ISO still the weakess of MFT Format

<p>Laurentui, you obviously use your camera differently from me. This does not mean I have less understanding than you. I find your approach strange, but I am a different person with different photographic goals. I can assure you, Street shooters have very specific needs and I feel vindicated time and time again in my view that it is more demanding of equipment than most others. You seem to work with a very low ISO. That is fine. Many in the SP world often work in the opposite way, choosing the highest ISO they can get away with and stopping down as much as they can while maintaining a fast shutter speed. Only a few hours ago I was in a pool hall at f/1.4 and <em>still</em> had to select ISO 2,000. The increased DoF in MFT is an advantage in SP. But I am far more interested in intelligent, fast metering, fast AF and atmospheric noise than colour depth, for example. SP opportunities can arise and be gone in mere seconds. My camera has to be able to react and produce pleasing images in all conditions. Often the best shots take you unawares or are in the most outlandish of places; outside a pub, in the corner of a nightclub or seen out of the corner of your eye. I took this shot on one leg with my back twisted, head behind me, without looking at a screen or VF. The one thing I would change about the GX7 is the OVF and the tilting screen. I don't need either of these. I need a camera which works fast and which I cannot blame when I get it wrong </p>

<p>this image has not been straightened. It ws one of my first succesful "hipshots".</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"The increased DoF in MFT is an advantage in SP."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. That's why I still use an older Ricoh GX100 for some candid pix in public. Even wide open the DOF and apparent sharpness are adequate. And the camera is very quick in snap focus mode or with manual focus preset to the desired zone.<br>

<br>

And I find the Sony one-inch or Nikon CX sensor nearly ideal for my preferences in street snaps. I prefer more DOF, not less. I'm not a bokeh addict. This sensor size offers a good compromise between the DOF advantages of the 1/1.7" and smaller sensor, and the IQ of the MFT sensor.<br>

<br>

I see great street pix from folks who use more selective focus and more careful composition, and they make excellent use of APS and full frame cameras.<br>

<br>

I'm just not sure I'd see the same benefit considering my preference for snapping pix very quickly and spontaneously. The Micro 4:3 is probably the largest sensor that would suit my preferences. I really like the idea of the Olympus models with integral EVF, particularly the sensor based stabilization. But they're a bit out of my budget at the moment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Only a few hours ago I was in a pool hall at f/1.4 and <em>still</em>had to select ISO 2,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I get it - and if f/1.4 would be the fastest aperture I could use on MFT, I'd also look at APS-C as a better option. But the lens that drew me to MFT was the Voigtlander 25/0.95. With f/0.95 available, I rarely have to go over 1600 and when I do it, it would be in situations where you'd have to go over 3200 on APS-C at f/1.4. This is what I am talking about when I keep mentioning <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2010/05/lens-equivalence.html">equivalence</a> and "getting the same result at lower ISO with faster apertures". Now, of course, the lenses I use are MF and are thus not for everyone. But they're what sold the MFT system to me - if they would have been made for Fuji instead, that is probably what I would have been using now. And I'm well aware that YMMV - I am just exchanging impressions and experience - I am not trying to convince you that what works for me should work for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>this image has not been straightened. It ws one of my first succesful "hipshots".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a very nice image, but it is an ISO 250 image and we are discussing challenging situations requiring higher ISO. I would be more interested in seeing your ISO 2000 result at f/1.4 - how reliable do you find autofocus with such wide apertures in such low light?<br>

<br>

With people shots I strive to get the eyes in focus and these wide apertures make it fairly obvious when you miss the focus. Face detection might help in mirrorless cameras, but I see it failing even at f/2.8-f/4 so I wonder whether AF is really an advantage for faster lenses. I don't have any fast AF lens now - I used to have a Pentax f/1.4 but I sold it after I moved to MFT (and I was mostly manually focusing it even on Pentax).<br>

<br>

And yes, I don't do street photography although it is one of my favorite genres next to portraiture (I know you cannot tell that from looking at my output, but I shoot what I can, not what I'd be interested to do - due to time constraints). But I do have a kid that provides me with plenty of challenges for acquiring focus as she moves around and tries to avoid me taking her picture. And since I don't use a flash and I often shoot indoors or in other light-poor venues where kid anniversaries are being held, I run into available light issues as much as any other photographer. I even have to try to take her photo without getting noticed because she rarely wants me to, although I do have a major advantage over street photographers in that I can stalk my subject without concern.<br>

