PDA

View Full Version : Lots of Noise On Long Exposures


G2EWS
24th November 2013, 12:44 PM
Hi All,

I thought I had seen a post about this, but have been unable to find it.

Whilst in the Lake District last week I took a number of long exposures with the Lee big stopper.

It seems that some of these are showing very high levels of noise. In the guise lots of coloured dots.

I have tried to import into LR5.2 and 5.3 as dng, and raw, but that makes no difference. I have imported into Olympus Viewer and that makes little difference.

I have also tried moving between software and adding noise correction but there is little improvement between them all.

Have we managed to find an answer that I have missed to this serious problem?

Best regards

Chris

Zuiko
24th November 2013, 01:44 PM
First question, Chris, is do you have Noise Reduction switched on? This should not be confused with Noise Filter, they are two entirely different functions.

G2EWS
24th November 2013, 02:00 PM
Hi John,

I have Noise reduction off as I did with the EM5. Noise filter is set to Standard.

Best regards

Chris

Nick Temple-Fry
24th November 2013, 04:36 PM
Well, surely the question is how many are lots. Assuming lots is a reasonable number, under 50 or so. Then what you've probably got is hot pixels. Might be worth running pixel mapping which I'd guess is under one of the spanner menus.

Noise Reduction is dark frame subtraction, which you should have on for long exposures as it takes away a lot of the pixel noise.

Personally I suspect that live view sensors are more prone to hot pixels as they are on constantly.

Unfortunately I don't have an E-M1.

Mayhaps a crop of a shot taken, with exif, could be useful for the group to help diagnose any problems.

Nick

Ian
24th November 2013, 04:54 PM
You need Noise Reduction on - will make a big difference I expect.

Ian

photo_owl
24th November 2013, 05:54 PM
You need Noise Reduction on - will make a big difference I expect.

Ian

It's not even a question of switching it on - the default setting is AUTO and it's triggered by both the exposure period or sensor temperature ie you would expect it to be triggered for a shorter Livetime exposure or Livecontrol than when shooting with the eye away from the viewfinder, as well as when taking a large number of longer exposures.

There certainly appears to be some differences in the implementation of the E-M5 settings in this area and the E-M1, but that's not as relevant to the E-M1 as it is to those who have expectations from it based on the E-M5 in this area (primarily astro multi exposure as I understand it).

G2EWS
24th November 2013, 05:59 PM
The issue is, that it was not a problem on the EM5 but is on the EM1.

There is no reason for using noise reduction in camera, but it would seem from reading elsewhere that it is needed in the EM1. Not a huge problem for landscape photography, but definitely an inconvenience. I take photos that may mean a 10 minute exposure, then you would have to wait for another 10 minutes for the noise reduction. I have never owned a camera that needs this and the EM1 is a 'pro' camera!

Not good really.

Best regards

Chris

SteveJ
24th November 2013, 06:23 PM
I take it "auto iso" isn't on?

Steve

G2EWS
24th November 2013, 06:43 PM
I take it "auto iso" isn't on?

Steve

Hi Steve,

No, I don't use auto iso for landscape with a tripod.

Everything is 'exactly' the same as when using the EM5. The only difference is the noise.

But as mentioned I have discovered that this is a problem with the EM1 and the only answer is turn the noise reduction on, in camera. This is a poor excuse from Olympus. I have not discovered what the difference is, with the two cameras that make this happen, but believe Olympus need to check it out ASAP.

Suddenly our EM1's are not the camera we wanted them to be. Yes, turning the noise reduction on makes it work, but it is a workaround.

Best regards

Chris

bredman
24th November 2013, 07:24 PM
I was hoping to do plenty of astrophotography with the M1. The dark frame subtraction will sort the hot pixels out but will be awkward when shooting deep space images if for example i need 8x20min (or more) exposures this will have to be done over several evenings (and probably with a different camera anyway). I still have the EM5.

You're right Chris, the EM1 isn't the camera we were hoping for. It's an excellent camera for mainstream purposes, but definitely not PRO. Olympus need to come out the shadows and show some backbone by addressing users concerns.

Zuiko
24th November 2013, 07:35 PM
I didn't think that dark frame subtraction for long exposures was exclusive to Olympus cameras. I suspect that to do noiseless long exposures without DFS something like a full frame 12mp camera such as a Nikon D3s might be required.

bredman
24th November 2013, 07:57 PM
I didn't think that dark frame subtraction for long exposures was exclusive to Olympus cameras. I suspect that to do noiseless long exposures without DFS something like a full frame 12mp camera such as a Nikon D3s might be required.

Indeed, but the EM5 way outperforms the EM1 with long exposures without NR/DFS. Judging by the discussions out there and the examples i've seen the EM5 performs brilliantly with long exposures, leading to suggestions that it's cooking the RAWs in-camera. I don't know what's going on with the EM5 but the EM1 struggles with exposures over 60 secs. Admittedly not an issue for most.

bredman
24th November 2013, 08:16 PM
This is interesting read. Also a few links to other discussions from that page. This isn't a deal breaker for me, but it is one intended use i may have to rule out for this camera. Soon i'm moving house to a 'dark sky area'.

http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

PeterBirder
24th November 2013, 09:05 PM
Indeed, but the EM5 way outperforms the EM1 with long exposures without NR/DFS. Judging by the discussions out there and the examples i've seen the EM5 performs brilliantly with long exposures, leading to suggestions that it's cooking the RAWs in-camera. I don't know what's going on with the EM5 but the EM1 struggles with exposures over 60 secs. Admittedly not an issue for most.

I think it's more likely that the E-M1 is "cooking raws" (most amusing concept:)).

In order to provide the PD focusing that many wanted a number of green pixels in the centre of the sensor have had to be sacrificed. This missing data has to be replaced by interpolation from the surrounding green pixels.

All electronic devices produce electrical "noise" the generation of which increases with temperature. When a sensor is left "on" for a long exposure it generates heat which in turn produces more noise. The new sensor also has better high ISO noise characteristics (which "every one" wanted) so is inherently a "different" sensor to that in the E-M5. It is invariably the case that in solving one problem compromises have to be made which result in the loss or change of capability in another area.

With all respect I can't imagine that the use of their cameras for amateur astro photography is a factor that weighs heavily with Olympus' designers when considering the market they are hoping to maximise sales in. Neither can I see that a perceived shortcoming in one very specific application makes a camera "not PRO grade", whatever that means. I seem to remember that "back in film days" there were certain models of camera that were considered "better" for astro photography than others and I guess nothing has changed.

Just my thoughts.*chr

birdboy
24th November 2013, 09:23 PM
Hi Chris I think I understand your problem. I found out about this when taking pictures of fireworks albeit circa 8sec exposures.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261811#post261811

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?p=262206#post262206

Although at the time I thought this was only related to livetime I have seen it on other exposure modes.

I do not think this is a NR issue I had NR on when I took these. What does seem to make a difference for in camera jpg is to set the NF to high. The noise I experienced were black dots which only appeared when processed through in camera jpg and OV3.

When I took raw only pictures converted them to dng and then viewed them in LR4.4 (at the time I did not have LR5.2) this noise was not there.

I have an open issue logged with Oly support about this.

Only yesterday I found the flickr thread "Long Exposure issue with OM-D E-M1?" referred to in bredmans post and I am confused because it appears that they tried raw and processed through LR5.2 and found no difference. Others are reporting it going away.

My own take on all of this fwiw is that there is a in camera jpg processing problem. But lets be absolutely sure that you do not get it when raw processing.

When you say you processed the file to dng was that from a raw only file or did you take raw+jpg?

I suspect that not that many on this forum are noticing this because they shoot raw and do not use OV3 for processing.

Just trying to help as this is a real serious issue for as I like long exposures eg light trials.
John

bredman
24th November 2013, 09:40 PM
I think it's more likely that the E-M1 is "cooking raws" (most amusing concept:)).

In order to provide the PD focusing that many wanted a number of green pixels in the centre of the sensor have had to be sacrificed. This missing data has to be replaced by interpolation from the surrounding green pixels.

I'm no sensor expert, but if the addition of PD pixels in the central area is the reason for the LE disparity between the EM5 and the EM1, then i'm amazed.

With all respect I can't imagine that the use of their cameras for amateur astro photography is a factor that weighs heavily with Olympus' designers when considering the market they are hoping to maximise sales in.

I agree, but this isn't a point and shoot for the general public is it? Maybe it is. It was Olympus that claimed this as a pro spec camera. Besides, amateur astro photography is just one small reason for taking long exposures. DFS is a workaround but sometimes would be awkward, that's all. If the EM5 is cooking the data afterall then they just need a firmware update to fix this.

Back to the pro spec thing, i had my 3rd lock up yesterday. About 10 mins of use since the last one. Which was 30 mins of on-time since the 1st and i can't shoot a single frame shot as it won't be anywhere near sharp, it's all short bursts in the hope one's sharp enough. I'm just not using it now, the lenses are off -- back on the EM5. : I need Olympus to do/say something, before i return it for a refund and look to eventually jumping ship (i already sold some m43 lenses in preparation for this), it's too much money for something that isn't working.

PeterBirder
24th November 2013, 09:47 PM
This is interesting read. Also a few links to other discussions from that page. This isn't a deal breaker for me, but it is one intended use i may have to rule out for this camera. Soon i'm moving house to a 'dark sky area'.

http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

Interesting indeed. The last set at different ISO's clearly shows that it's related purely to exposure time. I can also see the same actual patterns of "dots" in the first three which would not be the case if it is "noise" in the normal sense which is entirely random. I had forgotten about John's (Birdboy) posts and the fact that these patterns show indicate that it's the same problem he had and that they are taken from jpg's.

Regards.*chr

jamsa
24th November 2013, 10:25 PM
Do please get in touch with Olympus techies as anything like these problems really worry me and I simply can't afford a spare camera in case I get lockups....

Thanks


I'm no sensor expert, but if the addition of PD pixels in the central area is the reason for the LE disparity between the EM5 and the EM1, then i'm amazed.



I agree, but this isn't a point and shoot for the general public is it? Maybe it is. It was Olympus that claimed this as a pro spec camera. Besides, amateur astro photography is just one small reason for taking long exposures. DFS is a workaround but sometimes would be awkward, that's all. If the EM5 is cooking the data afterall then they just need a firmware update to fix this.

Back to the pro spec thing, i had my 3rd lock up yesterday. About 10 mins of use since the last one. Which was 30 mins of on-time since the 1st and i can't shoot a single frame shot as it won't be anywhere near sharp, it's all short bursts in the hope one's sharp enough. I'm just not using it now, the lenses are off -- back on the EM5. : I need Olympus to do/say something, before i return it for a refund and look to eventually jumping ship (i already sold some m43 lenses in preparation for this), it's too much money for something that isn't working.

G2EWS
24th November 2013, 10:38 PM
Hi John,

I only shoot in RAW.

I need to stress again, I think that the issue is that the EM5 copes with Landscape photography with no problems. The EM1 is the pro version of the OMD range, so shouldn't have any problems with this type of exposure. I would have thought this to be a basic requirement of any camera and certainly one with the label of being a pro and 'top of the range'.

When I get the time, I will carry out more tests, but I suspect, as with others I will find the same results. Meaning I either need to take a 'dark' image and use that in processing or switch on the noise reduction. Again, I state, this was not necessary in the EM5 and shouldn't be with the EM1.

I am very disappointed and bought a second body as I felt certain the EM1 was good enough for me to sell my Nikon D3S and plethora of fast lenses. Having sold my D3X earlier this year, I am now wondering if I should hang on to the Nikon kit I have and sell my second EM1.

It would be great to hear that Olympus are looking into this and will find a solution. But in the meantime, my EM1 will be used for everything else I take photographs of, but maybe not long exposures of landscapes and water.

Someone on flickr said he doesn't like long exposures of smooth water. That is really not the point. We each choose to shoot what we prefer and these type of photos are recognised as being those I enjoy to take. Making the skill of getting the photo exactly as I want it, the target I aim for. I know I am certainly not alone in this desire.

Best regards

Chris

birdboy
24th November 2013, 11:17 PM
Hi John,

I only shoot in RAW.

I need to stress again, I think that the issue is that the EM5 copes with Landscape photography with no problems. The EM1 is the pro version of the OMD range, so shouldn't have any problems with this type of exposure. I would have thought this to be a basic requirement of any camera and certainly one with the label of being a pro and 'top of the range'.

When I get the time, I will carry out more tests, but I suspect, as with others I will find the same results. Meaning I either need to take a 'dark' image and use that in processing or switch on the noise reduction. Again, I state, this was not necessary in the EM5 and shouldn't be with the EM1.

I am very disappointed and bought a second body as I felt certain the EM1 was good enough for me to sell my Nikon D3S and plethora of fast lenses. Having sold my D3X earlier this year, I am now wondering if I should hang on to the Nikon kit I have and sell my second EM1.

It would be great to hear that Olympus are looking into this and will find a solution. But in the meantime, my EM1 will be used for everything else I take photographs of, but maybe not long exposures of landscapes and water.

Someone on flickr said he doesn't like long exposures of smooth water. That is really not the point. We each choose to shoot what we prefer and these type of photos are recognised as being those I enjoy to take. Making the skill of getting the photo exactly as I want it, the target I aim for. I know I am certainly not alone in this desire.

Best regards

Chris

I really am hoping that the problem lies within the in camera processing. I personally do not think that the answer is to use NR. for 1) I got a serious amount of noise on a 8sec firework picture and 2) the em5 does not have this problem.

I have only just upgraded to LR5.2 and shall revisit my black dots issue. The reason being there is a suggestion that LR removes hot/dead pixels type noise and it may be a case that LR4.4 behaves differently than LR5.2 regarding how it processes the raw files. If you have a copy of LR4.4 it would be interesting to see if your dng file gives the same resulting picture in LR4.4 and LR5.2.

On this issue there appears to be too many irrelevant comments being made that does nothing but distract from those of us who want to use the top level Oly camera for long exposures be they; night skys, fireworks, light trials, light painting etc. This is supposed to be a creative camera, a game changer, their should not be limits to what you can use it for or what effects you want to create especially when it's earlier sibling, the EM5, seems to do the same thing better.

Whatever is causing this I do agree that Olympus by now should issue a statement saying that they understand the problem, and that they are looking into a solution or confirm that this is a "feature " of the new sensor. These forums have the potential to do a lot of damage to a product if the manufacturer stays silent on the issue.

David Morison
24th November 2013, 11:45 PM
I seem to remember the oft response to my regular observations on the E-M5 being inferior to many foregoing E System cameras for bird photography. This ran along the lines of "Olympus can't be expected to design a camera specifically for the relatively minor sector of bird photographers" (my words, but that was the meat of the comments).

David

Zuiko
25th November 2013, 01:38 AM
I seem to remember the oft response to my regular observations on the E-M5 being inferior to many foregoing E System cameras for bird photography. This ran along the lines of "Olympus can't be expected to design a camera specifically for the relatively minor sector of bird photographers" (my words, but that was the meat of the comments).

David

Olympus cameras are what they are, and that is pitched towards mainstream, general photography which they do rather well. A lot of professional applications fall comfortably into this category and cameras such as the OMD series are capable of meeting those professional standards.

They are not specialist in the same way that the Canon 7D is for bird/sports/action photography, making it pretty much unique amongst APS-C DSLRs, or the Nikon D3s is for high ISO low light work, or the D800E is for applications requiring really high resolution from an unusually large pixel count for huge, detailed prints. Some of those cameras, which excel in specific areas, might not suit general purpose photography as much as the OMDs. More general purpose DSLRs might not do much better than the Olympus models for some of the applications best served by a specialist camera.

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 06:54 AM
Olympus cameras are what they are, and that is pitched towards mainstream, general photography which they do rather well. A lot of professional applications fall comfortably into this category and cameras such as the OMD series are capable of meeting those professional standards.

They are not specialist in the same way that the Canon 7D is for bird/sports/action photography, making it pretty much unique amongst APS-C DSLRs, or the Nikon D3s is for high ISO low light work, or the D800E is for applications requiring really high resolution from an unusually large pixel count for huge, detailed prints. Some of those cameras, which excel in specific areas, might not suit general purpose photography as much as the OMDs. More general purpose DSLRs might not do much better than the Olympus models for some of the applications best served by a specialist camera.

Hi John,

Sorry to repeat myself.

The problem is that the EM5 did this job perfectly, the EM1 which is THE top end Olympus pro camera does not.

Of course each camera has it's benefits and merits, but the EM1 for a lot of us, was going to be the camera that allowed us to cut the tie we had to our FF cameras. Of course the EM1 would not be as good as my DS for sports, wildlife or gigs/low light, nor would it be as good as my D3X for landscapes and portrait.

But those of us who had got used to the amazing EM5 saw features in the EM1 that could get us that near to these other cameras, it was worth going for broke.

For me this week in the Lake District was about making the EM1 work for me as a landscape camera and it did that in almost every aspect.

In no way did any of us expect the 'pro' version of our EM5's to be worse at any of the photographic opportunities we might use it for.

That is key problem we have here.

Best regards

Chris

Ross the fiddler
25th November 2013, 08:11 AM
Hi John,

Sorry to repeat myself.

The problem is that the EM5 did this job perfectly, the EM1 which is THE top end Olympus pro camera does not.

Of course each camera has it's benefits and merits, but the EM1 for a lot of us, was going to be the camera that allowed us to cut the tie we had to our FF cameras. Of course the EM1 would not be as good as my DS for sports, wildlife or gigs/low light, nor would it be as good as my D3X for landscapes and portrait.

But those of us who had got used to the amazing EM5 saw features in the EM1 that could get us that near to these other cameras, it was worth going for broke.

For me this week in the Lake District was about making the EM1 work for me as a landscape camera and it did that in almost every aspect.

In no way did any of us expect the 'pro' version of our EM5's to be worse at any of the photographic opportunities we might use it for.

That is key problem we have here.

Best regards

Chris

I was due to take delivery of an E-M1 body to compliment the E-M5 & utilise my present 4/3's lenses (as well as the M4/3's lenses I have now & in the future). I didn't go ahead because of surrounding circumstances (bush fires) which helped me rethink my photographic needs. The two bodies would have been ideal as a pair to cater for a variety of uses, but I have decided to have an extra light camera to compliment the E-M5 kit instead in the new mini OM-D ( ;) ), the Stylus 1 (http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2013b/nr131029stylus1e.jsp).

I'm sorry it isn't what you were hoping for in every aspect & particularly the area of interest you have found it lacking, but if one can afford it, the two bodies (E-M5 & E-M1) would be a good working pair to use.

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 08:45 AM
I was due to take delivery of an E-M1 body to compliment the E-M5 & utilise my present 4/3's lenses (as well as the M4/3's lenses I have now & in the future). I didn't go ahead because of surrounding circumstances (bush fires) which helped me rethink my photographic needs. The two bodies would have been ideal as a pair to cater for a variety of uses, but I have decided to have an extra light camera to compliment the E-M5 kit instead in the new mini OM-D ( ;) ), the Stylus 1 (http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2013b/nr131029stylus1e.jsp).

I'm sorry it isn't what you were hoping for in every aspect & particularly the area of interest you have found it lacking, but if one can afford it, the two bodies (E-M5 & E-M1) would be a good working pair to use.

Hi Ross,

As mentioned I have 2 x EM1's and sold my EM5 recently.

At the moment it will be D3S for landscape and the EM1 for everything else.

Having said that I am taking the photos at a friends Daughter's wedding in Feb next year. If this problem hasn't been resolved, I may be taking my D3S, for the low light evening shots!

Best regards

Chris

David Morison
25th November 2013, 08:56 AM
Hi Ross,

As mentioned I have 2 x EM1's and sold my EM5 recently.

At the moment it will be D3S for landscape and the EM1 for everything else.

Having said that I am taking the photos at a friends Daughter's wedding in Feb next year. If this problem hasn't been resolved, I may be taking my D3S, for the low light evening shots!

Best regards

Chris
But you wouldn't be using long exposures for that so the E-M1 would cope admirably and be much less intrusive in a social context as not only the camera but long lenses would be much less obvious to your subjects.

David

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 09:05 AM
But you wouldn't be using long exposures for that so the E-M1 would cope admirably and be much less intrusive in a social context as not only the camera but long lenses would be much less obvious to your subjects.

David


Hi David,

Some people including me have experienced problems when using the EM1 as opposed to the EM5, with noise when shooting in low light with short exposures. I just didn't want it to cloud the main point of this conversation.

Best regards

Chris

Zuiko
25th November 2013, 10:18 AM
Hi David,

Some people including me have experienced problems when using the EM1 as opposed to the EM5, with noise when shooting in low light with short exposures. I just didn't want it to cloud the main point of this conversation.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

If you require extreme low light performance and you still have the D3s it's bound to out-perform either the E-M5 or E-M1, as you know it's that sort of camera!

Back on topic, I do take your point that regardless of any other comparisons the E-M1 should at least equal the E-M5 in all aspects of performance. The fact that it appears not to, through the experience of yourself and a nummber of others, is rather worrying and perplexing.

If anyone has both an E-M5 and E-M1 it might be worth doing several long exposure side by side comarisons of various durations without using NR. The findings could then be presented to Olympus for further investigation.

birdboy
25th November 2013, 10:28 AM
Hi Chris,

Back on topic, I do take your point that regardless of any other comparisons the E-M1 should at least equal the E-M5 in all aspects of performance. The fact that it appears not to, through the experience of yourself and a nummber of others, is rather worrying and perplexing.

If anyone has both an E-M5 and E-M1 it might be worth doing several long exposure side by side comarisons of various durations without using NR. The findings could then be presented to Olympus for further investigation.

This has already been done extensively on other forums, the problem is real, its repeatable, YOU DO NOT GET IT WITH THE EM5 (sorry for shouting but the point Chris keeps returning seems to be ignored) it needs a response from Olympus not more testing and not more confusion. I have not done any more testing on the related black dots issue because I am waiting for Olympus to come back to me.

Zuiko
25th November 2013, 10:53 AM
This has already been done extensively on other forums, the problem is real, its repeatable, YOU DO NOT GET IT WITH THE EM5 (sorry for shouting but the point Chris keeps returning seems to be ignored) it needs a response from Olympus not more testing and not more confusion. I have not done any more testing on the related black dots issue because I am waiting for Olympus to come back to me.

I thought I was acknowledging the point Chris is making. :)

As for other forums, I'm sorry that I haven't researched this more fully, but not having an E-M1 it is not so much of an issue for me. Having said that, naturally I am keen that any issues with the new camera are resolved.

birdboy
25th November 2013, 11:04 AM
I thought I was acknowledging the point Chris is making. :)

As for other forums, I'm sorry that I haven't researched this more fully, but not having an E-M1 it is not so much of an issue for me. Having said that, naturally I am keen that any issues with the new camera are resolved.

Yes you did and I understood that because I showed what you had said, I did not mean to offend you John. The point I was trying to make, with my frustration showing, was that we do not need more testing to establish if this is real because that has been done and I understand that Olympus are working of on it. We need Olympus to issue a statement before this gets out of hand.

Zuiko
25th November 2013, 11:07 AM
Yes you did and I understood that because I showed what you had said, I did not mean to offend you John. The point I was trying to make, with my frustration showing, was that we do not need more testing to establish if this is real because that has been done and I understand that Olympus are working of on it. We need Olympus to issue a statement before this gets out of hand.

Don't worry John, I didn't take offense and I do take your point! :)

OM USer
25th November 2013, 12:54 PM
Even though it does not affect me (no E-M1) I read with interest some of the details on this issue on one of the other sites. It does appear that with identical settings (in particular NR off) the E-M1 is significantly worse (10x possibly looking at the images) than the E-M5 with regard to noise at long exposure. If true this is going to be a big dissapointment to E-M1 owners. Has there been any statement from Olympus on this?

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 01:00 PM
This guys blog shows it as simply as is needed:

http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

Regards

Chris

Zuiko
25th November 2013, 01:27 PM
This guys blog shows it as simply as is needed:

http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

Regards

Chris

Thanks for posting, Chris, it looks pretty conclusive.

Olybirder
25th November 2013, 02:54 PM
It's becoming a bit depressing reading about all these issues with the E-M1: noise on long exposures, lockups, funny noises from the IBIS, blurred images etc. Is it officially a dog of a camera to be avoided at all costs yet?

Looking on the bright side, touch wood, I haven't experienced any of these problems SO FAR, although I never take sharp photos anyway. Perhaps I am not being hard and professional enough on my camera. ;)

Ron

Ian
25th November 2013, 03:09 PM
This issue of noise on long exposures is interesting and I will be doing my own comparisons now I have some E-M1s.

Ian

bpb
25th November 2013, 04:07 PM
This guys blog shows it as simply as is needed:

http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

Regards

Chris

If you look closely at the "noise" on that site you will see that all the patterns are identical. You can even identify the area that the one in the top set comes from in the lower ones. I don't know what it is but it's not noise in the sense I understand. i.e. It's not random.

Regards,

bpb

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 04:10 PM
This issue of noise on long exposures is interesting and I will be doing my own comparisons now I have some E-M1s.

Ian

Hi Ian,

It is a bit of a shock when you see the noise.

I have not pointed out (I don't think?) that it didn't happen with every image I took on a long exposure last week. Which makes it even more bizarre.

I upgraded my MBP to LR5.3 on Thursday after importing and converting the days images to dng. Up until this point I had no problems. On Friday I imported the days images and saw the noise which Peter Hartland had been getting all week. He had LR 5.3.

I therefore assumed it was 5.3 which is a pre release candidate, causing the error. But on getting back at the weekend, I imported the Friday files into my iMac which is running LR 5.2 and the images still had the noise all over them. I then installed Olympus Viewer and imported as RAW images with the same result.

So the conclusion is that it was not doing it to start with, then somehow changed and is now causing the problem. Should I get the chance over next weekend I was going to carry out some more tests.

I would be very keen for Olympus to carry out their own tests and see what they find. All we users need is some acceptance that there is a problem which they are working on.

I all other respects the EM1 is a fantastic camera.

Best regards


Chris

birdboy
25th November 2013, 04:45 PM
If you look closely at the "noise" on that site you will see that all the patterns are identical. You can even identify the area that the one in the top set comes from in the lower ones. I don't know what it is but it's not noise in the sense I understand. i.e. It's not random.

Regards,

bpb

This is what I found with my ''black dots" related issue. This "noise" appears in the same place. At the time I was shooting LSF as I had LR4.4. I have sort of got round my problem by shooting raw converting to dng and using LR4.4 as these files viewed in this way did not show the "black dots". I now have LR5.2 and cannot see the "black dots" in those same files.

What is interesting to me is that the examples given by eric in the seldom Scene photography link uses OV3 to view and display his files. If there is a in camera processing problem then just by viewing them in OV3 as a raw file is the same as seeing them as jpgs. It was Peterbirder that has raised this vailid point. in post #37 of http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?p=262206#post262206

When I look at jpg files with this noise I cannot help but think that they seem larger in file size.

My own take on all of this is that the "noise" we see is pixels that have been given the value of zero hence black dots and that somehow they are being added by the in camera and OV3 software. They do not appear as black dots in brighter exposed pictures because there is some processing going on that looks at adjacent pixels and interpolates a non-zero value.

Maybe this sounds too crazy and I have been watching too many JFK documentary's lately.

G2EWS
25th November 2013, 04:55 PM
If you look closely at the "noise" on that site you will see that all the patterns are identical. You can even identify the area that the one in the top set comes from in the lower ones. I don't know what it is but it's not noise in the sense I understand. i.e. It's not random.

Regards,

bpb

Perfectly correct, but it was easier to call it noise.

I believe the problem is associated with the same problem you get with heat on a sensor.

Best regards

Chris

Kiwi Paul
25th November 2013, 05:44 PM
Out of interest I did some test long exposure test comparisons between the EM-5 and GH-3.
The results were identical, both noise free at even 60 sec exposures at ISO 200 with no NR selected.

I can understand folks frustration at the long exposure noise issue with the EM-1.

Paul

Ian
25th November 2013, 05:51 PM
The E-M5 and GH3 have the same sensor, so no surprise there. It has been indicated to me that the GX7 sensor is not very good in long exposure situations, although there is no indication that this sensor is related to E-M1's.

I am beginning to suspect that the increased sensitivity of the sensors in the GX7 and the E-M1 are at the cost of poorer long exposure quality.

Ian

G2EWS
27th November 2013, 01:08 PM
We may have the answer with this upgrade

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-russia-new-firmware-coming-for-e-m1-with-long-exposure-fix/

Fingers crossed.

Regards

Chris

benvendetta
27th November 2013, 01:29 PM
We may have the answer with this upgrade

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-russia-new-firmware-coming-for-e-m1-with-long-exposure-fix/

Fingers crossed.

Regards

Chris

You beat me to it!

jamsa
27th November 2013, 01:31 PM
Well spotted and thanks... Pity we have to find out like this... Far better for olympus to use our regi stered email addresses when we log purchases for warranty that they email us all and tell us about this and an easy use guide to installing it!
Who am I to tell olympus how to look after buyers? A customer!

Olybirder
27th November 2013, 01:45 PM
Well spotted and thanks... Pity we have to find out like this... Far better for olympus to use our regi stered email addresses when we log purchases for warranty that they email us all and tell us about this and an easy use guide to installing it!
Bearing in mind that this was on the 4/3 rumors site and is quoting the facebook page of Olympus Russia, I assume that this is not an official press release. I am sure that if and when the update is released officially Olympus' communication with customers will be much better. I hope so, anyway.

Ron

G2EWS
27th November 2013, 02:52 PM
Bearing in mind that this was on the 4/3 rumors site and is quoting the facebook page of Olympus Russia, I assume that this is not an official press release. I am sure that if and when the update is released officially Olympus' communication with customers will be much better. I hope so, anyway.

Ron

Fingers crossed Ron!

Regards

Chris

StephenL
27th November 2013, 02:57 PM
I am sure that if and when the update is released officially Olympus' communication with customers will be much better. I hope so, anyway.

Ron
I don't recall Olympus ever contacting customers to advise them of a firmware update. It's been down to word-of-mouth and constant checking of web sites.

Olybirder
27th November 2013, 03:09 PM
I don't recall Olympus ever contacting customers to advise them of a firmware update. It's been down to word-of-mouth and constant checking of web sites.
I don't expect Olympus to contact me personally via email but I think it is possible that there will be notification on sites such as this via Olympus UK and Ian. Let's see what happens tomorrow (if anything.) Fingers crossed.

Ron

StephenL
27th November 2013, 03:37 PM
No, but it would surely be possible to send out a round-robin to every registered E-M1 user who had opted to receive mailings from Olympus?

DP Review usually seems to get such info before anyone else.

Ross the fiddler
28th November 2013, 02:26 AM
If you were hoping for less noise with Noise Reduction OFF, then I don't think that will necessarily be improved, but this is what has been updated in 1.1.

* Compensation for chromatic aberration is supported when using the E-M1 and Panasonic’s LUMIX G VARIO 14-140mm/F3.5-5.6 ASPH./POWER O.I.S. (H-FS14140) together.
* Stabilization of shooting in the Sports mode and Children mode of the SCN mode or C-AF has been improved.
* Live bulb image quality while noise reduction is on has been improved.
* Improved AF operation.
Found here (http://dl01.olympus-imaging.com/ww/ud2/ENU/0001/1090/index01a.html).

G2EWS
30th November 2013, 05:10 PM
Hi All,

Bad news with the software update. I have tested and you need to use NR to get rid of the noise. It does a better job than than before the update.

So a 2 minute exposure takes 4 minutes.

Which basically means the EM1 is not as good as the EM5 for long exposures. I somehow doubt that this can fixed and is probably to do with the new sensor. I do not see Olympus having a recall and changing everyone's sensor!

What bothers me, is Olympus must have carried out tests, how come they didn't find this? For those of us who believed that Olympus would make a better camera and bought it blindly this is very sad. Of course in almost every other aspect it is very good and better than the EM5. But I believe from other tests that I have carried out, low light also shows noise. Which again the EM5 didn't.

I am photographing a friend's Daughter's wedding in February. Unless Olympus come up with a solution I will have no option but to keep my Nikon D3S and fast lenses for the evening shots. I could buy an EM5, but having just sold mine, it seems an odd thing to do!

Feeling a bit gutted at the moment and wondering if the camera is fit for purpose. Really not sure what to do and will have to sleep on it.

Best regards


Chris

birdboy
30th November 2013, 05:30 PM
Sorry to here this Chris but reading the firmware change doc suggests that they have not got to the bottom of this issue. It only reports an improvement using NR. My own black dots problem has not been resolved either but there is slight improvement.

I also notice that the EM5 (I did not get one) was on version 1.7 which shows 7 updates in 15 months which shows that we may all have to be very patient with this new "beautiful system".

magicaxeman
30th November 2013, 11:46 PM
Its a new sensor, new design and us early uptakers are the beta testers just the same as most new model early uptakers are.
I know with the Fuji X-Pro1 its taken a long time to get it sorted out firmware wise and even now we're waiting for next weeks update that will finally fix the frame lines in the OVF issue and also histogram issues in manual mode.
The main thing was that they listened to the users and kept working on refining the firmware to get the best out of the camera, if Olympus have the same ethos and listen to the feedback they get from us and keep working on refining the firmware then I don't see any problems, problems only occur when the manufacturer stops listening and abandons work on refining the firmware on the model concerned.
In fact, in fuji's favour here is the fact that though replacement models for some camera's have been released (X100s, X-E2) they have still continued to work on and refine the previous models firmware.
I can only hope Olympus do the same.

Ross the fiddler
1st December 2013, 12:32 AM
Its a new sensor, new design and us early uptakers are the beta testers just the same as most new model early uptakers are.
I know with the Fuji X-Pro1 its taken a long time to get it sorted out firmware wise and even now we're waiting for next weeks update that will finally fix the frame lines in the OVF issue and also histogram issues in manual mode.
The main thing was that they listened to the users and kept working on refining the firmware to get the best out of the camera, if Olympus have the same ethos and listen to the feedback they get from us and keep working on refining the firmware then I don't see any problems, problems only occur when the manufacturer stops listening and abandons work on refining the firmware on the model concerned.
In fact, in fuji's favour here is the fact that though replacement models for some camera's have been released (X100s, X-E2) they have still continued to work on and refine the previous models firmware.
I can only hope Olympus do the same.

It was a pleasant surprise when the ZD70-300 lens had an update in Feb 2012 when all the other 4/3's lenses hadn't been updated since 2010. I think this Pro model E-M1 will be given a higher priority & attention than their lower models & giving them feedback (if done in a constructive way) will help to get any issues attended to (if possible).