High Iso or Low Iso?

[poider]

Just curious, as a quick example, I take photos of many subjects, I have no specialty, I lean toward Landscape, Architecture and Sea scapes with occasional forays into astro photography and Night scenes, But Generally I just love to take photos.
For general photography covering most subjects which would be the better option.......?
ISO 200 - 56000
or
ISO 50 - 12600

assuming all else was the same EG sensor size lens aperture etc?

Peter

[John King]

Peter, the general rule is always to use the lowest ISO possible.

This ensures that the greatest number of photons possible are captured by the sensor, maximizing the signal to noise ratio.

[ricktas]

Agree with John.

Always use the lowest ISO possible in any given situation.

[bitsnpieces]

I have a friend who takes the above advice to the extreme

He will always shoot on the lowest ISO possible, or around 100-200 max.

He'd rarely prefer blurry or dark photos, than photos with noise, because noisy photos don't look nice.

So as they say, pick your poison :)

[arthurking83]

Peter, the general rule is always to use the lowest ISO possible.

....

I don't think that's what Peter was asking!(assumption on my part here tho).

What I think the question was asking is: better to use a higher range or lower range?

(ie. range, not value)

From memory the D7200 native ISO range is 100-25600, so it's best practise to use the native range, rather than the ISO values labelled Lo and Hi.

Reason is, that the Hi and Lo ISO values aren't actual ISO values as such.

as an example. Technically the D7200 can do ISO 50, but it's not an actual ISO 50 value. What happens is that the camera shoots at ISO100, adapts it's internal values to mimic a 'correct exposure' to suit this ISO point, but it actually shoots at ISO, and then does internal processing to the image to alter exposure compensation of the image by 1Ev.

eg. lets say at ISO100(a native ISO value) you need 1/100 and f/2.8. but you set ISO to Lo1(ie. ISO50), the camera then recomputes the internal meter to show that exposure should be 1/200 and f/2.8, but at 1/200 and f/2.8 at ISO100, the image will be underexposed by 1Ev, so it then needs to process the image by +1Ev internally to create a properly exposed image.
This is why the ISO range has numbered values and the extended ranges(ie. Hi and Lo). Numbered values are 'native' which means no internal processing of the image with respect to exposure.

I tested this back when my D300 was new and from what I saw, non native ISO values(on the whole) couldn't recover shadow and highlight details as well(using Nikon software).
I don't remember seeing any ISO noise differences tho, just colour inaccuracy when trying to recover extreme tones if the need was required. In landscapes this can be more often than not. If the exposure is pretty much spot on, I never saw any differences tho.
Initially I used to shoot my D300 at Lo1, until I read an article explaining how the Hi/Lo ISO system works .. and then tested for myself.
Can't remember the exact differences in processing leeway it made, but something like 0.5Ev at the shadow end and 1Ev at the highlight end.
as a rough example,
if I shot at:
ISO200, I could recover -2Ev at the shadow end with little to no ugly recovery colour artifacts in the shadows and at least 1Ev, to 1.5Ev at the highlight end(usually clouds).
Lo1(ISO100 on the D300), shadows got ugly at 2Ev exposure compensation much more easily and I found it hard to want to use more than 1Ev, but 1.5Ev could be 'masked'.
The highlights used to 'posterise' at -1Ev using Lo1, but easily recoverable at -1.5Ev when using ISO100.

Haven't tested on the D800 or D5500, and the D70s only has native ISO settings.

So if you're setting up an Auto ISO range, I'd say stick with native ISOs with the caveat that Hi ISO range can be helpful sometimes too. (that is, avoid the Lo ISO points if the option is available)

I have my D800 set to 100 to Hi2(ISO25600). So ISO setting is ISO100(won't drop below that) and it will go to Hi2 if required.

[ameerat42]

I wasn't sure either. Besides that, I was thrown by the word "better".
So the only way your reply suits his query would be to avoid ISO50,
for the reasons you gave. But then, how does the camera treat values
higher than 100? Ie, is it any less invalid than for 50?

I know these are questions that arise subsequently, and may not be in the
OP's purview :confused013 (< An arm-waving icon.)

[arthurking83]

....
So the only way your reply suits his query would be to avoid ISO50,
for the reasons you gave. But then, how does the camera treat values
higher than 100? Ie, is it any less invalid than for 50?

...

I just re read what I wrote, and it could be argued that I said "avoid ISO50"(or in a technical sense on the camera ISO Lo1) and it meant avoid at all costs.

I didn't mean it to come across in that way. That is, you don't need to 'avoid' ISO Lo1 at all costs, just be aware of what happens, and in an Auto ISO sense, it is best avoided.
The problem is that you never know how the entire tonal response in the image will come out, so there is always a possibility that some PP may be needed.
PPing an already processed image is a bit like double jeopardy (in a manner of speaking).

But there can be situations where ISO Lo1 may be a necessity, so it's use isn't without any merit.

Situations where ISO Lo1 may be needed are when you're maxing out shutter speed and have no other means to get an appropriate exposure, or that you want/need a particularly slower shutter speed for some reason.

One condition I never thought I'd ever experience photographically is max(ie fastest) shutter speed. On the D300(and D7200) that means 1/8000s.
Most camera makers give that option, even tho there is a very small possibility that most photographers will ever shoot at that shutter speed.

Yet I found myself once at 1/8000s and the image still over exposed by +2Ev .. couldn't recover the blown white highlights. So by that PP process, I needed more than 1/32000s shutter speed!
D300 was set to ISO Lo1(ISO 100) for those photos too. In my situation above, I wanted fastest possible apertrure(wide open), which at the time was f/1.2. Couldn't get it, so had to settle for f/1.4.

In the end, I got a 3 stop ND filter for that one time in 10 years where I need more than 1/32000 shutter speed 'ever again'.

So there may situations where Lo1 ISO could be used effectively.

ps. it's important to differentiate (at least on a Nikon camera) that ISO 50 or ISO100 or whatever is not the same as ISO Lo1(or Hi1 or Hi2).

it's a camera based thing. eg. D800 native ISO is ISO100 - (whatever) and ISO Lo is equivalent to ISO50. D810 has an ISO64 native, so ISO Lo1 = ISO32 in that camera.
So the important of distinguishing between numbered values and the extended Hi/Lo ISO values is important to note .. on a Nikon camera. Not sure how it all works on non Nikon cameras tho.

[ameerat42]

I see. "Extended" values are those to be aware of. Ta.

[John King]

Peter, the general rule is always to use the lowest ISO possible.

This ensures that the greatest number of photons possible are captured by the sensor, maximizing the signal to noise ratio.

As correctly qualified by Arthur, this advice must be applied with some caution to extended ISO ranges when they are present on your camera. Even within the same manufacturer's product line, extended ISO behaviour can be very different, one to the other.

For some examples from the Olympus stable ...

My E-30's base ISO is 200. When set to ISO 100 (extended ISO range), it gives far less noise (it's a bit of a noise machine ... ), but about 0.5 stop or so less dynamic range. It's a 2008 camera. Intermediate ISO steps are basically unusable due to how the ADC works in this camera.

OTOH, my E-M1 MkII also has a base ISO of 200, and the extended (low) ISO is 64. At this setting, the image is less noisy, and delivers about 1/3rd to 1/2 stop more DR. 2016 camera. Intermediate ISO steps work exactly as one would expect.

my E-M1 MkI also has a base ISO of 200, and the extended (low) ISO is 100. At this setting, the image is less noisy, and delivers about the same DR as at base ISO. 2013 camera. Ditto about intermediate ISO steps compared with my MkII.

There are lots of technical reasons for these differences, but way beyond the scope of the question, and the interest of most people.

So this advice must be used with caution, and must take into account your specific camera/s and how it behaves.

My advice given originally only applies to the standard ISO range for one's camera.

[swifty]

I'm just going to take it as that the OP is asking which is a more useful range of ISO for general photography (inclusive of the genres the OP has listed).
And that would be 50-12600 IMO. Beyond that, it really is a specialised range that few photographers will commonly shoot at.
And as has been pointed out above, these appear to be the extended ISO ranges (which carry further shooting implications) so in most cases, try to work and compare within the 'normal' ranges.
However, if you find yourself using eg. ISO 3200 to 12800 frequently the 200-51200 camera may be a better choice even if you don't shoot above ISO 12800.
It is all about how the camera is optimized and what your shooting habits are. Do you have a DAM software where you can pull up some statistics on what your most common shooting ISO ranges are?
Sorry I know you asked a simple question, but the answer rarely is unfortunately.

[poider]

Thank you all, I find I always use a relatively low ISO and have never willingly put it up past 3200.
I really like the idea of micro four thirds cameras and one day may get an Olympus OMD EM1 Mark 2, but am uncertain about the base ISO of 200 .

[swifty]

To give you an idea, my D700 also has a base iso of 200.
The main problem I’ve encountered is that using f1.4 lenses, I have on occasions hit my 1/8000 shutter speed limit. Not a big deal as I just stop down but I believe on the EM1.2, there might be an e-shutter that does higher than 1/8000. What limitations this mode has I’ve not researched.
When you can afford to maximise exposure, the lower real iso settings also allow the sensor to receive more light before the sensor saturates which for certain genres is a big plus. This generally applies to controlled environments like studio/still life photography or landscape (especially high DR scenes) and often on a tripod.

[John King]

E-M1 MkII has minimum mechanical SS of 1/8,000th. Electronic shutter is 1/32,000th. Sensor readout speed is 1/60th second.

[arthurking83]

I wouldn't use 50 ISO on the D7200(for the reasons already given).
And while it's best not to go into the ISO51K, area, sometimes you'd be better off in doing so if the need arises, rather than shoot at ISO25K limit risk the shot being under exposed and losing more detail.
With high ISO, always best to expose a bit brighter than normal without clipping important highlights. If colour is lost(almost certainly will!) ... at least you can do a monochrome PP and have something of the image if it's an important moment.

In fact, IIRC, the D7200 has an ISO102K setting available, but is only a monochrome setting too.
Oops! had to fact check: ISO51K and ISO102K settings are both monochrome only!

So change my comment to use the ISO range between 100-25600 for general duties.


.... there might be an e-shutter that does higher than 1/8000. What limitations this mode has I’ve not researched.
....

if it's anything like the D70/s, then probably of no real value. Could be different tho, as the D70 were CCD sensors, and CMOS are operationally different.
One of the handy aspects of the D70 cameras was that it could do flash sync at 1/500s, where even the top end models were limited to 1/250s(as they all still are).
But there was a catch. D70s shutter was for all intents an e-shutter. It's mechanical shutter was one of the cheapest devices Nikon could conjure up, and in reality limited to about 1/90s(apparently), the rest of the D70's shutter range was 'electronically controlled'.
(ie. up to 1/80s was all mechanical, beyond 1/100s it was partially mechanical(ie. open) and then gaited electronically giving up to 1/8000s.. quite high for a pretty low end camera!)
The idea seemed to be a great marketing tool for Nikon, but it had drawbacks. CCD are natively able to shut down the capture feed to the pixels all at the same time(hence why CCDs are no good for video).
So Nikon used that CCD 'limitation' to good effect(in terms of marketing), but in terms of high tech .. not as great as you'd think.
D70s was hopeless at shooting at super bright light sources(eg. the sun), due to this electronic shutter system.
The shutter had to be limited to below 1/80s to get an image that wasn't affected by 'sensor flare' or what's usually called 'sensor bloom' It looks like lens flare, but it's the sensor that produces it. Can't be controlled. Landscapes with the sun in the frame were usually affected by the issue.

I think I still have one image with this 'sensor bloom' issue, that I haven't zapped, but I remember a major cull of such useless images years ago.

One of the things I've wanted in a camera for a while now has been a well thought out e-shutter system, but more specifically electronic front curtain(ie. D850 is in my long term future for mainly that feature).
But I'm always weary of such features used to produce some silly marketing advantage such as ridiculous shutter speeds, just for the sake of higher numbers, and little in the way of technical competence.


.. anyhow .... what were we talking about? :confused013 ..... AH!! ..... ISO range .... 100-25600 :th3:

[John King]

Arthur, the fully electronic shutter in my E-M1 MkII allows it to shoot 60 fps in raw, among other things. The fact that it allows SSs of 1/32,000th is a by product of its existence.

Many other mFTs cameras also have electronic shutters.

One benefit that's often not appreciated is that they are utterly silent. No mirror slap and no shutter sound. Great for not spooking nervous wildlife (and humans ... ).

IOW , not a gimmick.

[Tannin]

Much useful information about many things in this thread. Well done all. I think we are all clear on the benefits of knowing your camera's base ISO, and clear that going below the base is quite pointless so far as improving dynamic range and noise is concerned. (But worth doing if, for example, you want to shoot a brightly lit scene at f/1.4 and have maxed out your shutter speed.) Various posters have provided details of the base ISO for various Nikon models, and John has done likewise for Olympus cameras.

So just to add my little bit - as I understand it, all Canon digital SLRs have a base ISO of 100. I'm pretty sure that there are no exceptions. Some Canon bodies provide a 50 ISO "fake" setting useful for Swifty's f/1.4 requirement, some don't.

Canon mirrorless would be the same, no doubt.I'm not sure what base ISO Canon P&S cameras use. The ones I am familiar with are also 100, but some of the ones with bought-in third-party sensors may be different.

[swifty]

if it's anything like the D70/s....:

As you've correctly stated, CCDs and CMOS operate very differently and I don't think you can infer anything from the D70/s.
Modern CMOS are closing in on not needing a physical shutter at all. One issue as John pointed out is the read speed which is 1/60 on an already speedy EM1.2 but will still subject you to the rolling shutter effect. The best of breed currently is in the A9, which I think Jim Kasson measured it to be around 1/160 which is approaching the mechanical shutter.
There are rumours the upcoming Nikon mirrorless may be e-shutter only. The holy grail of course would be global shutters but to be honest, if the read speed matches or exceeds mechanical shutters, it's good enough as long as there are no other penalties.

- - - Updated - - -



So just to add my little bit - as I understand it, all Canon digital SLRs have a base ISO of 100. I'm pretty sure that there are no exceptions. Some Canon bodies provide a 50 ISO "fake" setting useful for Swifty's f/1.4 requirement, some don't.


