Micro 4/3 is too noisy? And how get rid of noise

[@Henry30065]

Very sensible comments. I believe some photographers appear to spend their lives magnifying images to a point that noise and therefore clarity is bound to be affected, irrespective of sensor size.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@srinivasaniyengar3433]

Thank you for explaining and clearing the myths about micro four thirds noise. Your explanations are clear and precise.

[@mattisulanto]

Glad it was helpful!

[@TL-xw6fh]

I have both MFT (OM10 Mk ii/E-PM1) and FF (Nikon D750) systems, and I generally do not shoot in very low light. I never found the MFT to be a problem for noise, even compared to the D750. I shoot mainly at 200 to 640 ISO and by careful exposure settings, I don't even bother with noise reduction in post! To me the most important considerations in creating great images are light, composition and strong subject matter. Everything else is secondary, including noise.

[@Knowbody42]

The EM1 II actually has a pretty good sensor despite being M43

[@andyhank4867]

InstaBlaster...

[@tomfreda7107]

In case someone hasn't mentioned it already in the comments below; selective noise reduction works really well for me. The trick is to reduce excessive noise in areas where noise is more noticeable (sky, water, flat surfaces) and only sharpen areas where it isn't. And it's amazing how many people reach a conclusion on M4/3 noise from photos that have been globally sharpened. Some people just don't get it; the sky does *not* need sharpening. You just make normal noise really noticeable and bad noise abysmal. These techniques allowed me to get results from a tiny 2/3" sensor Fuji X10 that lots of people swore were from full frame. So the much larger Micro Four Thirds sensor was a very easy upgrade for me.

[@wildbill9919]

My neighbors don't have a problem with micro 4/3 noise. But they have complained about my stereo being too noisy.

[@santanaff1]

🤣

[@stevenr3853]

MFT is a very practical system it has its advantages and disadvantages just as FF has with medium format!

[@matthewpage1944]

Recently switched from from many years of APS-C to M43 G9... astonishingly good results (especially with the Leica glass). I've shot up to 25,600 ISO and got really, really good images with LR. I am utterly blown away by the image quality achievable with this kit, and my shoulders are really thanking me for the lighter weight too :o) So glad I didn't move up to monster full-frame glass! Useful tip: hold ALT/Option key down while adjusting the sharpening & noise reduction sliders - and you will quickly see what's being affected.

[@moreapropos]

Great video. Straight forward and to the point. In low-light, noise is a problem with ANY CAMERA, so this problem is not unique to MFT. You follow the best practices as you described, and don't blame the camera. It is amazing technology. I agree. Let's stop making noise and go take some pictures. It's truly a non-issue for me.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@tpar83]

I just bought my first enthusiast’s camera, the LX100 M2, and I’m enjoying watching your videos!

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you, Tony!

[@jonlouis2582]

I like your videos and subbed to your channel. You are a rare voice of reason in gear videos who isn't overtly flogging anything. I find your honesty pretty refreshing. The only time my Panasonic cameras let me down was photographing action at an event where light was really limited, and I only had a slow lens, which was stupid. I thought the flash would cover me, but it was a fiasco. Luckily I don't do much shooting under those circumstances and I don't depend on my photos for my livelihood. For the kind of photography I do, excess noise is not a problem, people worry way to much about pixel peeping.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you for those kind words.

[@philscomputerlab]

I just upgraded from a Nikon D3300 to Panasonic G7 and I couldn't be happier! I use it for filming, for my channel. The 4k has made the biggest difference, and I find noise not to be an issue. Sometimes I film at 800 ISO and it's more like a bit of film grain, than noise. So yea, I'm really happy with the value of the G7 and can highly recommend it.

[@multeemedia]

I agree, people are overly concerned with the perfect image and bokeh, rather than being concerned about what they are shooting.

[@Mobin92]

But by that logic nobody really needs a good camera... Just use the one in your smartphone.

[@hughcoleman3866]

I use an OM-D E-M 1 Mark 2 for Astrophotography. Obviously, I’m using high ISO (3200) and long exposures (15-60 seconds). My body has insane hot pixels which are very obvious in my raw images. I was so discouraged by this initially, that I bought a second hand Nikon D700 to replace it for this type of photography. But I soon learned that a couple of pixel mapping procedures and using high iso nr switched on, I was able to get rid of most noise. I could completely eliminate it by stacking multiple files in Photoshop. And stars eaten by having nr switched on seemed to come back in the stacking process. Also, saturation and intensity was enhanced. Since I started using this process, I’m much happier with my switch to mft and have only used the D700 once. Yes, each image takes twice as long, but Astro is a field requiring patience anyway.

[@houghwhite411]

Thank you for the lesson, noise is not a problem for me, I'm a _street photographer_ the noise only adds to the action

[@panamafred1]

In the '60s, if memory serves, I had a Canon AF, Canon's first auto-focus camera. Loved it, but it (and almost me) got washed out to sea in hurricane Camille in Mississippi in the late '60s. I shot a lot of 35mm Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome (64 or 100, I don't remember) slide film. I also used a lot of Kodak Tri-X 400 black and white film and I think I recall pushing it all the way to an astronomical 800. I enjoyed time in the darkroom and I wanted to be Ansel Adams. The grainy effect in a rainy night shot of a speeding train was wonderful. So now, with my new G9, the new high ASA, I mean ISO numbers make my head spin. Grain and noise -- I love it! Now if I can just figure out how to put the film in the camera. Thanks for your videos!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing!

