Cropped Sensor Grain At Different ISO's

GaryLaird

GaryLaird

Suspended / Banned
Messages
338
Name
Gary Laird
Edit My Images
Yes
Would like your opinion guys. I use a Panasonic G6 mirrorless camera. Very happy with the camera and the results I achieve......so far :)
BUT the one thing that bothers me is the low light performance when upping the ISO. Now for 99% of what I am shooting so far I can keep ISO to a minimum...in this case ISO160. I have however raised ISO levels when 'trying' to use longer lenses, being able to keep SS high and therefore avoid the shakes. Now I have always found the grain when raising ISO alarming and I do try to avoid. Has not limited my enjoyment so far but would just like to get a better handle on things. I fully understand that cropped sensor cameras don't handle higher ISO levels as well as full frame but wonder if;

a. Do other cropped sensor or mirrorless cameras produce similar results or do I just have a poor high ISO camera....or even a faulty one? I appreciate its an older model now superseded by the G7 and now G10 so would appreciate any Pany users input as well.

b. Even at ISO400 I find the grain level difficult to take...am I just being too critical?

To demonstrate the issue I took a series of test shots in aperture priority and just increased the ISO. I have then taken an identical crop from each image so it will display 1:1 here. There is no image processing (as if you could not guess), just the raw file imported into Lightroom, cropped then exported as JPG to Flickr. Have a look and tell me what you think.


PLEASE, I DONT want this to turn in to an argument about full sensor v's cropped v's mirrorless etc etc.... As far as I am concerned unless you can tell what camera produced any given image its all meaningless. A camera is a tool and there are many ways to crack a nut and all that stuff............................I just want to understand how limited my camera is in regards to higher ISO's :confused:

ISO160
ISO 160 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO400
ISO 400 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO800
ISO 800 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO1600
ISO 1600 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO3200
ISO 3200 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO6400
ISO 6400 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

Here's the original full shot at ISO160......my wife wondering what the hell I'm doing!
ISO160 by Gary Laird, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Can you post the original image at various iso settings?
What you're showing is massive crops and I wouldn't expect the quality to be great with such massive crops.
I think you're expecting too much.
Even with my d7000 I'd be unhappy with such crops at anything over iso 400-800.
My only experience with a panasonic was a g3 and didn't think the low light performance was too bad.
@mikew has used various panasonic cameras so might have some thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I think you're being overly critical. For starters, you're highlighting the darkest area of an already slightly under exposed image. That crop is also very hefty, only pixel peepers will ever view your images in that closely

I use a G80, it's a newer model and probably a fair bit better with noise handling, because I have never experienced as bad as you show here. But, in general, yes, M43 is a little weaker than other systems with regard to ISO performance. BUT ... nowhere near as bad as some make out, my old Fuji X-T1 was barely a stop better, I would say 1/2 stop at best tbh. It's all about getting the exposure correct from the off, if you see the exp dip below -3 then you need to adjust. It will only tell you -3 to +3, it could be under by -5 and still display -3, best bet is to expose slightly to the right, or at least bang on 0
 
@GaryLaird

On the whole newer sensors are better at controlling noise as the ISO increases (this isn't always true as increased pixel densities work against you), but a 16MP M43 sensor will usually be noisy than a 16MP APSC sensor which in turn will be noiser than a 16MP FF sensor. M43 sensors are only a quarter of the size of a FF sensor.

That said, when your camera creates a JPG image it will apply noise reduction techniques, and you in turn need to use these when processing the RAWs. Lightroom has some tools for this, as do third party plug-ins such as NIK DFine. If you improve your processing techniques you will be able to get acceptable results from higher ISO images.

The absolute key here is getting the image exposure correct as @Cagey75 has said. This then gives you the best chances with noise reduction and shadow recovery.

I use the Fuji X-T2/X100F, and whilst these have a newer sensor than your camera, and are an APSC crop rather than M43, with correctly exposed images I'm getting good results (after post processing) up to ISO6400
 
Of course FF will create cleaner images, as does later technology. But...

At std print sizes, your camera images would look fine
As above, avoid underexposure
And pixel peeping

What’s your intended use of your images? I’ve delivered A3 high ISO images from cameras that by modern standards are often considered ‘unusable’ and no customer ever thought to question the amount of noise*.

* btw it’s noise not grain, grain is what you get from film, where the actual silver crystals are visible. Noise is where there’s not enough information gathered by the sensor and artefacts are created in the amplification process.
 
Specialist good noise reducers, such as Neat Image or the one built-in into DXO Optics Pro, can usually do a couple of stops better noise quality than your camera's own jpeg processing or the more usual noise reducers in the more commonplace image editors. A little learning and experiment is required, but two stops better noise reduction is what many people will buy a new camera for!
 
When I got interested in photography in 1970, pushing the limits of my kit caused a great deal of grain in my images. I had two choices - don't bother or embrace the grain and use it. Digital images have noise ( as Phil says, noise, not grain). If you can see the noise (it is always there) then incorporate the noise in your artistry. My 1970s images of industrial decay would have been worthless without the grain - not a defect but an essential part of the image. Find a way to do that with digital noise.
 
GaryLaird said:
a. Do other cropped sensor or mirrorless cameras produce similar results or do I just have a poor high ISO camera....or even a faulty one? I appreciate its an older model now superseded by the G7 and now G10 so would appreciate any Pany users input as well.

b. Even at ISO400 I find the grain level difficult to take...am I just being too critical?
Click to expand...
I have a Panasonic TZ80 camera - a smaller sensor than your G6, I think - in good light, which means high contrast light, the images are as good as my canon EOS 80D up to A4 size. In poor light, there is a lot of noise. It is down to the light as much (or more) than the ISO.
 
Many dismiss DXO iso scores but personally I have always found they hold true when comparing cameras.

The G6 scores 639 which means at iso 639 there is a certain amount of noise in the image ( or something along those lines )

Anyway that is about the same score as a 2007 Nikon APS-C D300.

In fact it is not much better that a 2005 Nikon d50.

The issue is the smaller sensor size, nothing wrong with you or the camera.
 
I wouldn't go by DXO tbh, they rate the D90 at 977, I hated pushing mine above 400! They have the D800E at almost 3K, I would use it at 3200 if I had to but there will be clear noise visible, more than enough to have you cleaning up in post. They have the old Em5 a fair bit higher than the G80, I own both and at 1600 can't see any difference in the noise.

In any case, correct exposure is key, the sample image could easily have been shot with very different settings to achieve a more pleasing results. I don't think i have ever shot at F8 indoors unless it was for a specific long exposure or when using off cam flash. Dropping to F4 even, which gives plenty of DOF on MFT, would have allowed 2 stops less ISO.

Also I've just noticed OP has used an ISO 3200 in place of 1600, I did wonder why there was such an obvious jump from 800!! As I know these cameras are more than usable at 1600.

F8, 1/2500, indoors at 3200 is not even close to ideal exposue.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I wouldn't go by DXO tbh, they rate the D90 at 977, I hated pushing mine above 400! They have the D800E at almost 3K, I would use it at 3200 if I had to but there will be clear noise visible, more than enough to have you cleaning up in post. They have the old Em5 a fair bit higher than the G80, I own both and at 1600 can't see any difference in the noise.

In any case, correct exposure is key, the sample image could easily have been shot with very different settings to achieve a more pleasing results. I don't think i have ever shot at F8 indoors unless it was for a specific long exposure or when using off cam flash. Dropping to F4 even, which gives plenty of DOF on MFT, would have allowed 2 stops less ISO.

Also I've just noticed OP has used an ISO 3200 in place of 1600, I did wonder why there was such an obvious jump from 800!! As I know these cameras are more than usable at 1600.

F8, 1/2500, indoors at 3200 is not even close to ideal exposue.
Click to expand...

And would that be the same D90 that made this at 3200 iso ?

dsc_0077_a3.jpg
 
GTG said:
And would that be the same D90 that made this at 3200 iso ?

dsc_0077_a3.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know how much NR you performed on that image, also I prefer to use natural/ambient light shots for ISO comparisons as that is where you actually require it. I owned a D90 for a good period, I said I hated using it above 400, didn't say you couldn't or that I didn't. It was one of my favorite cameras tbh, doesn't mean I liked how it handled noise above 800 [what I should have said in the beginning, 400 was with my D200, I owned both at the same time]

I shot gigs with it at 3200.

ISO 1600, even after clean up, clearly visible noise, really depends on the lighting

Pearl Jem @ Swan lane, Navan, Co. Meath by K G, on Flickr


Thing is, I actually like a bit of grain in shots like those, it works for some, not so much for others.
 
Last edited:
GaryLaird said:
Even at ISO400 I find the grain level difficult to take...am I just being too critical?
Click to expand...

I think so, but many of us can pixel peep from time to time and wring our hands :D

I think it helps to think about the final picture and judge that and if you can do that and not fixate on what you seem to be doing, looking a very large picture very closely, you may be happier.

Exposing to the right and backing it off post capture and resisting the urge to boost the exposure might help.
 
woof woof said:
Exposing to the right and backing it off post capture and resisting the urge to boost the exposure might help.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I do with my GX8, and it has always worked for me. Having realistic expectations also helps - if you regularly need to shoot black cats in a coal scuttle at night without flash, then m4/3 probably isn’t the right tool for the job :LOL:

However, m4/3 does have a lot of excellent, affordable fast primes, and of course the ‘DoF effect’ works to your advantage in these circumstances.

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
That’s exactly what I do with my GX8, and it has always worked for me. Having realistic expectations also helps - if you regularly need to shoot black cats in a coal scuttle at night without flash, then m4/3 probably isn’t the right tool for the job :LOL:

However, m4/3 does have a lot of excellent, affordable fast primes, and of course the ‘DoF effect’ works to your advantage in these circumstances.

Simon.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't know what settings other than ISO Gary is using but I think that applying the crop factor is pretty much vital when trying to keep the image quality up and this is where you need wider aperture lenses. For example the old saying "f8 and be there" for 35mm/FF should be "f5.6 and be there" for APS-C and "f4 and be there" for MFT. With my MFT primes and my one f2.8 zoom I like to use these lenses wide open to f4 mostly with only occasional forays beyond. The problems are more cute with variable aperture zooms as you can be at f5.6 wide open and even the f4 zooms leave you at a disadvantage in lower light or when going for faster shutter speeds and mean using higher ISO's with the associated hit to image quality. I'd much rather stick to f1.x primes or f2.8 zooms if at all possible as these give you the best chance of keeping the ISO lower.

The main thing though is I think to try and look at the whole end picture and decide if that's good enough, not a very heavy crop.

But having said that I often crop very heavily and I've posted a lot of 100% crops on this site :D
 
Firstly guys I would like to thank you for all the replies. Some fantastic information and advice here. I will start and include the original full images at each ISO used.

ISO160
ISO160 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO400
ISO400 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO800
ISO800 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO1600
ISO1600 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO3200
ISO3200 by Gary Laird, on Flickr

ISO6400
ISO6400 by Gary Laird, on Flickr



Now I will add a shot if I was taking the same image 'for real'. Adding a bit of exposure compensation 'to the right' as advised. This is taken at ISO1600 with settings you would normally apply. Processed in Lightroom and including some noise reduction. Wished I'd picked a more interesting scene :)

ISO1600 f3.5 1/320sec processed with noise reduction applied in Lightroom by Gary Laird, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
:)
Bobsyeruncle said:
Can you post the original image at various iso settings?
What you're showing is massive crops and I wouldn't expect the quality to be great with such massive crops.
I think you're expecting too much.
Even with my d7000 I'd be unhappy with such crops at anything over iso 400-800.
My only experience with a panasonic was a g3 and didn't think the low light performance was too bad.
@mikew has used various panasonic cameras so might have some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Full images now added. Have used big crops to try to demonstrate what I considered a problem......but, as you say its maybe just my perception than a real problem at all
 
Cagey75 said:
I think you're being overly critical. For starters, you're highlighting the darkest area of an already slightly under exposed image. That crop is also very hefty, only pixel peepers will ever view your images in that closely

I use a G80, it's a newer model and probably a fair bit better with noise handling, because I have never experienced as bad as you show here. But, in general, yes, M43 is a little weaker than other systems with regard to ISO performance. BUT ... nowhere near as bad as some make out, my old Fuji X-T1 was barely a stop better, I would say 1/2 stop at best tbh. It's all about getting the exposure correct from the off, if you see the exp dip below -3 then you need to adjust. It will only tell you -3 to +3, it could be under by -5 and still display -3, best bet is to expose slightly to the right, or at least bang on 0
Click to expand...

Indeed I think I am being too critical. Its that zoom (1:1) view in Lightroom which I use as a matter of course to check for correct focus motion blur etc......of course the highlights the noise. I have added an additional shot now applying exposure compensation to the right......without over exposure .
 
Does that look a bit bright or is that how the room looks?

Normally if at all possible I ETTR to avoid boosting the exposure post capture and maybe to actually give a brighter than reality scene that can then be backed off in processing to return the scene to reality. Exposing to the right and backing it off should reduce visible noise.
 
I don't think you have any real problems there. You should judge pictures at the size at which you intend to hang them on the wall.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@GaryLaird

On the whole newer sensors are better at controlling noise as the ISO increases (this isn't always true as increased pixel densities work against you), but a 16MP M43 sensor will usually be noisy than a 16MP APSC sensor which in turn will be noiser than a 16MP FF sensor. M43 sensors are only a quarter of the size of a FF sensor.

That said, when your camera creates a JPG image it will apply noise reduction techniques, and you in turn need to use these when processing the RAWs. Lightroom has some tools for this, as do third party plug-ins such as NIK DFine. If you improve your processing techniques you will be able to get acceptable results from higher ISO images.

The absolute key here is getting the image exposure correct as @Cagey75 has said. This then gives you the best chances with noise reduction and shadow recovery.

I use the Fuji X-T2/X100F, and whilst these have a newer sensor than your camera, and are an APSC crop rather than M43, with correctly exposed images I'm getting good results (after post processing) up to ISO6400
Click to expand...

Yes agree. I have added an additional image now with better exposure and processed to remove some of the noise.
 
Phil V said:
Of course FF will create cleaner images, as does later technology. But...

At std print sizes, your camera images would look fine
As above, avoid underexposure
And pixel peeping

What’s your intended use of your images? I’ve delivered A3 high ISO images from cameras that by modern standards are often considered ‘unusable’ and no customer ever thought to question the amount of noise*.

* btw it’s noise not grain, grain is what you get from film, where the actual silver crystals are visible. Noise is where there’s not enough information gathered by the sensor and artefacts are created in the amplification process.
Click to expand...

No real intended use Phil. Maybe.....If I get a shot good enough I would hang on the wall but for now its only web based viewing.
Point taken about it being noise as apposed to grain :)
 
srhmoto said:
That’s exactly what I do with my GX8, and it has always worked for me. Having realistic expectations also helps - if you regularly need to shoot black cats in a coal scuttle at night without flash, then m4/3 probably isn’t the right tool for the job :LOL:

However, m4/3 does have a lot of excellent, affordable fast primes, and of course the ‘DoF effect’ works to your advantage in these circumstances.

Simon.
Click to expand...

I have actual got into a bad habit of probably doing the opposite. I always keep the 'clipping' view on when shooting which highlights overexposure. Its more than likely the case that I tend to underexpose everything which would make the noise level worse when processed. Just need to give up my dream of shooting black cats in the dark :p
 
woof woof said:
Yes, I don't know what settings other than ISO Gary is using but I think that applying the crop factor is pretty much vital when trying to keep the image quality up and this is where you need wider aperture lenses. For example the old saying "f8 and be there" for 35mm/FF should be "f5.6 and be there" for APS-C and "f4 and be there" for MFT. With my MFT primes and my one f2.8 zoom I like to use these lenses wide open to f4 mostly with only occasional forays beyond. The problems are more cute with variable aperture zooms as you can be at f5.6 wide open and even the f4 zooms leave you at a disadvantage in lower light or when going for faster shutter speeds and mean using higher ISO's with the associated hit to image quality. I'd much rather stick to f1.x primes or f2.8 zooms if at all possible as these give you the best chance of keeping the ISO lower.

The main thing though is I think to try and look at the whole end picture and decide if that's good enough, not a very heavy crop.

But having said that I often crop very heavily and I've posted a lot of 100% crops on this site :D
Click to expand...

Thanks, f8.0 for the test so I could keep same aperture for all the ISO levels I used. Indeed I have added a new full shot at f3.5 (ISO1600) that has been processed that will look a bit better.
I am interested in your comments about the image quality and mft. Shooting at f4.0. Never considered this but wonder when they do the various mft lens tests they still seem to (at least as far as I can remember) report that around f8.0 is the sweet spot on some lenses?
 
Noise tends to both sensitive to sensor size and to the degree of under exposure.
all modern cameras are astonishingly good compared to only a few years ago.
Full exposures are always less noisy.
 
woof woof said:
Does that look a bit bright or is that how the room looks?

Normally if at all possible I ETTR to avoid boosting the exposure post capture and maybe to actually give a brighter than reality scene that can then be backed off in processing to return the scene to reality. Exposing to the right and backing it off should reduce visible noise.
Click to expand...

Yes it is bright today.....an apartment in Spain with a full width window behind me. Should tone it down a bit though :). Main point was to shoot a better exposed image in camera to reduce noise as advised but maybe should back it back a bit !
 
GaryLaird said:
Thanks, f8.0 for the test so I could keep same aperture for all the ISO levels I used. Indeed I have added a new full shot at f3.5 (ISO1600) that has been processed that will look a bit better.
I am interested in your comments about the image quality and mft. Shooting at f4.0. Never considered this but wonder when they do the various mft lens tests they still seem to (at least as far as I can remember) report that around f8.0 is the sweet spot on some lenses?
Click to expand...

My theory may not be correct but it seems to work for me and gives me pictures that can often be lost amongst my FF pictures :D and it helps that many of the MFT lenses are pretty good wide open and can therefore be used at f1.x to f4 or a little more.

I don't know about lenses being at their sweet spot at f8. I don't normally analyse technical reviews that much but as I remember often lenses are at their best a couple of stops from wide open. It might be an idea to test the lenses you have and see how they perform at each aperture. I've found that all of my MFT lenses are good enough for me from wide open.

Just out of interest I looked up some of the MFT lenses I have, for me they're all sharp enough from wide open. Here's links to the reviews, all at the same site for consistency...

Olympus 17mm f1.8, they say it's very sharp over much of the frame at f1.8, maximum sharpness at f5.6.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/17mm-f1.8-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Olympus 25mm f1.8, they say it's exceedingly sharp in the centre at f1.8 but with some corner softness, sharp across the frame at f4-5.6.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.8-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Olympus 45mm f1.8, they say it's as sharp as it gets at f2.8.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/45mm-f1.8-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, they say it's "tack sharp" at f2.8 with only a bit of cornet softness, optimal at f4.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12-35mm-f2.8-asph-power-ois-lumix-g-x-vario/review/
 
Cagey75 said:
Also I've just noticed OP has used an ISO 3200 in place of 1600, I did wonder why there was such an obvious jump from 800!! As I know these cameras are more than usable at 1600.

F8, 1/2500, indoors at 3200 is not even close to ideal exposue.
Click to expand...

Indeed there was a mistake with the image labelling (now corrected). Actual images were correct ISO160 up to IS6400
 
woof woof said:
My theory may not be correct but it seems to work for me and gives me pictures that can often be lost amongst my FF pictures :D and it helps that many of the MFT lenses are pretty good wide open and can therefore be used at f1.x to f4 or a little more.

I don't know about lenses being at their sweet spot at f8. I don't normally analyse technical reviews that much but as I remember often lenses are at their best a couple of stops from wide open. It might be an idea to test the lenses you have and see how they perform at each aperture. I've found that all of my MFT lenses are good enough for me from wide open.

Just out of interest I looked up some of the MFT lenses I have, for me they're all sharp enough from wide open. Here's links to the reviews, all at the same site for consistency...

Olympus 17mm f1.8, they say it's very sharp over much of the frame at f1.8, maximum sharpness at f5.6.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/17mm-f1.8-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Olympus 25mm f1.8, they say it's exceedingly sharp in the centre at f1.8 but with some corner softness, sharp across the frame at f4-5.6.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.8-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Olympus 45mm f1.8, they say it's as sharp as it gets at f2.8.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/45mm-f1.8-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, they say it's "tack sharp" at f2.8 with only a bit of cornet softness, optimal at f4.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12-35mm-f2.8-asph-power-ois-lumix-g-x-vario/review/
Click to expand...

Yep...I take it back. Did a search for other reviews for all the Panasonic lenses I own and indeed its at the lower end around f4.0 that most are sharpest. That gives me some food for thought! Many thanks :)
 
For me a part of using MFT lenses from wide open to f4/5.6 or so is not just to keep the image quality up but also to get the same sort of look I get from 35mm/FF cameras.

With 35mm/FF cameras I normally / mostly take pictures between wide open and maybe f10 with the majority mostly being between f2.8 or so (because f1.4-2.8 gives next to no depth of field which is sometimes nice but more often I don't want razor thin DoF) and f8 with lots taken around f4/5.

I can get pretty much the same look from MFT by taking pictures at f1.8 to f4/5.6 with most taken in the f1.8 to f4 range and often the only way I can tell a MFT picture from a picture taken with my FF Sony A7 without pixel peeping is to look at the aspect ratio which will give it away as I use MFT in 4:3 and the Sony A7 in 3:2.

PS.
I hope you are feeling a bit better about MFT now?

I think it's a good system and really only loses out to my A7 in a couple of areas... the dynamic range isn't as good and old lenses are better on my A7 because they're sharper and at their intended FoV. MFT is however more compact and more discrete and these things do matter to me.
 
