On 7/29/2012 1:08 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Looking around the Adobe forum it appears some CA is only corrected in
> metadata with Panny lenses on Panny bodies.
I believe that to be correct; Oly does no CA correction in camera firmware. It
will do Vignetting correction (they call
it Shading) with a menu setting.
> Adobe also says they correct to about the 90% level for geometric distortion
> which they say is the same level for Nykon or Canyon lens profiles in ACR.
> Then there are these incremental lens profiles on top of the metadata. (see
> below)
There are no lens profiles for ACR available from Adobe using their Lens
Profile Downloader. So it would be DIY or
search for others who have done it.
> I am not aware of any sliders though for use of these which I am
> accustomed to for the OM 5DII.
> Sometimes I would not wish to as fully correct these aberrations. It
> is not easy figuring out exactly what is going on.
I don't know how to turn the metadata profiles off in ACR. In Oly Viewer, there
is pretty complete control. You can use
or ignore the lens metadata corrections, or start with the lens data and adjust
more or less from there.
There is also a choice for shading/vignetting correction or Auto or Manual. I
sort of think Auto uses lens data - how
else would it know what to do?
> Moose's downloading software looks like just the ticket too. There
> are many potentially unforeseen changes in workflow when switching
> platforms. Sometimes might have to jump in and have confidence it can
> all be sorted,
> but rather have it all figured a priori. May have to use DXO for
> conversions for the aberration sliders.
Viewer has CA sliders for R/C and B/Y. And ACR has them, labeled purple and
green, and with more control, on the second
tab of the Lens Correction window.
> Interesting smart adapter for MFT as well but not sure it allows for AF.
I'm not sure I see the point. A huge part of the attraction of µ4/3 is small
size and weight. Adding big EF lenses
doesn't seem such a big deal to me. As I understand it, the proposed Kipon
adapter only adds aperture control, so they
would still be MF. With a big stash of OM mount lenses, with much better focus
rings than AF lenses, I'm more interested
now in that option. Most of the OM lenses are better size matches, too.
Although IF they do end up with AF, and don't cost the earth ... Still, the
only EF lens I have that isn't duplicated in
the µ4/3 lenses I've ordered or an MF macro is the 10-22. It's an excellent
lens, and for small sensors, but huge and
heavy, compared to the Oly 9-18, while only a tiny bit faster.
<http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_10-22_3p5-4p5&products=olympus_m_9-18_4-5p6&products=panasonic_7-14_4>
Also, I could probably sell the 10-22 for enough to buy a new 9-18 with no
adapter, which is a much better fit to a µ4/3
body. Or there's the Panny 7-14, much wider for a bit more dosh.
> Toe in water, but not jumped in MFT yet, Mike
>
>
> ... Is there any point in creating profiles for RAW files from these lenses
> or is it overkill? Or will it make things worse or better?
>
>
> A: The current version of the ALPC (1.0.2 Preview #3) builds what is
> called incremental lens profiles on top of the in-camera corrections.
> it corrects any residual geometric distortion that might have left out
> from the in-camera corrections. But that is not the most interesting
> part, in-camera correction typically only handle the geometric
> distortion, but not the LCA or the vignette. So you can build your lens
> profiles to correct those.
Certainly something to consider, if I find CA objectionable.
Purist Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|