RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. That, or maybe it's just "different".
Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting. Certainly, not a technical camera / lens ...but then again, it's not a technical camera / lens.
RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. That, or maybe it's just "different".
Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting.
