Capture One Express for Fuji question

Peter Foiles wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Peter Foiles wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Peter Foiles wrote:

yayatosorus wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

yayatosorus wrote:

LiNGo0 wrote:

yayatosorus wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Thank you.

My pleasure. I understand your concerns about the FOV you're getting being narrower. I'm pretty sure you're getting 16mm after the distortion correction. The "manufacturer profile" should be derived from data contained in the EXIF, i.e. the same that is used to account for distortion when generating JPEGs in camera, and I doubt those corrections would give you a narrower FOV.

On the surface, this answer makes a lot of sense to me. But when I stop to think about it, in effect what you're saying is we're actually getting 15mm from a 16mm lens... That's kind of weird to think about.

Perhaps, but a 15mm lens with great amounts of distortion is of not much use to most people.

As long as it is corrected without losing 15mm - I am ok.

And this must be possible. There are "made for digital' lenses (meaning software corrected). If they always start by cropping the sensor in by 2mm - then what is the point of calling it -say - a 16-50? Why not call it an 18-50? Because that is actually what you would be getting.

Pretty sure the official focal length is after the corrections have been applied, otherwise you'd get into false advertising territory.

Well I am pretty sure the focal length of a lens is an optical property and should be determined by the optics and that is what should be etched on the lens. To do anything else would be false advertising.

I agree with what you are saying. FL is an optical property. Or at least it was up to about 10 years ago. Today many lenses are made with optical imperfections - like distortion and then a profile is loaded in cameras to correct this back to a flat image. Now - technically - the lens is capable of a certain FL - optically. But - if the goal is a flat image (which almost all the time it is) then that optical FL will not be achieved (possibly) because some cropping might be necessary to flatten the image. Should in-camera correction be considered when printing a FL on the side of a lens?

Absolutely not.

So, a lens can be badly distorted at 16mm - to the point that in camera correction has to crop it to 18mm - but it is OK to print 16mm on the lens?

More than OK, it is the only correct way to label a lens. Any digital correction that may be applied has no relevance no matter the kind or how extreme. Don't keep rephrasing the same question looking for a different answer. The optical focal length is what gets printed on the lens full stop no exceptions. I am done here.

Why? Because it was one of the 10 commandments? This isn't 1990 any more. With digital cameras and 'made for digital' lenses - things could change.