chuck_t Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 When people paid top dollars for a camera, most of us expected that it is well spent and worth every penny. This is not the case with DSLR. I knew that there are some lens have more C.Aberr than others. The funny thing is, are we paying our money for testing lenses and camera? We should have the camera for FREE on testing it. Do I have to buy all the lenses for testing it? Yes...but give me a break and NO thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 It is dead simple to correct chromatic aberrations when you shot raw files (Canon = crw, nikon = NEF, Kodak = DCS) and process them with the raw converter in Adobe Photoshop CS. You can even set up a path for each and every individual lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_henneberger Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I don't know that it is "dead simple" when you have to fire up another machine, start up software, press a bunch of buttons and set up various memory protocals for various lenses. Rememeber the good ole days when things like cameras worked good? The market is the market I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Well.... When I was 16, I worked in a Photolab printing color (before the days of auto-color correction). I was correcting color all day on film from cameras that 'worked' just fine. jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 <i>Rememeber the good ole days when things like cameras worked good? </i><p> I assume you never did your own printing...Otherwise, there's no way you could say something like this. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_henneberger Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Hello Jeff, I have done my own printing and understand your point. You quote my words... "Rememeber the good ole days when things like cameras worked good?" which reflected the sentiments of the topic's author. Your response seems to actually concern a completely different comment of mine... "I don't know that it is "dead simple" when you have to fire up another machine, start up software, press a bunch of buttons and set up various memory protocals for various lenses." Nevertheless, the process you describe seems a bit more than 'dead simple' and it remains true that the quality of manufacturing is generally not what it used to be. In any event, you make a good observation of how the simple days were not always so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_warn Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Are we talking about Chromatic Abberation or Color Correction hear? Color correction is a dead simple fix. Correcting for chromatic abberation is a completely different bowl of stew and is not a simple fix. Chromatic abberations cause distinct edge effects and color fringing. I would expect that correcting for this could be done with software BUT it would require knowing the exact level, exact direction, exact position, and the exact focal length of the lens. It would also require that every sample of a lens be manufactured with an exact match for the chromatic abberation profile. Either that or HOURS of tedious hand correction on every edge that show objectionable fringing. As I understand it, this problem is mainly due to the imaging chips that are currently in use. The mainstream chips all use a 3 color mosiac and the chromatic abberations observed are due to both the lens and the aliasing that occurs due to the 3 color mosiac. Put simply, if the lens has abberations at a bad frequency it interacts with the imaging sensor to create an objectionable level of this problem. The Foveon chip doesn't use a 3 color matrix, it uses a layered approach similar to film and will probably make this problem go away. Problem is that the only camera currently using the Foveon chip is Sigma and it is having teething problems(ie it's own set of artifacts that impact the image). I myself am a fan of the layered approach and hope that the Foveon chip leads to such a universally good result that it becomes the standard. Nikon's current policy for solving this problem is to design lenses with an abberation profile and frequency that are not emphasized by aliasing, the DX series. The one problem to this approach that I can see is when the mosiac changes or the resolution increases, a lens that worked well at 2000 x 3000 pixels may not work so well at a higher resolution. Since I don't believe that is is possible to manufacture a consumer lens WITHOUT spherical abberation or coma, Nikon could find out in 3 or 5 years that the current DX lenses won't work on a new design. One way that may avoid this problem is to use a doubling scheme to the growth of resolution, go from 2000x3000 to 4000x6000 and and older design may not exhibit the aliasing. As for the original question, Digital imaging is only about 14 years old and growing pains are to be expected. This means that we do have to test the lenses we use on these cameras and only use the good ones. One thing that I would like to see is someone recording which lenses work well and which lenses should be avoided. For example, how will the 24mm f2.8, the 50mm f1.4, the 85mm f1.8, the 105mm f2.8 Micro, the 180mm f2.8, and the 300mm f4 work on the new D70? Part of the price we pay as early adopters is working around these kinds of problems. It's also why film is still, in my opinion, superior to Digital. It's just not as convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 <i>When people paid top dollars for a camera, most of us expected that it is well spent and worth every penny.</i> <p> How much are you going to pay ? Given the R&D spendings on this field, I would say you are getting more than you paid for today. <p> <i>Do I have to buy all the lenses for testing it? Yes...but give me a break and NO thanks.</i> <p> Poor guy, I begin to think that someone is forcing you to buy into DSLR :) Anyway, Nikon Thailand is hiring camera and lens testers to cope with their increasing production; you may not get the cameras for free, but you get paid for testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I hope that this is not just a case of looking for things that are wrong with digital photography and then exaggerating them. Mind you I've been back and forth over the past few weeks: digital, no digital, digital, no digital etc. It's little things like this which make me wonder whether digital is worth the price ATM. The convenience and specifications are great in theory but *overall* I think film is still at least on par with digital for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Chuck T: What is the point of your question? DSLR cameras use the same lenses as film cameras. Chromatic aberation hasn't been a problem in any lens I've owned in the last 40 years or so, nor while using a DSLR. Do you have any examples you would like to share? Are you sure you are not seeing compression artifacts, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Actually, I've came across an alarming issue with one of my most favorite lenses: My 24/2 AIS lens is superb on film (it has C.A., but I can easily control that effect when I stop down). On CCD, the C.A. are much more dominant. The same I heard, happens with the Nikkor 14. I guess the newer lenses fit DSLRs better. For me, it's plain luxary spending that much extra.. but I don't shoot digital... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_a._hill Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Digital cameras with a CCD sensor sometimes exhibit a phenomenon known as "CCD bloom" which is often called chromatic aberration, which it is not. Please be clear what you mean. Why is this in the Nikon thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Yaron, unfortunately, your 24mm/f2 AI-S has the same chromatic aberration problem with film too. I have Veliva slides to prove it. (Yaron and I got together once about 2 months ago, and I tested his lenses on my D100 and F100.) You cannot see it even with a 10x loupe, though. If you make a large print, it'll be very apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcyon Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 <p>Hi,<br> I'm not sure if your problem is now fixed but you may want to check the settings in your camera. I have a D300 in which I pushed the sharpening to 9. It resulted it terrible color fringing (or CA) in all my pictures. However, I was able to correct the issue on the NEF files in post processing with the help of Nikon NX. With that software you can revert or alter the in-camera settings. I strongly recommend that you do not exceed 2 in sharpening in your camera. BTW, this doesn't work with TIFF or JPEG.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now