How well does lens correction software sharpen up A6000 16-50 kit lens?

I use DXO Optics Pro with my aging Canon Rebel and I find the lens correction module does a pretty decent job sharpening up the output from the stock kit lens. I believe Lightroom now has lens specific correction modules? The A6000 is on my short list but should I purchase it, I will live with it and the kit lens for quite some time. The lens certainly gets less than stellar reviews and so wondered how it fared with lens correction software, if the software really made a noticeable improvement.

Also, anybody have thoughts and opinions of how the A6000 with the kit lens fares against say a recent Canon or Nikon equivalent DSLR with the kit lens? The DP Image comparison tool does a great job but the cameras used are always fitted with higher end lens. It would be nice to see image comparison samples where you could choose a different camera lens.

There is nothing really magical about lens-specific sharpening. It just does more sharpening in the corners than in the middle. It uses Unsharp Mask I believe.

I generally just turn that part off and do a High Pass Sharpen myself after exporting which tends to introduce a lot less noise and works better.

Joseph Mama said:

There is nothing really magical about lens-specific sharpening. It just does more sharpening in the corners than in the middle. It uses Unsharp Mask I believe.

I generally just turn that part off and do a High Pass Sharpen myself after exporting which tends to introduce a lot less noise and works better.

Click to expand...

I don't have LR and I use the free DXO Optics Pro 8 with my NEX-3N. To me, automatically sharpening and vignetting correction base on the lens is good. The area and strength is lens and focal length dependent. For an individual, it is too much work to do myself.

The only thing I don't like is the exposure. I don't know how DXO decide what is considered good exposure and often times the exposure is not as good as OOC JPEG.

The software correction on the 16-50mm is not optional jpg. At 16mm without correction the distortion is big, but with software correction the distortion is average at the worst focal length which is 16mm. The software correction is standard on most RAW engines and is a one click fix.

I own a A6000 with kit lens and use that setup for everything as it is the only lens I have for the A6000. The results are good for a tiny package. I plan on getting a couple more lenses but the 16-50mm is the most used lens unless I am shooting wildlife.

I purchased the A6000 for a compact carry option and it exceeds my expectations.

The kit lens and in-camera corrections are hard to beat. I really wouldn't bother with PP.

If the A6000 had a touch screen I would probably have it now. A bummer that the A5100 has it but not the A6000 but the exclusion of a hot shoe completely removes the A5100 from the list.

So on my short lust list right now is either a A6000 or a Canon GX7. I generally only buy a new camera every two or three years (last one was a Canon G15). I'm trying to hold out until approximately Memorial Day weekend to see if anything new (A6100?) comes out. Wish these system camera kit lenses were not so slow, especially with quite a few fast lens compact camerast lens in the market now.

this is a jpeg right off the camera, coming from the "abysmal" 16-50. Ok, the edges are pretty soft but if you ask me, the detail is not SO bad and sharpness is not terrible as they say...

geepondy said:

If the A6000 had a touch screen I would probably have it now. A bummer that the A5100 has it but not the A6000 but the exclusion of a hot shoe completely removes the A5100 from the list.

Click to expand...

I only ever use on-camera flash, and only when I have to, so the lack of the hot shoe isn't a concern.

The touch screen is limited to touch focus, and that is very useful, and I can't imagine why they didn't include it with the a6000.

Does Sony still use and is it still well implemented, panoramic mode? My friend has an older NEX and he sent me some excellent panorama shots that he said the camera stitched together automatically. Compare this to the archaic stitch assist software Canon uses.

Sometimes it's the little things that make the final difference.

why no EXIF?

geepondy said:

Does Sony still use and is it still well implemented, panoramic mode?

Click to expand...

AFAIK, yes.

geepondy said:

My friend has an older NEX and he sent me some excellent panorama shots that he said the camera stitched together automatically. Compare this to the archaic stitch assist software Canon uses.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that it reduces the resolution a lot. You can find a number of stitching programs for the computer that can do a good, usually better, job, but the in-camera pano has the advantage of convenience. It works pretty well,and you're done.

geepondy said:

Sometimes it's the little things that make the final difference.

Click to expand...

Joseph Mama said:

There is nothing really magical about lens-specific sharpening. It just does more sharpening in the corners than in the middle. It uses Unsharp Mask I believe.

Click to expand...

DxO might use deconvolution. I'm not sure if they come out and say what they use. Either way, yes, they sharpen more on the corners/sides than the center, but it does help. I think it may be more important that the software does CA correction, and maybe PF removal. Between all of these techniques combined, it does make a big difference. The 16-50 is still kind of quirky with some flaws, but it's still better than a normal P&S camera.

Joseph Mama said:

I generally just turn that part off and do a High Pass Sharpen myself after exporting which tends to introduce a lot less noise and works better.

Click to expand...

MassiMax said:

this is a jpeg right off the camera, coming from the "abysmal" 16-50. Ok, the edges are pretty soft but if you ask me, the detail is not SO bad and sharpness is not terrible as they say...

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that the 16-50 is unusable. Just that it does not compare favorably with many compact camera lenses, even with the help of the larger APS-C sensor.

An outside landscape is not a very challenging shot either since you can stop the lens down to F8 for maximum sharpness with no issues with larger ISO or too-slow shutter speed.

Joseph Mama said:

MassiMax said:

this is a jpeg right off the camera, coming from the "abysmal" 16-50. Ok, the edges are pretty soft but if you ask me, the detail is not SO bad and sharpness is not terrible as they say...

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that the 16-50 is unusable. Just that it does not compare favorably with many compact camera lenses, even with the help of the larger APS-C sensor.

Click to expand...

What sorts of lenses? Sure it is compromised for size, but it's still pretty decent for casual use. If there were a cheaper camera that was smaller and better, I'd rather have that for travel. As it stands, I'll keep my Nex cameras. I do have other lenses for better quality, but it's hard to beat the convenience factor of the 16-50. About my only options are the pancake lenses.

Joseph Mama said:

An outside landscape is not a very challenging shot either since you can stop the lens down to F8 for maximum sharpness with no issues with larger ISO or too-slow shutter speed.

Click to expand...

If you need to be ready for low light situations, I agree - a faster aperture may make more sense. But not everything is low light. Even with the 16-50, I get better poor light results than my compact P&S cameras.