Reading mode: Light Dark

max iso with e-10

Go to last post
M

mats83755

Member
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Location
europe, EE
hi everybody!

i'm looking for going digital with e-10. all the features seem ok, but sometimes i just NEED higher iso, like iso800. is there possibility to shoot iso320 at -1.0, -1.3 or even -1.7 and then adjust levels in ps + using some cool noise reduction program?
i mean those shots without flash in fashion shows, theatre and disco/concerts.
not for low light nature scenes! for max A5 and A6 printout only.
where is the limit? and if flash is used?
 
kriiba said:
hi everybody!
i'm looking for going digital with e-10. all the features seem ok,
but sometimes i just NEED higher iso, like iso800. is there
possibility to shoot iso320 at -1.0, -1.3 or even -1.7 and then
adjust levels in ps + using some cool noise reduction program?
i mean those shots without flash in fashion shows, theatre and
disco/concerts.
not for low light nature scenes! for max A5 and A6 printout only.
where is the limit? and if flash is used?
Click to expand...
I tried this for -1.3 (iso 800). Of course, you get much noise. The result is acceptable for the small resolutions, such as 600X800: the noise is "averaged". It should be acceptable too for small printouts.

Note that you will have better low-light results for a given ISO than with film: no moving mirror, no moving curtain, heavy body: 1/15 hand-held is perfectly manageable. Plus a f2 lens, a greater depth of field and an adjustable white balance, and finally the possibility of corrections in photoshop. I made a lot of photos in museums with my E10, that I could not have done with my pentax SLR, even with a 800ISO negative.--Jacques Bijtebier
 
I'm not so sure that ISO 320 and -1.0 will work too well. I cant really comment on the quality of a print versus an SLR but the quality (ie increase in noise) deteriates badly as you start to under expose at ISO 320. Certainly on the screen it is very noticeable. I've been shooting with an E20 for a couple of months and avoid if at all possible 320 underexposure.

A good noise reduction is a must - I use Ferencs' which gets rid of most things whilst still retaining almost all the detail -but it does struggle at 320 underexposed.

Shoot in Raw is a must - the difference between RAW and Jpegs comes into its own when noise is likely.

Almost always in light conditions you mention I will use a tripod and back down to ISO 80. I guess it is not possible in your circumstances.

On Jacques comments, I find holdiing the camera steady enough for a 1/15th exposure is nigh on impossible - although it was very easy with a point and shoot C2000z. I can usually manage 1/30th no problem but it is a bean bag below that. Jacques is right though about the dof and fast lense. If you need dof then it will catch up well on an SLR.

Directionally I think underexposure at ISO 320 is a weak point on the Exx but apart from that and one or two other minor points it blows the competition away on price vs performance (but that all depends on what aspects of performance you use!)

--Dr BobGallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
 
Bob:

Could you be so kind to post a small JPG crop (highest Photoshop's quality level = 12) of a from-camera, under-exposed ISO 320 pic?

In regards to your comments, I certainly believe that the operating range of UltraISO is around -1.0 (or +1.0 when up-leveling or curving the original).

I will be more than happy to analyze the crop and provide you with my best feedback!

Kindest regards,

Ferenc

P.S.: after some light-years, v1.9c is ready, and v1.9d is on the works! I am planning to send v1.9c this weekend.
Dr Bob said:
I'm not so sure that ISO 320 and -1.0 will work too well. I cant
really comment on the quality of a print versus an SLR but the
quality (ie increase in noise) deteriates badly as you start to
under expose at ISO 320. Certainly on the screen it is very
noticeable. I've been shooting with an E20 for a couple of months
and avoid if at all possible 320 underexposure.

A good noise reduction is a must - I use Ferencs' which gets rid of
most things whilst still retaining almost all the detail -but it
does struggle at 320 underexposed.

Shoot in Raw is a must - the difference between RAW and Jpegs comes
into its own when noise is likely.

Almost always in light conditions you mention I will use a tripod
and back down to ISO 80. I guess it is not possible in your
circumstances.

On Jacques comments, I find holdiing the camera steady enough for
a 1/15th exposure is nigh on impossible - although it was very easy
with a point and shoot C2000z. I can usually manage 1/30th no
problem but it is a bean bag below that. Jacques is right though
about the dof and fast lense. If you need dof then it will catch up
well on an SLR.

Directionally I think underexposure at ISO 320 is a weak point on
the Exx but apart from that and one or two other minor points it
blows the competition away on price vs performance (but that all
depends on what aspects of performance you use!)

--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
I tried this for -1.3 (iso 800). Of course, you get much noise. The
result is acceptable for the small resolutions, such as 600X800:
the noise is "averaged". It should be acceptable too for small
printouts.
Click to expand...
may you post some of those corrected -1.3 iso320 to me? that i can make test printout in my lab.

is that noise looking like filmgrain on final printout? that would be ok. it just must to look "natural".
 
kriiba said:
mats83755 said:
I tried this for -1.3 (iso 800). Of course, you get much noise. The
result is acceptable for the small resolutions, such as 600X800:
the noise is "averaged". It should be acceptable too for small
printouts.
Click to expand...
may you post some of those corrected -1.3 iso320 to me? that i can
make test printout in my lab.
is that noise looking like filmgrain on final printout? that would
be ok. it just must to look "natural".
Click to expand...
Yes, it looks like grain.

I have no place on a posting site presently. If you send me an email, I could send you in reply an example in attachment monday (I am not at home now).--Jacques Bijtebier
 
Ferenc,

I had a dig through my files and found some examples. I have emailed them direct to you as they would end up very small if posted (real reason is the technology here stops short of posting pics!). There are 4 altogether. First is a raw iso 80 shot about half a stop underexposed which is noisey. Next 3 are from a different shoot, Jpg iso320 at different exposures 1/30 1/20 and 1/15. The most underexposed is quite noisey. Look out for the emails. All are shot with soft focus.

Maybe you can post your commenst for the forum. The 1/30th shot is the reason why I avoid shooting at iso 320 unless it is at normal exposure.

My comment about your nr struggling is not the fault of the action - its more about the camera handling an underexposure. Sorry if I it was taken the wrong way. Dont know what I would do without Ultra Iso!!
Ferenc said:
Could you be so kind to post a small JPG crop (highest Photoshop's
quality level = 12) of a from-camera, under-exposed ISO 320 pic?

In regards to your comments, I certainly believe that the operating
range of UltraISO is around -1.0 (or +1.0 when up-leveling or
curving the original).

I will be more than happy to analyze the crop and provide you with
my best feedback!

Kindest regards,

Ferenc
P.S.: after some light-years, v1.9c is ready, and v1.9d is on the
works! I am planning to send v1.9c this weekend.
Dr Bob said:
I'm not so sure that ISO 320 and -1.0 will work too well. I cant
really comment on the quality of a print versus an SLR but the
quality (ie increase in noise) deteriates badly as you start to
under expose at ISO 320. Certainly on the screen it is very
noticeable. I've been shooting with an E20 for a couple of months
and avoid if at all possible 320 underexposure.

A good noise reduction is a must - I use Ferencs' which gets rid of
most things whilst still retaining almost all the detail -but it
does struggle at 320 underexposed.

Shoot in Raw is a must - the difference between RAW and Jpegs comes
into its own when noise is likely.

Almost always in light conditions you mention I will use a tripod
and back down to ISO 80. I guess it is not possible in your
circumstances.

On Jacques comments, I find holdiing the camera steady enough for
a 1/15th exposure is nigh on impossible - although it was very easy
with a point and shoot C2000z. I can usually manage 1/30th no
problem but it is a bean bag below that. Jacques is right though
about the dof and fast lense. If you need dof then it will catch up
well on an SLR.

Directionally I think underexposure at ISO 320 is a weak point on
the Exx but apart from that and one or two other minor points it
blows the competition away on price vs performance (but that all
depends on what aspects of performance you use!)

--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Dr BobGallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
 
...at higher ISO speeds, the E10s dynamic range falls sharply, as usual.

Therefore, for ISO-pushed applications, ISO80 should work better for you (at such speed, the E10 provides a vast amount of usable light in our pics.)

I will look forward to see your pics, and, as soon as I can post something productive, I will post it.

Kindest regards,

Ferenc
Dr Bob said:
I had a dig through my files and found some examples. I have
emailed them direct to you as they would end up very small if
posted (real reason is the technology here stops short of posting
pics!). There are 4 altogether. First is a raw iso 80 shot about
half a stop underexposed which is noisey. Next 3 are from a
different shoot, Jpg iso320 at different exposures 1/30 1/20 and
1/15. The most underexposed is quite noisey. Look out for the
emails. All are shot with soft focus.

Maybe you can post your commenst for the forum. The 1/30th shot is
the reason why I avoid shooting at iso 320 unless it is at normal
exposure.

My comment about your nr struggling is not the fault of the action
  • its more about the camera handling an underexposure. Sorry if I
it was taken the wrong way. Dont know what I would do without Ultra
Iso!!
Ferenc said:
Could you be so kind to post a small JPG crop (highest Photoshop's
quality level = 12) of a from-camera, under-exposed ISO 320 pic?

In regards to your comments, I certainly believe that the operating
range of UltraISO is around -1.0 (or +1.0 when up-leveling or
curving the original).

I will be more than happy to analyze the crop and provide you with
my best feedback!

Kindest regards,

Ferenc
P.S.: after some light-years, v1.9c is ready, and v1.9d is on the
works! I am planning to send v1.9c this weekend.
Dr Bob said:
I'm not so sure that ISO 320 and -1.0 will work too well. I cant
really comment on the quality of a print versus an SLR but the
quality (ie increase in noise) deteriates badly as you start to
under expose at ISO 320. Certainly on the screen it is very
noticeable. I've been shooting with an E20 for a couple of months
and avoid if at all possible 320 underexposure.

A good noise reduction is a must - I use Ferencs' which gets rid of
most things whilst still retaining almost all the detail -but it
does struggle at 320 underexposed.

Shoot in Raw is a must - the difference between RAW and Jpegs comes
into its own when noise is likely.

Almost always in light conditions you mention I will use a tripod
and back down to ISO 80. I guess it is not possible in your
circumstances.

On Jacques comments, I find holdiing the camera steady enough for
a 1/15th exposure is nigh on impossible - although it was very easy
with a point and shoot C2000z. I can usually manage 1/30th no
problem but it is a bean bag below that. Jacques is right though
about the dof and fast lense. If you need dof then it will catch up
well on an SLR.

Directionally I think underexposure at ISO 320 is a weak point on
the Exx but apart from that and one or two other minor points it
blows the competition away on price vs performance (but that all
depends on what aspects of performance you use!)

--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
 
Dr Bob:

Please, find below a sample of the before-and-after story of the crop I was able to receive. The workflow seems something like this (1.5 mins):

1. Convert crop to 16-bit mode.
2. Adjust levels (just set Gamma = 1.15)
3. Convert back to 8-bit mode.
4. One click on UltraISO 320 - DAY Light.

Nothing less, nothing more. Find the pic. below:



Let me know about your comments or questions.

Kindest regards,

Ferenc
Dr Bob said:
I had a dig through my files and found some examples. I have
emailed them direct to you as they would end up very small if
posted (real reason is the technology here stops short of posting
pics!). There are 4 altogether. First is a raw iso 80 shot about
half a stop underexposed which is noisey. Next 3 are from a
different shoot, Jpg iso320 at different exposures 1/30 1/20 and
1/15. The most underexposed is quite noisey. Look out for the
emails. All are shot with soft focus.

