On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 02:44:04AM -0400, JC OConnell scripsit: > Im not talking about the current or near future lenses, > Im talking about the long run. It only makes sense that > things that can be corrected in the body rather than > with optics may be cheaper way to go but you would have > to use new bodies only with those optically uncorrected lenses. [434 lines, snipped]
Computationally correcting the optics will be expensive in terms of time for the camera to perform the processing (several seconds); the lens reviews will be harsh, so going first on this would be bad for sales; the ability to correct computationally will depend on *higher* quality control standards in manufacture, since the information provided on each lens will have to be very accurate or you're just having the camera apply funky blur. I don't think there's an economic win in there anywhere. Computational correction makes a lot of sense for those cases where the optical design can't manage to get things precisely right, either because it's a kit lens or no one wants a 10 k USD 12mm Ltd. so they didn't make it. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
