Reading mode: Light Dark

Higher ISO Birding with E-M1 mk ii & 100% crops

Go to last post
vass

vass

Senior Member
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
3,815
Location
Sydney, AU
Hi all

I hear a lot of complaining on this forum about poor high ISO performance and sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about ;-)

In regards to high ISO I never found it to be much of a problem at all for bird photography with m43. I generally use ISO 3200 as my highest setting for high quality images but would not hesitate to use ISO 6400 or above if needed for web use only.

All images are just jpegs out of the camera with some quick PS processing. I have RAWS of all but don't find i need them 99 out of 100 at the most. The non 100% crop images have been cropped themselves then sized for web use. They are between 3200 and 4800 pixels on the long side in full size after being cropped.

Anyway enjoy the images!





ISO 1600


Spotted Pardalote female


100% crop


Spotted Pardalote male


100% crop


Another of the above male bird


100% crop



ISO 2000


The male at ISO 2000


100% crop



ISO 3200


Red-rumped Parrot (young male)


100% crop


Superb Fairy-wren (male)


100% crop, look at that sheen


Bassian Thrush


100% crop


Grey Fantail


100% crop


Eastern Whipbird. A tough customer to see but often heard from the cracking of a whip sound it makes. They love heavy cover and are super shy and alert


100% crop









regards,

Vas

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/
 

Attachments

  • 3714033.jpg
    3714033.jpg
    488.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714046.jpg
    3714046.jpg
    890.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714047.jpg
    3714047.jpg
    684.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714044.jpg
    3714044.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 3714045.jpg
    3714045.jpg
    470.4 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714048.jpg
    3714048.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 3714049.jpg
    3714049.jpg
    675.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714042.jpg
    3714042.jpg
    596.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714043.jpg
    3714043.jpg
    631.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714040.jpg
    3714040.jpg
    351.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714041.jpg
    3714041.jpg
    333.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714038.jpg
    3714038.jpg
    618.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714039.jpg
    3714039.jpg
    672.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714036.jpg
    3714036.jpg
    842.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714037.jpg
    3714037.jpg
    617.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714034.jpg
    3714034.jpg
    922.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714035.jpg
    3714035.jpg
    572.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 3714032.jpg
    3714032.jpg
    645.2 KB · Views: 0
vass said:
vass said:
Shooting birds with m.43 at ISO3200 IMO is not so much about being a good bird shooter or knowing how to use the camera, but more about being good in PP work.

Peter
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree on this part as I spend little time processing. Also composition and capturing the right moment, background, pose, angle etc is way more important from my experience than a little noise. The most important part is getting the actual shot.

regards Vas
Click to expand...
Vass, my comment was only with respect to high ISO shooting, not bird shooting in general.

Peter
 
vass said:
Hi all

I hear a lot of complaining on this forum about poor high ISO performance and sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about ;-)
Click to expand...
Hmm, I miss certain regulars of this forum, explaining how much better these shots would be with a full-frame camera. ;-)
 
Messier Object said:
vass said:
Messier Object said:
Shooting birds with m.43 at ISO3200 IMO is not so much about being a good bird shooter or knowing how to use the camera, but more about being good in PP work.

Peter
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree on this part as I spend little time processing. Also composition and capturing the right moment, background, pose, angle etc is way more important from my experience than a little noise. The most important part is getting the actual shot.

regards Vas
Click to expand...
Vass, my comment was only with respect to high ISO shooting, not bird shooting in general.

Peter
Click to expand...
No dramas but I can only read it as it was worded above which is why I replied and gave my honest opinion to the comment for how it was written even thou you may have meant different from what you wrote :-)

regards,

Vas
 
SergeyFromMoscow said:
it would be great to see the lens performance without sharpening. anyway, it looks wonderful, looking at it I might think my PL100-400 is quite blurry.
Click to expand...
As i compared both lenses, I can say that the difference between 300/f4 and 100-400 is noticable but not this big.

I think vass has found some impressing sweetspot with camera/lens/skills/processing.

But if your 100-400 is really and always much softer, you bought either a lemon or you use the wrong settings. Do you use full mechanical shutter? Do you use an UV-filter?? I had very bad experience with both, but I solved them (look at my threads started history).

Christof
 
vass said:
Messier Object said:
vass said:
vass said:
Shooting birds with m.43 at ISO3200 IMO is not so much about being a good bird shooter or knowing how to use the camera, but more about being good in PP work.

Peter
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree on this part as I spend little time processing. Also composition and capturing the right moment, background, pose, angle etc is way more important from my experience than a little noise. The most important part is getting the actual shot.

regards Vas
Click to expand...
Vass, my comment was only with respect to high ISO shooting, not bird shooting in general.

Peter
Click to expand...
No dramas but I can only read it as it was worded above which is why I replied and gave my honest opinion to the comment for how it was written even thou you may have meant different from what you wrote :-)

regards,

Vas
Click to expand...
my wording above was "at ISO3200" and the subject of your post was "higher ISO"

So how else might it have been interpreted is a puzzle I'll have to ponder 🤔

Peter
 
CrisPhoto said:
SergeyFromMoscow said:
it would be great to see the lens performance without sharpening. anyway, it looks wonderful, looking at it I might think my PL100-400 is quite blurry.
Click to expand...
As i compared both lenses, I can say that the difference between 300/f4 and 100-400 is noticable but not this big.

I think vass has found some impressing sweetspot with camera/lens/skills/processing.

But if your 100-400 is really and always much softer, you bought either a lemon or you use the wrong settings. Do you use full mechanical shutter? Do you use an UV-filter?? I had very bad experience with both, but I solved them (look at my threads started history).

Christof
Click to expand...
+1
 
Messier Object said:
vass said:
Messier Object said:
vass said:
Shooting birds with m.43 at ISO3200 IMO is not so much about being a good bird shooter or knowing how to use the camera said:
"Shooting birds with m.43 at ISO3200 IMO is not so much about being a good bird shooter or knowing how to use the camera said:
"I would have to disagree on this part as I spend little time processing. Also composition and capturing the right moment, background, pose, angle etc is way more important from my experience than a little noise. The most important part is getting the actual shot."
Click to expand...
Then you, post: 60530595, member: 837264"]
"Vass, my comment was only with respect to high ISO shooting, not bird shooting in general."
Click to expand...
Now that response doesn't match what you wrote. Don't you agree?

Then i wrote:
Messier Object said:
"No dramas but I can only read it as it was worded above which is why I replied and gave my honest opinion to the comment for how it was written even thou you may have meant different from what you wrote"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?
 
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?

--
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul
http://pixelsbypaul.com
"There's a good picture nearby. Find it. Take it. Share it."
Click to expand...
Those 100% crops are from final processed images. I did some quick NR in PhotoShop with strengths of 6-8, details preserved of aroundt 50%, reduce colour noise around mid way too and sharpen details at around 25%. Can't remember exactly but that would be pretty close. Most NR was selective too (not the feathers)



Below is an unprocessed Crop

you might have missed it in my other replies. It may look better quality thou more noisy because it's linked on imgur and not uploaded to dpr which reduces quality and makes backgrounds look bad. But view at 100% to see the noise



6B1J2r1.jpg






--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/
 
vass said:
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?

--
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul
http://pixelsbypaul.com
"There's a good picture nearby. Find it. Take it. Share it."
Click to expand...
Those 100% crops are from final processed images. I did some quick NR in PhotoShop with strengths of 6-8, details preserved of aroundt 50%, reduce colour noise around mid way too and sharpen details at around 25%. Can't remember exactly but that would be pretty close. Most NR was selective too (not the feathers)

--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
Click to expand...
Just curious, do you utilize any of the NR settings in ACR, or just leave those settings at default and do all this after conversion? It sounds like this all comes after conversion, but was just curious. This looks about as good as I’ve seen using just Photoshop tools. Like, as good as any result as I’ve seen even using DXO’s Prime noise reduction.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
Last edited:
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?

--
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul
http://pixelsbypaul.com
"There's a good picture nearby. Find it. Take it. Share it."
Click to expand...
Those 100% crops are from final processed images. I did some quick NR in PhotoShop with strengths of 6-8, details preserved of aroundt 50%, reduce colour noise around mid way too and sharpen details at around 25%. Can't remember exactly but that would be pretty close. Most NR was selective too (not the feathers)

--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
Click to expand...
Just curious, do you utilize any of the NR settings in ACR, or just leave those settings at default and do all this after conversion? It sounds like this all comes after conversion, but was just curious. This looks about as good as I’ve seen using just Photoshop tools. Like, as good as any result as I’ve seen even using DXO’s Prime noise reduction.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
I don't use or have ACR. The only RAW program i have on my PC is OV3 but didn't use it here and I very rarely use it at all.

I did everything here in Adobe PS with JPEG's (super fine) out of camera. I also don't use In camera NR. Always have that off. I shoot JPEG + RAW but don't need RAW's 99% of the time. I really don't have much time to process images but i do backup all my RAWs and JPEGs in case I ever need to pull them out for future processing updates

regards,

Vas

--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
 
Last edited:
vass said:
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?

--
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul
http://pixelsbypaul.com
"There's a good picture nearby. Find it. Take it. Share it."
Click to expand...
Those 100% crops are from final processed images. I did some quick NR in PhotoShop with strengths of 6-8, details preserved of aroundt 50%, reduce colour noise around mid way too and sharpen details at around 25%. Can't remember exactly but that would be pretty close. Most NR was selective too (not the feathers)

--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
Click to expand...
Just curious, do you utilize any of the NR settings in ACR, or just leave those settings at default and do all this after conversion? It sounds like this all comes after conversion, but was just curious. This looks about as good as I’ve seen using just Photoshop tools. Like, as good as any result as I’ve seen even using DXO’s Prime noise reduction.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
I don't use or have ACR. The only RAW program i have on my PC is OV3 but didn't use it here and I very rarely use it at all.

I did everything here in Adobe PS with JPEG's (super fine) out of camera.
Click to expand...
You do know, if you have Photoshop then you do have Adobe Camera raw, right? Interesting though. In-camera jpeg’s and your own NR with layers in Photoshop. That’s not a real quick process the times I’ve used my own layers and masks in PS. Thanks.
vass said:
I also don't use In camera NR. Always have that off. I shoot JPEG + RAW but don't need RAW's 99% of the time. I really don't have much time to process images but i do backup all my RAWs and JPEGs in case I ever need to pull them out for future processing updates
Click to expand...
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
Last edited:
Hi Vass,

Great images as always. What approx distance were you from the Pardalote, RR Parrot and Eastern Whipbird?
 
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?

--
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul
http://pixelsbypaul.com
"There's a good picture nearby. Find it. Take it. Share it."
Click to expand...
Those 100% crops are from final processed images. I did some quick NR in PhotoShop with strengths of 6-8, details preserved of aroundt 50%, reduce colour noise around mid way too and sharpen details at around 25%. Can't remember exactly but that would be pretty close. Most NR was selective too (not the feathers)

--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
Click to expand...
Just curious, do you utilize any of the NR settings in ACR, or just leave those settings at default and do all this after conversion? It sounds like this all comes after conversion, but was just curious. This looks about as good as I’ve seen using just Photoshop tools. Like, as good as any result as I’ve seen even using DXO’s Prime noise reduction.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
I don't use or have ACR. The only RAW program i have on my PC is OV3 but didn't use it here and I very rarely use it at all.

I did everything here in Adobe PS with JPEG's (super fine) out of camera.
Click to expand...
You do know, if you have Photoshop then you do have Adobe Camera raw, right? Interesting though. In-camera jpeg’s and your own NR with layers in Photoshop. That’s not a real quick process the times I’ve used my own layers and masks in PS. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I use PS CS5. It doesn't even recognise my ORF files so i don't have a ACR that works with my e-m1 mk ii. I don't use masks for NR. I just simply use the selection tool and quickly manually fix any over selections. Never takes me more than a minute.
Gregm61 said:
Gregm61 said:
I also don't use In camera NR. Always have that off. I shoot JPEG + RAW but don't need RAW's 99% of the time. I really don't have much time to process images but i do backup all my RAWs and JPEGs in case I ever need to pull them out for future processing updates
Click to expand...
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
--
[URL]http://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/ [/url]
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
vass said:
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Gregm61 said:
vass said:
Paul Richman said:
... I'm going to be shooting in the shade of Costa Rica in early February, likely having to use high ISO (E-M1ii) for BIF and jungle birds. I don't do a whole lot of high ISO shooting, but I soon will, so this post really helps.

I don't see any grain in the backgrounds or birds in your 100% crops. How is this possible at ISO 3200? Might I ask what LR NR settings do you use?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
vass said:
Hi all

I hear a lot of complaining on this forum about poor high ISO performance and sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about ;-)

In regards to high ISO I never found it to be much of a problem at all for bird photography with m43. I generally use ISO 3200 as my highest setting for high quality images but would not hesitate to use ISO 6400 or above if needed for web use only.
Click to expand...
In fairness shooting high ISO in decent light to obtain a usable shutter speed is rather different from being forced to use it in very low light. For example your Parrot shots at 1/2500th at F4 and 3200 equates to 1/155 @ F4 and base ISO . Even the 1/250 @ F/5 and 3200 would get you 1/30th @ F/5 400ISO .

3200 ISO good light vs low light e-m1 ii same ISO same aperture

26d1d6472afe4840a32bd4a33428bfa9.jpg

Birds are too bloody hard that's why I shoot landscapes :-) much wider lenses , more DOF , can use slower shutter speeds . Base ISO is where its at man :-) Though the only birds I could shoot at these settings would be stuffed :-)
vass said:
All images are just jpegs out of the camera with some quick PS processing. I have RAWS of all but don't find i need them 99 out of 100 at the most. The non 100% crop images have been cropped themselves then sized for web use. They are between 3200 and 4800 pixels on the long side in full size after being cropped.
Click to expand...
Lovely set of images as usual , your work puts to shame most of the reviewers of lenses . Olympus and Panasonic should be giving you a call when they want to demo what telephoto lenses can do, have you seen the shoddy 200mm F/2.8 samples . I think the skill set involved in using long telephoto lenses is very challenging and clearly not possessed by most reviewers
 
Last edited:
Okapi001 said:
vass said:
Hi all

I hear a lot of complaining on this forum about poor high ISO performance and sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about ;-)
Click to expand...
Hmm, I miss certain regulars of this forum, explaining how much better these shots would be with a full-frame camera. ;-)
Click to expand...
Now you are just being stupid , APS would be enough :-)
 
Wow, you got my attention. I shoot m4/3 and APS-C and when doing wildlife I always grab APS-C. I'm gonna have to rethink that .......
 
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