CV wides: cornerfix, colorshift and vignetting
Old 03-10-2011   #1
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
CV wides: cornerfix, colorshift and vignetting

I'm sure for many here, this will not be new, but some may benifit from what I am learning now.

CV has a series of primes from 12mm to 35mm which are very small and optically excellent. They cost a fraction of normal leica glass.

They are designed for film, and when used digitally the produce colorshifts and vignetting. Till now this was only an issue for the chosen who possessed digital leicas.

But the everyman nex cameras have changed all that:



You can see the appeal.

Cornerfix is a free software program which was made to adjust these lenses post exposure in M9s. It works perfectly for the nex as well.

You create a lens profile by shooting against a white background---this is actually a bit tricky, and I just used snow, which is not ideal, but seems to work anyway.

Here are the results:

before:

CV 35mm f/2.5 color skopar




after:



the workflow goes:

download raw into folder, batch convert to dng, batch process with cornerfix, edit as needed in LR and export to jpeg.

this is my first effort. I think I would keep a touch of vignetting in my ultimate profiles: this is adjustable.

The point is it works.

Last edited by uhoh7 : 03-10-2011 at 07:55.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2011   #2
nigelb
Registered User
 
nigelb is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Wales
Posts: 25
In general use I rarely use cornerfix to correct the images from the Skopar 35mm, vignette and colour shift not that noticeable, but I can certainly see the value of it with pale skies and snow. Cornerfix is pretty essential with the Helios 15mm, and often useful with the 25mm Snapshot Skopar.

Setting up a workflow for DNG converter and Cornerfix lens profiles is easy once you get the hang of it, but if you constantly change lenses it can get a bit confusing (wouldn't it be nice if the focal length appeared in the EXIF). It seems to discipline me to use fewer lens changes when I go out which isn't a bad thing.
__________________
Voigtlander Bessa R, Bessa L, 50/f1.5 Nokton, 35/f2.5 Skopar, 25/f4.0 Skopar, 15/4.5 Heliar.
OM1n, OM2n, Zuiko 24mm/2.8, 28-48mm/4, 50mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4, 85mm/2, 75-150/4
Leica Digilux 2
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2011   #3
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelb View Post
In general use I rarely use cornerfix to correct the images from the Skopar 35mm, vignette and colour shift not that noticeable, but I can certainly see the value of it with pale skies and snow. Cornerfix is pretty essential with the Helios 15mm, and often useful with the 25mm Snapshot Skopar.

Setting up a workflow for DNG converter and Cornerfix lens profiles is easy once you get the hang of it, but if you constantly change lenses it can get a bit confusing (wouldn't it be nice if the focal length appeared in the EXIF). It seems to discipline me to use fewer lens changes when I go out which isn't a bad thing.
I'm still working on decent profiles for the 21 28 and 35. Not at all happy with the one above. Was hoping I could find some, but no luck, so I am playing with grey cards
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #4
artur5
Registered User
 
artur5 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Catalonia
Posts: 34
Corner fix is for sure a great piece of software. That said, I'm not keen on having to fix every single image coming from a lens, not even with a semi automated batched process. For one thing, there's no Exif telling you which lens was used on which picture, so you have to know-remember-write down somewhere the information. Also, apart of wasting time in the process, the fixed image is not, by any means, like a picture coming from a retrofocus-telecentric design of a SLR wideangle.
To correct the cyan corners/vigneting, you must raise proportionally the level of red color and overall luminance, so you're increasing the visible noise, specially the red channel, and reducing the dynamic range on the outward parts of the image. There's no free lunch.

This is one of my reasons to keep away from rangefinder wideangles for using on my NEX. Another reason is the cost. A Zeiss Distagon 28/2,8 in Y/Contax mount comes at 1/3 of the price of a Zeiss Biogon ZM 28/2,8. Likewise, a Leica Summicron R 35 is way cheaper than the equivalent 35 in M mount.
Third: for some rangefinder lenses the minimal focusing distance is ( in my opinion) another negative factor. I just discarded the otherwise excellent C/V Ultron 35/1.7 because of the 0,9mtr/3 feet minimal focusing distance. Most 28mm SLR lenses go down to 0.3 mtr.
Of course, this is not an issue for everybody and some lenses, like the second version of the C/V Nokton 35/1.2, have a more reasonable m.f.d of 0,5 mtr. but then, this is a bulky, heavy and not that cheap lens..
Of course rangefinder lenses have big pluses too: small, light weight, well built and almost all of them very good performers. It's a matter of priorities. Provided the optical quality is good enough, I don't mind more bulk, weight and maybe distortion if I can get a decent price, no nasty color shifts at the corners and a convenient minimal focus distance.
I'm not bashing rangefinders, they're great but, for the time being, I'm sticking to reflex optics for my NEX.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #5
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur5 View Post
Corner fix is for sure a great piece of software. That said, I'm not keen on having to fix every single image coming from a lens, not even with a semi automated batched process. For one thing, there's no Exif telling you which lens was used on which picture, so you have to know-remember-write down somewhere the information. Also, apart of wasting time in the process, the fixed image is not, by any means, like a picture coming from a retrofocus-telecentric design of a SLR wideangle.
To correct the cyan corners/vigneting, you must raise proportionally the level of red color and overall luminance, so you're increasing the visible noise, specially the red channel, and reducing the dynamic range on the outward parts of the image. There's no free lunch.

This is one of my reasons to keep away from rangefinder wideangles for using on my NEX. Another reason is the cost. A Zeiss Distagon 28/2,8 in Y/Contax mount comes at 1/3 of the price of a Zeiss Biogon ZM 28/2,8. Likewise, a Leica Summicron R 35 is way cheaper than the equivalent 35 in M mount.
Third: for some rangefinder lenses the minimal focusing distance is ( in my opinion) another negative factor. I just discarded the otherwise excellent C/V Ultron 35/1.7 because of the 0,9mtr/3 feet minimal focusing distance. Most 28mm SLR lenses go down to 0.3 mtr.
Of course, this is not an issue for everybody and some lenses, like the second version of the C/V Nokton 35/1.2, have a more reasonable m.f.d of 0,5 mtr. but then, this is a bulky, heavy and not that cheap lens..
Of course rangefinder lenses have big pluses too: small, light weight, well built and almost all of them very good performers. It's a matter of priorities. Provided the optical quality is good enough, I don't mind more bulk, weight and maybe distortion if I can get a decent price, no nasty color shifts at the corners and a convenient minimal focus distance.
I'm not bashing rangefinders, they're great but, for the time being, I'm sticking to reflex optics for my NEX.
Ty for interesting post

1) I am only learning CF now, so I am not an expert. But I have seen many images adjusted by CF from CV wides, with no evidence of increased noise whatever. Not to say that at pixel peeping levels it does not exist.

2) The extra step in the workflow is the price of extremely compact affordable wide CV primes. I have a number of superb SLR primes which do not require any fixes. They are large and heavy compared to the CV wides. When that's not an issue I use them.

you can see the following flickr for reference to CF end results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapema...th/4142808692/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #6
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
2) The extra step in the workflow is the price of extremely compact affordable wide CV primes.
But the need for using adapted wide primes in the first place is only a result of Sony's extremely limited native lens lineup.

There are basically two classes of people who buy EVIL cameras. One buy them because they already have some lenses they'd like to adapt - these are typically the sort of people who don't mind fiddling with Cornerfix and keeping notes of what lens they used when because there is no EXIF data. (This group of people is also vocal on sites such as this and Flickr, but quite small.) The other group is those who want to use it with their native lenses. The Sony lineup doesn't really offer much flexibility for the latter group. Basically you have to use hacks like adapting rangefinder wides or use adapted A-mount lenses (which are then big, and some, such as the 11-18/f4.5-5.6, not all that great) because the platform doesn't offer anything else.

On 4/3 the situation is different. You can use lenses like the Olympus 7-14/f4 that are quite excellent and (by virtue of optimizing a lens for the sensor size behind it) both compact and cheap for what they offer - for $1500 new you get a useful range of focal lengths at very good quality that fully integrates into the system, whereas in the CV world a new 12mm lens alone will set you back $850 at least, isn't really all that wide in comparison, and forces you to do things like use Cornerfix, manual focusing and paper-based surrogate-EXIF notes. So if you want to do wideangles, 4/3 allows you to buy into a system, whereas the NEX at present forces you to resort to hacks. I guess Sony will do something about their lens lineup at some point in the future.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #7
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
But the need for using adapted wide primes in the first place is only a result of Sony's extremely limited native lens lineup.

There are basically two classes of people who buy EVIL cameras. One buy them because they already have some lenses they'd like to adapt - these are typically the sort of people who don't mind fiddling with Cornerfix and keeping notes of what lens they used when because there is no EXIF data. (This group of people is also vocal on sites such as this and Flickr, but quite small.) The other group is those who want to use it with their native lenses. The Sony lineup doesn't really offer much flexibility for the latter group. Basically you have to use hacks like adapting rangefinder wides or use adapted A-mount lenses (which are then big, and some, such as the 11-18/f4.5-5.6, not all that great) because the platform doesn't offer anything else.

On 4/3 the situation is different. You can use lenses like the Olympus 7-14/f4 that are quite excellent and (by virtue of optimizing a lens for the sensor size behind it) both compact and cheap for what they offer - for $1500 new you get a useful range of focal lengths at very good quality that fully integrates into the system, whereas in the CV world a new 12mm lens alone will set you back $850 at least, isn't really all that wide in comparison, and forces you to do things like use Cornerfix, manual focusing and paper-based surrogate-EXIF notes. So if you want to do wideangles, 4/3 allows you to buy into a system, whereas the NEX at present forces you to resort to hacks. I guess Sony will do something about their lens lineup at some point in the future.
Not doubt 4/3 native lenses with AF are plentiful. Within one year we will see many more options for the nex from a number of lens makers.

How many of these will be as small and as sharp as a CV 28mm f/3.5 is open to question.

By your definition adjusting the white balance or noise of a raw file in LR could be considered a hack.

Everyone has their own priorites: for you obviously the 4/3 meets your needs much better than the Nex system. I my case, I'm interested in legacy glass of all descriptions and an RF-like experience. For that the Nex has no peer at the moment. The 2x crop of the 4/3 is brutal.

You mention the cost of CV lenses. However the fact is the used prices are much lower and extremely stable. They are very liquid commodities. If you pay a decent price you can't really loose anything.

And it's alot of fun to use them.
  Reply With Quote

same here
Old 03-12-2011   #8
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,009
same here

no need for cornerfix on M8, film, or NEX with CV 15, 21, any 28 or 35.

I think it's a requirement for photoshop users only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelb View Post
In general use I rarely use cornerfix to correct the images from the Skopar 35mm, vignette and colour shift not that noticeable, but I can certainly see the value of it with pale skies and snow. Cornerfix is pretty essential with the Helios 15mm, and often useful with the 25mm Snapshot Skopar.

Setting up a workflow for DNG converter and Cornerfix lens profiles is easy once you get the hang of it, but if you constantly change lenses it can get a bit confusing (wouldn't it be nice if the focal length appeared in the EXIF). It seems to discipline me to use fewer lens changes when I go out which isn't a bad thing.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #9
nigelb
Registered User
 
nigelb is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Wales
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
no need for cornerfix on M8, film, or NEX with CV 15, 21, any 28 or 35.

I think it's a requirement for photoshop users only.
??? I don't follow, please explain
__________________
Voigtlander Bessa R, Bessa L, 50/f1.5 Nokton, 35/f2.5 Skopar, 25/f4.0 Skopar, 15/4.5 Heliar.
OM1n, OM2n, Zuiko 24mm/2.8, 28-48mm/4, 50mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4, 85mm/2, 75-150/4
Leica Digilux 2
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #10
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
no need for cornerfix on M8, film, or NEX with CV 15, 21, any 28 or 35.

I think it's a requirement for photoshop users only.
What does photoshop have to do with it?

How many of these lenses do you own?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2011   #11
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,228
The genius of CornerFix is that the correction profile is made with your own lens, so the correction is neutral and as good as the profile. By contrast, the M8 & M9 use a lookup table to correct the same issues with a known lens type, and like CornerFix, the correction is applied in the RAW file. But it's approximate, even affected by the brand of the filter you use. If you apply a Leica code to a lens not in the coding chart, it's a further approximation, and CornerFix is likely to do a better job... though certainly with less convenience. Marvelous little program!
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2011   #12
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
The genius of CornerFix is that the correction profile is made with your own lens, so the correction is neutral and as good as the profile. By contrast, the M8 & M9 use a lookup table to correct the same issues with a known lens type, and like CornerFix, the correction is applied in the RAW file. But it's approximate, even affected by the brand of the filter you use. If you apply a Leica code to a lens not in the coding chart, it's a further approximation, and CornerFix is likely to do a better job... though certainly with less convenience. Marvelous little program!
TY very much for reply Doug

getting a good profile shot is what many of us struggle with at first: any tips on that?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2011   #13
gekopaca
French photographer
 
gekopaca's Avatar
 
gekopaca is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arles, France
Posts: 734
I've got a R-D1 and my favorite lens is Ultra-wide Heliar 12mm (LTM version).
Never had issues with corners or colors or something else.

Maybe the issue is the NEX sensor?
__________________
Gekopaca
French photographer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gekopaca/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2011   #14
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I my case, I'm interested in legacy glass of all descriptions and an RF-like experience. For that the Nex has no peer at the moment. The 2x crop of the 4/3 is brutal.
To be honest I fail to see the "RF-like experience" in a camera that has no viewfinder and that makes you focus by zooming around on an LCD screen.

I find the market can currently be subsumed as follows:
(A) Digital camera
(B) Interchangeable lenses
(C) Rangefinder experience
...and you get to pick any two, or spend serious money.

Quote:
getting a good profile shot is what many of us struggle with at first: any tips on that?
As usual, get a large enough grey card and take care of even illumination (outside under an overcast sky, for example).

Substituting the grey card with other more or less grey surfaces is inviting trouble IMHO, you end up importing whatever inaccuracies you had in reference test shot into every other picture you take.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2011   #15
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
To be honest I fail to see the "RF-like experience" in a camera that has no viewfinder and that makes you focus by zooming around on an LCD screen.
I find there are two kinds of people who know all about one camera or another and offer advice and judgement about them.

1) those that have one and use it.

2) those that don't.

Please excuse my use of "RF-like experience", which aparently offends you.

I will have to think of another way to describe shooting with RF lenses on a M8 sized crop with a very small form factor camera. I am open to suggestions.

If the main attribute of rangefinders is the focusing mechanisim, to the exclusion of optics, resolution and form factor, then I should not use the term.

As far as "zooming around the screen" being mandatory for focusing: far from it. The LCD is extremely sharp. "zooming" is optional, as is "moving around".

this is not to even mention many RF users prefocus for candid shooting. Is it still a rangefinder then?



nothing remotely "RF-like" there. What was I thinking?

Last edited by uhoh7 : 03-15-2011 at 20:15.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2011   #16
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,228
Well, uhoh, the category boundaries are fuzzy, such that some cameras having no RF are still grouped with their related RF kin, such as Bessa L and Leica M1.

But I take rxmd's point, and RFF does have a name for the category that includes the NEX; the name of the forum in which this discussion thread resides. "CEVIL : Compact Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens".
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2011   #17
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I find there are two kinds of people who know all about one camera or another and offer advice and judgement about them.

1) those that have one and use it.
2) those that don't.
3) And those that don't and have an informed opinion why. Do we agree on that?

Incidentally, appearances notwithstanding I'm not offended, and you shouldn't be either.

For me the key to the "RF-like experience" is the optical viewfinder with framelines in it. It's what gives immediacy to shooting. A camera that makes me frame and focus by chimping does not give me the same kind of feeling, no matter how small it is. The NEX's screen is OK but it's chimping nonetheless, and I find that for precise focusing I do need to zoom in, resulting in even less immediacy. I'm ready to do that on a ground glass with a 4x5, but with candids with a compact it feels extremely out of place for me.