Unfortunately the fake or 'Lo' (Nikon speak) ISO settings doesn't help in the sunny situations because they are actually just ISO 100 (or whatever the base is) but the meter will let you meter as if it is ISO 50. So you don't actually gain any highlight room as the same exposure that might blow the highlights on the ISO 100 setting will do the same on the fake ISO 50 setting.
What it does however, is 'fool' the user into giving the sensor more exposure which in effect makes you expose more to the right (of the histogram) which results in better signal as long as you don't blow the highlights.
So no highlight headroom or DR gained, but usually some noise improvement by virtue that you will likely use an exposure setting that increases the SNR to the sensor.

[John King]

Swifty, the modern Olympus cameras shift the tone curve and slightly alter its shape for the extended low ISO setting. I suspect this helps IQ a bit. My E-M1 MkII has superior extended high ISO compared with my E-M1 MkI, by about one stop. Pretty significant in practice. Both are really RAW only above about ISO 8,000.

The old Olympus cameras (e.g. my E-30) played around with both analog gain (before the ADC) for full stop ISO settings, and digital gain (after the ADC) for the intermediate ISO settings. Fortunately the latter could be disabled in settings. That toying with digital gain was counterproductive! ISO 800 was far less noisy than ISO 500!!

[poider]

My E-M1 MkII has superior extended high ISO compared with my E-M1 MkI, by about one stop. Pretty significant in practice. Both are really RAW only above about ISO 8,000.


So, John I assume you are pretty happy with the E-M1 MkII, Would you (in your opinion) buy a 4 thirds sensor instead of a full frame, or does your Olympus back up a full frame? I am always reading that full frame is the only way to really get good photos but I am really drawn to the lightness and smaller size of the whole 4/3 system and also like the idea that many other 4/3 lenses can fit the Olympus.
I like to take my camera and as many of the accessories with me on vacation and presently half of my Nikon gear stays home.
I seems that with the Olympus System I can have the equivalent lenses and Accessories and take all of it with me.
Peter

[swifty]

Hi John, that’s good to hear. At least it helps a bit in the visual appearance of the highlight roll off but RAW headroom stays the same.
Have a look at photonstophotos’ PDR graph where it flattens in the extended low range.

[John King]

Hi John, that’s good to hear. At least it helps a bit in the visual appearance of the highlight roll off but RAW headroom stays the same.Have a look at photonstophotos’ PDR graph where it flattens in the extended low range.

Are you sure you are looking at the MkII ?

The MkI DR is lower in extended low at Bill's site, but the PDR for the MkII remains much the same. This appears to have changed since I last looked at it about 12 months ago. Or I am going dippier than I thought I was? Always a strong possibility!

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Got to post this. My tablet had to be rebooted because it spat the dummy!

[arthurking83]

....
I like to take my camera and as many of the accessories with me on vacation and presently half of my Nikon gear stays home.
I seems that with the Olympus System I can have the equivalent lenses and Accessories and take all of it with me.
Peter

What lenses/accessories do you have, want, and need on holidays?
If you currently have Dx only lenses, then a D610(or equivalent won't help you).
But a D610 type camera is akin to a D7200 type camera(uses the same basic body).
But to get the best from the D6xx, you then need larger Fx lenses .. so you're back to the same dilemma as before.

[John King]

So, John I assume you are pretty happy with the E-M1 MkII, Would you (in your opinion) buy a 4 thirds sensor instead of a full frame

This is a very complex question. I have shot film since about 1955, when I was about 8 y.o.

When I first looked seriously at dSLRs around 2003, I had a Nikon Coolpix E5000. Nice full metal jacket P&S with an effective FL lens of 28-84mm. 5 MPx. Fully articulated screen. Shot RAW and TIFF. Very, very slow by today's standards, but it worked. One day, I just didn't have the reach to photograph a swan, and realised that I really had to look for a dSLR that suited my needs. Looked at the D200 for about 18 months, and the Sigma SD10 (?) after that for another 6.

Then Olympus released the E-510. IBIS, the only dust reduction system that worked (I didn't realise at the time how important this would be!!) and I could adapt my existing film lenses to it. Read up everything I could about it, then plonked down about $1,800 for the full kit with two kit lenses and spare battery, filters, bag, etc. Some of the best photos I have ever taken were taken with this outfit, in spite of the fact that ISO 100 is actually ISO 125 (approx.), so the camera has a tendency to blow highlights like an old Holden blows smoke at ISO 100 ... It's fine at ISO 200 ...

My E-30 plus 14-54 MkII lens was my main system for about 8 years.

Strangely enough, the E-510 and the D700 have one thing in common - lousy DR in the OoC JPEGs! D700 is about 7.8 stops and the E-510 is about 7.4. Both pull ahead by over 3 stops in RAW, with the D700 leaping about 1.7 stops ahead of the FTs sensor in the E-510. Interestingly, the E-M1 MkI has larger DR than the (legendary) D700 (same sensor as the D3), and the MkII betters this by about another 0.75-1.0 stops. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, one simply cannot play fast and loose with high ISO the way one can with most 135 format sensors, even the ones that the E-M1 MkII beats for base ISO DR. One has to get as much light on the sensor as possible, in all circumstances. Above ISO 6400, shooting RAW becomes all but mandatory, although the Sony sensor in the MkII is better by at least a stop than the Panasonic sensor in the MkI.

Pictures speak louder than words, so ...

Rosa at ISO 6400, in poor light, with my E-M1 MkI and 12-50 macro kit lens - EXIF in image. This is a lens that is (unjustly) criticised by most reviewers, except Imaging Resource. It was the original kit lens with my MkI. It is weather/dust sealed, and has a special macro mode that will not focus to infinity, and sets the FL to 43mm.
This is an OoC JPEG, run through an automated PS action that resizes, does a simple USM to make up for in-camera sharpening being turned off, frames and copyrights it, then saves it for upload in a special folder with a filename suffix.

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/cats/E-M1_JAK_2016-_2112448_Ew.jpg


, or does your Olympus back up a full frame?

No. I have printed up to A2 size on my Epson R3880 from images taken with my ancient 2003 5 MPx E-1. They look fine, even when examined with a 4x magnifying glass. I don't print larger than this, and I almost never crop images. Good composition dictates that one should always at least try to get everything right in the camera. Micro FTs (mFTs) can be unforgiving of sloppy practices ...


I am always reading that full frame is the only way to really get good photos

That's simply rubbish. A good photographer (e.g. my wife ... ) can take excellently composed photos with a phone (I can't). I have edited quite a few APS, APS-C and 135 format images in my time. I see nothing that makes me doubt my choice. As for technical IQ, once you get to mFTs, the sensor is big enough, if the lenses are up to snuff, and they generally are. In order to have the same IQ at the same enlargement, a mFTs camera/lens has to resolve about double the line pairs per mm as a 135 format camera. They usually do, and often exceed this resolution.


but I am really drawn to the lightness and smaller size of the whole 4/3 system

A big plus for many of us. My E-M1 MkII and 12-100 weighs about the same as my old E-30 plus 14-54 MkII. Difference is that the E-M1 is considerably smaller/lighter than the E-30, and the 12-100 is a little heavier and larger than the 14-54 MkII. The OMD just shoots the E-30 to shreds for DR, resolution, IBIS, etc and the 12-100 is about the only almost perfect super zoom ever made by anyone. sync-IS in the lens/body makes it all but magical; uncanny in the extreme. It is almost the only lens one would ever need. Focus transitions are exquisite, and it's sharp at all FLs and apertures down to f/11 - acceptable at f/16 and f/22.

E-M1 MkII plus 12-100, EXIF in image. f/8 at 100mm:

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/Plants/E-M1_MkII_JAK_2017-_8201876_Ew.jpg



and also like the idea that many other 4/3 lenses can fit the Olympus.

While this is true, legacy 4/3rds lenses will work best. My images here were all taken with my E-M1 MkI plus 14-54 MkII (FTs lens, with adapter):

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/CarsandSuch/AustralianCarShow/



I like to take my camera and as many of the accessories with me on vacation and presently half of my Nikon gear stays home.

Native mFTs lenses can be tiny, as they are all software corrected as well as the optical design. If you stick with the f/1.8 level primes and the standard zooms, these are all very small and light. They also tend to be relatively inexpensive for their IQ. Always keep in mind that mFTs lenses are designed to be sharp wide open, but will usually perform better 1/2 to 1 stop smaller. Imaging Resource is your friend ...


I seems that with the Olympus System I can have the equivalent lenses and Accessories and take all of it with me.
Peter

My "small" kit is my E-M1 MkI plus either 14-42 EZ pancake zoom or 12-50 macro, plus my 40-150R plastic fantastic. This gives 28-300mm effective FL (or 24-300, it's actually angle of view, the FL doesn't miraculously change ... ) that weighs a little over a kilo, and will fit in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag that's about 200x150x125mm!

With my E-M1 MkII, JPEG images at ISO 25,600 are usable, but not "high art" ... I've yet to see the camera that will give decent DR or images straight out of camera at these sorts of ISOs. Maybe maximum of A4 size, if you aren't being very fussy.

The photo of the Eureka Tower was taken with my E-M1 MkI and 14-42 EZ pancake at ISO 12,800 from the footbridge over the Yarra. It had about 100+ people on it at the time. The OoC JPEG was pretty useless, but the RAW scrubbed up quite well, all things considered. I could print this at A3 size, and maybe A2 with minimal PP.

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/built_environment/buildings/eureka/E-M1_JAK_2015-_C172085_JK_E-2_Ew.jpg
Hope this drivel helps somewhat.

[swifty]

Are you sure you are looking at the MkII ?

The MkI DR is lower in extended low at Bill's site, but the PDR for the MkII remains much the same. This appears to have changed since I last looked at it about 12 months ago. Or I am going dippier than I thought I was? Always a strong possibility!

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Got to post this. My tablet had to be rebooted because it spat the dummy!

Hi John, yes. Looking at the same chart from Bill's site.
And as would be expected, the extended low range is more or less exactly the same as the base iso which for the EM1.2 would be ISO 200. It basically flatlines below ISO 200.
Meaning, there would be no gains from using the low setting compared to ISO 200, but only to produce an image that has a lower brightness than an ISO 200 shot, if the same exposure was used.
There would be no loss either, they are the same except for how the camera subsequently treats the data to produce the final image brightness. The way the EM1.2 does it, I'm not sure if it is purely digital scaling or otherwise but I think that's what you were referring to when you say that EM1.2 shifts the tone curve for the jpeg with a slightly different shape?

By no gains, I mean that the sensor is not able to accept a higher exposure before saturation at the extended lower ISO setting so there would be no gains in DR compared to a 'true' lower setting eg. ISO 64 on D810 and D850 where you'd expect DR gains at the lower 'true' ISO settings.
I know I said no highlight headroom before, but I actually meant no increase in DR but I wrote highlight headroom because I was referring to a situation where I ran out of shutter speed if I wanted to use f1.4 in bright conditions.

I know what you're saying in terms of digital gain on the old 4/3 cameras however digital scaling doesn't have as much penalties as it once did due to the very low read noise in today's sensors. We're starting to approach ISO-less or ISO-invariant sensors where there would be no difference and possibly even improvements by leaving ISO at base all the time and completely scale digitally.

[poider]

[QUOTE=John King;Hope this drivel helps somewhat.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your time and effort,this post has helped a lot, and your information has been invaluable
Peter

[John King]

Swifty, this is also an interesting historical comparison:

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Olympus%20E-30,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Agree about the changes in architecture. These days, the ADC is usually a part of the sensor chip itself.

However, taking an image at 12,800 and delicate PP will get one a lot further than exposing at 200 and trying to lift it 6 stops in post. I've done this experiment a few times. In the first case, one gets an image, in the second, one gets horrible rubbish.

Neither film nor digital likes severe underexposure ... :(

- - - Updated - - -


Thank you for your time and effort,this post has helped a lot, and your information has been invaluable
Peter

Glad it was of some benefit, Peter.

I see that you already have some mFTs gear. I don't think the 12-100 would balance very well on the E-M10 MkIII, but I could be wrong. Danny at DPR uses an E-M10 behind Canon 400 to 800 mm MF lenses :nod: :D. He takes gorgeous BiF photos ...

[swifty]

Hi John, no disagreement from me there. I was just talking about the low extended range characteristics previously.
As for pushing in post, we’re not at an ISO invariant sensor yet. Just approaching it.
If we did have truly zero read noise, the only noise we’d see in an image is shot noise which is inheritantly there and part of the nature of light. So digital scaling would truly be the best solution because you would scale to the correct brightness using a curve and be able to preserve every bit of highlight captured at the base ISO rather than clip a stop of highlight every full iso stop you go up.
Actually even today with some of the best sensors, provided you don’t push too crazily, if you have a high DR scene pushing in post may get you a higher DR final output albeit a bit noisier too.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Poider, sorry for going a bit off course.
As for m43, I did a review of the original EM-5, published here on Ausphotography. Have a search for it if you’re interested. It was a long time ago but it was still largely a great experience for me. I keep a constant lookout for if there is a good op to rejoin m43.
I still think the 75/1.8 is one of the best lenses I’ve used in any format.
And I think the dual IS on the newest models are largely unmatched in other formats too.
With the right lenses, I’m confident m43 should comfortably meet your bar of quality acceptance.

[John King]

Dave, checked out your E-M5 user report. Well done, well balanced.

[arthurking83]

....

However, taking an image at 12,800 and delicate PP will get one a lot further than exposing at 200 and trying to lift it 6 stops in post. I've done this experiment a few times. In the first case, one gets an image, in the second, one gets horrible rubbish.

Neither film nor digital likes severe underexposure ... :(

....

There's enough info available (on the net) to contradict this comment.
Have played with it myself(downloaded the sample files off DPR). Loaded into Nikon's software (and then later, DxO's Photolab software) and it pretty much confirms DPRs findings.

Maybe you should have stuck with Nikon and gone with a D750.
6Ev shadow recovery is easy with minimal PP work to correct the magenta colour cast. 5Ev recovery with none required at all.
That Sony 24Mp sensor is pretty much about the best sensor yet made for any camera.

Another reason I made my comment to Peter re the D610 as an option for a cheap lightweight fullframe sensor.