Last edited:
GaryLaird said:
Yep...I take it back. Did a search for other reviews for all the Panasonic lenses I own and indeed its at the lower end around f4.0 that most are sharpest. That gives me some food for thought! Many thanks :)
Click to expand...

There’s a subset of ‘photographers’ for whom the ‘sweet spot’ is of any use, but most of us make pictures, and the ‘quality’ of our pictures is due to storytelling, composition and lighting. ‘Most’ of my pictures are shot between 1.4 and 2.8 and ‘sharpness’ and ‘noise’ are never a priority, if you make pictures people want to look at, no one will care about those things. Or you could stick to the forum etiquette of taking s*** shots of ducks and obsessing over ‘sharpness’.
 
Phil V said:
There’s a subset of ‘photographers’ for whom the ‘sweet spot’ is of any use, but most of us make pictures, and the ‘quality’ of our pictures is due to storytelling, composition and lighting. ‘Most’ of my pictures are shot between 1.4 and 2.8 and ‘sharpness’ and ‘noise’ are never a priority, if you make pictures people want to look at, no one will care about those things. Or you could stick to the forum etiquette of taking s*** shots of ducks and obsessing over ‘sharpness’.
Click to expand...
This bears repeating . I have a large drawing (just over a metre square) on the wall in our sitting room drawn by Lyn Lovitt in charcoal - not a trace of sharpness with charcoal and one excellent picture. Only photographers worry about sharpness in their pictures. Same applies to noise - charcoal is a very noisy medium - there are specks of charcoal dust all over the place in Lyn's picture and it is still one excellent picture.

I now very rarely share any of my photographs on line as the predictable result is comments about the lack of sharpness and no comments about what the picture is saying.
 
I think you're comfortable using this camera up to 1600, and 3200 at a push. If you consider this before doing any shooting, you will set up to suit and besides that, don't stress over a little noise. When I see images above 3200 that are'clean' or noise free, I'm immediately suspicious :D no matter the gear used.
 
Phil V said:
There’s a subset of ‘photographers’ for whom the ‘sweet spot’ is of any use, but most of us make pictures, and the ‘quality’ of our pictures is due to storytelling, composition and lighting. ‘Most’ of my pictures are shot between 1.4 and 2.8 and ‘sharpness’ and ‘noise’ are never a priority, if you make pictures people want to look at, no one will care about those things. Or you could stick to the forum etiquette of taking s*** shots of ducks and obsessing over ‘sharpness’.
Click to expand...

Point well made :)
 
Cagey75 said:
I think you're comfortable using this camera up to 1600, and 3200 at a push. If you consider this before doing any shooting, you will set up to suit and besides that, don't stress over a little noise. When I see images above 3200 that are'clean' or noise free, I'm immediately suspicious :D no matter the gear used.
Click to expand...

Thanks........that gives me more confidence :D
 
Phil V said:
There’s a subset of ‘photographers’ for whom the ‘sweet spot’ is of any use, but most of us make pictures, and the ‘quality’ of our pictures is due to storytelling, composition and lighting. ‘Most’ of my pictures are shot between 1.4 and 2.8 and ‘sharpness’ and ‘noise’ are never a priority, if you make pictures people want to look at, no one will care about those things. Or you could stick to the forum etiquette of taking s*** shots of ducks and obsessing over ‘sharpness’.
Click to expand...

Haha :D
 
I will never under stand why people expect to see the grunge in a dark coal cellar to look as if it had been taken outside on a sunny day.
Even if it can be done, why would you want to?

Low levels of light create their own characteristics, it is a pity not to capture them.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I will never under stand why people expect to see the grunge in a dark coal cellar to look as if it had been taken outside on a sunny day.
Even if it can be done, why would you want to?

Low levels of light create their own characteristics, it is a pity not to capture them.
Click to expand...


I agree. Also you learn to make use of the features of your gear. Here's a boring [to anyone but me] shot of our cat, she was sat in almost darkness bar the dim lighting from the tv in the background. M43 cameras, at least the later ones, have excellent IBIS, so I shot at 1/6, ISO 2000. I rarely ever feel the need to go above that, and though there is noise present, I find it 'pleasant noise'. Very slight NR in LR.

Scrappy by K G, on Flickr

The G80 is barely any better than the older G6 for handling low light, but it does have that stabilization.
 
You've convinced me! I just need to shoot more indoors which I hardly ever do and even then use flash. So coal cellar here I come and I just need to work with what I've got :)

Thanks guys :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top