On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think I should be clear about how I evaluate lens IQ.
>
> In the old days, we shot a highly detailed subject with fine grain film,
> using a tripod, and that was pretty much that.
>
> Now, cameras are correcting for linear distortion and CA. And the major
> review sites seem to be buying into the idea that what comes out is from
> the lens, rather than optics plus processing.
>
> How long before cameras are applying custom deconvolution? Is it a bad
> thing if optical compromises are changed to allow firm/software to correct
> those things they can, and optics changed to better correct the rest?
>
It's a little bit bad in a way. I don't remember the specifics, but I was
scanning a review of a Panasonic zoom and apparently the manufacturer's
assumption is that a number of corrections were acceptable in camera
firmware (software?), but if you mount this lens on an Olympus you're SOL,
as far as the corrections are concerned. I don't know if that would be
Pana's fault or Oly's fault, but it defeats the open-source "feel" of the
4/3 standard.
The scuttlebutt seems to be that Leica-badged Panny lenses have all their
corrections worked into the glass and design. The rest may depend on the
camera for correction. I guess those ones concern me a little. Maybe I'm
just being silly.
But I'd hate it if the kind of thing you are proposing defeated the common
4/3 mount and forced us to have to use only Oly lenses on Oly cameras, Pana
on Pana, and so forth.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|