FT vs MFT Lens Size?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Juurikas Forum Member • Posts: 82
Re: FT vs MFT Lens Size?

absquatulate wrote:

Juurikas wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Juurikas wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

To make the m4/3's lenses smaller they have compromised by using software correction, which is now common place with virtually all manufacturers.

And that is the false.

It is not a compromise when you get superior image quality with software correction, compared to overcomplex optical correction.

You don't get "superior image quality" with software correction, but please explain how you think you do, with examples obviously.

Maybe you should go to read example robing Wong using 4/3 on 4/3 and then on m4/3 body with digital correction. And m4/3 version compared to 4/3 one.

Digital correction gives always better overall results. Digital can be improved even with firmware, optical can't.

I don't need to, I've owned and shot both types, that's how I know the software correction isn't superior, it's just different.

If the software correction offers better quality (no purple fringing, that you anyways could correct in post but you get it in the camera as well as the optically), you get flare removed (in own limits and as long you don't use extra glass in optical path that wasn't there for designed) and you get sharper resolution and details, less smearing, better microcontrast and diffraction cancelled or diminished.

You can call it "It's just different" but others call it "Software correction is better".

Software correction on left, optical correction on right, Olympus SHG lens

You can't make a optically near perfect lens, unless you want it to be huge, slow and extremely complex and expensive.

I see, so now you're saying an optically corrected lens can be "near perfect", you just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences, impressive.

No, you just don't understand that mounting a 10kg lens that cost 56 000€ is not a viable option to reach same results as digitally corrected that is cheaper and lighter.

Well no 4/3's lens actually fits that criteria, not even remotely close. I've also already stated that software correction makes lenses smaller and lighter, so you should probably step away from the shovel at this point.

Are you dim or something? You claim that software correction is inferior to optical correction.

I point out the truth that software correction is delivering better quality than highly optically corrected, your praised Olympus SHG lenses. And I tell that of course you can make a optically perfect lens but it is not worth it. Then you deny that by trying to say I contradict myself, even when you dont understand that I talk about the possibility but you dont know it would be very expensive and very big and heavy.

https://youtu.be/9cnEnRADDLo?t=355 & https://youtu.be/9cnEnRADDLo?t=876

I believe you dont understand anything he is talking about. That you can make things better optically but you need to make very complexities and expensive and heavy lenses. So software correction is added to the design so you can make lenses smaller and lighter and cheaper and better than only optically designed.

And you dont even understand that even the best lenses there results images that people edit in post production heavily. Sharpne, adjust microcontrast, remove refinging, remove flares. Take like your impressed otus and you still need to do those because software correction is superior to optical.


"I saw a lot of discussion in forums about the pin-cushin distortion of 3% and Dr. Michael Pollmann explained to me that the Batis family leans on correction by software (camera firmware or lens profiles in raw processors) for design parameters that allow electronic correction easily in order to keep the lenses compact. In my opinion Zeiss has found a good compromise here and this type of distortion will not become noticeable even without correction as long as you are not shooting strong geometric objects like architecture (propably not the core area for a bright short tele lens that I would prefer for portraits)."

You can get same or better results with less optical corrections (each optical correction causes more optical flaws, that you need to correct other means optically) when those known optical flaws can be corrected with software, that doesn't cause more flaws.

0+2-3+2-3+4-3+2 = 1

0+2-3+2 = 1

Sounds lovely, no substance unfortunately.

There is, you just don't know nothing by samples as you have never even thought that it would be so, so you keep spreading false information how digital is compromise.

*sigh* I've owned and shot both types, so I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's no need to get so defensive, I've actually already made the point I don't have a problem with software corrected lenses, but rant on if you must.

You know nothing about it. You claim that the optical superiority is there and software is inferiority even when it is otherwise. And you made your point that software correction is a compromise in your opinion, so you are giving up that there is inferior part to be accepted because you can't do anything for it. And you rant how optical is better and denying that software make things better. So you are contradicting yourself now.

But rant and lie to yourself and lie to others if you must.

-- hide signature --

Arguing about with an equivalentists is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow