I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically when you say 'who cares.' 
But I agree -- bottom line, it works.
There is a myth here on RFF that adapted lenses lose their character on the G1. Everytime it pops up, I ask for evidence, and everytime the thread dies without anyone presenting any.
Will the same thing happen with the claim that Panasonic is somehow conspiring behind our backs to make decisions in raw (other than simple lens corrections?)
But I agree -- bottom line, it works.There is a myth here on RFF that adapted lenses lose their character on the G1. Everytime it pops up, I ask for evidence, and everytime the thread dies without anyone presenting any.
Will the same thing happen with the claim that Panasonic is somehow conspiring behind our backs to make decisions in raw (other than simple lens corrections?)
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I should add here that I don't own a G1 and have never used one. I am not claiming M lenses lose their character on the G1--I have no such information. I'm only really interested in this as a technological/philosophical debate. (As I say in that short article, I decided that LX3 jpegs looked better than anything I could turn the RAW files into).
I do like the idea of more user-tweakable RAW software correction options...but I suspect the reason this isn't being offered right off the bat is that the manufacturers are a bit sheepish about admitting their glass isn't as good as we're led to believe. I think most people would agree with most of you--software correction is fine if it does the job. But Panasonic does not seem eager to admit that this is so. Back when I was trying to figure out if this was the "problem" with Adobe not yet supporting the LX3, I asked point-blank on the Lightroom forum, and the developers only said they weren't allowed to say. One of them went as far as saying "very interesting theory."
I do like the idea of more user-tweakable RAW software correction options...but I suspect the reason this isn't being offered right off the bat is that the manufacturers are a bit sheepish about admitting their glass isn't as good as we're led to believe. I think most people would agree with most of you--software correction is fine if it does the job. But Panasonic does not seem eager to admit that this is so. Back when I was trying to figure out if this was the "problem" with Adobe not yet supporting the LX3, I asked point-blank on the Lightroom forum, and the developers only said they weren't allowed to say. One of them went as far as saying "very interesting theory."
Burkey
Well-known
"If I'm using the R-D1 or K20D, I shoot RAW; with the LX3 I shoot JPEG. in each case, I just think the pictures look better."
Me too, sorta'. With my RD-1 and G1 I've always used RAW. With my DL4 the JPEGS are incredible and seem to be way I'll stay for while. I haven't used the G1 enough to know whether the JPEGs are worth a look. With the RD-1, for me anyway, RAW seems to work.
But - ultimately the final image we create is really what it's all about. Or at least that's the way I see it.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
. . . Burkey
Me too, sorta'. With my RD-1 and G1 I've always used RAW. With my DL4 the JPEGS are incredible and seem to be way I'll stay for while. I haven't used the G1 enough to know whether the JPEGs are worth a look. With the RD-1, for me anyway, RAW seems to work.
But - ultimately the final image we create is really what it's all about. Or at least that's the way I see it.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
. . . Burkey
Understood.
It appears no one seems to have an issue with optical corrections (distortion and CA.)
The question is, other raw corrections. I'd just like to see evidence of these corrections first, before debating the philosophy.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Perhaps part of the concern is the thought that, if they could produce a great image with lesser glass and good software, what could they do with great glass and good software.
When the glass is not what it could be, people may feel cheated, even if the final image is good.
When the glass is not what it could be, people may feel cheated, even if the final image is good.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically when you say 'who cares.'
There is a myth here on RFF that adapted lenses lose their character on the G1. Everytime it pops up, I ask for evidence, and everytime the thread dies without anyone presenting any.
Will the same thing happen with the claim that Panasonic is somehow conspiring behind our backs to make decisions in raw (other than simple lens corrections?)
I guess I am one of the propagators of that myth, since I've written it a number of times. It's just a casual observation. I haven't done any tests.
It's just that when I've used the kit lens, and then my M lenses (75mm Summarit, 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summicron) and looked at the images after, they all seem pretty much the same. So much so that I've pretty much stopped using the adapted lenses, except when I need the speed. The kit lens can be used in very low lighting because of the good high ISO performance and the image stabilization, but if there's very much subject movement, the image ends up unsharp because of motion blur.
I'm not much for doing image tests, but I'll see what I can do to provide something more formal than just my casusal observations on this matter. But I'm sure others here are more capable of this than I.
/T
I don't know about the 75 Summarit, but the 35 and 50 'crons have signatures that are quite different from the kit lens. Since the kit lens goes to 45mm, the Summarit is not really a direct comparison anyway, although the 50 is close enough to 45, I guess.
I suppose stopped down the look could be close, and one must stop down the M lenses for a true comparison because the kit lens is quite slow. That's akin to a lens test that concludes 'The $579 28/2 Ultron gives identical performance to the $3200 Leica Summicron 28/2 when stopped down to f/8.' Well that's more than likely a true statement...so I guess I don't really understand what the revelation is here...
I suppose stopped down the look could be close, and one must stop down the M lenses for a true comparison because the kit lens is quite slow. That's akin to a lens test that concludes 'The $579 28/2 Ultron gives identical performance to the $3200 Leica Summicron 28/2 when stopped down to f/8.' Well that's more than likely a true statement...so I guess I don't really understand what the revelation is here...
back alley
IMAGES
i have no argument with that. but i also don't need that un-altered version as i will eventually learn what the camera produces and go from there. i think it's safe to say that i am not a purist.
That's really the crux...what exactly is being applied to raw? Distortion and CA to the kit lens is known. Everything else is conjecture at this point...I'll revise comments as I see evidence.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Who changed the title of this thread? I'm not just talking about the G1, I'm talking about this practice in general...
antiquark
Derek Ross
I think we've entered a new era of lens engineering. Now that images can be corrected in-camera, lens designers can be more "lax" with some aspects of performance, such as distortion and chromatic aberration.
That's probably why the LX3 was able to manage 24mm-e with an F2 aperture. If the engineers attempted to also reduce distortion, they might not have reached that focal length/aperture combination. However they realized they could let distortion run rampant, and fix it after the fact.
Probably in the future, SLR lenses will transmit their distortion characteristics to the camera, to enable auto-correction even if you change lenses.
That's probably why the LX3 was able to manage 24mm-e with an F2 aperture. If the engineers attempted to also reduce distortion, they might not have reached that focal length/aperture combination. However they realized they could let distortion run rampant, and fix it after the fact.
Probably in the future, SLR lenses will transmit their distortion characteristics to the camera, to enable auto-correction even if you change lenses.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think you're right about all of that.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Personally I have no problem at all making software based corrections as in the G1. Panasonic needed to keep the lenses VERY small with a relatively low price point and, through software integration, they have made quite a competent kit. I agree with Steve above...if there was a ton of forced noise reduction that would be more problematic for me.
Coming from the software industry myself I believe this is going to be a big step in future photography, and those that can create a system where software, lenses and bodies all work in supporting harmony will be big winners.
If you want to see some proprietary processing open up a Nikon NEF in Nikons Capture NX2 and then in something like Lightroom or Photoshop. There is quite a difference in what is being pulled, with the Nikon software accessing a little information that the others can't/won't touch.
Anyway, interesting thread. I understand those that want a more "pure experience", though personally I think that experience is changing and somust it's definition.
Kent
ps- As mentioned in previous threads I am actually shocked at how much I am enjoying my G1. Incredible little device.
Coming from the software industry myself I believe this is going to be a big step in future photography, and those that can create a system where software, lenses and bodies all work in supporting harmony will be big winners.
If you want to see some proprietary processing open up a Nikon NEF in Nikons Capture NX2 and then in something like Lightroom or Photoshop. There is quite a difference in what is being pulled, with the Nikon software accessing a little information that the others can't/won't touch.
Anyway, interesting thread. I understand those that want a more "pure experience", though personally I think that experience is changing and somust it's definition.
Kent
ps- As mentioned in previous threads I am actually shocked at how much I am enjoying my G1. Incredible little device.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I don't think that adapted lenses are treated with the same sort of RAW optical correction that happens with the kit lens. I believe that the electrical contacts to the lens tells the camera's firmware what sort of corrections to apply, based on the lens type, focal length, etc. Sort of like Leica's 6-bit coding, although with the Panasonic lenses it may be a series data stream rather than raw binary encoding. I'm guessing here; I don't have particulars of the lens mount electrical contact format.