<br>

Bottom line is - even if I don't engage in your kind of photography, I can understand its challenges, especially if you provide me with examples. I've tried my hand at a lot of situations exactly so I could understand the challenges of each situation. For example, I use long lenses for nature and wildlife shots, but I have little interest in wildlife shots - I just like the challenge of using long lenses handheld. I also got in situations where even ISO 6400 was not good enough, but the thing is that in those situations I couldn't get a good shot (i.e. good composition) anyway, so I didn't even get to the point where I would have any concern about noise. Noise is actually not bothering me at high ISO on modern sensors - it is the drop of DR and color depth that leads to less vibrant images that is the reason I try to avoid high ISO settings. And that happens for all formats - 1 stop difference more or less is not as much of a big deal, all other things being equal.<br>

<br>

Here are a few shots that go above my usual ISO 800 limit:<br>

<br>

<strong>ISO 1600, f/0.95-1.4 (can't remember exact f-stop, but it was in this range), 1/5:</strong><br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8243794164/"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8243794164_e698f61311.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a><br /><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 3200, f/2, 0.62:</strong><br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8236215603/"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8210/8236215603_b24365b466.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="371" /></a><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 25,600, f/4 (kit lens at Disneyland), 1/25:</strong><br>

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7368/8885905159_094f02ef17.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>The last image is visibly noisy - I kept this and a few other shots just to have some samples at ISO 25,600. You may see some blur in it - I was in a ride and the Queen was also moving her arms. But if the subject matter would have been more interesting, I don't think the noise would have been the deal breaker. The drop in color depth is more obvious though.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And what this means is that you can match the high ISO results of larger formats but you cannot match their <strong>low ISO</strong> results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This actually makes a lot of sense and I think for the first time I actually understand what has been troubling me about MFT as a format and the results I have been getting. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of Olympus and MFT but I could never understand why I was more than happy with the low light results I was getting with MFT, eg indoor shooting of people in available light, compared to larger formats, yet what I find lacking is IQ for lanscape shots at base ISO.<br>

Basically the larger formats at base ISO and stopped down deliver better IQ than MFT, but faster lenses, greater DoF, and IBIS means that MFT can match the larger formats once you need to start bumping the ISO up.</p>

That's fair comment Laurentui. The reason my snap was taken at 250 was because at that point I had not spoken to many other SPers, so I was bacisally trying to do SP with guidelines taken from static-subject photography. Very stupid I know. I do use AF, if I can get away with it I'll use pinpoint AF, which is really quite quick but also change to sinlge point AF. If I'm in a crowded but well-lit environment I'll go to zone focus and if everything comes together perfectly I'll pre-focus using HFD. AF is very important to me as I;m trying to get the best out of my gear and, as I'm sure most of you know, like crisp, clean SP if at all possible.<div></div>

<p><strong>@Geoff:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>yet what I find lacking is IQ for lanscape shots at base ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's one aspect that smaller sensors cannot work around (the other being the resolution). It's also the only justification I see for the new Pentax 645Z - a FF camera is a better all around tool, but for those that absolutely need the best IQ at ISO 100 or that need to make really large prints, the 645Z provides a step up.<br /> <br /> <strong>@Stephen:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason my snap was taken at 250</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a very nice image and to clarify: my comment was not meant to question your choice of ISO for that situation.<br /> <br /> Since I mentioned the trials of photographing my daughter, here is a shot I got at one of those kid indoor playground places where anniversaries are being held:<br>

<br /> <strong>ISO 800, f/0.95, 1/160:</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/13319891053/"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3763/13319891053_837201bdf5.jpg" alt="" width="376" height="500" /></a><br /><br /> It looks well lit, but that's because I exposed for her face. The hardest part for me at these events is getting a clear shot - I can focus fairly reliably now, but keeping other kids out of the frame is difficult - even this is slightly cropped to eliminate an elbow from the right side.<br /> <br /> Getting clean compositions of people that are not posing is the aspect I find most challenging. You have little control in these situations and it's often a matter of luck.<br /> <br /> As I mentioned, I don't get to do street photography, but I tried my hand at photographing some people at public events. These are not low light anymore though:<br /> <br /> A snap, unposed - glad again to have got no background distractions:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10524112823"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5508/10524112823_7d305b60f8.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p>For the next one, I asked the couple for permission:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10657541245"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/10657541245_fc754ee2a3.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Great MF work on the shot of your daughter!<br>

