Too much noise complaints with MFT images

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simon97
  • Start date Start date
I keep hearing people having issues with noise in their images. I also see people post images with what I consider too much noise at base ISO.

I never have this issue. I use a GX80 but I don't think that the camera model matters that much unless it was the older 12mp models.

Anyhow, below are two photos. They are from the DPR 150-400mm lens review. I noticed the usual "pile on" about the image noise from other format users in the comments. I tend to agree, there is too much noise. The first image is cropped from their JPEG. The 2nd image, I downloaded the raw and opened it using RawTherapee, a free but powerful editor. The point I'm making here is that I did NOT use any noise reduction. It was turned off, yet the noise grain is finer than in their image despite using sharpening. I processed the image to be similar but there's minor differences. There may be better ways to process, certainly worse ways, but for me, it has got to be budget minded.

c52c212fa6e54bc487bfae7bf89e6474.jpg
3aa545f902344038a42cc36a1124386f.jpg

The shadow noise in the DPR image is exacerbated by slight underexposure but the image can be improved by PP using Highlights/ shadows in PS & White neutralizer in Nik Color Effex
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing people having issues with noise in their images. I also see people post images with what I consider too much noise at base ISO.

I never have this issue. I use a GX80 but I don't think that the camera model matters that much unless it was the older 12mp models.

Anyhow, below are two photos. They are from the DPR 150-400mm lens review. I noticed the usual "pile on" about the image noise from other format users in the comments. I tend to agree, there is too much noise. The first image is cropped from their JPEG. The 2nd image, I downloaded the raw and opened it using RawTherapee, a free but powerful editor. The point I'm making here is that I did NOT use any noise reduction. It was turned off, yet the noise grain is finer than in their image despite using sharpening. I processed the image to be similar but there's minor differences. There may be better ways to process, certainly worse ways, but for me, it has got to be budget minded.

c52c212fa6e54bc487bfae7bf89e6474.jpg

df1ba78d17d34d7ca27628260ac95b6a.jpg
My personal opinion

Noise in MFT sensors are due to the following vicious circle:

1. User believes small sensor has noise

2. User sets a low ISO as starting point

3. User underexposes the image as ISO was too low

4. User tries to correct the image using a raw editor

5. Optional - User applies some noise reduction also to low ISO shots with tools like topaz etc

ISO maps different level of analogue gain in the camera this cannot be recovered in post processing with digital gain. Set your aperture and shutter based on what you need to accomplish and maximise light then if you need to worry about ISO
This is exactly right in overview, wrong in the details., The problem is exactly caused by people wrongly thinking that high ISO settings cause noise, and thus setting too low ISO for the exposure that they will use. The truth is that the electronic noise added by the camera actually reduces as the ISO is raised, so noisewise you're best with the higher ISO setting, so long as it doesn't clip the highlights at the exposure you use. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by using a low ISO and low exposure, it's double jeopardy.

But, it's not a case of substituting 'analogue gain' with 'digital gain'. 'Gain' is not needed for producing a higher ISO. The reason that the voltage gain is there is exactly to reduce the electronic noise at high ISOs, when exposures will usually be low. Digital processing functions do not add noise, so the problem with low ISIO is that the analogue circuitry adds more noise at low ISO settings, not that 'digital gain' is an inadequate substitute for 'analogue gain'.
My statement is entirely correct in so far as the editing correction cannot recover an incorrect exposure as exposure was set at the time of the shot manipulating a RAW files does not correct the exposure by me referred as digital gain.

In terms of your statement is it not true that camera add more noise at low ISO setting clearly each amplifier has a base noise but as gain increases this does not stay flat it also goes up because noise gets amplified too.

The point is that if the level of light is low it makes sense to apply gain as that will amplify also the signal and improve SNR this will in turn reduce the maximum DR but as long as it does not clip this is not an issue. This is the reason when you model input referred noise you see a pattern going downwards it does not mean the level of noise goes down but the level of gain goes up the total maximum SNR therefore still drops as consequence with increase in gain despite read noise is actually going up (but less than gain)

So while it is true that when the image is correctly exposed and you want to maximise DR you should keep gain low the reality is that a lot of situation either don't fill the DR of the camera and therefore you can pump up the gain without issues and improve SNR

OR would clip anyway and what is important is to expose correctly what matters in the image.

