Is this amount of distortion normal?

E

ElectroWNED

Well-known
Local time
5:59 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
485
Location
New York
View My Gallery
Just traded my GRD3 for a Canon S95 (wanted the video); walked around town to test it out and I'm a little freaked out. Is this amount of distortion normal for this camera?!

tumblr_m61nor4lzy1qa6hoyo1_1280.png


tumblr_m61nnzewwR1qa6hoyo1_1280.png


tumblr_m61nui6o2D1qa6hoyo1_1280.png


And another thing is the blown-out sky. Tell me I'm doing something wrong, but the GRD (and my Sigma DP2) never metered so poorly that the sky was completely blown out. What's the deal?

I shot these in RAW, converted w/ DNG converter (from CR2), and processed w/ Adobe's RAW importer.
 
According to this, distortion at 28mm can be significant if it's not corrected for by the RAW conversion software, which is likely what is happening with you. Try some test shots in JPEG to see what the in-camera processing does with the distortion. Not sure about the metering.

EDIT: +1 on what Wayne said 🙂
 
okay, it looks like I have to upgrade my Photoshop for distortion correction (or switch to Lightroom).

any idea on the blown out skies? what am I doing to piss off the Canon gods?

edit: okay, looks like the over-exposure wasn't just my imagination: http://s95site.com/forum/discussion/148/a-little-bit-overexposed-/p1

How do people rave about this camera when you have to underexpose to expose properly, then do special post-processing just for a usable image?! ugh...
 
I agree with above that you should shoot some jpegs just to see what the camera can do in that mode. I'd be curious to see, since I'm just considering getting this camera (used) for the lady of the house.
 
I've heard and read on several places that today's zoom compact, especially with fast lens got pretty strong distortion, and corrected in-camera so most people shooting Jpeg won't see it. If you are shooting RAW, it's pretty much required to use the manufacturer supplied RAW developer or wait for LR/Aperture etc to catch up unless you wanna make your own correction preset.
 
coelacanth said:
I've heard and read on several places that today's zoom compact, especially with fast lens got pretty strong distortion, and corrected in-camera so most people shooting Jpeg won't see it. If you are shooting RAW, it's pretty much required to use the manufacturer supplied RAW developer or wait for LR/Aperture etc to catch up unless you wanna make your own correction preset.
Click to expand...

I guess that's what I get for shoot film, then prime digitals for so long...

Here's the jpg vs RAW...

jpgtest.jpg


pngtest.png



what disturbs me more than the distortion is the terrible color that I get from "auto" fixes on the RAW file.
 
ElectroWNED said:
I guess that's what I get for shoot film, then prime digitals for so long...

Here's the jpg vs RAW...

jpgtest.jpg


pngtest.png


what disturbs me more than the distortion is the terrible color that I get from "auto" fixes on the RAW file.
Click to expand...

I assume you moved the camera between those shots? It would be interesting to compare the angle of view - obviously JPEG shots will have to have a narrower field of view, otherwise the JPEG file would have to contain information in places where the RAW file doesn't.
 
rxmd said:
Digital is not the problem here, the bad lens is... in fact it's remarkable how well the JPEGs look...
Click to expand...

It's not surprising at all.

Geometric distortion (especially first order vs. wave-type) is very easy to accurately correct in-camera or in post -- especially compared to many other types of optical aberrations.

Lens designers are increasingly taking the eminently sensible position that they will focus on the aberrations that are hard or impossible to correct in post. This makes it possible to design extremely high-performance optical systems (lens + sensor + imaging pipeline) that are much more compact, lightweight, and inexpensive (simpler manufacture and therefore lower cost with less sample variation).

Case in point: the superlative, extremely compact, relatively inexpensive Panasonic 20/1.7 for µ4/3.
 
having tossed and turned all night, dreaming of a life lived in a skewed perspective-- a semi fish-eye like existence-- I took a little jaunt to test the camera out again... this time, a little more satisfied with what I see:

RAW:
clouds_RAW2.jpg


JPEG:
minus2third_JPG.jpg



I shot these at -2/3 or -1 whole step. The ones that were shot at only -1/3 had blown highlights that couldn't nearly be revived in Lightroom.

Lesson: shoot underexposed by an entire stop and use Lightroom to have anything close to usable.
 
This was taken on a S95 at its widest focal length, RAW and exposed for the highlights (-5/3 EV) with no lens correction in PS. I got a book on the S95 and it helped a lot.

6771492927_32c4aaa009_z.jpg


p.s. I am a film guy and shoot my X100 with at least -2/3rds most of the time as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
852
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Inscrutable Pentacon Six: A User's Guide
2
Replies
38
Views
17K
P C Headland
P
G
Lab Review- Beautiful Scan Quality
Replies
14
Views
3K
Scapevision
S
kb244
Got ahold of a New-Old-Stock Tiffen 87
Replies
0
Views
1K
kb244
kb244
Back
Top Bottom