Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: FrankG on February 11, 2016, 09:23:40 am
-
I love my Panasonic GX7 (touchscreen, silent, flip screen & vf, menus etc) but am stumped by m4/3 noise (& puny image stabilisation). Is noise better on any other m4/3 camera? Other wise I have to sell up kit (20mm, 43mm & oly 75mm) & return to a larger sensor boo hoo
I thought I should clear up a few things after receiving a pm - Most people would Not find the noise very objectionable. I want to almost double the pixel dimension (ACR up-sizing) to enable good 15x20 prints. So even tiny under exposure or lifting of shadows results in noise. Which can of course be treated with the Noise reduction slider but at a softening / mushy price. I come from a full frame background so am after the smoothest most noiseless possible results
I shoot mostly 400 iso and sometimes 200 or 800. Never more than 1600.
-
I love my Panasonic GX7 (touchscreen, silent, flip screen & vf, menus etc) but am stumped by m4/3 noise (& puny image stabilisation). Is noise better on any other m4/3 camera? Other wise I have to sell up kit (20mm, 43mm & oly 75mm) & return to a larger sensor boo hoo
I thought I should clear up a few things after receiving a pm - Most people would not find the noise very objectionable. I want to almost double the pixel dimension (ACR re-sizing) to enable good 16x20 prints. So even tiny under exposure or lifting of shadows results in noise. Which can of course be treated with the Noise reduction slider but at a softening / mushy price. I come from a full frame background so am after the smoothest most noiseless possible results
if you check how you expose in raw with rawdigger (or even fastrawviewer) and you expose (saturate sensor) proprely then nothing can be done... above deep shadows there is no replacement for displacement and sensor size matters (when adjusted to the same mp) and in deep shadows even noisier (noisier than Sony/Panasonic in m43) sensors from Canon will improve with the higher gain to match
-
stumped by m4/3 ... puny image stabilisation
if you are talking about __IBIS__ then Panasonic only recently ventured into that area... try something form Olympus.
-
I mostly like my GX7 a lot, but really don't expect to make 16x20 prints unless there's a lucky conjunction of subject, light, and technique (and of course silent shutter or mechanical shutter less than 1/60 or greater than 1/320)- if I really want big prints I shoot the 5D3.
the GX7 IS is maybe good for one stop which doesn't bother me too much as I mostly use the 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 which have IS that is only slightly less effective than the latest Canon IS.
I haven't done a test, but from what I've read (and my experience with crop frame cameras) I doubt the new 20mpx sensor in the GX8 and forthcoming Olympus cameras will produce what you or I would like to see in a 16x20 print - and at the present level of technology I don't really expect to see it from anything less than full frame either.
-
Thanks. Yes I agree that if exposure, focus et al are all perfect then the file looks good. It's very unforgiving.
I also agree that the 5d3 is obviously better for large prints. But of course you don't necessarily know that you're going to want a big print beforehand.
I'm not sure what you mean by "silent shutter or mechanical shutter less than 1/60 or greater than 1/320" - please elaborate
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "silent shutter or mechanical shutter less than 1/60 or greater than 1/320" - please elaborate
he is apparently alluding to the absence of EFCS and hence - shutter shock
-
the loss of sharpness between 1/60 and 1/250 (or 1/320 for safety) from shutter shock is very noticeable even at normal focal lengths with the mechanical shutter on all interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. I believe the GX7 electronic shutter drops a couple bits (what's really going on seems to be well hidden) contributing to the fragility of the electronic shutter files. The GX8 has a work-around to automatically select electronic shutter in this range. Olympus and Sony (on newer cameras0 have electronic first curtain which I think retains full bit depth.
the camera manufacturers have gone to great lengths to remain silent on this issue
-
I have never heard of this but if true could explain mysteriously soft results.
Let me get this straight - on my GX7 when I use the regular mechanical shutter (not silent electronic) at speeds between 1/60 and 1/250th there is loss of sharpness ?
Below 1/60th and above 1/320th this is not true?
And in silent mode (electronic shutter) it is soft for a different 'unknown' reason and at the same shutter speeds or all ?
Really? This is nuts.
Please elaborate further.
-
Please elaborate further.
for example an illustrated example = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827
-
at speeds between 1/60 and 1/250th there is loss of sharpness ?
might be - it is up to you to test, because that depends on many variables - for example including lens mounted, etc... but generally shutter shock is affecting approximately that range due to the duration of its effects.
shutter shock is an established phenomena, that's why EFCS exists
-
might be - it is up to you to test, because that depends on many variables - for example including lens mounted, etc... but generally shutter shock is affecting approximately that range due to the duration of its effects.
shutter shock is an established phenomena, that's why EFCS exists
I have a GH4, and get spectacular 4K screen grabs, but any stills are pretty yucky. I never understood why, and now simply do a moment of video rather than a still. Shutter shock might explain the problem. I have the stabilised 12-35 which is VERY sharp, worth what it costs.
I'm not sure that big prints are within the ability of this camera, I'd say about A3 is the limit
Edmund
-
I love my Panasonic GX7 (touchscreen, silent, flip screen & vf, menus etc) but am stumped by m4/3 noise (& puny image stabilisation). Is noise better on any other m4/3 camera? Other wise I have to sell up kit (20mm, 43mm & oly 75mm) & return to a larger sensor boo hoo
I thought I should clear up a few things after receiving a pm - Most people would Not find the noise very objectionable. I want to almost double the pixel dimension (ACR up-sizing) to enable good 15x20 prints. So even tiny under exposure or lifting of shadows results in noise. Which can of course be treated with the Noise reduction slider but at a softening / mushy price. I come from a full frame background so am after the smoothest most noiseless possible results
I shoot mostly 400 iso and sometimes 200 or 800. Never more than 1600.
If you're referring to objectionable noise at 15x20 print size, I simply don't see this in my GH4 prints uprezzed to 300ppi for my iPF5100 printer. I do frequently use a low degree of NR in my ACR files where I size and sharpen the images also, but see no significant softening at the resulting ~33% print size view on my 24" 94ppi HD screen after output sharpening. 100% viewed print files @ 300 or 360ppi are another matter, though!
You do have to be careful with the clarity filter, and RAW sharpening without an appropriate masking level to avoid smooth area noise - my default is 60, but at higher ISO's I'll push it to 85 while increasing the sharpening amount level. In more difficult areas- eg pushed shadows - I'll use the adjustment brush with targeted NR.
The images below, sized to display at 15x20 on my monitor, range from two GH4 images @ ISO 5000 in the 1st, 400 in the 2nd, and the 3rd, years ago taken with an 4/3 Oly E-30, renowned for shadow noise, @ 800.
Pete
-
I have a GH4, and get spectacular 4K screen grabs, but any stills are pretty yucky. I never understood why, and now simply do a moment of video rather than a still. Shutter shock might explain the problem. I have the stabilised 12-35 which is VERY sharp, worth what it costs.
