Another informative and helpful video. You make a very good point here - a sharp noisy picture is definitely a lot easier to recover than a blurry 'clean' file. It has taken me some time but I have finally come round to ignoring reviews and internet opinion concerning camera noise performance and started to shoot according to conditions and subject requirements. I am now getting away from trying to push ISO lower than is required for a specific result. Thank you for the encouragement!
When I started 35mm film cameras were being slated as not up to the job, by the medium format photographers. Seems very similar arguments as to MFT and full frame. Good review Roger.
The 135 film was not up to 120. The few color dia films were amazing, but regardless of all that, 135 always has been about reportage, documentation and family albums. Perfect for that. The small size for whole camera was huge benefit to be able "run and gun" as documentarist or reporter. Capability to carry 2-3 cameras hanging on your neck to quickly choose between ie. 24 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm was the real huge benefit that 120 format didn't offer. The capability have 36 frames per roll, so easily available, so cheap, and care free cartridge to just throw rolls in the bag, that was reason why 135 ever got so big success. Going on trip and able to snap shots here and there without so much care presented lot of great memories to have. But for quality wise, you needed to learn to like the character of the film and learn to develop it for its limits. Always under mercy of the decisions and all, forced more camera owners to become pixel peepers. As they never had quality that 120 format offered. The 120 format had severe problems. Size, weight, huge limitation for the availability of the lenses. But it was the thing if you wanted to have photographs for quality. It was the studio workhorse, it was the tool for portrait shooters and tool for even some reportage. But if one wanted quality, it was 4x5 minimum. It was the landscape primary tool. It was for the studio and even for portraits. And if it was architecture or product photography, it was almost always the large format. People never saw medium format and large format as competition, they were just the tools for quality when needed by the creative possibilities. And everyone owned still the 135 format cameras for at least their family shots. The 4/3" format when Olympus invented it, sitting down on table with KODAK to use empirical requirements for image quality, to define what is a digital camera quality requirements. Olympus didn't care about what format to use, they only cared about the quality that will fullfill 90% of the photographers tasks. Don't try to get 100%, just find out the quality and then find out what is the smallest size of camera system you can go without compromising that quality level. Result was a digital format with new sensor technology, understanding what future can offer to photographers, and choose that. A 4/3" sensor size, based to 110 film format. The 4/3" format was to be a par with a 120 film format. To be a better than 135 film ever was. And Olympus succeeded in that already with their first E-1 body. That was just 5 Mpix, with KODAK sensor. The base ISO 100 was great, but you couldn't go past 400 to get 120 format. But you got better than what the 135 was (excluding some films). And if something, Olympus really knew at the time that the final image quality was better than required, and they got to be doing smaller cameras with it. But they did fail at the time doing the f/2.0 series lenses. They became too big, too heavy. And people saw it as only way, as competition for anything larger format. That it wasn't. Olympus did same thing with their OM-D line, repating the same error with their E-M1 II bodes, making them larger and too heavy. But this time lenses were small enough and sensible, as f/2.8 was more than enough. We have gone from the E-1 times to OM-1 model, in ISO improvement in level of 5-7 stops. And yet some people thing that it is not good enough. Compare E-1 with ISO 100 and f/2 lens, to E-M1 II with f/2.8 lens. You can go to ISO 8000-12800 against E-1 ISO 400. The stabilization is multiple times better. Dynamic range is multiple stops better. Resolution is couple times better (5 Mpix vs 20 Mpix). One industry problem is the minority that doesn't even know how to take portraits, as they just rusn for fastest lenses you can have to get fast enough shutter speed, without ever learning to use lighting equipment. That is like trying to record music by not learning 4-track recording, but by trying to fix problems by buying more expensive microphones. Similar is with wildlife photography. People buy to expensive lenses, without wanted to learn how animals behave and how to approach them and get for the shot. And instead knowing how to take that single frame shot, they believe for high frame rates and luck. Too many minds are corrupted with the technological achievements, instead the skills that photographer needs to have.
An amazingly natural looking "backyard" birding studio and some equally beautiful bird photographs. Well done and nice to know those of us shooting MFT have a little extra help when needed from Topaz.
Great video Rodger i have recently shot kingfishers at ISO25600 and used the noise reduction in photoshop with excellent results that have enabled me to get A3 prints
A very useful video. The elaborate background information is always a bonus. Specific side by side examples of out of camera vs de-noised ones are really helpful in determining the extent of benefit provided by the software. And nice pictures as always.
Roger: Once again, your substantive and detailed video has provided excellent guidance to fellow OM-1 shooters such as myself. Please feel free to continue providing specific detail regarding your shooting technique and settings as well as your post processing advice, it is greatly appreciated. PJI
Thnks for commenting, and glad you liked it. I dont have the OM5 but I have heard very good report of it, and as you say, it has very good AI for shooting birds.
Lovely images Roger. I have been shooting at ISO 8000 - 12800 recently with no fear at all: as you state, topaz is a marvellous piece of software. Andy Rouse captured a woodpecker at 25000 with his OM1 and it looked good. He thought he was shooting at ISO 2500 at the time.
Thanks for the kind comment. AS you say, even if you have to go to high ISO`s, Topaz will sort out any noise. I have not seen Andy Rouse`s woodpeccker shot. Where did you see it ?
Fine video, Roger. My two cents worth, FWIW. Forgive me if you made this point and I missed it but in my opinion, most important of all, regardless of the camera you're using, when shooting at high ISOs is to expose to the right as you'll produce far cleaner images of a correctly exposed file shot at high ISO than one underexposed at a lower ISO. Keep up the good work!
Good video Roger, looks a great setup. I use Topaz on already converted images but find I get slightly better results with the latest DXO as it works on the RAW prior to conversion. I hear great things about the latest Photoshop AI noise reduction but it runs extremely slowly on what I thought was a fairly fast computer. I'm amazed that the OM1 handles 12800 iso as well as it does , not so long ago I would not have used a full frame camera at 6400 ISO !
Thanks for the kind comment John. I agree with you about the Noise Reduction in Lightroom being slow. It make a very good job, but its very slow on my computer whereas Topaz only takes a few seconds. (my computer is a fast computer as well) As you say, not that many years ago, we would struggle to use a full frame at ISO 6400. Modern technology is improving things at amazing speed.
Looks a great set up David has there and you got some great shots Roger. Although Topaz is great I prefer the latest DXO as it works on the RAW and gives the best results for me, but Topaz is still useful on already converted images.
I've even taken shots at 20,000 iso that have been very useable. Noise reduction software really is incredible! In my instance I was using DXO DeepPrime XD.
I second that, with 20000-25000 I still got very usable results shooting people at a party in low light, especially after processing with DXO. OM Workspace also has AI noise removal for free that I still need to try. Any higher ISO than that can start to look strange with too many details missing and visible artefacts after noise removal. The high ISO performance of the OM-1 is great indeed!
What great photos and setup. If I may, I implore you to find a high megapixel, full frame equivalent, to put the MFT naysayers in their place. At the very least, your setup will provide a great real world comparison with few compromises.
I had the full frame equivalent - 2 EOS R6s. Noise levels were lower, but the OM-1 is superior for AF, the lenses are better built, lighter and AI NR levels the playing field.
@@rogerhance5883the AF on the R6 is average. The R3 is significantly better than the R6. The OM-1 AF is within 90% of the R3 (sometimes better), in nearly all conditions IMO. The OM system greatest weakness is NO large aperture telephoto/zoom lenses. A true 35mm equivalent 600mm F/4 or F/5.6 designed for MFT’s is sorely needed. Yes it’ll be larger and expensive, but some folks require these lens specs.
I’ll have to try topaz. I only have the 100-400 on the Om-1 mk1 and frequently have low or poor light. Lots of noisy images. I wonder if the lens has anything to do with it.
Thanks for commenting. Its unlikely its the lens, although having a lens with a faster aperture would alow you to drop the ISO. generally speaking, Topaz De Noise will know any digital nosie on the head. You cannot but DeNosie as a stand alone piece of software any more. You have to buy Topaz Ai, which has Topaz Sharpen Ai, Topaz Gigapixel and DeNoise all in one piece of software. It is worth the money.
