Reading mode: Light Dark

NOISE

Go to last post
W

WirenL

Senior Member
Messages
1,547
Reaction score
382
Location
Hillsboro, US
I usually do not get gear envy and have long since survived the G.A.S. stages of photography (although I keep getting the urge for the 12-60mm), but I just saw the noise level on the new Nikon D3s and all I have to say is.....

If Nikon can put that level of ISO on their FF cam, why oh why Oly can't you give us usable noise levels at 3200 ISO? I don't mean if the lighting is just right, you catch a nearly filled frame shot and use a ton of NR to clean up the image, but I mean usable at 3200 that is clean like 100!

I know a lot of you will say that there are mechanical/scientific engineering reasons why they can't, but I disagree, I say they just haven't focused on the solution (not the problem) of noise with the 4/3 sensor.

disclaimer I do not envy the new D3s and won't want it, I am firmly enmeshed in Oly (if I had to leave, it would be for a 5Dm2 - but that ain't gonna happen on my paycheck, lol). I am just saying I would love to see the Oly flagship have super squeaky clean ISO at 3200 - that would make life for Oly so much more admirable I think.

Lee
--

I'm technically not a 'qualified professional photographer', but I play one online.....
 
I shot a couple rolls of Tri-X 400 in broad daylight last week, and that stuff is as "noisy" as iso 1600 on my E-520.

Granted, it looks a great deal better as it is luminance and not chroma "noise". Nonetheless, I'd like it as much, if not more, if these companies would try to create higher-quality noise as well as a more clinical, clean high-ISO image.

Anyway, long story short, the reason why Nikon and Canon can provide a clean image at high ISO is because Nikon and Canon have the capacity to throw infinite amounts of R&D money at the problem, and Olympus doesn't. That's the fundamental reason.

Panasonic and Sony should be capable of throwing that kind of money at the problem as well, but they're far more diversified corporations that are pretty much not dependent on their camera sales.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
All you can really ask for is for high ISO capability to scale with sensor area -- the laws of physics won't let you do better than that, really.

Is 4/3 ISO 3200 as good as full-frame ISO 12,800? I dunno. It's certainly in the ballpark -- a "use me for emergencies when it's too dark and you have no other choice" setting. We have no idea how good the results at this new ISO 100k+ will be, of course.
 
That is part of the problem, is that the noise issue is a problem to be dealt with tomorrow, not a solution to be resolved today. I agree that lots of liquid cash for R&D is good, but worrying about that is focusing on the problem, not looking for the solution. Employ a team - however big/small - (I know they probably already have one) and give them the task of noise, nothing else and have them hunt the solution, not fret the problem.

Won't solve it today, but just my .02 on it.

Lee
--

I'm technically not a 'qualified professional photographer', but I play one online.....
 
Well, I don't know if it's usable or not, but when the sky is dark gray and the sky is drizzling on me at a soccer match and I have to bump the ISO's for a faster ss I can't usually go more than 250 before the images just suck unless I fill my VF completely with the best light on the subject. I would like to be able to go up to ISO 3200 and get the result of ISO 100 on a sunny day for those "in a pinch" days.

My onion is that there is a solution to the noise issue, although not a brainiac, I think it can be done, instead of putting it off as "not possible or likely to happen" type of problem to ignore.

Oly has lead the way in so many areas, this is obviously not one of them and I think they need to step up to the plate in this area or start doing damage control.

Lee
--

I'm technically not a 'qualified professional photographer', but I play one online.....
 
Entropius said:
All you can really ask for is for high ISO capability to scale with sensor area -- the laws of physics won't let you do better than that, really.
Click to expand...
key to that is the -1.94 e/v due to sensor size, almost 2 stops
what changes is the technology between sensors
Entropius said:
Is 4/3 ISO 3200 as good as full-frame ISO 12,800? I dunno. It's certainly in the ballpark -- a "use me for emergencies when it's too dark and you have no other choice" setting. We have no idea how good the results at this new ISO 100k+ will be, of course.
Click to expand...
--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı
 
WirenL said:
I just saw the noise level on the new Nikon D3s and all I have to say is.....
Click to expand...
Let me know when the MSRP of $7,999.95 drops to $699.
--
Chuck, retired near Barcelona
See profile ('Plan') for equipment and software.
 
I share your frustration. Olympus have great lenses and some interesting and innovative features on otherwise disappointing cameras. Just remember that while you can't get the high ISO shots or the video that Canikon shooters can get, they can't get the amazing results of the 7-14 or 12-60 lenses or the rich colours that Olympus delivers.

Olympus gear is great for many things. Low light is not one of them.
--
  • Andrew
 
Olympus is already a company that found a solution when all the other SLR manufacturers had decided that a 35mm SLR could not be made any smaller. Of course, they did it basically by reinventing the SLR from the ground up.

But they might well be doing that now. Who knows though? Based on what they've done for the entire industry over the past 40 years, Olympus is certainly a company I expect to be innovative.

But there also might not be a brain-dead simple solution to make a clean high ISO with a smaller sensor, at least not when compared to the flagship cameras of Canon and Nikon.

Maybe the solution would be, at the same time as improving on what they have, also to make a less than clean high ISO more desirable. I, myself, rather like film-like luma noise (like what I get in twilight from my E-520 at iso 400). But I don't like banding at high ISO/long exposure or gaudy chroma noise. I don't know about solutions for banding (except for an improved image pipeline, or different sensor technology), but perhaps this could be a question of interpolation? And the people at Topaz have created a pretty damn good noise reduction algorithm (which even further reduces my need for high ISO performance), so there's two potential software solutions (possibly focusing on the problem still).

Making better quality noise would definitely be a good solution for me, if it happens to be more effective than making an overall cleaner high ISO. Perhaps Olympus marketing could figure out a way to appeal to people who might like less god-awful noise, but possibly more beautiful "grain" at the higher ISOs.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
You're asking for a step change in technology.

It's a bit like asking one manufacturer of solar panels to make their 243 metres squared panel produce the same energy output as someone else's 862 metres squared panel. Yes, it may be possible with a sudden improvement in technology. Currently, Olympus have to amplify more and this gain produces noise.

I wanted a small, light SLR, feature rich with good optics. The Olympus 4/3s system fits the bill. Until the technology radically improves some limitations will have to be accepted. Matsushita make the Olympus sensor whereas Canon make their own and Samsung and Kodak manufacture sensors as well. So this is not down to Olympus alone, someone else could come up with the required technology shift. It could be the required innovation comes elsewhere in the overall system but no one knows right now.
 
I do believe that Olympus (and Panasonic) are working on this issue. With the E-620 and E-P1 they are now at the same level, or better, as Canon's APS-C, according to the reviews on this website. So, I don't think they're giving this issue less attention than Canon and Nikon are doing.

The question is important for the future of Olympus. With the 2x crop factor, there is a real advantage for certain areas of photography (sports, nature) and this field sometimes requires a good clean high ISO.

Also, for amateurs this can sometimes be an important issue. In my own experience, the usefulness of the 70-300 would be greatly improved if the high ISO of my E-520 were better in retaining detail and suppressing noise. As it is, it's mostly an outdoor, bright weather lens.

These areas are where Olympus could cash on a real advantage (lens wise). So, although noise performance seems to be on par with the (APS) competition, there is room for improvement. In that respect, the example of the D3s is also good: it stays at 12.1MP in order to offer real improvement of IQ. Olympus should stick to their word with the 12MP is the limit statement.

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
They are in the same ballpark hardly even and no way better. But who cares. Noise isn't that big problem if its finegrained. Banding is! They should just focus on the termination of banding and the noise will be much less irritating.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/
 
Hi

Just face it once and for all. Oly doesn't focus on pro bodies. If you want the best bodies you just have to go for Canon or Nikon.
Inside ourselves we all know that's true.

Even if Oly releases a very good body now, it will worse than Canikon, and At Least another 30 months for the update, so why go for Oly if one want ultimate quality??

br

-tired of Oly "pro" bodies-

--
Canon Prosumer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/
http://www.marcusaxlund.smugmug.com

5D mk2
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
17-40 f/4L
100 macro f/2,8
 
Because of the glass which will be allways superior to that of canikon? Sure canikon has great glass also. But if you want digital designed there isn't any other system than the E syste. No i'm not a pro just an amateur with not that much experience but who cares. Every one this days can toss around with prejudices.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/
 
it is soooo correct - get rid of the banding - then the noice is much easier to handle.

Ofcause the noise level is a bit too high too. Give me something a little bit better than the latest Oly cams and I will be happy.
--
Steen
dotweb.dk
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
Noise, Dynamic Range, Cropping, and Print Size
2
Replies
24
Views
17K
JimKasson
JimKasson
lokatz
Noise reduction: Is it worth it? How much improvement?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
28K
Breakfastographer
B
M
On quantisation errors due low bit depth and the helpfulness of image noise
Replies
7
Views
8K
JimKasson
JimKasson
J
Nikon Z9 Issues And ISO Disapointment
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Jusphotography
J
J
Not quite goodbye but...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
45K
James O'Neill
J

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