Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/20[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
I have run the experiment (with both Nikon lenses and the Canon G9 using DxO) and the difference is eye-popping. I use NEFs because I use DxO software for troublesome conversions and to correct pincushion and barrel distortion. DxO does not work with DNGs - it wants to use the proprietary data in the NEF file. In the future I expect that manufacturers will start taking a total systems (and therefore proprietary) approach to lens/sensor/raw conversion to optimize the final image. There have been some small steps in this direction: Leicasonic with the LX3/D-lux 4 approaches to correcting distortion Nikon correcting some color aberrations in Capture NX2, and rectifying the 10.5mm fisheye. Third parties like DxO and PTlens correcting distortion. Even Leica used that approach to solve the IR problem, even if it was unintentional! Fujitsu is using non-standard sensors to improve dynamic range In the long run I expect the total systems approach to dominate -- it will let smaller lighter lenses (especially zooms) and possibly lower cost sensors produce superior images. At the low end, the emphasis will be on cheaper components. At the high end, the emphasis will be on better images. I expect that as processor power improves even depth of field could be enhanced using algorithms that based on the properties of specific lenses. What I am leading up to is that an open standard like DNG used by camera manufacturers will inhibit a total systems approach. It is too early in the life of digital cameras to freeze and standardize such a critical component of the total system. Adobe's expertise does not lie in lens/sensor design, and even their approach to raw conversion led to howls (murmurs?) of protest that the camera's output was superior to Adobe's. Adobe (rightly) gave in to its users and produced profiles that are closer to the camera's output than to Adobe's idea of what the output should look like. It be better for the industry if Adobe opened up their architecture and allowed third parties to plug their raw converters in to Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, save their parameters in the database. Then Leica (or anyone) could use their magic sauce to cook the raw conversion as they pleased. Third parties like DxO could provide alternative "looks" as they do with DxO Filmpack, so that the user could say "make this a Kodachrome" and bingo, it is. (and no, the CS3 to CS4 upgrade is not worth it - I upgraded out of curiosity, but I cannot say that it was worth it to me. YMMV) -- Clive Blog: http://clive.moss.net/blog Photographs: http://clive.smugmug.com On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > Frank perhaps you could run an experiment there if you wished and let us > know the outcome? You'll need a lens with known significant correction > problems to conduct the experiment.