Low Light Photography & the 4/3 System

[james arnia photography]

Hi There,

 

I am about to make a decision in investing itno a system. My desired 'style' of photography is photojournalisim and

wedding photojournalisim. I intend to invest in a system and play about with it for a year or so and branch out.

 

I currently use a P&S casmera and know I have a lot to learn but I know that I prefer not to use the flash and use the

avaialble light to compose the pictures. I have been doing my research and it seems that the E-Volt system

produces the 'finest' images at low ISO (100 - 800). However, at 800 or above the quality is argued to wane in

comparison to other systems.

 

If you persuse the www.wpja.org you can see what type of photography and style I am aiming towards. I know

these are taken by 'professionals' but we all have to aspire don't we?

 

It seems to me that the vast majority of wedding photographers use Canon or Nikon is the Olympus system capable

of such photography?

 

Would I be wasting my money/time investing in a system that seems to be disadvantaged in low light photography?

 

Does the faster or wider zooms (F/2) equate to compensating for the sensor being smaller thus, in theory, pictures

at an ISO 800 with Olympus equate to another system at 1600?

 

You may ask yourself if I have all these concerns then why not flit off and invest into another system. May answer is

that I feel that the Olympus system has yet to reach it potential and is highly regarded for it lenses which have been

reported to be able to handle up to 20 million megapixels; eventually. However, would I be asking too much?

 

Please be gentle now.

 

Michael

[leandro_dutra1]

Yes, with the Four Thirds systems you can get faster lenses (1:2, even 1:1.4) and get even better low noise performance.

 

And this is what bothers me about whining over Four Thirds: people do not compare real system on their respective price points, size and weight, including lenses.

 

You can compare a Four Thirds system with fast glass against a equivalent system by, say, Cannikon and see what you can get.

[carbon_dragon]

This may be the wrong thing to say in an Olympus group. I'm certain the Olympus lenses are very good. I've used a Pen in the old days but never an Olympus SLR or DSLR. But I think the small sensor may limit you at high ISOs a little and also the size of your enlargements as a professional (which I am not). And it seems to me that the Olympus DSLRs are a little smaller but not that much smaller than the small APS-C sized sensor cameras like the Canon XSi. So I'm not sure what you gain by going to the smaller sensor. In the old days, the Pens were considerably smaller than 35mm. The Olympus SLRs were a bit smaller and the same film size.

 

Plus besides all that, if you go with Nikon or Canon and it turns out you need to rent equipment, I would think it would be easier to find rentals in those marks than in Olympus or Sony or Sigma or any of the others.

[matthew_newton]

I really want to like the 4/3rds system, but I just can't bring myself to. Leandro certainly has some points. Others to consider though is that higher ISO performance is not as good and there are no fast wide angle primes available for the 4/3rds system. The widest high speed lens is a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 lens. Next up would the be Panasonic 25mm f/2 and the Zuiko 14-35mm f/2. Sure f/2 isn't that bad a speed for something that is 28mm equivelent on the wide end (and is very fast for a zoom), but all of the other manufacturers out there have lenses faster then that in the 35mm equivelent and wider. Combined with not being the equal in high ISO performance and Nikon and Canon are going to show at least a 2 stop advantage on the wide end.

[GerrySiegel]

20 million mega pixels and ISO clean as a whistle to 6400 ?. That WOULD be nice. Not just yet, Ace. We all

decide where to compromise-for some it's the bank book that rules. I think you just have to 'decide to decide,'

my two kopeks. Good luck fooling around and don't spend too much while you are trying things out. Such decisions

need not be irrevocable consiodering some of the good kit buys out there. There are rabbit holes to escape if it

doesn't pan out is what I mean to suggest.

[Greg M]

I personally won't buy another aps-c sensor-sized DSLR camera until they can handle the same 39 million pixels as a Phase One P45 medium format digital back....anything less simply won't do!

[godfrey]

I shoot most of my low-light work with the Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 lens at ISO 400-800. The E-1 body does very nicely, as

does the Panasonic L1 body. The E-3 has the potential to do even better, but I haven't felt that I really needed to spend the

money for that yet ... a ZD 14-35/2 would almost certainly give me more bang for the buck.

 

Wedding photography isn't low-light work, however. I know several photographers who've been shooting weddings with the

Olympus E-1 for a while, most of whom are now moving to the E-3.

 

Of course, there are more pro photographers shooting with Nikon and Canon gear. They're the market leaders because of

that. But it doesn't mean that there are not a lot of Olympus pros also.

 

Godfrey

[james arnia photography]

Hi There Folks,

 

Thanks for your answers, advise and views. I must say that I found them very constructive and balanced in comparison to other sites...but I digress.

 

I suppose that as per Gerry's remarks I have to 'decide to decide' and move forward. Ine must not forget that it won't be just down to the camera system that i invest into that makes the final image it will also be me.

 

Godfrey your comments about my understanding of low light photography is correct, my view comes from the fact that they are reports how the 4/3 system seems to hunt more in 'low light' and as i wish to use available light instead I don't want to be in the position when I missing several shots.

 

I will look into the lens combinations mentioned and also play aroind with some cameras and see how they 'feel' and which seems the most comfortable on initial impression.

 

Finally, copyrite considered, does anyone know of have a weblink to a wedding gallery which uses Olympus gear? its just the ones I've seen seem a bit 'point and shooty' in the quality. You see a lot of naute pics with this system but i don't really see a lot of candid journalisimy shots.

 

Michael

[paul_miller10]

Why do people venture opinions on the Internet about equipment they haven't used?

Because Olympus makes such superb f2 and f2.8 lenses, it is not necessary to venture into high ISOs, which is required in systems that do not offer fast lenses.

[james arnia photography]

"Why do people venture opinions on the Internet about equipment they haven't used?"