Hmm, I'm not too far from Norfolk. Might make the trip. Regarding low-light shoots and noise reduction, I am happy using masking layers within Lightroom so I can minimise any detail loss on my subject, applying none or little to the subject highlights, a little more on shadows, and can be ham-fisted with the OOF background. Quite easy using a Wacom pen or the increasingly powerful automasking features within LR.
@@rogerhance5883 It took from Adobe about 10 years to get the basic layer masks in Lightroom. The layer masks are most powerful and most important features that image editing application can have, and that has been the case for decades. 1995 Photoshop 3.0 added first time the layers, and that changed forever how image manipulation is to be performed, no more copy/paste between files. 1996 in v.4.0 Adobe added adjustment layers, now it was possible to do what we do today, as it included layer masks as well. Photographers have always overlooked the layer masks in image manipulation. That is a most important feature because that especially allowed to do all those noise free images since 1996. You apply blurring and other means to get noise out, and then you mask frame by painting only the details back that is wanted. Same is with sharpening and all other things. That is why it has never been requirement to get those advanced denoising softwares when you have known how to use layer masks. All the sharpening has been super simple thing to do, when you know how to use layer masks. When Adobe released Lightroom in January 2006, I was waiting that layer masks would get added to it soon. But it took well over decade that Adobe finally bent over the photographers needs and added the feature. That is one reason why it is so sad to see that new camera owners are so much guided to these next-hyped software, when all they need really is a image manipulation software that offers layer masks and then learn to use that feature with paintbrush. The noise is as well too often blamed to be a bad thing, but the noise is your friend, it is thing that will improve dynamic range and that will make more pleasant photographs. It is required to know how to apply it.
How much is this for using one of the optically best super telephoto zoom lenses in history of inter changeable lens cameras? Do you think you can can get as clean and sharp results with inferior zoom lenses? I'm not 100% sure but I have a strong feeling that optically superior lenses can retain sharpnes and contrast better even at high ISO speeds. You were shooting at overcast day, with I think is the best weather to shoot at after golden hour, clouds provide softbox like even light distribution without harsh contrast of direct sunlight. Not the best weather for birds in flight, but very good for stationary subjects. In this kind of lighting you can safely push ISO very high regardless of sensor format, especially if you can frame subjects without cropping in post.
My more humble attempts at bird photography (robins, grebes) have benefited greatly from Topaz Denoise to the extent that I'm mystified that I never bought the software earlier. The images you show are superb and a great advert for micro four thirds.
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
Another informative and helpful video. You make a very good point here - a sharp noisy picture is definitely a lot easier to recover than a blurry 'clean' file. It has taken me some time but I have finally come round to ignoring reviews and internet opinion concerning camera noise performance and started to shoot according to conditions and subject requirements. I am now getting away from trying to push ISO lower than is required for a specific result. Thank you for the encouragement!
Glad you liked the video and found it helpful Alan. Some people worry about increasing the ISO but it is really not a problem with modern software.
Great looking video and very informative. We have reached similar conclusions on noise levels and iso.
Glad you liked it. Thanks for the kind comment.
When I started 35mm film cameras were being slated as not up to the job, by the medium format photographers. Seems very similar arguments as to MFT and full frame. Good review Roger.
Good comparrison Mike. Its amazing how many people still think the quality is not good enough.
The 135 film was not up to 120. The few color dia films were amazing, but regardless of all that, 135 always has been about reportage, documentation and family albums. Perfect for that.
The small size for whole camera was huge benefit to be able "run and gun" as documentarist or reporter. Capability to carry 2-3 cameras hanging on your neck to quickly choose between ie. 24 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm was the real huge benefit that 120 format didn't offer.
The capability have 36 frames per roll, so easily available, so cheap, and care free cartridge to just throw rolls in the bag, that was reason why 135 ever got so big success. Going on trip and able to snap shots here and there without so much care presented lot of great memories to have.
But for quality wise, you needed to learn to like the character of the film and learn to develop it for its limits. Always under mercy of the decisions and all, forced more camera owners to become pixel peepers. As they never had quality that 120 format offered.
The 120 format had severe problems. Size, weight, huge limitation for the availability of the lenses. But it was the thing if you wanted to have photographs for quality. It was the studio workhorse, it was the tool for portrait shooters and tool for even some reportage.
But if one wanted quality, it was 4x5 minimum. It was the landscape primary tool. It was for the studio and even for portraits. And if it was architecture or product photography, it was almost always the large format.
People never saw medium format and large format as competition, they were just the tools for quality when needed by the creative possibilities. And everyone owned still the 135 format cameras for at least their family shots.
The 4/3" format when Olympus invented it, sitting down on table with KODAK to use empirical requirements for image quality, to define what is a digital camera quality requirements.
Olympus didn't care about what format to use, they only cared about the quality that will fullfill 90% of the photographers tasks. Don't try to get 100%, just find out the quality and then find out what is the smallest size of camera system you can go without compromising that quality level.
Result was a digital format with new sensor technology, understanding what future can offer to photographers, and choose that. A 4/3" sensor size, based to 110 film format.
The 4/3" format was to be a par with a 120 film format. To be a better than 135 film ever was.
And Olympus succeeded in that already with their first E-1 body. That was just 5 Mpix, with KODAK sensor.
The base ISO 100 was great, but you couldn't go past 400 to get 120 format. But you got better than what the 135 was (excluding some films).
And if something, Olympus really knew at the time that the final image quality was better than required, and they got to be doing smaller cameras with it. But they did fail at the time doing the f/2.0 series lenses. They became too big, too heavy. And people saw it as only way, as competition for anything larger format. That it wasn't.
Olympus did same thing with their OM-D line, repating the same error with their E-M1 II bodes, making them larger and too heavy. But this time lenses were small enough and sensible, as f/2.8 was more than enough.
We have gone from the E-1 times to OM-1 model, in ISO improvement in level of 5-7 stops. And yet some people thing that it is not good enough. Compare E-1 with ISO 100 and f/2 lens, to E-M1 II with f/2.8 lens. You can go to ISO 8000-12800 against E-1 ISO 400. The stabilization is multiple times better. Dynamic range is multiple stops better. Resolution is couple times better (5 Mpix vs 20 Mpix).
One industry problem is the minority that doesn't even know how to take portraits, as they just rusn for fastest lenses you can have to get fast enough shutter speed, without ever learning to use lighting equipment. That is like trying to record music by not learning 4-track recording, but by trying to fix problems by buying more expensive microphones.
Similar is with wildlife photography. People buy to expensive lenses, without wanted to learn how animals behave and how to approach them and get for the shot. And instead knowing how to take that single frame shot, they believe for high frame rates and luck. Too many minds are corrupted with the technological achievements, instead the skills that photographer needs to have.
An amazingly natural looking "backyard" birding studio and some equally beautiful bird photographs. Well done and nice to know those of us shooting MFT have a little extra help when needed from Topaz.
Glad you liked the video Bruce. Topaz means we MFT photographers can shoot at ridiculous ISO`s and still get acceptable results.
Excellent video Roger I shot with the om1 and 300mm with DXO photo lab 6 and I get really good pictures with no noise.
Thanks Glad you liked the video.
I've been using Topaz for quite some time, but today tried DXO and got better results. I will continue to compare them.
I have heard that DXO is very good.
Once again another fine, interesting and informative video. Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts and findings.
Thanks David.
great video, Roger! Thanks a lot 🙂, Dirk
Thanks for the very kind comment. Glad you liked the video.
Great video Rodger i have recently shot kingfishers at ISO25600 and used the noise reduction in photoshop with excellent results that have enabled me to get A3 prints
Thanks Ken. Glad you liked the video. The newer Noise Reduction software in Lightroom is very good indeed.
A very useful video. The elaborate background information is always a bonus. Specific side by side examples of out of camera vs de-noised ones are really helpful in determining the extent of benefit provided by the software.
And nice pictures as always.
Thanks for the kind coment. I always try to show as much content as I can about `how` the pictures are taken. Glad you liked it.
Roger: Once again, your substantive and detailed video has provided excellent guidance to fellow OM-1 shooters such as myself. Please feel free to continue providing specific detail regarding your shooting technique and settings as well as your post processing advice, it is greatly appreciated. PJI
Thanks Paul. Glad you found it helpful.
thanks for the video and the stunning shots.
Thank you. Glad you liked it.
Fantastic images.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Agree 100%. With Topaz Denoise, ISO becomes almost an irrelevant consideration any more. It's just magical. And wonderful!
Agree. Its worth every penny. Brilliant software
I find
DxO walks it, as well as the 2023 update of Lightroom.
Excellent video Roger, Topaz is very good as is the new DXO pure Raw 3
Thanks Peter
Good morning
Another very good video. Despite the language barrier
Bonjour
Encore une bonne vidéo. Malgré la barrière de la langue
Salut, Merci pour le commentaire très gentil. Heureux que cela vous ait plu, même si la langue est un problème.
hi Roger
nice video and images.👍
Thanks very much. Glad you liked it.
Great photos. I'll probably buy it's little brother the OM-5, as it's cheaper. This camera though has an excellent AI for shooting flying birds
Thnks for commenting, and glad you liked it. I dont have the OM5 but I have heard very good report of it, and as you say, it has very good AI for shooting birds.
Lovely images Roger. I have been shooting at ISO 8000 - 12800 recently with no fear at all: as you state, topaz is a marvellous piece of software. Andy Rouse captured a woodpecker at 25000 with his OM1 and it looked good. He thought he was shooting at ISO 2500 at the time.
Thanks for the kind comment. AS you say, even if you have to go to high ISO`s, Topaz will sort out any noise. I have not seen Andy Rouse`s woodpeccker shot. Where did you see it ?
Fine video, Roger. My two cents worth, FWIW. Forgive me if you made this point and I missed it but in my opinion, most important of all, regardless of the camera you're using, when shooting at high ISOs is to expose to the right as you'll produce far cleaner images of a correctly exposed file shot at high ISO than one underexposed at a lower ISO. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind comment Robert. I agree about shooting to the right when pushing up the ISO setting. It does produce much cleaner images. 👍
for a non photographer, what does expose to the right mean? over expose!
@@bricenohYes; histogram to the right but not so far that you're clipping the highlights.
Nice video Roger. I use Topaz denoise too which works really well. I find even at low ISOs it still improves images even when noise is barely visible
Thanks for the kind comment about the video. I agree , its a great bit of software and it even improves images that do not need noise reduction.
Good video Roger, looks a great setup. I use Topaz on already converted images but find I get slightly better results with the latest DXO as it works on the RAW prior to conversion. I hear great things about the latest Photoshop AI noise reduction but it runs extremely slowly on what I thought was a fairly fast computer. I'm amazed that the OM1 handles 12800 iso as well as it does , not so long ago I would not have used a full frame camera at 6400 ISO !
Thanks for the kind comment John. I agree with you about the Noise Reduction in Lightroom being slow. It make a very good job, but its very slow on my computer whereas Topaz only takes a few seconds. (my computer is a fast computer as well) As you say, not that many years ago, we would struggle to use a full frame at ISO 6400. Modern technology is improving things at amazing speed.
Looking at those Topaz shots, I'm pretty sure I prefer DxO's Prime. It seems to make the image look more organic, less processed.
I have not tried DxO. I must give it a try sometime.
Looks a great set up David has there and you got some great shots Roger. Although Topaz is great I prefer the latest DXO as it works on the RAW and gives the best results for me, but Topaz is still useful on already converted images.
I have heard that DXO is very good. I must give it a try. David`s set up is brilliant.
I've even taken shots at 20,000 iso that have been very useable. Noise reduction software really is incredible! In my instance I was using DXO DeepPrime XD.
I have never tried DXO , but I gather it is extreemly good.
I second that, with 20000-25000 I still got very usable results shooting people at a party in low light, especially after processing with DXO. OM Workspace also has AI noise removal for free that I still need to try. Any higher ISO than that can start to look strange with too many details missing and visible artefacts after noise removal. The high ISO performance of the OM-1 is great indeed!
@@sourcebased Agreed. The noise performance on the OM1 is far better than previous Olympus models.
What great photos and setup. If I may, I implore you to find a high megapixel, full frame equivalent, to put the MFT naysayers in their place. At the very least, your setup will provide a great real world comparison with few compromises.
Glad you liked it.
I had the full frame equivalent - 2 EOS R6s. Noise levels were lower, but the OM-1 is superior for AF, the lenses are better built, lighter and AI NR levels the playing field.
@@wildphotographeruk Interesting that you say the AF is superior on the OM1. I though the AF on the R6 was supposed to be very good ?
@@rogerhance5883the AF on the R6 is average. The R3 is significantly better than the R6. The OM-1 AF is within 90% of the R3 (sometimes better), in nearly all conditions IMO. The OM system greatest weakness is NO large aperture telephoto/zoom lenses. A true 35mm equivalent 600mm F/4 or F/5.6 designed for MFT’s is sorely needed. Yes it’ll be larger and expensive, but some folks require these lens specs.
I’ll have to try topaz. I only have the 100-400 on the Om-1 mk1 and frequently have low or poor light. Lots of noisy images. I wonder if the lens has anything to do with it.
Thanks for commenting. Its unlikely its the lens, although having a lens with a faster aperture would alow you to drop the ISO. generally speaking, Topaz De Noise will know any digital nosie on the head. You cannot but DeNosie as a stand alone piece of software any more. You have to buy Topaz Ai, which has Topaz Sharpen Ai, Topaz Gigapixel and DeNoise all in one piece of software. It is worth the money.
Hmm, I'm not too far from Norfolk. Might make the trip. Regarding low-light shoots and noise reduction, I am happy using masking layers within Lightroom so I can minimise any detail loss on my subject, applying none or little to the subject highlights, a little more on shadows, and can be ham-fisted with the OOF background. Quite easy using a Wacom pen or the increasingly powerful automasking features within LR.
Its amazing what you can achieve in Lightroom
@@rogerhance5883 It took from Adobe about 10 years to get the basic layer masks in Lightroom.
The layer masks are most powerful and most important features that image editing application can have, and that has been the case for decades. 1995 Photoshop 3.0 added first time the layers, and that changed forever how image manipulation is to be performed, no more copy/paste between files. 1996 in v.4.0 Adobe added adjustment layers, now it was possible to do what we do today, as it included layer masks as well.
Photographers have always overlooked the layer masks in image manipulation. That is a most important feature because that especially allowed to do all those noise free images since 1996. You apply blurring and other means to get noise out, and then you mask frame by painting only the details back that is wanted. Same is with sharpening and all other things.
That is why it has never been requirement to get those advanced denoising softwares when you have known how to use layer masks. All the sharpening has been super simple thing to do, when you know how to use layer masks.
When Adobe released Lightroom in January 2006, I was waiting that layer masks would get added to it soon. But it took well over decade that Adobe finally bent over the photographers needs and added the feature.
That is one reason why it is so sad to see that new camera owners are so much guided to these next-hyped software, when all they need really is a image manipulation software that offers layer masks and then learn to use that feature with paintbrush.
The noise is as well too often blamed to be a bad thing, but the noise is your friend, it is thing that will improve dynamic range and that will make more pleasant photographs. It is required to know how to apply it.
How much is this for using one of the optically best super telephoto zoom lenses in history of inter changeable lens cameras? Do you think you can can get as clean and sharp results with inferior zoom lenses? I'm not 100% sure but I have a strong feeling that optically superior lenses can retain sharpnes and contrast better even at high ISO speeds. You were shooting at overcast day, with I think is the best weather to shoot at after golden hour, clouds provide softbox like even light distribution without harsh contrast of direct sunlight. Not the best weather for birds in flight, but very good for stationary subjects. In this kind of lighting you can safely push ISO very high regardless of sensor format, especially if you can frame subjects without cropping in post.
I agree soft overcast lighting does produce very nice results when the birds are static and you dont need a fast shutter speed.
My more humble attempts at bird photography (robins, grebes) have benefited greatly from Topaz Denoise to the extent that I'm mystified that I never bought the software earlier. The images you show are superb and a great advert for micro four thirds.
Thanks for the kind comment.
1st time I've heard anyone say Topaz noise reduction is better than others.
Sorry, I can’t see any significant difference between before and after Topaz.
It does not really show up that much on TH-cam. I can see it more clearly on full screen on my monitor
Nice video but at 3.55 you start repeating yourself…