Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 157

Thread: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

  1. #51
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotXorc View Post

    Looks like I am becoming this thread's link jockey. Someone stop me before I am, you know . . .
    No worries, we like the external references
    ~~~

    Newsflash for Leica, from Jack's "Binniss" and Marketing 101 class:

    1) Arrogance does not sell well internationally, and this is especially true in the US market.

    2) If you're going to make something new, don't reinvent the wheel. Instead use an existing lensmount and corresponding IC. (And at this point, I sincerely don't care whether they chose Hassy H or Mamiya M, one of the two current top sellers.) Even if you think the price to do so is too high, you've immediately expanded your potential lens market by some significant factor, and moreover, allowed your tweener, hybrid camera body concept to become a viable back-up or second to another working brand -- so have additionally expanded its potential market! (I submit this may be one reason why the Leica M remains so successful aside from its shortcomings...)

    2a) Corolarry food for thought: IF Leica had opted for say the Mamiya lensmount, I personally would probably already own at least an S2 body. And if the 70 and 35 were good, I would likely own them as well. You see, I could justify the cost and the shortcomings as long as it added flexibility to my total MF system.

    3) History shows over and over again that totally closed technical systems rarely survive.

    Okay, maybe that's all too logical.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  2. #52
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    No worries, we like the external references
    ~~~

    Newsflash for Leica, from Jack's "Binniss" and Marketing 101 class:

    1) Arrogance does not sell well internationally, and this is especially true in the US market.
    Unless you're selling women's handbags, e.g Hermes' Birkin Bag... up to $10k and a long waiting period for delivery. Even heard they were screening potential buyers to make sure they were of the right "sort"

  3. #53
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Unless you're selling women's handbags, e.g Hermes' Birkin Bag... up to $10k and a long waiting period for delivery. Even heard they were screening potential buyers to make sure they were of the right "sort"
    then let us hope that leica is not after the hermes-type clients only.
    peter

  4. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by narikin View Post
    I shoot near wide open a lot - so lots of CA and fringing. Purple fringing is easier to fix, CA is very difficult. OOF objects have broad green bands one side of them, red the other.

    what is the point of a beautiful f2.5 lens if you cant use it below f4.0 on a sunny day?
    Purple fringing is a form of chromatic aberration, and it can't be fixed in software - only masked by some sort of localized desaturation technique.

  5. #55
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    Purple fringing is a form of chromatic aberration, and it can't be fixed in software - only masked by some sort of localized desaturation technique.
    Let's clarify this a bit further:

    1) CA is a LENS aberration caused by an inability to bring all three primary colors (or secondary colors) of the visible light spectrum into precisely the same focus point on the imaging medium. Moreover, the effect is usually spread laterally, and software is exceptionally good at being able to re-align the three separate visible primary color channels and bring them into one common point -- and why it is thus "relatively easy to correct for."

    2) Purple fringing is primarily a lens aberration, however it is accentuated by a digital SENSOR's excessive UV and IR sensitivity. It is [usually axial and] caused by the lens' inability to bring the short UV and long IR bands outside the visible spectrum to the same focus point as above. The distinction is that these bands are outside normal visible spectrum and it's virtually impossible to correct for them in lens design as the spread of wavelengths is far wider than the total visible spectrum to begin with. Thus, internal camera IR/UV cut filtration is probably the best approach to attenuate these; external filtration probably the second best approach. IOW, if a camera exhibits this trait, the lens is probably not the place to place the blame, rather the design of the sensor's filtration is the more relevant culprit.

    3) Sensor bloom is, or rather can be, another form of fringing and can be perceived as green, red, cyan or magenta (purple) depending on the sensor design. It is caused primarily by a pixel getting over-saturated and bleeding off to adjacent pixels. The resultant aberration can vary from spots to ghosting to streaks to edge fringing. Moreover, it's primarily a CCD issue as most CMOS sensors have anti-blooming gates by design. Though many CCD's do use anti-blooming gates in their design, the attenuation isn't as efficient as with CMOS, thus we tend to see it more commonly in cameras using CCDs. Fortunately, good software will attenuate this anomaly too, the key being its ability to isolate it before the desaturation process as a global desaturation is not a viable method.

    Edit: The above explanations are simplified in the interest of keeping them easy to understand. Here is a good source for those that want to investigate optical issues in more depth: http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  6. #56
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Even heard they were screening potential buyers to make sure they were of the right "sort"
    Imbeciles, perhaps?

  7. #57
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Let's clarify this a bit further:

    1) CA is a LENS aberration caused by an inability to bring all three primary colors (or secondary colors) of the visible light spectrum into precisely the same focus point on the imaging medium. Moreover, the effect is usually spread laterally, and software is exceptionally good at being able to re-align the three separate visible primary color channels and bring them into one common point -- and why it is thus "relatively easy to correct for."

    2) Purple fringing is primarily a lens aberration, however it is accentuated by a digital SENSOR's excessive UV and IR sensitivity. It is caused by the lens' inability to bring the short UV and long IR bands outside the visible spectrum to the same focus point as above. The distinction is that these bands are outside normal visible spectrum and it's virtually impossible to correct for them in lens design as the spread of wavelengths is far wider than the total visible spectrum to begin with. Thus, internal camera IR/UV cut filtration is probably the best approach to attenuate these; external filtration probably the second best approach. IOW, if a camera exhibits this trait, the lens is probably not the place to place the blame, rather the design of the sensor's filtration is the more relevant culprit.

