[blende8]

When you see that Sony is correcting vignetting, distortion and color errors already in the RAW file*, how can you perform accurate lens tests?

What you really do is testing a lens - body - software combo.

Perhaps one should check image quality also by turning the lens slightly out of the bajonett to make it fully manual.

 

 

*cp. http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.de/2012...-lens.html

also the new FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 seem to get in-RAW corrections.

[Klaus]

Honestly, all that matters is the end user perspective so if they correct all this in the RAW file it is more or less pointless to look beyond since it is part of the genes of the system. Partially, this is already the case on Fuji as well as MFT anyway so the discussion isn't new.

If we can we provide the naked figures plus the corrected ones. If not ... well ... such is life.

That being said it doesn't mean that the verdict gets better - due to the interpolation you always loose information which shows up in the MTFs for instance.

[blende8]

Honestly, all that matters is the end user perspective

 

Well, ok, but don't you want to know how good the "naked" lens is, e.g. a Zeiss?

Are the new FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 very good "as such" or only very good due to software tweaking?

 

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
That being said it doesn't mean that the verdict gets better - due to

the interpolation you always loose information which shows up in the

MTFs for instance.

</blockquote>
Possible.

But I note e.g. "sophisticated sharpening algorithms" and "Diffraction Reduction''.

[stoppingdown]

When you see that Sony is correcting vignetting, distortion and color errors already in the RAW file*, 

 

*cp. http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.de/2012...-lens.html

also the new FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 seem to get in-RAW corrections.

 

Indeed, I've heard a lot about in-raw corrections, but it's definitely not the case you're quoting. In fact Friedman wrote:



 

Mind you, these settings are not applied to the image data – they’re merely a footnote in the RAW file: “Oh, by the way, here’s what the camera’s settings were”.  They’re there so that high-end RAW processing software like Bibble, DxO, or Lightroom could take note of those settings when opening the RAW file, and automatically adjust the sliders to make it look like what the camera would have produced had it been shooting a .jpg.

... adding that Lightroom automatically applies the corrections, which can't be disabled. Still, the corrections are applied in post-production. If one would like to see the raw bits, he could just convert the raw with one of the many alternatives, such as dcraw.

 

Note that I'm not denying that manufacturers already tweak RAW bits: it's that I'd like to see a proof, and anyway it's not what Friedman wrote.

 

 

Honestly, all that matters is the end user perspective so if they correct all this in the RAW file it is more or less pointless to look beyond since it is part of the genes of the system. Partially, this is already the case on Fuji as well as MFT anyway so the discussion isn't new.

If we can we provide the naked figures plus the corrected ones. If not ... well ... such is life.

 

Amen, bro. 

[blende8]

I have no proof.

I just wanted to point out that the possibility exists and will probably utilized more and more in the future.

[thxbb12]

Honestly, all that matters is the end user perspective so if they correct all this in the RAW file it is more or less pointless to look beyond since it is part of the genes of the system. Partially, this is already the case on Fuji as well as MFT anyway so the discussion isn't new.

If we can we provide the naked figures plus the corrected ones. If not ... well ... such is life.

That being said it doesn't mean that the verdict gets better - due to the interpolation you always loose information which shows up in the MTFs for instance.

 

 

I think what matters is the final output regardless of the correction that happens before the RAW file is written on the SD card.

We always hear that such corrections affect the MFT results.

However, let's consider the review of the Olympus 12-40 which is heavily corrected for barrel distortion at 12mm. According to the whooping > 8% distortion at 12mm, one would assume it doesn't perform well at such focal length, especially in the corners. When looking at the resolution figures it doesn't appear to be the case at all. How do you explain this? Perhaps the figures would be even higher without correction?

Personally, I couldn't care less whether a lens is optically corrected or whether it's done in post processing. What counts is the en result: the resolution the whole system achieves. On the plus side, post capture corrections allows designers to create smaller lenses which is a good thing IMO.

[frank]

Correction of distortions also affects the effective focal length (or angle of view, more precisely) by stretching and cropping the image. In the case e.g. Oly 12-40mm f2.8, is the 12mm the FL before or after the software correction of distortion?

 

I tend to belive it is the FL after the correction since the correction is done automatically but I want to check.

[JJ_SO]

No matter if there's in-raw-correction or not, the testing is always the combination lens-body-software - please don't forget the targets and the analysis software, too. And since there's not much of a choice for those tiny µ4/3 lenses, that bit is part of the package. And the reason why I'm not very interested in small system cameras although that might be the future of photography.

 

I like details and I like them sharp and in high resolution. That doesn't mean, each photo needs that and it also doesn't mean, high resolving pictures are necessarily "better" than software-corrected ones. If there's a software-based correction in between, that still might lead to pleasing pictures, but in my prejudice also synthetical ones.

 

The resolution decreases in the corners just by correction algorithms which might fit in the pattern of the analysis software. I'm just not interested so much in target-photos  ^_^ 

 

My idea is, the effort of taking a picture is all the same. If you want a good result, it needs to be taken carefully. Composition is easier for me on a larger finder and also more direct than on a screen. So, why would i want to reduce the amount of possibly visible details by going for a small sensor and a lens which only performs well if the software is creating things the lens could not reproduce at the moment I pushed the button? Of course, if I don't want to carry much, I use a point and shoot. And not always the knowledge of "low-resolving" pictures does spoil the fun, at the opposite: Some shots were only possible with that tiny G11. But then, I want it small - no additional lenses or other stuff to carry around in a bag.

 

I really think, the camera doesn't help to make good pictures if one doesn't see them.

[Brightcolours]

Correction of distortions also affects the effective focal length (or angle of view, more precisely) by stretching and cropping the image. In the case e.g. Oly 12-40mm f2.8, is the 12mm the FL before or after the software correction of distortion?

 

I tend to belive it is the FL after the correction since the correction is done automatically but I want to check.

The focal length does not change. Uncorrected lenses or under corrected lenses just show a wider view (one can see uncorrected fish eye lenses as lenses with a LOT of barrel distortion). So, uncorrected it just will give a wider view than a corrected lens with the same focal length.

[frank]

The focal length does not change. Uncorrected lenses or under corrected lenses just show a wider view (one can see uncorrected fish eye lenses as lenses with a LOT of barrel distortion). So, uncorrected it just will give a wider view than a corrected lens with the same focal length.

 

I already wrote "(or angle of view, more precisely)".

 

Then, if the labeled 12mm FL for the wide end of the 12-40mm lens is the true FL at the wide end, then after the distortion correction the diagonal view angle of the image would be that of FL like 13mm? The native distortion at 12mm is very large, about 8% according to the test. On the other hand, it seems that the labeled FL at the two ends of a zoom lens is often not quite accurate.

 

My Nikor 16-35mm also has a high distortion at 16mm, about 5% I guess. Each time after I correct the distortion afterwards I clearly see the change in angle of view which I don't like. So I only correct the distortion when it is necessary.