On 4/29/2019 5:25 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>>
On 4/28/2019 12:53 PM, tOM Trottier wrote:
On 23 Apr 2019 at 21:57 re:"Re: [OM] Image Processing - AAARGH!..."
Wayne Harridge(Wayne Harridge <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>) wrote:
The old OM Zuikos didn't need any correction !
How about the radioactive 55/1.2 ?
WAs did indeed benefit from PTLens. If I recall correctly, one of my first
roll-overs was of a small bridge
shot with the 21/3.5. Moderate, but obvious, distortion, nicely corrected by
PTLens.
Not to speak for Wayne, but I think the argument was that, in the old days,
lenses had no assumption of processing available, so they were *optically*
better,
Better in terms of linear distortion, yes. But there are other lens performance characteristics that had to be
compromised to do that. The correct design approach for the times.
whereas today, it is routine for lenses to *depend upon* software correction of
certain aberrations.
Absolutely so. But it's a trade-off. By offloading part of linear correction to firm/software, better correction of
other optical factors becomes possible, within the practical limitations of speed, size, weight and cost. To me, it's in
general a worthwhile compromise. Have you looked at those four factors in current super premium primes?
Where I've done test comparisons of current µ4/3 lenses to AoV equivalent OM Zuikos, the new lenses have outperformed
the old in all conventional aspects of optical quality.
For qualities other than optical perfection, some old and specialty lenses are wonderful. Unfortunately (?) the OM
Zuikos are all too good for Alt use. ;-) Even the 55/1.2 isn't as usefully, interestingly "bad" as the much earlier
design Canon FD 58/1.2. None of them can touch my T-mount Tamron 28/2.8 for wide open aberrations, ans so on.
Certainly, almost every lens I use can benefit from a LITTLE bit of contrast
tweaking. But with the OM Zuikos, that is often all I do.
That's all very well. But when I shot a bridge, building, etc, with clear horizontal lines with the 18/3.5, 21/3.5 and
24/2.8, the those lines formed arcs, or waved across the frame. The 28/2.0 and 35/2.0 are better, but not wholly innocent.
Post shot correction with PTLens was one of the early joys of digital
processing for me.
Some of them (like the 55/1.2, shot wide open) really demand contrast
improvement.
Certainly, there was a bit of levity and curmudgeon-ness going on there, too,
right, Wayne? :-)
Never! :-)
Aberrant 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/
|