43 Rumors

You’re taking that quote out of context, which is altering its meaning. Here’s the complete quote:

“Overall, the best corners of the DSLR lens that makes use of a purely optically-corrected design have an edge over the Micro Four Thirds lens that combines both optical and digital correction. But as you can hopefully see from these crops, it’s pretty slight – you have to look at the pictures very closely to notice any difference.”

Two things to note. First, they’re referring to the results of a comparison between two specific lenses—the Olympus 14-42mm kit lenses for regular 4/3 and m4/3. They’re not generalizing the results of this comparison to all lenses.

Second, they’re downplaying the significance of these sharpness results in two ways: (a) by saying that they’re “pretty slight” (right in the full quote); (b) in the second page of the review, when they argue that people give too much importance to lens sharpness and not enough to distortion.

Of course a good image quality is better than a fixed poor image…

What is interesting if anything is the fact that many won’t notice (until they zoom it up and look at individual pixels atleast..)

But yeah, all those CA can be easily fixed in post-processing and such comments is a little lackluster. Sure I want the best performance I can get at first and then eventually have the small errors which are left corrected.

And sharpness isn’t everything, and in regards of distortion who cares if the lens is sharp if it’s distorted as fuck so the final images turn out soft from all the post-processing anyway?

Oh well, if I had a micro four-thirds camera my first lens purchases would had been those crappy 25/1.4 and 37/1.7 c-mount lenses. And then probably a few few m-mount voigtländer lenses.

Sure lenses with AF would had been even better but the options simply aren’t there for the micro four-thirds format yet.

But EOSHD suck.