    3) Sensor bloom is, or rather can be, another form of fringing and can be perceived as green, red, cyan or magenta (purple) depending on the sensor design. It is caused primarily by a pixel getting over-saturated and bleeding off to adjacent pixels. The resultant aberration can vary from spots to ghosting to streaks to edge fringing. Moreover, it's primarily a CCD issue as most CMOS sensors have anti-blooming gates by design. Though many CCD's do use anti-blooming gates in their design, the attenuation isn't as efficient as with CMOS, thus we tend to see it more commonly in cameras using CCDs. Fortunately, good software will attenuate this anomaly too, the key being its ability to isolate it before the desaturation process as a global desaturation is not a viable method.
    Jack, thanks for this explanation, I actually think I'm beginning to understand it now.

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Let's clarify this a bit further:
    2) Purple fringing is primarily a lens aberration, however it is accentuated by a digital SENSOR's excessive UV and IR sensitivity. It is caused by the lens' inability to bring the short UV and long IR bands outside the visible spectrum to the same focus point as above. The distinction is that these bands are outside normal visible spectrum and it's virtually impossible to correct for them in lens design as the spread of wavelengths is far wider than the total visible spectrum to begin with. Thus, internal camera IR/UV cut filtration is probably the best approach to attenuate these; external filtration probably the second best approach. IOW, if a camera exhibits this trait, the lens is probably not the place to place the blame, rather the design of the sensor's filtration is the more relevant culprit.
    I've wondered about this for quite a few years now. I suspect that its not true UV (<400nm) and IR (>700nm) light that causes alot of the problems, but rather plain old visible light at the violet and red extremes of the waveband. For instance, most lenses are pretty terrible from 400nm to 435nm, but that is definitely visible light, and alot of it will leak through the Bayer array. Similarly with light from 660nm to 700nm. Some true IR might be getting through since there is typically alot of it in the scene and sensors are very sensitive to it. I doubt that true UV is playing much of a role in the purple fringing phenemenon.

    BTW, if you're interested in a true medium format UV-VIS-IR apochromat with zero focus shift from 330nm out to 1100nm I'm planning to show one at Photokina. It will be 120mm f/4.5, Copal-0 mounted, 100mm image circle, and will have a manually adjustable floating element for infinity down to 1:1.

  9. #59
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Jack, thanks for this explanation, I actually think I'm beginning to understand it now.
    My pleasure David.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  10. #60
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    (...) BTW, if you're interested in a true medium format UV-VIS-IR apochromat with zero focus shift from 330nm out to 1100nm I'm planning to show one at Photokina. It will be 120mm f/4.5, Copal-0 mounted, 100mm image circle, and will have a manually adjustable floating element for infinity down to 1:1.
    On behalf of Coastal Optics / Jenoptic - or on behalf of Caldwell Photographic Inc ?

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steen View Post
    On behalf of Coastal Optics / Jenoptic - or on behalf of Caldwell Photographic Inc ?
    At least initially it will be a Caldwell Photographic product, although it will be shown (fingers crossed - still hard at work on the prototypes!) at the Megavision stand with their monochrome MFDB and multispectral imaging system.

  12. #62
    Member NotXorc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    And I thought Leica didn't abuse optical terminology the way some other manufacturers do! What are we designers and manufacturers of *real* apochromats (and superachromats for that matter) supposed to call our lenses?
    Quote Originally Posted by brianc1959 View Post
    BTW, if you're interested in a true medium format UV-VIS-IR apochromat with zero focus shift from 330nm out to 1100nm I'm planning to show one at Photokina. It will be 120mm f/4.5, Copal-0 mounted, 100mm image circle, and will have a manually adjustable floating element for infinity down to 1:1.
    Brian, I think you answered your own question, even if you didn't realize it. This thread exists because some have called attention to the dissonance between marketing claims and what some users have seen in their images. Those who slap an APO label on their kit when it is undeserved will be tried in the court of user opinion. They will be found wanting and trust in their brand will diminish.

    You have described a specialist lens that purports to reveal the emporer's state of undress (especially in the IR wavelengths, where some textiles are very transparent . . . I digress), so you'll have to let the users speak about whether it really raises the bar.

  13. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotXorc View Post
    . . so you'll have to let the users speak about whether it really raises the bar.
    Agreed.

  14. #64
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    found this link, his first line in the bibliography credits an Isaac Newton, 1672

    http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html

  15. #65
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Hi John,

    Yes, that's the link I gave above -- very good pot of info
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  16. #66
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    i meant to credit your link...mis wrote. meant "found this in the link"

  17. #67
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    John,

    Did you see the photographer photo here: http://toothwalker.org/about.html?

    Steve

  18. #68
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    looks familiar...even the compatible leaning to match the boat

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Interesting link Jack - thanks!

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    I have a question related to all of this. Please temper this question with the notion that the discussed issues are not omnipresent in S2 files any more than any other MFD system.

    Presuming Leica IS good at making lenses, and Leica has done the best possible technical lens design for the format at hand (MFD, whether "tweaner" or not) if not Leica, than who? ...

    then what else in the digital imaging chain could be the culprit?

    I've found no more of these type issues while using other MFD systems ... even when processing the files in Lightroom, without the benefit of integrated proprietary software corrections other than those also available for S2 files in LR. So, how can a $2,500. lens compare equally to a "designed from ground-up" $5,900. lens made by a renowned optical company?

    It doesn't make any sense to me.

    In a related question, how do those with Schneider lenses for their Phase/Mamiya kit find they compare to the Phase One/Mamiya versions?

    For a long time I was using a dual lens system with my H camera ... Fujiblad optics verses Zeiss leaf shutter CF/CFi/CFE lenses (not the faster F series with their unique character). Basically, in actual use I honestly couldn't tell the difference, and neither lens system had many of the issues we are discussing here. The only issue I had was the Chrysler Logo specular highlights with the Zeiss lenses, and that they were much slower to use.

    Frankly, setting aside AF advancements, I wonder if much progress has been made in MFD optics beyond what the Contax 645 offered a decade ago? Not on paper, but in use. This suggests to me that MFD is some sort of "equalizer" ... and over-engineering the optics is where the waste of time and money really is ... money better spent on other portions of the imaging chain ... at least to start with, in order to surpass what existing optical design is capable of. Then look to the lenses.

    The anomaly to my premiss is that when these backs are used on a tech camera ... the optics from Schneider and Rodenstock out perform everything out there, including the Leica S2 lenses. So, I could be completely wrong about everything. Yet, I know what I see in actual practice ... so I'm confused to say the least.

    Your thoughts?

    -Marc

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    I wonder if the technology and optical qualities present in the micro-lenses located on the sensor effect the image chain. I mean, if they refract light in any way, then surely they also pollute, in a sense, the image chain. If they are employed to bend light so each pixel sensor receives more light, then does it also follow things like fringing and blooming are also amplified? I have no idea, really! There are several other laters located on the sensor too, are there not?

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    <snip>....

    This suggests to me that MFD is some sort of "equalizer" ... and over-engineering the optics is where the waste of time and money really is ... money better spent on other portions of the imaging chain ... at least to start with, in order to surpass what existing optical design is capable of. Then look to the lenses.

    ....<snip>

    -Marc
    Still ruminating over the rest of the post, but am starting to think you may be correct - especially on the preceding. I've come to the opinion over the years that there comes a point in a lens's design where perceivable benefit in a design (of a lens) gets passed and it becomes more about bragging rights. Bragging rights that end up costing you $$ with minimal incremental value attached - beyond your own bragging ability of course.

    I think it WOULD be no different in SLR world IF they also universally lacked AA filters on sensors sourced from the same 2-3 manufacturers. While in far too many cases, DSLR players never get anywhere near that 'line' in lens performance (;<), in the case of the S2, I do think Leica leaned too heavily on it's reputation for 'dead-man's EKG' MTF charts vs. the end result of the entire image chain - especially the importance of the developing software.

    As for their claims that the (S2) lens designs negate the need for "wasting time & money" on custom developing software (when both Hassy and Phase see it as an absolute necessary step in a tightly-controlled imaging chain -- especially Hassy) do more to give LUF die-hards talking points than any comfort to agnostic buyers comfort. It's a claim that should ONLY be HINTED at (why make enemies) let alone stated so bluntly in public IF the proof were violently obvious in the pudding.

    I like Leica glass, but the implication that other player's lenses are comparative coke bottles and thus tailored software is needed to compensate (an implication educated shoppers know is hog-wash) comes across as immature and as trying top defend an untenable (to anyone outside the faithful) position.

    (On a side note Lloyd Chambers is preparing an S2 review and given the heated reactions to his "I like it, but...." ongoing review of his M9 and glass, it could get interesting.)
    Last edited by robmac; 8th July 2010 at 03:47.

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I wonder if the technology and optical qualities present in the micro-lenses located on the sensor effect the image chain. I mean, if they refract light in any way, then surely they also pollute, in a sense, the image chain. If they are employed to bend light so each pixel sensor receives more light, then does it also follow things like fringing and blooming are also amplified? I have no idea, really! There are several other laters located on the sensor too, are there not?
    If that were universally true, then I would expect those sort of things to show up on with my H4D/40 which, unlike the Phase One P40+, still employs micro-lenses (Kodak verses Dalsa 40 meg sensors). Yet, they do not.

    Perhaps Hasselblad has auto corrected for them with firmware or something, because they don't show up even when bypassing the proprietary software and using Light room as the RAW processor.

    -Marc

  24. #74
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    ... suggests to me that MFD is some sort of "equalizer" ... and over-engineering the optics is where the waste of time and money really is ... money better spent on other portions of the imaging chain ... at least to start with, in order to surpass what existing optical design is capable of. Then look to the lenses.
    FWIW, Leica has claimed that the S lenses are over-engineered for the S2's sensor, and that they will be fully able to exploit the next two generations of sensors.

  25. #75
    Member NotXorc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    FWIW, Leica has claimed that the S lenses are over-engineered for the S2's sensor, and that they will be fully able to exploit the next two generations of sensors.
    The 'over-engineered for the future' claim is pretty cool when you're buying lenses for a crop factor dSLR, and think you might eventually move up to full frame 35mm, however, it may not be so compelling in MF. Yes, it should mean that lenses hold their value better over time, but it does not mean that they will necessarily do more at some future date.

  26. #76
    Member NotXorc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    (On a side note Lloyd Chambers is preparing an S2 review and given the heated reactions to his "I like it, but...." ongoing review of his M9 and glass, it could get interesting.)
    I agree that it will get interesting. Several moons ago in this forum, one MFDB dealer accused a specialist Leica dealer of being unfit to compare the S2 to his own products (a very loose summary). It was ugly. Ugly is interesting sometimes, but not where internet fora are concerned.

    As with all reviews made possible by a major clearinghouse of photogear, I will have to remind myself, "The author and equipment supplier benefit from a favorable conclusion that induces the reader to buy." Corollary: "Only the handpicked best samples are likely to find their way to a reviewer".

  27. #77
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Still ruminating over the rest of the post, but am starting to think you may be correct - especially on the preceding. I've come to the opinion over the years that there comes a point in a lens's design where perceivable benefit in a design (of a lens) gets passed and it becomes more about bragging rights. Bragging rights that end up costing you $$ with minimal incremental value attached - beyond your own bragging ability of course.

