PDA

View Full Version : ISO1600 with E-510



guillermovilas
05-19-2008, 08:08 AM
Here are a few pictures of my cat , taken with no flash at ISO1600 and without any noise reduction , not from the camera and neither from post treatment.
Quite more noise then with 2/3 format cameras

guillermovilas
05-19-2008, 08:14 AM
When used under good lightning conditions it does produce decent pictures :)

Ken.
05-20-2008, 04:36 AM
I'm assuming the originals are JPEG. I've seen the same effect in my tests (although I shoot RAW format mostly). Personally, I think the levels are fine. I'd take this over the splotchiness I've seen in other cameras. Even with noise reduction off there's still a level of processing going on in the camera with the RAW to JPEG conversion.

Let me back up for a moment. One of the great debates running with the 4:3 and 3:2 crowd is noise and the comparison to the 35mm format. I can assure you ISO 1600 in 35mm film would be worse than this, particularly with color film. Taking film out of the equation, yes a larger sensor could be better provided the megapixel count is identical. Maybe.

Noise would be unacceptable in a studio shot and it should be. There's far too much control to allow a high ISO situation to happen. In the field you may have no control. Composition and opportunity may have to take precedence. Nobody wins an award for the shot they did not take.

I was at the Leica gallery recently. Every photo was beautifully printed and nearly every picture had a level of film grain that a digital photographer would instantly dismiss as poor quality. How odd this "texture" is fine in one medium and not another.

guillermovilas
05-23-2008, 01:36 AM
I'm assuming the originals are JPEG. I've seen the same effect in my tests (although I shoot RAW format mostly). Personally, I think the levels are fine. I'd take this over the splotchiness I've seen in other cameras. Even with noise reduction off there's still a level of processing going on in the camera with the RAW to JPEG conversion.

Let me back up for a moment. One of the great debates running with the 4:3 and 3:2 crowd is noise and the comparison to the 35mm format. I can assure you ISO 1600 in 35mm film would be worse than this, particularly with color film. Taking film out of the equation, yes a larger sensor could be better provided the megapixel count is identical. Maybe.

Noise would be unacceptable in a studio shot and it should be. There's far too much control to allow a high ISO situation to happen. In the field you may have no control. Composition and opportunity may have to take precedence. Nobody wins an award for the shot they did not take.

I was at the Leica gallery recently. Every photo was beautifully printed and nearly every picture had a level of film grain that a digital photographer would instantly dismiss as poor quality. How odd this "texture" is fine in one medium and not another.

The originals were Raw and tuned with 'Rawtherapee' before being saved in jpeg format.
I shot with NR on 'off' and i didn't do any post treatment concerning the noise , result would be better with something like 'noise ninja' processing but like you said this is pretty acceptable.

Ken.
05-24-2008, 07:53 PM
Rawtherapee looks like a nice Windows app. It was the banding that made me think JPEG originals. Personally, I use Adobe Lightroom for just about everything.

Rooz
05-24-2008, 07:56 PM
When used under good lightning conditions it does produce decent pictures :)

the hi-iso stuff is a litle snowy, but not really that bad.
#1 in this series of portraits is outstanding though. very well done.

Ken.
05-25-2008, 04:08 PM
I like the touch of graininess. It gives it a film look. The banding is weird but that's probably JPEG compression.