Lumix G Vario: Getting the Best Out of My Images

<h2> </h2>

<p>I have the 7-14 and 14-45mm models. I understand that the sensors in Olympus Pens may not fully correct aberrations from these lenses. I use mainly an EM-1 but also have an EP-2.<br>

If necessary, for landscapes (mostly) might it be better to obtain a Panasonic body? The number of modes and features could be minimal. Neither need it be a recent model, if an earlier one would meet my needs. I shoot RAW. (I have no idea as to how Panasonic RAW files are processed. I convert Olympus ORFs to TIFFs for processing).<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

<h2>?</h2>

The sensors have nothing to do with lens correction. It is my understanding that as part of the Micro 43 protocol, lens correction data for all M43 native lenses (Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, ect) are imbedded in the EXIF data attached to RAW files and then applied automatically by practically all RAW converters (or applied to the JPEGs produced in camera). Olympus lenses do not apply correction for CA, and I believe that the CA correction data from Panasonic lenses is not transferred to the EXIF data of RAW files produced by Olympus Cameras, but all other lens corrections are applied. CA is easily corrected by practically all image processing programs. There are many photographers using a mix of Panasonic and Olympus cameras and lenses, and except for different direction of the zoom and focus rings, I would not have any issue buying Panasonic lenses for my EM-5 or adding a Panasonic camera body.

<p>if you shoot jpeg and want CA correction, having native lenses with a native body is the way to go. in the OP's case, he is a raw shooter so CAs are uncorrected. Some raw converters have lens profiles which easily speed up this process. </p>

<p>I have a different view of your problem. If you want to get better results with the EM-1 you will need to work with m.zuiko lenses. For example, I have the 12-40 2.8 zoom and find the results to be truly excellent. For prints up to 17x22 the results are clearly better than with my Canon 5D ll and the 70-200 L. This is not to say that the E-M1 and the 12-40 zoom cannot make excellent prints larger than 17x22 in. And I am puzzled when you write the you "convert the RAW to Tiff for processing." Is that what you are doing? If so, I recommend doing all that is possible in ACR or Lightroom 5. These raw converters are capable of making the majority of adjustments one would make in, for example, photoshop.</p>

I have no problem mixing and matching lenses across Lumix and OMD lines. All my lenses have great native correction and enough elements to make that likely, Until someone shows me evidence that one must buy a lens from one or the other I will judge it to be an urban myth, Or alternatively I am not bothered by CA or barrel or moire or other banshee effects, True, like Jay Maisel I am satisfied with JPEGs. No color fringing to my eyeballs. All colors in all sectors clean as a plucked chicken, When I see evidence---beyond anecdotal forum offering I will notaccept that some lens.brand discrimination is in order. In short I trust my eyes over selected forum image posts. Be your own tester. Not hard to come up with objects that press the limits....

 

And consider that any camera correction via software will perforce be mild , likely with wide angle lenses and at wide wide apertures to get rid of minimal distortion that such lenses incur re vertical,

Of course, Olympus is happy go lucky to see their lens product sold on their bodies as a mating couple.

My lenses are costly Lumix zooms and some day to day primes as well by both companies.

No problem from where I shoot...show me where manufacturers say they have not aced this one already....my opinion for what it is worth, Lumix zooms are costly and squeeze out optical distortions natively or not worth the moolah. PS, When one says " I understand that...etc " it sounds a little loosely supported as a fact to be taken at face value. We need to ask the companies directly if their standard is really a standard, A standard is something to be valued and taken as verity, EM-1 should be testable and answer your concern Harold, Do some stationary tests and let us know. Thanks,

 

GS

<p>Thanks, everyone.<br>

TIFFs are because<br>

a) Photoshop 7 (which otherwise does all I need, but most functions now transferred to topaz photofxlab) does not recogniseORFs<br>

b) Topaz does not recognise ORFs.<br>

I had not been aware of any problems with the Lumix 7-14 images, probably due to shooting RAW. The amount of noise with JPEGs at small apertures (for macro) is unacceptable.<br>

I have no interest in prints.<br>

The bottom line is that I have the Lumix G Varios and would not consider investing in Zuikos, my priorities being elsewhere.<br>

I don't have Lightroom but will look into it when my new PC is built. At the moment I am sharing my son's and drive space already precluded loading Photoshop. I am also wondering about uprating PS to CS top be able to use huge amounts of RAM for multiple image stacking.</p>

 

<p>Harold,<br>

You can obtain much better raw conversions with modern software such a lightroom 5. Doing all feasible processing in the RAW converter is noticeably superior to making a rudimentary conversion to tiff followed by processing in photoshop 7 or Topaz. Topaz used following a modern raw conversion can be very effective.<br>

You already have one of the best mirrorless cameras in the E-M1. If you want to make significant improvements you can buy the corresponding lenses from Olympus or you can start over with a Panasonic body and corresponding lenses. The later approach does not seem rational to me. <br>

If, as you say, you are not interested in prints why would you need a better camera/lens? After all most electronic displays have no more than 2 mega pixels.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nathaniel,<br>

Thanks. Why do you say "rudimentary conversion to TIFF". Is that what Olympus Viewer 3 does?<br>

Before my PC died, I was looking at a RAW converter which does all the processes . Unfortunately, the amount of HD space then available prevented that. Space won't be a problem with the replacement PC. Thanks for reminding me of the option.<br>

I am not dissatisfied with the EM-1 and would not consider replacing it. The issue is whether I am doing all reasonably possible with the Varios. I usually carry two camera bodies and my standard film kit, over two decades, for out and about shooting, was two OM4s, one with a wide-angle and one with a telephoto. I currently carry the EP-2 on long trips but only in case of EM-1 failure because I detest the whole way it operates. A suitable Panasonic body might be better, provided it was optimal for the Varios.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Harold,<br>

I've got nothing useful to say on m4/3rd lenses (no experience with the system), but when you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I take it all photos end up on the web? Meaning all photos are ultimately resized to much lower resolutions, in the 2 to 3 megapixel size more or less (between 1200 and 2000 pixels on the long end)? This resizing should take care of a lot of the (perceived) noise as well as fringing already; what you see when looking at 100% maginifications of the original file is not at all representative of the final result that way. Downsized images nearly always will look significantly better.<br>

As Nathaniel said, getting good modern software for the conversion of your raw files can already be a huge step forward. Lightroom isn't the only option, it might be worth checking some of the other programs as well to see which one works best for you. Most of them have trial versions available, for example Corel AfterShot, CaptureOne Pro or DxO Optics.</p>

<p>Wouter,<br>

Thanks. The use of images from those lenses on the web is improbable. Potential publication in print is always in mind when shooting, although processing from RAW tends to be delayed until JPEGs are needed.<br>

When I do process I always choose a high quality option. TIFFs are retained at full size and resized when required to be converted to HQ JPEGs for web use (images from other lenses, mostly macro). I only downsize when converting TIFFs to JPEGs.<br>

DXO is another brand that has come to my attention.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Harold,</p>

<p><em>Thanks. Why do you say "rudimentary conversion to TIFF". Is that what Olympus Viewer 3 does?</em><br>

Actually I am interpolating from your responses. First, corrections or adjustments you can make in the RAW converter are typically more accurate/effective than those after conversion to Tiff. Examples would be image rotation to straighten a horizon, correction of chromatic aberrations, sharpening, interpolation, etc. The treatment of extreme highlights and shadows is often superior in software such as lightroom, capture one and DXO, to name a few. Rawtherapee is a high quality free converter. </p>

<p><em>I was looking at a RAW converter which does all the processes . Unfortunately, the amount of HD space then available prevented that.</em> <br>

This is a real head scratcher. The disk space requirement in not that great for these programs. If that is a problem consider an external USB drive. As an example, a Western digital external USB 1TB drive is available for ~ $57 on Amazon. What prevents you from using that technology? </p>

<p> </p>