On 06 Jan 2010, at 11:09 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I agree that it would be exciting to have CV do stuff for the m4/3
> range, but there would be 2 obstacles:
>
> 1. Crop factor would cause extra obstacles.
> 2. You would have to be a keen photog to want to use stop-down
> metering all the time.
No, I meant for them to develop a new line of lenses for m4/3, with
automatic diaphragms etc.
Purpose-designed for the mount, with electronics etc. They have the
mechanical, optical and electronic
skills for this already, and I see m4/3 as a potential goldmine of a
market. I did not refer to the
(current practice) of adapting manual M-mount lenses to m4/3.
>
> And ...
>
> Where have you found that the 20/1.7 needs a load of correction in
> software?
Most m4/3 lenses have high resolution, but are complete dogs when it
comes to distortion and chromatic
abberation. Like really, really bad - not the cheapeast plastic zoom
for any SLR distorts as bad as
the M-Zuiko 17mm f/2.8. The in-camera software geometrically corrects
the images, and even when shooting
RAW, most RAW converters do this conversion "under the hood". If you
look at the "real" RAW output
(using something like DCRaw) of almost any of
the m4/3 lenses, they almost look like fisheye lenses. Really really
bad distortion, tons of CA.
They say it's to make the lenses small, but Leica and Minox have
happily made much better, smaller,
faster lenses for decades.
> And your point about the M-Zuiko 17/2.8: what do you mean by
> "compromised retrofocus design"?
A retrofocus wide angle will never be as good as a non-retrofocus
design. They have to bend the light
a lot more, and are inevitable never as good, or HUGE (i.e. Nikkor
14-24). m4/3 alows ample space
for a much better, non-retrofocus 17mm wide-angle, but Olympus chose
to make it a retrofocus design, even
though it's not at all telecentric like most of the normal FourThirds
lenses.
I've always found that a weird decision. They should have rather used,
say, the Biogon design for the 17mm.
They could have kept the size the same, made it an f/2, and it could
have been a much better lens.
> [I have the Panasonic LX3 which needs quite a bit of correction,
> particularly at the wide end (24mm equivalent), so it would come as
> no surprise that the 20mm was similarly designed. And I have read
> your previous posts about the fringing produced by the 17mm.]
>
> Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|