Thanks, Dj. I think that in their conclusion, they ought to mention again that the distortion and vignetting shown are significantly addressed by the corrections built into the JPEG engine of all MFT cameras as well as the most commonly used RAW converters.
Do you think lens makers are going to get sloppy in lens design knowing distortion can be corrected in-camera and during post-processing?
There's a thread over on the other site discussing the issue now. Andy Westlake I believe did some tests and the angular field of view is 74.7 degrees after software correction, which means the lens is closer to 28.8mm (35mm eq) The 14mm's measured angle of view - 74 degrees at 2m, or 28mm-equiv.: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
In my own personal opinion, quality optics, regardless of the medium, always has a premium. As long as I'm not paying for that same premium for a software corrected lens, I have no problem with it.
I don't think they'll be sloppy, but they will increasingly trade optical quality for smaller size, lighter weight, and lower cost if the software corrections produce results that are good enough. As Dj said, optically excellent lenses will continue to co-exist and demand a premium. For example, a Panasonic rep implied that part of the reason the Leica 45/2.8 was costly was that Leica was unwilling to approve a design which utilized a lot of software correction. This was interesting, because Leica clearly approves the software approach for a range of small sensor Panasonic cameras with Leica-branded lenses (eg, LX5).
I really believe this is why there hasn't been a HG or SHG line from Olympus. Pre-mFT, the only thing was to create really good glass.
I don't have the exact quote handy, but it suggested that Leica was unwilling to go as far as Panasonic with regards to software correction for the 45/2.8 macro (eg, marked distortion correction). It didn't say they were unwilling to use software correction.
I can see where Leica would view the MFT camera line as premium versus the point and shoots and hence compromise on m4/3 lenses might sully their reputation. Even then they are bargains when compared to their M and R mount lenses.
I would say lazy, not sloppy. Unfortunately, I see them trying to maximize software correction before maximizing glass. Especially in more consumer driven products. Hopefully they will keep a good balance, maybe have a full "Lecia" range for their upper end lenses. Though, I hope they make their own, I don't want to pay for the Leica name, heh.
+1. I think this is the key. If software correction means good images from a less expensive lens, then I'm in favour. At $400, I think the Panasonic is pushing their luck with the 14mm. But perhaps I underestimate the cost of producing a wide angle lens.