I'm not sure that big prints are within the ability of this camera, I'd say about A3 is the limit
Edmund
Wow, Edmund, that sure runs counter to my experience with the GH4 and it's three fore-bearers, with great A2 prints even from the 12MP GH1 (whose RAW res. measured by DPRev at the time exceeded all 16MP Canikon sensors measured, including FF's!). My go-to lens for years has been the heavy, clunky, but exceedingly good adapted 4/3 Pana-Leica 14-150, but I recently got the 12-35/2.8 primarily for video, but very good for stills, just a limited range.
While I love the many 8-bit 4K captures I've done, 12x16 (in Photo 4K mode) seems pretty much the limit for these. Shot from the same vantage point the 14-bit RAW stills are clearly better and more malleable in PP, but the 4K's captured in ~10MB bmp files are still pretty good here.
Can you elaborate on the "yucky" factor in your stills?
Pete
-
might be - it is up to you to test, because that depends on many variables - for example including lens mounted, etc... but generally shutter shock is affecting approximately that range due to the duration of its effects.
shutter shock is an established phenomena, that's why EFCS exists
I will certainly try & test. I cant find EFCS in my GX7 menu.
So, if I understand correctly, avoiding that 'shutter shock' range of shutter speeds in Mechanical mode is a toss up vs the loss of data 'bits' using the Electronic shutter ? What are experienced GX7 users opting for?
-
Noise is a funny topic. I still own a 5DkII, and also own a phase one back. My main setup now is an Olympus E-M1. There is a slight...not noise...but texture, very slight at all ISOs. This a m43 thing. However, real noise is very minimal. Even up to 5000 ISO. I have printed to 30" with no problem, even from ISO 5000 and i get excellent results. Upsized, and non- upsized. It's a matter of careful prep. I do very different sharpening with the E-M1 than with other cameras. I do much less. That being said, if you are upsizing, I highly recommend Alien Skin Blow Up as the means of resizing. It is much better than photoshop or ACR in my opinion if you need large prints.
I did a shoot for a client the other day that has a lot of moderately dark areas, and then selectively lit sections. ISO 400 was used with a 1/4 second ambient exposure to get the mood before the strobes came in. You won't believe how much noise is in the photo...and this is a full frame DSLR. I can get excellent clean results even from high ISO on m43. Again, this is pixel peeping. This is noise that won't even show up in a print. And if it does...the viewer is a bit too close for the size.
M43 can fully deliver however. E-M5 was the first generation that was decent however. Everything before that was a bit hard to live with. All the latest stuff is excellent though. Especially with the good glass.
-
Well there's noise and then there's processing artifacts. I was never bothered by noise in deep shadows with the E-5 or the E-M5, but if I tried to lift those shadows using PS or LR, things would get blotchy pretty fast and even a lot of noise reduction couldn't overcome it.
(But I run into the same problem with the D800E when I start doing heavy shadow lifting, it just comes on more slowly.)
-
the GX7 has an entirely electronic shutter option - electronic shutter - which is also switched on when you select silent shooting (it doesn't have electronic first curtain)
I don't notice see loss of resolution from the electronic shutter (even in comparative resolution tests) - more like a subtle loss of dynamic range, "fragile" files. The other issue is "jello" effect shooting fast moving subjects, so I've set up a custom function with manual shutter at 1/400 action shots.
The latest versions of Lightroom (and probably other editing programs) have very good noise reduction and sharpening tools and local editing options that can really improve print output (with experience) - but there's still a print size limit that will depend on a whole lot of factors including personal judgment and viewing distance - and the size limit (all other things being equal) is probably no more than half that of full frame.
-
Thanks Stever.
I have experimented with the Electronic shutter (love it's silent operation). Any fast moving subject for example, a vehicle, or bicycle, or child running, is a disaster. Perhaps a person walking would be ok. I was not aware until your first post that the Mechanical shutter, when set between 125th and 320th, could result in a 'softer' image due to 'shutter shock'. I will try to limit it's use to 1/400th & above or below 1/125th. I assume it's ok to keep Image Stabilisation on in the menu? I have the Panasonic 42.5mm/1.7 which has built in OIS and wonder if this could aggravate the problem?
Anything I can do to tweak IQ is welcome.
-
I have been shooting a GH2 for over four years and recently upgraded to a G7. I've never been concerned with shutter shock in either camera. (Not much of an option with the GH2!). I took some quick shots with the G7 at speeds from 1/30 to 1/400 and have compared them in Lr. As you can see from the image below, the 1/125 shot is actually very slightly sharper than the 1/400 shot, which is probably due to the fact that the 1/125 shot is at f5.0 and the 1/400 is at f2.8. I think this shutter shock issue is greatly over stated.
As for the noise, I believe the G7 uses the same imager as the GX7, so it should be comparable. I've attached two screen grabs of the same photo. One is at 100% resolution and the other is full frame in Lr. The shot was shot at ISO800. I pulled up the shadows slider in Lr to deliberately increase noise as much as I could - I don't think it is too bad. I would agree that the sharpness in this image is a bit weak, but then this is the 14-140 lens at the long end - it's not a lens noted for great sharpness at the extremes. I certainly would not consider this too much grain at normal shadows levels and I don't think it would be unusable with the shadows pulled 100%. But then I don't print to 16 x 20 and your standards may be higher than mine.
I think the M4/3 is a very practical format, but as in every compromise you have to give up something to get something. What your are willing to give up depends on your needs.
-
I have been shooting a GH2
if I remember correctly GH2 has 1/160s x-sync which makes the shock less vs faster moving blades (1/250s x-sync) of modern m43 cameras
-
the Panasonic OIS works very well hand-holding. the shutter shock vibration is higher frequency than what the OIS deals with and in my experience it is not made any better (or worse) by the lens stabilization.
for landscapes I've had good results stitching from hand held (in adequate light) and on tripod to get files for larger prints. as far as I can tell, the shutter shock has pretty much the same effect hand-held and on tripod. I'm not sure if the Panasonic OIS really needs to be turned off on a tripod, but I do to be safe.
I'm not sure that shots from the 14-140 prove too much - the resolution of this lens is well below the capability of the sensor
-
Have you actually done any side by side comparison pictures using the Electronic and Mechanical shutter options, to see if in fact there is any IQ (focus, noise...) differences within the 1/60th to 1/320th sec shutter speed range?
-
I used Imatest resolution target and software to compare es and ms - a time consuming process.
I've used Imatest to compare several Canon Cameras with a fair number of lenses over the last 6 years. When operating outside the range of shutter shock, the GX7 resolution is very comparable to that of the Canon 7D with equivalent quality/price lenses
-
Frank, I am baffled by your title, attributing your problems to M43. Why did you ascribe your problems to M43? What is the evidence for that?
I use Olympus E-M1 and E-M5ii and I do not typically notice noise in my shots. I am shooting raw, exposing to the right, relying on the histogram and highlight tests I have conducted. I have printed many excellent 16x20 inch prints and I am sure I could go larger but for my 17 inch printer. I am very fussy and I consider the sharpness and lack of noise to be better than the best prints I made with the same printer, my 5Dii and L lenses. Most of my photos are landscape and nature, from a tripod. Are you shooting raw? Do you use a tripod? How do you focus? How do you expose your pictures? Notice that none of these questions refer to M43.
Why did you ascribe your problems to M43? What is the evidence for that?
-
@stever
Thank you for sharing your experiments to find that the Electronic shutter should be used on the gx7 between 1/60 and 1/320 (is that correct range ?).
And it's ok leave ibis on? Also ok to leave on if IS is built into the lens?
@nma
I attributed it to the smaller sensor because I have used FF, APS without seeing the same 'grain/noise issue'.
I have to really massage the raw file in ACR (or Lr).
To paraphrase someone on a different thread/forum -" a slightly 'dirty' look in the shadows, a pointillist dotting of noise, gritty and charcoalish. This noise is far more visible when the shadows are pushed."
I am interested to learn your ACR / Lr capture sharpening and other workflow & do you enlarge the raw file to 15x20, or do it in PS
-
Frank, I seriously doubt that the mechanical shutter is the source of your woes. I just took six shots with my G7, tripod mounted, stabilization off at speeds of 1/20, 1/125, 1/400. Each speed was with the mechanical shutter and the electronic shutter. If I had not written which shutter was used into the keywords, you would never be able to tell the images apart, even at 300% viewing.
It may be that Olympus has a real problem with shutter shock and it may be that you can see some shutter shock in Panasonic cameras using test gear more sophisticated than what I can create on a bench and tripod, but in actual photographs, there is no difference. Put your camera on a tripod and run a series of test to prove it to yourself.
As for the noise and image quality problems you are having. Use the attached image as a reference. This is a shot taken with the GH2 in 16:9 framing at ISO160, f6.3, 1/250, hand held, OIS on. This had already been converted to black and white but is still a .dng file. The attached image is a scan of a printed crop from a 20 x 10 print. This is my procedure for creating this:
- Import the file into Ps and resize to print size (20 x 10) at 360dpi.
- Apply an output sharpening action based on Jeff Schewe’s process described in his book, The Digital Print, page 123.
- Apply a custom color curve required to print UT-14, black only ink, on glossy paper. (This is not required for color prints or matte paper.)
- Printed on an Epson 1400 with the high speed box unchecked.
- The print is a 5.5” x 8.5” cut out of the full 20 x 10 image using the Ps settings to take a section of the full image and to not scale it.
- The scan of the print was created at 600dpi so it will be much larger than the print when viewed at 100%.
The scan attached has considerably higher contrast than the actual print and I think it has lost some sharpness, especially in the distant buildings, compared to the print. Since the scan is at 600dpi it should be viewed at 16% (on a 96dpi screen) to get the most realistic sense of what the print looks like.
I do not think there is any noise in the print, let alone too much. As for clarity, it is sharp even if you pixel peep it. If you can’t get your images to this level of IQ, I suspect there is something else wrong in your process. If you are getting images this good but are still unsatisfied, then I think you will need to trade in your GX7 for a full frame camera.
-
yes, 1/60-1/320 (it's my understanding that this is the range that the GX8 will automatically switch to ES if so configured with the latest firmware upgrade).
the GX7 automatically turns the ibis off when using OIS lenses
you may not have downloaded the in-depth instruction manual, there's lots of information buried in there that isn't included in the printed manual - if you're patient
-
1/60 through 1/320 is the range that the G7 will switch to the electronic shutter when in auto mode. There is no explanation of why this is in the manual.
-
@Remo. Thanks for taking the trouble to scan and attach an image. Yes it looks decent at 16% maybe 25 max but no more. It's hard for me to learn from or relate this b/w to my own images. Oranges and apples.
I think I'd have to see a dark or shadowed 100% portion of a col GX7 Raw file with settings to be able to compare.
As I said earlier - "a slightly 'dirty' look in the shadows, a pointillist dotting of noise, .... This noise is far more visible when the shadows are pushed." Your image starts to get like that when viewed higher than 16-25 %
You also refute that there may be image degradation when using the Mechanical shutter between 1/60th and 1/320th. Yet stever has done some extensive tests to confirm this.
@stever. I know that the camera switches over to the lens based IS when attaching a lens with built in OIS. But there is still the menu option to turn it all Off. If the lens IS operation somehow interferes. But I'll take it that there is no issue with it, either in body or in lens, and just leave it on.
-
Frank:
When you look at the scan, don't base anything on what you get above 16%. Any level above that you are looking at the PRINT grain magnified, not any actual noise in the image. I still think this shutter shock is a red herring. It may exist, but it is not the cause of your problems. Can you take some photos and post them as .dngs somewhere and send a link to download them from? I'd like to have a look a them and see exactly what you are seeing.
-
stever
is there any reason not to just leave the GX7 on Electronic shutter permanently, even for speeds below 1/60 or above 1/320?
Unless of course you want to stop the action and avoid rolling shutter effect
-
@nma
I attributed it to the smaller sensor because I have used FF, APS without seeing the same 'grain/noise issue'.
I have to really massage the raw file in ACR (or Lr).
To paraphrase someone on a different thread/forum -" a slightly 'dirty' look in the shadows, a pointillist dotting of noise, gritty and charcoalish. This noise is far more visible when the shadows are pushed."
I am interested to learn your ACR / Lr capture sharpening and other workflow & do you enlarge the raw file to 15x20, or do it in PS
Hi Frank,
I have not done anything special in my printing of Oly E-M1, M5ii files. I use LR to prepare the files. In cases where the dynamic range is extreme I use the HDR features to capture the image and prepare a master image file. I use LR soft proofing to prepare a print file but no interpolation. I let LR do the resampling without my supervision. Most of my work (color and BW) is on smooth matte papers, such as Epson Hot Press.
As a note, I would emphasize that I work off of a tripod most of the time. The Oly HDR features and now focus stacking lend themselves very well to this. I have tested the highlight recovery of raw exposure and usually bias my exposure +1 stop. My final exposures are also based on in-the-field pre-checks of the live histogram and examination of the post exposure in-camera jpg histogram. Very seldom do I get an exposure with noisy shadows. I use ISO 200 preferentially but also ISOs up to 1600 as dictated by conditions. It is fair to say that my techniques would be harder to apply in street or wildlife photography.
-
Frank, you certainly can leave the electronic shutter on - it may even be preferable. It is smooth and quiet. Just remember that the camera won't work with a flash unless you switch it back to mechanical shutter.
