The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Looking for high ISO performance

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Have been using digital Leica M since the M8 came out . Really enjoy street shooting with M sized equipment . The limiting factor has always been ..higher ISO performance . I shoot color otherwise I would get a MONO and be done with it .

Every camera I have tried seems to have excellent quality up to ISO 400 and good quality at ISO800. Shooting at dawn or dusk requires decent DR and color is important . Generally I find at ISO 1600 I am fighting the trade off between resolution and noise . DR is crushed ,color saturation is fading and its hard to get a “clean looking” image . My hit ratio drops considerably as I have no margin for error either in focus or exposure .

In FF nikon DSLR no such problem ..as I can use 3200 like ISO 800 in my Leica . Only using this as a point of reference .

Interested in what others are finding or accepting as a trade off in smaller form cameras .
 

quadtones

Member
Roger--

Thanks for starting this thread. I don't have advice for you, as I'm struggling with the same dilemma, having been using Leica for years, M8s since 2006, and the M9 since it came out. I am almost exclusively a B&W shooter, but can't justify the cost of the Monochrom, and am trying to find an option with similar or possibly smaller form factor, and iso that's good to 3200 or more. Considered the Fuji XP1, but while noise control seems to be spectacular, folks seem to feel focusing is lackluster precisely in the conditions I most would want to use the high iso.

Love your work in Paris...wonderful place to shoot in autumn.
 

Braeside

New member
The OMD isn't at all bad at High ISO

This with kit lens indoors at ISO 6400 1/15 sec



Outdoor ISO 3200 cropped - shot through double glazing!

 

pgmj

Member
I share your views. Have an M8 that I find barely useable in color at ISO 640. My D700 is of course wonderful at high ISO, and also has extremely clean low ISO files. The OM-D has quite a bit of luminance noise, even at low ISO, but retains detail well, and has surprisingly low color noise. It seems the best compromise so far, weight/size/performance-wise.

I have made some test prints at 45x30cm/40x30cm comparing the three cameras at lowest ISO, and as I suspected the OM-D noise doesn't show at that print size.

I have made some shots with OM-D at higher ISO (1600-3200) that I find quite useable in color, but also some at 1600 that I find too noisy. Depends a bit on the lighting and I haven't really explored the OM-D at high ISO well enough yet. But I find myself trying to stay at base ISO as far as possible, unlike with the D700 that I shoot with confidence up til 1600 no matter the situation.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The tough thing about high ISO for street is that we are talking about shooting in low light typically at dusk . This is quite different than shooting in daylight at higher ISO s because I am testing the DR and Color as well as the noise . In daylight you see some loss of resolution and micro contrast but it may not significantly affect the image .

So if you need high ISo to shoot telephoto or action ....the results maybe be excellent .

In the evening you have typically one EV in the shadows to pull back otherwise you get mush . You better not miss the exposure .
 

Braeside

New member
Roger, See above, indoor with one low wattage energy saving light bulb at ISO 6400. Not a great lens either, but there is considerable detail. Probably a lot better than the M8 at ISO 800 if I recall mine well enough. I rarely used colour from the M8 above ISO 640. I don't hesitate to use ISO 6400 on the OMD (or the XP1).
 

quadtones

Member
David--that looks great. Is that handheld? I hadn't considered the addition of anti-shake, and for 1/8 that shot is very usable. The file quality looks like it would convert to B&W for me with pretty good tonal range, and considering the ISO, shadow detail is not too noisy.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Thanks Dave . Try the same shot on a tripod at base ISO and I think you will see the differences . This stuff is clearly subjective but this example looks like an M9 shot at about 1600 (and properly exposed).

Not saying the IQ isn t adequate just that its a grade or two lower than base ISO . On the street its really hard to nail the exposure in the evening ..if you under expose that image by 1 EV ..you will lose the IQ . Try pulling back any of the shadows and you will see what I am speaking about .

Again the term “good” has to be taken in context and its easy to have different POV s on IQ.

Thanks for posting the example .
 

Braeside

New member
Yes, all hand held Norm! These were just snapshots taken the first day I got the camera, so nothing special, but hopefully show the potential of the camera.
 

Braeside

New member
Roger, of course the base ISO will be better! On a tripod will be better, a FF camera will better etc. But an M8 in the same conditions hand held won't be I fear.
 

pophoto

New member
I think I understand where the OP is coming from. Ideally we would want all the goodness FF has to offer and look for the smaller sensor camera to provide the same. However, this simply isn't possible. However, what I do like is the OMD. No it isn't an equivalent, maybe not even close, as far as DR, details getting crushed as you move up the ISO.

Subjectively speaking, I can work with the OMD files, though still not the same as FF sensor files. I doubt small sensors will ever get there. Closest thing will be APS-C sensors size ,Fuji might have answer, but then there are other things to consider outside of ISO as there always is. Hope this helps.
 

Braeside

New member
You canna break the laws of physics! - But the OMD gets close.

Its all a compromise. Ideally what you are looking for is an M10 with a modern high ISO performing sensor. Perhaps wait for that.
 

GaryAyala

Member
I think that only full frame, either Nikon or the new Canon 1D-X will meet your expectations. But now your looking at some real weight and size (and cost).

I probably have a lower "acceptable" bar, while I desire minimal noise, I try to find images with significant impact which will outweigh the distraction of noise. But I generally shoot people and it reads as if you shoot landscape type stuff.

Here's my two cents with the OM-D:

#1 dusk @ 3200


#2 dusk @ 3200


#3 night @ 1600


#4 night @ 1600


#5 totally black (no ambiant light except the sword) @ 1600


#6 night @ 1600


Gary
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger, of course the base ISO will be better! On a tripod will be better, a FF camera will better etc. But an M8 in the same conditions hand held won't be I fear.
Dave

I think we lost the point of the thread. I use the M9 as a standard of performance ..not saying its good/great/bad ..just that many of us know what the results look like (its about 1EV better than the M8) . The question presented in “is there something out there that is materially better ..while retaining a small form”.

IMHO the M9 loses it luster between 640 and 800 ..after that the images are decidedly lower in IQ . Again that just a point of reference .

When I am shooting I am not thinking ..thats great image quality for 1600 or 3200 ...its either excellent or its not usable . The question is when does it stop being excellent and thats always subjective .

Roger
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Its also the difference between CCD and CMOS and I think both the Fuji X00 an d XPro1 have best in class high ISO performance . A nikon D7000 has pretty good ISO 1600 if you can be careful with exposure .

The OMD has tons of high quality features so its worth asking .



I think I understand where the OP is coming from. Ideally we would want all the goodness FF has to offer and look for the smaller sensor camera to provide the same. However, this simply isn't possible. However, what I do like is the OMD. No it isn't an equivalent, maybe not even close, as far as DR, details getting crushed as you move up the ISO.

Subjectively speaking, I can work with the OMD files, though still not the same as FF sensor files. I doubt small sensors will ever get there. Closest thing will be APS-C sensors size ,Fuji might have answer, but then there are other things to consider outside of ISO as there always is. Hope this helps.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Gary

Nice examples . I shoot primarily street and always people . But I also try to make the light work for me . In the evening as the light drops off you reach a point where ISO 800 just isn t going to cut it even with f1.4 lenses and careful technique . At 1600 its probably enough but at 3200 its pretty easy . The M9 tends to die around 800 which is quite frustrating .

I have a D4 and D800E so I have used both at 3200 with excellent results ..not much different from an M9 at 800. But as you noted the DSLR size is an issue .

Your examples make my point about what to look for. When the image contrast is within the DR they are very nice ...when they are not they tend to lose tone separation . Color at 3200 looks like color at 3200. Has nothing to do with a critique of the photographs which all have nice moments .

You are correct in that I am not yet satisfied with the ISO of anything at 1600 and above except the FF DSLR and the Fuji APS C .
 

Braeside

New member
Hi Roger, Sorry, you are right of course, its all down to what you use the camera for, what you consider good enough, what size of prints if any you print and so on.

Just from my very short experience of the OMD I would say that it is better than my previous M8, and A900 for low light performance. The IBIS is excellent, better than other IS systems I have used. I would say the X-Pro 1 which I also have is slightly better at high ISO perhaps by a stop, but that is to be expected given the relative sizes of the sensors.

Its all down to what you are prepared to carry (and pay for) in the end. Suffice to say I sold the A900 as I was not using it enough to justify it and the super Zeiss lenses.

I now have the Ricoh GXR for the M lenses when I want to manual focus and get good definition with no AA filter, the Fuji X-Pro 1 when I want great, fast, AF lenses and small DOF and a nice OVF, and the Olympus OMD for the zooms, telephoto, and wonderful IS, not to mention very respectable low light performance in a small package. Its never been a better time to be into photography (and gear).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Roger, could you post some shots from the D4 and D800 @ 3200 to demonstrate what exactly you are looking for?

-Marc
 

GaryAyala

Member
Gary

Nice examples . I shoot primarily street and always people . But I also try to make the light work for me . In the evening as the light drops off you reach a point where ISO 800 just isn t going to cut it even with f1.4 lenses and careful technique . At 1600 its probably enough but at 3200 its pretty easy . The M9 tends to die around 800 which is quite frustrating .

I have a D4 and D800E so I have used both at 3200 with excellent results ..not much different from an M9 at 800. But as you noted the DSLR size is an issue .

Your examples make my point about what to look for. When the image contrast is within the DR they are very nice ...when they are not they tend to lose tone separation . Color at 3200 looks like color at 3200. Has nothing to do with a critique of the photographs which all have nice moments .

You are correct in that I am not yet satisfied with the ISO of anything at 1600 and above except the FF DSLR and the Fuji APS C .
If you're shooting street in low light, don't think you can beat the Fuji, for size and IQ.

The only long-shot contender would be the OM-D with its wonderful IBIS, Fuji 3200 could equal OM-D 800 or 400, what subject blur you'd get may just be a big plus on the impact side of the equation. But then again, OM-D 800 or 400 could be better than Fuji 3200 and there's the rub.

G
 
Top