Why Sony is loosing money, IMHO

Started Jul 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
RussellInCincinnati
Senior MemberPosts: 3,197
Like?
have stopped caring about distortion, fringing
In reply to ellover009, Jul 20, 2012

ellover: ...55-210 mm lens ...didnt feel too impressed...could have had a little less barrel distortion across the range

Do you use post-processing software to remove distortion and/or color fringing? Of course it would be great to have a lens that didn't need any of those corrections. And of course you lose some resolution when you "correct" distortion.

But my new preference since the post-processing tools have gotten so good and easy, is to have a lighter, smaller or more convenient lens that requires post-processing rather than a larger more expensive one that doesn't. ProfHankD would probably call that line of thinking "computational photography". It's certainly the way micro four thirds lenses are going, make'em small and don't bother with correcting distortion, when software can do it.

Here's an inexpensive, convenenient zoom lens scene that became acceptable with the help of several types of post-processing.

The overall topic here could be that something like Lightroom for $150 dollars, would be more cost-effective for many of us than spending more money on lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow