Panasonic lenses surely have the CA correction info stored in firmware. Whether the same is true about Olympus lenses is hard to tell. They might have put it in but nevertheless abstain from using it or they might have omitted it. But if it's not there already, it's just a matter of a simple firmware upgrade to add it.
Oly's current policy on lateral CA correction makes no sense from any point of view. That's the essence of kenw's concluding comment.
Whatever is true in principle here, the practical importance is virtually nil. Current CA levels (the width of the fringe) amounts to less than a handful of pixels. So the amount of scaling required is on the order of onr pro mille or so.
I doubt that it is a "policy" but rather a shortage of resources or know how (software expertise). At least a lack of priority. Back when Olympus released first m4/3 cameras and lenses, they actually stated that they were going to implement CA correction as soon as they could. We're still waiting, just like I am still waiting for the promised firmware update to give EM5 single target small AF which the EPL5 and EPM2 have now (without having to go into the zoom frame).
This is what I have been saying all along. Even though the lens all fit in the open format Panasonic and Olympus are not there to make the other one more successful. Something has to make them stand apart from the other and who knows what is a patented technology. For 100% compatibility don't mix and match body and lenses. It is so obvious with this thread. It makes no difference if one company was a camera manufacture and the other electronics. You have Sony brains or maybe a diode or whatever component to make it work.
Yes, but that lack of "priority" and/or resources is unintelligible to me in view of how easy it is to do. And yes, I think I have a good enough idea about the problem as well as the solution in computational terms to say that.
That's interesting and new to me. Do you have a link to the source where they said that?
Yes, another unintelligible lack of "priority" and/or resources. I am waiting for that as well. Very easy to do (especially since the code is already written and just has to be transported from one FW module to another.
I think you are right about that although quite a few Oly lenses show quite a bit of CA too, and clearly enough to benefit from software correction.
Completely agree about that.
I think it might be the other way around. The lenses for MFT were not a given. All were new designs. Panasonic chose to allow a bit more lateral CA in order to improve other things (other optical properties, size, cost) and correct it in software. Olympus chose to stick to optical correction only. In view of the fact that lateral CA can be corrected so easily and so well, I think Panasonic's choice is preferable. Furthermore, even if you try to fight lateral CA optically, some evidently remains, in which case there is no excuse for not software-correcting what remains.
In what way does an Oly lens perform worse with respect to lateral CA when used on a Panasonic body than on an Oly body? And why should a RAW shooter abstain from mixing freely across brands due to lateral CA?
Yes, that's exactly what it can do. F-stop and contrast actually does not matter. Lateral CA does not vary with the f-stop (longitudinal CA does) and contrast is of no importance (lateral CA is just a matter of the relative size of the red, green, and blue sub-images). The lens used does matter and so does the particular FL if its a zoom we are talking about. The result is pretty much perfect and there are virtually no downsides.
Ok, than its directed to JPEG shooters. If you have limited post production time or are not comfortable with RAW files or don't have hard drive space or just do not want to shoot RAW then by your admittance saying its a problem for OOC JPEG shooters than what I say is correct. Don't mix and match body to lens unless you want to shoot RAW all the time.
Is this what happens when I check the box marked "Remove Chromatic Aberration" in LR4? Not much seems to happen when I do that. Perhaps what I am looking at (purple on edges) is not lateral CA?
I can't find the link but it was from an interview with Olympus by dpreview or perhaps Imaging Resource, when the EP1 was new. Interesting to me, when I tried to look for the statement, I instead pulled up lots of very current research papers (some by Olympus but with respect to microscopes) regarding different methods of correcting lateral CA from photographs. Apparently it is a hot issue for people other than forum photographers.
I think we are actually saying the same thing here.
So perhaps Oly's endoscope division will eventually come to rescue with a little bit of help from (the) behind.Pikme wrote:
I can't find the link but it was from an interview with Olympus by dpreview or perhaps Imaging Resource, when the EP1 was new. Interesting to me, when I tried to look for the statement, I instead pulled up lots of very current research papers (some by Olympus but with respect to microscopes) regarding different methods of correcting lateral CA from photographs. Apparently it is a hot issue for people other than forum photographers.
More or less. It's a matter of whether it was foresight or afterthought. Since I am a generous nature, I give Pany the benefit of the doubt.
Yes.
If it doesn't go away when you check the box it isn't lateral CA (LaCA). Whatever is left in terms of fringing after you check the box is longitudinal CA (LoCA). LoCA gives rise to purple fringes in the in-focus area and in the out-of-focus area in front of the focus point. In the out-of-focus area behind the focus point, the LoCA fringes are green rather than purple.
Yes. The defringing tool is for dealing with LoCA. While the defringing tool in LR is excellent, the problem with LoCA is that it cannot (currently) be corrected quite as easily or quite as well as LaCA. First, the defringe tool merely replaces the purple or green fringe by a gray fringe. It doesn't return the color that should have been there in the first place. Second, since the correction works by desaturating the offending color, there is a risk that things that are for perfectly legitimate reasons green or purple are desaturated as well. That's why it's difficult to safely automate the process and that's why there are sliders in LR for precisely adjusting the hues affected.
Could be. But I see no major point in looking for them. Instructions on how to correct for distortion is embedded in the RAWs and LR can automatically correct LaCA without the need for a profile. Remains vignetting, but I correct that only sometimes (when I find it disturbing, which isn't all that often), in which case I might as well do it manually.
I know. It takes a while. I switched from Silkypix about half a year ago and certainly had to do a bit of relearning. But I think you will like LR. Most things works well and some things are truly great. The speed and convenience in dealing with CA problems is among them.
I do not understand why Pany lenses should be more of the problem for OOC shooters.
That certainly depends on what you mean by "hugely destructive" and "very high levels". Pany and Oly have consciously decided to allow somewhat more distortion (up to about 5 % at the outset for WA primes and at the short end of WA zooms) than is the norm in the industry (about 2 % is usually considered tolerable for lenses using only optical correction) and correct it via software. The benefit of doing that is that they have more leeway to deal with other aberrations that are more difficult to correct with via software. A good idea in my opinion.
