One of the more controversial aspects of the Micro Four Thirds system is Panasonic's decision to integrate software lens aberration correction as a fundamental component of the imaging chain (which the company has unfortunately chosen not to publicly document). For most users this is completely transparent - the camera corrects both the viewfinder image 'on the fly', and the JPEG files it records...
So is it cheating?
With all this software correction of lens aberrations going on, it's perhaps inevitable that some people will look upon Panasonic's approach as 'cheating'. After all, the argument runs, film camera lenses were always properly corrected optically, so surely the use of software to achieve the same effect is simply cost-cutting, and therefore somehow 'cheating'.
We think this is fundamentally the wrong way to look at it. In photography, what ultimately counts is the final image - the means to get there is relatively unimportant. As we've shown, Panasonic's software correction results in pictures which are technically superior to those obtained using more conventional, purely optical correction methods. This is no doubt helped by the fact that none of the software manipulations used are particularly extreme (aside perhaps from those for distortion at wideangle) - we'd be much more worried if software was being used as a crutch to support the use of significantly sub-par optics. It's also worth appreciating that this new approach is only possible because of the opportunities offered by a system that has no optical viewfinder, and therefore no requirement for the lens to be corrected for SLR-type viewing.
Now some users have a more rational concern that systems which incorporate software correction won't be 'future-proof', and lenses which require such assistance won't be usable in future. This seems highly unlikely - the trend in software development is clearly to embrace such opportunities, as shown by the recent revision of the DNG specification to include lens correction instructions. It's not so long ago, after all, that raw converters offered no form of manually-adjustable noise reduction, and now no self-respecting piece of software would be seen out in public without the requisite chroma and luminance noise sliders. It seems likely that in a few years time, automatic lens aberration correction will become equally universal.
Some doubts have also been raised about whether such 'optically imperfect' lenses will be fully usable on future cameras, but this seems unlikely to be a real concern - at least as long as the Micro Four Thirds system itself continues in existence. We're told that distortion correction (at least) is a fundamental aspect of how MFT operates - the correction parameters are stored on a ROM inside the lens itself for communication to the camera, and written into the raw file for converters to use. So these lenses seem to be no more likely to become unusable in future than those for any other system.
So our considered opinion is that no, it's not cheating, and indeed this kind of processing is clearly the future. All of the major manufacturers are attempting to address lens flaws in software in one way or another, and one advantage of mirrorless system with purely electronic viewing is greater flexibility in what is possible. So the best approach for the photographer is to accept what technology can offer, and enjoy the images it can produce.
24-70 vs 24-105
Reply With Quote
None of the above...
Originally Posted by Panther_99FS
I have mine for a few months now, replacing the older and cheaper 17-85 and I think it is a great lens! The range is just perfect for everyday use, colours are nice and the autofocus is very fast. The four-stop stabilizer works great when taking three shots in a row for HDR images. (The 7D's 8fps capability helps too obviously.)
Bookmarks