Full frame smaller camera would be the Sony A7(which also uses that same 24Mp sensor, but stupidly Sony limited it to 11bit RAW capture(Nikons can do 14bit/12bit) so it's recovery/dynamic range wasn't quite as good in Photolab(for me).
Could be Adobe's software does it differently tho(that's what DPR use).

point to note too tho!! The 6Ev recovery referred too above is not a trait of a FF sensor! That is, not all FF sensors can do that, but they do recover a lot more/better/cleaner than smaller sensors for the same tech period.
D800 can't recover 5 Ev(let alone 6Ev!!), but 2-3Ev isn't hard to do.
This is all raw capture tho.
(in camera jpg is a dirty word, and I still strongly urge folks to dismiss it as a settings option! :p)

[John King]

Arthur, I'm old and buggered. I have more health problems than I care to comment on, but spinal osteoarthritis and serious heart problems for starters should give you something to work on ... A camera that I cannot carry all day is completely useless to me! Getting old ain't for sissies, and not much fun. Recently spent 6 days in Epworth Hospital wrt my heart. They still don't know what's causing the current problems. Fortunately, I haven't got endocarditis, my lungs still work and my artificial mitral valve is still firmly in the right place.

A friend has a D3x and 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 twins. I can barely lift the camera with the 70-200 mounted (four years ago ... ). It is a beautiful camera, and beautiful lens. They take beautiful photos, for which he has won international awards. Far too big and heavy for me ...

Olympus have managed to develop in-camera JPEG processing that works pretty well. 2.7:1 compression vs. 4:1 compression from everyone else probably helps, as (possibly) does using different compression algorithms.

I am also impressed with the Olympus CFA. This gives me true to life colours that I often note are missing with other brands. Some people couldn't give a rat's bum about colour accuracy, but I do ... I take lots of photos where I want as close to perfect colour correctness as I can get. I don't want Kodachrome or Fujichrome colours, I want accurate colours.

135 format cameras might be getting smaller in some cases, but the lenses are big, and heavy, and very, very expensive if you want the very good ones.

We are all different, so it's great to have many different choices.


There's enough info available (on the net) to contradict this comment.

And, just BTW, there's enough info available on the Internet to contradict any comment ... :nod: ;) :rolleyes:

[arthurking83]

.... A camera that I cannot carry all day is completely useless to me! Getting old ain't for sissies, and not much fun. ....

I totally get where you're coming from John, but for me not from old age(although I'm not too far off that problem) .. but for me it's more to do with physical issues due to the many accidental encounters over the years.
Wrists knees, ankles .. well apart from one or two bones, I can't remember any that haven't been broken.

But the D750 is 200 grams heavier than an EM1-II ... so the D750 wouldn't be considered a 'camera you couldn't carry all day' in any real sense of the term.

That you choose not to carry one all day, is a totally different mind set, and I think a lot of hyperbole is allowed to propagate on the net with respect to the difference in weight between some gear!

eg. D750 with a typical consumer zoom lens isn't a lot more weight than most similarly designed mirrorless camera with a similar consumer zoom lens.

Where I concern about my long term future is that I can't hold a small bodied camera 'all day' .. and I mean camera in hand all day .. not camera around the neck or over the shoulder all day as most folks tend to do.
I can't do that kind of photography(metaphorically speaking). none of my camera have straps, I don't like them, primarily for the danger they can impose, but more importantly (psychologically for me) is that I prefer the camera to hand at all times.

smaller cameras can't apply tho. D70s was always too small, D300 was OK .. D800 nigh on perfect. I can hold the 1kg all day, that is other than a few mins at a toilet break, camera in hand for about 12+ hours.
No way I could do the same with the D5500 I recently got my daughter to play with. Camera body too small, no GRIP to speak of, and the fact that it's 100g less in weight than an OMD-EM1-II(at 400 gr or so) .. makes no difference to me. I simply can't hold it.
I don't have huge hands. Just my preference.

Funny side story: many moons ago I had the opportunity to shoot a nail into my finger, so I obliged without thinking about it. It's one of my auto modes .. if there's a way to inflict harm to self, I've probably done it! :p
So anyhow, large 4" nail in right index finger(I'm right handed). Hospital thought it best to place my entire left arm in a plaster cast! (for a finger!!).
Cast made camera holding a right PITH(pain in the hand .. literally) not cause of the finger, but of the plaster cast. Couldn't bend my right arm properly to hold camera.
Result was that I cut the cast, and made myself a finger splint out of it's remains. strapped it to finger when not required(ie. showering, dishes and photographizing).

moral: sometimes to achieve our desired outcomes, one simply has to push their own self imposed envelopes just that little bit further.

[swifty]

Dave, checked out your E-M5 user report. Well done, well balanced.

Thanks John. You would’ve seen my two boys. One guy’s diabetic and just about used up his nine lives but not bad for a couple of shelter cats from Newtown.

