This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
p.1 #1Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
I've been curious to learn more about the built-in lens corrections the Z bodies embed into raws. When loading raws into ACR/LR these corrections are compulsory - they can't be disabled, at least not without stripping the correction info from the raws. You can tell these corrections have been applied from the "Builtin lens profile applied" message in the lens correction tab, which presents this dialog when clicked:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gchw558/0/e5e9e8c8/O/i-Gchw558.png
I'll be focusing on the Nikon 24-70 f/4Z lens on the Z7.
Visual Demonstration of 24-70 f/4Z lens corrections
First, here is an animated graphic showing the 24-70 with and without corrections. The non-corrected images were obtained by striping the correction info from the raw prior to processing, which can be done by converting the NEF to a DNG and then running "exiftool -OpCodeList3= <DNG_filename>", with a space after the equal sign.
Animated Graphic of 24-70Z with and without lens corrections (Click Me)
Technical dive into lens correction data
The correction profile is embedded in the raw, which is more more easily viewed by converting the raw to a DNG. The profile of the converted DNG is contained inside the OpcodeList3, which is a list of transformations to be applied just after demosaicing (described on page 67 of DNG spec). Here's that list in hex @ f24mm f/4, which is obtained via "exiftool -b -OpcodeList3 myfile.dng > out.bin"
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-JJ2qKth/0/e69251a5/O/i-JJ2qKth.png
The interpretation of this data is described starting on page 87 of the DNG spec. Here is the above profile as interpreted by dng_validate.exe, which is an executable that can be built from the DNG SDK:
Parsing OpcodeList3: 1 opcode
Opcode: WarpRectilinear, minVersion = 1.3.0.0, flags = 0
Planes: 3
Optical center:
h = 0.501393
v = 0.504918
Plane 0:
Radial params: 1.025404, -0.124185, 0.058328, -0.003717
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 1:
Radial params: 1.025181, -0.124368, 0.058438, -0.003759
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 2:
Radial params: 1.025359, -0.124566, 0.058607, -0.003809
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
These parameters describe a warp transformation to be applied to the demosaiced data. This transformation accomplishes two things - corrects the lens geometric distortion (pincushion, barrel distortion, etc..) and chromatic aberration. The CA correction is achieved by slightly skewing the warping across the three RGB color planes. This is described in the research paper Correcting Chromatic Aberations Using Image Warping.
Naturally the embedded correction profile values for the 24-70 vary depending on what focal length an image was shot at, since the distortion characteristics vary across the focal range. But they also vary by aperture even at the same focal length, since CA characteristics are affected by aperture effects. For example here's the profile at 24mm again but this time at f/5.6 instead of the f/4 listed above:
Opcode: WarpRectilinear, minVersion = 1.3.0.0, flags = 0
Planes: 3
Optical center:
h = 0.501405
v = 0.504913
Plane 0:
Radial params: 1.025498, -0.124349, 0.058447, -0.003755
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 1:
Radial params: 1.025181, -0.124368, 0.058438, -0.003759
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 2:
Radial params: 1.025277, -0.124355, 0.058413, -0.003751
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Acuity penalty from lens correction
Digital lens corrections are not without cost. Because their transformations shift pixels around they can reduce the effective resolution of the image. Roger Cicala has a great piece about this including MTF measurements
here. The amount of acuity lost depends on the magnitude of the correction and the portion of the image you evaluate, since the transformation varies across the image. Here is a visual demonstration showing the loss on a real-world 24-70Z image on the Z7 @ 24mm. This is taken from the extreme edge of the image, where the acuity impact is higher:
Sample of Acuity impact of 24-70Z lens corections (Click Me)
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gchw558/0/e5e9e8c8/O/i-Gchw558.png
I'll be focusing on the Nikon 24-70 f/4Z lens on the Z7.
Visual Demonstration of 24-70 f/4Z lens corrections
First, here is an animated graphic showing the 24-70 with and without corrections. The non-corrected images were obtained by striping the correction info from the raw prior to processing, which can be done by converting the NEF to a DNG and then running "exiftool -OpCodeList3= <DNG_filename>", with a space after the equal sign.
Animated Graphic of 24-70Z with and without lens corrections (Click Me)
Technical dive into lens correction data
The correction profile is embedded in the raw, which is more more easily viewed by converting the raw to a DNG. The profile of the converted DNG is contained inside the OpcodeList3, which is a list of transformations to be applied just after demosaicing (described on page 67 of DNG spec). Here's that list in hex @ f24mm f/4, which is obtained via "exiftool -b -OpcodeList3 myfile.dng > out.bin"
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-JJ2qKth/0/e69251a5/O/i-JJ2qKth.png
The interpretation of this data is described starting on page 87 of the DNG spec. Here is the above profile as interpreted by dng_validate.exe, which is an executable that can be built from the DNG SDK:
Parsing OpcodeList3: 1 opcode
Opcode: WarpRectilinear, minVersion = 1.3.0.0, flags = 0
Planes: 3
Optical center:
h = 0.501393
v = 0.504918
Plane 0:
Radial params: 1.025404, -0.124185, 0.058328, -0.003717
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 1:
Radial params: 1.025181, -0.124368, 0.058438, -0.003759
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 2:
Radial params: 1.025359, -0.124566, 0.058607, -0.003809
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
These parameters describe a warp transformation to be applied to the demosaiced data. This transformation accomplishes two things - corrects the lens geometric distortion (pincushion, barrel distortion, etc..) and chromatic aberration. The CA correction is achieved by slightly skewing the warping across the three RGB color planes. This is described in the research paper Correcting Chromatic Aberations Using Image Warping.
Naturally the embedded correction profile values for the 24-70 vary depending on what focal length an image was shot at, since the distortion characteristics vary across the focal range. But they also vary by aperture even at the same focal length, since CA characteristics are affected by aperture effects. For example here's the profile at 24mm again but this time at f/5.6 instead of the f/4 listed above:
Opcode: WarpRectilinear, minVersion = 1.3.0.0, flags = 0
Planes: 3
Optical center:
h = 0.501405
v = 0.504913
Plane 0:
Radial params: 1.025498, -0.124349, 0.058447, -0.003755
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 1:
Radial params: 1.025181, -0.124368, 0.058438, -0.003759
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Plane 2:
Radial params: 1.025277, -0.124355, 0.058413, -0.003751
Tangential params: 0.000000, 0.000000
Acuity penalty from lens correction
Digital lens corrections are not without cost. Because their transformations shift pixels around they can reduce the effective resolution of the image. Roger Cicala has a great piece about this including MTF measurements
here. The amount of acuity lost depends on the magnitude of the correction and the portion of the image you evaluate, since the transformation varies across the image. Here is a visual demonstration showing the loss on a real-world 24-70Z image on the Z7 @ 24mm. This is taken from the extreme edge of the image, where the acuity impact is higher:
Sample of Acuity impact of 24-70Z lens corections (Click Me)
Jan 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM
p.1 #2Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
This is an excellent post. It is not general knowledge that any lens correction tends to degrade the acuity of a lens. Therefore, the ability to disable automatic lens corrections is very important. For example, in landscape photography, a slight barrel distortion might not be significant, but acuity and fine detail across the entire image are.
Using DxO PhotoLab for Raw Conversion you might be able to remove the correction by selecting the "No Correction" preset.
Using DxO PhotoLab for Raw Conversion you might be able to remove the correction by selecting the "No Correction" preset.
Jan 19, 2019 at 11:22 AM
p.1 #3Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Can't you just mount the lens on another brand of mirrorless camera to judge what is being done by software?
Jan 19, 2019 at 07:20 PM
p.1 #4Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
mogul wrote:
Can't you just mount the lens on another brand of mirrorless camera to judge what is being done by software?
You then bring two more variables into the equation, the different mirrorless camera / sensor and the adapter, both of which can and probably will affect the image.
Can't you just mount the lens on another brand of mirrorless camera to judge what is being done by software?
You then bring two more variables into the equation, the different mirrorless camera / sensor and the adapter, both of which can and probably will affect the image.
Jan 19, 2019 at 07:29 PM
p.1 #5Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Thanks for the detailed write-up
I find sometimes I prefer the look of the image without any lens corrections applied. I'd prefer to keep the option to apply the correction, or not.
I find this a little disconcerting.
I find sometimes I prefer the look of the image without any lens corrections applied. I'd prefer to keep the option to apply the correction, or not.
I find this a little disconcerting.
Jan 19, 2019 at 08:12 PM
p.1 #6Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Kind of makes one wonder if we are actually getting better glass, or software. Also has implications as to what the actual contribution of benefits from the larger flange really are.
Jan 19, 2019 at 08:32 PM
p.1 #7Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
1bwana1 wrote:
Kind of makes one wonder if we are actually getting better glass, or software. Also has implications as to what the actual contribution of benefits from the larger flange really are.
I think a perfect example of this is the Leica Q. With the lens correction software turned off, there is a surprising amount of distortion. Especially given the cost and reputation of Leica glass.
Kind of makes one wonder if we are actually getting better glass, or software. Also has implications as to what the actual contribution of benefits from the larger flange really are.
I think a perfect example of this is the Leica Q. With the lens correction software turned off, there is a surprising amount of distortion. Especially given the cost and reputation of Leica glass.
Jan 19, 2019 at 11:28 PM
p.1 #8Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
This is a great write-up, and I commend your dedication and knowledge about the inner workings here.
The first time I discovered baked-in corrections was on the Fuji X-E1 with the XF18mm lens. I had a serious "WTF" Moment when I was trying out FastRawViewer to cull instead of my go-to, Lightroom. The Raw+Jpegs side-by-side were DRAMATICALLY different, not just with vignetting, but the distortion was being digitally corrected to the point where the entire crop area of the image was different. Loaded it back into LR, and saw the greyed-out option to apply corrections or not.
It felt just a bit sneaky at the time, and I'm still not sure if it's Adobe or Fuji (or Sony, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon etc) who are making the call to disable the option to turn corrections off, but it's just annoying. And the jig is up, I mean pretty much everyone knows that digital corrections are the norm now, and if you want to see how a lens actually performs, there's C1, RawTherapee, DxO and plenty of others who allow that.
The other, primitive option is to just tape over the electrical contacts if the lens has a manual helicoid and aperture and you don't so much care about exif but are still hooked on LR (*lowers head, raises hand*).
Not an option with auto focus lenses, obvs.
The first time I discovered baked-in corrections was on the Fuji X-E1 with the XF18mm lens. I had a serious "WTF" Moment when I was trying out FastRawViewer to cull instead of my go-to, Lightroom. The Raw+Jpegs side-by-side were DRAMATICALLY different, not just with vignetting, but the distortion was being digitally corrected to the point where the entire crop area of the image was different. Loaded it back into LR, and saw the greyed-out option to apply corrections or not.
It felt just a bit sneaky at the time, and I'm still not sure if it's Adobe or Fuji (or Sony, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon etc) who are making the call to disable the option to turn corrections off, but it's just annoying. And the jig is up, I mean pretty much everyone knows that digital corrections are the norm now, and if you want to see how a lens actually performs, there's C1, RawTherapee, DxO and plenty of others who allow that.
The other, primitive option is to just tape over the electrical contacts if the lens has a manual helicoid and aperture and you don't so much care about exif but are still hooked on LR (*lowers head, raises hand*).
Not an option with auto focus lenses, obvs.
Jan 20, 2019 at 12:13 AM
p.1 #9Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
"I think a perfect example of this is the Leica Q. With the lens correction software turned off, there is a surprising amount of distortion. Especially given the cost and reputation of Leica glass."
I always turn off the barrel correction of the Leica Q if not needed. This substantially improves sharpness and micro contrast at the corners.
I always turn off the barrel correction of the Leica Q if not needed. This substantially improves sharpness and micro contrast at the corners.
Jan 20, 2019 at 06:32 AM
p.1 #10Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
mogul wrote:
Can't you just mount the lens on another brand of mirrorless camera to judge what is being done by software?
With the Z lens having such a short flange distance (and wide throat) ... not sure which other brand of camera that could be (and still be FF).
Can't you just mount the lens on another brand of mirrorless camera to judge what is being done by software?
With the Z lens having such a short flange distance (and wide throat) ... not sure which other brand of camera that could be (and still be FF).
Apr 05, 2019 at 04:25 PM
p.1 #11Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
snapsy wrote:
I've been curious to learn more about the built-in lens corrections the Z bodies embed into raws. When loading raws into ACR/LR these corrections are compulsory - they can't be disabled, at least not without stripping the correction info from the raws. You can tell these corrections have been applied from the "Builtin lens profile applied" message in the lens correction tab, which presents this dialog when clicked:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gchw558/0/e5e9e8c8/O/i-Gchw558.png
I'll be focusing on the Nikon 24-70 f/4Z lens on the Z7.
Visual Demonstration of 24-70 f/4Z lens corrections
First, here is an animated graphic showing the 24-70 with and without corrections. The non-corrected images...Show more →
Welcome to the new world of photography
I am just looking at smart phone upgrades from my S8+ and the the Huawei P30 Pro looks very impressive. Moving forward it will be very hard for camera manufacturers to not include smart AI/software corrections for camera systems. As mentioned the Leica Q is a perfect example. We now demand small/light and yet cost effective camera systems and the latest software/AI will be part of the new era of photography.
I've been curious to learn more about the built-in lens corrections the Z bodies embed into raws. When loading raws into ACR/LR these corrections are compulsory - they can't be disabled, at least not without stripping the correction info from the raws. You can tell these corrections have been applied from the "Builtin lens profile applied" message in the lens correction tab, which presents this dialog when clicked:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gchw558/0/e5e9e8c8/O/i-Gchw558.png
I'll be focusing on the Nikon 24-70 f/4Z lens on the Z7.
Visual Demonstration of 24-70 f/4Z lens corrections
First, here is an animated graphic showing the 24-70 with and without corrections. The non-corrected images...Show more →
Welcome to the new world of photography
I am just looking at smart phone upgrades from my S8+ and the the Huawei P30 Pro looks very impressive. Moving forward it will be very hard for camera manufacturers to not include smart AI/software corrections for camera systems. As mentioned the Leica Q is a perfect example. We now demand small/light and yet cost effective camera systems and the latest software/AI will be part of the new era of photography.Apr 05, 2019 at 05:03 PM
p.1 #12Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
But my, they are getting bolder by the month. In retrospect in 2025, it will look like something that had to happen, 'for progress to occur'. There are so many reasons to condemn this pernicious development, as late technical oligopolism creeps into photography and gathers full force.
Not least the close coupling of lens to camera brand, the downgrading of optical excellence in favour of 'computational correction', the necessity to always stay in line to 'upgrade firmware' (see Zeiss's Batis 40mm screw up), and the elevated stature of the maker over the photographer - the 'we know best, better than you' syndrome.
It's a drip feed, with you being the drip. Little wonder so many of the modern lenses' ever-sharper imagery tends to look so artificial and strangely detached from reality - they are *computer designs* so expect cereal box images. Exceptions exist for those with eyes to see, luckily.
'compulsory - they can't be disabled'
'Computational photography: “The next step is we have to learn more things from computational photography”'
- Kenji Tanaka from Sony
Do it well away from me and my lenses, pal, your track record stinks. There are excellent reasons to use optical corrected lenses, the design comes from a human being for starters; a real person with a real vision of what his efforts offer the connected user. Some of us actually prefer optical photography to the bladerunner baking clinic. Lenses over here (artistic tools), computers over there (photo finishing tools), sensor in-between.
Yep, the phones have the poor boys worried, and then some. Their response is to produce unwieldy gear you can do jejeune billboards with. The irony is, the flight to phone-based platforms is only hastened by this industry behaviour.
Not least the close coupling of lens to camera brand, the downgrading of optical excellence in favour of 'computational correction', the necessity to always stay in line to 'upgrade firmware' (see Zeiss's Batis 40mm screw up), and the elevated stature of the maker over the photographer - the 'we know best, better than you' syndrome.
It's a drip feed, with you being the drip. Little wonder so many of the modern lenses' ever-sharper imagery tends to look so artificial and strangely detached from reality - they are *computer designs* so expect cereal box images. Exceptions exist for those with eyes to see, luckily.
'compulsory - they can't be disabled'
'Computational photography: “The next step is we have to learn more things from computational photography”'
- Kenji Tanaka from Sony
Do it well away from me and my lenses, pal, your track record stinks. There are excellent reasons to use optical corrected lenses, the design comes from a human being for starters; a real person with a real vision of what his efforts offer the connected user. Some of us actually prefer optical photography to the bladerunner baking clinic. Lenses over here (artistic tools), computers over there (photo finishing tools), sensor in-between.
Yep, the phones have the poor boys worried, and then some. Their response is to produce unwieldy gear you can do jejeune billboards with. The irony is, the flight to phone-based platforms is only hastened by this industry behaviour.
Apr 05, 2019 at 05:40 PM
p.1 #13Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
There is no doubt the purist including myself will always prefer optical correction but there has been software corrections for quite some time and often we have been unaware as they have been baked in the RAW files. Then within Lr there correction profiles but the purist within me rarely uses them.
The Leica Q produces superb images in spite of the corrections.
The Leica Q produces superb images in spite of the corrections.
Apr 05, 2019 at 07:50 PM
p.1 #14Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
+1 for the purist @ heart.
But, on a pragmatic level ... is the amount of correction being applied, reducing the FOV from 14mm to such a degree that a well corrected 15mm or 16mm (or other 14mm) would yield a wider (or equivalent) FOV than the corrected 14mm view from the 14-30/4 S?
In other words ... how big of a bite is the camera correction taking out of the image?
And ... is the EVF showing us the corrected FOV, or is our viewfinder framing going to be different from the file?
But, on a pragmatic level ... is the amount of correction being applied, reducing the FOV from 14mm to such a degree that a well corrected 15mm or 16mm (or other 14mm) would yield a wider (or equivalent) FOV than the corrected 14mm view from the 14-30/4 S?
In other words ... how big of a bite is the camera correction taking out of the image?
And ... is the EVF showing us the corrected FOV, or is our viewfinder framing going to be different from the file?
Apr 05, 2019 at 08:31 PM
p.1 #15Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
delete
Edited on Apr 07, 2019 at 11:12 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Apr 07, 2019 at 11:12 AM · View previous versions
Apr 06, 2019 at 06:44 AM
p.1 #16Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
I am probably in the minority here. To my eyes, the sample pictures showed that there is some loss of detail with lens correction but taking the picture as a whole, I prefer the one with lens correction rather than without. Beside Leica Q, Leica 24-90/2.8-4 for SL has quite a bit of lens correction baked into RAW file as well (if I am not mistaken, I sold it awhile back) but still is better than 24-70/2.8 offered by both Canon and Nikon. Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possible but also will need to balance that with weight and size of the lens, as well as cost. I don't really want another monstrous 24-70/2.8 like the Nikon VR version.
Apr 06, 2019 at 07:45 AM
p.1 #17Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
JohnBrew wrote:
Don't accept the baked in adjustments! In ACR, lens corrections, click on the drop down menu for "Make" and go to "Nikon". Your lens should pop up automatically (yes, even the S lenses) and you will see the pincushion distortion change. If a different lens pops up, then go to the drop down menu and find your lens.
Before I discovered this I was quite unhappy with the baked in corrections because they didn't go far enough.
So, if you are wanting to take the corrections "farther" ... how much real estate loss would you say is taken away from the 14mm FOV? It seems to me that whether we are accepting of the baked in correction, or are going to manually correct ... either way, the lens requires us to cut away from the FOV.
Having baked in correction, then becomes just a convenient way of chopping out portions of the frame. UNLESS ... the lens is wider than 14mm and the final cut yields a 14mm from the baked in correction.
NOTE: I understand the compromises in play regarding size / weight / $$$ / auto-correction ... compromises are part of optics, particularly as your go UWA. Choose your poison(s) wisely.
Don't accept the baked in adjustments! In ACR, lens corrections, click on the drop down menu for "Make" and go to "Nikon". Your lens should pop up automatically (yes, even the S lenses) and you will see the pincushion distortion change. If a different lens pops up, then go to the drop down menu and find your lens.
Before I discovered this I was quite unhappy with the baked in corrections because they didn't go far enough.
So, if you are wanting to take the corrections "farther" ... how much real estate loss would you say is taken away from the 14mm FOV? It seems to me that whether we are accepting of the baked in correction, or are going to manually correct ... either way, the lens requires us to cut away from the FOV.
Having baked in correction, then becomes just a convenient way of chopping out portions of the frame. UNLESS ... the lens is wider than 14mm and the final cut yields a 14mm from the baked in correction.
NOTE: I understand the compromises in play regarding size / weight / $$$ / auto-correction ... compromises are part of optics, particularly as your go UWA. Choose your poison(s) wisely.
Apr 06, 2019 at 07:58 AM
p.1 #18Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Is it only me who finds the difference between the uncorrected and corrected image trivial? Agree that Nikon forcing a correction on the user is not cool.
Apr 06, 2019 at 08:21 AM
p.1 #19Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
GroovyGeek wrote:
Is it only me who finds the difference between the uncorrected and corrected image trivial? Agree that Nikon forcing a correction on the user is not cool.
Perhaps Nikon will issue some response to clarify what they are doing and why.
Or maybe take care of everything with a firmware update.
As to being trivial, you may be correct, but I think it depends on which lens you are using.
Is it only me who finds the difference between the uncorrected and corrected image trivial? Agree that Nikon forcing a correction on the user is not cool.
Perhaps Nikon will issue some response to clarify what they are doing and why.
Or maybe take care of everything with a firmware update.
As to being trivial, you may be correct, but I think it depends on which lens you are using.
Apr 06, 2019 at 02:52 PM
p.1 #20Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
suteetat wrote:
I am probably in the minority here. To my eyes, the sample pictures showed that there is some loss of detail with lens correction but taking the picture as a whole, I prefer the one with lens correction rather than without. Beside Leica Q, Leica 24-90/2.8-4 for SL has quite a bit of lens correction baked into RAW file as well (if I am not mistaken, I sold it awhile back) but still is better than 24-70/2.8 offered by both Canon and Nikon. Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possible but also will need to balance that...Show more →
I agree
Different manufacturers have had baked in corrections for a long time. The baked in correction vary substantially and not only for optical corrections. For instance when Leica first introduced the M9 there were major issues with the "Italian" flag syndrome and no real amount of post processing would resolve the color cast graduation. They eventually fixed it with FW updates. These baked in corrections could not come soon enough!
When we look at camera systems the IQ/rendering and feel need to be looked in the context of the whole image.
I am probably in the minority here. To my eyes, the sample pictures showed that there is some loss of detail with lens correction but taking the picture as a whole, I prefer the one with lens correction rather than without. Beside Leica Q, Leica 24-90/2.8-4 for SL has quite a bit of lens correction baked into RAW file as well (if I am not mistaken, I sold it awhile back) but still is better than 24-70/2.8 offered by both Canon and Nikon. Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possible but also will need to balance that...Show more →
I agree
Different manufacturers have had baked in corrections for a long time. The baked in correction vary substantially and not only for optical corrections. For instance when Leica first introduced the M9 there were major issues with the "Italian" flag syndrome and no real amount of post processing would resolve the color cast graduation. They eventually fixed it with FW updates. These baked in corrections could not come soon enough!When we look at camera systems the IQ/rendering and feel need to be looked in the context of the whole image.
Apr 06, 2019 at 04:38 PM