FYI, if you turn on silent operation, you can't shut off the electronic shutter until you find the silent operation setting, which is the C-wrench group, and turn it off. Then you can go back to the camera group and switch to the mechanical shutter. Kind of a hassle if you forget it - don't ask me how I know!
-
I use the GX7 to do 'street photography' and family pictures of fast moving kids. It's a very quick 'shoot from the hip' style. See my website. I bought GX7 expressly for the purpose 'cos my 5d is too big, obtrusive, and unwieldy. And the GX7 has all the features I like.
So none of the careful, contemplative setup procedures apply. Or are possible.
Often I miss perfect focus, and need to lift the shadows, even overall exposure in ACR (same as Lr), and that reveals what I described as "a pointillist dotting of noise".
As per my OP, yes I can apply luminance noise reduction, but at a softening price.
I have to learn to capture sharpen even more carefully.
I was interested to learn about 'shutter shock' as I want to find any and all the small ways with which I can tweak more IQ out of the sensor.
Given my scenario, I want to max the possible IQ.
I will also try 'over-exposing' and try to bring the exposure back down in ACR to see if that helps any further. Maybe set Exp Comp to a permanent +1/2?
I am linking you to 2 different images - for each there is 1. a small jpeg showing the entire frame and 2. a dng of a cropped section at 100%.
This just so you can see what I'm talking about. In particular, look at the black skin/faces.
I have another image where the same is visible on a white skin.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/99evuu5g111egje/AAATh7rOEA4qn0m177AdQsc0a?dl=0
Keep in mind these were from the original/native files. And my intention had been to enlarge/up-res/interpolate them further to make 15x20 in prints
-
Frank:
Your problem is not your camera, it's your subject: dark subject, full daylight, bright background. That's a tough lighting situation. I suppose a camera like a Sony A7II would help - it has a wider dynamic range. But do not despair. I think you can get where you want to be. You do have headroom to the right of your histogram, so over exposing a bit will help. I have always found with my GH2 that +1/3 or +2/3 EV is usually needed. The G7, so far, seems to be about the same.
I realized that your down loads can be restored to their original files. After looking at your settings, I created a virtual copy and reset everything and started over. Here is where I wound up:
In the Basic Panel:
-bump exposure
-push highlights down
-bring shadows back down a bit from where you have them
-push blacks up
This will recover your shadows with less 'pointillist' noise. Also bring up Clarity to around 15-20 to give the image more snap and add a little vibrance. This almost always needed. I also put a gradient over the shadow on the bottom so that could be brightened up a bit.
In the Details Panel:
-increase Sharpening to about 70, it could go a bit higher
-your other setting were about right, Masking usually needs to be about 70
-Luminance noise reduction can be brought up a bit more without killing the detail, say about 20, but this is not a noisy image. Color noise reduction should rarely, if ever, be needed. (But it needs to be on its default of 25.)
Overall, I’d say that this image is pretty typical for an M43 image in this lighting. It is about as sharp as you are going to get. The shot was taken at 1/2500, so I would suggest bringing the ISO back to 200, which would still provide a shutter speed over 1/500. This will reduce noise in the shadows. Also, you are at f8. Most M43 lenses are sharpest at around f4 and since M43 has a two stop depth of field advantage over full frame cameras, your depth of field at f5.6 would still be very deep.
Every camera has a learning curve. It took me at least two years to fully figure out my GH2. Even then I had to refer to the manual once in a while. Keep working with the GX7. People say it is a great camera and I know that I am very pleased with the G7. You can get great images with the gear you have.
-
Here's the other shot with similar changes after resetting it.
-
Often I miss perfect focus, and need to lift the shadows, even overall exposure in ACR (same as Lr), and that reveals what I described as "a pointillist dotting of noise".
As per my OP, yes I can apply luminance noise reduction, but at a softening price.
I have to learn to capture sharpen even more carefully.
I use the GX7 for street with a pre focused zone... f/8-11 focused at 9 feet with a 17mm lens. Plenty of depth of field to work with and to assure good focus.
Peter
-
Thanks for doing this. It is very helpful to see another persons take.
I have gone back to my original files and applied your settings (except I think your interpretation of the moving van/movers is too light & I like the 'exposed for highlights' darker effect better. But that is a simple reduction of the Exposure slider.
I think some of the main differences are that you have been liberal with the LNR slider, I was hesitant because of it's inherent softening effect.
And you have made good use of the Blacks & Whites sliders whereas I'd only really used the Highlights/Shadows sliders.
I have one more image I'd love to see what you do with. But I can't post it publicly. May I send it directly? I'm at frankgross[at]gmail[dot]com
-
I agree with Remo's setting and development recommendations. I usually have exposure comp set to +1/3 or + 2/3 (and use the histogram preview a lot). Custom settings to deal with shutter, flash, etc for your common shooting situations are useful - however one of the GX7 annoyances is that if it goes to sleep in a custom mode it wakes up with the default custom settings without preserving changes you may have made to exposure comp, etc.
After initially testing the camera, I used ES almost exclusively (I bought it for travel and more discrete use than a DSLR). I've made a few architectural and landscape prints from these images which don't give cause for complaint.
More recently in testing the GX7 vs full frame that I noticed a slight difference between ES and MS. I still have the camera set for ES most of the time, but if I'm shooting a thoughtfully composed landscape image i'll switch to MS if lighting allows (and set it on MS for fast action - I don't really find human to be a problem for ES)
-
stever, I think there is a menu option whether you want Exposure Compensation to reset or not.
petermfiore, "reet with a pre focused zone... f/8-11 focused at 9 feet with a 17mm lens. "
Curious how you set this up?
Do you measure something at this distance and then switch to manual focus?
Aperture priority mode or Manual mode. Auto iso ?
-
I, too, come from FF/DX and the nose-bleed ISOs with low noise and great IQ of the past few years. I also now shoot a lot with my pair of GX7 bodies, discreetly and quietly many times at ISO 3200 and even 6400 and higher when I push the sliders. They seem to consistently underexpose but is easily handled with ACR and noise its noise reduction. My normal master image size is 19x14 from this camera. I'm shooting in monasteries and churches and become a fly on the wall with the Panasonic bodies. Though the IQ isn't the same as that of my D800 and D3s bodies, the freedom from sticking out like a sore thumb is worthwhile trade-off for slightly lower technical quality.
Compared to my previous generation of cameras from a few years ago, the GX7 is better in low light, though not as good as contemporary DX/FX bodies. Is that a negative? If you need the best image quality, chase the brass ring and keep up the GAS. But if you can think pragmatically and think differently and change your expectations, stay the course with the GX7 and relish the possibilities.
However, I come from the "dark ages" of the 20th century where pushing Tri-X to ISO 1600 and 3M 1000T were the norm. Tri-X usually did a good job but it was still hit-and-miss and don't even ask about the 3M 1000T regarding captures and IQ... Many people who I know today seem to have issues about the noise of low-light shooting, even with their high-end cameras today. When I ask them if they ever shot film, the answer is generally no. Also, few go beyond a web posting, let alone print from the files.
I do print from my files and am very content with the files from the GX7, mostly shot with slow zoom lenses and under terrible light at high ISOs, 3200 and up. With good craft, good editing and careful post processing of the raw files, I easily get master files that print easily at 16x20. One image I now have on the wall is a 30x40 landscape from the GX7 that wasn't under the best light. From normal viewing distance, over three feet, it's totally fine.
During my last journey to Serbia, I shot side-by-side,D800 and GX7 at similar high ISO and lighting. The GX7 isn't a D800 nor close to the low-light quality but the GX7 came through fine. Ask yourself, will you be showing your photos from both systems side-by-side in a gallery and will most others viewers have an issue with your photos? Will anyone care about the different looks and image quality in the end?
Since I'm aging and getting tired of packing a full D800 system with all the fixings tipping the scale at 18KG vs. 6KG with my GX7 system, I'm perfectly happy having a different look and lower IQ at high ISO for the images that I once only dreamed of capturing. Everything is a trade-off but worth it when the ink hits the paper.
-
Good piece. Well written. I get your point and also get the great possibilities that the GX7 offers. I love much about it. The first portfolio on my website ( frankgross.com ) called 'Going Home' was entirely made on the GX7. But some files can be unforgiving. I have one image, for example, where the subject has a pointillist, noisy texture in darker shadow area and I'm grappling with having to settle for it. Trying to establis if that is the IQ limit of the camera or format. So I'm trying to see if I can refine any technique that will maximise the quality and make it as smooth and 'high dynamic range' as possible.
-
Good piece. Well written. I get your point and also get the great possibilities that the GX7 offers. I love much about it. The first portfolio on my website ( frankgross.com ) called 'Going Home' was entirely made on the GX7. But some files can be unforgiving. I have one image, for example, where the subject has a pointillist, noisy texture in darker shadow area and I'm grappling with having to settle for it. Trying to establis if that is the IQ limit of the camera or format. So I'm trying to see if I can refine any technique that will maximise the quality and make it as smooth and 'high dynamic range' as possible.
Frank, I'd like to share my RAW settings before B/W conversion/toning on the example of the young monks in the cave-monastery I posted previously, shot with my GH4 at ISO 5000. But first, what was your take on noise in the monochrome at 15x20" (on my 24" FHD screen)?
The first ACR screen shows a bit of an exposure boost, but +78 shadow boost, and an unusual combination of strong contrast at +48 and clarity decrease of -36, the reason being that clarity has a powerful effect on noise with its micro-contrast enhancement, whereas general contrast increase has much less effect in my experience.
The Sharpening/NR screen shows the image at 66% - the equivalent native image size @ 100% before uprezzing in ACR to 15x20 @ 300ppi (16>27MP). You'll note the sharpening settings are unconventional with "detail" set at 100%, which effectively changes the mode from standard USM to de-convolution sharpening as recommended by Jeff Schewe. Notice that the masking level is at 80 to avoid smooth area sharpening as much as possible.
Now the NR section is where the action is with this very high ISO, shadow-boosted image, The main thing I've learned about hi-ISO NR in ACR is to use the Lum. Detail slider as you would the masking slider in Sharpening: detail can be well-preserved as aggressive NR is applied to the OOF areas, leaving the fine-grained noise pattern that takes a close look with my bifocals on the finished print to see, and which has minimal detail smearing evident to me at this mag., that's simply not evident on the 15x20 print on IGFS paper.
Pete
-
Sure, m43 sensors will never be low light monsters, but that shot at 5000ISO can be made to look really good so who cares?
If it fits your needs, stick with it. If you shoot at high ISO all the time and need your pictures to be much cleaner, then smaller sensors are not for you.
-
Larry - Well said.
Pete - It's a wonderful image and demonstrates that one can handle low light quite well within the limitations of M4/3.
-
Pete -
"what was your take on noise in the monochrome "
when I first looked at the b/w image a couple of days ago (or so it seams) I thought that it was a v nice shot, good quality especially considering high iso, and the low light levels. Top of his head seemed soft. Bricks behind him focused though? But to your point, It looked a bit rough in the shadows under their chins. Nothing too offensive. That's it, otherwise great.
Quite similar looking shadow/skin texture problem actually to one of my images that I'm struggling with, but shot at 200 iso, bright sun, very fast shutter speed, 75mm (reputedly a m4/3 top performer.)
"+78 shadow boost, and an unusual combination of strong contrast at +48 and clarity decrease of -36"
Maybe it's the viewing size but this image looks even better to me than the b/w.
Amazing that you could boost shadows that much. A bit of wizardry at work there with the Clarity reduction/contrast enhancement.
"Sharpening/NR screen shows the image at 66%"
Should I view it on my display at 66 or 100%?
Ay 66 all good, at 100 all good But the shadow under his chin and ear start to look a little dodgy.
More wizardry with the settings - I'm continually amazed that you can have detail set at 100. I have tried that unsuccessfully on many images since I first read about it.
How do you feel about me emailing you an original raw file for you to comment on the skin 'pointillist texture / noise?) - frankgross[at]gmail[dot]com
How do you match your screen display size to the output print size?Can you actually make the on screen image 20 inches wide measured.
-
Pete -
"what was your take on noise in the monochrome "
when I first looked at the b/w image a couple of days ago (or so it seams) I thought that it was a v nice shot, good quality especially considering high iso, and the low light levels. Top of his head seemed soft. Bricks behind him focused though? But to your point, It looked a bit rough in the shadows under their chins. Nothing too offensive. That's it, otherwise great.
Quite similar looking shadow/skin texture problem actually to one of my images that I'm struggling with, but shot at 200 iso, bright sun, very fast shutter speed, 75mm (reputedly a m4/3 top performer.)
"+78 shadow boost, and an unusual combination of strong contrast at +48 and clarity decrease of -36"
Maybe it's the viewing size but this image looks even better to me than the b/w.
Amazing that you could boost shadows that much. A bit of wizardry at work there with the Clarity reduction/contrast enhancement.
"Sharpening/NR screen shows the image at 66%"
Should I view it on my display at 66 or 100%?
Ay 66 all good, at 100 all good But the shadow under his chin and ear start to look a little dodgy.
More wizardry with the settings - I'm continually amazed that you can have detail set at 100. I have tried that unsuccessfully on many images since I first read about it.
How do you feel about me emailing you an original raw file for you to comment on the skin 'pointillist texture / noise?) - frankgross[at]gmail[dot]com
How do you match your screen display size to the output print size?Can you actually make the on screen image 20 inches wide measured.