    I think it WOULD be no different in SLR world IF they also universally had sensors lacking AA filters with said sensors sourced from the same 2-3 manufacturers. While in far too many cases, DSLR players never get anywhere near the that 'line' in lens performance (;>), in the case of the S2, I do think Leica leaned too heavily on it's reputation for 'dead-man's EKG' MTF charts vs. the end result of the entire image chain - especially the importance of the developing software.

    As for their claims that the (S2) lens designs negate the need for "wasting time & money" on custom developing software when both Hassy and Phase see it as an absolute necessary step in a tightly-controlled imaging chain (especially Hassy) do more to give LUF followers talking points than any comfort to potential buyers comfort. It's a claim that should ONLY be hinted at (why make enemies) if the proof were violently obvious in the pudding - and it's not.

    I like Leica glass, but the implication that other player's lenses are comparative coke bottles and thus tailored software is needed to compensate (an implication educated shoppers know is hog-wash) comes across as immature and as trying top defend an untenable (to anyone outside the faithful) position.

    (On a side note Lloyd Chambers is preparing an S2 review and given the heated reactions to his "I like it, but...." ongoing review of his M9 and glass, it could get interesting).
    I accept certain limitations and anomalies from the M optics, given my priority for aperture speed ... especially from 50mm on down. Very little image disadvantages while using rarified apertures of lenses like like a M21/1.4 and M50/0.95. However, as others here have said, there is a much stiffer expectation of MFD, especially given the applications ... and the trade-offs one makes in the name of MFD IQ. Not to mention that it's hard to pull the wool over most experienced MFD users eyes.

    Perhaps that is the argument that the S2 should hang on ... the form factor justifies a very slight disadvantage ... a disadvantage that would be much greater IF the lenses weren't as good as they are.

    Unfortunately, that slight crimp in the IQ, could be lessened by using all of the tools available to Leica in the digital realm.

    All said and done, I still have yet to see S2 images that show some sort of aesthetic character that I subjectively like. For me, that is far more important than a bit of fringe and CA in a few images.

    -Marc

  28. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    There is noch such thing as a perfect lens, the aberrations can be controlled to a negligible level - I don't think Leica claimed something different.
    Fuji makes lenses which simply cannot be used without heavy software correction (it cannot even be used with only a few years old H-boodies!) to implement cheaper optical designs (that becomes ovbious when you compare it to the optical performance to the last new Zeiss-design, the 40IF - it's superior regarding resolution and CA) - that's a big difference in comparison to Leicas approach to make designs as good as possible with the option to later control (most optical defects cannot be fully "corrected" at least not witout trade-offs) remaing aberrations within software.

    I have yet to see any MF-lens (or any lens) which performs as well at wide apertures in comparison to the S-lenses, I cannot even see "proofs in the pudding" within this particular thread.
    Although the particular fringing problem clearly goes beyond simple lens aberrations.

    What proved to be wrong is the fact that not every DNG-capable converter can be used for DNG-files, C1 doesn't create useful files from the S2, for example. So it's an open system but not necessarily completly independent from the converter.

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    FWIW, Leica has claimed that the S lenses are over-engineered for the S2's sensor, and that they will be fully able to exploit the next two generations of sensors.
    In the face of any other contradictions by those more science minded than I am, I would tend to believe that.

    However, given Leica's glacial product introductions ... one could pass through two full human life stages before that initial lens investment bore fruit

    So, I wonder if that isn't an even more compelling reason to utilize the digital tools available to help out those who invested in the first iteration of the S2? Perhaps the lenses don't need the help, the camera/sensor does? Leica saves face, and the S2 owners get their software

    Or perhaps they'll just lose interest, and shovel S2 folks into the same boat as R investors (Sorry, still stewing over that abrupt assault on my bank account ).

    -Marc

    Ah, arm chair quarter-backing is so much fun when you don't have the subject camera in the race ...

  30. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    <snip>
    Or perhaps they'll just lose interest, and shovel S2 folks into the same boat as R investors (Sorry, still stewing over that abrupt assault on my bank account ).
    <snip>
    Call it a funny feeling, spidey sense, intuition or having the 'eye' as they say, but I'd sadly be willing to bet that has at least an even chance of being the case.

    As for lenses being designed for x generations ahead.. that may be the belief/justification in Solms but:

    a) Reference Marc's comments about time passing in Solms vs RoW.

    b) Many folks are happily using many fine older MF lenses from the film era on high-res MFDBs (some via adapters) most of which of which would probably pale on an MTF basis to S glass.

    c) What matters to sway agnostic buyers is the bottom line - what IQ am I getting for giving my $$ to you vs the other guy(s). Having God's own lenses is all well and good and a great bragging right, but clients aren't buying re-prints of Leica's MTF charts. The paycheck (and sense of satisfaction) depends on the end result of the ENTIRE imaging chain and ANY weakness in any link of that chain, such as with the processing software) can have a nasty effect in a market where every wart not only is looked for with a watery eye (as it should be given the $$) but also has no place no hide. This is a concept I think Hassy cottoned on to early (and took much heat for) -- and one I think you're seeing Phase starting down the path of.

    Unlike H and P, using shrink-wrap PP software with the S2 places a KEY element of the IQ imaging chain beyond Leica's control and in the hands of a larger player with no vested interest to put effort into it, getting the most out of it (re: the S2), etc. It also gives the user no place to bitch to. In the eye's of Adobe, your $$$$$$$ buys you far less programming man hrs and attention (given the size of the user base) than the Uncle Bob you saw at the last wedding with his yearly entry-level DSLR upgrades.

