On 5/20/2014 6:17 AM, DZDub wrote:
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,
Oly applies linear distortion correction, but not CA, Panny both.
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.
Yes, one wonders if it is a turf war or aesthetic differences. CA is pretty easy to correct in post, but just another
step...
Some time ago, I applied distortion correction to a WA shot. Worked wonders for the overall image, but badly distorted a
previously clear little thing in a far corner. I seem to recall that whichever of PTLens and ACR I'd used, I tried the
other, with the same result. I've wondered occasionally whether the in camera correction so common nowadays is any better.
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.
My bet would be that the higher prices allow some better correction, but that there is still some being applied by the
camera.
I guess those ones concern me a little. Maybe I'm just being silly.
If obsessing at 100% like Moose, yeah, probably. :-)
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.
I don't find that to be true at all. I freely use my Oly lenses on the GX7. I've also used Panny lenses on Oly; less
frequently, as I 'only' have four Panny lenses. The 20/1.7 has been most used, with excellent results.
I have not as yet used an Oly lens on the GM1, nor think I will. But that's an entirely different issue - the diminutive
GM1 has no IBIS, so depends on lens IS. I only use it with the tiny matching 12-32 and the smallish 45-150 IS Pannys.
Mix 'N Match Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|