MFT Lens Question

I was recently reminded that Panasonic (and other) cameras compensate in-camera for lens distortion, CA, etc. Some quite a bit. How would one know which lenses are 'better' without the in-camera compensation? At first the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT looked attractive to me for the BMPCC (and still may), but now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with something that needed less in-camera compensation. And how would anyone know & make that selection?

I was recently reminded that Panasonic (and other) cameras compensate in-camera for lens distortion, CA, etc. Some quite a bit. How would one know which lenses are 'better' without the in-camera compensation? At first the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT looked attractive to me for the BMPCC (and still may), but now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with something that needed less in-camera compensation. And how would anyone know & make that selection?

You just added complication to my own questions!!! wish I could help. Instead, I will join you in the question...

This website is full of detailed reviews on a large range of lenses. Including lens distortion, and some you can mouse over corrected and uncorrected versions at different focal lengths in each of the reviews (i.e. comparing raw and in camera corrected versions if it does any).

http://www.photozone.de/reviews

Jules

dccameraman - don't you love it when something you thought wasn't going to be an issue blows up

Jules, thanks for the website link. I looked at briefly and think my lens search is going to be much more involved than I expected. Most of those uncorrected lens reviews reported pretty extreme distortions at the wide & normal ranges. The site said the Panasonic Lumix 20mm 1.7 raw/uncorrected distortion was 'extreme for a prime lens.' I don't want to get too deep into pixel peeping, however I'm thinking the marketing phrase 'use any existing micro four thirds lens' doesn't tell the whole story.

This is very significant info! I was looking at both of these Panny pancake lenses... but without autocorrection, the distortion level makes them look like a pretty poor investment, compared to the manual glass I'm picking up.

Thanks for posting this.

Edit - the more I read about the shortcomings of even the best-reviewed micro 4/3 lenses, the more I feel like sticking with proven glass from other formats and using adapters. Without auto-correction, nearly all these lenses bite the big one badly.

OK, maybe that's harsh - but the before-and-after correction comparison charts on pretty much all these lenses really disturb me. The Pocket cam isn't going to step in and fix all that distortion, is it?

RE: CA and Distortion correction --

CA, at the very least, you should not have to worry about if you're using Resolve. Give me a bit here to finish exporting some more of my feature film, then I'll upload a quick CA removal test with motion in regards to the 25/0.95 SLR Magic wide open on BV1.

Now that I've learned how to do this, and it really does take but a few seconds to fix, CA is no longer an issue for me on any lens that I have, which is a pretty huge thing considering it can be a bit discouraging.

Softness wide open and yes, distortion, are more of a concern but I expect the latter to be mostly a non-issue on the Pocketcam as it'll be cropped further toward the center.

Will throw up a link in a bit here.

I was recently reminded that Panasonic (and other) cameras compensate in-camera for lens distortion, CA, etc. Some quite a bit. How would one know which lenses are 'better' without the in-camera compensation? At first the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT looked attractive to me for the BMPCC (and still may), but now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with something that needed less in-camera compensation. And how would anyone know & make that selection?

You just added complication to my own questions!!! wish I could help. Instead, I will join you in the question...

See Randy's comment after your earlier post. I had no idea the uncorrected distortion for the lens I recommended to you, Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm would have so much distortion at 7mm! I can't recommend that for any architecture photography. Sorry. I am disappointed as well.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I was recently reminded that Panasonic (and other) cameras compensate in-camera for lens distortion, CA, etc. Some quite a bit. How would one know which lenses are 'better' without the in-camera compensation? At first the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT looked attractive to me for the BMPCC (and still may), but now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with something that needed less in-camera compensation. And how would anyone know & make that selection?

You just added complication to my own questions!!! wish I could help. Instead, I will join you in the question...

See Randy's comment after your earlier post. I had no idea the uncorrected distortion for the lens I recommended to you, Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm would have so much distortion at 7mm! I can't recommend that for any architecture photography. Sorry. I am disappointed as well.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Maybe wishful thinking.. will it help that it would using more of the center of the lens rather than the whole thing.. meaning less distortion. I currently use a bower 14mm on my 5D which is distortion Crazy and is very noticeable is some situations but is fine most of the time. I looks from the chart that the Lumix 7-14mm has less distortion when uncorrected on m4/3 than my 14mm on my 5D. And it would be not using the edges, which is where the distortion is worse... Is this correct thinking?

Also, all of the shots in my real estate films are either glidecam or slider, which I believe also helps mask the distortion.

Your thoughts?

Now that Resolve 10 offers an universal plug-in access I suppose that software companies will jump on this market potential.

That said, some of the qualities of those relatively cheap µFT lenses comes from the possibility of software correction. A classical lens is a very difficult compromise, and being able to neglect factors like CA, vignetting and distortion to be corrected in software opens up possibilities for optimization in sharpness, speed or size instead. You'll be hard pressed to find classical wides doing as well in these departments as the Oly 12mm or the Panny 14 and 20mm. I've compared a very valued Minolta Rokkor 20mm 2.8 with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 and it can't compete in sharpness…

This may be a tempest in a teapot. I saw someone on another forum comment that some NLEs have distortion correction filters. I just checked my Premier Pro CS6 (Windows 64 bit) and it definitely has a lens distortion video effect.

So we are going to rule the world then... my pre-order is in =-)

Resistance if futile . . .

[quote="Steve Ogden"]I was recently reminded that Panasonic (and other) cameras compensate in-camera for lens distortion, CA, etc. Some quite a bit. How would one know which lenses are 'better' without the in-camera compensation? At first the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT looked attractive to me for the BMPCC (and still may), but now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with something that needed less in-camera compensation. And how would anyone know & make that selection?

You just added complication to my own questions!!! wish I could help. Instead, I will join you in the question...

See Randy's comment after your earlier post. I had no idea the uncorrected distortion for the lens I recommended to you, Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm would have so much distortion at 7mm! I can't recommend that for any architecture photography. Sorry. I am disappointed as well.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Maybe wishful thinking.. will it help that it would using more of the center of the lens rather than the whole thing.. meaning less distortion. I currently use a bower 14mm on my 5D which is distortion Crazy and is very noticeable is some situations but is fine most of the time. I looks from the chart that the Lumix 7-14mm has less distortion when uncorrected on m4/3 than my 14mm on my 5D. And it would be not using the edges, which is where the distortion is worse... Is this correct thinking?

Also, all of the shots in my real estate films are either glidecam or slider, which I believe also helps mask the distortion.

Your thoughts?[/quote]

On the very helpful photozone.de site recently posted, I looked at every wide zoom with constant aperture and every wide prime including the Panasonic 7-14mm we discussed. Did you click on the distortion shot to see the distortion without correction? Every Panasonic and Olympus active MFT lens I looked at was in my opinion relying on the in-camera distortion correction and had (4% or 5% distortion usually) unacceptable distortion for architectural use. The SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 may be acceptable but that lens didn't meet your desired focal length criteria.

For many users of the BMPCC and BMCC MFT, the uncorrected Panasonic and Olympus distortion might not be a problem with careful composition and framing in the shot. But if your subject is near a doorway or edge of a wall, it may be distracting and just not feel right for many.

When the BMCC was released there were a lot of posts requesting micro four-thirds mounts because of all the great glass available. When the BMCC passive MFT was announced, there were a lot of posts requesting an active micro four-thirds mount because of all the great glass available particularly from Panasonic and Olympus. Well, I have no experience with their lenses, but understand how popular their cameras are with their lenses. But it is sort of cheating when they rely completely on in-camera correction of what are in truth relatively expensive cheaply designed lenses if you are not mounting them on their camera. Can you sense my disappointment?

I love all the BMD cameras but it is certainly an art to make the best lens choices for your individual needs on each camera. When I considered the BMCC MFT, I knew what I would do (buy passive mount lenses designed either for passive MFT mounts like the SLR Magic ciné lenses or specifically designed for the BMCC MFT sensor like Owen's proposed lenses. That still seems to be a very good plan on the BMCC MFT. Unfortunately it doesn't completely translate to putting the same lenses on the BMPCC due to the smaller S16 sensor where a 17mm lens is the new normal and a 12mm lens is a modest wide. I'm thinking, as others have mentioned, it is best to get ciné glass designed for the S16 format that can be adapted to the BMPCC MFT mount. The active aspect of the MFT mount on the BMPCC is looking superfluous.

Pardon the stream of consciousness post. Eventually I'll arrive in Rome if all roads lead there!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD