Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica T lens not optically perfect?
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 15:11:07 +1000
References: <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E9E6B4D952@WhizzMAIL01.whizz.org> <CAF8hL-GqnwBkNUmw78RFn9wN==-4+taz5tD0gfF+wCf7F0Kmmw@mail.gmail.com>

 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
>


Replies: Reply from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Leica T lens not optically perfect?)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Leica T lens not optically perfect?)
In reply to: Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Leica T lens not optically perfect?)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Leica T lens not optically perfect?)