Raist3d: Some people (including dpreview I believe) are saying the Leica Q has in raw lens corrections and the Sony doesn't. But I can't see how those lens correction can make up for this differences. Lens correction are more about barrel distortion/vignette/ca's and not usually sharpness anyway. And not to this different degree.
That said the imaging resource shots sure look much better.
Wouldn’t stopping down also improve the depth of field issue without sacrificing focus in the center of the frame? That may introduce a loss of detail due to diffraction but we can’t be certain of that until someone actually does a test on it.
If the distance to the center of the test scene was 56”(Measured by Sam) then @ F5.6 the depth of field was about 1.86 ft. If you go to F8.0 the depth of field goes to 2.73 feet and at F11.0 it goes to 4.2 feet. That should totally eliminate the depth of field issue and those focal ratios are extremely typical of what most photographers would select for this type of scenario.
In theory diffraction should not affect this full frame camera at all even at F11.0. I really wish you would retest this at a higher focal ratio. This camera is capable of being tested with your current setup it just needs the appropriate focal ratio selected.
The GH4 will also get this firmware later on. Probably next year.
The biggest thing I have learned from these pictures is that the Leica Q is one impressive camera. It holds its own against pretty much everything else. I had dismissed it because of its absurd price before. However, after examining its images for this I have come to the conclusion that it definitely offers superior performance to anything else in its class.
I still can’t see anywhere in the image where this camera is exceptional for detail. Based on the text that is just outside the center of the frame I would take the Leica Q over the Sony RX1R II all day, every day. Even with the RX1R II’s extra resolution it just doesn’t look sharp even near the center of the frame.
Dpreview keeps insisting that this camera has an exceptional piece of glass on it. However, all they have shown is that it isn’t as sharp as the Leica Q in any part of the frame and the Sony lens is highly susceptible to “tolerances for unit-to-unit variation of a lens”.
I would really love to see Dpreview demonstrate why they keep claiming this camera has an exceptional lens. So far I have seen nothing that indicates that is true. Hopefully, the real world images will amaze us.
I really love all of the other Sony cameras. However, this camera just seems like a Dud to me.
“This includes the rapid manual focusing process”
I have never heard “manual focusing” described in that manner. I wonder how it compares to even the slowest Auto Focusing in terms of speed?
They will probably sell 10s of these cameras.
This just seems like a severely limited camera to me and I have seen nothing to indicate that the lens is stellar in any particular scenario. I am really hoping that there are some outstanding F2.0 images in the sample gallery when it is published. Otherwise what is the point of limiting yourself so drastically with this fixed lens camera?
I have one simple question for Dpreview. “What is the minimum subject distance and focal ratio that this camera produces exceptional detail across an entire flat field of view?”
Does the Leica Q perform lens correction in its RAW files?
I have a feeling this policy will be revised/repealed shortly.
Aren't all JPGs created from RAW files?
mpgxsvcd: That lens is unusable even a 1/3 of the way through the frame from the center. Absolutely terrible. This camera should be on the “Don’t Buy” list if these test images are any indication of its performance.
Will Dpreview comment on whether these samples are indicative of what we should expect from the camera or were there outside influences like camera shake that caused the blurriness?
Fair enough. I understand that it takes a lot of time to setup and execute these tests. However, I would like to say that I don’t think I am alone in wanting to see what happens at F8.0 and F11.0 with this camera in that situation. If you ever get the chance to reshoot this I think some of your readers would definitely be curious to see if that resolves the issue or not.
"Ultra-zoom compacts do not deal well with corners."
You do realize this is a fixed lens full frame camera that we are talking about, right?
Barney, I respectively disagree with you that stopping down to F8.0 would “introduce diffraction and soften everything”. Could you reshoot the test scene at F8.0 and F11.0 and post the results?
mpgxsvcd: How close was the test scene to the camera? I guess I am having a hard time picturing how close it was to the test image. If it really was that close to the test image and this doesn't represent real world use of the camera at all, why bother posting the test images?
Couldn't you have just posted that because of the nature of this camera's fixed wide angle lens the test scenario was not indicative of its real world performance? Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information. Especially when that information is of no real world use.
The rock climbing scenarios I described are indicative of this situation. That isn’t a common scenario but it is a real world one. You usually are severely limited with where you can stand at these indoor competitions. However, you would never be within 4 feet of the competitors. 8-10 feet probably but not 4 feet.
It really just sounds like these test scenario images are pointless. We can’t really discern anything about the camera’s real world performance from them. Even noise performance in comparison to other cameras is hard to discern in the areas that are severely out of focus.
“Just measured, it was 56" from the center target.”
That is really close and a lot closer than I was imagining. I am not sure why Dpreview proceeded with the test once they realized how close it was to the subject. They certainly knew that this test wasn’t going to be useful for determining the real world performance of the camera. So why not just omit the test and only show the real world samples?
@ Barney Britton"No. Stopping down further would just introduce diffraction and soften everything."
Are you suggesting that diffraction starts on this camera past F5.6?
How close was the test scene to the camera? I guess I am having a hard time picturing how close it was to the test image. If it really was that close to the test image and this doesn't represent real world use of the camera at all, why bother posting the test images?
mpgxsvcd: What is the point of a really expensive fixed lens camera that has a really bad lens on it? It is almost like they glued a “Kit” lens on this camera and charged more for it.
I shoot Indoor bouldering Rock Climbing Images. Typically the climber is climbing a single plane surface about 10-20 feet wide. The photographer is in relatively close proximity to the climber and the wall. I wouldn’t want the wall to fade into blurriness at the corners when it is in the same plane as the subject.
Does stopping the aperture down resolve the out of focus area? I could manage with that even though these are typically low light scenarios. What focal ratio were the test images shot at? I can’t download them at the moment to check the EXIF data myself.
I guess where I am confused is what makes this camera work better under normal situations than in this test scenario? Barney claims that the field curvature and close distance are causing the out of focus region. Does that mean that stopping down even further resolves the issue even with the same field of view and subject distance?
If that is the case can Dpreview post some samples stopped down to reflect what this camera would do with this test scenario and real world parameters?