D800 14-24mm vs E-M5 7-14mm

Started Jul 13, 2012 | Discussions
Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,920
D800 14-24mm vs E-M5 7-14mm
Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
OP Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,920
Nevermind...

Meh, I just realized the focus plane is different between the images. blah. Will try again tomorrow.

Photozopia
Photozopia Senior Member • Posts: 1,302
Re: Nevermind...

Will this promised focus revision explain or ameliorate in any way the excessive blue/purple fringing (trees - top left particularly) in the Oly pics? The Nikon performance is certainly poor enough in this portion, but the Oly is pretty well horrendous/unacceptable IMO.

I'd avoid both like the plague if this is the best they can do ....

Horshack wrote:

Meh, I just realized the focus plane is different between the images. blah. Will try again tomorrow.

Moonlight Knight Regular Member • Posts: 150
Re: Nevermind...

Thanks. Looking forward to it.

CrisPhoto
CrisPhoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,745
Re: D800 14-24mm vs E-M5 7-14mm

Have an Oly 9-18 and never saw this heavy CA. Don't think the Pana 7-14 is worse, so maybe the light/tree contrast was very very special here.

Anyhow, would heave been more realistic to enable "Remove CA" option in lightroom. I have enabled it per default ...

 CrisPhoto's gear list:CrisPhoto's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 ASPH +9 more
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Nevermind...

Photozopia wrote:

Will this promised focus revision explain or ameliorate in any way the excessive blue/purple fringing (trees - top left particularly) in the Oly pics? The Nikon performance is certainly poor enough in this portion, but the Oly is pretty well horrendous/unacceptable IMO.

I'd avoid both like the plague if this is the best they can do ....

Horshack wrote:

Meh, I just realized the focus plane is different between the images. blah. Will try again tomorrow.

This is a worst case scenario for an UWA, bright backlit scene on the edge of the frame. No UWA lens will shine here, in reality you will not see this very often and it's possible to remove most of it pretty easily. CA is certainly not an issue to me with the 7-14mm.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Photozopia
Photozopia Senior Member • Posts: 1,302
Re: Nevermind...

I've rarely seen CA to this extent on any 'pro' camera/lens set-up - regardless of model - ultra-wide or not.

Perhaps OP should use PP correction or better still .... supply original, camera processed JPG files.

I'm not sure what the original purpose of the post was, but for me it is overshadowed by what I clearly see as flawed image degradation in both manufacturer's output.

papillon_65 wrote:

Photozopia wrote:

Will this promised focus revision explain or ameliorate in any way the excessive blue/purple fringing (trees - top left particularly) in the Oly pics? The Nikon performance is certainly poor enough in this portion, but the Oly is pretty well horrendous/unacceptable IMO.

I'd avoid both like the plague if this is the best they can do ....

Horshack wrote:

Meh, I just realized the focus plane is different between the images. blah. Will try again tomorrow.

This is a worst case scenario for an UWA, bright backlit scene on the edge of the frame. No UWA lens will shine here, in reality you will not see this very often and it's possible to remove most of it pretty easily. CA is certainly not an issue to me with the 7-14mm.

illy
illy Forum Pro • Posts: 12,160
Re: D800 14-24mm vs E-M5 7-14mm

looking at these at 100% size you clearly see what resolution the 36mp has over the E-M5......which is great if you need it, very interesting.
--
working as intended

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D5100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Sigma 500mm F4.5 EX DG HSM +4 more
kenw
kenw Veteran Member • Posts: 5,386
Re: D800 14-24mm vs E-M5 7-14mm

CrisPhoto wrote:

Have an Oly 9-18 and never saw this heavy CA. Don't think the Pana 7-14 is worse, so maybe the light/tree contrast was very very special here.

The 7-14 does have pretty significant lateral CA that is corrected by Panasonic cameras. The 9-18 is optically corrected and actually does have less CA.

Anyhow, would heave been more realistic to enable "Remove CA" option in lightroom. I have enabled it per default ...

Yes, I agree. The Panasonic lenses are designed with that in mind. Testing without CA correction is like testing a lens you've removed the rear element from
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 kenw's gear list:kenw's gear list
Sony RX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +34 more
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Nevermind...

Photozopia wrote:

I've rarely seen CA to this extent on any 'pro' camera/lens set-up - regardless of model - ultra-wide or not.

Perhaps OP should use PP correction or better still .... supply original, camera processed JPG files.

I'm not sure what the original purpose of the post was, but for me it is overshadowed by what I clearly see as flawed image degradation in both manufacturer's output.

The fact that it's present on two excellent lenses should tell you something.

papillon_65 wrote:

Photozopia wrote:

Will this promised focus revision explain or ameliorate in any way the excessive blue/purple fringing (trees - top left particularly) in the Oly pics? The Nikon performance is certainly poor enough in this portion, but the Oly is pretty well horrendous/unacceptable IMO.

I'd avoid both like the plague if this is the best they can do ....

Horshack wrote:

Meh, I just realized the focus plane is different between the images. blah. Will try again tomorrow.

This is a worst case scenario for an UWA, bright backlit scene on the edge of the frame. No UWA lens will shine here, in reality you will not see this very often and it's possible to remove most of it pretty easily. CA is certainly not an issue to me with the 7-14mm.

-- hide signature --

Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Dropbox the raw files?

Any chance?

Bob Tullis
Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 37,600
Re: Nevermind...

Photozopia wrote:

I've rarely seen CA to this extent on any 'pro' camera/lens set-up - regardless of model - ultra-wide or not.

Perhaps OP should use PP correction or better still .... supply original, camera processed JPG files.

I'm not sure what the original purpose of the post was, but for me it is overshadowed by what I clearly see as flawed image degradation in both manufacturer's output.

That is easily enough corrected in post. On a Panasonic body this is corrected in-camera. LR's CA checkbox (as ACR/PS should also have) works very well to resolve it, and fringing if it appears can be resolved with an eyedropper (or with manual adjustments), quite satisfactorily. The main detraction with the 7-14 is the front element flare in certain conditions (night work with bright lights comes to mind). It's a highly regarded lens otherwise.

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X100F Sony RX1R II +1 more
dko22 Contributing Member • Posts: 925
Re: Nevermind...

It's important to realise that it's the defringe slider first introduced in LR 4.1 which is the most effective here as with most other shots and it's most effective done in RAW though works also on JPEGs. Just move the purple slider to around 5 or 6 --this works in the vast majority of cases. The CA checkbox is also useful but generally less effective on its own. Basically, use both! If you do this then CA/fringing is generally a non-issue with the Panny 7-14 in at least 99% of cases. The purple ghosting patches that can be seen occasionally under certain high contrast situations in low light is more of a problem but most people will seldom encounter it (I can easily reproduce it). Apparently Oly are aware of this issue and there has been at least one thread about it.

David

Bob Tullis wrote:

That is easily enough corrected in post. On a Panasonic body this is corrected in-camera. LR's CA checkbox (as ACR/PS should also have) works very well to resolve it, and fringing if it appears can be resolved with an eyedropper (or with manual adjustments), quite satisfactorily. The main detraction with the 7-14 is the front element flare in certain conditions (night work with bright lights comes to mind). It's a highly regarded lens otherwise.

.

 dko22's gear list:dko22's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Nikon Z6 Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Irix 15mm F2.4 Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +2 more
OP Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,920
Attempt #2
1

Not sure why the focus was off on the first set but this set looks good. And this time I shot at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 so you can mix 'n max for MFT/FF equivalency comparisons. I'll make a few raws available later today.

E-M5 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-bv5SZ2d/0/O/i-bv5SZ2d-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-qpzqtZs/0/O/i-qpzqtZs-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-vPWMrGt/0/O/i-vPWMrGt-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-WhqL4KL/0/O/i-WhqL4KL-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-hvSNrQH/0/O/i-hvSNrQH-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-gc4fwqN/0/O/i-gc4fwqN-O.jpg

E-M5 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-PvhVbGM/0/O/i-PvhVbGM-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-b6M3xMG/0/O/i-b6M3xMG-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-rBLZtxc/0/O/i-rBLZtxc-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-SpDZPz4/0/O/i-SpDZPz4-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-HbKS7Kn/0/O/i-HbKS7Kn-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-z9mcsxx/0/O/i-z9mcsxx-O.jpg

Here are some 100% crop comparisons...

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/8 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at 8MP

OP Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,920
Size and Weight comparison

D800 + 14-24mm + RRS L-Bracket: 4.8 lbs
EM-5 + 7-14mm + tripod bracket: 1.8 lbs

kenw
kenw Veteran Member • Posts: 5,386
Thanks! Bring on the RAWs

Thanks so much for doing this and sharing. These things take time and frequently the forum's only response is to criticize. Really - thank you!

RAWs would be very nice, I think for off axis the best way to compare is to apply Lateral CA correction. Both lenses suffer from it and for many UWA lenses it can be a significant contributor to off axis sharpness. RAW shooters would always apply CA correction with both lenses.

From an initial look it seems to confirm what we probably already knew, the 14-24 is an amazing lens and the 7-14 an excellent one (and amazing when you consider its size). The D800 is class leading, as is the E-M5 for their respective sensor sizes. In that sense this is a really great pair to compare between FF and m43.

At first glance I was surprised the D800 didn't resolve more than it did. On second thought though that really shouldn't be surprising at all. Really needs amazing optics to strut its stuff to the fullest and even the very best UWA zoom probably isn't going to be able to deliver that. So the "gap" probably isn't as wide than if we shot primes.

And that's what has kept me from moving to FF all these years. Not so much the price (I've sunk a lot of money in gear regardless of sensor size), but rather what it takes to realize the advantage. Bigger body, sure, but now probably lots of primes as well or the improvement isn't so great. In many cases focus stacking on top of that. And to what end? If I had lots of clients with gigantic walls I'd completely understand. But I don't, I just have me, and I only have so many walls with so much space

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 kenw's gear list:kenw's gear list
Sony RX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +34 more
OP Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 7,920
Here are f/4 and f/8 raws
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,978
Nicely done! Request for those working the RAWs:

Thanks for your efforts!

For those working the RAW files, could someone post one from the 7-14 at f/4 and 14-24 at f/8 (same DOF), with the EM5 pic upsampled to the same size as the D800 pic, and process both not in the same manner, but in a manner which you consider to be "optimal" for each?

Thanks!

Horshack wrote:

Not sure why the focus was off on the first set but this set looks good. And this time I shot at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 so you can mix 'n max for MFT/FF equivalency comparisons. I'll make a few raws available later today.

E-M5 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-bv5SZ2d/0/O/i-bv5SZ2d-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-qpzqtZs/0/O/i-qpzqtZs-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-vPWMrGt/0/O/i-vPWMrGt-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-WhqL4KL/0/O/i-WhqL4KL-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-hvSNrQH/0/O/i-hvSNrQH-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-gc4fwqN/0/O/i-gc4fwqN-O.jpg

E-M5 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-PvhVbGM/0/O/i-PvhVbGM-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-b6M3xMG/0/O/i-b6M3xMG-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-rBLZtxc/0/O/i-rBLZtxc-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-SpDZPz4/0/O/i-SpDZPz4-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-HbKS7Kn/0/O/i-HbKS7Kn-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-z9mcsxx/0/O/i-z9mcsxx-O.jpg

Here are some 100% crop comparisons...

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/8 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at 8MP

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,978
Big difference, eh? : )
1

That's the appeal of mFT right there! I mean, even given that the D800 option has "superior IQ", is it so much superior that it makes "enough" difference to "warrant" such a large, heavy, and expensive system?

Then again, if we compare the EM5 system to the Sony RX100 (stitch a couple of photos when you need wider than a 28mm EFL), we could repeat the whole scenario.

I suppose, as always, it depends on the person.

Horshack wrote:

D800 + 14-24mm + RRS L-Bracket: 4.8 lbs
EM-5 + 7-14mm + tripod bracket: 1.8 lbs

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,996
Re: Attempt #2

How did you crop different aspect ratio images to arrive to 8MP? One camera must have been at a disadvantage.

Another suggestion to try better resolving lenses. A number of manual lenses I tried at their best settings seem to outresolve or be very close to 2600 lines 16MP sensor resolution. I would assume professional quality Nikon lenses would be in the same category. For those, 35MP can be a great boost all other things being equal.

Horshack wrote:

Not sure why the focus was off on the first set but this set looks good. And this time I shot at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 so you can mix 'n max for MFT/FF equivalency comparisons. I'll make a few raws available later today.

E-M5 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-bv5SZ2d/0/O/i-bv5SZ2d-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-qpzqtZs/0/O/i-qpzqtZs-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-vPWMrGt/0/O/i-vPWMrGt-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-WhqL4KL/0/O/i-WhqL4KL-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-hvSNrQH/0/O/i-hvSNrQH-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 8MP
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-gc4fwqN/0/O/i-gc4fwqN-O.jpg

E-M5 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-PvhVbGM/0/O/i-PvhVbGM-O.jpg
D800 f/4.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-b6M3xMG/0/O/i-b6M3xMG-O.jpg

E-M5 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-rBLZtxc/0/O/i-rBLZtxc-O.jpg
D800 f/5.6 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-SpDZPz4/0/O/i-SpDZPz4-O.jpg

E-M5 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-HbKS7Kn/0/O/i-HbKS7Kn-O.jpg
D800 f/8.0 original size
http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-z9mcsxx/0/O/i-z9mcsxx-O.jpg

Here are some 100% crop comparisons...

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/8 at original pixel sizes

E-M5 f/4 vs D800 f/4 at 8MP

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads