Micro four thirds and ISO noise. What's the big deal?

If you've ever even vaguely considered changing to the micro four thirds system, you will have composed a list of pros and cons. If it's an Olympus OM-D system like the E-M1, then on the pro side you might have listed features such as; weight-saving, excellent Zuiko optics, 5-axis ibis, weatherproof, evf, etc...

Then on the cons list, there's probably things like; smaller sensor, poor low-light ISO performance, limited video capabilities, larger depth of field (compared to bigger sensors), smaller printing sizes.... stuff like that.

Seems like a genuinely accepted list of pros and cons when weighing up the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds system to other systems and sensor sizes.

Except it's not. Not really. Because when it comes right down to it, most of the 'features' listed above - both the pros and the cons, are purely 'subjective'. And yet most photographers, reviewers and 'influencers' (naming no names) speak about these things as if they are objective truths. They're simply not.

Even the OM-D 'faithful' constantly feel the need to apologise for the 'poor low light performance' of micro four thirds. I think I've heard the phrase 'poor low-light performance' in relation to micro four thirds used about a dozen times this week on Youtube alone. And that's from confirmed Olympus users. Why all the constant apologising over the noise quality from a micro four thirds sensor? Is it really all that bad - objectively? Or, is it purely subjective? To quote Shakespeare - "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 25mm. f/5.6 @ 1/125th, ISO 12800. Noise reduced in LR

When I heard the 'poor low light performance' line trotted out again today as a 'matter of fact', this got me thinking. A lot. Because to be absolutely truthful, I've never - and I do mean never - thought that my E-M1 had poor low light performance. And that's a fact. But, it's also subjective.

I'm not stupid (honestly), or ignorant. I realise that the phrase 'poor low light performance' is made in comparison to full frame sensors. So it's relative. And yet, when it is constantly used as a 'con' of the micro four thirds system - a negative aspect of the system as a whole - then it makes prospective owners or potential users of the system stop and seriously question whether to even bother or not.

From the dawn of digital photography we've been 'taught' to fear NOISE in our images. It's to be avoided at all costs. And, to be fair, some of the very early first-gen sensors were pretty awful above ISO 400. But that was 20 years ago - an absolute age in technology. Today's sensor 'noise' isn't even close to what it used to be when noise was a dirty digital word. Somehow (don't ask me how), manufacturer's have managed to make digital noise a lot more 'organic' looking - more (dare I say it) like film grain that hi-fidelity noise.

And besides which, noise is one of those 'features' that is highly subjective. Some photographers don't mind it. Some embrace and use it (much like people embraced and used grain). And some will delete any image that shows even a hint of it! As I've already said, I've never looked at any of the images I've taken with my OM-D cameras and thought they were too noisy. Or suffered from poor low light performance. Just never.

But I have also come from a film photography background. Where ISO 800 film was crazy-fast, and shot only rarely. This kind of thinking around ISO's has been ingrained into my photography. Even with digital. You could hand me a Nikon D3, or a Canon 1Dx with crazy low-light performance, and I'd still only shoot it at an absolute maximum of 3200 ISO (and probably only up to 1600 if I'm honest).

Back in my film days I tried an ISO 3200 Ilford black and white film once. Just once. It was horrible. And I mean horrible! Grain the size of golf balls. The prints I made from that film didn't look like photographs - more like those black and white sand drawings that do the rounds on Youtube. Compared to that, ISO 3200 on my E-M1 micro four thirds camera is practically grainless! So does micro four thirds have 'poor low light performance'? Yes - and No. What are you comparing it too? And what is your individual tolerance for noise in an image?

Above is a comparison of the ISO performance of my OM-D E-M1. I know it will be difficult to tell from this image on the web, so I'll just give my synopsis of what I see at 100% on my computer screen.

With a well-exposed image (exposing for the right), ISO 800 is very clean. Not noise-free, but so close as to not be an issue at 100%. The same is true of ISO 1600, and maybe even 3200 - again depending on your proclivity for noise in an image. While noise is apparent at ISO 3200, it would clean-up very easily in the noise-reduction programme of your choice - so I still don't see it as an issue.

As far as I'm concerned, you can stop right there. A relatively clean, eminently useable (for social media and A3 sized prints) image at ISO 3200 is an amazing result for micro four thirds if you ask me. I'm a happy camper. So no, I don't concur with the 'poor low light performance' appraisal of micro four thirds - at all.

But as you can also see from above - the E-M1 doesn't stop there. ISO 6400 is also useable when cleaned up - as is ISO 12800, remarkably! I'd stare clear of ISO 25600 - but there's no surprises there. The highest ISO setting on practically all cameras is only there for marketing purposes. ISO 25600 sounds good, so it's included as a selling point. That you would never shoot that high is irrelevant.

I did the same ISO test with my E-M10, and the results were identical, so I haven't bothered including them here. Based on what I see in these images, I would have no hesitation in shooting both cameras at ISO 3200 - and even 6400 if I had to.

Hand me a camera - any camera - and I'm always going to shoot it at its lowest native ISO, if I can. If I can't, then I will either use a tripod, add some light into the scene, or start to increase the ISO. Most of the time, for even the most extreme low-light scenarios I shoot, my ISO will never get past 1600 if I'm hand-holding. That's why I have a fast f1.7 prime in my bag. But usually I'm shooting from a tripod if I'm in very dark conditions. And then I can stay at ISO 200. 

You're mileage, and shooting scenarios, might vary. I get that. You might be a coalmine photographer who 'needs' to shoot clean images at ISO 2 million? If that's the case, then no, micro four thirds might not be right for you on those occassions (although it still might make for an excellent travel kit when you go on holiday with your family). 

The most common scenario I hear is wedding photography. "I shoot weddings, so I shoot a lot in low light. So I can't use micro four thirds" is the general gist of the conversation. I'm not here to dismiss their experiences, but I also often wonder if this is said by people who have ever even tried micro four thirds? I shot weddings for years, in churches, without flash, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so now with my E-M1 at ISO 3200. There are plenty (and I do mean plenty) of wedding photographers using micro four thirds who aren't being run out of town by angry clients who are unhappy with the amount of noise that are in some of their images. 

Let's face it. Who cares about noise? Really? It's us - isn't it. Photographers.Photographers who have been told, from the beginning of the digital era, that noise = bad! And so, because micro four thirds might be a little (yes, a little) bit more noisy that APS-C or full-frame sensors, then micro four thirds = 'poor low light performance' = bad. And while this might be 'objectively' true in terms of test charts, formulas and the laws of light and physics - 'subjectively' I don't see noise as an issue with micro four thirds. Period.

Sorry this has been such a long post/rant. But I felt it was an important topic to address, since it's high on the list of 'cons' given against using any micro four thirds system. The next time you hear someone talk about micro four thirds 'poor low light performance', please don't take it as the gospel truth. Try the system for yourself. Do your own ISO tests, and decide what level of noise you feel comfortable with.

For me, I'm happy to go as high as I would with any other camera system. Poor low light performance with my E-M1 and E-M10? Nah. Don't think so.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 initial thoughts

It's mid-winter here in New Zealand as I write this, and on the West Coast of the South Island where I live that usually means cold and wet - very wet. Not ideal conditions for taking your newly acquired (non weather-sealed) camera out for a test run.

Fortunately, some decent weather was forecast for the weekend just gone. On Sunday afternoon I managed to get out for an hour and go for a walk with my wife, and friends of ours, on a local beach. Not ideal weather conditions (middle of the day under bright sunlight), but good enough to make a few 'test' images on the OM-D E-M10.

What Wind? Olympus OM-D E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

First of all, let me just remark on how small this camera is. Because it is. Tiny. Weeny. Itsy, bitsy. Petite (you get the idea).  Is it too small perhaps? (Oh no, here we go...). 

Well, umm, yeah. Actually I think it is a wee bit too small. For me. The controls - especially the two top control dials that incorporate the shutter button, feel just a little too cramped for my liking. And I only have medium-sized hands for a bloke. So rather than the camera molding comfortably in my hand (like the E-M1 does), I find myself clutching at the camera with almost a claw-grip. Not something that I think would be overly comfortable - or even sustainable - for a long period of shooting.

Handling is improved with the ECG-1

But hang on. Before I give the impression that I've dismissed the E-M10 already, all is not lost.

Because, together with the E-M10, I also managed to pick up the Olympus ECG-1 grip, made specifically for the E-M10. And as you can see in the photo at left, the size of the grip, and the camera itself, is significantly increased with the grip attached.

Does it solve the cramped handling issues entirely? No, it doesn't. It's still certainly nowhere close to E-M1 comfort. But it does help. And for me, at least, the addition of the ECG-1 turns the E-M10 from a no-go, into a small, light and useable camera.

I do realise that the small size is actually a bonus for many people, and for a lot of users the addition of the ECG-1 would be a rather pointless exercise. And that's what makes these type of grips such a good idea. Get it, and use it, if you want to 'bulk' the camera out a little - or don't.... The choice is yours.

I'm actually very impressed with the way Olympus has engineered the ECG-1. Many other hand grips that screw into the tripod mount at the bottom of the camera need to be removed constantly if you want to replace the battery and or memory card. Either that, or they simply machine a very large hole in the base of the plate so the grip doesn't cover the battery door (my Fuji XE-1 grip was like this). Olympus have cleverly gotten around this by creating a latch that lets you unclip the main part of the grip to expose the battery/SD compartment, and then simply snap it back into place once you've finished. It's such a simple, yet ingenious solution. To me, it's yet another example of a camera being designed by photographers rather than engineers.

Rapahoe Beach. E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/7.1 @ 1/400th, ISO 200 

So with the grip attached, I can live with the ergonomics. And the rest of the camera is fine button-wise. I probably wouldn't want to wander around with it in my hand for hours. But then again, I'm unlikely to. When I use it as my 'travel' camera, it will more than likely sit in a camera bag for 90% of the time, and I'll just take it out to shoot a few images and then pop it away again. It's how I tend to 'roll'.

In terms of using it as a 'back-up', or in conjunction with my E-M1, it's absolutely perfect. The menu system is practically identical - a very seamless control and set-up between the two. And the IQ (image quality) is darn near identical (in fact it probably is). Which means I'm more than happy with the dynamic range, colour, sharpness and clarity coming out of the E-M10's files. And when you get right down to it, isn't that the ultimate point?

Wave forms, Rapahoe. E-M10 with 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/2000th, ISO 200

So I've got no complaints with the actual images this camera produces. And I can live with the ergonomics with the ECG-1 grip attached. All pretty positive stuff. 

And that's where I'll leave my initial review - on a positive note. Because it is - on the whole - a positive experience shooting with the diminutive E-M10. Even having said all that I have about it's small size and cramped feel, once I started shooting with it, all that nonsense went away, and I just immersed myself in the process of taking pictures.

Sure, the 1.4MP EVF is a noticeable step down from the 2.3MP EVF on the E-M1 - but is it unusable? No, of course not. And the E-M10 may have 'only' 3 axis image stabilization - but so what? I never rely on IS for sharp images anyway - even the 5 axis magic in the E-M1. It may 'only' shoot at 1/4000th top speed (compared to the 1/8000th of the E-M1), and top out at 8fps. But so what? I ain't using it for sports anyway.

Out for a walk. Olympus OM-D E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/7.1 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

At the end of the day, what the Olympus OM-D E-M10 is, is a superbly crafted camera that can capture beautiful images in a small, compact form factor. Ideal for travel and on-the-go photography. And it's also the personification of the micro four thirds concept. A 'big enough' sensor, in a 'big enough' body, that takes more than 'good enough' images.

That's 'good enough' for me.

My OM-D Family increases

As I start to enjoy getting back into the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds system more and more, my desire for putting together a more nimble 'travel' kit has increased.

Now don't get me wrong, the OM-D E-M1 is by no means a bulky or heavy camera. But I prefer to shoot it with the grip attached. Which does add to the bulk and weight. When I'm about to leave the house for a stroll around the neighborhood, reaching for the E-M1 with grip attached and carrying that around just on the 'off chance' that I might get an image, isn't all that appealing. Yes I can (and do) take the grip off and go without - slimming down the camera considerably. But it's a bit of a faff when I just want to grab-and-go. So I end up not taking a camera at all.

Hence my desire for a more nimble travel/walk-about kit.

In the past, this would have meant looking at something like the Olympus Pen E-P3. I think I've owned this camera twice in my photography career, and I have a love-hate relationship with it. I've written about the E-P3 before on this blog - the last time was here and here. 

I love the look of the Pen series, and especially the E-P3. It's just a gorgeous camera. Beautifully designed and crafted. A joy to own - which is probably why I've had two of them. The E-P3 is also the point at which Olympus got the autofocus on the Pen series right. Prior to the E-P3, the contrast detect AF of the Pen series was fairly slow. With the E-P3 they sorted that out well and truly.

But (isn't there always a 'but'), I really dislike shooting without a dedicated viewfinder. And that's putting it mildly. Having to use the LCD screen to compose and shoot on the Pen's is a real killjoy to the way I like to shoot. Sadly. But there it is. So as much as I am attracted to the aesthetic of the Pen series, I don't find them much fun to shoot with. Small, and light, and great for travel. but not much fun.

Having said all that, I still considered getting one. For two reasons. a) the aforementioned size and weight, ideal for compact travel shooting. And b) the price is right. Nice, minty Pen bodies come up fairly often, usually for a very good price (the exception being the digital Pen F).

But just as I was considering my next Pen purchase, I saw an online auction for a mint condition OM-D E-M10, at a fantastic price. Why hadn't I considered the E-M10 before? It is, in fact, the perfect solution to my desire for a smaller OM-D 'travel' camera. So yeah, I got one 😁 

I didn't pull the trigger right away though. I 'ummd and 'arrrd' for a few days while I mulled the decision over in my tiny brain. Why the hesitation? Well, I know I'm about to contradict everything I've just said about wanting to get a smaller travel camera. But I hesitated because I was worried that the E-M10 might be a bit too small? Yeah, I know, I'm a complicated creature...

But one of the things I've learnt about myself over the years, is that I don't like cameras that are 'too' small. On the one hand I want small and light. And on the other I want something chunky enough so as not to be too fiddley! Told you I was complicated.

So what made up my mind about the E-M10? Simple. I brought the extra grip attachment, the ECG-1 for it before I even brought the camera. And I'm hoping that this will be the difference between having a 'useable' small travel camera, and it feeling too small as to be not enjoyable to use (for me).

I know the OM-D E-M10 is a small camera. That's the point. That's what I'm looking for. But I also know that my tolerance for 'too small' on a camera is fairly low. For me, the OM-D E-M5 was too small, until I attached the grip. And then it was just right. And yes, I know, the E-M10 is even smaller. Hence the ECG-1 grip.

I have, however, in the last few years, redefined my definition of "too small" in a camera system somewhat. Before moving back to the Olympus OM-D E-M1, I was rocking a couple of Fujifilm XE rangefinder-style bodies (with the Fuji grips attached), and really enjoying them. I didn't find them too small at all. Although I think they might actually be a bit bigger than the E-M10? (Actually, I've just Googled it, and it's so close as to be negligible). So my definition of 'small' in a camera my be evolving somewhat?

In any case, the addition of the ECG-1 to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 will be crucial in my enjoyment of the camera, and I wouldn't have purchased it without the grip as well. Even Robin Wong, in his review of the E-M10, claimed that the ECG-1 grip was an essential, must-have accessory for better handling. If it's good enough for Robin, it's good enough for me!

As for the rest of the specs associated with the E-M10 - well, they tick all the right boxes for me as far as I'm concerned. Same 16MP sensor and processing engine as in the E-M1 - check. This means there will be consistency of images between both cameras, if I end up shooting them together. The E-M10 also has the same menu system (which is good as far as I'm concerned), has 3-axis IS (good enough for me), the same tilting LCD screen as the E-M1, and more than good enough AF, sequential shooting and video (not that I'll use the video features). In most respects, it is exactly what it's meant to be - a baby E-M1 with the same image quality that will slot in perfectly with my existing kit. What more could I have asked for?

Well, actually, it would have been nice if they had shared the same battery, but I understand why this isn't the case. Smaller body, smaller battery - still same number of images per battery. Fair enough.

I'm very excited about adding the Olympus OM-D E-M10 to my micro four thirds family. I think it will work in perfectly with the E-M1, and I can't wait to shoot with it. Expect an 'initial thoughts' post on this blog when I do.