    Given that All RAW digital images need to go through PP in some form or other, what difference does it make if the resulting IQ can be accredited to the lenses+hard/firmware guts+PP software vs laid at the feet of lenses? All that matters is the end result and the lack of undue pain it takes to get there.
    Last edited by robmac; 8th July 2010 at 05:45.

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    As a 40 megapixel MFD camera - The S2 doesnt do anything better than Hasselblad - and can't do a lot of things Hasselblad does - really it is that simple for me.

    As an SLR ergonomic offer - I need to see some telephoto lenses because that is what I use a 35mm SLR for - oh and the auto focus better be a lot better than Nikon as well as image stabilization technology to match.

    hmm maybe they should have made an R10 - at least there was an established customer base - begging for just this camera.

  32. #82
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    "[M]aybe they should have made an R10 - at least there was an established customer base - begging for just this camera."

    Maybe camera makers are infected with that bragging rights thing as well: I think that while an R10 wouldn't compete with Nikon or Canon sales numbers, it would have been at least as successful as the S2 will be. But the S2 is so much "cooler," and affords superior bragging rights.... To Leica as well as to buyers.

  33. #83
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by georgl View Post
    There is noch such thing as a perfect lens, the aberrations can be controlled to a negligible level - I don't think Leica claimed something different.
    Fuji makes lenses which simply cannot be used without heavy software correction (it cannot even be used with only a few years old H-boodies!) to implement cheaper optical designs (that becomes obvious when you compare it to the optical performance to the last new Zeiss-design, the 40IF - it's superior regarding resolution and CA) - that's a big difference in comparison to Leicas approach to make designs as good as possible with the option to later control (most optical defects cannot be fully "corrected" at least not witout trade-offs) remaing aberrations within software.

    I have yet to see any MF-lens (or any lens) which performs as well at wide apertures in comparison to the S-lenses, I cannot even see "proofs in the pudding" within this particular thread.
    Although the particular fringing problem clearly goes beyond simple lens aberrations.

    What proved to be wrong is the fact that not every DNG-capable converter can be used for DNG-files, C1 doesn't create useful files from the S2, for example. So it's an open system but not necessarily completly independent from the converter.
    Doesn't matter where the choo-choo comes off the tracks ... it's the end product that matters however you get there.

    For clarification of what could be read as misleading or truncated facts: the only H lenses that cannot be used with older H bodies are the ones clearly designated as D lenses ... meaning two out of 10 currently available lenses. The D lenses can be used on all H cameras from the H3D onwards ... including the H2F (which also allows use of film backs with the other 8 lenses) as well as CF digital backs with all 10 lenses .

    I also disagree that the 8 non-D HC lenses cannot be used effectively without extensive software corrections .... since I use a H2F with film backs and scan on a 949 without significant purple fringing or CA.

    If one feels the 40IFE is superior for the application one needs, one can simply use it with all auto aperture controls intact on any H body via the CF adapter.

    Proof of the pudding? Okay, I've been reluctant to post this test series because the subject sucks ... but that is not relevant in this discussion. However, since you asked ... here's an S2 example of purple fringing the likes of which I have never experienced with any other MF lens made by anyone. I also uploaded a similar shot from the M9 and 24/1.4 which also notoriously produces fringing in similar lighting scenarios ... but is of the type that is much more easily corrected manually if needed (images A & B), and forgivable given the speed of the aperture ... stopping down virtually eliminates it.

    Both are done at ISO 640 ... the S2 70mm lens was at f/3.4, the M24/1.4 was at f/1.5.

    So, you are right ... the proof is in the pudding ... but to taste the S2 pudding one has to actually shoot with it in situations one regularly shoots in.

    -Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by stephengilbert View Post
    ... Maybe camera makers are infected with that bragging rights thing as well...
    That's what the high-end Nikon and Canon equipment is. N and C want the general public to see that "pros" (however you define them) use their equipment. The real money is in the low- and mid-level equipment that sells by the hundreds of thousands, the high-end equipment is primarily to attract attention to the brand.

  35. #85
    Member NotXorc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    S2 news around the web today:

    1) A mini review by David Saffir (no mention of issues with CA)
    http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com/201...-the-leica-s2/

    2) A few words by Stefan Daniel on the S2 system (see last paragraph)
    http://blog.leica-camera.com/intervi...erview-part-3/
    Last edited by NotXorc; 8th July 2010 at 15:05.

  36. #86
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The anomaly to my premiss is that when these backs are used on a tech camera ... the optics from Schneider and Rodenstock out perform everything out there, including the Leica S2 lenses. So, I could be completely wrong about everything. Yet, I know what I see in actual practice ... so I'm confused to say the least.

    Your thoughts?

    -Marc
    Marc, I sometimes think you are a mind reader... and one who's better able to express the issues than I can. I've been pondering this question myself ever since I shot the Sinar ArTec. I've never seen such detail and resolution before from a back that I've been shooting for years. So it must be the lenses... right ? What else could it be since nothing else changed, e.g. RAW conversion software, etc ? Based on my own experience with Leica glass as well as what little I can understand from the experts I'm inclined to believe that the S lenses are state of the art and as good or better than anything else out there. So... "where's the Beef ?" (an American colloquialism from an old Burger King commercial for those from other parts of the world).

  37. #87
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    Proof of the pudding? Okay, I've been reluctant to post this test series because the subject sucks ... but that is not relevant in this discussion. However, since you asked ... here's an S2 example of purple fringing the likes of which I have never experienced with any other MF lens made by anyone.
    Excellent "proof" Marc, thanks for posting these. This is comparable to the fringing Guy and I saw when we tested the S2 back in January, but it was so bad we simply assumed it had to be a conversion software issue; we only had C1 and LR and neither was handling it.

    So while it may not be "an issue" for some shooters, it certainly is for anybody who shoots back-lit scenes with any regularity...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  38. #88
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    I just read the 35mm at F4 up is also doing this as well. This thing just needs bloody dedicated software and that is the bottom line. Been saying this since they announced the damn thing and it seems i was right. I said my peace on this issue and i will stand by my comments whether you want to hear them or not or believe it or not because I know Leica fans do not want to hear this and are avoiding it like the plague but the digital world software has become a very very very important element in the process and it gets underestimated a great deal. If that sounds arrogant than sorry leica fans but for me that is my brutal honest assessment and what i have been stressing all along and taken a severe beating from it. I just can't push stuff under the carpet and ignore it. At this level stuff needs to work at full throttle. It maybe one sexy cam but I am not convinced what is under the hood is running on all 12 cylinders.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  39. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    If if I'm right (correct me Guy if mistaken), you have always said that since you analyzed your move to MFDB world, when you've tried any system, when you upgraded and so on, pretty much anytime since you really started to touch any MFDB.

    At the same time, I remember you saying that lenses are probably less important in MF world compares to 35mm because of the format. It feels like a company that can use to the best all the potential of what they have can kind of perform better compares to any other company where they would the king in one aspect of the chain, but weaker somewhere else.

    It is also my understand from reading you for years that this aspect has been one of the main reasons that you chose PhaseOne few years ago and that your choice was quite easy once you realized that. Today, Hassy might be in a stronger position in this regards since that older time of you, now that Hassy has improved their Focus software and they integrate the whole chain so much better than before. That would make it almost a tie on that aspect alone, aside from any other considerations you may have and that would make you preferring PhaseOne like familiarity, dead C1 fan (LOL!) and easier possibility to use your back on a "technical" camera, if needs be!

    Guy, am I understanding and interpreting you well?
    Francois B.

  40. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    I've been following the saga of the S2 for awhile now because it's a genuinely interesting camera system. I'm hoping to be an Alpa owner (because of perspective control and the ability to shoot film) but the S2 still interests me a lot.

    The thing that's missing from this conversation about alleged S2 aberrations is the relationship between the applied technique of the operator and the system itself. In order to adequately criticize the S2, there should be more effort at showing that problems lie specifically with the S2 and not the technique of the operator. So far, in every photo that I've encountered online with aberrations there is always what I consider to be bad technique too. Is it just a coincidence to often see bad lighting ratios, poor focus, overexposure etc on the part of the operator in S2 shots that contain aberrations. On the contrary, the S2 shots I've seen that had what I consider to be good technique don't appear to have any serious aberrations problems at all. What is the fault of Leica and what is the fault of the operator? Is it Leica's fault if a photographer decides to overexpose highlights on a pavement by as much as 2-3 stops and then complains about aberrations appearing at the line between the shadows and the highlights? Or is that just bad technique? Is it Leica's fault if aberrations occur when a photographer shoots an out of focus subject against a bald sky while overexposing the sky by several stops? Or is that the fault of the operator?

    So far, I haven't seen much discussion about whether or not the operator might share some fault or may actually be at fault. I understand that technique can sometimes be a matter of opinion. But I prefer to judge professional systems by how well they perform with proper professional technique. If aberrations start popping up when excellent technique is employed, then that is definitely a sign that there could be a problem with a camera system, lens or software etc. I've owned lenses in the past that performed terrible even with excellent technique (zeiss in particular) But if the technique is bad then what can really be blamed on the camera system?

    Some might say that professional camera systems are supposed to work in harsh conditions and should hold up to the stress of bad lighting etc. That may be true for documentary shooters and some other types of photographers that don't necessarily need exercise control over the light and just need to get an image. But the light is still in charge when it comes to most professional photography. No photographers or camera systems have transcended light yet. We are still at the mercy of light, and our technique matters when it comes to capturing the light. The ability to see and differentiate between good and bad lighting is exactly what makes a professional photographer in the first place. It's the same when it comes to sharpness because no photographers have yet transcended scheimpflug and focal plane placement. We are all still at the mercy of focal planes and must properly place them in order for an image to be sharp. The ability to achieve a sharp image with properly placed focal planes, lack of motion blur, lack of diffraction etc is exactly what makes a professional photographer.

    If we are going to judge the S2 as a professional system, then I think we should also judge how it works in situations where truly professional and adequate technique is applied too.
    Last edited by Mike M; 9th July 2010 at 07:08. Reason: typo

  41. #91
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mozbee View Post
    If if I'm right (correct me Guy if mistaken), you have always said that since you analyzed your move to MFDB world, when you've tried any system, when you upgraded and so on, pretty much anytime since you really started to touch any MFDB.

    At the same time, I remember you saying that lenses are probably less important in MF world compares to 35mm because of the format. It feels like a company that can use to the best all the potential of what they have can kind of perform better compares to any other company where they would the king in one aspect of the chain, but weaker somewhere else.

    It is also my understand from reading you for years that this aspect has been one of the main reasons that you chose PhaseOne few years ago and that your choice was quite easy once you realized that. Today, Hassy might be in a stronger position in this regards since that older time of you, now that Hassy has improved their Focus software and they integrate the whole chain so much better than before. That would make it almost a tie on that aspect alone, aside from any other considerations you may have and that would make you preferring PhaseOne like familiarity, dead C1 fan (LOL!) and easier possibility to use your back on a "technical" camera, if needs be!

    Guy, am I understanding and interpreting you well?

    Let's see if I can touch on yours and Mikes comments here.

