01-28-2014, 06:42 AM
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.
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.