Ernie Aubert wrote:
Okay, someone please report what you find about noise at 1600 and higher... that's what I, and I suspect others, really care about.
Not me, but if you need what I think you are looking for, there maybe other systems doing that part better.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Okay, someone please report what you find about noise at 1600 and higher... that's what I, and I suspect others, really care about.
Thanks, I agree. I am curious whether ISO 3200 or 6400 becomes useable now?
Of course, I could fall back on using my A7r2.
However, the Olympus 300/4 Pro lens doesn't seem to have an equal in FE format.
One would have to adapt a much larger and heavier FF lens, negating the benefits of m43.
The Mk II is supposed to be 1 stop better, so 3200 = 1600 on the E-M1 in terms of noise.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Okay, someone please report what you find about noise at 1600 and higher... that's what I, and I suspect others, really care about.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks, I agree. I am curious whether ISO 3200 or 6400 becomes useable now?
Of course, I could fall back on using my A7r2.
However, the Olympus 300/4 Pro lens doesn't seem to have an equal in FE format.
One would have to adapt a much larger and heavier FF lens, negating the benefits of m43.
K-H.
Depends on what you consider useable. For me ISO 3200 was fine for most applications, higher depending on the light and situation. For others iso400 on m4/3 they consider it excessive.
Absolutely. There are people who think ISO 200 on m43 is not acceptable or useable. Well, the Mk II is supposed to be a stop better so maybe it's now acceptable/useable?
TMaG82 wrote:
Depends on what you consider useable. For me ISO 3200 was fine for most applications, higher depending on the light and situation. For others iso400 on m4/3 they consider it excessive.
bobbytan wrote:
Absolutely. There are people who think ISO 200 on m43 is not acceptable or useable. Well, the Mk II is supposed to be a stop better so maybe it's now acceptable/useable?
IMO, if someone's so adverse to noise that they don't like ISO200-400 in m43, then they shouldn't be using m43.
No offense but that has to be one of the stupidest reply that I've read on this forum in a while. How does having more features compensate for crap picture quality ?
Sure it can focus on flying birds and do 60 fps but all that is useless if the picture quality at high ISO is horrible (which is usually required to maintain high shutter speeds).
Are you planning to use the camera only in perfect light?
Imagemaster wrote:
I could care less about noise at 1600. There are many more features with this camera that are more important to me.
And then there are those that are obsessive-compulsive about noise. My main concern is always the overall image, and I find that most people do not say, "Gee that is noisy" when viewing either a print or on-line image. Even Adobe thinks that photographers may want to add noise to an image sometimes, hence the Photoshop "add noise" filter.
Noise was a bit more of a concern 10 years ago with my 20D, but still no big deal for most people viewing my images. And there are also photographers that spend all their time worrying about gear, yet don't spend either the time or money on learning proper post-processing.
ajamils wrote:
No offense but that has to be one of the stupidest reply that I've read on this forum in a while. How does having more features compensate for crap picture quality ?
Sure it can focus on flying birds and do 60 fps but all that is useless if the picture quality at high ISO is horrible (which is usually required to maintain high shutter speeds).
Are you planning to use th camera only in perfect light?
Well, if the alternative is getting no shot at all, then I'll take the noise.
ajamils wrote:
No offense but that has to be one of the stupidest reply that I've read on this forum in a while. How does having more features compensate for crap picture quality ?
Sure it can focus on flying birds and do 60 fps but all that is useless if the picture quality at high ISO is horrible (which is usually required to maintain high shutter speeds).
Are you planning to use th camera only in perfect light?
Maybe you should learn how to read. I said "more important to me", not YOU. And if you can't comprehend how having certain features on a camera can help some people take better photos, then I wouldn't be talking about stupidity.
And perhaps you should look at the many photos taken by Jay Dickman under many lighting conditions with the E-M1. I guess he never used ISO 1600 and took lots of crap quality pictures, eh?
Lots of examples on the Sony Forum. Imagemaster wrote:
And there are also photographers that spend all their time worrying about gear, yet don't spend either the time or money on learning proper post-processing.
I got my Mark II yesterday and spent a few hours playing with it this morning. Here are some early observations:
CAF is WAY better than the Mark I, I shot a sequence of 24 shots of a cormorant taking off almost straight towards me and all of them were in focus. This was in dim lighting as it was very overcast and the shots were at ISO 4000 or higher! This was with the 300f4 and MC14.
Either the new sensor or the Lightroom update are much better at higher ISO, the files are more malleable and clean up far easier than before.
The camera is much quicker at everything except for the initial turn on time which is slower than the Mark I.
The new battery life seems much better, but it's too early to tell.
It really looks like a winner so far!
Bobg657 wrote:
I got my Mark II yesterday and spent a few hours playing with it this morning. Here are some early observations:
CAF is WAY better than the Mark I, I shot a sequence of 24 shots of a cormorant taking off almost straight towards me and all of them were in focus. This was in dim lighting as it was very overcast and the shots were at ISO 4000 or higher! This was with the 300f4 and MC14.
Either the new sensor or the Lightroom update are much better at higher ISO, the files are more malleable and clean up far easier than before.
The camera is much quicker at everything except for the initial turn on time which is slower than the Mark I.
The new battery life seems much better, but it's too early to tell.
It really looks like a winner so far! ...Show more →
That sounds great.
CAF is WAY better than the Mark I, I shot a sequence of 24 shots of a cormorant taking off almost straight towards me and all of them were in focus. This was in dim lighting as it was very overcast and the shots were at ISO 4000 or higher! This was with the 300f4 and MC14.
I would love to see that sequence, if possible play with the raw files. TIA.
The sequence was posted on DPReview M4/3 forum, my thread was called EM1 Mark 2 CAF test. Jpegs were posted with no noise reduction from LR. Unfortunately I can't post files here for some reason. Fwiw, I wrote they were at 3200 but each image shows the actual is higher.