In any event I don't think that the RAW corrections to the Panasonic lenses applies to adapted lenses.
Which gets back to my earlier post in the other thread: the real issue here is that Panasonic has found ways to achieve world-class imagery using mediocre optics and in-camera RAW correction, at a fraction of the cost to the consumer. That's not such a bad thing.
The Leica fondlers should be heralding this for the next big advancement in camera technology, making great image quality in a compact camera much more affordable. Instead, they seem aghast at the notion that such a proletarian camera as the G1 would dare to tread on the statospheric aura of Leica image quality, making their dear lenses less valuable. The G1 is akin to democracy in the photography world, leveling the playing field and giving more people equal access to great quality optics. That can only be good for photography.
~Joe
aizan
Veteran
i've never thought of purple fringing and barrel distortion as adding personality to a lens.
"The fancy manual-focus glass isn't being software-corrected, the Panasonic Lumix lenses are, and so you get the feeling that there's nothing so very special about all your Leica bling. In fact, there is--your M lenses are better engineered than the Lumix ones, and don't require the same software corrections. Liars!! "
i would pay money for a tshirt that says: "my lens doesn't need software corrections". this is important for film, not so much for digital. if the output is the same, would you rather have a smaller lens or a bigger lens? smaller, all the way.
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
Listen, im only going to say this one more time then im not going to give this another moments though. Each digital camera system has its own "feel" to the images, Canon's tend to be "whiter" Nikon's "thicker" and you can debate these things until the end of the world so I will leave you to it. The Panasonic's feel for me just didn't work well with the adapted lenses I thought, it was not right for what I....better say that again because it seems a lot of people are not getting this......I........wanted to do with the camera and my initial intentions for buying it. Now listen carefully, I think that lens correction of the icky things is great! I really wish Canon would get off their fat ass and think of this! Would be nice to be able to use my 17-40 lens on the 5D without thinking about how icky the corners are every time I push the release or being scared of a high contrast situation because I know the lens will have fringing in every color of the rainbow. For those of you who work in raw then you know the value of being able to tweak this and that to your tastes, kind of like those obsessive film developers that have their own technique for doing exactly what they want with negatives, its the same thing, for what I wanted to do the Panasonic's color table was just not working well and I really think that something was being lost in the character of lenses. Call me a fool all you want but you know...I did it, I tested it, I went over it with not one but two image experts to see exactly what was happening and in the end decided it was not for me. I had no illusions that this camera was going to beat out a M8 or a 5D or anything like that and I knew that full well going in.
The simple fact of the mater is that the G1 and I did not flow well together. As nice as it is to use, and the great amount of potential that camera has to take pictures....in the end it just was not the right tool for me partially because of what I thought was not the right image response that I wanted and also because I decided that I wanted something more compact, like DP1/GRD coat pocket compact.
The simple fact of the mater is that the G1 and I did not flow well together. As nice as it is to use, and the great amount of potential that camera has to take pictures....in the end it just was not the right tool for me partially because of what I thought was not the right image response that I wanted and also because I decided that I wanted something more compact, like DP1/GRD coat pocket compact.
Last edited:
Diane B
Member
AFAIK, I don't believe lens correction is done for MF lenses. Since you have to use 'shoot w/o lens' from the menu, the camera does not 'know' that a lens is attached--there is no EXIF data for lens, aperture, etc. Consequently, when I use my FD lenses (or any others), there should be no correction in RAW. I think only the 2 Panny lenses are affected--corrections for those particular lenses is what I understand.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Diane, I don't think Colin is complaining about the corrections per se, he just doesn't like the way the G1's sensor and software renders his images.
Like I said in that essay, in the end, I think this was a superior solution for the LX3, which at the moment is as good as a compact gets. As long as the lens is permanently grafted to the camera, who gives a crap what the software is doing?
My only actual concern about software correction as a trend in interchangeable lens cameras is that perhaps, if things go too far in that direction, the innovation that led to inherently excellent lenses will dry up. In the future, we won't necessarily have all this terrific glass from the past to choose from, because perhaps by then manufacturers will have decided it wasn't worth making the stuff anymore, since software innovation is cheaper.
