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

On 2014.05.03, 17:51 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Yes indeed. Iit's the combo of design and post processing the signal
where some of the transfer ("processing") function of the lens has been
moved to software (firmware).

It's just good engineering. And if the results are great ...

(I don't know if they've passed on the recurring savings to the end
customer, however).

--
"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