[John King]

Yes. Showed them to Heather. Our two are litter mates and 18.5 years old now. Doing well apart from the usual kidney problems that afflicts most old cats.

[John King]

I totally get where you're coming from John, but for me not from old age(although I'm not too far off that problem) .. but for me it's more to do with physical issues due to the many accidental encounters over the years.
Wrists knees, ankles .. well apart from one or two bones, I can't remember any that haven't been broken.

Ouch ... :eek:


But the D750 is 200 grams heavier than an EM1-II ... so the D750 wouldn't be considered a 'camera you couldn't carry all day' in any real sense of the term.

200 grams extra, plus the fact that there is simply no lens of the range and quality of the 12-100 made by any other maker, either mFTs or any other. I believe that Olympus classified it as a "statement product" to show that they could do what others had struggled with for years. Even a non-comparable lens (24-105, 24-120 (https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/specifications/)) weighs more than this lens (+100 gms). So that's 300 grams extra, just for that one body/lens. If I am really wanting to travel lighter, I can use my E-M1 MkI kit of body plus 14-42 EZ pancake, 40-150R plus two extra batteries, plus flash at a total of 1240 grams including the Thinktank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag. The 24-70 Nikkor weighs nearly double what my 12-100 weighs ... I am at the point where every gram matters, let alone an extra kilogram. The bare E-M1 MkI plus 14-42 EZ pancake weighs about 500 grams. That is, smaller than most modern fixed lens cameras. The E-M1 MkII is not the heaviest mFTs body, nor the largest (Panasonic G9, GH5, GH5s are all considerably larger and heavier), but there are also smaller options available as well - down to a couple of hundred grams


That you choose not to carry one all day, is a totally different mind set, and I think a lot of hyperbole is allowed to propagate on the net with respect to the difference in weight between some gear!

eg. D750 with a typical consumer zoom lens isn't a lot more weight than most similarly designed mirrorless camera with a similar consumer zoom lens.

That's simply not the case, Arthur. And the D750 is only better if one shoots at less than ISO 200 all the time. Due to lack of really effective IS (VR), and a need for higher shutter speeds in many cases, this advantage tends to vanish in many (most?) circumstances. See the curves here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II) at Bill Claff's site.


Where I concern about my long term future is that I can't hold a small bodied camera 'all day' .. and I mean camera in hand all day .. not camera around the neck or over the shoulder all day as most folks tend to do.
I can't do that kind of photography(metaphorically speaking). none of my camera have straps, I don't like them, primarily for the danger they can impose, but more importantly (psychologically for me) is that I prefer the camera to hand at all times.

Now that I can agree with completely. It has to do with your shooting technique and how a camera suits you, and it.


smaller cameras can't apply tho. D70s was always too small, D300 was OK .. D800 nigh on perfect. I can hold the 1kg all day, that is other than a few mins at a toilet break, camera in hand for about 12+ hours.
No way I could do the same with the D5500 I recently got my daughter to play with. Camera body too small, no GRIP to speak of, and the fact that it's 100g less in weight than an OMD-EM1-II(at 400 gr or so) .. makes no difference to me. I simply can't hold it.
I don't have huge hands. Just my preference.

Funny side story: many moons ago I had the opportunity to shoot a nail into my finger, so I obliged without thinking about it. It's one of my auto modes .. if there's a way to inflict harm to self, I've probably done it! :p
So anyhow, large 4" nail in right index finger(I'm right handed). Hospital thought it best to place my entire left arm in a plaster cast! (for a finger!!).
Cast made camera holding a right PITH(pain in the hand .. literally) not cause of the finger, but of the plaster cast. Couldn't bend my right arm properly to hold camera.
Result was that I cut the cast, and made myself a finger splint out of it's remains. strapped it to finger when not required(ie. showering, dishes and photographizing).

moral: sometimes to achieve our desired outcomes, one simply has to push their own self imposed envelopes just that little bit further.

Unfortunately, I have reached a point where the limitations are forced on me. "pushing them" just lands me in hospital. As you appear to have done, I did a lot of work that was too heavy in my youth. There are good reasons why concrete/cement comes in 40 to the tonne nowadays, rather than the 20 to the tonne sacks I carted around all too frequently in my youth. Same goes for 180 lb. wheat sacks, and many other things.

Funny thing is that we can afford for me to buy a top of the range Hassy, let alone any other camera with a smaller format. Other than in a studio, I see no advantage to using 135 format cameras, and lots of disadvantages (for me). Even in the studio, I can use the high resolution mode of the E-M1 MkII that gives me resolution and noise levels that beat the very best 135 format cameras to a pulp. Look at the comparisons of this mode on DPR - even beats the MF for resolution and noise, with fewer artifacts.

I have chosen the system I chose because it suits me, and what I choose to shoot, very well. I am glad that there are many other cameras and formats out there so that we can all find something that suits each of us.