Olympus in body lens correction - How to turn it off?

mfcam said:

Hey there,
i can't find it in the menu and a google search only leads to discussion forums about adobe software and adobes lens profiles. So, is there an option to turn the lens correction for jpegs off in the camera itself? I'm using a e-m5ii with an Olympus 12-40 Pro and a Panasonic 25 1.4.

Cheers,
mfcam

Click to expand...

Why would you want bendy photos?

May as well buy a fisheye.

Regards..... Guy

If the tolerance of the bayonet mount will permit mounting the lens with a "shim" inserted, a washer cut from a thin non-conductive plastic sheet (say, a sheet of overhead projector transparency film) could be used to isolate the lens electrical pins, and the camera would behave as though a manual lens is attached, right?

If the lens lacks manual controls, you might want to (or need to) "prep" it by using the cam to achieve desired aperture/focus (and zoom), then remove the battery without powering of the camera. Detach the lens, insert insulating washer, reattach and power up the camera.

The above may not prove fruitful, but I expect it will cause no harm.

Also, and I'm unsure it's relevant... somewhere within the vast menu there's a "Reset lens" setting. (In the absence of detecting a known lens attached, I doubt the cam would continue to apply the defishing parameters of the "last known" lens but, then again, it might.)

I was under the assumption that what could not be corrected in the manufacture/design of the lens, was then "corrected" in the software of the camera. So, a m4/3 lens used on a non-m4/3 camera would show aberrations. I don't believe that 4/3 had this ability to "correct" lens deficiencies in-camera.

beameup said:

I was under the assumption that what could not be corrected in the manufacture/design of the lens, was then "corrected" in the software of the camera.

Click to expand...

It's not about short-comings of the lens design it's about making a compromise in cost and complexity of the lens balanced against the amount of software correction.

You could have "perfect" lenses if you wanted to pay Leica prices.

beameup said:

So, a m4/3 lens used on a non-m4/3 camera would show aberrations. I don't believe that 4/3 had this ability to "correct" lens deficiencies in-camera.

Click to expand...

From my weak memory I seem to remember my Oly E-300 making in-camera jpeg corrections of my 11-22mm lens.

Regards...... Guy

Not sure I understand the reason behind not wanting to use correction. The ability to do software correction is powerful and opens up some freedom in lens design. It is not a bad thing.

Russel_Sprouts said:

If the tolerance of the bayonet mount will permit mounting the lens with a "shim" inserted, a washer cut from a thin non-conductive plastic sheet (say, a sheet of overhead projector transparency film) could be used to isolate the lens electrical pins, and the camera would behave as though a manual lens is attached, right?

If the lens lacks manual controls, you might want to (or need to) "prep" it by using the cam to achieve desired aperture/focus (and zoom), then remove the battery without powering of the camera. Detach the lens, insert insulating washer, reattach and power up the camera.

The above may not prove fruitful, but I expect it will cause no harm.

Also, and I'm unsure it's relevant... somewhere within the vast menu there's a "Reset lens" setting. (In the absence of detecting a known lens attached, I doubt the cam would continue to apply the defishing parameters of the "last known" lens but, then again, it might.)

Click to expand...

Doesn't work with an official MFT lens that has those contacts (and these are the only lenses that would have the built in correction profiles). The aperture and focus are fully electronic in a MFT lens, so unless the aperture and focus when off happened to match what you wanted, then it becomes impractical to use. I thought the focus clutch models from Olympus was different, but actually the clutch is electronic too (only difference is that it becomes linear and has stops).

The ones that are fully manual wouldn't have those contacts.

Space the final frontier said:

Not sure I understand the reason behind not wanting to use correction. The ability to do software correction is powerful and opens up some freedom in lens design. It is not a bad thing.

Click to expand...

There are some lenses where you can get a bit wider if you are okay with the extra distortion. However, most people use the RAWs and then apply their own correction profiles that allow a wider view, which gives a compromise between the two extremes.

Guy Parsons said:

beameup said:

I was under the assumption that what could not be corrected in the manufacture/design of the lens, was then "corrected" in the software of the camera.

Click to expand...

It's not about short-comings of the lens design it's about making a compromise in cost and complexity of the lens balanced against the amount of software correction.

Click to expand...

It is not "compromise" but a design. With software you can do many things better and easier way than you can do optically. And with software you can even improve things in the future, that you can't do optically without product recall.

Lots of things can be corrected with software, without compromising quality. And when you can do it cheaper and easier way, and improve it later even, it is just win-win situation to everyone.

Tommi K1 said:

Guy Parsons said:

beameup said:

I was under the assumption that what could not be corrected in the manufacture/design of the lens, was then "corrected" in the software of the camera.

Click to expand...

It's not about short-comings of the lens design it's about making a compromise in cost and complexity of the lens balanced against the amount of software correction.

Click to expand...

It is not "compromise" but a design.

Click to expand...

The way I see the compromise is that they could design a beautiful lens with zero distortion, but the cost and complexity and size of the beast would make it too expensive, so they compromise on a design that allows a mix of optical and software corrections to keep the price, size and weight under control. It is a deliberate design compromise.

Member said:

With software you can do many things better and easier way than you can do optically.

Click to expand...

Cutting costs.

Member said:

And with software you can even improve things in the future, that you can't do optically without product recall.

Click to expand...