Have you tried an M8 for an extended amount of time? Try it one day. The viewfinder is good, and the difference between 1,3 and 1,6x crop is the same as between a 20 and 24mm field of view when you put a 15 on your camera - it sounds small but it's quite signficant in practice.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2011   #18
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
hehe, chimping? is that squinting?

You guys are the experts on RFs, not me, and I have nothing but admiration for those who use them.

To many of us, and the camera buying public at large, the focusing mechanism has always been the least attractive thing about them.

Why did the SLR take over?

What is the attraction of an M9? It's small, unobtrusive and shoots full frame. Frameline focusing is something, it seems to me, that many buy the M9 in spite of, not because of--like the price.

Then there is the whole viewfinder thing--they don't have framelines at all.

The nex crop is 1.5, not 1.6, but I had not realised the M8 was 1.33, which is obviously much better.

The nex is not a rangefinder, of that there is no doubt. But in terms of field application--it's size and the glass it uses, it's as close as you get without the framelines. So for me, it's "RF like". It's been called the poor man's M9, so I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I yearn for the day I can throw out my nex and use a full frame short register EVIL with the glass I love. I do not however yearn for framelines. This may only be ignorance on my part. When I have the chance I will play with them.

I do thank you both for your input and insight.

Now, back to shooting a decent profile for the CVs.

How big a grey card do you think is needed?

I printed out one on a letter, but I am not liking the results.

Grey is better than white poster board?

best,
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2011   #19
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
hehe, chimping? is that squinting?
Chimping is when people look at the back of their camera, either during or after taking a shot:



Again, what I like about RF viewfinders is not primarily framelines - incidentally, those aren't used for focusing, they are used for framing. What I like about them is the immediacy of being right in the action. I get less of that in an SLR viewfinder, still less on a ground glass, and still less on any electronic viewfinder I've looked at (or through) so far.

Quote:
Now, back to shooting a decent profile for the CVs.

How big a grey card do you think is needed?

I printed out one on a letter, but I am not liking the results.

Grey is better than white poster board?
Well obviously it has to be large enough to fit in the frame with you at a comfortable distance, so that it gets evenly illuminated and you don't cast a shadow on it.

A grey card is a piece of cardboard (or cloth) with a defined 18% grey level. It's one of the things that many photographers tend to end up buying sooner or later. It's suboptimal to print one yourself because you don't know the base grey level of the paper you're printing it on, because you don't know the blackness level of the ink you're printing it with, and because your printer might print it a little unevenly and you end up importing these impurities into all pictures that you later correct with your printed reference image.

A grey card has a number of advantages over a white card. The most obvious one is that you can use it for other purposes, such as exposure measurements and (within limits) colour correction. Another advantage in your context is that you can crank up the exposure until just before you get blown-out highlights in the histogram. With a white card you are almost guaranteed to get blown-out highlights, and this may lead to inaccuracies in determining the vignetting, because Cornerfix has no way of determining where blowout ends and vignetting begins.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Hi
Old 03-16-2011   #20
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,009
Hi

I own all of the lenses I test with. No renting or borrowing.

The reason I mention photoshop is because out of camera, my Nex (and hundreds of others I evaluated images from prior to buying) did not have issues with 21 and up like your images do, with your photoshop use.

I do have slightly visible corner issues with the CV 15, but again, not to your extent. And never the issues you've shown with your CV 21.

So, assuming your NEX is working fine, and your lens sample is good. Then why not try posting some non 'shopped photos, and still see if they need some 3rd party corner fixing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
What does photoshop have to do with it?

How many of these lenses do you own?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2011   #21
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
I own all of the lenses I test with. No renting or borrowing.

The reason I mention photoshop is because out of camera, my Nex (and hundreds of others I evaluated images from prior to buying) did not have issues with 21 and up like your images do, with your photoshop use.

I do have slightly visible corner issues with the CV 15, but again, not to your extent. And never the issues you've shown with your CV 21.

So, assuming your NEX is working fine, and your lens sample is good. Then why not try posting some non 'shopped photos, and still see if they need some 3rd party corner fixing.
Color shift.




  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2011   #24
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 50
Posts: 920
Yes, thanks for the link, but it covers mostly the work flow within cornerfix, which wasn't my question.
In the meantime, I have found the obvious solution (Adobe DNG converter), now I am looking for a way to process the cornerfixed DNG files...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-13-2011   #25
Lord Fluff
Registered User
 
Lord Fluff is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
To many of us, and the camera buying public at large, the focusing mechanism has always been the least attractive thing about them.
The Leica M system is not for the "buying public at large". It was state-of-the-art fifty years ago but is very compromised in many ways for how most people choose to shoot today. Some people like the restrictions it places on your working method. I think you'll find it's the lack of zooms that will always put the majority off rangefinders (price notwithstanding) - 99% of people want a superzoom, not primes, which is what you get with rangefinders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Why did the SLR take over?
Put simply, it offers fewer compromises (body size aside) for all round shooting. RF's cannot realistically offer telephoto, struggle with close-focus and require external viewfinders for ultra-wide shooting. As a one-camera-for-all-uses solution, the SLR still has no real competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Frameline focusing is something, it seems to me, that many buy the M9 in spite of, not because of--like the price.
It seems odd to you, but RF focussing, being able to see beyond your framing, not to mention not having to use the modern way of having to shoot at arms length, are in fact *the very reasons why* we'd want to buy an M9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
The nex is not a rangefinder, of that there is no doubt. But in terms of field application--it's size and the glass it uses, it's as close as you get without the framelines. So for me, it's "RF like".
It's a small camera which can accept RF glass, on this much we agree. But it is not "RF like" any more than a very small car is "motorcycle like". The fact that some RF users, myself included, are looking at it as an exciting supplement to an M8 / M9 system does not change that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2011   #26
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fluff View Post
Put simply, it offers fewer compromises (body size aside) for all round shooting. RF's cannot realistically offer telephoto, struggle with close-focus and require external viewfinders for ultra-wide shooting. As a one-camera-for-all-uses solution, the SLR still has no real competition.
What you say is true, but having grownup during the rise of the SLR in the 60s and 70s, the attraction to most people was through the lens focusing and nothing else. 80% of SLR owners never bought a second lens. Zooms had a big impact but came in quality only in 1974, long long after the demise of RFs in the mass market

Quote:
It seems odd to you, but RF focussing, being able to see beyond your framing, not to mention not having to use the modern way of having to shoot at arms length, are in fact *the very reasons why* we'd want to buy an M9.
I do have an m6 to play with now, and I like the RF focus and framing. Would be great on a nex, hehe.

Quote:
It's a small camera which can accept RF glass, on this much we agree. But it is not "RF like" any more than a very small car is "motorcycle like". The fact that some RF users, myself included, are looking at it as an exciting supplement to an M8 / M9 system does not change that.
I would say the M6 is the small car, and the nex is the motorcycle. Or maybe:


bigger
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/...0c0a6d5b_b.jpg
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2011   #27
Lord Fluff
Registered User
 
Lord Fluff is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 148
Well.....slim, light, quick, quirky, limited for many tasks, useless for some, yet superior for others and very pleasurable to use....I'm sticking with my Leica = motorcycle analogy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-08-2011   #28
Field
Registered User
 
Field's Avatar
 
Field is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 399
Does cornerfix work in Wine for Ubuntu? I noticed it is not in the download section of the Software Center.

The more I look into M4/3, NEX, GXR, CV M4/3 lenses, etc, the more useless they all become...

Last edited by Field : 08-08-2011 at 21:13.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2011   #29
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
The good news is that the new NEX-C3 seems to have fixed many of the corner issues with non-retrofocus wides, and the upcoming NEX cameras are rumored to do the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2011   #30
Field
Registered User
 
Field's Avatar
 
Field is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 399
Sooo any word on Ubuntu?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2011   #31
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Field View Post
Sooo any word on Ubuntu?
There is no native Linux version. It does not work in WINE. It will not work in WINE in the near future. It will not work in Linux at all until someone specifically ports it. It will not be ported in the near future because there is not enough demand. It is difficult to port.

The most likely chance is that some good programmer wants it badly enough to write a GUI for a Linux version (to complement the existing Windows .NET and Mac Cocoa GUIs).

If you really want it, install Windows or MacOS in a virtual machine and use it from there.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!

Last edited by rxmd : 08-10-2011 at 21:39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #32
flyalf
Registered User
 
flyalf is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway, Tromsø
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur5 View Post
Corner fix is for sure a great piece of software. That said, I'm not keen on having to fix every single image coming from a lens, not even with a semi automated batched process. For one thing, there's no Exif telling you which lens was used on which picture, so you have to know-remember-write down somewhere the information. Also, apart of wasting time in the process, the fixed image is not, by any means, like a picture coming from a retrofocus-telecentric design of a SLR wideangle.

Its a personal choice if one see the benefit of running this extra process. Here is what I do with M9, and I assume will work on NEX. I create a folder on camera per lens. This allows me to collect all photos for a given lens to run CF on all photoes in one batch, and to import these in LR and adding EXIF in one batch.

The fixed image is not like a picture coming from SLR, in mots cases its IMO better
__________________
Regards, Alf Sollund, Tromsø, Norway
------------------------------------
http://alfsollund.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #33
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 34
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekopaca View Post
I've got a R-D1 and my favorite lens is Ultra-wide Heliar 12mm (LTM version).
Never had issues with corners or colors or something else.

Maybe the issue is the NEX sensor?
same here, but on the m9 i know both the 12 and the 15 have really strong vignetting and color shifts
__________________
Gear:
• right eye
• right index finger
• cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2012   #34
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
 
rogue_designer's Avatar
 
rogue_designer is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 41
Posts: 2,455
Here is what I am doing with teh Nex 7 - and my CV 21mm.

I took a shot of an evenly lit white wall. Sampled the center color, and made a new layer in that color - used the divide function to get a mask of the vignette and color shift. This I made into a smart object, which I can drop onto any shot taken with the 21mm. Use the divide blending method again, and vary the percentage (~50% is usually pretty good).

__________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Usually using: M4, Rolleiflex 3.5C, Fuji X Pro 1, Canon 5D MkII, Horseman VHR, Horseman 45LX

---
My Flickr | StreetLevel Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2012   #35
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_designer View Post
Here is what I am doing with teh Nex 7 - and my CV 21mm.

I took a shot of an evenly lit white wall. Sampled the center color, and made a new layer in that color - used the divide function to get a mask of the vignette and color shift. This I made into a smart object, which I can drop onto any shot taken with the 21mm. Use the divide blending method again, and vary the percentage (~50% is usually pretty good).

That does seem to work. Thank you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2013   #36
Thatspec
Registered User
 
Thatspec is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 87
Nice ready made Voigtlander 12mm on Nex-7 Cornerfix profile here;
http://www.panotwins.de/technical/co...x-5-and-nex-7/
Also one for the 15
I'm seeing very little colorshift for most shots anyway but works great for the vignetting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2013   #37
Lightshow
Registered User
 
Lightshow is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 37
There has been an alternative to Cornerfix for a while now, it's the Flat Field plugin for Lightroom.
It's available here:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroomplugins/
__________________
A7r & NEX-7
LTM:
Canon S: 28/2.8 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.2, 100/3.5
Chiyoko Super Rokkor 50/2, 50/1.8, 85/2.8
Fujinon L 50/2
Topcor 3.5cm/2.8
Topcor-S 50/2
Topcor 9cm/3.5
Industar 69(modded to LTM registration)
40/2.3 transplanted from a dead Rollei XF 35 into an Industar 50 M39 SLR lens, its now LTM.

Leica M:
CV15III
Elmarit 24 Aspherical, Elmarit 28 v2, Tele-Elmarit 90(Fat), Cron 90 APO Asph.
FrankenZeiss: Contax G 45/2 transplanted into a Rokkor MC 55/1.7 body with an M mount.

SLR:
Lots....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2014   #38
rjschell
Registered User
 
rjschell's Avatar
 
rjschell is offline
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 123
An "Expodisc" makes it easy to generate the target. Just stick it in front of the lens & adjust exposure.
It's fun to use legacy lenses, but I have found the Sigma 19, 30, & 60 and even the Sony 16 give much better edge sharpness, especially wide open.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.