 

Paul Miller.

 

Because they can....Besides why not? How did you make your decicion on what system you were going to invest in?

 

People learn about things in different ways, I learn from reading and advice before i make a purchase. If I go to a retailer then their opinion can be commercially weighted to bias a certain make or as I have found I seem "know" more about the product I'm querying because.....I've read about it. Forums like these allow you to cut through the BS and get a balanced opinion because the people who contribute have been where i am right now and can offer invaluable advice.

 

I can see that you may have a point and it is understandalble I may come across as a dreamer/troll/time-water but I've been saving, learning and querying for nearly two years now and before I make a jump I want to be sure. . I've learnt about apetures, exposures, crop factors, ISO, off camera flash etc...you've got to start somewhere haven't you?

 

Anyway Paul, thank you for pointing out the lens factor and i will keep that in mind when I make a decision.

[ilkka]

"Because Olympus makes such superb f2 and f2.8 lenses, it is not necessary to venture into high ISOs, which is required in systems that do not offer fast lenses."

 

Just exactly how many f2 lenses does Olympus offer? And exactly what other systems do not offer fast lenses? Last time I looked, the other systems offered a much wider range of fast lenses, and even faster than any Olympus offerings.

[Greg M]

"Finally, copyrite considered, does anyone know of have a weblink to a wedding gallery which uses Olympus gear? its just the ones I've seen seem a bit 'point and shooty' in the quality. You see a lot of naute pics with this system but i don't really see a lot of candid journalisimy shots."....

 

Michael,

 

A pro will take excellent pictures with any equipment they choose to shoot with. People like us won't, no matter how much money you throw at it or what equipment you buy. If you want one, take a look at this post and click on the link below his signature for the website you are looking for...

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26901920

 

It doesn't really matter how many pros you can find that shoot Olympus gear, or how many websites you can dig up of photographers who shoot with Canon gear. In our (and your) hands, that same equipment is not going to produce the same type image. That's why they can make a go at being a "pro" and we (and probably you) cannot.

[Greg M]

Here's one other cool website. No wedding photographers that I can see, but plenty of photojournalist-type work to go through that more than well enough shows what the system is capable of.....in the right hands...

 

http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/gallery_e/

[ham_london]

There is another big difference with the E-system - the size. Now you may want to get an E3 and shoot on that all

the time, but the E520/420 cameras are SO compact compared to Canon Nikon, the benefit should not be

underestimated. Plus, with body based IS you can always shoot a few stops more than without, I think the low

light noise is actually a non-issue. Far more significant was the autofocus which has been sorted on the E3 and

much improved on the E520.<p>

 

I'm no wildlife photographer but these - <a

href="http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/londondailyphoto/BrtitshWildlifeCentre">http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/londondailyphoto/BrtitshWildlifeCentre

</a>I took on a photo day using the E500 & E510 with kit lenses and the Sigma 55-200 ﾣ90 lens. I was moving

around easily with all my gear - everyone else on the shoot had huge bags to cart around. Even the bigger glass

(like the 12-60 I have now) doesn't make that much difference.<p>Ham

[james arnia photography]

Thanks Greg...much appreciated.

 

I will now peruse, ponder and decide.

 

Michael

[godfrey]

<i>.."Godfrey your comments about my understanding of low light photography is correct, my view comes from the fact

that they are reports how the 4/3 system seems to hunt more in 'low light' and as i wish to use available light instead I

don't want to be in the position when I missing several shots." ..</i>

<br><br>

In very low light, when the AF on either E-1 or L1 (or Pentax K10D) is hunting and failing to lock in accurately, I just turn

off AF and focus manually. AF is not infallible on any camera ... I've had it do the same on the top line Nikons and

Canons in some circumstances ... and low-light conditions with a lot of specular reflections is a prime case for when it is

stressed to the limits. IMO, few AF systems from any manufacturer have the accuracy to critically focus an f/1.4 or f/2

lens in very low light. My eye does better: when working with camera on tripod and static subject matter, I often carry a

flashlight for spot illumination so that I can set the focusing accurately.

<br><br>

The Olympus E-3's focusing system is much enhanced from the E-1 model, albeit rather more complex in its options ...

which in turn seems to trip people up more than the low light focusing issues with other Olympus models, from what I

read. As Robert Heinlein wrote long ago, "TANSTAAFL" ... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[mukul_dube]

My E-300 is barely tolerable at 800 and quite impossible at 1600. However, I understand that recent models such as the E-3 and the E-510 have improved high ISO performance. Couple a fast lens with one of those and you are set.

[Greg M]

I took my E300 to Paris back in 2006....only stretched to ISO 800 once or twice when there was absolutely no other choice, but today's models are much different. I've had no issue whatsoever using my E510 all the way up to ISO 1600, like in this entire series shot with the 40-150 kit lens..

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4524549_u7KVS#266413216_j2WZZ

 

or here where I started at ISO 400, elevated it to 800 and finally when all that was lest was artificial light, ISO 1600..

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/5068244_r4TMH#305173225_HJ5bC

 

I still have my E1 and E300 bodies but never use 'em...take one or the other as a backup when needed, just in case something happens to the E510.

[rcmphotography]

I am using a E500, with the two lenses that were packaged with the kit. The smaller lens is a Zukio 14-45mm 1:3.5-5.6, the other is a 40-150mm 1:3.5-4.5. Are these standard lenses really any good? I've been reading up on all the forums about Olympus and the lens options, and I would believe that if a camera company wants your business, they would give quality lenses with the camera you buy. I went to an arena football game a few days ago, and I used the 40-150mm lens for all of the photos I shot. Unfortunately, I had the ISO set at 1600, and I got way too much noise in the photos, but overall I am happy with the performance of the camera..