Why on EARTH would you shoot any Indoor Photo @iso800! This isn't sunny Florida, indoor setting (DSLR or mirrorless) required a minimum of ISO 3200 with F/2.8 for decent exposure. Shooting @iso800, I can tell you from numerous experience, your photo will be severely under-exposed regardless if you have a FF or M43. This photo is obvious an User Error. Had you taken this photo under FULL AUTO-MODE, you would have a better picture.
Several in this thread have advised ISO 400 for my moonlight shot. So now I'm a bit confused.
Don't take his comment out of context. You're confusing yourself. Perhaps he meant low-light, handheld, indoor, people shots. For your Badwater Basin shot, you're on a tripod. So use wide apertures, focus at infinity, and the slowest shutter you can without smearing the stars due to rotation of the earth. So maybe F2.8, 15sec shutter....now ISO will be whatever it needs to be depending on available light.....anywhere from 1000-3200.
I gave you the setting, but see below for the original. No, not a merge. Darkness: I had just finished shooting a time-lapse of "sunset." for which I extended the shooting until it seemed quite black. The final frames were totally black. There might have been a little remaining lightness, but really not much. To my eye, it was dark. The exposure setting is within a half stop of what I use normally to shoot night sky star trails, although that's a good 3 stops darker than a decent Milky Way shot (the night sky has HUGE dynamic range; it's not just dark).
--Here's the E-M5 and Panny 20 mm well after sunset. Maybe a bit too bright on screen, but it was PPed for printing, and printed very nicely! ISO 200, 15 seconds, brightened and selectively sharpened in PP.
Thanks for the clarification.
My dslr shooting club member was of the opinion that the problem was caused by an inferior sensor, not just the technical differences. But he is not familiar with my camera.
Heck, when in good company (Mike Lee, RichardD) and somewhat focused I still don't manage to concentrate enough on what I know needs to be done (queue Marlena Dietrich) - and here you were being advised with different equipment in mind, no less.
Are you saying there is nothing inferior about the E-M1 sensor compared to dslr for this purposes and my main issue was not using settings appropriate for the camera?Heck, when in good company (Mike Lee, RichardD) and somewhat focused I still don't manage to concentrate enough on what I know needs to be done (queue Marlena Dietrich) - and here you were being advised with different equipment in mind, no less.
I suppose that's a lesson, an experience to learn from. Which can't be bad (regardless of your format of choice for the near future)- right?
Who is the "we"? What is the source of the near foreground light in your shot? Thanks for the detailed response.
No. I'm suggesting that - even among just Olympus & Panasonic cameras - to get the best out of them one needs to understand their pros & cons in order to exploit the best that can be gotten from them. I couldn't get nearly as much out of the E-P2 as I could the E-M1, but both of them allowed fine work within their own limitations, for example. General practices are similar, but the data one is working with isn't with equal techniques. One doesn't adjust for DOF or exposure equally with different sized sensors, either.Are you saying there is nothing inferior about the E-M1 sensor compared to dslr for this purposes and my main issue was not using settings appropriate for the camera?Heck, when in good company (Mike Lee, RichardD) and somewhat focused I still don't manage to concentrate enough on what I know needs to be done (queue Marlena Dietrich) - and here you were being advised with different equipment in mind, no less.
I suppose that's a lesson, an experience to learn from. Which can't be bad (regardless of your format of choice for the near future)- right?
I wasn't suggesting anything of the kind, I believe I got the picture of what was going on at the time. I venture to guess that you may have taken the guidance too literally, though. His results with his technique won't come from your camera. But you can get close results that could stand on its own. It takes a bit more work and a bit of letting go getting of of the absolute precision the other obtains.
"We" is my wife and I. She was a graphic artist and knows a good deal about, for example, preparing for print. She actually does most of our PP, although I pitch in for some technical stuff. I do a greater proportion of RAW recovery than of the general PP. I do remember loving this shot so much that I think I did a couple of drafts, most likely from RAW, before she finished it up for printing. If you look close (like 100%), you can see the final version is a little "crisply" from sharpening. Under some circumstances, this would be over-sharpening. But, for print, that gets wiped away. I just checked the print on the wall (sort of 20 inches on the long side), and you absolutely cannot see the "crispiness" on the mountains. At 6 inches from the print, MAYBE you can detect a little grain in the sky...maybe...
This was a shot out our window at the lodge at Mt. Cook/Aoraki, New Zealand. There was a parking lot and fairly bright lights just outside the lodge, and some street lights nearby. You'll see roads and even road signs if you look at the very bottom. In fact, you can see a gable from the lodge, itself, right of center at the bottom. It's just possible that some light from the lodge itself is contributing, but that just cannot be much. None of this light, of course, affects the mountain or anything close to it. Its range was cut off in the crop for the final shot. For scale, the mountain proper is about 10 miles away.
You're entirely welcome.
No. It's patently obvious to everyone that full-frame will give you about 2 stops better low-light performance. It's just pixel area and photons. So, he used this familiar fact to point to something ("buy a new camera") that might be a quick way to "fix" the problem. I actually don't think it'd fix it; I thing you need to know more about low-light photography, even if you were to get a new camera.Are you saying there is nothing inferior about the E-M1 sensor compared to dslr for this purposes and my main issue was not using settings appropriate for the camera?Heck, when in good company (Mike Lee, RichardD) and somewhat focused I still don't manage to concentrate enough on what I know needs to be done (queue Marlena Dietrich) - and here you were being advised with different equipment in mind, no less.
I suppose that's a lesson, an experience to learn from. Which can't be bad (regardless of your format of choice for the near future)- right?
Again, I don't want to impugn his attempt, but the fact is he did not help you much with YOUR equipment. SOMEONE (many here) could have.
I think lots of us are saying that.
I didn't mean to imply that you had. I simply wanted to make that point since I thought some may have been thinking it.
