansonic lenses continue with this look, though don't have that extreme bite of sharpness of the Contax lenses.

Not that it matters, other than in the final look, but using the contax lenses, some older film lenses like Nikors I'm amazed that they need very little post correction and hold up extremely well, considering they are 10, 12 who knows how old designs.

I personally think the less digital correction needed the better the lens, though in all honesty, the prettiest lens I've ever used, film or digital is the old boris Hartblei tilt shift in a contax mount.

It's not really crazy sharp, surely not pixel peeping sharp, but has the most beautiful roll off of any lenses I've used.




IMO

BC


P.S.   I doubt seriously if Leica would out and out lie about using digital corrections if they didn't.  Maybe I'm naive, but to me that would open up a very not nice door that would be hard to shut and Leica has too much brand equity to lose.
Logged

Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #95 on: May 06, 2014, 07:29:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem I have, if indeed DPR claims are true, is that Leica lied, plain and simple. And this is serious ...

This is bringing innuendo and conspiracy theories to farcical levels.  You've got no named source, no citation, no link, no spec sheet - just an allegation, so far unsubstantiated. It's worthy of gossip rags.

At launch, the reviewers all had pre-release models to base their initial reports on. Their was, as it turned out, some MISINFORMATION, not lies, nor duplicity nor conspiracy. It wasn't just software correction - there was also doubt about whether or not the T had an AA filter - some were told yes, others no. It was clarified - the answer is no. Likewise for software correction (on M lenses). The T lenses do have software correction.

Software correction is not only for distortion, but also luminance vignetting and colour drift. I imagine it would be a time consuming and laborious job to correct the whole backlog of M lenses for the new aps-c sensor. Certainly difficult in time for the initial release but something they could add at a later date via firmware - if they so wish. Leica seem to be keen to differentiate amongst their products. Sinar - S - M - X and T. Now the M's have built-in correction already, the T is aimed at a different market - why would they ?

http://j.mp/1c7dRuR#sthash.aSeDbv8f.dpuf

« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 08:00:28 AM by Manoli » Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #96 on: May 06, 2014, 07:39:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Far more revealing is that still no-one I know can or rather won't say what the sensor in the new T is. Bernard may well be right when he surmises that it's a Sony, but then why the secrecy ...
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 814



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 06, 2014, 07:50:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard may well be right when he surmises that it's a Sony, but then why the secrecy ...

the exclusivity and myth go out the window, pride of ownership and plaudits from your peers are non-existent once the world knows your veblen goods are not what you once believed in.  Cry
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 06, 2014, 08:26:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard may well be right when he surmises that it's a Sony, but then why the secrecy ...


the exclusivity and myth go out the window, pride of ownership and plaudits from your peers are non-existent once the world knows your veblen goods are not what you once believed in.  Cry

Yup, those Sony sensors really suck.
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 764



« Reply #99 on: May 06, 2014, 04:16:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the lens correction stuff turned off on my M8s. I've seen no need for it with any of my lenses other than the Voigtländer 15mm, which is uncoded anyway and whose files can be easily adjusted (frame-edge magenta color cast) in post.

The Oly & Panasonic m43 cameras do correct (JPEGs) for barrel/pincushion distortion and also chromatic aberrations. It's interesting to convert the same RAW file in, say, Lightroom and then in a processor that applies no such corrections, like PhotoRaw on my iPad. Some of the m43 lenses exhibit significant barrel distortion, no doubt allowed as a means of simplifying design & reducing cost. It's also clear the corrections have minimal to no impact on spatial or tonal detail, so I'd say the strategy is a good one.

The interesting thing to me about using M lenses on various cameras is how variable their performance is. Take the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8, a Biogon design. More or less symmetrical. It's utterly mediocre on m43, a bit better on APS-C (Epson R-D1, Fuji X-E1), then suddenly great—uncorrected, mind you—on the M8, then very good (with correction) on an M9, then utter crap on Sony's A7r. The A7r performance is understood...but the m43 performance seems puzzling. I doubt it has anything to do with behind-the-scenes processing since other non-Olympus/Panasonic lenses, like the Voigtländer f/0.95s, perform wonderfully.

I'll be interested to read about how M lenses perform on the T.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad