DXO light transmission numbers

James Stirling wrote:

AiryDiscus wrote:

JaKing wrote:

AiryDiscus wrote:

I'm listening, but you couldn't pay me enough to f_ck with M4/3 cameras.

That sounds like my attitude towards Apple devices.

Difference being that I have stated my reasons for my position ...

Would you be so kind as to state yours? TIA.

Because with the traditional manufactures, e.g. Nikon and Canon, the raw files are not mucked with much, and the lenses are well corrected in all senses. With M4/3, the images are highly preprocessed, even in raw formats, and the lenses often have incredible distortion that is software corrected that quintuples the time to optically test them.

In fairness most mirrorless makers lenses particularly at the UWA to wide angle end utilise software corrections. m43 is not unique in this. From an end user perspective there are some benefits to this design ethos as the lenses can be made smaller and lighter . I have the Sony 12-24mm F/4 and it is literally less than half the weight of the Canon 11-24mm or Sigma 12-24mm art.

Though I can see how from the perspective of an optical scientist testing them adds extra work

I don't think there are real benefits to it, it is just a cost cutting measure.  No one, and I do mean no one, is "faking it" on nearly the scale M4/3 is.  Some of the M4/3 rectilinear lenses have 14% and even 20% distortion.  That is half way to being a fisheye.  The highest I've ever seen on a non-M4/3 lens is 8%, which while extreme is positively mild when compared to 20%.

It does not make the lens smaller or lighter, only cheaper.  If they aspherized another surface at the physical extremes of the lens (front element, rear element, etc) you can knock out all of the distortion in one change.

Canon has a retrofocal ratio of about 4 on the 11-24.  Such a value is breathtaking in a prime, let alone a zoom lens.  Sony has a retrofocal ratio of only 1.5, which is very tame.

I would not care about the extra work if it could be well justified by good intentions.  Being cheap on $1,000++ lenses is not excusable.