[@ianyorke2617]

mft is a smaller sensor and will have more noise. It also is a system that uses computer lens correction techniques. By using the correct software you can eliminate the noise and take advantage of the fact that usually at the wide end of the zoom the actual focal length of the lens is wider than the quoted value. This is because the low computer power and time restraints mean that a crop of the image is performed as part of the jpg correction. This crop yields the lenses quoted focal length. DXO-Photolab 2 performs a superior lens correction on a raw file to enable more of the lenses actual focal length to be utilised. Raw converters like LR use the jpg correction embedded in the raw file and therefore in LR the jpg and raw conversion are identical. DXO-Photolab 2 also has PRIME noise reduction. This is relatively slow during export and the effect can only be shown in the program in a small preview window. However, the results can be quite dramatic. The dropbox link shows the difference between Adobe and DXO-PL 2 raw conversion from an Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens at 12mm. The DXO-Pl 2 conversion shows a significantly larger fov. An easy upgrade to your lenses :-) The third file is a comparison of a jpg and DXO-PL 2 raw conversion for a file at 25,600ISO. Again as well as eliminating the noise you can see more yellow lettering on the book spine due to the increased fov obtained. www.dropbox.com/sh/i7i3o2xjkik7noc/AACjn74OceGmqogl4Qxe3Zpoa?dl=0

[@celestebrunell]

I shoot mostly with a Nikon D300s. Bought it when I retired, and am now on a fixed (small!) income, so the "latest and greatest" is out of my reach. Above ISO 1600, the images are NOISY. Thank you for the clear explanation of your noise corrections. I have watched other videos where people say "use these settings" but this is the first one that explains the finer operational details. Thank you ! I will go back to my catalog and play with some night action shots of horse rodeo racing.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you! I'm always happy to hear that I could be of help.

[@mne9476]

Expose to the right is how I get the cleanest photos with my Olympus mFT. Thanks for the LightRoom tips. Great video!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@RobShootPhotos]

I was a guest at a wedding and the photographer with a Canon Full Frame with f2.8 24-70mm didn't use flash the whole time, which I thought was odd. I just had with me my 14-150mm and flash unit and shot all day at 3200 without a flash with no problem. However the bridal dance I had to bump up to 6400 on my E-M10 and it got a bit rough more than I like. If I would have had my primes or 12-40mm f2.8, I could have probably been able to shoot at 1600 without any problems. For the fast dance I finally put my flash on because who cares and the photographer wasn't very interested in taking those photos. Like you said, fast glass makes the difference. You really have to be shooting really really low lighting to have to use ISO 6400 or needing really fast shutter speeds in typical low light situations. I shot an evening outdoor rock concert at 1600-3200 and I really had no complaints about how good the pictures came out.

[@MalcolmBrenner]

Noise, schmoise. I've been carrying around a APS-C camera for years, but if I invest in a new system it's going to be MFT. After all, you can't take any pictures with a camera you've left home because it's too heavy, can you?

[@damonlawson9447]

Exactly the reason why I sold all my Canon gear and bought a humble Olympus kit

[@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl]

Nice to read a realistic and honest assessment of mft. I use it in full realisation of the facts - only a fool ignores those. Usually with low light photography I don’t mind a bit of subject movement, so I’m finding with that proviso, I rarely go above base ISO with my G9 - even at night time, making it in certain circumstances the best low light camera I’ve ever owned. I was on the verge of moving back to 35mm format (I still own a Canon 5dii and was contemplating using my lenses adapted for Sony A7), but the G9 and a stack of the mft primes I own has at least put that off. I don’t foresee fast action, long range, low light ever being a major use case scenario for me. The Sonys (not to mention Panasonic S) are tempting. But extra weight and cost don’t make a huge amount of sense when a potential two stop gain will not make a regular practical difference to IQ for the sort of images I want to make. That’s the bottom line - larger format may be ‘better’ in a small number of situations, but my wallet - and my back - would not thank me for it.

[@thebattiful]

Thank you for the tips and the objective discussion of this controversial topic. For my setting - street photography and documentary - noise is not a real live problem. In some situations it can give an image the little difference or characteristic I need. So noise isn’t always a bad thing.

[@davehollander6543]

Very good discussion and I generally agree with your posture. For me (and I should stress that I'm a clumsy amateur) the noise problem is intensified when I crop--which I do (sometimes severely) particularly when it involves wildlife photography. But then, again, a bird at 100m is a bird at 100m and it's easier to get closer--if the situation allows--with a M4/3 300mm than a FF600mm.

[@Unrizen]

When shooting b&w on the street, I rise the ISO up to 1600 deliberately, because I love the type of noise that my Olympus em-10 or e-m5 generates. Sure, when you take a detail shot, noise may be an issue, but for me, it's more about the scene, the moment, the memory it saves. Is it a problem? Not at all. I would say sometimes it is a feature. Thanks.

[@RJPhotographics]

I noticed this with the E-M5 too, the noise looks more pleasing compared to other cameras. Quite like fine-grain film.

[@ThePhotographyHobbyist]

8:20 Using the masking is something I finally learned/realized awhile back and I use that every time now. I hold down (on Windows) the Alt key and slide the slider to see which areas will receive sharpening and that works out really well.

[@JyrkiS]

To me MFT gave headache with noise for a while. But then I realized, that with fast lens, right exposure and lighting does wonders. And embrace the darkness, when it's too dark, find lightsources and expose according to them.

[@yukonchris]

To answer your initial question about noise, I do have some thoughts to share. First, like you, I grew up during the film era, transitioning to digital like most people as a matter of course. And let’s be honest, the first ten years or so of digital cameras were years of less than stellar image quality. Now, we have all these very good cameras which, with their computer brains and almost limitless capacity for numbers of images, allow even beginner photographers with a little imagination and perseverance, to capture the occasional image that would have been print worthy in a professional publication thirty years ago. And with all these possibilities, and capabilities, people’s expectations just go up ad up. Now people are disappointed if a photo doesn't look more colourful, and vivid, than nature itself. I think this is where the “noise” complaints come in. For me, and my tailored expectations (given a personal history with its roots in the “industrial” age), I have a different view, and probably a different aesthetic when compared to more recent arrivals on the photographic scene. I think of a photo as art. I think of it as a two-dimensional “interpretation” of a three-dimensional world. It isn't reality captured on a screen, or on paper, it is an image. As such, I rather enjoy some of the “imperfections.” For me, sensor noise, or image grain, is something like traction for the eyes. If you create your image, understanding the characteristics of the tool you’re using, then you can leverage attributes like noise to your advantage. Recently, over the last two to three years, I have begun to shoot more and more with film again. Not because it is technically better than digital - it really isn't - but because I like its aesthetic. The imperfections in the image (grain, and lack of very fine detail) help to describe something unique and beautiful in its own right. Oddly, perhaps, I think that micro four thirds cameras, like my OM-D E-M1, offer an aesthetic, in terms of “grain” that is akin to film. Well, I find that it lies somewhere in between the look one might achieve with a 35mm negative image taken well, and a typical “full-frame” digital image, taken well. It really isn't better, or worse. It is it’s own unique interpretive look. So, do I think that micro four thirds, or film for that matter, are better mediums, or formats, than “full-frame” digital images? No, of course not. They are all different. At times, one may prefer the results, because of their unique attributes, from any one of these. The point is, photography is art. We aren't really capturing anything. We are interpreting. Any form of interpretation is an approximation, or an impression. If you like the result, then it is a success. Well, that is my two-bits worth, or maybe even a bit more. Cheers.

[@mattisulanto]

Wow, that a lot of comment😀 Thanks for your input.

[@borderlands6606]

+ Christopher Wheeler, I agree on the film point and use film and M4/3 digital about 50/50. Two things I've noticed about high ISOs, first, noise is much less noticeable in highlights than shadows, second, converting to black and white gets rid of the worst aspects of noise. It isn't the noise I find intrusive but the artefacts high ISOs give, hatching and painterly effects. The other thing is film generally has much lower speed than digital, although its grain when pushed to 1600+ are less compromising than digital.

[@yukonchris]

@@borderlands6606 Yes, but again, with film you are unlikely to push any film above 1600 ASA anyway, and that range limitation is also quite acceptable for micro four-thirds digital sensors. It's easy to get very nice colour results with my E-M1 at 1600, and this is where your point about highlights versus shadows plays in. If you're careful about exposure and err to the right, even in situations that require significant signal amplification, like 1600 ISO, you are likely to get totally usable results. I also, agree with your comment on B&W. I am not familiar with Panasonic m43 cameras, but Olympus units seem pretty good where colour noise is concerned, and that's the noise I find most objectionable. Luminance noise often resembles film grain when you expose and process with that in mind and my E-M1 generally produces luminance noise in darker conditions rather than colour noise, so it's all good from my perspective.

[@dorianonthebike8448]

The first thing I noticed when I bought LUMIX G9 and tried it with an old borrowed kit lens (didn't have a single MFT glass yet) was how noisy and dirty pictures looked. Then I bought a Sigma 56 1.4 and... Shockingly, almost all the noise is gone. Then Leica 25 1.4 2nd gen - very good results. Having been shooting with Canon 80d previously I can tell G9 has considerably less noise at higher ISO but slightly more noise on long exposures with base ISO (200 vs 100). So despite my first impression and all the dreadful stories NOISE is NOT a PROBLEM on my G9 MFT.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@tomlew55]

I own a Lx100 and a gx85 which I purchased for travel/street photography. Searching for the right combination, I eventually ended up with 6 lenses. A 42.5 f1.7 (85) prime and the 35-100 f2.8 (70-200) being by far the best. To me, in low light, especially indoors without a flash, or when enlarging and cropping, they leave a lot to be desired. Compared to my Z7 with fast primes, or even my D750, MFT is inferior. Although, when lugging gear around all day doing casual shooting outdoors, I'll go with the smaller system. I consider them tools that do different things and like any tool they are only as good as the person using them.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@badtypoerror]

Thank you for the wonderful clip and the well explained presentation. Indeed, too many people are too obsessed with noise, and missed the big picture. Cheers.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your comment.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

I grudgingly moved to digital after years of film(from1978) and over the years have used all three within the small format system and recently settled on Fuji X for no other reason that I like the xtrans output. The funny thing I have noticed is that many people who have produced and commented on youtube videos on mft noise especially comparing it and APS-C to FF you generally find that they are struggling due to poor camera understanding and over all poor skill level. The only thing I would say about micro four thirds is that you need to be on your game and need to understand about shooting to the right of the histogram. FF is a little more forgiving for those who's skill levels are lacking. Always found the noise reduction and sharpen feature in Lightroom to be not great and ended up doing both selectively in photoshop with better results. Good vlog good information, new subr.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

Good Day 😉😂

[@bbc6rgf57ytty5yxyw5gt]

Way too many people on the internet are obsessed about the gear instead of the actual photo taking.

[@alexanderschastak1459]

True, but it makes sense, cameras are as good as they get(I still use my 4 year old Pentax K1, and I would not see a reason to update to anything new, image quality is great, functions are plenty), and if people would not continue buying gear, camera producers would be bankrupt soon. Phones for daily quick snaps are good enough, so the companies put fuel into the gear debates, their last bastion of strength.

[@benferrisfilms4700]

@@alexanderschastak1459 false its mostly about skill. yes most people are obsessed about gear

[@andrewgreen1355]

Another great video. I liked your suggestion for settings in the Detail panel and have created a preset. This works well. Thanks

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks! Glad it was helpful!

[@chrissimmonds4383]

I use m4/3 and own Olympus cameras. There is more noise than full frame in general but is competitive with APS-C and I don't find it a problem but I don't usually go higher than 1600 iso. Also, if you are careful with exposure and do not underexpose you can minimise noise to the extent that it is not noticeable at all. One thing you cannot get away with is photographing subjects too far away so you have to crop. With larger full frame sensors you can get away with having to crop but with m4/3 the noise will become apparent, although again, I don't mind the noise as, in Olympus cameras at least, it is not unpleasant and actually adds to the picture a lot of the times. Mind you, I still use film regularly and m4/3 is sublimely clean in comparison.

[@shifteleven]

For me, noise is an issue for post processing - and being able to push things in post. If you capture things in camera the way you want it, no big deal. But if you didn't, or you want to stylize things, it can matter. So I think it's up to your constraints and what your goals are. But if you're doing minimal post, yeah, no big deal. Thanks for your perspective.

[@milomiller161]

Noise is only a problem when you shoot a fast-moving subject in low light, otherwise, methods like a tripod, MFNR, faster lenses etc can mitigate any noise.

[@AnandaSim]

Aah, prickly subject especially for mft owners who may have a chip on their shoulder about this aspect and participate in forums where beginners/trolls like to exacerbate sensitivities (sensitivity - ISO - intended pun). To analogise it is like you have previously driven a medium size or big size car, say something with over 2000 cc, maybe even a V6. You then decide that a small city compact like a small Suzuki / Toyota is excellent for city driving and parking. You will find that you can't have the casual driving style of the bigger car, you need to change your driving style to enjoy the small car otherwise you will hate it. Same with mft. If you are used to the comfort of cropping a quarter or half your shot off in editing, raising the ISO to 1600 without even thinking twice, letting the shot be underexposed by half to 1 stop, edit curves and levels heavily in post etc... in comparison you will feel that with MFT, you can't get the same exact noise performance as a larger sensor. You might be puzzled or express frustration in a social media forum and then it becomes viral to the whole community, people speak rudely, trolls turn up, troll slayers turn up, the scene becomes real ugly. The point of crafting your shot becomes lost in demonstrations and comparisons that are not of winnable scenes but shots purposely made to show how the camera has a noise handicap. Oh, and don't watch Tony Northrop speak on noise and MFT unless you are a masochist.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks, Ananda, for you lengthy comment, which is to the point.

[@timbeaton5045]

@@mattisulanto Yes. Just use my GH5 to take still shots, and videos. I'm only an amateur, and the results i get are perfect for my needs. I see much more experienced shooters getting great looking results out of the same camera. Why the hate, i wonder? And yes, i recently unsubbed from the Northrop channel. Too much clickbait and trolling/countertrolling going on there for my tastes!

[@MrPetebuster1]

They cant compete with ff on high iso but who shoots in the dark all the time ?? and with the superb image stabilisation its not even necessary for the most part , i suppose if you want to spend most your life pixel peeping then you'll see the difference but in the real world you wont , personally i dont see any noise but then i just enjoy the equipment and dont compare it to anything or give a toss about stupid forums and people like tony and chelsea ,just watch the unbiased useful videos like this .

[@wtfkurtis]

The MFT noise is just 'film grain' which looks really nice for digital (it actually looks close to film compared to Canon and Nikon). Similar to Kodak high ISO 800+ 35mm film.

[@bfbaril]

I've never had real noise issues with my G85. For landscapes, I want depth of field and slow shutters speeds, so the crop factor (and the way it affects DoF) is beneficial to my landscape photography. The size and weight are also huge pluses. I don't remember the last time I used something other than 200 (base ISO), or 100 ISO if I forgot my filters and wanted the extra stop. Every once in a rare while I'll go as high as 800. I think I've used 1600 once or twice, but never beyond that except for testing. For portraiture, it's ALWAYS 200 or 100. HSS monolights do the rest.

[@suryagurung7793]

I'm sorry, can you share how I can go lower than 200 iso on the g85? Is it possible?

[@sudokujones8922]

Your videos are very informative! Also, I find your presentation very relaxing. Glad I found your channel. Subscribed!

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you!

[@markwagner1328]

I love noise! It adds a kinesthetic feeling to the images, making them more gritty, more real. I usually shoot at ISO 5000 and in some cases I will shoot ISO.8000.

[@mattisulanto]

I have another video where I add noise, please browse my channel, if you are interested.

[@streetlegal008]

I have a different approach to the noise thing. When processing, I actually like to add a tiny level of noise across the whole image. I find that this produces more of a uniform grain which is more pleasing to me than the more random noise that I start off with. So much so that this is something that I just always do as part of my process routine.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@reliefprintmaker]

I’m not a pro photographer JUST an amateur who wants to take good pics. I love micro four thirds, they light and perfect for carrying everyday and Lumix is my preference. Your explanation of picture noise was greatly appreciated,l now have a better understanding on how to precede forward. Thanks. ps. I take pictures to use as a guide for my painting. 👍

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your comment.

[@erayadiguzel3133]

I bought an Olympus e-m10 mark iii. I was complaining about the noise. Even I was thinking of selling my new camera and it' a waste of money... I've watched several videos about reducing the noise none of them was as useful as yours. Thanks...

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you for those kind words.

[@corrbox2]

Hi, As always, I appreciate your tutorial very much. I find your information very helpful and informative. I will probably watch this tutorial again, on "noise" in Micro 4/3rds camera photos, again. I use Lightroom as well. This will help me in my post-processing. Thank you very much for your input. Please keep your information coming. All my best!

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you for your kind words.

[@mindseyeproductions8798]

thanks for the video; I feel distress to anything adds character, the distress is personal and unique! and differentiate it from another.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@IvanRiveraStagea]

I have camera systems of different sensor sizes (1", Micro Four Thirds, APS-C and Full Frame). I shoot with Micro Four Thirds the most because the IBIS allows me to use a good variety of lenses hand-held. A speedbooster and a fast lens makes a world of difference in M43 astrophotography. I have a Tokina 14-20mm F2.0, which turns to a 10-14mm F1.4 on M43. This setup makes images that are roughly as clean as a 20mm F2.8 on a Full Frame camera (of course you can get much wider and brighter lenses in FF; I'm just saying that this level of quality is absolutely acceptable in most situations). If you like working on post-processing (I don't), image stacking can help tremendously too.

[@johnjon1823]

Panasonic GH3 and after are basically as good as or better than ALL the Canon APSC sensors including the 80D in my estimation. They are slightly behind other APSC sensors made by Sony. However noise is not an issue at or around base levels and even a bit higher and noise is generally reasonable. I use the Panasonic GH3 and G9 in real estate photography and blend in enfuse and the images are fabulous with the 7-14. At low ISO's you really have to search for the noise and you can definitely raise the shadows quite well without a problem for any reasonably exposed image and pretty much in many situations where you want to preserve the highlights. Noise in the G9 is very similar to the G3 but I would say the G9 is a tiny tiny bit worse than the GH3 or noise. I just retired an ancient GH2 which I used for exteriors in better light and it was fine -for good light, not for lifting shadows much or preserving highlights, but that is a really old camera. From about 2013 and on all the Panasonics I have used are fine. Noise is not an issue in any reasonable situation for reasonably exposed images. As for cameras like the original 6D, that would definitely perform better, noise-wise, especially at higher ISO's the 6D (original) is a low light monster, as for shadow lifting I have never compared it to m43. I have used m43 for landscapes and it does a nice job and with way less hassle than larger equipment. Also, since almost every Canon but one has an AA filter and that reduces sharpness and detail many mirrorless do not have an AA filter and so effectively meet or exceed detail and sharpness of larger megapixel cameras from Canon, depending on the glass. For action and indoor work at events I would choose some other system than M43 generally as larger sensors are generally better suited to low light high ISO situations. M43 certainly has a place as a tool but like any tool you have to know when and where and how to best use it according to your needs, talent, and knowledge. But it is not reasonable to criticize noise and certainly not DOF in my opinion, these things are not bad and to the extent they exist as an "issue" it is merely a canard that disregards the inherent nature of the tool to an exaggerated extent. M43 is one of many tool possibilities, one should not criticize an axe for not being a knife, etc. instead one should be thankful to have a selection. Best wishes!

[@hpeterh]

I use Imagenomic Noiseware. It is a 32 and 64 bit plugin for photoshop and for lightroom and I bought it several years ago and all updates until now where free. Results are outstanding, but I dont use photoshop anymore. I use Olympus workspace as my RAW converter and export JPEG or 48 bit TIFF. Noiseware works on 24 bit RGB and on 48 bit RGB and it also works as a plugin in 48 bit (TIFF) with Photoline and Affinity photo, which are low cost replacements for Photoshop. Normally I dont need it. I scale down most of my images with the "bilinear" method. This reduces the noise and reduces the sharpness a little bit. Afterwards I sharpen with unsharp mask, but set the threshold, to avoid sharpening of the sky and bokeh regions. I do this only in problem cases, normally I do nothing.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your input and extensive comment.

[@blakegirouxphotography]

I find compared to my FF D700 which came out around the same time as my Olympus E-520 four thirds camera, the E-520 produces so much more noise at lower ISO’s. Now I don’t mind noise in my images, but the E-520 produces files at ISO 800 that are similar to the D700 at close to 6400 ISO. Now these are both older cameras and I understand the newer cameras perform better. But if you know how to use flash, or have knowledge of how to use available light to your advantage you can get better results from controlling the light. You probably will not run into a lot of problems with the four thirds system unless you really don’t know what you’re doing or you shoot in low light and have the expectation that available light is enough. That’s almost never the case in low light. Even for FF

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@dahlgrenbernt]

Noise in my cameras: G5 allowed me to go to ISO 800, not further. G80 goes one more step, to 1600. For some time now I have been thinking of uppgrading to a G9. Another step of ISO has been one of my reasons but it wasn't enough. The new firmware 2.0 (better autofocus) and one moore ISO step in low light have finally pursuaded me to go G9.

[@barryashenhurst2071]

The thing is, just about everything you do to a raw file - sharpening, raising shadows, dropping highlights, tweaking Texture, Dehaze and Clarity - will increase noise. If you tend to fret about noise, don’t use micro four-thirds. It’s as simple as that. In my experience as a magazine shooter with this format, getting exposure right is critical, and in the digital world that means exposing for the highlights. If you burn them, they’re gone, end of story. How you judge exposure in the camera is another matter. I use the histogram to get the right exposure, then turn it off. What with histograms, levels, grids and god knows what else, sometimes there’s so much crap in the viewfinder I can’t find the focus point or the even the subject. I have perfectly acceptable 18x12 prints on my wall that came from an old GH4, and they’re perfectly acceptable because I keep the ISO as low as possible, get the exposure right, mask sharpening, and never sharpen with a radius greater than 1, and often lower than 1, in Camera Raw. Again, in my experience anyway, ISO200 is fine on a GH4 but anything above IS0400 is dodgy and at ISO800 the noise is like hail on a tin roof.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@MRoccoPhotography]

I have watched all the video and I kind agree with you. For me to accept all the compromise of the micro 4/3 system have to be offered at decent prices especially camera body. Even accepting the small form factor (not always true) it is very hard to accept price of 1700,1800 pounds where you can find bigger systems for the same price and better performances.

[@mattisulanto]

Good arguments.

[@lamboiah]

I gave you a thumbs just for the intro segment. Excellent work here!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks.

[@martieleusink3479]

I’m using CaptureOne and rely on the default settings even for night scenes at 1600 ISO. I don’t apply extra noise reduction and am happy with the results at a 2k monitor and in prints up to A3.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@ronvanewijk]

Hi, I use the Panasonic G90 in low light action situations like concerts. My ‘solution’ is underexposure by one or two stops and in the develop module of LR, only adjust the highlight and white sliders. Not touching the shadow and black sliders. So I leave most of the noise in the dark. Mostly the background is a black curtain, so not much to lose there. Thanks for Your great video’s!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@RJPhotographics]

I've got a really sharp 800mm and 840mm lens in my small camera bag. I really don't care about the potentially cleaner images from larger sensor cameras. They haven't got the reach:IQ ratio of m43 without laying down 5 figure payments.

[@rickietatum4319]

Coming from the good old days of film, where I used asa400, it seems to me everybody is getting hung up on pixel counts and noise. They seem to have forgotten that it's about taking a photograph of something or some one or an event that tells a story,or an unrepeatable event. Some of the best photos taken have been so good because of the noise in them.

[@legend240891]

I think it's grain, not noise. Digital noise is really bad. But grain is not.

[@glasshalfempty1984]

@@legend240891 Dong is right. Grain is different from noise. Noise is bad and it's frustrating.

[@MSNet1]

Ever camera has its ups and downs. I find that MFT has given me the ability to shoot in almost any setting. I'm also not lugging around an excessive amount of weight. Quality, my son has entered photos in the State Fair in Cal Expo shooting with MFT. He won 1st place in his division last year with one photo entry and entered 3 photos this year and has placed twice using MFT. It's not the camera that make the picture it's the person behind the lens. I say use what feels good in your hand. Do not get caught up in the hype that some KZbin personalities profess. What do know about a camera in couple of days of using, nothing. I've owned my OMD-EM1 for a couple of years now. I can say that I am comfortable shooting with it and I know what to expect from it. I wouldn't shoot with anything else unless something came along that made what I shooting with obsolete. Nice Post and I will try out some of your settings in LR.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your comment. True, it's always the photographer and not the camera😀

[@andrzejwegrzyn5524]

'Colour' setting is my secound after luminance because of chromatic aberration issue. It makes a huge difference in micro noise while cropping image. I would recommad this slider while shooting macros. I'll subscribe :) cheers!

[@xiaoabrose]

Low light with movement is the problem. Like kids indoors. I don't really see any advantages to smaller sensors. Cameras are almost the same size and smaller lenses are simply a factor of light gathering. It's more about whether you are happy with the compromises. If so - great!

[@angelorenna]

I'm perfectly agree. In film era i rarely used 1600 iso. Now all people worries about bokeh and noise and walk with magnifying glass below. My Lumix Gx80 is perfectly usable even at 3200 iso. And i use it with satisfaction also in disco. There are many great lenses (for ex. Oly 45/75 f1.8) that produces wonderful bokeh, not to mention Lumix 42 1.2 and Olympus Pro line. How much bokeh we need ?

[@Lesterandsons]

I m a veteran too, now I mostly stop worrying about noise, when you look at your small prints even @6400 ( apsc ) noise is so small and it gives structure to your prints plastic, soap opera look is far worst

[@bellowingsilence]

What I find ridiculous is people you know spent plenty of time with the earlier, even pro tier, aps-c DSLRs, and complain about these noise issues today. M43 in practice today is leagues ahead of where APS-C used to be when it comes to noise and high ISO. Spend a little time with those older sensors. Hell, even some of the older full frame models have some major limitations with color noise at high iso that are less problematic with crop sensors now.

[@RudyRisingWt]

Hi Matti!! Nice video!! For the "masking" slider, i found out that every picture has a very different optimal setting, so it is a good help to hold the ALT button on your keyboard while moving the masking slider, so you can see the mask selection!!

[@mattisulanto]

Sure, every image is different, but at the same ISO on the same camera I think they not that much different. My settings are only a starting point anyway, because we all also have different tastes of how much noise and sharpness is fine.

[@RudyRisingWt]

@@mattisulanto sure Matti. In fact I wasn't making a point about your settings, but about the use of the ALT button to see the mask while selecting the area of choice. Greetings!

[@mattisulanto]

@@RudyRisingWt Sure, no problem😀

[@Technobby]

M4/3 noise? And, I'm using FZ2500 with 1" sensor in a big cam.

[@stevieb7121]

Great content. Definitely worth trying the Long Exposure Noise Reduction setting (in camera) when thinking about e.g. astro shots.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@simotdk2045]

hi,how can get a better photos with my lumix gf3

[@mattisulanto]

I don't know what exactly you mean by better, but I have several tutorials on this channel that can probably help you.

[@simotdk2045]

i mean I'm beginner in photography..and i hope to help me to get a beautiful photos with my lumix gf3

[@joealfanophotography9568]

So I know noise is something we need to live with. I have shot Canon, Olympus, LUMIX and Sony and when pushed even at low ISO noise can creep in especially in the shadows. It’s easy to deal with noise in post but there is another issue that needs to be addressed. At higher ISOs what happens to detail. This is where micro 4/3s does in fact struggle. The loss of detail at even 800 ISO can be seen easily. If you look at FF cameras like the Sony a7III detail loss starts at 6400. That’s a big difference. Add to the fact that reducing noise in post will lead to more loss of detail and a micro 4/3s image can take an even bigger hit. When shooting Olympus I usually just leave the noise in without reduction. With every camera there are limitations. With micro 4/3s it more loss of detail than noise for me. What are people’s thoughts on this?

[@toke7560]

I'm not bothered with noise at all. Hardly see it. I'm just concerned with content.

[@joealfanophotography9568]

john tokarz not the point I was making. Loss of detail at higher ISO is what I was talking about. I have demanding clients. Of course content is always number one.

[@Andy-pu2iv]

This is my first time seeing one of your videos. Looks interesting. I'll keep watching, I think. Now, regarding the subject of the video: First off, I'm old. Old enough to have started with 35mm film SLRs. And back then my favourite films were Ilford Pan F (B&W negative, 50 ASA) and Fujifilm (100 ASA colour negative). So I'm coming at this from an old school, fine-grain perspective. I now use Micro 4/3s via 4/3s (E-500 and E-1)and I have to say, I think this whole "noise issue" is blown out of all perspective. With the in body image stabilisation I can happily shoot at ISO 100 all day long and handheld! There are many images that just weren't possible back then with a 35mm body and it's big lens and mirror clatter... It seems that progress can only be appreciated if you experienced the pre-progress days. Happy shooting, and love to all!

[@ThinkingBiblically]

Noise is determined by pixel size and temperature, not sensor size. Visible noise is also related to signal to noise ratio and may be obscured by in camera image processing.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing. What you say regarding the pixel size is true, of course. It seems that you know quite a bit about this, so you probably also know that a big sensor has bigger pixels than a small sensor, if both have the same pixel count. So, in most cases the sensor size and pixel size are connected and small sensors have smaller pixels than big sensors. Not always, but almost always.

[@ThinkingBiblically]

@@mattisulanto Usually. The pixel size on a Sony A7R 4 are the same size as a Sony a6400 and as a Panasonic G85. Actually a larger pixel has greater thermal noise, but a larger pixel has greater dynamic range and a greater signal to noise potential because it has a larger charge capacity (can count more photons). All these issues show up especially with astrophotography with very weak signals, huge dynamic range and long exposures. Noise in images is greatly reduced by faster f/ratios, which increase the S/N ratio and reduce thermal noise which is proportionate to exposure time. True noise only appears is shadows and is often not noise at all but due to the small number and random nature of photons in low light. The photo-sites on the sensor are also not entirely uniform and the analog to digital convertors are not perfectly linear and there is always quantization noise in converting an analog (sort of, photons are integers) value to say a 14 bit integer. My GH5 mk2 actually produces better images than my d750 in normal light. But the d750 can shoot reasonably good quality at very high ISOs in very low light. Under those conditions, especially shooting video, a large pixel is needed as the smaller the pixel, the more random variation will be present from pixel to pixel due to the small and random number of photons actually being captured.

[@Metasfera]

Nice pics by the way. I think the problem is not in noise, but in color cast in the noise. If you get rid of it then small grains is just fine.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

People have to look at their pictures and see what percentage of them are taken in low light. If it's less than half of the pictures, congratulations, you can buy any size sensor and be fine with it. If most of the pictures are taken in low light - check out the cameras with bigger sensors. I personally sold my rather new and modern FF camera and kept my M4/3 camera. The advantages in size and price were more important to me, than the 2 stops of ISO (or shutter speed) advantage I was getting form the bigger camera. But there is no "right" answer to this. Every one have to decide for themselves.

[@gcprost]

I have two GH5s. I had a GH3 and a GH4. I don't think noise is a problem with the M43 system. I think that people are blowing this problem out of proportion. I shoot a lot indoors. My go-to ISO indoors is 800. If I have to shoot something like a school basketball or volleyball game I'll maybe push it to 1200. Live theatre, dance and concerts ISO 800 works well. For a year I used the Fuji system. Yes the pictures were better, the colours were better and there was less noise but there were so many other things that were a problem for me, I bought two GH5s and got rid of the Fuji stuff. I use two because in event shooting I use one with the 12-35 the other with the 35-100. I can't be messing around switching lenses. I also do a lot of video with multiple cameras.

[@JJBurnam]

Helpful video, Matti. My GX8 has a setting "Long Shtr NR" ... do you leave that setting On or Off on your Lumix cameras? Why or why not?

[@mattisulanto]

I leave it on, because it takes so called dark frame after the actual exposure and gets rid of hot pixels and other artifacts that can occur during a long exposure. It's not the same as the jpeg noise reduction.

[@thatsreallyamoon]

I will chime in and say I also leave it on on my GX85; I think it helps decently when doing star shots etc.

[@hyttennis]

Great tutorial! Also loved the noisy outro xD

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@MrPetebuster1]

what people forget is that dslr hasn't improved much over the years ,you can get just as good an image on an older ff camera as you can a modern one ,ff has gone as good as it will get. MFT has improved the sensor in leaps and bounds without having to change the sensor size , think about it, mobile phone cameras have done exactly the same . Dslr only improve in minuscule ways ,mirrorless makes massive improvements.Dslr is a dying breed ,who wants lumps of heavy cameras and lenses anymore other than a few dinosaurs. What noise i dont see it in my images

[@HermannKerr]

I shot film for years - I did like most enthusiastic photographers did, shot with B&W, developed and printed my own film. We didn't use the drug store developers because they did a truly awful job on B&W. When I became a professional I did use a professional lab. We use to push film all the time. If I developed Agfa 25 in Acufine there wasn't any grain (oh how I loved that stuff) but if I used Kodak Tri-X400 and pushed it hard, oh ya it was grainy and thus I guess noisy. I dumped my kit a very long time ago ('83). I am now thinking of getting back into photography in a more serious way over point and shoot. At one time I thought I might get into large format. I looked into it a few years back and even on the used market the equipment was horrendous and the film is hard to acquire and, besides that, some stupid thief destroyed my 5X7 field camera thinking it was a treasure box not that it was the treasure. I thus started following you because 4/3 looks to be interesting format with a good variety of top quality lenses and light by comparison to my old kit.. As my old kit cost me $2500 used in 1972, today's cameras are quite inexpensive by comparison, well unless one wants to jump full in on the Leica band wagon (I still own one antique Leica (3f) that I couldn't turn down). I have always liked Leica Glass and that was one of my attractions to 4/3 format. Yes it is the image not the grain.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you for sharing your story.

[@ioiule]

Hi! Did you ever printed 40cm x 30cm o photo taken at iso 3200 ? How that looks?

[@mattisulanto]

Yes I have and all my prints look really good.

[@ioiule]

@@mattisulanto thank you. Awesome.

[@Stephen.Bingham]

I think it’s worth remembering that for a given depth of field a m43 camera will be operating at two stops numerically smaller f-stop and ISO than a full frame camera. Frequently the noise is not significantly different in such a comparison. Full frame only has an advantage when depth of field is not a constraint - for example in Astro photography - and you don’t mind using bulky lenses with more light gathering ability.

[@orange42]

No one uses depth of field as a constant so it's a bit of a nonsense way of comparing things.

[@Stephen.Bingham]

@@orange42 but depth of field is actually visible in a photograph, unlike f-stop or iso or focal length etc. Depth of field, shutter speed and field of view are the only parameters that actually determine how a photograph looks. If you are comparing cameras wouldn’t you compare them when taking the same photograph?

[@eltinjones4542]

I've taken blue hour photos on a GX7 that look great. I've recently bought a GX9 and am looking forward to using it. GX because of size, weight and price👍 Ps I've also used your tips on setting up my GX9 - it's very similar to the G9. Thanks for them 👏

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks.

[@gunterspindler4011]

I use the Olympus OMD, the PEN and the Panasonic LUMIX G81 with 16 MP MFT-Sensor. The System ist compact, the lenses are compatible and the pictures are fine. The dept of field is better than in fullframe. More and more people take impressive photos with a smartphone and have no problem with noise. I ignore the noise, do not hear it and have fun with the MFT camera system.☺

[@mattisulanto]

We tend to forget the fun part too often😀

[@alanplatt888]

I enjoyed your video and I've created a noise preset. I don't usually compare M4/3 with FF noise as a pixel peeper, I don't need to. The advantages of M4/3 system as a whole outway the "FF system by shere cost & portability" IMHO. Thanks

[@lungarotta]

Good video! Two questions if I may: 1) I use Camera raw in PS, are the settings you use in LR valid in camera raw too? 2) I saw that the sharpening flyer was set at 35, the amount at 0,5 and details at 90. Are those settings the ones you use? They are very different from those ones I use: Sharpening 54, amount 1, details 54, noise reduction: luminance 30, the rest zero... can you comment? (P.S. I have a Canon powershot 1x).

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks! It depends on your camera, and you of course, which settings are the best. Use whatever looks good to you😀

[@MasticinaAkicta]

It is noisier, in some ways, then the bigger sensors, yes. But it still makes very good, usable videos and pictures so... And I can tell you, Full Frame is awesome and bigger, heavier and at times more expensive. [Though good MFT glass can be pretty darn expensive too] And there is the size factor, point a full frame camera at someone and you get noticed, point a smaller camera with a smaller lens and sensor and it is much less of an effect. I wonder what if one day I win the lottery and get a medium sized sensor camera. That should scare people away from miles away! Notwithstanding the noise of that shutter. Great idea, take a big camera like that with you on vacation. ... I can't see where that goes wrong. MFT has bigger models but also smaller models and the smaller models are really cute and look harmless. Which means you get more pictures. Hell some of the easiest times to get pictures I had was with 1" camera sensor models. And the noise with them oooh yeah. Real good weather cameras!

[@xiaotai]

I swapped from Canon to the G9 and shoot primarily sports / wildlife. While I felt noise isn't an issue when you can frame your shots and use the entire sensor. It's more of an issue when it comes to cropping. That's where MFT falls short.

[@tempest01100]

Personally, like you with your Lumix, I experience no problem with noise on my X100S and X-E1 Fujifilm cameras.

[@Zeonoid]

I love old audio recordings where noise has become a part of an expression. What about that in videos or photography ?

[@sector9films]

Hello Matti, my name is John I am a Panasonic GH5 shooter mainly video. I have started to take some photographs recently of my car and caravan using the Panasonic 11-35mm lens (shooting RAW) in bright sunlight. I have however been getting some grainy noise in the photographs which surprised me particularly shooting the caravan, it is mostly white. Would be kind enough to offer me some solutions to this problem, please? Thank you :) I should add that I am seeing the noise when I viewing the images at 300%

[@rayjenkins2754]

Good video. I am even a bit more challenged with my Lumix Fz 2500 - a fixed lens w 24 ~ 480m zoom and It's one inch sensor. In my photo style are you suggesting that I move the sliders for sharpening & noise reduction to -5 ? Thanks again - I will be applying your tips in L R.

[@italogiardina8183]

I've switched to just using prime lenses which has vastly improved my low light shooting outcomes, and that's not even spending on pro lens primes. So my experience is use primes and where need be make use of a tripod.

[@mattisulanto]

Yes, you can't beat primes😀

[@alexanderkhlebkov9905]

many thanks for this video. appreciate a lot this help

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you. Always happy to be able to help.

[@Leptospirosi]

Luminar 3 has similar setting and can get noise under control most of the times: the problem is, I think, that people expect exceptional results out of Jpgs in camera, which is difficult at high iso: you either mush out details or you get visible noise depending on the noise reduction settings and on the lighting situations. this is not m43 related only: I've seen horrible mushed out images form Fuji as well just because noise reduction kicks in heavily and you end up with "camera phone" like detail loss in face details. Obviously a large FF sensor and Medium format sensors can keep noise much more under control, but you need much heavier and bulkier equipments to carry with you: so far I pretty content with either Panasonic or Olympus equipments, either 20mp or 16mp last generation sensors. Let wait and see if the new Sharp m43 sensors brings in even better noise control.

[@Yahyamqureshi]

I would like to know if one can use Olympus e510 lenses on M10 iii and Mini pen M2. what adopters will do the job. Please specify. Thank you.

[@mattisulanto]

Panasonic adapter DMW-MA1 will work and Olympus has an adapter too, but I don't remember the model name.

[@GeraldGarcia]

A lot of complaints about MFT noise but no one talks about 1 inch sensor noise or how smartphone photos are too mushy.

[@mattisulanto]

There is a lot of talk about how smart phones are noisy or mushy, you somehow have managed to miss that. People talk about MFT, because it is a full system and therefore in the same category with all the full frame systems and others. MFT manufactures also compared their products to full frame.

[@hanzkilian1806]

Well I feel there are some who have nothing else to do but complain. Every camera will give noise. With today's software you can get rid of noise. If you know your equipment and are a competent photographer well noise will be minimal. People need to just get over it. I have used Olympus for years and find them to be a great camera. All photographer's need to remember is expose to the right.

[@subliminallyinc]

Hi sulanto. there is a shot int he last part of your video with the skating rink and starburst at 11:17. what lens and camera did you use to take that image? I've noticed that its difficult to get a clean starburst in M43 without sensor dots showing up in images. that shot looks very clean to me.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks, the lens is Laowa 7.5mm f/2 mounted on my G9 and my review is here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3e9YqGsZdyeg5I

[@Razor2048]

Noise reduction is something that should be used as little as possible, and when used, it should really only be used to an extent need to remove the worst aspect of the noise, e.g., some noise artifacts will have edges that are brighter than their surroundings, but some noise reduction can be applied at a slight amount to make those edges less noticeable. One of the things that people need to accept is that images at higher ISO will have noise, and with the limits of the technology, that noise is needed. At high ISO, fine detail is essentially replaced by noise, thus at normal viewing distances, if you do strong noise reduction, then you end up with a more distracting issue since areas where detail is expected, is now missing detail. If not pixel peeping then a little bit of left over luminance noise, gives the illusion of fine detail as the viewer is expecting something to be there. In delving into the video and the sample images, they are not really usable for for the purpose stated in the video since he scaled the images down, which effectively does supersampling. This is why a camera like a Nikon D850 can give cleaner images than the Sony A7S II at ISO 12800 and below if you take the D850 images and scale them down to 12.2 megapixels. The sample images provides are both supersampled and have noise reduction applied,thus they cannot be used to allow a prospective buyer determine the types of results someone could get at the native resolution of the camera. Another thing is the true test of a low light system is images of humans and other animals, since the brain is tuned to look for certain details, thus is it is easier to tell when something is off. When determining how high of an ISO you can realistically use, it is based on the max ISO before you lose skin and fur texture as well as the ability to give the illusion of such detail via the high frequency aspect of the luminance noise.

[@fash2314]

I bought MFT system with two pro lenses did wedding twice and realized that system is not for me. that was really very light weight but In my opinion I am a young guy who can carry extra kilograms without any problem So, why should we invest time in post processing and put pressure on our eyes from Screen/Monitor rays instead we can take near perfect pictures with minimum editing in post. So, I sold all my gear and I had loss of around 300 Pounds (UK Currency), and switched over to FF. Now I am very happy with the results I am getting. I will again maybe buy some Olympus Camera with 25mm 1.7 for family photos.

[@mattisulanto]

You gotta choose the system you feel good with. I know wedding photographers who use MFT and they are happy and their pictures are amazing.

[@Lepewhi]

I think if you have to look for noise, you'll find it. But what's the point ?