Well, DxO Photolab does that and improves on what the camera jpegs or the camera's official raw converters do.

Member said:

Lots of things can be corrected with software, without compromising quality.

Click to expand...

Something has to be compromised when you straighten out barrel or pincushion distortion, local area interpolation if taken too far will lessen resolution, but only for the weirdo super pixel peepers out in the wild, for normal use no problems seen and that is what the designers rely on with their compromises in optical design and mix of software correction.

Member said:

And when you can do it cheaper and easier way, and improve it later even, it is just win-win situation to everyone.

Click to expand...

There were always the stories that if a lens had the Leica name on it then it was fully corrected optically, none of this software fix nonsense. That was made a lie of with my Panasonic LX3 with "Leica" proudly on the front (and the Leica copy-cat version of the same camera). Lots of distortion there and plenty of software fixing going on. Legends die hard.

So yes, software fixes are a good thing, but it still represents a compromise compared to making a lens that is perfect.

Regards...... Guy

Guy Parsons said:

There were always the stories that if a lens had the Leica name on it then it was fully corrected optically, none of this software fix nonsense. That was made a lie of with my Panasonic LX3 with "Leica" proudly on the front (and the Leica copy-cat version of the same camera). Lots of distortion there and plenty of software fixing going on. Legends die hard.

Click to expand...

Leica 60 years ago and „Leica“ today are 2 completely different things. :-(

I read the OP as an inquiry borne by curiosity, perhaps in preparation toward performing an academic test. The reply (not mine) stating "can easily view uncorrected, on demand, via the RAW viewer software" is probably the best answer.

L'il notification flag "new replies" drew me back to this page.
More accurately: "new drivel".
Sigh.

The culture expressed within the dpreveiw community is really tiresome.
The incessant self-indulgent follow-on replies, sidetracking, hair splitting pizzing matches, and Captain Obvious truisms... are a real turnoff.

I don't want bendy photos. I was about to create a profile for my raw-converter of choice, darktable .

By shooting raw+jpeg at a target (IT8, colorchecker etc.,) one can create a profile that helps mimic the in body jpeg colors. This usually isn't a big issue with commercial raw converters, as they usually have these profiles available. With a FOSS software such as darktable, it's a bit of a different story.

Anyhow, when creating such a profile, it's easier if the jpeg and raw are geometrically as close as possible. As the lens correction in darktable (which is based on lensfun) wasn't giving me the same result as the in body corrected jpeg, I was looking into disabling the correction in the camera.

As this isn't possible, I've adjusted the lens correction in darktable a bit and got geometrically close to the jpeg.

Long story short, I've managed to successfully profile the camera and have now 2 darktable styles (one for picture mode "natural", one for "portrait") which can get me extremely close to the in body generated jpeg.

For those using darktable: I will share my styles on https://dtstyle.net/ and probably here in the forum as well.

BR
mfcam

JakeJY said:

If you are talking about RAW, the lens correction profiles are included in the RAW, but with the right RAW processor you can turn off the correction.

If you are talking about JPEGs there are no way to turn those off. The corrections are part of the M43 standards and a lot of the lenses are designed assuming the corrections would be applied.

A quick search of the E-M5 II manual didn't find any mention (only something about keystone correction).

https://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/omd/man_em5m2_e.pdf

Click to expand...

The jpg and embedded raw corrections are the same and as the jpg correction has to be applied in real time they are quick & dirty corrections usually applying a crop. .

If you use download a trial of DXO-PL you get a superior lens correction which with wide angle lenses will give you access to the real focal length of the lens prior to the jpg crop which results in the quoted focal length.

While you are looking at DXO-PL process a high iso shot with PRIME noise reduction you might be pleased.

Ian

IanYorke said:

JakeJY said:

If you are talking about RAW, the lens correction profiles are included in the RAW, but with the right RAW processor you can turn off the correction.

If you are talking about JPEGs there are no way to turn those off. The corrections are part of the M43 standards and a lot of the lenses are designed assuming the corrections would be applied.

A quick search of the E-M5 II manual didn't find any mention (only something about keystone correction).

https://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/omd/man_em5m2_e.pdf

Click to expand...

The jpg and embedded raw corrections are the same and as the jpg correction has to be applied in real time they are quick & dirty corrections usually applying a crop. .

If you use download a trial of DXO-PL you get a superior lens correction which with wide angle lenses will give you access to the real focal length of the lens prior to the jpg crop which results in the quoted focal length.

While you are looking at DXO-PL process a high iso shot with PRIME noise reduction you might be pleased.

Ian

Click to expand...

Usually they do a barrel correction first before applying a crop. But the rest I agree.

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/873_pana1232f3556?start=1

Guy Parsons said:

mfcam said:

Hey there,
i can't find it in the menu and a google search only leads to discussion forums about adobe software and adobes lens profiles. So, is there an option to turn the lens correction for jpegs off in the camera itself? I'm using a e-m5ii with an Olympus 12-40 Pro and a Panasonic 25 1.4.

Cheers,
mfcam

Click to expand...

Why would you want bendy photos?

May as well buy a fisheye.

Regards..... Guy

Click to expand...

My problem is, and why I found this thread, automatic extension tubes. They tell the camera what lens it’s using, but the camera won’t know that it’s corrections won’t work with this new lens design (which is what extension tubes cause).