Personally, for myself, I don't much care, as I already have enough equipment to spend the rest of my life making images that are pleasing to me. But I like the idea of things made to last, and perhaps this trend will eventually create a scarcity of such things.
Like I said in that essay, in the end, I think this was a superior solution for the LX3, which at the moment is as good as a compact gets. As long as the lens is permanently grafted to the camera, who gives a crap what the software is doing?
My only actual concern about software correction as a trend in interchangeable lens cameras is that perhaps, if things go too far in that direction, the innovation that led to inherently excellent lenses will dry up. In the future, we won't necessarily have all this terrific glass from the past to choose from, because perhaps by then manufacturers will have decided it wasn't worth making the stuff anymore, since software innovation is cheaper.
Personally, for myself, I don't much care, as I already have enough equipment to spend the rest of my life making images that are pleasing to me. But I like the idea of things made to last, and perhaps this trend will eventually create a scarcity of such things.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Avotius: I respect your decision, it's ultimately up to you to decide whether the camera works for you as a tool. Here's hoping for continued success in your photography.
As for the concept of excellent lenses, what I'm really after is excellent image quality from the camera as a system. And this is coming from a guy who's spent much of the last decade shooting almost exclusively pinhole cameras, adapted optics cameras, paper negatives, etc. I've adapted binocular lens objectives to box cameras in order to get a unique look to the image. I don't believe that the glass is sacred, worthy of being set aside in its holy-of-holies sanctuary as a religious icon. They're just tools for forming images. If a pinhole forms the image more in keeping with what my intentions are, then I will use a pinhole.
This morning we are getting set to depart on a road trip to Arizona. I'll be taking my G1 kit, tripod, and a 4x5 wooden pinhole box camera, with paper negatives. I intend on using both cameras equally as often, depending on my preferences. Neither are sacred objects, just tools. And I'm glad I have the G1, with its lowly kit lens, in my tool bag.
~Joe
As for the concept of excellent lenses, what I'm really after is excellent image quality from the camera as a system. And this is coming from a guy who's spent much of the last decade shooting almost exclusively pinhole cameras, adapted optics cameras, paper negatives, etc. I've adapted binocular lens objectives to box cameras in order to get a unique look to the image. I don't believe that the glass is sacred, worthy of being set aside in its holy-of-holies sanctuary as a religious icon. They're just tools for forming images. If a pinhole forms the image more in keeping with what my intentions are, then I will use a pinhole.
This morning we are getting set to depart on a road trip to Arizona. I'll be taking my G1 kit, tripod, and a 4x5 wooden pinhole box camera, with paper negatives. I intend on using both cameras equally as often, depending on my preferences. Neither are sacred objects, just tools. And I'm glad I have the G1, with its lowly kit lens, in my tool bag.
~Joe
I'm not particularly concerned with software being a huge factor in lens development. It's not like code is going to take a pinhole and turn it into a Summicron. There must be some excellent optical design as a base, before software can improve things. Software correction of distortion, for example, results in a loss of some of the image. So, the worse the lens is in terms of distortion, the more loss, hence the good base level performance requirement.
I.e., a lens listed at 25mm needs to be more like 23mm optically if software correction for distortion is part of the package. There are also certain optical qualities that really can't be improved much with software.
The choice of a particular instrument is completely personal, of course. One can't really question one's choice of a digital camera, anymore than question a musician's choice of a guitar.
I'd still like to see examples of how the G1 "manhandles the images", "equalizes out all the photos", and "screws with the workflow." And a description of the current workflow would help, too. This should be pretty easy to provide.
I.e., a lens listed at 25mm needs to be more like 23mm optically if software correction for distortion is part of the package. There are also certain optical qualities that really can't be improved much with software.
The choice of a particular instrument is completely personal, of course. One can't really question one's choice of a digital camera, anymore than question a musician's choice of a guitar.
I'd still like to see examples of how the G1 "manhandles the images", "equalizes out all the photos", and "screws with the workflow." And a description of the current workflow would help, too. This should be pretty easy to provide.