    I still believe that the lenses in MF are less important because of the size of the format itself over 35mm which we all agree needs great lenses to perform the best. No argument there on 35mm. Now in the Phase or Hassy system we have a lot of older glass that we can still make use of and it seems with the higher 9 micron sensors this is a more friendly proposition to use this older glass as the 9 micron sensors still provide very good quality with the older glass. Now that the micron sensors are getting smaller we are finding that it is getting maybe more critical with lens design and case in point the P65+ and P40+ for that matter we are seeing the newer D lenses really working well with these sensors and maybe some of the older glass not doing as well as it did on a 9 micron chip. The S2 was designed for 6 micron but my bet even 4 or 5 and we won't see that until we have those sensors and I think we can make the same assumption that Phase D and Hassy newer lenses will also be able to handle the lower sensor micron sizes as well.

    Now let's jump into the sensors and what most of what I have said and Jack as well is that software from the dedicated systems like Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar is the software is being made at the sensor level so it is taking in all the attributes of the sensor and making those type of corrections right out of the gate. So what we see in our lenses is less aberrations right from the start because the sensor/ lens combination is being addressed early on in the software even if our lenses are not designed for lens corrections. Yes we still see them ( Mike your part) but we see this on less occasions and true some of this is operator error and we should never forget this with backlight and overexposed images we can only save the day for so long with software. But my believe is these dedicated packages in Hassy and others this is all being done in the firmware and algorithms built into the back and right out of the gate . Guess you call it total system integration they are all designed to work together. Case in point I take a Phase file stick it in ACR or LR and it does not handle it well at all, bad noise levels , bad color and more issues showing up in there software. Not the softwares fault because it does not know how to read them , just like C1 and the S2 it is dumb on how to read the S2 files and really not a great software package at this point for the S2.

    Now take that info and let's apply it to the S2 and let's start with the lens are probably damn good and they are but the issue i believe is the sensor and lenses are not being worked up like dedicated software where the engineer can take it and integrate it into the software package. Now Adobe is not working at this level with Leica s2 files sure they are working to see the DNG well but they are not getting all the way down to the sensor level of corrections together in a dedicated package like Phase and others. Now Leica will say we are working with Adobe and that maybe true but I am talking very deep down to the sensor level with a lot of adjustments and corrections with firmware and algorithms built in. Have we ever seen a pure raw file. It looks like crap but as soon as lets say in Phase case we bring that into C1 it is a whole different file and a lot of corrections automatically happen. We can pick this apart in many ways but even in the case of the S2 file between C1 and LR there are vast differences in the way it looks. This clearly says to me hoe the software is interrupting the files be it bad or good there is a major difference, so to me that tells us a whole lot about software and the power of it.

    So the Ca we are talking about in this thread it may not be so much the lens itself but the sensor lens combination and the software to interrupt and correct it right at the base level. To me it seems pretty excessive of what we are seeing over other systems and that is not Leica of what we know about them and there lens designs which are very high up there. So this has to be coming from the combination of sensor/lens and software to interrupt all that and fix it at the default level which i don't believe it is. Now I am not talking about after the fact but even at default this is way to high a issue. Not saying LR is bad far from it but not everything from the very basic to very top of the integration chain is working. Let's face it at 6k for a lens touted to have lens correction should we be seeing this, it's only logical that this should not be this excessive. Sure we will see it and same with other systems but this to me is way too much given Leica's reputation on lens design. It has to be deeper than that.


    I'm on a roll here than gotta run . But our minds are still fixated on film and in those days all that made the difference was the glass . Film was all the same and the body meant nothing and the biggest key was the processing meant nothing. Today the sensor and the processing are the key differences than the film days. Now the sensor at the basic level of lets say coming out of the oven than into a cam is nothing but now the changes start at the adjustments, firmwares and algorithms that make that a viable sensor to work in photography regardless of system at this point. Than a OEM gets it and the engineers start tweaking it for there cams and to work effectively. At this point it goes into the box for shipping but let's go back the OEM's that have dedicated software can make even more software adjustments as well and improve upon it more. This I believe is the key to the total system integration take all the parts and make them work as a team effectively to knock out as much of the issues right at the default level. Than add more tools like a CA adjustment to improve upon it further. Some systems will have this some will rely on 3rd party to provide it but how much R&D is that third party going to go that deep on a cam when it supports hundreds of cams. Now I am maybe only speaking of the 10 percent that get's left on the editing floor, I don't have a number here folks but my believe is that 10 percent can make a big difference. Now maybe I am all wet here since i am not a engineer or scientist but my believe is these dedicated software packages make the difference and I really discovered this when I bought a Phase back and seen what C1 really did for it over and above what I already seen before it and I loved C1 before i even bought a back. But the combination together is what makes it sing and I am sure Hassy, Leaf and Sinar folks will say the same of there software packages in the IQ department. Maybe a kludge to work with but the IQ is great.

    Anyway that is what I believe it is after 20 years of just doing digital my final conclusion is dedicated software. It makes a difference at least in my eyes.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    attached are 100% crops of S2 files (in camera DNG, LR3 conversion, no PP),
    taken with the 35mm f2.5 lens. the series starts at f2.5 and then the f stop is increased at half-stop values. admittedly this is an extreme example but still, these artifacts have been unseen before in the MF camp. LR3 is just hopeless for this. after paying about 40.000.-euros for the 4-lens S system i definitely deserve a dedicated RAW converter, not this LR c....
    peter
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #93
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Peter the very last image I see is F4.8 with it still there. So would it be safe to assume at 5.6 this is clearing out. Now I would say extreme case here but not out of the realm of reality as I see plenty of detail in the window frame and fairly normal of a whole scene of the room itself without extra lighting of course to balance it all out.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  44. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts and Vermont
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    attached are 100% crops of S2 files (in camera DNG, LR3 conversion, no PP),
    taken with the 35mm f2.5 lens. the series starts at f2.5 and then the f stop is increased at half-stop values. admittedly this is an extreme example but still, these artifacts have been unseen before in the MF camp. LR3 is just hopeless for this. after paying about 40.000.-euros for the 4-lens S system i definitely deserve a dedicated RAW converter, not this LR c....
    peter
    Peter, do you have a 35mm H lens for your H3DII-50 to do a similar test with and without lens corrections in Phocus? Would be interesting.
    Best, Howard

  45. #95
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hollywood, FL
    Posts
    580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    attached are 100% crops of S2 files (in camera DNG, LR3 conversion, no PP),
    taken with the 35mm f2.5 lens. the series starts at f2.5 and then the f stop is increased at half-stop values. admittedly this is an extreme example but still, these artifacts have been unseen before in the MF camp. LR3 is just hopeless for this. after paying about 40.000.-euros for the 4-lens S system i definitely deserve a dedicated RAW converter, not this LR c....
    peter
    Peter,

    You said here you used no post processing. Was Defringe set to off? Leica recommends that this be left to All Edges by default. I think you'll see it makes a pretty big difference for the effect you are seeing here. Also, just for kicks, try setting the process method to 2003 version instead of the default 2010. I've found that the newer processing, while better overall, tends to make overexposed edges more "glowy".

    David
    David Farkas
    Leica Store Miami

  46. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by georgl View Post
    Fuji makes lenses which simply cannot be used without heavy software correction (it cannot even be used with only a few years old H-boodies!) to implement cheaper optical designs (that becomes ovbious when you compare it to the optical performance to the last new Zeiss-design, the 40IF - it's superior regarding resolution and CA) - that's a big difference in comparison to Leicas approach to make designs as good as possible with the option to later control (most optical defects cannot be fully "corrected" at least not witout trade-offs) remaing aberrations within software.
    Nonsense as we have spoken about before.

    The HC lenses were developed before any kind of lens correction via software existed.

    The HCD lenses (28 and 35-90) were designed with extra thought on what could be achieved with the additional consideration of lens corrections via software.

    Therefore with the HCD28 lens we were able to build something smaller and lighter than before, with excellent edge to edge sharpness and zero distortion. Try doing that completely optically for a 28mm lens and achieving the same results at the same cost.

    Ultimately the end result whether it involves corrections or not is the important thing to the photographer.

    Any lens will be improved with digital corrections, as we have shown by including V lens corrections as well within Phocus.

    Please stop spreading slander and misinformation, as usual.

  47. #97
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Some facts:

    1) It is physically impossible to design a "perfect" lens,

    2) As digital resolution increases (pixels get smaller) lens anomalies are easier to find

    3) When designing lenses, correcting one anomaly generally increases another. (For example, as you adjust your design to reduce illumination falloff, you'll increase linear distortion.)

    3a) Thus lens design becomes a series of tradeoffs for lens designers; ultimately they do what they can to optimize the overall performance, though different companies often bias towards different sets of tradeoffs

    4) #1, 2 and 3 become harder still when a fixed lensmount/flange-focal distance requires more extreme retrofocus or telephoto optical designs and/or as lens free aperture size increases

    5) Digital corrections can work in conjunction with a well optimized lens to get one closer -- nay, VERY close -- to optical "perfection"

    Some corolarry's:

    A) #4 above is two of the main reasons why digital-specific tech camera lenses are freer of anomalies than fixed-flange lenses

    B) Many fixed-flange MF lenses are "good enough" when used with today's highest resolution digital backs, the problem arena typically lies with extreme wide angle (heavy retrofocus) and optically fast lens designs

    C) Any current high-end digital "system" should be using BOTH optimal lens design AND digital corrections for their proprietary lenses that need it -- moreover, and any company doing so should be applauded.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  48. #98
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by dfarkas View Post
    Peter,

    You said here you used no post processing. Was Defringe set to off? Leica recommends that this be left to All Edges by default. I think you'll see it makes a pretty big difference for the effect you are seeing here. Also, just for kicks, try setting the process method to 2003 version instead of the default 2010. I've found that the newer processing, while better overall, tends to make overexposed edges more "glowy".

    David
    david,
    i tried all that and LR3 cannot cope with it satisfactorily, at f2.5 to f4.0.
    defringe in LR is a joke. beyond f4.0 things get sorted using cyan/red at -15 or so.
    peter

  49. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Grover / Hasselblad View Post
    Nonsense as we have spoken about before.

    The HC lenses were developed before any kind of lens correction via software existed.
    10+ years ago you could download Panorama Tools for free and do a superb job of correcting all manner of lens issues (regular distortion, gullwing distortion, lateral color, etc.). I started doing this in ~1999, and it was a well-established procedure even then.

    Have there really been substantial improvements in software correction over Panorama Tools of the mid-1990's? (which is still available as far as I know, and is still free).

  50. #100
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by hcubell View Post
    Peter, do you have a 35mm H lens for your H3DII-50 to do a similar test with and without lens corrections in Phocus? Would be interesting.
    Best, Howard
    howard,
    i do have an HC 35mm lens but unfortunately it is in my UK home and now i am in vienna. anyway, it would be an unfair test -sort of- because the HC lens starts at f3.5, where the S 35mm fringing already becomes moderate and kind of controlable, even in LR. i did try with the HCD 28mm and it is much better in controlling CA when using phocus. i do not blame leica's lens design, they developed (relatively) high speed lenses but we pay the price for their decision not to invest in software.
    peter

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •