porktaco
Well-known
OK, so yes I'm thinking of getting a m4/3 rig. I've got a couple of specific uses in mind - medium-fast action shots and the usual low-light/no-light Noctilux-envy shots.
I can't seem to find a lot of 3200/6400 available darkness shots from these bodies, and what I do find doesn't look very much like what I'd shoot. So, since we are all of one spirit and one heart here (please, stop throwing beercans), I'm going to gently ask for image samples. Subways, nightclubs, darkened living rooms, moody parks, night markets, etc etc and so on. Thanks
I can't seem to find a lot of 3200/6400 available darkness shots from these bodies, and what I do find doesn't look very much like what I'd shoot. So, since we are all of one spirit and one heart here (please, stop throwing beercans), I'm going to gently ask for image samples. Subways, nightclubs, darkened living rooms, moody parks, night markets, etc etc and so on. Thanks
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A few photos from a walk about town in the dark about a year ago, all with Olympus E-M1 using ZD35mm f/3.5 Macro lens.
ISO 3200
ISO 3200
ISO 5000
ISO 6400
Note: Grain added for effect.
G
ISO 3200
ISO 3200
ISO 5000
ISO 6400
Note: Grain added for effect.
G
FA Limited
missing in action
i don't have any examples readily available but i would say in general m4/3 is probably a stop behind an APS-C which is a stop behind FF for noise. i like my gx7 a lot but at 1600 things already get a bit mushy for my taste.
porktaco
Well-known
^ that's what i'm kind of worried about. i shoot an x100s at 6400 a lot. i kind of like the look.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
IMO, comparing Sony A7 and Olympus E-M1, they run neck and neck on overall DR-noise-etc up to about ISO 6400. Sony holds onto DR and crispness another stop, but not much more.
Leica X2 or X seems just marginally less clean at ISO 125000 compared to Sony A7. A7 is useable for coarse B&W at ISO 256000.
Can't compare with Fuji, not enough experience. I own all of the above and have used all extensively.
G
Leica X2 or X seems just marginally less clean at ISO 125000 compared to Sony A7. A7 is useable for coarse B&W at ISO 256000.
Can't compare with Fuji, not enough experience. I own all of the above and have used all extensively.
G
porktaco
Well-known
now that's interesting. one vote for the em-1
jloden
Established
I'm also a member at mu-43.com which is possibly the best resource on the Internet for m4/3 users. There's been a number of high ISO sample threads over there you might find helpful. Ex:
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=55489
Somewhat the reverse of many users who are downsizing, I started out on m4/3 and worked my way into APS-C (Fuji) and finally 35mm/FF format. As such I have sort of a soft spot for micro four thirds and I still shoot m4/3 for certain scenarios where it makes sense. I'm using a GH3 currently. IMO m4/3 offers the most mature ecosystem in mirrorless, a lot of great features, and all at a reasonable compromise between size and quality.
The Olympus EM series are excellent cameras and I'd recommend one if it suits you. I didn't get along with Olympus UI, menus, and ergonomics, at least on the EM-5 I owned, but there's no issues with the quality or functionality. I prefer Panasonic bodies myself, but in terms of IQ I think any comparison between the three cameras you mentioned is pretty firmly into 'splitting hairs' territory. I'd choose based on form factor, unique features, and UI personally, and leave IQ as the least important differentiator.
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=55489
Somewhat the reverse of many users who are downsizing, I started out on m4/3 and worked my way into APS-C (Fuji) and finally 35mm/FF format. As such I have sort of a soft spot for micro four thirds and I still shoot m4/3 for certain scenarios where it makes sense. I'm using a GH3 currently. IMO m4/3 offers the most mature ecosystem in mirrorless, a lot of great features, and all at a reasonable compromise between size and quality.
The Olympus EM series are excellent cameras and I'd recommend one if it suits you. I didn't get along with Olympus UI, menus, and ergonomics, at least on the EM-5 I owned, but there's no issues with the quality or functionality. I prefer Panasonic bodies myself, but in terms of IQ I think any comparison between the three cameras you mentioned is pretty firmly into 'splitting hairs' territory. I'd choose based on form factor, unique features, and UI personally, and leave IQ as the least important differentiator.
porktaco
Well-known
i was searching for the wrong thing. lol me.
that's a nice thread. so, thanks. i'm seeing a lot of variation. sigh.
the MFT rigs i played with yesterday were all insanely fast to acquire images (note - i found the fuji XE-2 and, to a lesser extent, XT-1 just slow enough to be aggravating). now, that was in good light. well, mostly good.
my sense is that MFT (the term I should have been searching for) is great until the light fades. amazingly great from what i could tell. but yes the menus are all frickin different on every model. i'm sort of in love with the simplicity of my X100s.
once the light dies down, it seems, sometimes MFT is great and sometimes not so much. i really liked the little panasonic body and i get the sense it would be very easy to shoot. the olys are more complex and at this point (though not necessarily for always) somewhat counterintuitive to me. i LOVE the little zoom lenses, and the big oly primes produce insane quality. i don't know that i want to drop 900 for that 75/1.8 but it's sweet.
hm. hmmmm.....
that's a nice thread. so, thanks. i'm seeing a lot of variation. sigh.
the MFT rigs i played with yesterday were all insanely fast to acquire images (note - i found the fuji XE-2 and, to a lesser extent, XT-1 just slow enough to be aggravating). now, that was in good light. well, mostly good.
my sense is that MFT (the term I should have been searching for) is great until the light fades. amazingly great from what i could tell. but yes the menus are all frickin different on every model. i'm sort of in love with the simplicity of my X100s.
once the light dies down, it seems, sometimes MFT is great and sometimes not so much. i really liked the little panasonic body and i get the sense it would be very easy to shoot. the olys are more complex and at this point (though not necessarily for always) somewhat counterintuitive to me. i LOVE the little zoom lenses, and the big oly primes produce insane quality. i don't know that i want to drop 900 for that 75/1.8 but it's sweet.
hm. hmmmm.....
biomed
Veteran
Adam,
I have 't shot the GX7 at any ISO higher than 1600. The only ISO 3200 or higher have been taken with my GH3. I am on vacation next week and will take some photos at ISO 3200 and post them here.
GH3, 25/1.5, 1/200, f/1.6, ISO3200
The GX7 is reported to be better at ISO3200 and higher.
Mike
I have 't shot the GX7 at any ISO higher than 1600. The only ISO 3200 or higher have been taken with my GH3. I am on vacation next week and will take some photos at ISO 3200 and post them here.
GH3, 25/1.5, 1/200, f/1.6, ISO3200
The GX7 is reported to be better at ISO3200 and higher.
Mike
boomguy57
Well-known
I have to say that I have the EM1 and also shoot the X100S (and owned the original X100 as well). I had an XE2 rig to go with my X100S, but was too often frustrated with the focusing speed, which I found to be about the same as the X100S. I shot with the original GF1, then the GF3, then left m4/3 before returning to the EM5, then left the system again, before recently returning to the EM1.
I will say that I went (back to) m4/3 for the same reasons you seem to be: autofocus primarily, but also smaller sized bodies/lenses and the high-quality Olympus primes. And for all of those I haven't been disappointed. I've always wanted to love it, but then I get sensor-envy and get seduced into APS-C or FF. However, the number of times I've gone back to m4/3 tells me there's something there. IMO, it's a great compromise as you get smaller sized bodies and lenses, and faster performance. The APS-C cameras seem to be the same size as the FF bodies anymore (the Sony cameras I've used, anyway). But, I digress.
I'll say that I love shooting the X100S and can shoot ISO 3200 without issue. I rarely go beyond that since I can handhold it incredibly still, and I'd rather not deal with TOO much noise. 6400 is doable, but 3200 is where i'm comfortable going unless I have no option. Honestly, if it's that dark, I generally stop shooting unless it's really important. I'm not a working pro and I don't shoot concerts.
Shooting the EM1 at 3200 is usable. I'd say, to my amateur eyes, it's not a full stop behind the Fuji bodies; it's more 0.5 stops. I don't have any evidence--I haven't wasted my time with comparison shots of bottles of ketchup in my dark kitchen and zoomed in to 100%--but it's the general sense I get. I capped the auto-ISO (which I use often) at 3200 for both the X100S and the EM1, allowing that I'll have a bit more noise in the EM1 files at the same ISO.
But the autofocus blows the X100S away. Every. Single. Time. And to me, I'm often chasing my kid around and so the AF and general speed is more important than high ISO. I have medium format or 35mm when I have more time, or the X100S. But that's just me, your opinion may vary. Hope that helps.
I will say that I went (back to) m4/3 for the same reasons you seem to be: autofocus primarily, but also smaller sized bodies/lenses and the high-quality Olympus primes. And for all of those I haven't been disappointed. I've always wanted to love it, but then I get sensor-envy and get seduced into APS-C or FF. However, the number of times I've gone back to m4/3 tells me there's something there. IMO, it's a great compromise as you get smaller sized bodies and lenses, and faster performance. The APS-C cameras seem to be the same size as the FF bodies anymore (the Sony cameras I've used, anyway). But, I digress.
I'll say that I love shooting the X100S and can shoot ISO 3200 without issue. I rarely go beyond that since I can handhold it incredibly still, and I'd rather not deal with TOO much noise. 6400 is doable, but 3200 is where i'm comfortable going unless I have no option. Honestly, if it's that dark, I generally stop shooting unless it's really important. I'm not a working pro and I don't shoot concerts.
Shooting the EM1 at 3200 is usable. I'd say, to my amateur eyes, it's not a full stop behind the Fuji bodies; it's more 0.5 stops. I don't have any evidence--I haven't wasted my time with comparison shots of bottles of ketchup in my dark kitchen and zoomed in to 100%--but it's the general sense I get. I capped the auto-ISO (which I use often) at 3200 for both the X100S and the EM1, allowing that I'll have a bit more noise in the EM1 files at the same ISO.
But the autofocus blows the X100S away. Every. Single. Time. And to me, I'm often chasing my kid around and so the AF and general speed is more important than high ISO. I have medium format or 35mm when I have more time, or the X100S. But that's just me, your opinion may vary. Hope that helps.