Resolution of M43 lenses

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,513
Like?
Dropoff seems like a greater problem to me...
In reply to Anders W, Apr 1, 2013

Anders W wrote:

On what grounds do you leap to the conclusion that designing lenses to be software-corrected in one specific regard (geometric distortion) is done only or primarily for the purpose of cutting costs? And what makes you think that the end results (after correction) must necessarily be worse than they would have been for a lens corrected by optical means only?

I find no reason to think along such lines. If the end results, after correction, are good, as they are for those MFT lenses with strong barrel distortion prior to correction that I own and use (12/2, 7-14/4, 14-45/3.5-5.6), what's wrong with it?

I think of this lens-design strategy as an asset rather than a liability for MFT and I am sure the main reason that some others refrain from taking advantage of it is that it runs into trouble with an optical viewfinder. When you compose, you want to know what you will get once the image is properly corrected. Possible with an EVF, not possible with an OVF.

I can definately understand the arguement with correction when it comes to distortion and CA but to me dropoff seems a little different. Your not losing resolution there your potentialy damaging the remaining resolution via recovery.

On the face of it the Panny zoom might not seem any worse than many other 2.8 normal zooms but I'd argue that the greater DOF your dealing with means that its much more likely to be used for scenes where the boarders of the picture are in focus and of interest.

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