1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

High ISO

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by ashburtononline, Aug 9, 2015.

  1. ashburtononline

    ashburtononline Mu-43 Veteran

    389
    Jan 21, 2015
    New Zealand
    Here is one I took earlier at a basketball match .... ISO 3200, 40-150 Pro at f3.2 and 1/250th Sec .... no sharpening and no NR ... shot RAW on EM-1

    A8090705.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    • Like Like x 1
  3. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    The poster obviously thought iso 3200 was very high and I can understand that, it wasn't too long ago that it was. Not that much of a problem on m43 these days though. I must admit however that I clicked on this thread expecting an image with iso 10,000 or even 25,000 - maybe this thread could be the start of something interesting? I might experiment an iso 25,000 image myself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. ThereAndBackAgain

    ThereAndBackAgain Fighting GAS

    189
    May 26, 2014
    North Devon, England
    David
    E-M5, Olympus 60mm, f4 @1/60, ISO 10000. And no-one was more surprised than me at the result. kit.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  5. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    ㅇtㅈyㅅr
    From my experience, quality of light is just as important important as ISO itself in terms of getting a clean image.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
  6. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    That's interesting, I've always wondered why some high ISO shots are noisier than others. I once shot long exposure at mid day with filters, and accidentally had my ISO at 8000 or something. They were a bit noisy, but more usable than I thought they would be when I noticed my blunder.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. ashburtononline

    ashburtononline Mu-43 Veteran

    389
    Jan 21, 2015
    New Zealand
    my 'point' is to start a thread like this as m43's Achilles heel is high ISO. I was pleased that I can comfortably use 3200 indoors. I'd compare it to 6400 on my previous D3.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Totally agree. What's more, hitting the exposure properly and not underexposing makes a huge difference too at high ISO. You also need to accept that PP will need to fairly minimal.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I've noticed this for astrophotography. It's better to increase ISO to obtain a good exposure than to keep ISO low and underexpose, hoping to push in post.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    That depends on the specific sensor being used. Some sensor assemblies are ISO invariant and some aren't.
     
  11. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    Shot at 12800, pushed one stop in post.

    platapyhit.

    You can get away with all sorts of evil things when you're reducing the size for web use.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    Australia
    +1 quality of light. I find high ISO shots will often look good if there is a decent amount of light. With little light, the high ISO shots will often look more grainy.

    btw there is already a thread with High ISO samples.

    https://www.mu-43.com/threads/55489/
     
  13. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    This was shot at a paltry (by this thread's standards) ISO 2000:

    15130681018_200bb2da53_b. Spider Snack by Carbonman_, on Flickr

    Go to the Flickr link to see it at full resolution. It's almost grainless and quite detailed. +1 for not underexposing. Also a good example of how sharp the 40-150 R is.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
    WOW!! Very impressed. I've not tried anything past 1200, I'm going to have to get over this Canonthink thing that I have.
     
  15. siftu

    siftu Mu-43 Top Veteran

    633
    Mar 26, 2015
    Bay Area, CA
    siftu
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    These two sentences linked provide a complete response to the HI-iso question, now try iso 1600 in very bad light and give us 100% crop of it ;)
     
  17. That might be a problem if you regularly have to crop that much to obtain your final image.
     
  18. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    ㅇtㅈyㅅr
    This is about the lowest quality light as I could find going thru the past few months of a high ISO image (3200) that ended up being a keeper. It was in a dark alley, at night, lit by a fluorescent bulb. The conditions were far from ideal as I had to open up the aperture to f1.8 in order to get the fastest shutter speed (1/50") at ISO 3200 and had time to grab two shots.

    The 100% crop shows the absolute limit of what I find acceptable, at least for web use and smaller prints, but does obviously show lots of noise and color smudging.

    100% crop (1024x768) SOOC JPEG:

    OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5 Mk.II, 25MM, F1.8, 1/50, ISO 3200

    RAW post processed with LR6 & Alien Skin Exposure 7:
    20281753350_acd686c26b_b.
    OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5 Mk.II, 25MM, F1.8, 1/50, ISO 3200

     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  19. exakta

    exakta Mu-43 Regular

    85
    Jun 2, 2015
    Agreed. I've done a lot of high ISO shooting of musicians in bars and find that well-lit subjects yield acceptable images while poorly lit subjects end up being too noisy and unusable, even though the ISO is the same.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. gobeatty

    gobeatty Mu-43 Regular

    82
    Sep 15, 2014
    I'm convinced white balance can affect the performance at a given ISO as well. I shoot ISO 3200 at dance competitions with WB set for tungsten lighting and it is difficult to keep hair from turning into a painting due to the needed NR. To adjust for the WB, the camera has to push some color channels much more than others leading to mushy images. I'm debating getting a 2.8 or faster lens to lower ISO, but I'm not sure how much it will help given the light. I get a ton of usable shots and it may only be me peeping that notices, but the degradation in IQ is very apparent.