Maybe you can post your commenst for the forum. The 1/30th shot is
the reason why I avoid shooting at iso 320 unless it is at normal
exposure.

My comment about your nr struggling is not the fault of the action
  • its more about the camera handling an underexposure. Sorry if I
it was taken the wrong way. Dont know what I would do without Ultra
Iso!!
Ferenc said:
Could you be so kind to post a small JPG crop (highest Photoshop's
quality level = 12) of a from-camera, under-exposed ISO 320 pic?

In regards to your comments, I certainly believe that the operating
range of UltraISO is around -1.0 (or +1.0 when up-leveling or
curving the original).

I will be more than happy to analyze the crop and provide you with
my best feedback!

Kindest regards,

Ferenc
P.S.: after some light-years, v1.9c is ready, and v1.9d is on the
works! I am planning to send v1.9c this weekend.
Dr Bob said:
I'm not so sure that ISO 320 and -1.0 will work too well. I cant
really comment on the quality of a print versus an SLR but the
quality (ie increase in noise) deteriates badly as you start to
under expose at ISO 320. Certainly on the screen it is very
noticeable. I've been shooting with an E20 for a couple of months
and avoid if at all possible 320 underexposure.

A good noise reduction is a must - I use Ferencs' which gets rid of
most things whilst still retaining almost all the detail -but it
does struggle at 320 underexposed.

Shoot in Raw is a must - the difference between RAW and Jpegs comes
into its own when noise is likely.

Almost always in light conditions you mention I will use a tripod
and back down to ISO 80. I guess it is not possible in your
circumstances.

On Jacques comments, I find holdiing the camera steady enough for
a 1/15th exposure is nigh on impossible - although it was very easy
with a point and shoot C2000z. I can usually manage 1/30th no
problem but it is a bean bag below that. Jacques is right though
about the dof and fast lense. If you need dof then it will catch up
well on an SLR.

Directionally I think underexposure at ISO 320 is a weak point on
the Exx but apart from that and one or two other minor points it
blows the competition away on price vs performance (but that all
depends on what aspects of performance you use!)

--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
Click to expand...
 
kriiba said:
hi everybody!
i'm looking for going digital with e-10. all the features seem ok,
but sometimes i just NEED higher iso, like iso800. is there
possibility to shoot iso320 at -1.0, -1.3 or even -1.7 and then
adjust levels in ps + using some cool noise reduction program?
i mean those shots without flash in fashion shows, theatre and
disco/concerts.
not for low light nature scenes! for max A5 and A6 printout only.
where is the limit? and if flash is used?
Click to expand...
I'm a new E-10 owner and have been working with this for several days to see what it is capable of.

The answer is yes, you can at times do very well at ISO320 in a dim area, but you must be careful to set a white balance -- if not a measured white balance then at least a good approximation using the presets.

On my E-10 at least, a photo with a well-chosen white balance at ISO 320 looks nice and clean (only film-grain-like gaussian noise) and can be "boosted" or otherwise edited in an image editor with impunity, while an ISO 320 photo with an incorrect or poorly chosen white balance can sometimes suffer from completely unusable amounts of pattern or bright (red/blue/green) noise. It is also very important to shoot in at least SHQ and probably raw for dim shots that will be "helped" later. Also set sharpening to low and do that sort of thing once you get the image out of the camera.

-Aron
 
Ferenc, that crop was the Raw iso 80 pic which was noisey but Ulta Iso did its business for me. I used the raw 80 dark action (I think) and it came up pretty similar to Fred Miranda's action (the only time Fred's has been equivalent. It looks like the 320 action has done a better job with less loss of detail in the trees. I will try it again.

The real problem pics were the other 3 - I sent you an email with the links to my site. The one with the lowest exposure seems too noisey to try and rescue hence my reluctance to use the E20 too underexposed on iso 320.

Ferenc wrote:
snip--Dr BobGallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top