Make your lenses "better"

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton

Images by David and Ann Taylor-Hughes

The great thing about the new version of Adobe Camera Raw, with its auto CA removal, is that it provides a software fix that makes lenses perform "better". Camera / Lens manufacturers have been doing this with their own brands for years, but now Adobe have provided a method of their own for lenses that aren't "compensated for" in this way.  Whether or not you think this is a good thing and that lenses should be made to optimum quality in the first place, the answer is that they are not. That budget zoom suddenly takes on a new life.

I tried this on some old images taken with lenses that suffered quite badly from CA, and the improvement was very noticeable.

Canon 5D 16-35mm f/2.8

Nikon D3 28-200mm zoom

 The Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens, but does also suffer a bit from CA. Now it doesn't.

Sony NEX-7 Zeiss 24mm f/1.8

Sony NEX-7 Zeiss 24mm f/1.8

The Sony e-mount 18-55mm zoom lens is now looking like a bargain.

 

Sony NEX-7 18-55mm zoom

My Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar lens is another that benefits from this "cleanup"

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar

So, I'm very impressed. The "blue branches against the sky" problem still persists and I'd love a software fix to remove that as I still have to do it manually, but overall the auto CA removal works very well indeed. Not 100% but pretty close from my observations so far.

In fact ACR 7 seems to provide much "cleaner" images overall and I suspect that there are other "tweaks" in there as well. A photographer who contributed pictures to my picture library a few years ago, told me that he couldn't see the point of raw files. He converted his to tiffs and then deleted the raw versions for ever. I told him then I thought he was crazy and this is why. Just like I have kept transparencies that weren't as I would like, and can now "improve" them using Photoshop. In the same way many of my digital files that have been languishing unused can now benefit from these improvements in raw conversion.

Finally I went out a couple of days ago with my Olympus E-P2, 12mm and 45mm lenses. The 12mm does suffer from some CA certainly and I wanted to see just what kind of quality I could squeeze out of m4/3 and whether this new raw conversion software could improve the results.

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

I was very pleased with the results. I used a tripod for all shots, and it does go to show that careful exposure and processing can contribute more to getting top class results than any manufacturers "gobbledygook" telling you what a difference their new sensor technology or whatever will do. This "antique" camera produced some excellent pictures. I upsized a few of them to 16MP, removed the exif data and uploaded them my "fussiest" picture library who accepted them all without any problem. 

As far as I'm concerned, image quality has always been about more than pixel size and supposed sensor and lens performance anyway. Any decent lens when used on a tripod and at its optimum aperture will be able to produce excellent results. I'm as guilty as anybody at being seduced by the "next big thing" but ultimately getting the exposure and processing right is just as, or even more, important than "whats in the box". 

Adobe don't get everything right, but they are to be applauded for their new version of ACR. It really does make a difference. Photoshop CS6 is a free download at the moment, and I strongly suggest you give it a try. It could probably make more of a difference to your pictures than that hot new camera currently tempting you.

Canon Landscape

Canon 5D 

Over the years we had a number of Canon DSLR's. While appreciating their all round capabilities we have never used them very much for landscape.


Canon 350D


The large heavy "pro" models are somewhat difficult to carry for any length of time. The memory of taking a 1DS MkII plus 3 lenses up to the summit of a very steep sea cliff is still with me.


Canon 1DS Mk II

We have used many of the cheaper cameras as backups and usually tried them for landscape work. This has often been unsatisfactory, as up to the 500D we have generally found the images from these cameras to produce slightly soft results.



Canon 400D


The 500D was an improvement, and seemed to have both brighter colour straight out of the camera and more bite to the images.



Canon 500D

We liked both the 5D and 5D Mk II, and the full-frame sensor produced excellent results. The Mk II seemed like it could almost be the perfect camera, but was somewhat hampered by its noisy shadow area performance even at low ISO's.



Canon 5D Mk II


Both the 7D and 550D are the best yet in terms of all round image quality. The 18MP sensor produces excellent images at low ISO's. The 550D is also a very light camera and provided we don't carry heavy lenses is very usable as a landscape camera.



Canon 550D



Canon 7D


Many Landscape Photographers use Canon's as a matter of choice. One of our favourite photographers David Clapp is a long term Canon user and he gets superb results. And certainly we are pleased with the images posted here, though many needed a fair amount of work to make them representative of the reality. We are certainly very impressed with the 550D as a portable high quality camera and our somewhat ambivalent attitude may be becoming more positive. It is a camera that we have been very enthusiastic about ever since we got it. 


We haven't done much testing of the 7D as a landscape camera, mainly because of the weight, but have seen nothing from the results so far that indicate that its any better than the 550D. Since for landscape work we don't need the 7D's speed and all-round responsiveness, the 550D will be fine.


So we have a mellowing attitude towards the brand in general. 


Now if they would like to work on a mirrorless AF version of their old rangefinder designs with the 7D/550D sensor with some small light fast lenses..............

Words - A

Images - D & A

DxO Comparison

Interesting set of results comparing the Panasonic Lumix GH1 with a G1 and a Canon 7D at:-

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH1

I did have a look at the DxO results & went back and looked at images from my GH1 & G1.

I did some serious pixel peeping and was hard pressed to spot any difference in resolution. There is some difference in terms of noise at higher ISO's with the GH1 being slightly better, but otherwise in terms of how the image looks on the screen I couldn't see any difference.

I then looked at some Canon 5D images and that was clear to see.

The GH1 is much "punchier" though obviously can't compete at higher ISO's.

Plus the 5D does have a much better Dynamic Range and deals with "difficult" exposures much better.

However this is at the expense of contrast and overall image "pop" which is the best way I know how to describe it.

Its one of the reasons I use a 5D MkII for indoor events etc, and G1/GH1/GF1 for landscape etc.

Some time ago an English photo mag, maintained that at low ISO settings the G1 outperformed both a D3 and D300 in terms of resolution. Having used both of those cameras I would agree with that.