Reading mode: Light Dark

E5 and low light?

Go to last post
C

Calinature

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
463
Reaction score
81
Location
US
I realize that many people complain that Olympus can't handle low light/high ISO. I was recently visiting the Petaluma Adobe State Historic Park and captured some very low light indoor scenes. What is amazing is that the camera can really see more brightly than the human eye. Perhaps some of the other brands handle low light better, but still I was impressed. Here they are:











 
Hi

These are nice takes of those indoor scenes. You and your E-5 were very well up to the task. No problem with the lighting situation.

And yes, I also are at situations like you had there astonished what modern sensors can capture. They "see" colors that we wouldn't think they are there.

I allow myself to add a picture I made in the Venice Biennale this summer, E-5, 7-14mm, f 5.6 at ISO 1250, handheld, but maybe supported by some wooden pole or so:



Cheers
Emilio
 
Very nice indeed! Nicely PP'd, with a natural and pleasing ambience. Nicely placed focus and DOF as well, considering the F2.0 aperture.

Are they shot in RAW or JPEG?
Any Auto Gradation applied here?
Any NF camera settings involved, or noise removal in post?

Either way, it really works for sure, showing that within reasonable ISO settings, the E-5 is very fine to go..! :)

--
Erik Aaseth
http://www.pbase.com/eaaseth
 
Actually, the only Olympus camera which had genuine problems focusing in low light, and this - only in certain conditions, without any regularity (which made it even more annoying) were my E-6xx cameras. E-600, E-620 - they all had that problem.

The E-30, E-3 and E-5 have nothing to complain about.

As for the E-5, it proved better finding focus in low light with the 12-60mm on than my EOS 1Ds Mk3 with a 50mm 1.2 lens attached.

So it's all relative, really. The E-5 has nothing to be ashamed of as far as low light AF detection goes. Except for not having the AF illuminator light of the E-1, of course. That one was a huge omission ever since the E-3.
 
goblin said:
So it's all relative, really. The E-5 has nothing to be ashamed of as far as low light AF detection goes. Except for not having the AF illuminator light of the E-1, of course. That one was a huge omission ever since the E-3.
Click to expand...
Ever since the E-1 actually. No other Oly DSLRs have an AF-assist beam. Perhaps the only reason they HAD an AF-assist beam on the E-1 was that there was no built-in flash to supply the horrid flickering-flash AF-assist. (I hope that wasn't an Oly innovation.)

While the examples shown are very nice, I wouldn't call them 'really' dim light. Put a 14-54 Mk1 on the E-5 and try shooting in light so dim that you could only make out the headlines on a newspaper and I'm sure it will struggle. I was in such a situation and of my E-330, E-5 and E-1, only the E-1 would lock focus in such light.

When my flash is on a radio slave, only the E-1 has a chance in super low light. I don't have a 12-60, but apparently it does well in such light.
--
Barry
 
I'm really amazed at the low light ability of my E-5. Here's a shot taken with very little light inside a windmill near Lochem Netherlands. I used ISO 1600, hardly any noise. No PP.





A friend of mine who is part time profesional photografer (Canon) saw my foto's and said that Oly really did a great job on the high ISO performance or the E-5. He was impressed.

I'm really happy with the E-5 and hope everybody will keep enjoying theres for a long time to come.

Greetings from Holland.

Bob
--
Always learning......
 
Good heavens, have you studied the text on the roll of labels you photographed?

Never even knew they especially produced a flour for baby pigs, but this windmill must have stopped short of what they were planning to produce, the labels look quite old.

groeten
Chris
Bobusa said:
I'm really amazed at the low light ability of my E-5. Here's a shot taken with very little light inside a windmill near Lochem Netherlands. I used ISO 1600, hardly any noise. No PP.





A friend of mine who is part time profesional photografer (Canon) saw my foto's and said that Oly really did a great job on the high ISO performance or the E-5. He was impressed.

I'm really happy with the E-5 and hope everybody will keep enjoying theres for a long time to come.

Greetings from Holland.

Bob
--
Always learning......
Click to expand...
 
I normally don't do much post processing. I almost always shoot raw, and then add a tiny bit of extra saturation and sharpness, but not much noise control. Despite all the talk about how great Olympus JPEG's are (and they are), the RAWS out of camera are very good without much need for post processing. But with shooting raw, of course, one has the option of the little bit more post processing should that be necessary. I am an Aperture/Mac user; I seem to have an allergy to Adobe products.

Thanks for your comments from across the Atlantic! Jeff Hart
 
Whenever I read about high ISO performance expectations some people have, and it gets me thinking "should I switch to Canon or Nikon?", I reminisce about the days when pushing Tri-X or EK400 to 800 or (gasp) 1600 was rife with issues regarding grain, muddy shadows, blocky hilights and in the case of EK400, color shifts (of course, pushing it for use in a concert, the color shift was secondary since people expected multicolored lights during most concerts, or were willing to deal with the warm cast under standard lighting).

I do want to take advantage of the best performance I can get at any given ISO. But my personal "photographic reality" is that ISO 1000 to 1600 is a marvelous revelation after years of film, and the E5 performs quite well in that range. I'm receiving more offers to do concert and performance photography, so I am giving serious though to what my kit should be for that venue. Right now as I ruminate over adding a Canon 60D, Nikon D7000 or even a Pentax K5 kit, I compare the other aspects I like about Olympus and I'm still of the mind that an E5 will serve me quite well.

It's interesting that given the way some folks talk about hi ISO performance being the defining aspect You'd think low light photography simply didn't exist prior to digital LOL. I think many of those demanding noise free ISO 3200 or 6400 should be using flash: at least from the photos I've seen them display taken at high ISO.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
 
CharlesB58 said:
Whenever I read about high ISO performance expectations some people have, and it gets me thinking "should I switch to Canon or Nikon?", I reminisce about the days when pushing Tri-X or EK400 to 800 or (gasp) 1600 was rife with issues regarding grain, muddy shadows, blocky hilights and in the case of EK400, color shifts (of course, pushing it for use in a concert, the color shift was secondary since people expected multicolored lights during most concerts, or were willing to deal with the warm cast under standard lighting).

I do want to take advantage of the best performance I can get at any given ISO. But my personal "photographic reality" is that ISO 1000 to 1600 is a marvelous revelation after years of film, and the E5 performs quite well in that range. I'm receiving more offers to do concert and performance photography, so I am giving serious though to what my kit should be for that venue. Right now as I ruminate over adding a Canon 60D, Nikon D7000 or even a Pentax K5 kit, I compare the other aspects I like about Olympus and I'm still of the mind that an E5 will serve me quite well.

It's interesting that given the way some folks talk about hi ISO performance being the defining aspect You'd think low light photography simply didn't exist prior to digital LOL. I think many of those demanding noise free ISO 3200 or 6400 should be using flash: at least from the photos I've seen them display taken at high ISO.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
Click to expand...
Guess you never been to concerts, plays, musical performances, dances, etc where flash isn't allowed.

Heck, just look at many of Doug Brown's pics (he shoots with an E5). Operas and such are shot without flash.

And just because in the old days, you can't do something, if you can do it now, why wouldn't you do it.

Here's a picture taken at ISO 3200 at 1/400s. No flash is allowed. And any flash would have killed the stage lighting.



 
I agree with not using flash for stage performances. The lighting (hopefully) is meant to add to the artistic look of the performance. School concerts... maybe not so much.

At our school, for example, all of the lighting is from above or behind the performers. Brutal — so flash is needed (and allowed) to fill in the coon-eyes of all the kids. To fox it would cost $ and since performances are only at Christmas, it's not a priority.
--
Barry
 
subtly add flash to scenes like we began with without overpowering the overall ambience













and with scenes as opposed to action, if you really really have to, just drag the shutter, as no flash was used here at all, the shutter speed is 1/6th sec, the exposure is solely dependent on the interior lighting





--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
subtly add flash to scenes like we began with without overpowering the overall ambience
Click to expand...
Of course you can but you get too slow shutter speed and too much motion blur. Your images have just some furniture in them, hardly what people call action. While the images the OP have shown are similar, in theatre you need high ISO.
 
olyflyer said:
Rriley said:
subtly add flash to scenes like we began with without overpowering the overall ambience
Click to expand...
Of course you can but you get too slow shutter speed
Click to expand...
IBS
olyflyer said:
and too much motion blur. Your images have just some furniture in them, hardly what people call action.
Click to expand...
and with scenes as opposed to action

clueless
olyflyer said:
While the images the OP have shown are similar, in theatre you need high ISO .
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
unsubscribe said:
CharlesB58 said:
Whenever I read about high ISO performance expectations some people have, and it gets me thinking "should I switch to Canon or Nikon?", I reminisce about the days when pushing Tri-X or EK400 to 800 or (gasp) 1600 was rife with issues regarding grain, muddy shadows, blocky hilights and in the case of EK400, color shifts (of course, pushing it for use in a concert, the color shift was secondary since people expected multicolored lights during most concerts, or were willing to deal with the warm cast under standard lighting).

I do want to take advantage of the best performance I can get at any given ISO. But my personal "photographic reality" is that ISO 1000 to 1600 is a marvelous revelation after years of film, and the E5 performs quite well in that range. I'm receiving more offers to do concert and performance photography, so I am giving serious though to what my kit should be for that venue. Right now as I ruminate over adding a Canon 60D, Nikon D7000 or even a Pentax K5 kit, I compare the other aspects I like about Olympus and I'm still of the mind that an E5 will serve me quite well.

It's interesting that given the way some folks talk about hi ISO performance being the defining aspect You'd think low light photography simply didn't exist prior to digital LOL. I think many of those demanding noise free ISO 3200 or 6400 should be using flash: at least from the photos I've seen them display taken at high ISO.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
Click to expand...
Guess you never been to concerts, plays, musical performances, dances, etc where flash isn't allowed.

