Certainly know who pays the bills at Dpreview

On 21/02/2016 14:39, RichA wrote:
Never once did Dpreview remark that buying a cheap D610 Nikon or slightly more expensive Nikon D750 was just the beginning and that outfitting either with suitable lenses makes it a much more expensive proposition. But they did with the Pentax K1. Just as with the Pentax, you can put cheap older lenses on the Nikon's but you will rarely if ever match the performance of modern, expensive optimized FX lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4721...frame#comments

Crap.
Nikkor 50mm f1.8g (cost $120 or something), 18-35G (inexpensive w/a zoom
- cost me about US$500 new on sale) perform great on my D800E, The
inexpensive 85mm 1.8G is supposed to be great too.
You do not /need/ to spend a fortune on fast glass.
Plenty of aftermarket choices too.
Pentax FX glass will be old - and like similar age Nikkors, there will
be some hit and miss with performance on high MP FX digital. DPR
probably made a reasonable observation - Pentax have some catch-up to do.

On 27/02/2016 19:32, Rich A wrote:
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 5:15:37 AM UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 21/02/2016 14:39, RichA wrote:
Never once did Dpreview remark that buying a cheap D610 Nikon or slightly more expensive Nikon D750 was just the beginning and that outfitting either with suitable lenses makes it a much more expensive proposition. But they did with the Pentax K1. Just as with the Pentax, you can put cheap older lenses on the Nikon's but you will rarely if ever match the performance of modern, expensive optimized FX lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4721...frame#comments

Crap.
Nikkor 50mm f1.8g (cost $120 or something), 18-35G (inexpensive w/a zoom
- cost me about US$500 new on sale) perform great on my D800E, The
inexpensive 85mm 1.8G is supposed to be great too.
You do not /need/ to spend a fortune on fast glass.
Plenty of aftermarket choices too.
Pentax FX glass will be old - and like similar age Nikkors, there will
be some hit and miss with performance on high MP FX digital. DPR ut no probably made a reasonable observation - Pentax have some catch-up to do.

More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again, Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming. Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

In article , Me
wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

In article ,
RichA wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF
sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely
(if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is
coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera
correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

I'd make it optional, if possible, but it's not a bad idea to do it.

it's always optional.

either don't apply the corrections or use a raw converter that doesn't
know how to interpret them and *can't* apply them.

If it
reduces the cost of the lenses themselves especially.

not only reduce the cost, but they can be much better than they
otherwise could.

On 2016-02-27 17:37:28 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 27 February 2016 09:46:59 UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

I'd make it optional, if possible, but it's not a bad idea to do it.
If it reduces the cost of the lenses themselves especially.

If you are an Adobe PS/LR user you can always create your own lens
profile for correction in post. When I first got my Tokina 11-16mm
f/2.8 I had to build my own lens profile.
http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/lensprofile_creator/lensprofile_creator_userguide.pdf

--


Regards,

Savageduck

On 28/02/2016 03:46, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

It leaves the raw data untouched.
RichA comments that it's likely (if it hasn't happened already) or
"coming". That's been a standard feature for years.
What I read from his comments - presuming he knew about auto correction
- was that instead of metadata - then altering raw data (so it's not raw
at all) is coming. I hope not - it's bad enough that some makers apply
noise reduction to supposedly "raw" files.
Many old "AF-D" lenses dating back to the '90s are included in Nikon's
lens distortion data. Pre "D" AF lenses and MF lenses, auto CA
correction still works and if you want trivially simple distortion
correction, there are plenty of options for PP.

You don't "need" modern expensive top of the line lenses with high MP
FX. Plenty of inexpensive lenses perform fantastically, and even lenses
which might not be the best performers will be better on high MP FX than
low MP FX.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:46:53 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Me
wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

Isn't this what DxO and (to a lesser extent) Adobe do already?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-02-27 20:55:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:46:53 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Me
wrote:


More miss than hits. Notwithstanding stopped-down old lenses, you need
modern, corrected glass (Nikon FX) to get top performance from FF sensors
with high megapixel counts. None of the Pentax Limited stuff is good
enough and any lenses they or Nikon make will cost a lot, which, again,
Dpreview pointed out, but never about Nikon or Canon. Also, it's likely (if
it hasn't happened already) in-camera lens correction for RAW is coming.
Once that happens, notable older lenses may be more usable than they are
now by fixing some of the aberrations, the ones that in-camera correction
can fix anyway.

How old are the lenses you're talking about? Decades?
In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

Isn't this what DxO and (to a lesser extent) Adobe do already?

Except that DxO and Adobe ACR/LR lens profiles are not available for
all lenses. I don't know what tools DxO provides for users to build
there own profiles, but Adobe dose give you their *Lens Profile
Creator*, and with a little work you could build your custom profile.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

Isn't this what DxO and (to a lesser extent) Adobe do already?

no.

they use generic lens profiles, not corrections based on the actual
lens formula, known only to the manufacturer.

On 2/27/2016 4:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In-camera correction of lens aberrations for raw files isn't possible.

sure it is. write the corrections to metadata and apply it when the raw
is processed.

Isn't this what DxO and (to a lesser extent) Adobe do already?

no.

they use generic lens profiles, not corrections based on the actual
lens formula, known only to the manufacturer.


I have noticed that the Nikon Capture NX2 seems to do a slightly more
accurate job of lens correction, than either DXO or PS. I suspect you
have stated the reason.

--
PeterN