ISO 100 vs ISO 800

[Greg McCary]

Ever since I got my E-500 I have been reading that there is a lot of grain at ISO 800 and higher. So ever since I have been wanting to do a side by side comparison. I took these pictures this afternoon. But I didn't use the kit lens. I used the 14-54mm 2.8/3.5 lens. In my film days I never shot any ISO 800 film. I just never cared for it. So you be the judge. Is this to much grain or not? The first is ISO 100 and the second 800.

[Jaedon]

I high lighting situation slike you have here greg I can't usually find a difference either. But if you were to take it down to a lower lighting situation where you HAD to shoot at ISO 800 to get anything to show... you'd see the difference. The only time I shoot at ISO 800 (I hate going over 400 to be honest) is when it gets a bit cloudy on a day at the track and I absolutely HAVE to get the shot and I need more shutter speed to freeze the action.

[Greg McCary]

I will try it again in other lighting conditions. I basically here was wanting to see if the higher grade lens made a difference. Maybe that some of the problem could be the kit lens. But since I don't have mine anymore it may not be a fair test.

[Tyson L. Sparks]

I don't see a difference. Of course I am still beside my self because of that DANG Malware virous on my laptop. AHAHAHAHA It is impossible to fix!
I do like the flowers.
Do the full size files look grainy?

[Greg McCary]

Here is another test picture. I was fighting some bad lighting, but this one was shot at 1250 ISO, F/4, 1/100. I used the 40-150mm kit lens. I don't think it's that bad for 1250?????

[almo]

It is too much for me. In both samples. But not because of its presence, rather the quality of it. And lets make one thing clear here. We are not talking about grain, it's noise. The fact that kodak noise looks electronic is the whole problem. This is why mysel so many others who shoot at higher ISOs tend to lean toward Canon, and Nikon. The noise is there at higher ISOs, though not as much of it, and it is more film like, like actual grain, as oppsoed to digital noise.

This is not to say Kodak sensors are not wonderful photograpic tools, and they are getting better, but at higher ISOs they can not compete with the Canons and Nikons of the world.

[Greg McCary]

Thanks Almo for you input on this. Not seeing grain at higher ISO's has always had me wondering about this issue. So it's more of an over all quality problem. This really helps me understand the whole issue better. I thought noise and grain were basically the same thing. But I see were you are coming from. I have learned something. I did notice that the WB seemed a bit off here.
I also noticed a big difference in the noise problem when trying to work with Olympus Master. When viewing some of my IR pictures, at first, through Olympus Master the RAW files were unacceptable in my book. But when using Raw Shooter the problem of noise wasn't there? I wouldn't recommend Olympus Master to anyone.
Another area I have seen quality issues is with the compact flash cards. I have a couple of cheap ones that every now and then will then will corrupt the file. I also had one of the cheaper cards die in middle of shooting with it.
Greg

[Tyson L. Sparks]

I must be blind? I don't see any noise here, what is it that I am not seeing? One thing too you have to remember, this was a kit lens. If it was a pro lens I would be disappointed. I agree with the Olympus Master, it blows.

I wonder if the E510 is ........................Noise free.

[Greg McCary]

I must be blind? I don't see any noise here, what is it that I am not seeing? One thing too you have to remember, this was a kit lens. If it was a pro lens I would be disappointed. I agree with the Olympus Master, it blows.

I wonder if the E510 is ........................Noise free.

I think with the higher grade lenses it would take a better image than one posted on the web to tell the difference. With the higher grade lenses most of your difference will be in performance, speed, and durabilaty. With the kit lens, Zuiko 14-45mm, I have taken some really nice pictures that have made for some good 16x20's. This was taken with the 40-150mm kit lens.

[Didache]

Greg - the resolution on computer screens is relatively poor and you might not see a big difference in the same way as you would if you printed your samples up (especially in darker toned areas). Many is the time when I have had an image which looked fine on a monitor, but looked dreadful printed up at 300dpi.

Mike

[Greg McCary]

Thanks Mike. I haven't had any quality issues with any printing since I went digital. But I have messed a couple of things up in PS and didn't realize it until they came back from print.
Greg

[OM-2n]

I'm stupid as far as digital photography goes, but I thought that comparison was made between film and digital.

[Tyson L. Sparks]

One of the biggest complaints with Olympus E system cameras is the noise in the images above the 400+ ISO settings. Most of the noise is seen in images shot in the dark. Thats if you shoot at higher ISO. I keep mine at 400 or less. I am going to get an E510 when they come out.Right now I shoot with a E500.

[Greg McCary]

The E-500 is suppose to have grain/noise problems at higher ISO's, I have heard this even before I bought it, but I haven't really seen it. I took pictures yesterday in low lighting and shot as high as 1600. I did notice some quality issues above 800 and it seemed worse if I missed exposure and had to correct it in Lightroom. Also the Oly is the only DSLR I have ever owned so who am I to judge. But coming from a film background I have been very happy with the 500 so far. But even in my film days I never shot over 400. I just never had much luck with 800+.

[Tyson L. Sparks]

Here are a few ISO test shots, enjoy.



100


400


1600


A different view

100

200

400

640

800

1000

1600