E-500 - Highest useable iso

Just tried the E-500 in the shop today & loved the ergonomics - size wise it's smaller than the Fuji S9000 & Sony R1 too, which I'm also currently considering

I've read many reviews which state that its high iso are worse than the Nikon D50/Canon 350, but in everday "real world" situations just how much of an issue is this ??

Must admit the OLY is the only DSLR I will consider as I just don't want the dust issues much talked about by many other DSLR users, the OLY prevention system seems to work pretty well from what I have read

I was initially set on the Sony R1 but considering it's price I would be much more inclined to go with the OLY 2 lens kit with the advantages of extra flexibility, also believe noise levels on the OLY are still slightly better than the Sony despite the review comments ???

My main use will be landscape/travel & also some low-light stuff

-- Any E-500 user feedback would be much appreciated

thanks

simon

Well ISO 1600 is ok if you are not printing bigger sizes, if you are stick with ISO 800.

Despite the sony flog off, it may be worth checking out KM the 5 or 7D...low light kings...and the 7D is going cheap...its build quality walks all over the E-500 and then some....

E-500 is still good, dust issue is not a big problem IMO..not on KM cams anyway...anti static treatment seems to help more than Canon etc...

E-500 is a good entry level cam...7D is semi pro....

The highest ISO you can use is 1600

You will have to decide for yourself if it is useable or not. In my opinion it's perfect for small print sizes and online showing. In my opinion proper exposure is key to getting useable ISO 1600 pictures.

For landscape get a tripod (or monopod). You will need to define low light stuff. Nightscapes etc. are best shot with a tripod. If you plan to shoot a lot indoor a fl-36 or fl-50 will probably give you the most satisfying result.

And how much trouble you want to take.

I often crop markedly, and I often shoot "difficult" shots that simply can't work without heavy PP exposure fiddling (which brings out noise).

But I'm also happy to use neat image, which is very effective.

If a shot is good, it will be printed at A3 or A2, so good quality is a must.

My rule of thumb:

iso100, default.

iso200, any time I think light might be an issue, no problem.

iso400, to be avoided because I MIGHT need Neat Image if I muck about with the image a lot. Straight out of the camera shots would be fine, but I don't work that way.

iso800, OK, I'm doing this because there is a serious low light issue. Shots will be fine with Neat Image, and I still have some margin for messing about.

iso1600 - perosnally I push in RAW, which is much the same as the boost is doing anyway. Shots treated like this need to be right in every other way, because the margin for error just went out the window.

Is it a huge problem? No. I'd like better high noise performance AND a bigger viewfindr (without losing brightness), but overall I prefer the E500 to any of the cameras that offer that (at the price point). It handles better, the system weighs less, and it is just "right."
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

It is all subjective. Personally I would not go anywhere higher than ISO 400 with E-500. It is about equivalent to 350D ISO 1600. In fact Canon looks cleaner. Nikon d50 does also produce very clean images at high ISO. But there are other things to consider; as ergonomics for example, if that is important to you.

• Sergey

Sergey Green said:

It is all subjective. Personally I would not go anywhere higher
than ISO 400 with E-500. It is about equivalent to 350D ISO 1600.
In fact Canon looks cleaner. Nikon d50 does also produce very clean
images at high ISO. But there are other things to consider; as
ergonomics for example, if that is important to you.

• Sergey

Click to expand...

No higher than iso400 ???

-- I have seen shots from the Sony R1 at iso1600 which look very useable, even iso3200 didn't look bad

Perhaps the Sony is more suited to my needs (landscape/travel - some outdoor night shots)

I disagree that 400 is as high as useable. If you don't know how to expose the shot, that is the case, but if you expose to the right, you will be fine even at 1600. Underexpose at all, and you will have noise from 400 up.

I would venture to say that the E-500 will be better than the R1 at 1600. It will not match the Canons though.

There are pros and cons to every system. I would be leery of investing in a KM at this point. Not because they are bad cameras, but because the company has sold itself off. C/N do have dust issues. Even my pro friends have to clean their sensors and PP the dust off their shots. Though it doesn't seem to bother them that much

--
See profile for equipment

http://llpoolej.smugmug.com

The amount of noise is very dependent on exposure. Underexposed shots will show MUCH more noise than those that are exposed correctly, so it is best to shoot with the aperture wide open and the most generous shutter speed you can allow.

The 500 is supposed to have better noise reduction built in than the 300 does, but if you are interested in seeing some shots, visit my galleries. The originals are there, I have printed them to 8x10 and been pleased with the results.
--
Theresa Kelly
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Oly E-3OO + some other stuff

Constructive criticism always welcome!

I never hesitate to use 800/1600 whenever I need. I just use Noiseware in pp. ISO 400 is good even without Noiseware. Here are my few posts with some examples of 400/800/1600. Very harsh lighting or just a few spot lights… Before you ask, yes, I printed some of them on 8x12 (I don’t print anymore at all, but just for testing purposes) and I was very pleased with the results.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=17069285

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=17061221

There are pros & cons for every system. When I was buying E-300 fourteen months ago, high ISO was one of my concerns. At that time, there was smaller choice of cameras. After testing them all, I found that high ISO is not an issue to me and what I was getting from E-300 is just good enough and comparing with other things (like no problems with back/front focusing, dust-free, excellent lenses – I only needed two to cover my needs, Oly colours…), E-300 was a clear winner.

