hiro_pro: i guess that is cheaper and easier than scanning and properly indexing all of those images which is what eventually needs to happen.
I know I would love to look through all of them. If they paid me I would gladly dedicate my life to archiving them.
Zvonimir Tosic: But then, if software correction is a "bad" word in many people's dictionary, why kit lenses by other manufacturers never look so good in their results even after their software corrections?Perhaps because no amount of software and ingenuity can mask the fact how bad they are. They must be an utter piece of rubbish then, and yet, you are willing to buy, live and enjoy that utter piece of rubbish only because it is utterly cheap ticket to dreamland.Image taken with any camera is always an illusion, equally as an idea that any lens can be done cheaply. And yet, deeper the illusion, it seems, the happier crowd is. "Cruel" reality simply flies above the head because no one has guts to look at it with a lens of expectations and understanding totally undistorted.
@Rage Joe,This is true, and to be honest my first kit lens (Canon EFS 18-55 3.5/5.6) was a damn sharp lens. I took 2 photos that one local awards, not amazing photos but still.
I would say that some Kit lenses are not all bad.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Lots of smearing at hi ISO's.
High cost/benefit, in my degraded opinion.
You're correct... A lot of smearing at higher ISO. Why would they allow this?