But they do show up with the GF1 too. Your own series of examples here
Ideally, lenses shouldn't reflect. But there are no ideal lenses so reflections is something we have to live with. However, sensors shouldn't show color-channel pollution, and some sensors don't. So let's hope that the problem in this regard with the latest MFT sensor generation is solved in the next.
I'd say they have remained pretty silent, except Apple, whose comments (as I pointed out in my OP in the previous thread) merely says what we already knew but does nothing to explain why the reflections suddently go purple.
Other difficulties aside, it would be pretty tricky to adjust a rear-mounted polarizer for proper effect and I think it likely that it would cancel only some rather than all purpleness in many scenes (as exemplified by my second set of test shots).
Affect how? And does the difference remain when you push the underexposed shot in PP so that it reaches the same brightness as a correctly exposed shot?
Reflections often follow the shape of the aperture blades. What makes you think that this has anything to do with reflections from the sensor to the rear of the lens and then back to the sensor again? It was hardly unusual to see flare of this kind/shape back in the film days, long before there was any shiny sensor for the light to reflect on.
I don't have a 4/3rds, but I do get flaring on lenses when pointing them into the sun or strong light or even sometimes just outside of the frame. First I makes sure the lens hood is attached in your case, your hood is like the one on my Nikon 14-24 2.8 permanent. Then looking through the view finder if I see flare I will change my angle or shield the lens. If my hand appears in the picture I edit it out. It is the fastest, easiest, least expensive way of solving the problem. If there is another lens of a similar focal length that does not exhibit the problem or much less, then buy it or do your home work first, most reviews report how well the lens handles flare.
(quoted from this post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50963888 )
Your major problem is with orbs. Mine is with shapes closer to rectangles. I mainly see the issue in indoor shots with small lights that are very bright relative to the scene or with sunlight through a usually small window or other small opening. See the sample photo I posted.
OK. Then I understand what you mean by denial. And I am not, unfortunately, particularly surprised at the response you got. When will manufacturers start to learn how to handle these things the way they should?
What PP techniques have you tried? Shots like those you showed would require quite a bit of work in PP even if there was no purple because the non-purple orbs are disturbing too, and there are quite a few of them. Personally, I try to avoid arrays of orbs like those you got by shielding the lens with my hand when I see the reflections appear in the EVF (I have learnt to look out for them in certain cases). A gray-card or something might serve a suitable hand-extension for shielding purposes.
Well, at least we can hope that the camera/sensor designers are now thoroughly aware of the problem (or they are less smart than I hope/think they are).
The orbs will surely appear to be as "intense" on the GF1. But the reason you see the purple ones as "intense" is simply that the color is so far off. There is nothing remarkable about them aside from that. Try to compare with the GF1 with both images converted black and white and you'll see.
Far from an ideal solution, but a workable one for static subjects, is to use a technique I occasionally use for "normal" flare with UWA and the sun. Works best tripod mounted but can be done hand-held with just a little care as well.
I don't see any purple in the in-frame shot, but see very distinctive purple in the edge shot. The PP question isn't easily answered, because the shadow noise is pinkish, the light source is bluish, so the gradation between light/flare and noise become purple on their own. Still the differences between the in-frame and edge images are considerable even after heavy PP that very much pronounces anything purple.
Just my expectation that the lens wouldn't mirror back such a huge blob of light right in the center, so I thought the very last "hard wall" would be responsible. Didn't give it too much of a thought, because the relevant information was how the aperture does only affect the purple streaks' "sharpness/blurriness", but neither form nor spread.
I'd rather say that the purple is generally more intense in the out-of-frame than in the in-frame shot, no matter which exposure you use. The same tendency is visible in the two series of test shots I showed in the previous thread.
Just my expectation that the lens wouldn't mirror back such a huge blob of light right in the center, so I thought the very last "hard wall" would be responsible. Didn't give it too much of a thought, because the relevant information was how the aperture does only affect the purple streaks' "sharpness/blurriness", but neither form nor spread.
The way I am thinking about it as follows: Let's assume you are right that the flare as such is radially symmetric. However, only some of the rays making up that radially symmetric flare strikes the sensor in such a way that pollution can occur, i.e., the rays come in at a sufficiently large angle of incidence and also happen to strike the sensor more or less vertically or horizontally rather than diagonally (if we provisionally accept that diagonal pollution is not possible). Consequently what we see as purple flare (although we know that it is a sensor artifact) may be radially asymmetric although the flare as such isn't. Does that make any sense?
Thanks! That might prove helpful.