Heck, just look at many of Doug Brown's pics (he shoots with an E5). Operas and such are shot without flash.

And just because in the old days, you can't do something, if you can do it now, why wouldn't you do it.

Here's a picture taken at ISO 3200 at 1/400s. No flash is allowed. And any flash would have killed the stage lighting.



Click to expand...
Nice shot, but I have to ask: did you actually read (and comprehend) my post.

Because, frankly, your reference to never being to a concert that doesn't allow flash, taking advantage of current technology, etc. has almost no bearing on what I posted, since I mentioned taking photos under existing light and wanting to take advantage of the latest tech.

Oh... I get it: you were just looking for an excuse to post your photo! ;-)

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
 
Rriley said:
olyflyer said:
Rriley said:
subtly add flash to scenes like we began with without overpowering the overall ambience
Click to expand...
Of course you can but you get too slow shutter speed
Click to expand...
IBS
Click to expand...
What is IBS? :P :P :P :P
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
and too much motion blur. Your images have just some furniture in them, hardly what people call action.
Click to expand...
and with scenes as opposed to action

clueless
Click to expand...
Yes you are definitely. Once again you post in a subthread which you seem to have missed the subject of and you replied to a post which is ONLY about stage photography, even posted samples which are out of place. Yes, you are clueless... and hopeless.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
While the images the OP have shown are similar, in theatre you need high ISO .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
IBS won't help you out more that a trpd would. :) :) :) :)
 
This was a very dim setting. The picture looks much brighter than it did to the naked eye. This was ISO 3200 1/6th second F2.

The only PP I did was slight luminance noise reduction in LR (shot raw btw).

The other thing I like on the Olympus in low light is the color accuracy is maintained.

Compared to shooting with my E30 the E5 feels in the final analysis about 1 to 1.5 stops better. I did some test shots shortly after I got my E5 and the noise pattern is quite different than the E30 was and easier to clean up.

I should know that when it's this dim not much focuses in PD mode. However, LV mode focuses just fine in vanishing light like this.

My other camera is the 5d2 which lacks the IS with a fast lens to make a shot like this very possible. Though I could crank it up to 6400 and shoot with my 50 f1.2 and be ok except it's cross type sensors also won't focus this dim and the LV on my canon is not reliable for focus like the E5 is. I'd use my Canon in manual zoomed in focus mode.





--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
 
olyflyer said:
Rriley said:
olyflyer said:
Rriley said:
subtly add flash to scenes like we began with without overpowering the overall ambience
Click to expand...
Of course you can but you get too slow shutter speed
Click to expand...
IBS
Click to expand...
What is IBS? :P :P :P :P
Click to expand...
in body stabilisation
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
and too much motion blur. Your images have just some furniture in them, hardly what people call action.
Click to expand...
and with scenes as opposed to action
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
as in

and with scenes as opposed to action, if you really really have to, just drag the shutter
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
clueless
Click to expand...
Yes you are definitely. Once again you post in a subthread which you seem to have missed the subject of and you replied to a post which is ONLY about stage photography, even posted samples which are out of place. Yes, you are clueless... and hopeless.
Click to expand...
within that OT diversion which i answered i guess you missed the part about subtly add flash as in 'title': yet you can + subtly add flash

as well as the bit you edited out that said
and with scenes as opposed to action

which is why you edited it out, to save yourself looking like a complete idiot instead of half of one. But I guess that chance is blown now.
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
While the images the OP have shown are similar, in theatre you need high ISO .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would that be the OP that said I realize that many people complain that Olympus can't handle low light/high ISO. I was recently visiting the Petaluma Adobe State Historic Park and captured some very low light indoor scenes. What is amazing is that the camera can really see more brightly than the human eye. Perhaps some of the other brands handle low light better, but still I was impressed. Here they are:

nothing about theatres ?

the only one that mentioned theatres is the banned nams now unsubscribed, and you
olyflyer said:
IBS won't help you out more that a trpd would. :) :) :) :)
Click to expand...
just what is a trpd
and what is it for when i can shoot acceptable at 1/6th sec without it

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
To be honest, high ISO is a weak point compared to some other DSLR in the same price level from C or N. But this is not the big problem since not every one or every day uses such high ISOs. The issue with E-5 is even at base ISO, saying 100, under pefect exposure, in day light time, noises are obvious in shadow areas.

Compared with older E DSLRs, the Noise-ISO curve is just not that steep, but there is little improvement in low ISOs. I just hope they can lower the whole curve down, not only just make it less steep.

--
E-1,E-5, 14-54MKI,12-60,50-200MKI,FL-36, G1227 + G1376M
 
on my 5d2 with 24-105 f4 IS or my E5 with 14-35 f2 I have a stop extra to play with at the lens and a sharper lens wide open than my Canon.

Normally in low light if I want my Canon 5d2 to outperform my E5 I stick my 50 f1.2 or 85 f1.2 on the Canon. Otherwise I get similar results from either camera in real terms.

I used to have the 28-70 f2.8 in the Canon which would bring things a tad closer, but I like the IS in available light shooting.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
 
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