1300 comments because Leica is using in-camera lens correction?

On Fri, 02 May 2014 20:21:58 -0400, John wrote:

Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
would need in-camera fixes.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1

There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of aspects
of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of this and you
are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of lens performance
which can be corrected out of the lens then, BINGO!, that's a whole
lot more scope to correct other problems within the lens. I think it's
a good idea and we can expect to see it adopted by other
manufacturers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 03 May 2014 12:54:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Fri, 02 May 2014 20:21:58 -0400, John wrote:
:
: Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
: would need in-camera fixes.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1
:
: There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of aspects
: of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of this and you
: are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of lens performance
: which can be corrected out of the lens then, BINGO!, that's a whole
: lot more scope to correct other problems within the lens. I think it's
: a good idea and we can expect to see it adopted by other manufacturers.

You're a little late with that prediction, aren't you? I'm under the
impression that all serious manufacturers do it already. All of my Canon
lenses have profiles that plug into DPP (and probably PS as well).

Bob

On Fri, 02 May 2014 21:42:01 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 03 May 2014 12:54:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Fri, 02 May 2014 20:21:58 -0400, John wrote:
:
: Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
: would need in-camera fixes.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1
:
: There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of aspects
: of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of this and you
: are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of lens performance
: which can be corrected out of the lens then, BINGO!, that's a whole
: lot more scope to correct other problems within the lens. I think it's
: a good idea and we can expect to see it adopted by other manufacturers.

You're a little late with that prediction, aren't you? I'm under the
impression that all serious manufacturers do it already. All of my Canon
lenses have profiles that plug into DPP (and probably PS as well).


As I understood the Leica release, the correction is made in the
camera. I could be wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014.05.02, 20:54 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 20:21:58 -0400, John wrote:

Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
would need in-camera fixes.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1

There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of aspects
of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of this and you
are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of lens performance
which can be corrected out of the lens then, BINGO!, that's a whole
lot more scope to correct other problems within the lens. I think it's
a good idea and we can expect to see it adopted by other
manufacturers.

Exactly right. Engineering is about making something meet a requirement
or spec. Something always gives way to something else.

Olympus (for one) was doing this with some of its 4/3 lenses a few years
ago as well on a lens by lens basis. IIRC correctly each lens had a
table of measurements (or corrections) that the camera could read and
apply to the image (whether in-camera or post I don't recall but most
likely in-camera).

--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

John:
Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
would need in-camera fixes.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1

There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of
aspects of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of
this and you are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of
lens performance which can be corrected out of the lens then,
BINGO!, that's a whole lot more scope to correct other problems
within the lens. I think it's a good idea and we can expect to see
it adopted by other manufacturers.

Other manufacturers do it already (Sony, Fuji etc), the thing here is that
Leica is supposed to be better, and build better lenses. This is not a bad
lens though, and I agree with you that it's not a problem. The end result
is what's interesting, not what kind of "tricks" Leica employs to get the
end result. The lens is getting rave reviews so it's not like it's a lousy
lens and they're trying to cover it up.

Reportedly Leia said something that DP inferred as there wouldn't be ANY
sofwtare corrections, and since we don't know exactly what was said, it's
hard to verify.

You should look at a shot from the Sony RX1 without lens correctiong. Lots
of vignetting and distortion, yet it scores super high at DXO.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Robert Coe:
: : Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C
lens : would need in-camera fixes. : :
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1
: : There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of
aspects : of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of
this and you : are able to correct less of that. If there aspects
of lens performance : which can be corrected out of the lens then,
BINGO!, that's a whole : lot more scope to correct other
problems within the lens. I think it's : a good idea and we can
expect to see it adopted by other manufacturers.

You're a little late with that prediction, aren't you? I'm under
the impression that all serious manufacturers do it already. All
of my Canon lenses have profiles that plug into DPP (and probably
PS as well).

As I understood the Leica release, the correction is made in the
camera. I could be wrong.

You understood correctly. And while this isn't done in Nikon and Canon
(yet) it is done in your Sony or Fujigilm mirrorless cameras a lot these
days.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
would need in-camera fixes.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...ing-in-camera-
software-corrections?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_m
edium=text&ref=title_0_1

There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of
aspects of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of
this and you are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of
lens performance which can be corrected out of the lens then,
BINGO!, that's a whole lot more scope to correct other problems
within the lens. I think it's a good idea and we can expect to see
it adopted by other manufacturers.

Other manufacturers do it already (Sony, Fuji etc), the thing here is that
Leica is supposed to be better, and build better lenses. This is not a bad
lens though, and I agree with you that it's not a problem. The end result
is what's interesting, not what kind of "tricks" Leica employs to get the
end result. The lens is getting rave reviews so it's not like it's a lousy
lens and they're trying to cover it up.

as you say, the end result is what matters.

however, correcting aberrations in the camera is not a trick. it's just
another place to do it, something that was not possible until now and
for certain things, more effective.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

As I understood the Leica release, the correction is made in the
camera. I could be wrong.

You understood correctly. And while this isn't done in Nikon and Canon
(yet) it is done in your Sony or Fujigilm mirrorless cameras a lot these
days.

nikon does and i assume canon is not significantly different.

here's one such camera:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600A4.HTM
The Nikon D600 includes the ability to automatically correct or
reduce geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, and lens shading
(vignetting), as JPEG images are captured. Raw files are not
corrected, but are tagged for correction by a compatible raw
converter. Movies are not corrected.

In article , nospam wrote:

In article , Sandman

Eric Stevens:
As I understood the Leica release, the correction is made in the
camera. I could be wrong.

Sandman:
You understood correctly. And while this isn't done in Nikon and
Canon (yet) it is done in your Sony or Fujigilm mirrorless cameras
a lot these days.

nikon does and i assume canon is not significantly different.

here's one such camera:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600A4.HTM
The Nikon D600 includes the ability to automatically correct or
reduce geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, and lens shading
(vignetting), as JPEG images are captured. Raw files are not
corrected, but are tagged for correction by a compatible raw
converter. Movies are not corrected.

Oh, I didn't know that. But it only works with Nikon lenses, I assume,
where the D600 would know about the lens profile.

It seems a bit unneccesary as well, since the appropriate lens profile will
be loaded regardless in ACR, but I didn't know the D600 applied it
automatically to the JPG images.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Sat, 03 May 2014 12:05:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Wow! I can understand it. You wouldn't think a $2000 APS-C lens
would need in-camera fixes.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...ing-in-camera-
software-corrections?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_m
edium=text&ref=title_0_1

There is nothing really wrong with this. There are a number of
aspects of lens design which require compromises: correct moe of
this and you are able to correct less of that. If there aspects of
lens performance which can be corrected out of the lens then,
BINGO!, that's a whole lot more scope to correct other problems
within the lens. I think it's a good idea and we can expect to see
it adopted by other manufacturers.

Other manufacturers do it already (Sony, Fuji etc), the thing here is that
Leica is supposed to be better, and build better lenses. This is not a bad
lens though, and I agree with you that it's not a problem. The end result
is what's interesting, not what kind of "tricks" Leica employs to get the
end result. The lens is getting rave reviews so it's not like it's a lousy
lens and they're trying to cover it up.

as you say, the end result is what matters.

however, correcting aberrations in the camera is not a trick. it's just
another place to do it, something that was not possible until now and
for certain things, more effective.

It makes sure the corrections are done properly thereby making life
easier for the lens designer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens