Olympus UK E-System User Group

Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php)
-   General photography discussion (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=75)
-   -   "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane. (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49050)

Ross the fiddler 21st October 2018 11:00 PM

"NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Noise on Micro Four Thirds (revised version with brighter video exposure) by Terry Lane.
"NOISE! Micro Four Thirds High ISO"

*chr

Phill D 22nd October 2018 08:01 AM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Yes that's a nice video. Very calmly done. It went on to another of his videos about digital downsizing which was also a good watch. Only issue I had was he implied that the Oly and Panny IS body and lens systems worked together showing a Lumix 100-400 lens and an EM1 mk2. As far as I know that is incorrect.

drmarkf 22nd October 2018 06:10 PM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Yes, he's a good voice of reason, with some good-practice tips.

Bearing in mind how the comparisons are done on photonstophotos.com, however, which I believe take account of optimising the exposure for each sensor and probably some clever processing, contrary to what he states (apparently based on an assumption, rather than a scientific test) there's not actually a significant difference in signal-to-noise ratio between the E-M1ii and the XT-2 or even -3:

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PD...M1%20Mark%20II

Ross the fiddler 22nd October 2018 09:25 PM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phill D (Post 460682)
Yes that's a nice video. Very calmly done. It went on to another of his videos about digital downsizing which was also a good watch. Only issue I had was he implied that the Oly and Panny IS body and lens systems worked together showing a Lumix 100-400 lens and an EM1 mk2. As far as I know that is incorrect.

Thanks Phil. I went & checked & thought it was only mentioned at 12 minutes, 11 seconds in the video, thinking the same & so I stuck my neck out & commented on the video with this reply from Terry.
Quote:

Terry Lane
Ross: There is some misunderstanding here. I make it quite clear that the dual IS is only available with Panasonic cameras, except for the unique case of OMD plus Olympus 300mm f4. I do say, quite explicitly, that dual IS is only with the Panasonic combination and I said that with that combo you could probably stand on one leg in an earthquake and get sharp shots. I have looked at the video again and I cannot see any ambiguity in my presentation. Incidentally I do own Panasonic cameras so I would hardly make the mistake you mention.
I guess I'll have to listen to the "Digital Downsizing - DSLR to Micro Four Thirds" video right through again. I did share that one earlier this year here too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drmarkf (Post 460727)
Yes, he's a good voice of reason, with some good-practice tips.

Bearing in mind how the comparisons are done on photonstophotos.com, however, which I believe take account of optimising the exposure for each sensor and probably some clever processing, contrary to what he states (apparently based on an assumption, rather than a scientific test) there's not actually a significant difference in signal-to-noise ratio between the E-M1ii and the XT-2 or even -3:

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PD...M1%20Mark%20II

Thanks, but I'm not going to mention that with him though. ;) I think I would describe him as being "old school" in his manner & approach, which isn't a bad thing, but certainly someone that is much easier to listen to with a measured & sensible approach rather than a brash type of character that some are from a certain northern continent. :rolleyes: ;)

*chr

MJ224 22nd October 2018 09:35 PM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
As a result of this video, I may try the Exposure bracketing, and see if that allows the ISO to be raised.....*chr

Jim Ford 22nd October 2018 09:59 PM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
I've learned not to worry much about noise. Mind you, I mostly view my images on a laptop with a dirty LCD screen!

Jim

drmarkf 23rd October 2018 08:48 AM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross the fiddler (Post 460740)

Thanks, but I'm not going to mention that with him though. ;) I think I would describe him as being "old school" in his manner & approach, which isn't a bad thing, but certainly someone that is much easier to listen to with a measured & sensible approach rather than a brash type of character that some are from a certain northern continent. :rolleyes: ;)

*chr

Undoubtedly the right decision, Ross!

He probably gets wound up a treat as it is by all those lonely, angry young North American men who troll away on dpreview. Hes got the sort of personality that will get needled by it and, although a lot of what he says is useful common sense, some of it is right in their allergy zones (noise, depth of field, sensor size etc).

Actually, Bill Claff (runs that photonstophotos site) is a bit of a saint in my view. Hes probably a man of reasonably mature years, but spends a lot of time on dpreview patiently explaining the scientific background to the angry and ignorant in calm and reasonable terms. Terry may well know him, but I agree letting sleeping dogs lie is the best course.

Terry touches on the intended use of images in relation to noise, sensor size and processing tips, but I think he could usefully have said even more. A well exposed and processed m4/3 wildlife image taken at 1600 or even 3200ASA has invisible (or, at least, unobjectionable) noise that can score 19 or 20/20 in a blindly-judged U.K. Club photography projected image competition (I bet that a lot of people here, like me, have done this), while its also invisible in a well-made A4 print.

Blow it up to 16 x 20, however, or crop it 50%, and it will usually begin to fall apart.

So, were mainly balancing day-long gear portability against the ability to make 16 x 20 prints from images taken in poor light in the 40 at the beginning and end of the day. My back and neck have already voted in that poll!

Ian 25th October 2018 09:58 AM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
This must be the first Youtube video I have watched non-stop from start to finish without a pause for months :)

Excellent messages and I agree 100% with everything he says. I'm not quite as experienced as him, so in my teens I was using mainly Ilford FP4 (125 ASA) and HP4 (400) but even then there was a quest for less grain and I did dabble with Pan-F (50 ASA). :D And those were all black and white! ISO 12 Kodachrome was long gone by the mid-70s but I certainly shot some ISO 25 Kodachrome, as well as other makes of tranny film at ISO 64, as well as colour neg at mainly ISO 100. As with most things in life, it's all relative!

Ian

drmarkf 25th October 2018 10:45 AM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian (Post 460970)
This must be the first Youtube video I have watched non-stop from start to finish without a pause for months :)

Excellent messages and I agree 100% with everything he says. I'm not quite as experienced as him, so in my teens I was using mainly Ilford FP4 (125 ASA) and HP4 (400) but even then there was a quest for less grain and I did dabble with Pan-F (50 ASA). :D And those were all black and white! ISO 12 Kodachrome was long gone by the mid-70s but I certainly shot some ISO 25 Kodachrome, as well as other makes of tranny film at ISO 64, as well as colour neg at mainly ISO 100. As with most things in life, it's all relative!

Ian

Yes, I used to buy rolls of Pan-F and HP5 and load my own cassettes.

Pushed Pan-F (I forget now what speed I used) had a great feel, looking mildly grainy but contrasty a bit like the Acros film simulation in some Fuji digital cameras today.

One learned to capitalize on happy accidents - like when I forgot to temper the washing stage of one roll and ended up with some right spacey-looking reticulation.

The obsession with ultra-clean files today is very limiting, and I'm sure it's spun up by certain manufacturers...

MikeOxon 26th October 2018 09:48 AM

Re: "NOISE!" (revised) by Terry Lane.
 
I did enjoy Terry Lane's comment that using ISO 6400 feels a bit "naughty".



I started on Kodachrome II (25ASA). Now that we have stabilisation and wide aperture lenses I rarely feel a need for anything more than ISO 640 and am very content with MFT performance at that speed.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:08 PM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2018, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger