Thanks for your thoughts here Keith....very much enjoy all your topics and I dont even own a printer. I especially enjoy your reducing some topics to the "Nuts and Bolts" of the matter.
Thanks - I do enjoy doing talks and seminars. I used to lecture in my previous career [usability research] at Loughborough University and at conferences. These days, I do the occasional photography related ones for architects at a local university [DMU - the place where I test many lenses]. I do some talks for local UK camera clubs [a few a year - I only charge expenses]. There's also a few talks at photography shows as well - basically I'm always open to invitations for that, should anyone read this ;-) We've had a lot of family issues this year, which has limited things somewhat ...2025 is when I'd really like to expand this aspect of my work. Oh and as long as the travel is covered, I'm more than happy to do talks outside of the UK!
Is software correction cheating? In other words, is it similar to how changing perspective using software vs a PC lens is using a smaller portion of the sensor? I realize there might be a practical vs theoretical aspect to your answer. I mean, if we correct chromatic aberrations such s fringing in software were also robbing the inage of resolution by masking those purple or green fringes. Lasrly, if lens design is a matter of compromise (and technological innovation), in which instance could an older lens - on certain aspects , not across the board - outperform a modern lens? And how much do environmental variables contribute to this answer? One last thing :I have been wondering the following for a while: does lens sharpness compromise color fidelity? Inkeep thinking back to some of these simple, expensive, and gorgeous cinema lenses such as the Cooke tripplet and Zeiss CP line. Thanks for doing this video and gave a wonderful weekend, Keith.
Thanks - good points! There's only one form of cheating to me and that's passing off someone [something?] else's work as your own - but when does software impinge on this ;-) I'm still happy using old adapted lenses sometimes - depends on what the images are for...
To me the end result is what's count. If corrections are done with extra (or exotic) glass or in software doesn't matter to me. Adobe sw may not be as good as DxO in correcting lens problems, but you do have the option of selecting a profile manually - of course as long as someone has made one. There are also an open software project called Lensfun which is used for lens corrections by several applications like DarkTable, but also some commercial software. I've only used it through DarkTable and it was certainly better than no corrections, but not as good as Adobe. This was years ago so things might have changed, but the main point was that Lensfun support a lot of lenses.
Yes - there are some good developments in this area. My own issue has long been that I use shift lenses for a lot of my work, so corrections become more tricky to apply.
My RF 16mm F2.8 is absolutely terrible for distortion if you look at the raw files - worse than anything I've ever seen. Print the corrected jpgs and you'd never know without going A2 or greater. It's useless for Astro etc. as coma is stunningly horrible. If I use it for landscape, I just crop 1:1 or 4:3, and it works great for 4K video. It's still a great little lens taht wouldn't have been possible even a few years ago. I put in a request to DxO a while back to allow selection of lens module correction profiles manually. In particular for my film scan tiffs shot with EOS lenses I'd like the corrections sometimes. Another great video sir!
Thanks - I'll add that to my own list of 'requests' ;-) Years ago I used to do pre-release testing for DxO Optics Pro, but they seem to have moved in the direction of providing an alternative to Lightroom (Given I dislike Lightroom, it means the number of new features which appeal has steadily diminished) I still like it, but 75% of my commercial shots couldn't get anything much from it (using shift lenses)
@@KeithCooper I can't stomach Lightroom, in any version. I use Negafix for my analog workflow so I can avoid LR. I just upgraded, and Photolab 6 has been fantastic so far! In particular they added a new library function that allows me to interface with my existing collection on a 15 TB NAS. It works seamlessly without the headaches the Lightroom catalog caused for me.
That´s something that caught my attention reading about the new RF glass. While I do understand that those lenses are cutting edge, I simply don't get why they need to be so overpriced, since there is "less stuff" physicly going on compared to old EF glass. I know they are sharper, but I feel that knowing that the results are mostly software based, we are loosing some of the "state of the art" magic.
I feel there is a bit more of "what can we get away with charging" at the moment - the reduced volumes of sales are being pushed towards profitability, hence the higher end glass appearing. I'm testing the GFX100S as a replacement for my 5Ds, partly because Canon has left the high MP market hanging a bit, and partly because when they bring out something 'suitable' they might put the sensor into an R3 (or 'R1') rather than R5 style body and any new tilt/shift lenses will be too expensive for me to justify from a business POV. Having been out today with my TS-E17 and TS-E24 II on the GFX100S I'm seeing rather good results with an EF->G adapter.
@@KeithCooper I have those two lenses, and the 45 and 90. I bought a Lumix S1R for them, and the Sigma adaptor. The S1R has a 187 megapixel high resolution option. There's a recent rumour of 90 megapixels coming from Canon. Sort of credible, the 50 megapixels was a huge surprise to all.
The 50MP was not that much of a surprise... Then again, I have run the original Canon Rumours pages since 2004 [long before any specialist 'rumor sites'] Not maintained as they once were but still going strong. BTW I tested the S1R with the TS-E24 II and TS-E50mm - very good at ~190MP www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-the-panasonic-s1r/
@@KeithCooper If 20 megapixels is enough, then 187 gives enormous scope for cropping. I could shoot with the TS-E 17, then crop to TS-E 24 view, or crop portrait out of a landscape image. Karen might like an OM-D E-M1 III or OM 1. 20 megapixels, whit 80 megapixels high res without weird exposure limitations, focus stacking/bracketting, , live ND, 50 megapixels hand-held. Someone, I think Fotodiox has shift adaptors.
The ~190MP is good, but only usable in quite specific circumstances It's one reason I'm interested int the 100MP of the GFX - with an optional ~400 (albeit not so well implemented as in the S1R)
Great video. Thank you. I would like to know if there is a price to be paid for the built in software correction. I’m thinking of a lens like the Canon RF 24-240 which without the built in correction looks terrible. Is the built in software correction a free lunch or would a lens that did not need so much correction look better?
Thanks - That's an interesting question. A 24-240 which tried to do similar things 'in glass' would, I suspect, be a lot heavier and expensive - and might even then show some issues. One thing to look at with the corrections, is do they make a lens a viable product to sell to a market? A non 'corrected' lens might look better, but no-one would want to buy or use it - who matters when considering 'better'? Do people buying a 24-240 value the 'purity' they would get carrying round a 'better' set of optically great primes and zooms - or the convenience of getting the results? I see the software as another variable introduced into commercial lens designs as retail products.
@ Thank you again. I guess what I’m wondering if a lens that needs less software correction is a better lens than a lens that needs more software correction. In other words, does software correction come at a price? Thank you.
Ah, the elephant in the room is that word 'better'... ;-) My standard answer in the absence of qualifying info, is always "It depends..." ;-) Just what does it mean? In what ways? For who? for what usage?
@@KeithCooper Thanks again. My thought is that there must be a price for software correction. Otherwise, why would any lens manufacturer strive for excellence in building the lens?
Remember that you can only correct so much, and some aberrations are easier to fix than others. All lens design is a collection of compromises [including marketing and manufacturing ones] - software just gives a bigger set of options. There does not 'have to be a price' it's just an extra product design option[s] - you might be in a market where customers expect to pay a fortune for superb lenses, and would not 'trust software'... There is no shortage of photographers who fall into my 'more money than sense' category ;-) Remember that you can also use software to address lens aberrations which are difficult to cover with traditional lens design, or where fixing them exacerbates others. It comes down to the fact you want to create lenses people will want to buy and make you a profit... ;-)
There's a lot of photographers complain about "wide angle distortion." I wonder whether they know what they are doing. Some are confused by misleading perspective. Inside a room, photographing the far wall, there's a couch at right angles, projecting towards the photographers. That's physics, not the lens. I did technical drawing at school, I would draw it much as the camera records it. Outside, essentially we're photographing the inside of a tennis ball. If you use a lens with an angle of view of 120 degrees, you are going to capture a lot of concave curvature. And then, you project it onto a flat surface. That's not the lens either, it's physics. It looks weird, because you don't pay attention to what's around it and you see the curve as normal Correct it or not. I don't care. I am not at all saying lenses, any lenses, are perfect, but I try to understand my gear properly. I place my camera thoughtfully, to make my photos different from how people mostly see stuff. A bit of curvature doesn't bother me at all. I don't like chromatic aberration though.
Very interesting. I've found myself ranting about people who complain that their wiz-bang new camera doesn't work well (or at all) with old or third-party lenses. They don't seem to accept the fact that manufacturers are making a system in which the parts are mutually optimized. This isn't the era of Kodachrome anymore.
You really can "have your cake and eat it too" and programs like DxO ViewPoint (and Nik Perspective Efex) can correct even fisheye-level corner distortion. It is annoying, however, that despite the plethora of camera/lenses that PhotoLab supports, they've yet to add the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 (which is a "fully manual" lens with no EXIF). Thanks for explaining why this and other similar lenses aren't supported, but they also don't support the Samsung Galaxy S22 (which does have EXIF data, although even the "Expert RAW" app doesn't produce actual RAW files--only DNGs I can't process--plus there's no auto-correction for lens distortion other than what the hardware provides, but at least there are manual choices). I rarely use a phone for serious photos, but sometimes it's the only option. Also, thanks so much for the tip re Sharpen AI (I expect that Photo AI would do the same). I don't necessarily worry too much about edge sharpness (or other issues, other than CA, which is never a good thing) as I sometimes add subtle vignetting in post, but there are cases where that could come in handy.
I still think there is no free lunch. Today computer-aided lens design focuses on properties which are unambiguously measurable by reviewers, such as sharpness, aberrations. However, I bought this year the Canon RF 14..35 F4. It is sharp, has little aberration, BUT the images I get, lack any depth. I visited Tuscany and landscape there is all about light and depth. None of the images could hold a candle to the old simpler design Zeiss ZE 28mm F2, I used at similar circumstances. The Zeiss has more measurable optical defects, but it gives me the impression I saw. Now the Canon rests in my cabinet as the most expensive bad investment in my photography.
Ah, now I never said lens imperfections were bad, some might appeal more to some people ;-) Whilst I appreciate your POV [I use old lenses too] I have to say that the term 'Depth' is one which means different things to every person who ever uses it. It tells me nothing of the differences between what are two very different lenses (28mm vs 14mm is a huge difference for a start) A comparison between the RF14 and the EF14 [or EF14 II ] would mean far more to me - or any other 14mm design of yore. Now it happens that with 14mm (on full frame) I often prefer a bit of geometric distortion, unless I'm shooting subjects where a true rectilinear geometry is superior. If there is a difference between lenses it can be shown, if it can't show up in a test image it's as much in your head as the lens [nothing wrong with that BTW - photography is a creative endeavour] I'd rather start off with very good, given the choice, but then again I shoot architecture ;-)
@@KeithCooper I have a old version of PS and LR and I'm not sure that I can transfer the programs from Win 7 to my next wind 10 computer when I can afford one. So is there free software that I can use that is any good? I will use old lenses on a Nikon D850 when I can afford a 2nd hand camera in 2 year time. I got D700 and D800E today. In 5-6 year I will get a Fuji GFX 100S so I can use my old HB and Mamiya 7 lenses. I often use a handhold camera in low light so I need some software to fix the pictures .
@@oneeyedphotographer Thank you they are installed in a laptop and a desktop. I need to contact adope when I move the files. I need a raw converter for the new cameras.
Thanks for your thoughts here Keith....very much enjoy all your topics and I dont even own a printer. I especially enjoy your reducing some topics to the "Nuts and Bolts" of the matter.
Glad you like them!
Great vid, Keith. I find you very easy to understand and your videos are a great resource. Do you lecture anywhere?
Thanks - I do enjoy doing talks and seminars.
I used to lecture in my previous career [usability research] at Loughborough University and at conferences. These days, I do the occasional photography related ones for architects at a local university [DMU - the place where I test many lenses].
I do some talks for local UK camera clubs [a few a year - I only charge expenses].
There's also a few talks at photography shows as well - basically I'm always open to invitations for that, should anyone read this ;-)
We've had a lot of family issues this year, which has limited things somewhat ...2025 is when I'd really like to expand this aspect of my work.
Oh and as long as the travel is covered, I'm more than happy to do talks outside of the UK!
Is software correction cheating? In other words, is it similar to how changing perspective using software vs a PC lens is using a smaller portion of the sensor? I realize there might be a practical vs theoretical aspect to your answer. I mean, if we correct chromatic aberrations such s fringing in software were also robbing the inage of resolution by masking those purple or green fringes. Lasrly, if lens design is a matter of compromise (and technological innovation), in which instance could an older lens - on certain aspects , not across the board - outperform a modern lens? And how much do environmental variables contribute to this answer? One last thing :I have been wondering the following for a while: does lens sharpness compromise color fidelity? Inkeep thinking back to some of these simple, expensive, and gorgeous cinema lenses such as the Cooke tripplet and Zeiss CP line. Thanks for doing this video and gave a wonderful weekend, Keith.
Thanks - good points!
There's only one form of cheating to me and that's passing off someone [something?] else's work as your own - but when does software impinge on this ;-)
I'm still happy using old adapted lenses sometimes - depends on what the images are for...
To me the end result is what's count. If corrections are done with extra (or exotic) glass or in software doesn't matter to me. Adobe sw may not be as good as DxO in correcting lens problems, but you do have the option of selecting a profile manually - of course as long as someone has made one. There are also an open software project called Lensfun which is used for lens corrections by several applications like DarkTable, but also some commercial software. I've only used it through DarkTable and it was certainly better than no corrections, but not as good as Adobe. This was years ago so things might have changed, but the main point was that Lensfun support a lot of lenses.
Yes - there are some good developments in this area.
My own issue has long been that I use shift lenses for a lot of my work, so corrections become more tricky to apply.
My RF 16mm F2.8 is absolutely terrible for distortion if you look at the raw files - worse than anything I've ever seen. Print the corrected jpgs and you'd never know without going A2 or greater. It's useless for Astro etc. as coma is stunningly horrible. If I use it for landscape, I just crop 1:1 or 4:3, and it works great for 4K video. It's still a great little lens taht wouldn't have been possible even a few years ago.
I put in a request to DxO a while back to allow selection of lens module correction profiles manually. In particular for my film scan tiffs shot with EOS lenses I'd like the corrections sometimes.
Another great video sir!
Thanks - I'll add that to my own list of 'requests' ;-)
Years ago I used to do pre-release testing for DxO Optics Pro, but they seem to have moved in the direction of providing an alternative to Lightroom (Given I dislike Lightroom, it means the number of new features which appeal has steadily diminished) I still like it, but 75% of my commercial shots couldn't get anything much from it (using shift lenses)
@@KeithCooper I can't stomach Lightroom, in any version. I use Negafix for my analog workflow so I can avoid LR.
I just upgraded, and Photolab 6 has been fantastic so far! In particular they added a new library function that allows me to interface with my existing collection on a 15 TB NAS. It works seamlessly without the headaches the Lightroom catalog caused for me.
Yes, it's getting better, and it's good to know it worked with the catalogue.
That´s something that caught my attention reading about the new RF glass. While I do understand that those lenses are cutting edge, I simply don't get why they need to be so overpriced, since there is "less stuff" physicly going on compared to old EF glass. I know they are sharper, but I feel that knowing that the results are mostly software based, we are loosing some of the "state of the art" magic.
I feel there is a bit more of "what can we get away with charging" at the moment - the reduced volumes of sales are being pushed towards profitability, hence the higher end glass appearing.
I'm testing the GFX100S as a replacement for my 5Ds, partly because Canon has left the high MP market hanging a bit, and partly because when they bring out something 'suitable' they might put the sensor into an R3 (or 'R1') rather than R5 style body and any new tilt/shift lenses will be too expensive for me to justify from a business POV. Having been out today with my TS-E17 and TS-E24 II on the GFX100S I'm seeing rather good results with an EF->G adapter.
@@KeithCooper I have those two lenses, and the 45 and 90. I bought a Lumix S1R for them, and the Sigma adaptor. The S1R has a 187 megapixel high resolution option.
There's a recent rumour of 90 megapixels coming from Canon. Sort of credible, the 50 megapixels was a huge surprise to all.
The 50MP was not that much of a surprise... Then again, I have run the original Canon Rumours pages since 2004 [long before any specialist 'rumor sites'] Not maintained as they once were but still going strong.
BTW I tested the S1R with the TS-E24 II and TS-E50mm - very good at ~190MP
www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-the-panasonic-s1r/
@@KeithCooper If 20 megapixels is enough, then 187 gives enormous scope for cropping. I could shoot with the TS-E 17, then crop to TS-E 24 view, or crop portrait out of a landscape image.
Karen might like an OM-D E-M1 III or OM 1. 20 megapixels, whit 80 megapixels high res without weird exposure limitations, focus stacking/bracketting, , live ND, 50 megapixels hand-held. Someone, I think Fotodiox has shift adaptors.
The ~190MP is good, but only usable in quite specific circumstances
It's one reason I'm interested int the 100MP of the GFX - with an optional ~400 (albeit not so well implemented as in the S1R)
Great video. Thank you. I would like to know if there is a price to be paid for the built in software correction. I’m thinking of a lens like the Canon RF 24-240 which without the built in correction looks terrible. Is the built in software correction a free lunch or would a lens that did not need so much correction look better?
Thanks - That's an interesting question.
A 24-240 which tried to do similar things 'in glass' would, I suspect, be a lot heavier and expensive - and might even then show some issues.
One thing to look at with the corrections, is do they make a lens a viable product to sell to a market? A non 'corrected' lens might look better, but no-one would want to buy or use it - who matters when considering 'better'?
Do people buying a 24-240 value the 'purity' they would get carrying round a 'better' set of optically great primes and zooms - or the convenience of getting the results?
I see the software as another variable introduced into commercial lens designs as retail products.
@ Thank you again. I guess what I’m wondering if a lens that needs less software correction is a better lens than a lens that needs more software correction. In other words, does software correction come at a price? Thank you.
Ah, the elephant in the room is that word 'better'... ;-)
My standard answer in the absence of qualifying info, is always "It depends..." ;-)
Just what does it mean? In what ways? For who? for what usage?
@@KeithCooper Thanks again. My thought is that there must be a price for software correction. Otherwise, why would any lens manufacturer strive for excellence in building the lens?
Remember that you can only correct so much, and some aberrations are easier to fix than others. All lens design is a collection of compromises [including marketing and manufacturing ones] - software just gives a bigger set of options.
There does not 'have to be a price' it's just an extra product design option[s] - you might be in a market where customers expect to pay a fortune for superb lenses, and would not 'trust software'... There is no shortage of photographers who fall into my 'more money than sense' category ;-)
Remember that you can also use software to address lens aberrations which are difficult to cover with traditional lens design, or where fixing them exacerbates others.
It comes down to the fact you want to create lenses people will want to buy and make you a profit... ;-)
There's a lot of photographers complain about "wide angle distortion." I wonder whether they know what they are doing. Some are confused by misleading perspective. Inside a room, photographing the far wall, there's a couch at right angles, projecting towards the photographers. That's physics, not the lens. I did technical drawing at school, I would draw it much as the camera records it.
Outside, essentially we're photographing the inside of a tennis ball. If you use a lens with an angle of view of 120 degrees, you are going to capture a lot of concave curvature. And then, you project it onto a flat surface. That's not the lens either, it's physics.
It looks weird, because you don't pay attention to what's around it and you see the curve as normal
Correct it or not. I don't care.
I am not at all saying lenses, any lenses, are perfect, but I try to understand my gear properly. I place my camera thoughtfully, to make my photos different from how people mostly see stuff. A bit of curvature doesn't bother me at all.
I don't like chromatic aberration though.
Yes, I may well even add barrel distortion if there are people in a wide view...
Thanks for the idea - topic added to the video to-do list ;-)
Very interesting. I've found myself ranting about people who complain that their wiz-bang new camera doesn't work well (or at all) with old or third-party lenses. They don't seem to accept the fact that manufacturers are making a system in which the parts are mutually optimized. This isn't the era of Kodachrome anymore.
Yes, old lenses can take some effort. More than some want to consider ;-)
You really can "have your cake and eat it too" and programs like DxO ViewPoint (and Nik Perspective Efex) can correct even fisheye-level corner distortion. It is annoying, however, that despite the plethora of camera/lenses that PhotoLab supports, they've yet to add the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 (which is a "fully manual" lens with no EXIF). Thanks for explaining why this and other similar lenses aren't supported, but they also don't support the Samsung Galaxy S22 (which does have EXIF data, although even the "Expert RAW" app doesn't produce actual RAW files--only DNGs I can't process--plus there's no auto-correction for lens distortion other than what the hardware provides, but at least there are manual choices). I rarely use a phone for serious photos, but sometimes it's the only option. Also, thanks so much for the tip re Sharpen AI (I expect that Photo AI would do the same). I don't necessarily worry too much about edge sharpness (or other issues, other than CA, which is never a good thing) as I sometimes add subtle vignetting in post, but there are cases where that could come in handy.
Glad it was of interest ... and yes - I need update my reviews to cover Photo AI as well ;-)
Apparently some of my cameras can correct fisheye. I haven't tried it, I just assume my bower fisheye is not included.
I still think there is no free lunch. Today computer-aided lens design focuses on properties which are unambiguously measurable by reviewers, such as sharpness, aberrations. However, I bought this year the Canon RF 14..35 F4. It is sharp, has little aberration, BUT the images I get, lack any depth. I visited Tuscany and landscape there is all about light and depth. None of the images could hold a candle to the old simpler design Zeiss ZE 28mm F2, I used at similar circumstances. The Zeiss has more measurable optical defects, but it gives me the impression I saw. Now the Canon rests in my cabinet as the most expensive bad investment in my photography.
Ah, now I never said lens imperfections were bad, some might appeal more to some people ;-)
Whilst I appreciate your POV [I use old lenses too] I have to say that the term 'Depth' is one which means different things to every person who ever uses it.
It tells me nothing of the differences between what are two very different lenses (28mm vs 14mm is a huge difference for a start) A comparison between the RF14 and the EF14 [or EF14 II ] would mean far more to me - or any other 14mm design of yore. Now it happens that with 14mm (on full frame) I often prefer a bit of geometric distortion, unless I'm shooting subjects where a true rectilinear geometry is superior.
If there is a difference between lenses it can be shown, if it can't show up in a test image it's as much in your head as the lens [nothing wrong with that BTW - photography is a creative endeavour]
I'd rather start off with very good, given the choice, but then again I shoot architecture ;-)
whar about using free software?
What about it?
@@KeithCooper I have a old version of PS and LR and I'm not sure that I can transfer the programs from Win 7 to my next wind 10 computer when I can afford one. So is there free software that I can use that is any good? I will use old lenses on a Nikon D850 when I can afford a 2nd hand camera in 2 year time. I got D700 and D800E today. In 5-6 year I will get a Fuji GFX 100S so I can use my old HB and Mamiya 7 lenses. I often use a handhold camera in low light so I need some software to fix the pictures .
Ah, given I've not used a windows pc this century, I can't really assist with this I'm afraid ;-)
@@thomaseriksson6256 If you have the install files, they should be fine.
@@oneeyedphotographer Thank you they are installed in a laptop and a desktop. I need to contact adope when I move the files. I need a raw converter for the new cameras.