Canon S90 Barrel Distortion
Sunday, October 11, 2009

It's now a familiar story: Very fast lens, very small package.  Where's the catch?

Here you go:






On the left, the RAW (CR2) file processed by Adobe Lightroom 2.5.  On the left, the same RAW file processed in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP).

Like the Panasonic LX3 which undoubtedly inspired its design, the Canon S90 has severe barrel distortion at its wide end.  Completely expected but nonetheless disappointing.

Posted by Amin Labels: ,

Comments (20)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
+1 Vote up Vote down
illdefined's avatar

illdefined · 809 weeks ago

and with Canon now doing it, software compensation for compromised optics is officially photographically mainstream.
0 Vote up Vote down
Julian's avatar

Julian · 808 weeks ago

Is this really such a big deal? Of course a perfect optics would be nice; nevertheless I (and many others) have been shooting at the wide end of the LX3 over the last year with great results without this ever being an issue. The hardware/firmware correction is up to the job imo.
3 replies · active 808 weeks ago
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
amin's avatar - Go to profile

amin 67p · 808 weeks ago

I agree, not a big deal. Just a small disappointment really. For Apple Aperture users it may be a big deal though. Aperture still doesn't support the LX3 if I understand correctly.
0 Vote up Vote down
Rolando's avatar

Rolando · 808 weeks ago

...which is another of the many reasons why Aperture3 needs to open up and allow drop-in RAW converters. Will help industry sales of the converters (getting hammered by the existence of Lightroom & Aperture), will allow greater competition and better conversions, and will allow for faster support of new cameras in Aperture.
0 Vote up Vote down
improbable's avatar

improbable · 808 weeks ago

Yup. If you're going to make software like Aperture/Lightroom, you had better add new cameras pretty promptly. You're asking people to put all their eggs in one basket, so you had better deliver. Since Apple have signalled that they won't, or can't, opening it up to plug-ins seems like the only way to get back into the game.
0 Vote up Vote down
Chez Wimpy's avatar

Chez Wimpy · 808 weeks ago

Well, if correction parameters are not "burned" into the RAW file, it makes a headache for people use non-Canon software to process their images. In a perfect world I would have a switch to disable distortion correction in ACR (for my GF1), but if its "all or nothing", I gladly side with "all" on the basis of convenience!
0 Vote up Vote down
improbable's avatar

improbable · 808 weeks ago

Yup, the only surprise is that they didn't get Adobe on board, to ensure that Lightroom treats these as it does LX3 files. Perhaps they will, until then it looks all but unusable.

Of course one day we may even be able to adjust this in lightroom...
0 Vote up Vote down
Disappointed Guest's avatar

Disappointed Guest · 808 weeks ago

I think it's pathetic. It was lame when Panasonic did it, and the disease has apparently taken hold.

I will not buy this camera or any optic with such distortion.

You don't think it's a big deal? This exactly as bad as "digital zoom".
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
0 Vote up Vote down
Jasper Teal's avatar

Jasper Teal · 807 weeks ago

In-processing lens distortion correction is nowhere near "as bad as digital zoom". Digital zoom reduces the picture resolution by the zoom amount. Whereas a resampling filter, such as distortion correction, will only reduce the IQ by a tiny amount... unless a lot of them are applied consecutively. But if the distortion correction is integrated into the RAW demosaicing step, there will be even less information loss. What you're failing to realise is that the demosaic step is already performing a dramatic geometric transformation from the original sensor pixel data to a linear image layout. So incorporating additional geometric transformations at the same time will not result in any further generational processing loss.
0 Vote up Vote down
Disagree's avatar

Disagree · 808 weeks ago

In contrast, I think it's a great way to focus on uncorrectable performances and be cheap on correctable ones, improving therefore overall performances. The Panasonic 14-45 for m4/3 is probably one of the very best kit zooms around there, it's very sharp up to the corners, has very good bite reminiscent of some Leica lenses, a metal mount, and all for a ridiculously cheap price. So to me the trade-off is worth the trouble. The only thing is that manufacturers should definitely go for DNG raws and standardized correction indications, to help software designers.
0 Vote up Vote down
Walter K's avatar

Walter K · 808 weeks ago

I loath barrel/pincushion distortions. The software fix is a great idea and is fine for a point and shoot. Any degradation as a result is far less visible than the distortion seen above. I have the D LUX 4 which still doesn't work with Aperture, so I have been very frustrated. Having to work with he Canon software would be a deal breaker for me. With all these cameras, it would be nice if you had a check box when loading RAWs into editing program. Check individually or for all to "correct lens distortions" . That way we have the option.

Walter K
0 Vote up Vote down
CMR's avatar

CMR · 808 weeks ago

I don't see what the problem is. Lens design inherently has compromises; designs of any kind do. In the film days distortion was important, but now that it can be corrected in software, why avoid it in the lens at the cost of degrading other lens qualities? (sharpness, flair, etc.) I think it a step forward in lens design that software fixes are being taken into account while making these compromises.
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
Jose_Porto's avatar - Go to profile

Jose_Porto 61p · 808 weeks ago

I believe it is ok to either bear or loath lens distortion, but messing with raw files (like panasonic does) is wrong all the way. And I would never, ever buy a piece of software that does not support the hardware I use, no matter how 'advanced', slick or well-marketed it is.
0 Vote up Vote down
Mike's avatar

Mike · 808 weeks ago

The camera should give you the option of getting raw files with barrel distortion and CA, etc, to keep purists happy.
0 Vote up Vote down
walter k's avatar

walter k · 808 weeks ago

The Canon processed image is desaturated. What's up with that? Just a bonus they provide along with distortion correction? : )
0 Vote up Vote down
Rawfa's avatar

Rawfa · 808 weeks ago

Amin, any chance we get a S90 vs LX3 shootout? :-) I'm specially interested in seeing the results regarding dynamic range and high iso. I really like the the fact that the S90 is actually more compact than the LX3, I also really like the ring and the longer zoom range (even if the lens slows down).
Loading...
+2 Vote up Vote down
Quillcards's avatar - Go to profile

Quillcards 6p · 808 weeks ago

"On the left" and "On the left" ?

"On the left, the RAW (CR2) file processed by Adobe Lightroom 2.5. On the left, the same RAW file processed in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP)."
0 Vote up Vote down
Alistair's avatar - Go to profile

Alistair · 790 weeks ago

As a S90 user, in the latest version of Lightroom 2.x I not only get bad barrel distortion but on both Macs and PCs the software messes up Preview images between S90 files and images from other cameras in my arsenal. This has obviously slowed my workflow considerably, and is a big part of why I will be selling my S90 (the other, in fact, being the barrel distortion itself).
1 reply · active 784 weeks ago
0 Vote up Vote down
vasy48's avatar

vasy48 · 784 weeks ago

I am considering buying this or similar camera - what will you be getting instead? Thanks.
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest's avatar

Guest · 780 weeks ago

Lightroom 2.6 supports PowerShot S90

Post a new comment

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

 
Copyright 2007 | Andreas08v2 by GeckoandFly and TemplatesForYou | Design by Andreas Viklund
TFY Burajiru