I’ll suggest going to the store and trying/testing cameras that you are interested in. That way you’ll know what will be the best choice for you.

Good luck,
Alex.

--
Equipment list is in the profile.

Nah, that's nonsense.

See my earlier post - you can shoot right up to 1600 and get clean images, but the liberties you can take fall and, at the higher end, the trouble you have to go to rise. Theresa posted a dead clean un retouched 1600 ASA shot not long ago.

In the meantime there is distinctly visble noise in the Canon 5D shots at 800ASA (as you would expect).

Here's an 800 ASA shot, heavily cropped, with difficult exposure, pushed and pulled around in RAW to get the colours and punch, and then passed through Neat Image.



You can see the original here:

http://www.pbase.com/acam/image/55738815/original

There is no denying the Oly is relatively noisy, and that it would be nice if it were quieter, but the idea it stops dead at 400ASA is laughable, frankly.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Shot in a gym, no flash, f4, iso1600, 1/25th sec.



--
Theresa Kelly
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Oly E-3OO + some other stuff

Constructive criticism always welcome!

Thanks for the images, some good looking iso 1600 shots, comparable to the R1 shots I have seen (although obviously an exact comparison is difficult on a PC)

I don't think I would need high iso much anyway but am interested to hear peoples views on the issue

The only negative for me regarding the OLY is cost as I want Wide-Angle, the Sony will do 24mm for just about half the cost of the OLY with the 11-22 lens (22mm equivalent) - obviously the OLY has other benefits which have been discussed already on other forums

Not easy choosing a camera these days !!!

Yesterday I shot quite a few shots with my friends E500. I found that well exposed shot looked quite good, even at ISO1600. A little detail was lost, but there was no color shift in the ones I shot and noise was very reasonable.

If, this is a big issue with you then just get better glass! Period!

The 2.8-3.5 lenses are a stop faster wide than most of the competition and as you zoom you typically gain two stops over them. This is not withstanding Image Stab. or Pro Glass. But, the pro glass for Nikon and Canon are $1000 plus. Every company has compromises. With the Zuiko's you can get a little faster and lighter lens for cheaper. They also typically have better edge to edge sharpness and less distortion.

Count the stops of exposure:

Zuiko 2.8 + ISO800 = Nikkor 3.5 + ISO1600

If, your going for extreme low light performance you will loose out with the cheap zuiko's. If, they are too expensive you might wait and see if Panasonic comes out with an OIS DSLR. Or take a look at the E330, it looks "a little" better than the E500.

sej

If you stay small and expose right you will get usable results. If you like viewing full-size on monitors you'll be dissappointed.
--
One of the B&H 6

and it turned out very well. Now when I took a sample of that shot and printed a 16x20 equivalent, you could see the noise.
--
Theresa Kelly
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Oly E-3OO + some other stuff

Constructive criticism always welcome!

Hi ISO is useless for Oly system. Despite of what anyone tells you, after ISO 800 the camera is trash.

If you intend to use the camera for stuff that needs higher ISO then 800, don’t even think about getting the Oly, you would only be disappointed. However is you don’t need the Hi ISO then Oly is a grate cam.

-J

P.S. Some will suggest that you can post process or get better lenses or do some other Voodoo stuff. Jest remember that the Oly system was not designed for low light conditions period. Under low light condition the Oly has a hard time focusing and the ISO is useless !!!!

Low light AF on the E500 seems to be roughly the same as the Canon 5D, trying both out in a dimly lit hall.

You are correct in so far as the Oly has a small sensor, which means reduced weight of the entire system but more pixel density and hence more high ISO noise, cetris paribus, but "trash" is an exageration.

In low light I'd rather have the 5d than the E500, but I can manage with either.

On the other hand when I'm out in the hills, I'd rather have the E500 than the 5D, but I can manage with either.

If you spend more time low light hand held shooting than carting the camera about, get something else. Otherwise, the E500 is a good bet.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Thanks for the replies, o.k so it seems the OLY is not the best DSLR if low noise at high iso is required, that begs the question:

How often do people actually use iso above 400 ???

simonkit said:

Thanks for the replies, o.k so it seems the OLY is not the best
DSLR if low noise at high iso is required, that begs the question:

How often do people actually use iso above 400 ???

Click to expand...

Probably more than 50% of my shooting is above iso400. I have learned to expose carefully and it is not a problem for me. I have also done many prints of those shots and they look pretty good to me.
--
Theresa Kelly
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Oly E-3OO + some other stuff

Constructive criticism always welcome!

Yes, you can get good results out of the E500 in low light, and we do. But it would be an ECCENTRIC camera to chose for that primary purpose. The smaller the sensor, the less distance between the photosites, the more noise, and the more hassle either gettirng rid of it or being careful to avoid undexposed areas of the shot.

Conversely the smaller the sensor the greater the crop factior, hence the smaller the lenses (for a given FOV), and hence the more compact the system.

Given the choice, I'd pick running Neat Image over awkward-to-expose low light shots over getting irrtable hiking with a huge bag.

Someone who works mainly in a studio and has a thing for hand held candlelit portraits would feel the opposite way.

Actually I used to pooh-pooh people running two systems, but I would quite like the putative E3 AND a Canon whatever-the-current-top-one is, AND a Hassleblad 22MP medium format, so i could use the right camera for the individual task. However, given that I'm mean and poor, I'll settle for an Oly system as the one that suits MY needs best.

Horses for courses.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/