SP is worth all the effort and embarassment and practice, for myself at least. I l ove capturing a moment. Though taken with a kit lens, this is one of my faves from my own Portfolio. </p><div></div>

With the Olympus E-Mi and Panasonic VR 12-35 as my standard package kit I have finally decided I can trust AUTO ISO to make an acceptable shot. A lot of my satisfaction comes from not losing sharpness from wiggling the camera (which gives me some f stop latitude). I do not make blowups anymore for my typical work but I have no problem with the JPEGs going to what my printer can handle. In low light,the historical problem has been getting focus with slow lenses...slow in F stop I mean. Older lenses and focus methods ( don't ask me to explain the two kinds, but I get the gist) a larger. ie smaller number open basic aperture helps. I rarely shoot below 5.6, or F 4.o in MFT and am satisfied with DOF control. The MFT does fine for me. There is a trade off with anything larger, in lens diameter and size, and a real trade off with small P and S sensors....but not as much as handheld phone users seem to care about. So it boils down to compromise. I used to love a 6X 6 transparency but a Bronica SQA with 150 lens had its downsides.....auto ISO is a liberation. And a miracle of sorts. My take on tradeoffing......gs

 

As to noise, well I am the last person to be bothered by this artifact because I have not really searched for and noticed it at 800 or 1600 and that is sensitive enough for me. I remember using a tool to look at negs for grain....memories, memories....... I also own a couple electronic flashes . That I use with discretion. To augment the gook old sun. (Where I leave my coffin daily and still prevail.).lol. And I love tripods. Good ones, good ball head too....another methodology when I can get away with it. Oh yes, a monopod works too....

 

Some might argue that since I shoot ONLY JPEGs I am not fussy out of the starting gate....guilty as charged!

 

<blockquote>

<p>Great MF work on the shot of your daughter!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />SP is worth all the effort and embarassment and practice, for myself at least. I l ove capturing a moment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I would get the time to work on this, my interest would be in capturing attitudes/habits that will disappear in the near future. One of the things that attracted me to Brassai's photos, for example, is that they depict a world that is gone. People don't dress and look like that anymore.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Though taken with a kit lens, this is one of my faves from my own Portfolio.</p>

</blockquote>

Good title and DOF for the scene.

 

Interesting faces draw, me even when I only have a couple minutes to say "look this way, please." So it is a kind of street work. Dark shadow and backlight is a challenge but a small adjustment in PS can pull detail out from under a hat for this landscape worker to open his eyes, one who spends his life in the tropical sun for his livelihood.<div></div>

<p>I don't know what is "best" in terms of sensors, but I do get quite usable photos at ISO 3200 shooting raw with the Gx7 maybe not as good as my ff D700 at 3200, but still decent enough. I wouldn't go above that though.</p>

<p>With the GX1 using Silkypics I didn't find any advantage in shooting RAW. I think I'll be waiting for the GX7 successor in a year or so to upgrade but plan on getting the Leica 42.5/1.2 before then</p>

<p>Silkypix isn't the worst raw converter I've tried, but it's not as intuitive as Lightroom and it's trickier to get comparable results.</p>

<p>But so far I've used two versions of Silkypix for only a week, mostly on Fuji X-A1 raw files. Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 6 is so painfully slow on my machines I'll never use it again. If I hadn't tried the version that came with the Fuji I'd have mistakenly assumed all versions of Silkypix were sluggish. But the version of Silkypix included with Fuji X-cameras is pretty good. Still not as good as Lightroom, though.</p>

<p>Often it's hard to beat the in-camera JPEGs provided by the camera manufacturers. That's one reason I usually recommend Olympus as the first choice for friends who want a "real" camera as a step up from their cell phones. Olympus JPEGs look great right out of the camera (noise smoothing seems a bit much to me, but most folks don't notice or care). And Olympus, Ricoh, Fuji and others often have some secret sauce that they won't share with programmers of raw converters. It takes a lot of fiddling with raw files to beat the Ricoh GRD4 in-camera JPEGs, and so far I can't even equal Fuji's X-A1 in-camera JPEGs, let alone improve on them via raw files in Lightroom, Silkypix, Photo Ninja, etc. I just wish Fuji would port the in-camera raw converter over to PC and Mac so we can output the same quality results to TIFF rather than JPEG.</p>