Thanks for your comments, Frank,, and I'll try to reply to all your questions:
The top of the young monks head, if you look at the color full frame ACR image, was a mess of what appeared to me as a retired MD to be ringworm. So I intensively "treated" that in PS with cloning and blurring. And yes, the shadowed areas on his neck and left arm should have been given a dose of targeted NR, as I forgot to mention I did in the facial area - and also the shadowed chest of the second boy.
About viewing the second ACR screen, just expand it fully, which represents a 66% view of the large print file - very close in viewing size to the native file at 100% before uprezzing.
You get accurate print size viewing in PS6 by putting your screen resolution in PPI in PS Edit > Preferences > Units&Rulers > Screen Resolution. Eg, my 24" FHD monitor has a 1920px width, and I measured the physical width at 20.375". Divide 1920/20.375 = 94.232 pixels/inch and put this into the screen res. box. Then for print size display, right-click on the image and select "Print size" or select it on the top tool bar, and the image size is precise. For my 15x20 print files @ 300ppi, this shows up as a 31.33% view of the 27MP file, but since viewing files in PS & ACR are soft except at the 12.5, 25, 33, 66, and 100% views, I'll view it at 33% for print size detail.
And yes, I'd like to see your original RAW file - plberry850(at)comcast.net - and a 100% crop of a problem area in your processed file?
Regards, Pete
-
@pete
Could you please let me know if you received the file/s - frankgross[at]gmail[dot]com
Thanks
-
@pete
Could you please let me know if you received the file/s - frankgross[at]gmail[dot]com
Thanks
Frank, I missed the e-mail of 2/14, but in opening it last nite, only JPG 0f 1200x900 size with a zoom window to maybe half-size, and the "RAW" could not be saved in a form that would open in ACR or otherwise.
Dropbox probably the best way to go to preserve original file structure.
Pete
-
This is a follow up to and attempted revival of a long thread. One of the issues raised is the noise in m43 shots. Accordingly, I am posting an image taken recently of waves breaking on the north shore of Hawaii at Laupahoehoe Point.
The purpose of these images is to demonstrate the noise or lack thereof of a high contrast m43 image. This image was made with the Olympus EM5ii and the Panasonic 35-100 mm Zoom. The basic image details are F=35mm, f/5.6, ISO 200 and SS=1/500. Notice in capture1 that there is direct sunlight in the foreground, deep shadows in the middle ground encompassing the rocky shoreline, and bright highlights on the foamy waves breaking off shore. The histogram, visible in the first screen capture shows slightly blown highlights and dark shadows, just the sort of image the OP thought impossible to capture with M43.
(https://landscape-gallery.smugmug.com/Special-project/i-5hLkjg6/0/L/Capture1-L.png)
Capture2 shows the image after post processing.
(https://landscape-gallery.smugmug.com/Special-project/i-f4zrrVQ/0/L/Capture2-L.png)
Notice the main adjustments are contrast=-29, highlights=-69 and shadows=+46. Not shown is that the camera profile is set to muted, which often helps when dealing with contrasty images. Also not shown is dehaze=12 to add a little contrast back to the midtones. A click white balance was obtained from the large rocks out in the ocean.
Capture 3 is a 100% crop including both an area of deep shadow and sunlit tree bark.
(https://landscape-gallery.smugmug.com/Special-project/i-g8znNs8/0/L/Capture3-L.png)
Noise reduction is at the default settings luminance=0. The color noise settings are also at default.
Capture 4 is a 100% crop of a highlight and midtone section of the image.
(https://landscape-gallery.smugmug.com/Special-project/i-xVh64CF/0/L/Capture4-L.png)
There is no attempt to produce optimal results, since I am working on an uncalibrated laptop screen. Nevertheless, those familiar with Lightroom will see that the sliders are not maxed out, meaning there is considerable room to refine this treatment. Local adjustments of highlights and shadows would be easy to accomplish.
IMO this shot is somewhat challenging but I believe it is well within the capability of M43.
Thoughts?
-
Many of us have complete confidence in the M4/3 cameras to shoot in difficult situation and this is a fine example. You comment that you used a camera profile of "muted'. Does this imply that the shot was taken in JPG and not RAW? If JPG, you would probably have even more latitude by taking a RAW shot and working with that.
It's a very nice photo and a fine demonstration of M4/3 capability. Now all you need to do is photoshop in a surfer on the wave, LoL.
-
And this is Lightroom's conversion. Some believe, as I do, that Capture One Pro does an even better job with camera that have no AA filter and with noise reduction/sharpening at the default settings.
-
Many of us have complete confidence in the M4/3 cameras to shoot in difficult situation and this is a fine example. You comment that you used a camera profile of "muted'. Does this imply that the shot was taken in JPG and not RAW? If JPG, you would probably have even more latitude by taking a RAW shot and working with that.
It's a very nice photo and a fine demonstration of M4/3 capability. Now all you need to do is photoshop in a surfer on the wave, LoL.
Remo,
The last widget in the Lightroom UI is the camera profile. This image was shot in raw. Adobe provides a default profile that I find is too contrasty and way too high in saturation. There are several additional "Olympus" profiles, including muted. Muted is not that severe, it just means that I get to adjust the contrast and saturation from a more useful starting point.
-
I guess Muted is the equivalent of Nikon's Neutral profile in LR (and in camera). I too have always found Adobe Standard to be very limited. It's ok for general use, but I much prefer a more neutral starting point that I can bend to my will. Sometimes I don't even have to change anything, other times it's just a little bit of contrast. Color is always much more accurate with manufacturers' profiles, and it looks like they use a lot more of the AdobeRGB gamut available while Adobe Standard profile feels much more compressed (you get banding much sooner while moving sliders).
As for noise, I'd say that is just perfect. One would have to pixel peep real hard to find any major noise issues in that picture.
-
I wish I got those Shadow results nma. I find it unforgiving if I have to lighten exposure or lift shadows. Subjects look like they have spotty measles. I'm going to try and 'over'-expose a little & see if that helps
-
Frank,
Good technique helps no matter what format you use. I find, and others report, that the camera's exposure system is tuned for jpeg. You will see that if you use your jpeg exposure, your raw images are under exposed by at east one stop.
Unless the scene is super contrasty I "overexpose +1". If you really want to be sure, how much does it cost to turn exposure bracketing on. I can assure you that results like I showed above are routine, not the exception. I get good results up to ISO 3200. There is an IQ difference between ISO 200 and ISO 3200, no doubt. But the high ISO images are usually very satisfactory, assuming full exposure.
-
I wish I got those Shadow results nma. I find it unforgiving if I have to lighten exposure or lift shadows. Subjects look like they have spotty measles. I'm going to try and 'over'-expose a little & see if that helps
Using an E-M5, I found that one to two stops overexposure definitely cleaned up a lot of noise. It does seem to have a "color shoulder", so at two stops, some things shifted (i.e. blue skies went too cyan), so keep that in mind. Mileage may vary by sensor/camera, so just experiment a bit.
-
Interesting note about exposure based on jpeg not raw (which is what i always shoot).
I will definitely experiment with the bracketing to check it out.
However, when I open my files (in ACR) the exposure does seem ok. It doesn't 'look' underexposed / dark.
If you're 'over' exposing a stop or more, then are you routinely having to bring exposure down in ACR / Lr?
-
Interesting note about exposure based on jpeg not raw (which is what i always shoot).
I will definitely experiment with the bracketing to check it out.
However, when I open my files (in ACR) the exposure does seem ok. It doesn't 'look' underexposed / dark.
If you're 'over' exposing a stop or more, then are you routinely having to bring exposure down in ACR / Lr?
Yes.
Look up ETTR (expose to the right) to get a basic idea (there is a good article on the site to get you started). The basic theory, by my understanding, is the higher you can saturate the physical wells on the sensor with light, the more reliable and complete the data can become.
-
Interesting note about exposure based on jpeg not raw (which is what i always shoot).
I will definitely experiment with the bracketing to check it out.
However, when I open my files (in ACR) the exposure does seem ok. It doesn't 'look' underexposed / dark.
If you're 'over' exposing a stop or more, then are you routinely having to bring exposure down in ACR / Lr?
Hello Frank,
I think you have just explained why you are having trouble with your M43. It is the jpeg. When you open the jpeg in LR you DO see that it is exposed correctly. But if you were shooting RAW and exposed to the right, you will have one to two stops more exposure headroom without burning the highlights. And yes, you might very well want to adjust the exposure in LR. The basic RAW exposure is linear. Adobe might fudge that a bit but it will be close to linear. As a practical matter adjusting the exposure with linear rendering just shifts the brightness down or up without affecting the relative values between shadows and highlights.
Another tip for successful exposure: Set your jpeg contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. to the most neutral settings, not the one that makes the prettiest jpeg on the screen. Then the in camera histogram derived by sampling the jpeg image will be a more useful guide to RAW exposure.
-
I'm sorry. I think I didn't write that clearly. What I meant was I always shoot Raw
-
Thanks for the tip on experimenting with auto bracket. I find , so far, that +2/3 brings the histogram all the way to the right. +1 stop makes it crawl up the right side. So for now +2/3 exposure comp is where I'll leave it.
But if the histogram is on the jpeg rendition of my raw file then it isn't all that accurate - right?
There's likely still some highlight wiggle room
-
Hi Frank,
If you are referring to the in-camera histogram displayed with the jpeg image on the back of your camera, then I would say that it is only a rough guide. There is additional headroom before clipping the highlights, somewhere between +1 and +2 stops. Think about that in relation to your original complaints about the noise. Properly exposed you will have about 1.5 more stops of exposure in the shadows. That works for me.
I would also add, if you switched to a full frame camera, with a high dynamic range sensor without fully exposing your images, your results will be suboptimal. You can still end up with noisy shadows, or at least the IQ will not be what it could be.
-
Gotcha.
So I can almost always have the Exp Comp set to +1 quite safely (ie without clipping highlights)
And then just reduce the exposure when bringing the raw file into ACR.
I'm pretty sure it's going to look too light/over-exposed as it is shot
Yes I was referring to the histogram rendition on the GX7 camera. I have set it to standard brightness (mode 2) and kept all other other settings neutral.
That histogram is the only thing I have to go by to judge exposure
anyone mind showing a screenshot of an image Exposed to the right by 1 or 2 stops Before you reduce exposure in Lr or ACR
-
My standard method, when using the histograms and having time to adjust, is to manual adjust exposure until the highlights are just inside the histogram, then increase the exposure by a stop to two to get about where there is full sensor saturation. A bit cumbersome, but pretty reliable. You'll need to run a few tests to see how it works on the GX7.
How do you like that camera? Been thinking of adding it or the GX8 to go with my E-M5.
-
Oh wow. You +exposure compensation until histograms hit right edge, which is likely already +1. And then another +1 or more on top of that. And no burnt out highlights?
Can you show a screenshot of a sample before you make exposure corrections?
I love the GX7 - I love the flip screen, silent mode, flip eyepiece, touch screen (focus/shoot),wireless, menu layout, dial/button layout. It basically just suits me. Your mileage may vary.
I also have a Canon 5D3 kit but this is my take everywhere camera.
-
Oh wow. You +exposure compensation until histograms hit right edge, which is likely already +1. And then another +1 or more on top of that. And no burnt out highlights?
Can you show a screenshot of a sample before you make exposure corrections?
I love the GX7 - I love the flip screen, silent mode, flip eyepiece, touch screen (focus/shoot),wireless, menu layout, dial/button layout. It basically just suits me. Your mileage may vary.
I also have a Canon 5D3 kit but this is my take everywhere camera.
The method I'm describing will pretty much never burn highlights, that is the point of figuring out where they are in your histogram. Then you just need to get a good idea of how far you can push it past the histogram (and this will vary by camera) to not clip anything. This is great for landscapes and architecture, not so good for portraits, action and the likes. For portraits I usually expose properly based off a light meter, or expose +1. Also, if you know you have a highlight that will clip, say the sun, just try to find the brightest thing you don't want to clip and work from that.
What are you looking for as examples? I may have a few images I could show you on this computer.
-
I just tested a few shots here indoors with bright snow outside (both interior & exterior in the shot)
aperture priority f4, and exp comp +1.3, 200iso
Also, some interior shots of kids playing. But these at 800iso. Also 'slightly' cleaner shadows / noise than before the +1.3 exp comp.
In ACR it only took a moderate decrease of the highlight slider to prevent clipping the highlights.
The shadows could still use a little lifting, but are very clean without the objectionable noise I was getting before.
Is there an iso limit to using ettr for cleaner noise / shadow detail ?
Or does this only work well at 200iso (800 was a wee stretch I think, but more testing to come)
has anyone with a GX7 established just how far above the right you can push the exposure and not lose highlight detail?
If not, is there an established way to shoot tests? Like. for example, shooting a white terry towel and seeing how far you can 'over expose' until you cant bring back the detail in post ?
-
FastRawViewer is the program you want.
http://www.fastrawviewer.com/
-
FastRawViewer is the program you want.
http://www.fastrawviewer.com/
Could you please give me a quick summary of what/why I want it?
Ok just installed it to see.
Seeing the % over and under exposure for each rgb channel must be why you recommend it to me?
I can test pushing exposure to the right until I start to clip one of the channels and then back off a bit - correct?
Thx
-
Take some images of a scene focusing on the same place and increase your EV in steps of 1/3 all the way to +3. Load them into the viewer and see which one clips and then you will know where your clipping point is.
-
FastRawViewer is the program you want.
http://www.fastrawviewer.com/
Another software to look at is RawDigger. Looks to be the same price.
-
there are 3 columns - under, over, & not sure what the third one is (possibly the over but with raw converter correction?)
so I just photographed some snow outside in +1/3 increments and got up to +2 stops without over exposure.
Does that mean my ETTR limit is +2 stops?
Regardless of the scene or metering method?
Here's ascreenshot
-
there are 3 columns - under, over, & not sure what the third one is (possibly the over but with raw converter correction?)
so I just photographed some snow outside in +1/3 increments and got up to +2 stops without over exposure.
Does that mean my ETTR limit is +2 stops?
Regardless of the scene or metering method?
Here's ascreenshot
Nope. Just curious, do you know how your camera's metering modes work?
Basically, it tries to adjust whatever you have it pointed at to 18% gray (i.e. medium gray). This is what gray cards should be calibrated to. So if you use the full scene metering, it takes all the values and averages them to 18% gray (give or take, there is a bit more to it, but that is the jest of it). If you go center or center weighted, it will use only the center to adjust to 18% gray.
Now, applying this to a scene, in full scene metering, that is 90% snow, it will have a tendency to underexpose because it is trying to adjust that white snow to neutral gray. So adding +1 or +2 probably only brought it back to where it should be in the first place.
-
yes, I understanf meters bringing white or black even surfaces to middle grey and that one has to over or under exxpose to make them white or black.
I was just looking at the raw histogram to find the max exposure before it indicates any over exp
-
I would start with a gray card and a white card, if you have them. then meter for the gray card and keep upping from there, manually, until the white card blows out. That should get you a pretty good idea. Albeit, you will need to know the exposure difference between the white and gray card.
-
Topaz Labs Denoise 6 is nice.
-
yes, I understanf meters bringing white or black even surfaces to middle grey and that one has to over or under exxpose to make them white or black.
I was just looking at the raw histogram to find the max exposure before it indicates any over exp
Frank, what you need to determine practically is how far the highlight histogram spike in-camera can "crawl" up the clipping limit and still preserve the RAW highlight detail you want. Try some skies, and the old white textured towel in the shade test to get a good idea.
Pete
-
I tried this yesterday with my Oly em-d 5 mkII and founded +1 usually OK but +1.7 often not OK, taking cityscapes on a bright morning with sunshine and clouds. Cloud highlights blew out too easily, or at least became far too bright for my taste. But then I tend to prefer more somber shades.
My experience is that strong ETTR can introduce a few gotchas, at least with my Oly: skies can become too cyan, for example, and some images require quite a lot of PP to get things back into balance. Highlights reduced too much in LR can acquire a sickly, waxy look, at least on the honey-coloured stone around here. I can see this being a fair system for shots with a wide DR where I know I will need to raise shadows a lot, but for more general shots I'm thinking that sticking with the camera metering is a simpler system, albeit adjusting for bright and dark scenes where reducing things to an 18% grey will give an incorrect exposure (snow, black doors, etc). Or maybe +0.3 or 0.7 for general things, but not going for broke with +2 - too much work in PP.
Bracketing and then combining using LR's HDR feature is another way to do this, especially since LR now outputs a fresh RAW of the result. That way, I still have a useable shot at default settings even if the second one is blown out.
-
With the Oly E-M5 I found that I could pretty reliably shoot at +2/3 without hardly ever clipping, if I went to +1 I would get some clipping in maybe 1 in 15 scenes. (That's just relying on the cameras matrix metering.). Of course this is highly dependent on the kind of stuff you photograph.
-
if you are talking about __IBIS__ then Panasonic only recently ventured into that area... try something form Olympus.
For those who may not be familiar with the Panasonic GX8, it supports dual image stabilization (IBIS and lens IS) with supported lenses. Works quite well.
Cheers,
Jay
-
I will certainly try & test. I cant find EFCS in my GX7 menu.
So, if I understand correctly, avoiding that 'shutter shock' range of shutter speeds in Mechanical mode is a toss up vs the loss of data 'bits' using the Electronic shutter ? What are experienced GX7 users opting for?
There is no loss of bit depth with the GX7 on electronic shutter. And it has no EFCS, it has electronic shutter. Some Olympus bodies have EFCS.
Are you saying that you are getting objectionable noise because you use aggressive sharpening to deal with perceived softness?
-
I love my Panasonic GX7 (touchscreen, silent, flip screen & vf, menus etc) but am stumped by m4/3 noise (& puny image stabilisation). Is noise better on any other m4/3 camera? Other wise I have to sell up kit (20mm, 43mm & oly 75mm) & return to a larger sensor boo hoo
I thought I should clear up a few things after receiving a pm - Most people would Not find the noise very objectionable. I want to almost double the pixel dimension (ACR up-sizing) to enable good 15x20 prints. So even tiny under exposure or lifting of shadows results in noise. Which can of course be treated with the Noise reduction slider but at a softening / mushy price. I come from a full frame background so am after the smoothest most noiseless possible results
I shoot mostly 400 iso and sometimes 200 or 800. Never more than 1600.
Just a thought but what apertures are you using in your shots? Don't forget that M43 depth of field at f8 is equivalent to f16 on full frame. I hardly go above f5.6-6.3 (landscape work) on my M43 system and I'm happy with the results compared to my full frame camera. I see lots of people going around using f8-f11 on M43 for no good reason - you're just cutting out lots and lots of perfectly usable light which will result in significantly more noise.
If this doesn't apply then no worries :)
-
Just a thought but what apertures are you using in your shots? Don't forget that M43 depth of field at f8 is equivalent to f16 on full frame. I hardly go above f5.6-6.3 (landscape work) on my M43 system and I'm happy with the results compared to my full frame camera. I see lots of people going around using f8-f11 on M43 for no good reason - you're just cutting out lots and lots of perfectly usable light which will result in significantly more noise.
If this doesn't apply then no worries :)
I certainly agree with you about the depth of field differences, meaning it is wise not to stray above 5.6 for sharp images. However, the idea that using a higher f number will automatically result in higher noise is incorrect. Assuming that you have decreased your shutter speed (longer exposure) accordingly, the number of photons recorded and hence the noise level will be the same.
-
I certainly agree with you about the depth of field differences, meaning it is wise not to stray above 5.6 for sharp images. However, the idea that using a higher f number will automatically result in higher noise is incorrect. Assuming that you have decreased your shutter speed (longer exposure) accordingly, the number of photons recorded and hence the noise level will be the same.
You are correct - I made the assumption that the OP was concerned with high noise levels, usually experienced in lower light conditions, where the camera may decide it's run out of shutter speed and decided to ramp the ISO instead. On a tripod or in good light then you're right, shutter speed would compensate for this and light levels would be the same.