Software corrected lenses a trend?

**Rondec** · 07-10-2021, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I disagree, I have corrected for barrel distortion on both ultra wide and fisheye lenses, and also have shot ultra wide for many years. The difference between 16 mm and 18 missed huge in terms of FOV. You buy wide angle lenses not for focal length but for field of view if the lens is only useable in corrected format, then the camera companies should somewhere give both corrected and I corrected equivalents

I don't disagree, but there seem to be a lot of people who are OK with it if it gives them smaller lenses that test well on reviews, even if they aren't quite as good in the real world. Since you can't shoot these lenses on any other camera than the MILC they are designed to shoot, unless you do some chicanery like Lens Rentals did, you will never know how much baking is going on in the RAW image before you ever see the images.

**Michail_P** · 07-10-2021, 02:12 PM

I regularly use lens correction in Ps. Gives me a peace of mind. But sometimes the distortion is very welcome , as it enhances the perspective, especially in deliberately tilted photos. I mostly shoot raw so I have control over it.

house · 07-10-2021, 02:31 PM

The mirrorless lenses usually take into account the correction in such a way that its approximately the stated fl (or fov of that fl) *after* correction.

**Cerebum** · 07-10-2021, 04:09 PM

I have learned something here. I didn’t know the evf shows the corrected view, but then I also didn’t know lenses were corrected to that extent. To be honest it doesn’t really matter if a lens/image is corrected. Presumably the lenses in question aren’t cheap, so, you are only likely to use a modern correctable lens on the camera it is designed for. Meaning, all you will see is the image as the manufacturer intended. Happy days

**clickclick** · 07-10-2021, 04:19 PM

I'd think at some point software has to make assumptions that under some conditions might not be ideal, so in a perfect world, the more that can be done optically on the front side, the better. I also like being able to control this type of thing. I often find I like images more without correcting for distortion. For whatever reason, they sometimes look more natural to me. But on something like purple fringing, it would be nice to eliminate it. So perhaps a balance here is the answer. Design the best lens you can for a target size, weight, price etc, and then use software corrections to maximize the result. I'd still like to have that on/off toggle switch though. I can't help but think of all the debate on noise reduction kicking in automatically above ISO 640 on the K-1 II.....

stevebrot · 07-10-2021, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Some raw converters can read data from the raw files.

Yes, for those makers that embed the lens profiles in their proprietary RAW (Sony, M4/3, and Fuji), according to the article), it is available to be read by Capture One and other products. Apparently,such is not the case in Pentaxia or the good folk at ExifTool would have found it. Ditto for the makers of DCU (requires updates to support new lenses). At the file level, DNG does not directly support such and it is definitely not a feature of PEF.

I guess that is a good thing, no?

Steve

**DWS1** · 07-10-2021, 06:56 PM

Massive software corrections of lenses instead of designing them correctly in the first place, goes along with the the crowd that believes composition and lighting doesn't matter that much, all one has to do is snap the shutter, then fix everything in post.

**UncleVanya** · 07-10-2021, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by DWS1

Massive software corrections of lenses instead of designing them correctly in the first place, goes along with the the crowd that believes composition and lighting doesn't matter that much, all one has to do is snap the shutter, then fix everything in post.

I’m not sure that’s fair. The software corrections can be a valid design choice. The key is that the trade off needs to be understood by the buyers. I’m personally not bothered by the fa 50 but by modern standards it isn’t worth owning. It vignettes strongly wide open, it is soft on all edges, it isn’t fantastic in high contrast situations due to color fringing - now what if you had a new lens with a design between the dfa 50 f1.4 and the fa 50 f1.4 and using software profiles you got 95% of the dfa 50 f1.4?

**Cerebum** · 07-11-2021, 01:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I’m not sure that’s fair. The software corrections can be a valid design choice. The key is that the trade off needs to be understood by the buyers. I’m personally not bothered by the fa 50 but by modern standards it isn’t worth owning. It vignettes strongly wide open, it is soft on all edges, it isn’t fantastic in high contrast situations due to color fringing - now what if you had a new lens with a design between the dfa 50 f1.4 and the fa 50 f1.4 and using software profiles you got 95% of the dfa 50 f1.4?

I think we are the wrong people to judge. Here in Pentaxland we take great pride in the quality and character of lenses. I believe that Pentax, Nikon and some canon shooters have a connection with the history of their brand through their older glass, and appreciate things those new to photography often overlook. Sony image quality is phenomenal so its users are right to be proud of it but are possibly happily unaware of the tech tricks that are going on in camera in order to get that great image. I think they have a different mindset, as, quite possibly do many who are relatively new to photography. (Apart from Pentaxians, even new pentaxians soon get into older glass for a variety of reasons) I love making photos. I love the feel and character of old and new lenses. A lot of the time I get more of a buzz from how my camera feels than I do from the image. This is why I shoot so many, its a really nice journey. A modern photographer will be more about image quality and the immediacy of modern mirrorless cameras. If a lens design is flawed, but, with a bit of tech it can be made to sing, that's fine! The target market won't care a jot. Its horses for courses. If you only care about the image, whatever does the job is great, but if you invest yourself in lens and camera character, ...... well it would drive me nuts. I would feel like I wasn't in full control and for me the image would be significantly devalued.

On a side note. DP review didn't like the accelerator chip baking a touch of sharpness into the raw, but they are OK with flawed lenses being fixed in camera. Oooooh hold on, this thread is about modern Canikony glass isn't it.... Yeah, that figures

**UncleVanya** · 07-11-2021, 06:12 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Cerebum

On a side note. DP review didn't like the accelerator chip baking a touch of sharpness into the raw, but they are OK with flawed lenses being fixed in camera. Oooooh hold on, this thread is about modern Canikony glass isn't it.... Yeah, that figures

LOL - to be perfectly fair most of the corrections Sony bakes in are able to be disabled in RAW these days. IF Pentax would just allow that I think DP Review wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The same goes for Pentax not creating a firmware release to tell your SDM/Screwdrive lenses which system to use - it would be trivial to do - and could be limited to current models if desired. Sure it only impacts 5 lenses - but the goodwill it would sow is huge.

tokyoscape · 07-11-2021, 07:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

...Sony bakes in are able to be disabled in RAW these days. IF Pentax would just allow that I think DP Review wouldn't have a leg to stand on...

I just want to say, I couldn't agree more with this statement. I like new technology being added, but it needs to be a way to turn it off when the user prefers not to use it.

Thwyllo · 07-12-2021, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by sbc

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Optical Limits (Photozone) is my favorite site for lens reviews.
I noticed many new mirrorless lenses depend on software for heavy corrections.
I hope Ricoh will never ever follow suit for Pentax lenses.

I'd say the trend is to software corrected everything. Obviously for professionals who want it there will be some form of manual override but I think any manufacturer who wants to stay in business and maintain volume has to ensure the whole 'camera experience' is as close as possible to that which people get on their (heavily corrected) smartphones, otherwise they risk losing future converts.

And why not. It's the image that matters at the end of the day - does it really matter that much to you how the camera gets there so long as any lens corrections can either be switched off or are there for a good reason and doesn't impact your images negatively?

CharlySchramm · 07-12-2021, 08:05 AM

Saw a youtube video of a german youtuber unscrewing a sony lens just a little bit... colors and field were totally bad after that. The youtuber wondered wether they will make third party lenses "look bad" with software in the future.

house · 07-12-2021, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by CharlySchramm

Saw a youtube video of a german youtuber unscrewing a sony lens just a little bit... colors and field were totally bad after that. The youtuber wondered wether they will make third party lenses "look bad" with software in the future.

To a certain extent thats already the case. Only OEM lenses get the forced corrections right?

maurizm · 07-12-2021, 11:55 AM

Why? I am not a feticist: provided all cameras or sw can apply it, and provided that the files come
out clean, this could lead to cheaper and lighter lenses for the same image quality or even better, with wider apertures. Why using costly and heavy glass when sw can achieve the same results? To acquire bragging rights?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wide-angle lenses which are well corrected for coma	Bertrand3000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-01-2020 11:44 PM
CIPA April 2020: trend continues	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	5	06-03-2020 08:39 PM
Nature Mi-Wuk Village - Corrected Shots	ginnyfoos	Post Your Photos!	2	12-23-2019 09:46 AM
Disturbing trend - giving up all rights to photos!	UncleVanya	Photographic Industry and Professionals	45	05-21-2019 06:46 PM
Lenses with Pentax Mount that are Fast, Well-Corrected, and Sharp Wide-Open	MichaelErlewine	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	17	06-08-2016 05:43 PM

07-10-2021, 02:08 PM	#31
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I disagree, I have corrected for barrel distortion on both ultra wide and fisheye lenses, and also have shot ultra wide for many years. The difference between 16 mm and 18 missed huge in terms of FOV. You buy wide angle lenses not for focal length but for field of view if the lens is only useable in corrected format, then the camera companies should somewhere give both corrected and I corrected equivalents I don't disagree, but there seem to be a lot of people who are OK with it if it gives them smaller lenses that test well on reviews, even if they aren't quite as good in the real world. Since you can't shoot these lenses on any other camera than the MILC they are designed to shoot, unless you do some chicanery like Lens Rentals did, you will never know how much baking is going on in the RAW image before you ever see the images.

07-10-2021, 02:12 PM	#32
Michail_P Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2019 Location: Kalymnos Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,006	I regularly use lens correction in Ps. Gives me a peace of mind. But sometimes the distortion is very welcome , as it enhances the perspective, especially in deliberately tilted photos. I mostly shoot raw so I have control over it.

07-10-2021, 02:31 PM	#33
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	The mirrorless lenses usually take into account the correction in such a way that its approximately the stated fl (or fov of that fl) after correction.

07-10-2021, 04:09 PM	#34
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	I have learned something here. I didn’t know the evf shows the corrected view, but then I also didn’t know lenses were corrected to that extent. To be honest it doesn’t really matter if a lens/image is corrected. Presumably the lenses in question aren’t cheap, so, you are only likely to use a modern correctable lens on the camera it is designed for. Meaning, all you will see is the image as the manufacturer intended. Happy days

07-10-2021, 04:19 PM	#35
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	I'd think at some point software has to make assumptions that under some conditions might not be ideal, so in a perfect world, the more that can be done optically on the front side, the better. I also like being able to control this type of thing. I often find I like images more without correcting for distortion. For whatever reason, they sometimes look more natural to me. But on something like purple fringing, it would be nice to eliminate it. So perhaps a balance here is the answer. Design the best lens you can for a target size, weight, price etc, and then use software corrections to maximize the result. I'd still like to have that on/off toggle switch though. I can't help but think of all the debate on noise reduction kicking in automatically above ISO 640 on the K-1 II.....

07-10-2021, 04:45 PM	#36
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by UncleVanya Some raw converters can read data from the raw files. Yes, for those makers that embed the lens profiles in their proprietary RAW (Sony, M4/3, and Fuji), according to the article), it is available to be read by Capture One and other products. Apparently,such is not the case in Pentaxia or the good folk at ExifTool would have found it. Ditto for the makers of DCU (requires updates to support new lenses). At the file level, DNG does not directly support such and it is definitely not a feature of PEF. I guess that is a good thing, no? Steve

07-10-2021, 06:56 PM	#37
DWS1 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 1,169	Massive software corrections of lenses instead of designing them correctly in the first place, goes along with the the crowd that believes composition and lighting doesn't matter that much, all one has to do is snap the shutter, then fix everything in post.

07-10-2021, 07:12 PM	#38
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,375	Originally posted by DWS1 Massive software corrections of lenses instead of designing them correctly in the first place, goes along with the the crowd that believes composition and lighting doesn't matter that much, all one has to do is snap the shutter, then fix everything in post. I’m not sure that’s fair. The software corrections can be a valid design choice. The key is that the trade off needs to be understood by the buyers. I’m personally not bothered by the fa 50 but by modern standards it isn’t worth owning. It vignettes strongly wide open, it is soft on all edges, it isn’t fantastic in high contrast situations due to color fringing - now what if you had a new lens with a design between the dfa 50 f1.4 and the fa 50 f1.4 and using software profiles you got 95% of the dfa 50 f1.4?

07-11-2021, 01:33 AM - 1 Like	#39
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	Originally posted by UncleVanya I’m not sure that’s fair. The software corrections can be a valid design choice. The key is that the trade off needs to be understood by the buyers. I’m personally not bothered by the fa 50 but by modern standards it isn’t worth owning. It vignettes strongly wide open, it is soft on all edges, it isn’t fantastic in high contrast situations due to color fringing - now what if you had a new lens with a design between the dfa 50 f1.4 and the fa 50 f1.4 and using software profiles you got 95% of the dfa 50 f1.4? I think we are the wrong people to judge. Here in Pentaxland we take great pride in the quality and character of lenses. I believe that Pentax, Nikon and some canon shooters have a connection with the history of their brand through their older glass, and appreciate things those new to photography often overlook. Sony image quality is phenomenal so its users are right to be proud of it but are possibly happily unaware of the tech tricks that are going on in camera in order to get that great image. I think they have a different mindset, as, quite possibly do many who are relatively new to photography. (Apart from Pentaxians, even new pentaxians soon get into older glass for a variety of reasons) I love making photos. I love the feel and character of old and new lenses. A lot of the time I get more of a buzz from how my camera feels than I do from the image. This is why I shoot so many, its a really nice journey. A modern photographer will be more about image quality and the immediacy of modern mirrorless cameras. If a lens design is flawed, but, with a bit of tech it can be made to sing, that's fine! The target market won't care a jot. Its horses for courses. If you only care about the image, whatever does the job is great, but if you invest yourself in lens and camera character, ...... well it would drive me nuts. I would feel like I wasn't in full control and for me the image would be significantly devalued. On a side note. DP review didn't like the accelerator chip baking a touch of sharpness into the raw, but they are OK with flawed lenses being fixed in camera. Oooooh hold on, this thread is about modern Canikony glass isn't it.... Yeah, that figures

07-11-2021, 06:12 PM - 1 Like	#40
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,375	Originally posted by Cerebum On a side note. DP review didn't like the accelerator chip baking a touch of sharpness into the raw, but they are OK with flawed lenses being fixed in camera. Oooooh hold on, this thread is about modern Canikony glass isn't it.... Yeah, that figures LOL - to be perfectly fair most of the corrections Sony bakes in are able to be disabled in RAW these days. IF Pentax would just allow that I think DP Review wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The same goes for Pentax not creating a firmware release to tell your SDM/Screwdrive lenses which system to use - it would be trivial to do - and could be limited to current models if desired. Sure it only impacts 5 lenses - but the goodwill it would sow is huge.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2021, 07:05 PM - 1 Like	#41
tokyoscape Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,256	Originally posted by UncleVanya ...Sony bakes in are able to be disabled in RAW these days. IF Pentax would just allow that I think DP Review wouldn't have a leg to stand on... I just want to say, I couldn't agree more with this statement. I like new technology being added, but it needs to be a way to turn it off when the user prefers not to use it.

07-12-2021, 07:56 AM	#42
Thwyllo Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2021 Location: Hautes Pyrenees, France. Posts: 121	Originally posted by sbc Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis Optical Limits (Photozone) is my favorite site for lens reviews. I noticed many new mirrorless lenses depend on software for heavy corrections. I hope Ricoh will never ever follow suit for Pentax lenses. I'd say the trend is to software corrected everything. Obviously for professionals who want it there will be some form of manual override but I think any manufacturer who wants to stay in business and maintain volume has to ensure the whole 'camera experience' is as close as possible to that which people get on their (heavily corrected) smartphones, otherwise they risk losing future converts. And why not. It's the image that matters at the end of the day - does it really matter that much to you how the camera gets there so long as any lens corrections can either be switched off or are there for a good reason and doesn't impact your images negatively?

07-12-2021, 08:05 AM	#43
CharlySchramm New Member Join Date: Dec 2020 Posts: 13	Saw a youtube video of a german youtuber unscrewing a sony lens just a little bit... colors and field were totally bad after that. The youtuber wondered wether they will make third party lenses "look bad" with software in the future.

07-12-2021, 09:53 AM	#44
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by CharlySchramm Saw a youtube video of a german youtuber unscrewing a sony lens just a little bit... colors and field were totally bad after that. The youtuber wondered wether they will make third party lenses "look bad" with software in the future. To a certain extent thats already the case. Only OEM lenses get the forced corrections right?

07-12-2021, 11:55 AM	#45
maurizm New Member Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 16	Why? I am not a feticist: provided all cameras or sw can apply it, and provided that the files come out clean, this could lead to cheaper and lighter lenses for the same image quality or even better, with wider apertures. Why using costly and heavy glass when sw can achieve the same results? To acquire bragging rights?