Reading mode: Light Dark

Have I outgrown my E-M1? Low light - Moving subjects

Go to last post
Martin Ocando said:
You didn't mentioned which lens he used, but I'm going to assume it was a fast f:2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
I've sent him an email asking for more details but he is a very busy professional photographer, so I'm not surprised he hasn't responded yet.
 
Florida Nature Photographer said:
Ulric said:
The same shot taken with FF at f/16 would also have been very noisy. The only way FF can reduce noise is by letting in more light, and in doing so reducing DoF. You could have opened up three stops on your 12-40. That is one stop more than the two-stop difference between m4/3 and FF.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I understand that it's difficult to give impromptu advice on how to use equipment one is not familiar with. But the fact remains that the main difference between lots of noise and little noise is how much light the sensor gets to work with, and that's the case regardless of the sensor size. Three stops going from f/8 to f/2.8 means eight times as much light.
 
Sounds very much like uninformed prejudice, especially in the light of all the mistakes that led to your bad results from his part as well as yours.
 
Your choice is such a personal decision based upon what you do most or like to do most. Everything is a compromise. However, getting night shots with my EM series cameras has bot been an issue, even at very high . Especially with a tripod and allowing the camera to build the image in real time. However, even handheld, it works for me. I don't use in-camera noise suppression with JPG, but leave that to some other fine tools in post processing. Play with it some more, and decide your needs vs. the 'shock' you encountered during your outing. How big a deal is it vs. the benefits of shooting MFT (size, weight, lenses, etc.). I used to use Canon FF bodies and L-glass. Got absolutely tired of the weight and clunkiness, and switched to MFT. I feel I've gained, not lost, and I'm more likely to carry in situations where I'd otherwise choose nothing or an advanced P&S.

BTW, I do think the Sony's are top notch for what they have achieved, but I'm simply not going that route--bodies are small enough, but the lenses are substantially bigger for the FF ones. MFT continues to get better and better, and it it suits most of your needs (95+%), then you'll save money by sticking with it. Get some faster lenses also (I recently got Sigma 30mm f/1.4), they will help. Moreover, the body IS is superb in the Oly's and helps get that ISO down if you feel you need to.

When I shot sports, I was known for not using flash. I push-processed TRI-X to unheard of heights, and although the grain was far worse than anything we see today, I got good results with careful processing and printing. Good enough that they sold!
 
Florida Nature Photographer said:
007peter said:
This guy was able to shoot a series of action Orthodox Easter night service @lowlight using ISO3200! When it comes to Low-Light, anything lower than ios3200 is simply not enough.
Click to expand...
Several in this thread have advised ISO 400 for my moonlight shot. So now I'm a bit confused.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't. Since you were inside Venetian Hotel (tripod is not allowed when caught my security guard), I assume you were shooting Handheld like those photo in the Orthodox Easter night. For handheld shot (DSLR or Mirrorless), you need a minimum of iso3200 with a F/2.8 lens. If you have a Fast F/2 prime (like f/1.7 ~ f/2.0) you can use 1 stop lower iso to iso1600. If you have a really fast F/1.4 prime, you can drop iso 2 stop to iso800 yet still have a proper exposed image "handheld" in lowlight. That is why f/1.4 prime are worth its cost.

The ISO400 advice is for moonlight shot. It goes without saying that Moonlight = Tripod and long exposure. These are rudimentary knowledge of photography. If confuse, an AUTO-MODE will easily reveal the proper exposure setting. Had you taken that Venetian shot under Auto-Mode, it will advice you iso800 is too low

It is obvious to me & many of us you haven't got the fundamental of photography right. Therefore, you haven't outgrown your Olympus E-M1 @all. You can buy all the best FF camera you want, and your result will be the SAME.

I have no attachment to M43, go ahead and buy FF (as I said before, it does have significantly better high iso). However, my opinion is that you should try to MASTER your photography fundamental instead of blaming your gear.

Keep in mind that I do not even have a $2000 Olympus EM1 + 12-40 flike you. I"m shooting with a cheapo $150 used Panasonic GF6 and I'm getting great results in lowlight everytime. Panasonic M43 focus faster than both my Canon & Nikon dSLR in lowlight situation.
 
