[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.