[Archone]

And I was wondering when someone would get to this part. So the newer software corrected lenses will only be used on the newer cameras. At this point,I have to wonder about the creep toward obsolescence. Historically, lenses had very long useful lifespans that outlived maybe three or four bodies.

Camera manufacturers have tried to mitigate the losses by a variety of marketing methods. 1) Starter lenses on APS-C that are then useless on full frame. 2) More plastic components that wear out quicker. 3) Forcing lens upgrades that don’t resolve high enough due to the megapixel wars. This is not a conspiracy. These are totally valid marketing tools after all, if you’re happy with the quality of your fifteen year old system, you don’t need to upgrade. But thats now how we work.

At some point, I suspect that software correction (or lets call it what it is, computational photography) will actually be fully baked into the actual design of the lens. So if the manufacturer discontinues support of the lens…. Well. That would be like trying to run your copy of your original PC version of Microsoft Word on you new Windows 11 system. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t, maybe it will work a little.

Maybe Pentax/Ricoh will be the holdout. Or maybe Pentax will be the holdout and Ricoh will be the leading edge company?

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.

[Fogel70]

And I was wondering when someone would get to this part. So the newer software corrected lenses will only be used on the newer cameras. At this point,I have to wonder about the creep toward obsolescence. Historically, lenses had very long useful lifespans that outlived maybe three or four bodies.

Camera manufacturers have tried to mitigate the losses by a variety of marketing methods. 1) Starter lenses on APS-C that are then useless on full frame. 2) More plastic components that wear out quicker. 3) Forcing lens upgrades that don’t resolve high enough due to the megapixel wars. This is not a conspiracy. These are totally valid marketing tools after all, if you’re happy with the quality of your fifteen year old system, you don’t need to upgrade. But thats now how we work.

At some point, I suspect that software correction (or lets call it what it is, computational photography) will actually be fully baked into the actual design of the lens. So if the manufacturer discontinues support of the lens…. Well. That would be like trying to run your copy of your original PC version of Microsoft Word on you new Windows 11 system. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t, maybe it will work a little.

Maybe Pentax/Ricoh will be the holdout. Or maybe Pentax will be the holdout and Ricoh will be the leading edge company?

This have also led to much lower prices on camera equipment over the years. Making it more accessible to more people.

K1000 with 55mm kit lens was priced $300 when introduced in 1976, which is equivalent in value of what a K1 II and K3 III cost today.
But there are many other options today at lower value.

[Kunzite]

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?

That is not possible. Unless perhaps the design itself is "95% of the dfa 50 f1.4". There's a lot of effort in optimizing the D FA*'s image quality - not just for test charts, but at all focus distances; and you can't easily replicate it with software.
Vignetting and distortion are easy. Making up sharpness (for example) is another matter.

By the way, the RF 50mm f/1.8 vignettes heavily, 3.5 stops uncorrected (and 1.5 corrected), while the RF 50mm f/1.2 has 3.2 stops uncorrected and 1.4 stops corrected.
The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 has 1.3 stops, and the FA , about 1.6.

[Kunzite]

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.

To be perfectly fair, most people won't ever see an uncorrected image - as they're more likely using e.g. Adobe than RawTherapee.

And don't all current mirrorless systems use such RAW corrections? Or should I say, don't they all use such RAW corrections on top on RAW data processing?

[UncleVanya]

To be perfectly fair, most people won't ever see an uncorrected image - as they're more likely using e.g. Adobe than RawTherapee.

And don't all current mirrorless systems use such RAW corrections? Or should I say, don't they all use such RAW corrections on top on RAW data processing?

They don't - the converters do. The data is available and the converters are free to ignore it. But most prefer to see what the intended output is and choose to either apply lens corrections via profiles or other methods even if the raw converter doesn't do it automatically.

---------- Post added 07-14-21 at 12:41 AM ----------

That is not possible. Unless perhaps the design itself is "95% of the dfa 50 f1.4". There's a lot of effort in optimizing the D FA*'s image quality - not just for test charts, but at all focus distances; and you can't easily replicate it with software.
Vignetting and distortion are easy. Making up sharpness (for example) is another matter.

By the way, the RF 50mm f/1.8 vignettes heavily, 3.5 stops uncorrected (and 1.5 corrected), while the RF 50mm f/1.2 has 3.2 stops uncorrected and 1.4 stops corrected.
The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 has 1.3 stops, and the FA , about 1.6.

In many ways this is like a prime vs. zoom argument. There was a time when primes ruled professional photography. Then zooms got better... and better... and better... until generally speaking no pro would be without a zoom. They may still use and prefer primes for some tasks but the zoom is too good to not use given the usefulness. Mirrorless corrections were (and some lenses still are) pretty terrible to begin with. The optical designs and the software have improved. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (tanstafl) but there's perfect, and good enough.

[Kunzite]

They don't - the converters do. The data is available and the converters are free to ignore it. But most prefer to see what the intended output is and choose to either apply lens corrections via profiles or other methods even if the raw converter doesn't do it automatically.

Really? The converters are free to ignore it? Then, why don't they - the more popular, commercial ones, I mean?

You're making some wild claims about what "most prefer", "it the raw converter doesn't do it automatically". Can you do it in e.g. Lightroom? I hope you agree that Lightroom is a popular choice.

[house]

Really? The converters are free to ignore it? Then, why don't they - the more popular, commercial ones, I mean?

You're making some wild claims about what "most prefer", "it the raw converter doesn't do it automatically". Can you do it in e.g. Lightroom? I hope you agree that Lightroom is a popular choice.

Doesn't capture one allow disabling corrections? Both the lens manufacturers and the software companies look good if the immediate output looks good. LR is designed to give quick and pleasing (according to some) results whilst hiding complexity. Rt and darktable doesn't hide complexity and is by many considered difficult to use.

I apply lens correction to many of my Pentax lenses including vintage ones.

[Kunzite]

Doesn't capture one allow disabling corrections? Both the lens manufacturers and the software companies look good if the immediate output looks good. LR is designed to give quick and pleasing (according to some) results whilst hiding complexity. Rt and darktable doesn't hide complexity and is by many considered difficult to use.

I apply lens correction to many of my Pentax lenses including vintage ones.

I'm not familiar with Capture One. RawTherapee and Darktable are open source.

Applying lens corrections is one thing. The subject of this thread, however, was designing lenses in such a way that software corrections become mandatory.

[bdery]

Optical Limits (Photozone) is my favorite site for lens reviews.

Should that be Pentaxforums?

I noticed many new mirrorless lenses depend on software for heavy corrections.
I hope Ricoh will never ever follow suit for Pentax lenses.

Ricoh/Pentax has bene doing that for many years. Just like everyone else. They do so for JPEGs, and post-processing programs like Lightroom can automatically apply lens profiles to RAW files.

[Cerebum]

There are lots of types of photographer but three in particular seem pertinent here. The Instagram set who want a nice image out of the box and the pros for whom the image is their priority. These don't really care if an image is sharpened or undistorted so long as the end product is what they want. Then you get the people for whom the purity and integrity of the process is everything and in camera correction is pretty much one step from Auto. Each stance is equally valid. I can live with sharpening baked into my KP Raw files but a raft of in body corrections would significantly detract from my pride at producing a nice shot

[Kunzite]

Ricoh/Pentax has bene doing that for many years. Just like everyone else. They do so for JPEGs, and post-processing programs like Lightroom can automatically apply lens profiles to RAW files.

There is a difference between offering lens profiles - to be optionally used for better correcting certain aspects of the image - and designing your lenses so they are basically useless without software corrections.

Name one Pentax lens which relies on forced automated corrections!

[UncleVanya]

Really? The converters are free to ignore it? Then, why don't they - the more popular, commercial ones, I mean?

You're making some wild claims about what "most prefer", "it the raw converter doesn't do it automatically". Can you do it in e.g. Lightroom? I hope you agree that Lightroom is a popular choice.

There is a lot of FUD and opinion tossed about. However most articles I read suggest the vast majority of software corrections are suggestions only in raw files. Even back in 2010 this was found to be true:

Are any corrections applied to RAW image data in-camera? | Photo.net Photography Forums (Read past the first few posts)

lightroom while popular isn’t a great example as Adobe attempts to mask some complexity. The raw processing in Lightroom isn’t viewed as being as good as many other choices. This is why DXO makes a product to add their noise reduction and lens corrections into raw for software packages that don’t do a great job on their own:

DXO ?Pure Raw? Released - A New Raw Pre-Processor from DXO Labs that works with Lightroom - A First Look Review ? Thomas Fitzgerald Photography

I really think people view lens corrections as a purity test - the truth is that post correction measurements will show when a lens is pushed too far. Also the best optical designs in the world aren’t perfect - and those close to perfect are larger and heavier than they would otherwise be - nothing is free, optically or in software. Everything comes at a price.

Look at aspheric elements for example. They give us onion ring bokeh. But they are very important optically for many designs. Nothing is perfect, everything has compromises.

[maurizm]

That is not possible. Unless perhaps the design itself is "95% of the dfa 50 f1.4". There's a lot of effort in optimizing the D FA*'s image quality - not just for test charts, but at all focus distances; and you can't easily replicate it with software.
Vignetting and distortion are easy. Making up sharpness (for example) is another matter.

By the way, the RF 50mm f/1.8 vignettes heavily, 3.5 stops uncorrected (and 1.5 corrected), while the RF 50mm f/1.2 has 3.2 stops uncorrected and 1.4 stops corrected.
The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 has 1.3 stops, and the FA , about 1.6.

I think many people misunderstood the way these tools might be used. Ideally they would non increase sharpness, what they would do is to design for maximum sharpness and aperture, while NOT making the compromises needed to take care of other aberrations that can be cured in SW, or NOT using sophisticated materials like fluorite or aspherical lenses to correct these aberrations, that having BOTH high quality and low cost and weight. Of course the savings will NOT be entirely transferred to us…

[bdery]

There is a difference between offering lens profiles - to be optionally used for better correcting certain aspects of the image - and designing your lenses so they are basically useless without software corrections.

Name one Pentax lens which relies on forced automated corrections!

Please, let's go lightly on the bold font, no need to be virtually screaming at each other.

I think your wording (useless lenses) is stretching it. It is true that many designers now rely on the automated corrections, and compromise some aspects (often distortion and vignetting) to deliver their lenses.

Naming lenses from Pentax which are imperfect without those corrections is possible. The figures are all there in the reviews. Naming useless lenses is more difficult, especially since we'd probably disagree on the definition of useless.

The FA77 has 1.4 EV of vignetting and the DFA 85mm almost reaches 2 EV.

The DA 11-18 oscillates between 1.4 and 1.8 of vignetting and up to 5% of distortion.

The FA31 has around 2.25 EV of vignetting.

The DFA 70-210 F4 has up to 1.8 EV of vignetting and up to 1.4% of distortion.

The DA21 has over 2% of distortion.

These lenses are excellent, but not perfect.

[ChristianRock]

Please, let's go lightly on the bold font, no need to be virtually screaming at each other.

I think your wording (useless lenses) is stretching it. It is true that many designers now rely on the automated corrections, and compromise some aspects (often distortion and vignetting) to deliver their lenses.

Naming lenses from Pentax which are imperfect without those corrections is possible. The figures are all there in the reviews. Naming useless lenses is more difficult, especially since we'd probably disagree on the definition of useless.

The FA77 has 1.4 EV of vignetting and the DFA 85mm almost reaches 2 EV.

The DA 11-18 oscillates between 1.4 and 1.8 of vignetting and up to 5% of distortion.

The FA31 has around 2.25 EV of vignetting.

The DFA 70-210 F4 has up to 1.8 EV of vignetting and up to 1.4% of distortion.

The DA21 has over 2% of distortion.

These lenses are excellent, but not perfect.

I have to point out that 3 of the 5 lenses you mention were not created during the software correction days (DA 21 is from 2006). The FA Limiteds are from the film days. So you can't say these were designed keeping corrections in mind.
I think we are mostly talking about distortion, not vignetting. Vignetting has been a bulit-in feature of fast Leica lenses for decades. All their fast lenses have 2-3 EV of vignetting. A lot of Zeiss lenses too. The vignetting in my SMC K 50mm f/1.2 is also quite high. And so on... but vignetting at wide apertures actually causes a pleasing effect, so most people never correct that (including me - I'd rather add a touch of vignetting than reduce it...)

If the DA*11-18 has about 5% of distortion, that might be the first Pentax lens that was made with software corrections in mind. The lens it replaced (DA 12-24mm) only had a bit over 2% distortion at 12mm.