On 7/1/2021 8:35 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
I've got Michael's old E-3, 12-60 SWD, and 50-200 SWD sitting here
next to me.
You need a nice 7-14mm f/4 SHQ to go with that? I hung onto it, although I only
use the 7-14/2.8 for MFT these days.
That was my prized system for some time. The 7-14 won me two magazine covers. I
still haul out the E-3 now and then, and use the 12-60 and 50-200 fairly often
I sorta miss using the 7-14/4. It is outstanding optically, whereas the 7-14/2.8 gets a
lot of love via lens profile corrections, automagically applied, even to so-called
Slight, pedantic, clarification. The Raw files are actually Raw; lens corrections are not applied to the Raw file itself
by the camera. They are applied automatically, without the option of turning them off, by LR/Camera Raw and by Oly's Raw
My suspicion is that Adobe did a deal to get Oly/Panny's own profiles, rather that develop their own, and paid by not
allowing those profiles to be turned off. The benefit to Oly/Panny is obvious; convert in an Adobe product and it looks
like the lens is well corrected.
Use a converter such as RawTherapee, and see what actually came out of the lens. Use DxO PhotoLab, and you can switch
between unaltered Raw and DxO's profiles.
Comparisons of the Oly/LR/CR profiles with those from DxO and PTlens shows that the µ4/3 profiles (at least the WA ones
I checked) are slightly conservative; they don't completely correct linear distortion. I speculate that this is both to
minimize corner smearing/loss of detail and shape and minimize loss of AoV.
I imagine your 7-14/2.8 loses part of the AoV you paid for, compared to the old 7-14/4. DxO also allows correction
without losing AoV. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DXO/GateRawConv.htm>
Details Details Moose
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/