Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]M lenses have to be non software reliant as there is little software backup in a roll of Neopan-1600 run in Xtol 1:3 - as the microchips melt in hot water and get flushed down the drain where they get mixed into the sewer system. A lens designed for a mirrorless camera though never has to work with film. So its relationship with the sensor can be very much software amplified and modified reflecting current realities in lens deign.. There would be no advantage in denying these parameters other than shooting oneself in the foot. Leica to its credit is not that entrenched in the optical past... And a film version of the T system (72 on a roll!) is not in the wings. DPreview a source I'm normally found of phrased this in a sensationalistic way. The implication being that there is something lacking in the lens design of the Model T for it to have to rely on software algorithms. They say they were just making a correction to a previous statement. But the extreme amount of hits they have as a result belies this. On 5/3/14 1:11 AM, "Geoff Hopkinson" <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > This has just started in the L Camera Forum as well too. I believe the the > controversy is regarding DPReview's claim that Leica Camera had stated > that there was no optical correction in camera for the T System (for > chromatic aberrations and distortion) rather than the corrections evidently > identified. > Can anyone point to where that came from? > > I have not seen that statement regarding the T System personally. I will > ask the designer personally in a couple of weeks if I have the opportunity. > As is mentioned in the article, putting those corrections there in the > image chain is normal practice for many systems, especially in the > mirrorless systems. Also present in the professional 'full frame' Pro > systems from Canon and Nikon for that matter. > > I don't remember a LUGGER bashing other cameras/lenses for using those > corrections in camera, but you may be referring to posts by me saying that > those corrections are not performed in the M system. That is still so. > The M8, M9 and M(Typ 240) do all use degrees of vignette and edge > discoloration correction as is known. > Also my previous posts on that noted that this is a system design choice. > For the M system it is done in lens design. likely because that is their > strength. That is not to say that placing those corrections further down > the chain is not effective nor an invalid design choice. > > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > On 3 May 2014 14:53, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote: > >> That's pretty severe, but understandably this is the way how things going >> to work, moving forward. Why make a lens 30% larger and heavier when the >> software can get 99% there? >> >> Didn't a lugger bash other camera/lens because they do the same? >> Regardless, technology moves on. Even my 4x5 has some minor enhancements >> over the ones made in the 1900s. :-) >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6?utm_campaign=internal-link&; >> utm_source=features&utm_medium=homepage-block&ref=features >>> >>> john >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> >> // http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/