High ISO

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

  1. ashburtononline

    ashburtononline Mu-43 Veteran

    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

    • 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

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

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    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 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    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

    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 Subscribing Member

    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.


    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
    +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.

  13. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

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

    15130681018_200bb2da53_b.jpg 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

    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    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 Subscribing Member

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

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    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
    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:
    View attachment 433150
    OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5 Mk.II, 25MM, F1.8, 1/50, ISO 3200

    RAW post processed with LR6 & Alien Skin Exposure 7:
    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 Veteran

    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

    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.