Last edited:
jkrumm said:
Good advice except I think it's noise reduction that Oly calls dark frame subtraction. Works wonders with the em1.
Click to expand...
You're right, thanks for the correction. Must have been a little too long since I last delved into the menus...
 
It is for this reason I have begun to experiment with some of the faster primes. IMO zooms were never menat for low light shooting anyway (well, maybe some exceptional and pricey ones)

If I start with an F1.7 lens, I'm a stop and ahalf ahead of the best M43 zooms.

I had a Canon FD 50mm F1.4 left over from the film era, and I combined it with a Metabones Speedbooster to make a 35mm F1.0 lens. Manual Focus and manual aperture, but I'm OK with that, the E-M1 does IBIS and autoexposure anyway.

Once I had the speedbooster, I realised I could use other FD lenses available cheaply on eBay. An FD 85mm F1.8 makes a 60mm F1.3 lens, the FD 24mm F2 becomes a 16mm F1.4. The FD 200mm F2.8 becomes a 140mm F2.0.

I haven't neglected native lenses, I have the lovely 15mm F1.7 and the 25mm F1.8, although if that was my only low light lens I probably would have gone with the Lumix 25mmF/1.4.

I also now have a Hexanon to M43 adaptor and am quite enjoying the AR 40mm F1.8.

But if you want a really fast lens buy one of the old Canon FL 55mm F1.2 lenses and put that on a speedbooster.
 
I shot in low light with a slow lens on my panasonic m43 yesterday and it did well with my slow lens.

generally get a new sensor and you will do better in the dark. a fast lens will help too.

i don't know your camera so I won't say if you got your settings wrong,
 
Florida Nature Photographer said:
I used to be a very prolific contributor here but for quite a while now I have been primarily posting in the "This week..." threads. That is because I had settled on my equipment and haven't bought any new camera or lenses for two years.

That may be changing however because I just got back from a week long trip with five other members of my camera club's board of directors. We went to Las Vegas but spent most of our time was spend exploring surrounding areas of natural wonder.

The president of the club is a very accomplished professional photographer and I was able to learn a lot from him during this trip.

I bought my E-M1 knowing that it couldn't complete with full frame in high ISO situations but wanted the lighter weight since much of my photography is done while hiking.

There were a number of times during this trip that my E-M1 was not able to keep up with the presidents dslr or even a mirrorless camera that he had.

The most glaring example is show below. The first shot was taken during the blue hour after sunset. The second was taken after the full moon had risen.

I was right next to the president and he was getting shots where the only way you could tell it was night was the stars in the sky. Otherwise it could have passed for mid afternoon. And he was using shutter speeds considerably faster than I was. He was even helping me to get my settings right but nothing helped.

I'm now considering either a Sony A7? or a dslr. I feel a need to expand from the simple landscapes that I have been taking into other areas of photography.

If there are any good threads you know about that address these concerns please feel free to point me too them.

Thanks.

fbd36a3002b34212a7fcbda488366dc6.jpg

-

f2c5d0be567a43599da9836a1b8326f1.jpg

--
Florida
********
Glacier / Yellowstone
[Highlights Slide Show] *** [Highlights Gallery]
[Story (includes Highlights) Slide Show] *** [Story (includes Highlights) Gallery]
********
My Glacier Yellowstone Photos Feedback Thread
********
Click to expand...
I think that if I were in your shoes I would have done the following:

1) drop the ISO to base ISO in order to maximise IQ

2) shoot in RAW with the lens wide open.

3) take as long an exposure as needed to get a well exposed image

Sure you can go to FF but basically there is no reason at all not to get well exposed shots out of your M4/3 camera in almost any light.

As for moving subjects in low light, that's what flashes and 2nd curtain sync mode are for.

Another thing you can do is buy a buy some primes and shoot them wide open, the 12mm F2 Oly, 45mm Oly and 25mm F1.4 Panny come to mind and they will make a difference to all of your low light photography.

--
Doctors are bad for your lifestyle!
 
Last edited:
I just bought a book called " Perfect Digital Photography" by Jay Dickman. He 's a photographer for Nat Geo and has photographed for Time as well as others. He uses Olympus exclusively and some of his low light pics from the E-M1 are nothing short of awe inspiring. So trust me: it can be done.
 
andreame said:
I just bought a book called " Perfect Digital Photography" by Jay Dickman. He 's a photographer for Nat Geo and has photographed for Time as well as others. He uses Olympus exclusively and some of his low light pics from the E-M1 are nothing short of awe inspiring. So trust me: it can be done.
Click to expand...
Sure it can be done. It is just a question of technique.
 
I received a response early this morning from my club president, to the email I sent him. Here is what he had to say about the details of his shot.

"As for those settings of f/2.8 and ISO 400 that were recommended to you - they wouldn't have worked for what I personally wanted to accomplish. I wanted more depth of field in my image than f/2.8 could have provided wit the focal length of my lens and the focusing distance to the subject. I wanted the salt formations to be in focus from the near foreground through the distant middle ground and the mountains to not be too soft. For me f/6.7 was barely acceptable for my desired depth of field. I also didn't want a shutter speed longer than 20 seconds if possible in order to avoid unreasonably elongated stars in the sky. My ISO needed to be 6400 in order to accommodate my desired values of 20 seconds of exposure at f/6.7. The camera was a Pentax K-5 IIs and the lens was a 15mm prime."

7dcf285bab0c441183b9770296f3ce2a.jpg

--
Florida
********
Glacier / Yellowstone
[Highlights Slide Show] *** [Highlights Gallery]
[Story (includes Highlights) Slide Show] *** [Story (includes Highlights) Gallery]
********
My Glacier Yellowstone Photos Feedback Thread
********
 
Last edited:
Looking at his shot and than at yours,two comments come to mind.

His shot was done wiith an ultra wide 15mm which is a 7mm on M43, yours was done with a 12mm lens.

His shot taken with a 7mm M43eq from what seems a higher viewpoint thanks to its angle of view exalts the form of the circular salt deposits as well as the sunset.

Your shot which is technically acceptable seems to have been taken from a lower position with a lens with a much narrower field of view (12mm). We cannot make out the form of the salt deposits, we see just a series of ridges.

The M43 7mm lens has an incredible depth of field as well as a much much wider field of view.

The problem as I see it with the first shot is that you have not used the right lens for the job and the viewpoint you have used is wrong as well.

I get perfect night shots with my EM5











--

NIGEL'S RAMBLES

nigelvoak.blogspot.it nigelvoak.blogspot.it
 
As a photographer who is still learning, like others of us, you have been given lots of good advice. A number of videos and detailed suggestions have been made including by me.

Equipment depends on your particular goals. Certain lenses and cameras do things better than others. Bob Tullis has pointed out why he likes FF for low light photography, one of his specialties. That's fine.

If you have mastered your camera and have decided that you want to specialize in an area where FF is a better tool, use it. Maybe your photographic vision has shifted. That does not mean you have "outgrown" your EM1. Maybe you need to "outgrow" your club president if you are making his priorities your own. The question is, what is your photographic vision?

F.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Lovely shots, sort of thing I do (mostly seascapes in my case) and, frankly, not very challenging for a our cameras (it's why I use MFT for landscapes, I need a reasonably high quality camera and good lenses that I can physically get there without ruining my fun, an uber camera that can focus on a fly in flight and take pictures of hummingbirds by the light of a single match is no actual help).

I'm not sure why you were having trouble with the night shots in the first post, the OM-D range has really good low light facilities if long shutter speeds aren't a problem, perhaps this should be a "what did I do wrong" rather than "what should I buy" thread :-)

For general purpose photography then without doubt a fast FF dSLR is still better than MFT if you don't mind humping it about. You have trouble beating a Nikon FX camera with the 24-70 f2.8 as a general purpose camera, and had I known life was going to have me photographing rescue dogs instead of strolling about doing landscapes I'd have kept that combo rather than selling it and buying MFT.

Perhaps, again, rather than "outgrowing", you need two systems.

I don't think Oly have the resources or inclination to produce a camera with fantastic C-AF and MFT loses you two stops unless you use f1.2/1.4 primes (some here, more coming) or f1.4 zooms (not going to happen, and would be as big and heavy as FF f2.8 zooms) rather than the FF f2.8 zooms.

I had this dilemma myself some years ago, when using FT. In the end I went Nikon FX, which let me do stuff I hadn't done before but simply spoiled my fun. Now the game has changed a bit because FT has morphed into MFT, the sensors are (relatively) better, and there are faster primes.

Just thinking on my feet here, I'd consider an second hand FX camera and the 24-70 f2.8 and see how you feel after a month.
Click to expand...
Thing is, FX + f2.8 buys you only 1/2 stop vs. MFT + f1.7 prime. Cheaper & lighter to just add a few primes to the MFT kit.
Louis_Dobson said:
Your choices then are sell the MFT and hump FX about (been there, done that), sell the FX having decided it's a huge pest (what i did, which has also turned out to be a bit of an error), or run two systems, one for nature photography, one for other stuff (should have done that, don't have the money now).

Another thing I'd say is you and I are privileged to live in pretty parts of the world, so we can produce great nature photos and be patted on the back. If you switch away from that to more sophisticated photography, you may feel more challenged, but nobody will give a stuff. People still buy my ten year old nature shots. Stuff that I feel is far cleverer I literally could not give away. No one, except other photographers, could care less.
Click to expand...
 
15mm on APS-C camera (Pentax K-5) is 12mm on m43, where you can achive the same DOF with f4 (instead of 6.7). APS-C has approx. 1 f stop advantage over m43, which is in this case compensated with greater DOF. In other words, with this particular example, where great DOF was needed, the m43 is on equal foot with the APS-C. In fact, it is on equal foot with the full-frame camera too, because to achieve the same DOF on a full-frame camera, f8 would be needed.

So on a full frame you would need 24mm lens, f8, 20 sec and ISO 6400, and on a m43 the same results could be achieved with a 12mm lens, f4, 20 sec and ISO 1600. I guess the difference in picture quality would be negligible.
 
Last edited:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
"As for those settings of f/2.8 and ISO 400 that were recommended to you - they wouldn't have worked for what I personally wanted to accomplish. I wanted more depth of field in my image than f/2.8 could have provided wit the focal length of my lens and the focusing distance to the subject. I wanted the salt formations to be in focus from the near foreground through the distant middle ground and the mountains to not be too soft. For me f/6.7 was barely acceptable for my desired depth of field. I also didn't want a shutter speed longer than 20 seconds if possible in order to avoid unreasonably elongated stars in the sky. My ISO needed to be 6400 in order to accommodate my desired values of 20 seconds of exposure at f/6.7. The camera was a Pentax K-5 IIs and the lens was a 15mm prime."
Click to expand...
OK, so the thing you need to get your head around is that his settings are for his camera. Your camera has a smaller sensor, so you have to adjust the settings to match.

You know that 15mm on his Pentax is not the same as 15mm on your EM1. His crop is 1.6, yours is 2, so that's a difference of 1.6 / 2 = 0.8. So,

FOV - his 15mm x 0.8 = 12mm for you.

But you know that a 12mm lens does not give the same DOF as a 15mm. In fact you must multiply the f/number by 0.8 too, so

DOF - his f/6.7 x 0.8 = f/5.2 for you.

Which leaves ISO to make the exposure work. You've reduced two corners of the exposure triangle by 0.8 so you need to balance the last one by 0.8 squared, so

ISO - his ISO 6400 x 0.8 x 0.8 = ISO 4000 for you.

Make sure "noise reduction" is enabled (the camera will spend 20 seconds taking the photo and 20 seconds doing a dark frame subtraction to reduce hot pixels) and you should get something fairly comparable to his photo AFAIK (assuming I did the maths right - would have been easier if he had been shooting FF!).
 
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