More 16 F2.8 comparisons: corrected vs. uncorrected vs. JPG

PAntunes wrote:

GraphAD wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

GraphAD wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs.

As far as I can tell, applying the corrections I used is equivalent to about a 1.15 crop, which loses about 25% of your MP.

For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

That would be more of a problem in the days of 8MP sensors. But even then it wouldn't have been terrible. I still have my 8MP 20D, which was an amazing camera in its day, and gave me lots of great landscape shots. This lens would have used 6 of those 8. My first DSLR was the 6MP 300D. I have several 30" X 20" poster prints of landscapes from the 300D on my walls. They look great. From a 6MP sensor. Now that we have megapixels oozing from every pore, it's even less of a problem. My R uses about 22.5 of its 30 megapixels to produce the corrected images from this lens. I can remember when everyone was waxing lyrical about the incredibly high resolution of the 1DsII, which had 17 MP. If you use an R5, you'll still be using about 33.5MP with this lens. I know that people (on these forums at least) keep insisting that they 'need' more and more megapixels. But they really don't. They're just trying to justify their lust for newer and newer gear. I prefer to not attempt to rationalize that lust. I just admit that I really like new toys (not that I can usually afford them). Need doesn't come into it. It's all about want.

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

Actually, in a sense you are not loosing anything size wise. In Lightroom, the 16mm uncorrected is a 8192X5464, the photo that is digitally corrected in DPP, is still 8192X5464, so it does cut the sides, but digitally increases the photo.

To me, it is cheating as you are throwing away information that you framed, captured and you saw in the EVF, I just hope that Lightroom won't be doing the same.

You're not, because the camera does much the same stretch and crop beforeshowing you the corrected image in the viewfinder. Correcting barrel distortion in software means warping the image by magnifying it more and more with increasing distance from the centre. That gives you concave edges and acute angled corners and a bigger aspect ratio which then get cropped back to the originalsize and aspect ratio.

In Irfanview, if you uncheck the RAW preview, you get the full photo like Lightroom, so far it is the only other software that "I" have that can view the uncorrected photo and save it.

But the lens was designed for software correction of its distortion and vignetting so that the designers could concentrate on sharpness and eliminating aberrationsand faults that are difficult to correct in software. You're criticising an astonishingly cheap lens for doing things cheaply.

I am not criticising the lens, can you read? Just the that software is doing some correction that gives you something else that that another software is not.

And that can be a big problem for users of specific software. Specially one-time licences that are not updated regularly, if at all.

Which brings us to the advantage of software subscription:

Continuous updates and support.

Gees, what's wrong with people these days.

I am stating facts, not just an idea.