Either way you start with exposure and artistic intent that means aperture and shutter and worry about ISO later not the other way around
I have learnt that it is best to use the ‘exposure to the right’ technique when using my EM5.
 
I keep hearing people having issues with noise in their images. I also see people post images with what I consider too much noise at base ISO.

I never have this issue. I use a GX80 but I don't think that the camera model matters that much unless it was the older 12mp models.

Anyhow, below are two photos. They are from the DPR 150-400mm lens review. I noticed the usual "pile on" about the image noise from other format users in the comments. I tend to agree, there is too much noise. The first image is cropped from their JPEG. The 2nd image, I downloaded the raw and opened it using RawTherapee, a free but powerful editor. The point I'm making here is that I did NOT use any noise reduction. It was turned off, yet the noise grain is finer than in their image despite using sharpening. I processed the image to be similar but there's minor differences. There may be better ways to process, certainly worse ways, but for me, it has got to be budget minded.

c52c212fa6e54bc487bfae7bf89e6474.jpg

df1ba78d17d34d7ca27628260ac95b6a.jpg
My personal opinion

Noise in MFT sensors are due to the following vicious circle:

1. User believes small sensor has noise

2. User sets a low ISO as starting point

3. User underexposes the image as ISO was too low

4. User tries to correct the image using a raw editor

5. Optional - User applies some noise reduction also to low ISO shots with tools like topaz etc

ISO maps different level of analogue gain in the camera this cannot be recovered in post processing with digital gain. Set your aperture and shutter based on what you need to accomplish and maximise light then if you need to worry about ISO
This is exactly right in overview, wrong in the details., The problem is exactly caused by people wrongly thinking that high ISO settings cause noise, and thus setting too low ISO for the exposure that they will use. The truth is that the electronic noise added by the camera actually reduces as the ISO is raised, so noisewise you're best with the higher ISO setting, so long as it doesn't clip the highlights at the exposure you use. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by using a low ISO and low exposure, it's double jeopardy.

But, it's not a case of substituting 'analogue gain' with 'digital gain'. 'Gain' is not needed for producing a higher ISO. The reason that the voltage gain is there is exactly to reduce the electronic noise at high ISOs, when exposures will usually be low. Digital processing functions do not add noise, so the problem with low ISIO is that the analogue circuitry adds more noise at low ISO settings, not that 'digital gain' is an inadequate substitute for 'analogue gain'.
My statement is entirely correct in so far as the editing correction cannot recover an incorrect exposure as exposure was set at the time of the shot manipulating a RAW files does not correct the exposure by me referred as digital gain.

In terms of your statement is it not true that camera add more noise at low ISO setting clearly each amplifier has a base noise but as gain increases this does not stay flat it also goes up because noise gets amplified too.

The point is that if the level of light is low it makes sense to apply gain as that will amplify also the signal and improve SNR this will in turn reduce the maximum DR but as long as it does not clip this is not an issue. This is the reason when you model input referred noise you see a pattern going downwards it does not mean the level of noise goes down but the level of gain goes up the total maximum SNR therefore still drops as consequence with increase in gain despite read noise is actually going up (but less than gain)

So while it is true that when the image is correctly exposed and you want to maximise DR you should keep gain low the reality is that a lot of situation either don't fill the DR of the camera and therefore you can pump up the gain without issues and improve SNR

OR would clip anyway and what is important is to expose correctly what matters in the image.

Either way you start with exposure and artistic intent that means aperture and shutter and worry about ISO later not the other way around
I have learnt that it is best to use the ‘exposure to the right’ technique when using my EM5.
Exposure is determined by aperture and shutter. Exposure to the right has to do with opening the aperture and slowing down the shutter this can be done up to the point of having motion blur or lack of focus.

Gain mapped into ISO is not part of the exposure itself and therefore does not fall into ETTR although you hear people talking about exposure triangle there is no such thing.

Cameras meter based on middle grey however any camera has a built in level of highlight protection and therefore the metering is incorrect. In addition the metering typically makes averages does not know what in the image constitutes 'subject'

The human behind the camera knows that and also knows which part of the image are important. In this specific image there is a cloud that is likely to clip the camera averages the frame and decides the exposure however the part that is important the tower with the people on the balconies is dark and in the process of average gets discarded.

If you had metered this scene with centre weighted and centered the subject it would have been better. If you had metered with spot meter the cloud would have been really off but you could have clearly see the details.

This together with other exposure aids such as zebra and highlights shadows warning can help making the right decisions. A histogram that is the average of the averages is the least informed tool to use and the one I have switched off in most of my real life images

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
 
Can't agree with you more on the DxO 4 PhotoLab with Deep PRIME NR.

It is really amazing -- glacially slow on my old Mac, but amazing. The the previous PRIME NR was already very, very good. But Deep PRIME is really next level stuff. It's ability to provide crisp details while denoising is unlike anything else I've used.

I've gone back and re-processed some of my older Lightroom-processed RAWs (LR6) with DxO 4 Deep PRIME. Zoomed out, you might not see much difference. But when pixel peeping, I see a minimum of 1 stop advantage with DxO software on anything ISO3200 and above.

If anyone is curious to see some samples, these are some random family shots from my GX85 starting at ISO 3200 and increasing up to ISO 10000: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1iLK8pTk258UGRAj8

When I look at most of the pictures, it's hard to tell these shots were all so poorly lit, which is why the ISO was so high (I always let ISO float on auto, and generally shoot in S, A, P, or M).

When you're in the gallery and click on a picture, press "i" on your keyboard to view the EXIF data.
 
I must be blind as i don't see noise in the picture. I don't mind noise. Maybe i'm lucky for never pixel peeping, or seeing all the other things they see, or maybe just whatever. I care for none of the things THEY see, just the picture content. I even love seeing pictures from 50 years ago. Noise, whats that.
 
I must be blind as i don't see noise in the picture. I don't mind noise. Maybe i'm lucky for never pixel peeping, or seeing all the other things they see, or maybe just whatever. I care for none of the things THEY see, just the picture content. I even love seeing pictures from 50 years ago. Noise, whats that.
Totally agree... Pixel peeping is not for me either! I totally agree that it’s the content of the image that is the most important thing.

Especially with photography like wildlife. You may spend hours trying to get the shot of a particular subject, so once you finally get that chance, the most important thing should always be capturing it & then admiring the subject you captured and not how sharp, detailed or noise reduced it is.


Of course I’m not saying there is anything wrong at all, with reducing the Nr or increase of the sharpness in post if you wish, but the up most important thing in my mind of an image is the content I managed to capture, no matter the quality.
 
A good exposure is key. If exposure is good, noise will be perfectly tolerable (even nice) at 3200+ ISO. A bad exposure can make noise ugly and annoying. This happens on bigger sensors too. MFT is not significantly worse in that regard.
 
So...I will say that I think MFT images are perfectly adequate. However, I feel like APS-C is my lower limit for image quality. At base ISO I feel the recent APS-C sensors just have a bit more of a clean look that requires lest postprocessing than MFT images at base ISO (which is often 200).
 
I keep hearing people having issues with noise in their images. I also see people post images with what I consider too much noise at base ISO.

I never have this issue. I use a GX80 but I don't think that the camera model matters that much unless it was the older 12mp models.

Anyhow, below are two photos. They are from the DPR 150-400mm lens review. I noticed the usual "pile on" about the image noise from other format users in the comments. I tend to agree, there is too much noise. The first image is cropped from their JPEG. The 2nd image, I downloaded the raw and opened it using RawTherapee, a free but powerful editor. The point I'm making here is that I did NOT use any noise reduction. It was turned off, yet the noise grain is finer than in their image despite using sharpening. I processed the image to be similar but there's minor differences. There may be better ways to process, certainly worse ways, but for me, it has got to be budget minded.

c52c212fa6e54bc487bfae7bf89e6474.jpg

df1ba78d17d34d7ca27628260ac95b6a.jpg
To be honest ill take the first image, the second one is just softer and blotchy IMO.

I dont mind a little noise or grain, it's the least of my worries.
 
I keep hearing people having issues with noise in their images. I also see people post images with what I consider too much noise at base ISO.
I keep seeing not hearing noise in my own image from my OMD 10 II, every time when I pulled up shadow there is tons of noise in there even at ISO 200 when compare to all my FF image shot next to it, I don't mean when I made the mistake under exposed a image, i mean when I have to purposely under expose a shot to preserve high light. I have used Capture one, Silkypix, LightRoom, and RawTherapee, my work around is exposure bracketing and Topaz DeNoise AI.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top