Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #5 · Touit touit touit.... touit :) |
I'm okay with lenses being a bit larger if there is an attempt to optically address issues like distortion, CA, as well as edge/corner performance with short-flange mounts. I had thought that mFT lens designs were made with the assumption that CA and distortion correction would be done on the capture side of things. In conjunction with a smaller projected image circle, their lenses should be a lot smaller. Not sure about the Fuji lenses, are they reliant on software fixes as well?
A lot of the m4/3 lenses are software corrected. In some cases, it has a detrimental effect, in other cases, the base optical design is so good with regards to resolution that even after auto correction, there's tons of detail.
Fuji has some correction capability I believe, but the lenses overall are not corrected in software very much in many cases. What's crazy is the Fuji 14mm, which has essentially zero distortion, and that's native to the lens...no distortion correction at all. Photozone measure the distortion at 0.4% barrel, and I've seen other reviews who measured it even less (under 0.2% barrel). I've never seen an ultra-wide with distortion that low. I think it's closest competitor in that area are the new Canon tilt shift wide angles, which are still around 1.0% barrel distortion.