Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2014, 08:28 AM   #571
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,600
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
That's why it doesn't belong in the lens. It belongs in the PP software package.
It can belong in both - the Zeiss lens in a compact like the RX-100 is nice but has huge optical distortions. If you shoot JPG in camera, all the distortions are taken care of automagically and you never see them. But if you shoot RAW, it's the job of your RAW processing software to correct the distortion, and most camera makers supply their own RAW tools with the camera to do this. Whether third party RAW processors do it depends on the popularity of the camera as much as anything else.

I remember reading that allowing huge optical distortions in the lens in the RX100, knowing that the problems could largely be addressed in software, let the designers build the lens and camera more compactly. So it's not always a bad thing. It's a trade-off that works sometimes.

10-14-2014, 11:47 AM   #572
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
It can belong in both - the Zeiss lens in a compact like the RX-100 is nice but has huge optical distortions. If you shoot JPG in camera, all the distortions are taken care of automagically and you never see them. But if you shoot RAW, it's the job of your RAW processing software to correct the distortion, and most camera makers supply their own RAW tools with the camera to do this. Whether third party RAW processors do it depends on the popularity of the camera as much as anything else.

I remember reading that allowing huge optical distortions in the lens in the RX100, knowing that the problems could largely be addressed in software, let the designers build the lens and camera more compactly. So it's not always a bad thing. It's a trade-off that works sometimes.
I hadn't heard this about the rx100 before - but makes sense.

Other possible benefits:
a. More transmission of the light with fewer elements to go thru

b. Fewer problems with flare (As much as i like my 50-135, it will infrequently bounce back intense point light sources as flare spots. i've always wondered if that was the result of the fine optical correction of the lens.

c. With fewer lens elements - i assume that occurs in these less corrected lenses - the cost of construction should be lower. Although Sony doesn't seem to be passing that along to the consumer of the rx100 series

If i'm mistaken - let me know.
10-14-2014, 12:58 PM   #573
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,738
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote

I remember reading that allowing huge optical distortions in the lens in the RX100, knowing that the problems could largely be addressed in software, let the designers build the lens and camera more compactly. So it's not always a bad thing. It's a trade-off that works sometimes.
Aren't either the m43 or Fuji lenses like this? Big optical flaws the designers are aware of that are noted in the lens firmware and the body tries to correct in the RAW image as well as the JPEG?

Last edited by clackers; 10-14-2014 at 01:09 PM.
10-14-2014, 01:26 PM   #574
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Aren't either the m43 or Fuji lenses like this? Big optical flaws the designers are aware of that are noted in the lens firmware and the body tries to correct in the RAW image as well as the JPEG?
The m43 rely heavily on correction. I know little about the Fuji.

10-14-2014, 08:21 PM   #575
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Aren't either the m43 or Fuji lenses like this? Big optical flaws the designers are aware of that are noted in the lens firmware and the body tries to correct in the RAW image as well as the JPEG?
Its not a "flaw" if its designed that way on purpose - to achieve a design goal like weight or size objectives. Flaw has a negative connotation to it.
10-14-2014, 10:03 PM   #576
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,913
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Its not a "flaw" if its designed that way on purpose - to achieve a design goal like weight or size objectives. Flaw has a negative connotation to it.
What if in the result folks buy a lens under the impression it is a superb performer only to discover they have paid over the odds for an average lens whose output is heavily corrected by software in the camera. I mean, one can see the potential for abuse here. Design goals can include taking customers for a ride.
10-14-2014, 11:03 PM   #577
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
What if in the result folks buy a lens under the impression it is a superb performer only to discover they have paid over the odds for an average lens whose output is heavily corrected by software in the camera. I mean, one can see the potential for abuse here. Design goals can include taking customers for a ride.
Criticize manufacturers for poor or bad designs or design goals all you want Using the word flaw in an incorrect manner just makes the situation harder to understand.
10-15-2014, 12:03 AM   #578
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
Car mechanic: "Yes sir, your car was indeed pulling to the right a lot. But we fixed it. We rigged your steering wheel to pull equally much to the left."

I don't understand the defense for such automated aposteriori lens corrections. Most of the photographic enthusiasts eventually end up shooting RAW because of its many benifits. The automatic lens corrections only get applied to the JPG. I don't want a good JPG image with which I can do nothing. I prefer a good (I even prefer a mediocre) RAW image with which I can play.

If a lens is designed to have a max aperture of f5.6 at an FL of 50mm, then it's a slow 50mm lens. The format on which it's used doesn't change either of those lens properties, regardles of the varying end result and regardles of if it designed that way or not. The super sensitivy or ultra dynamic range of the sensor in front of which this lens is place also doesn't suddenly make the lens fast. So, flaws intentionally left in there, to be corrected later, are also still flaws regardless of the end result. And regardless if these flaws were intentional or not. And they are righteously called "flaws", because something that is not a flaw doesn't need correcting either.

Lenses should be priced based on their optical qualities. Not on the end results they deliver after all kinds of trickery. But that's just my opinion.


Last edited by Clavius; 10-15-2014 at 01:58 AM.
10-15-2014, 12:51 AM   #579
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,738
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Using the word flaw in an incorrect manner just makes the situation harder to understand.
Obviously, I don't share your belief that poor performance needs to be accidental to qualify as a flaw, Phil.
10-15-2014, 03:27 AM   #580
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
The point is that the lens should come with the necessary profiles for common software to correct these flaws in raw photos too. IIRC one of the Panasonic point & shoots (LX series) had a flawed, distorted lens to allow it's size... when you loaded that file into Lightroom though you'd get a corrected image. Something like that, though I'd like to be able to turn off the corrections, for the odd case where I don't want them.


The benefits are simple: The end results are basically the same, but the lens is smaller, lighter, cheaper, has fewer glass elements (less internal reflections perhaps). Resolution in the corners may not be 100% perfect at 1:1, but is that really so important when our sensors do 20 MP and more?


The disadvantage would be the person buying that lens for use on an older camera... his JPEGs wouldn't look good, though his processed images would. Unless he is using an analog camera. So clearly this has to be made known... It has to be written on the box etc. But the marketing department could easily spin it into an advantage, when they should the benefits for such a design.


The alternative would be that such lenses are only available with a new mount... that of a mirrorless Pentax.
10-15-2014, 03:50 AM   #581
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The point is that the lens should come with the necessary profiles for common software to correct these flaws in raw photos too. IIRC one of the Panasonic point & shoots (LX series) had a flawed, distorted lens to allow it's size... when you loaded that file into Lightroom though you'd get a corrected image. Something like that, though I'd like to be able to turn off the corrections, for the odd case where I don't want them.


The benefits are simple: The end results are basically the same, but the lens is smaller, lighter, cheaper, has fewer glass elements (less internal reflections perhaps). Resolution in the corners may not be 100% perfect at 1:1, but is that really so important when our sensors do 20 MP and more?


The disadvantage would be the person buying that lens for use on an older camera... his JPEGs wouldn't look good, though his processed images would. Unless he is using an analog camera. So clearly this has to be made known... It has to be written on the box etc. But the marketing department could easily spin it into an advantage, when they should the benefits for such a design.


The alternative would be that such lenses are only available with a new mount... that of a mirrorless Pentax.
A DNG-file (or whatever format) that already has some processing done to it, isn't really a RAW image file, is it? That would be a processed image that happens to be saved in DNG. RAW is supposed to be a data dump straight from the sensor.

I think only in Utopia all camera bodies are going to correctly recognize and apply the profiles delivered by the lens. Just another feature that gets disabled by most, but is still going to drive up the prices. (See the Sony FE 35mm)
10-15-2014, 05:52 AM   #582
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
I have to agree, calling a design criteria a flaw because it was intentionally built in to the lens to increase performance is too kind. It's more like fraud. Unless the said lens is advertised as having optically inferior lenses that have been corrected in software to reuse cost and size, I would consider such activity to be almost criminal. But I realize a lot of people have much looser definitions of honesty than I do.
10-15-2014, 07:04 AM   #583
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I have to agree, calling a design criteria a flaw because it was intentionally built in to the lens to increase performance is too kind. It's more like fraud. Unless the said lens is advertised as having optically inferior lenses that have been corrected in software to reuse cost and size, I would consider such activity to be almost criminal. But I realize a lot of people have much looser definitions of honesty than I do.
Obviously it would have to be mentioned and advertised, not in the least because it won't work out of camera with all cameras.


The DNG file coming out of the camera would be untouched, but would have to be processed by either an additional tool provided (if your editing software doesn't support the profile) or by your editing software. It could be done automatically, as it is for certain cameras already.


What if the lens could be significantly smaller and lighter, with a bit of loss of sharpness in the edges and a bit more noise in the edges at high ISO? It would be cheaper too. Wouldn't the gains be worth it? For me personally it would. I don't want to carry a heavy, bulky lens. I mean, why aren't you walking around with medium format gear? They deliver better quality. Yes, it costs more, is significantly bigger and heavier, but hey, the quality is a bit better!


In any case I think such lenses would be in line with the Pentax spirit of making compact and robust gear. IIRC Pentax doesn't make the fastest lenses out there... instead prefering to keep sizes reasonable. This would help reaching that goal. And for those wanting the best there is, well, Pentax does the 645Z and some lenses for it.
10-15-2014, 07:21 AM   #584
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
What if the lens could be significantly smaller and lighter, with a bit of loss of sharpness in the edges and a bit more noise in the edges at high ISO? It would be cheaper too. Wouldn't the gains be worth it? For me personally it would. I don't want to carry a heavy, bulky lens. I mean, why aren't you walking around with medium format gear? They deliver better quality. Yes, it costs more, is significantly bigger and heavier, but hey, the quality is a bit better!
That's pretty much the Pentax philosophy, small light weight, centre sharp, edge soft 'lenses built for the way people take pictures." Thats the official description. Pentax already does that better than anyone else. Now if someone wants to out-Pentax Pentax, the problem is, Pentax has already taken the best set of compromises as their own. You're going to have to be good enough to beat them at their own game. That's why there are pancake lenses. That's why there are limited lenses. That's who they are. They do have the 2.8 zooms for professionals, 16-50 and 50-135, but those are their concession to the pro market, you have to give those guys something, or they whine and cry like babies.
10-15-2014, 09:02 AM   #585
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's pretty much the Pentax philosophy, small light weight, centre sharp, edge soft 'lenses built for the way people take pictures." Thats the official description. Pentax already does that better than anyone else. Now if someone wants to out-Pentax Pentax, the problem is, Pentax has already taken the best set of compromises as their own. You're going to have to be good enough to beat them at their own game. That's why there are pancake lenses. That's why there are limited lenses. That's who they are. They do have the 2.8 zooms for professionals, 16-50 and 50-135, but those are their concession to the pro market, you have to give those guys something, or they whine and cry like babies.
Yup. The thing is, Pentax can probably push it even further by relying on software to fix flaws. And as long as the result is good enough I don't mind.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, camera, cameras, challenge, change, display, dslr, features, ff, full-frame, image, issue, lenses, light, live, market, mirrorless, mode, money, pentax, post, sensor, system, technology, video, view, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could Different Sensors Be Compared To Different Films? rbefly Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 01-15-2014 06:36 AM
DA lenses that could be used on FF toukan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-28-2013 05:04 AM
How could a Pentax FF be cost effective? normhead Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 09-18-2012 12:18 PM
FF Pentax could be like Nikon D3 Denis Pentax News and Rumors 7 08-01-2008 09:05 PM
Pentax hybrid FF camera. Could it be real? ogl Pentax News and Rumors 38 07-07-2008 04:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top