I for one applaud Photozone's approach, they are testing the lenses,
and not the "system". I can't stand
sneaky, hidden tricks to try and raise the apparent level of
performance of a product. If I recall samples,
the Panasonic kit lens(es) for M4/3 are optically quite bad
performers. You can't generate information from
nothing, so either way, you can't correct most kinds of problems, you
can only try and mask their impact on the
final image.
I quote, from the site:
The initial test of the lens produced invalid results - less so
because of the lens but because Panasonic asked Adobe to apply
automatic corrections to RAW images (under the hood that is). These
modifications corrected most of the problems with respect to
distortions, CAs as well as vignetting but they also caused a
reduction of the field-of-view and a deterioration of the resolution
figures (because the image is stretched here). However, the PZ tests
are about the principal lens performance and not the performance after
(excessive) post-processing thus we'll be using RawTherapee for these
tests. Finally it is not guaranteed that these corrections are also
performed on other/future micro-4/3 bodies and users could also prefer
RAW-converters other than ACR/Silkypix.
On 23 Sep 2009, at 1:22 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> They were all pulled several months ago for unclear reasons--now back.
> Not sure MFT tests mean much--Raw converter used does not correct the
> aberrations as intended
> in their design. May as well test them used as intended by the
> designers. Where else are they to be mounted and used?
> Raw optical performance seems increasingly less relevant these days.
> Mike
>
> http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|