Small Sensor - Low Light: Go Big or Go Home? Shedding Light on Some Common Misconceptions

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

📛 Become a channel member: kzbin.infojoin ☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel: ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography ❓📩 Direct support: thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket

[@nellatrab]

Just discovered your channel due to purchasing my second OM, an OM-5...I am totally WOW-ed by your information and teaching. Thank you!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, that means a lot! Welcome to the channel and congratulations on your new second OM-5. It is an awesome camera 📸

[@TITAOSTEIN]

I'm a professional photographer and videographer since the last century :) And I completely agree with you! I've worked with all possible formats and currently the M43 is my favorite in 90% of the scenarios. The new OM-1 is sensational. Like you, I currently work mainly with Nikon and OM System. For videos I also use Panasonic. Interesting age we live in when professionals use smaller sensors, and hear from amateurs and beginners that “only FF has enough iQ”. Your videos are excellent!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Could not agree more - great statement, right on point! Thank you very much for sharing that and bringing your experience to the table, this means a lot!

[@gregm6894]

What's funny, is that when I got into wedding and portrait photography back around 1990, everyone was saying "Only medium format is high enough quality for professional work. 35mm is an 'amateur' format -- good for vacation photos, etc." I used to pitch my use of Medium Format cameras as a selling point! Ha, ha, now it's, "Only 35mm FF format is high enough quality for professional work. m4/3's is an amateur format, fine for vacation and internet, etc." 🙂

[@TITAOSTEIN]

@@gregm6894 Exactly. Cameras are tools. You need the right tool for the job. Right now many people believes that only Sony FF is “capable enough” and should be used in all situations.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed 💯 - also love how people who have never used a DSLR know that mirrorless focuses better in every situation (which is absolutely not the case).

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

@@gregm6894 don't you think 30+ years of technological development had any impact? Both statements about medium format back in 1990 and full frame today are true.

[@azjoe_6310]

You are one of the most practical photographers on KZbin. People need to look at what they shoot before demanding certain performance from a camera in low light. 99% of my photos are travel photography. I don’t shoot hockey games or indoor soccer matches so I don’t need high shutter speeds in low light. I shot full frame in 2019 during 3 weeks in Europe (1 in your beloved Vienna). A year later, I switched to micro 4/3 and spent 3 weeks traveling Poland this past Sept and didn’t find one situation where I missed the full frame.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, I very much appreciate that you think so. I can only state that our experiences match a 100% - once you try smaller, you find out you can get the shot as well. All sensors have their place, it is mostly about what is most fun to use at a given moment, not really about the "need", right? Next time in Vienna, we gonna share a coffee, hopefully!

[@david_allen1]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Thanks for the wonderful in-depth study of ISO and low light photography. I am one of those photographers that has gotten nervous when recently I had to shoot an event with my new OM-1 in a cellar! Light was not great and I used diffused flash to capture people, although I prefer not to use flash. Aside from thanking you, I also wrote to say I think you touched on a really important aspect of photography, at least for non-professional photographers, and that is having fun shooting! If I don't have fun shooting, it doesn't matter what gear I have, I will eventually stop shooting. So having fun is key to me (in addition to getting the shot!).

[@mjb1954]

I think full frame sensors have some physical advantages that are impossible to argue against, but the question is, do these physical advantages translate into better images for the average, low-demand shooter. I've shot FF, APS-C, and now M4/3 and my experience mirrors yours - I'm not missing the larger cameras and lenses. I find that M4/3 generally offers excellent low-light performance and gives me good dynamic range - the compact form factor and excellent IBIS is icing on the cake, really. I think the problem is that people are not honest with themselves when assessing their needs, and they fall for the marketing spiel that convinces them they "need" every nth of performance in all situations.

[@david_allen1]

@@mjb1954 I think there's a lot of truth in that. And manufacturers exploit the "more is better" mentality that is prevalent within the photographic community for their financial gain -- there is no incentive for them to stop pushing higher numbers in a shrinking market, and some KZbin influencers help perpetuate the mentality. So it's really up to the individual use case -- what is enough resolution for the intended use of the images.

[@MartinMichiels]

​@@mjb1954 yes they are not honest with themselves when it comes to needs because they want the best and like to spend money... and also, people do not realize that we can take pictures that were just impossible to take in the film era and sometimes it brothers me because it is the quality of light that makes the photo not the fact that you can get a shot in pure darkness... So all in all, new sensors allow us more photographic opportunities but some people are judging cameras on photos that sometimes should not have been taken in the first place, lol !

[@Centauri27]

This is the best explanation of low light with smaller sensors Thomas! Should be required watching for all Micro Four Thirds shooters (and FF fans too). Your concert footage with the LX100 is simply amazing.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! That's a very kind and much appreciated feedback ☺️

[@akeluify]

This video and your channel brought around a complete renaissance of my photography. I sold my em-1 and gear about 7 years ago unfortunately due to life but recently got back into it with om-1 and your videos have been excellent for me to fill in the gaps of my self-taught knowledge succinctly in a way that is easy to take onboard and really grasp. My photography has gone up several levels in quality basically overnight. Combine that with the fresh mindset/lack of muscle memory and the olympus 25 1.2 pro for low light and i am just completely gob smacked in every which way with the results i am now getting. I can clearly see how much improvement is from what ive learnt from you, and how much is from the new gear, but all together its made me realise just how happy and glad i am that i bought back into olympus m43. It very much fits my needs and god is it so fun and capable!!. Thank you thank you thank you. I will be watching all your stuff moving forward. For anyone wondering, last time i was using only primes, but this time i decided to try my luck learning zooms, so i went 12-40 2.8 and 40-150 2.8, and for low light the 25 1.2. I think these three lens should have me covered for a long time, and that this is the push i needed to really have the confidence in myself to do this as more then just a hobby for myself.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Dear Matt! It is stories like yours that make me get up and produce videos. I am so happy about this, and it is so great to hear that you were not only inspired to create once more, but that you have been able to realize the full potential of the OM-1 as a high end tool for your work as an artist. I am convinced that the lenses will serve you very well for all jobs, these optics are outstanding, the sky is the limit. I hope to not only read from you again but also to see your work. Thanks for this inspiring comment, it is absolutely fantastic that you share your Vision as a photographer once more with the world. 📸 All the best, Thomas

[@vytautasslenderis2702]

A friend of mine, a wedding photographer, said she most often stops down her Canon full frame lenses to f2.4 or f2.8 to have a better keeper rate as to sharpness. In similar lighting conditions, I use my 17 1.2 and 45 1.2 lenses wide open. Depth of field is enough and ISO can be set two stops lower, in which case the advantage of full frame sensor basically vanishes. I confidently use my lenses wide open. With full frame, that is more challenging. Thanks for good video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your very valuable contribution. I completely agree, this is exactly the point!

[@gregsullivan7408]

Exactly - take identical photos with two different cameras - this will result in the total light *quantity* used by both being equal (due to equivalency), and if the sensor tech is similar between the two, the noise will be equal. This is something Tony Northrup taught us many years ago, in fact.

[@malcolmwright6948]

Extremely well put, I must congratulate you on clarifying a much debated topic.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@ted5017]

Vielen Dank for taking the time to compare these three camera formats. A great video with valuable information indeed!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, that means a lot to me. Best, Thomas 📸

[@pjay3028]

Absolutely fascinating. This is yet another example of your brilliant, well thought through advice. I really appreciate getting advice that comes from someone who really understands what they're talking about. Unfortunately it's so rare! Thank you so much.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much for this exceptional comment. I very much appreciate your kind words, made my day!

[@pjay3028]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I'm looking forward to your next video already 👍👍

[@FernandoG_]

Many thanks for a great video, Thomas! this is why many people with cropped-sensor cameras still produce great low-light photos. Technology can be easily purchased upfront, but the expertise and judgement to make best use of that technology can only be gained over time. In 2.5 years of using Fuji X, I had to overcome mental blocks of always using larger apertures at the expense of sharpness, or underexposing in low-light for not using high-ISOs, at the expense of noise. After I removed those mental blocks... and improved my post-processing skills... and started to look for best light available in every scene, I felt like I had purchased a new camera.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Fernando, could not agree more! Great statement - smaller sensors are absolutely not preventing you from geting the shot. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution!

[@JohnChubbSr]

Such a great analysis of low-light photography! Absolutely fantastic, thank you! This gives me a better understanding of these conditions, very much appreciated!!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@billb8262]

So starving a sensor of light is the cause of so much color noise. I shot a landscape in San Diego and had tons of noise at ISO 100. I had a Nikon D750, which is amazing in low light. I could not figure out what went wrong, but it makes sense now. I needed to allow the ISO to increase for that sunset shot but I refused, wanting to"best image quality" when in reality I ruined it. Much appreciated. This confirms my suspicions.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing that!

[@JezdziecBezNicka]

Your point on correct exposure is very important. I've noticed I am getting pretty good results on OM-1 on ISO 12800, provided that I make sure not to underexpose.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! I am often having a hard time to set a high ISO number, but it is all in my head - what ruins the image is not the ISO number, but trying to fix it in post. Thanks!

[@frankwu2699]

Took me quite a few years and quite a few different cameras to realise what you concluded. Very true and thank you for sharing such rare true information!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - for the kind comment and for confirming my findings!

[@tonyalford528]

Another great and informative presentation

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@stephenelderphoto]

Practical and top quality information once again Thomas. I really appreciate these comparisons with other formats rather than looking at M43 in a vacuum. I'm looking forward to see what your next video brings. Thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! Thank you very much for your kind words and see next time 😉

[@richardlandor7130]

Simple, very informative video again. Thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you Richard!

[@fungiformenow]

Brilliant tie!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you!

[@tombroski5640]

Super Video, ausgezeichnet erklärt von einem Profi!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen Dank!

[@LarryFasnacht]

So now, of course, you need to have a video explaining how you properly expose with the smaller sensor to take advantage of the ISO. I think that you sort of, addressed this in a previous video. I’ll have to check. But I’ll love to see something specific to this issue.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Noted! I have on video up about DR and Exp Metering with the OM-1, but I will expand on that in the future! Thank you Larry!

[@jeffreysmith8633]

Yet another amazing presentation! Love your methodical and articulate style. Perfect.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much, Jeffrey! This means a lot!

[@otm646]

The quality of your content is definitely getting picked up in the algorithm, your depth of professionalism really comes through.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your incredibly kind words. I very much appreciate that and I will try my best to live up to your assessment!

[@nixl3518]

What a brilliant and memorable conclusion!! 😂 Your meticulous explanations are exceedingly helpful to those of us that are far behind you in sophistication in the realm of digital cameras! Thank you very much!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks! Great to hear!

[@jackmatthews9390]

Actually very good information!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you!

[@SchatzFamilyHF]

Another video that explains everything beautifully. I find it helpful to remember that the sensor gets less light at high ISOs, so the dynamic range is necessarily reduced. Still enough Dr for many purposes, though. Raising the ISO doesn't make the sensor more sensitive. Another excellent video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to read - many thanks for your kind words! Yes, you cannot really make a sensor more sensitive to light.

[@harrisueng]

This. This video. It SO well summarizes so many considerations in both how to get the most of your gear, as well as understanding how to think about shooting when the lighting is more challenging. I've taught others similar ideas, but I have been nowhere as lucid, crisp, and succinct as what you did in this video, Thomas. Also, the way you put together these concepts and articulate them, it helped me crystallize the concepts so I can better apply them in my own work. Thank you so much! 🙏🍻🙌

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for this exceptionally kind and encouraging comment! I'm really glad that you think so and that it helped! Thank you!

[@BenFeldmanBass]

Those concert photos were incredible! Really inspiring stuff

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much!

[@garoldcarlisle5637]

Well presented. Useful information.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you!

[@tonypaulprince]

I appreciate your no bullshit presentations. Quite useful.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - and I appreciate your kind feedback! Thanks!

[@klackon1]

Another really interesting and informative presentation. Thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

So nice of you, thanks!

[@hrvojekant9415]

Excelent presentation. Thank You

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@neerajjaswal5991]

Very detaily explained the low light point and the sensor relation, thank you Thomas 🙏❤️.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@neerajjaswal5991]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography 🙏

[@DaveHaynie]

I noticed years back, shooting with my OM-D E-M5 Mark II and then Pen-F, that I really did have to keep dynamic range in mind when shooting in challenging lighting, maybe taking brackets when in doubt. When I did, I got the results I was after. Having occasionally written about these things, it seems apparent that today's FF and MF cameras are so good, many photographers simply don't pay attention to DR. Which works... until it doesn't. It's always important to fully understand the tool you're using.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Completely agree Dave! Even cameras with more dynamic range benefit from a precise, controlled workflow. Nothing beats "getting it right in camera".

[@georgebowden6748]

Thankyou for a very honest & detailed explanation. This has been valuable information for me as I'm considering changing to a lighter system at the moment & I think you've persuaded me to do just that. Thanks again.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear - honestly, I think you will be happy. I've got everything from digital medium format to 35mm cameras, and I'm practically only using MFT. It is a bit more challenging when it is darker, but that's about it. Feel free to get in touch if you want to know more.

[@joerghummerjohann4854]

Great content, dear Thomas! Coming from Peter Forsgårds community, watching you for the first time. I was laughing about your conclusion: It's us, the photographers , messing up the situation! So true! So let's go out, having fun during shootings and work on our skills. All the modern cams are so good, that we think we get 100% performance without working on our skills - and then complaining if we reach "only" 99.9% (I'm happy with Olympus since many years and OM-1 was really again a game changer) Greetings from Switzerland and have a great day

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Joerg! Thank you very much for this awesome contribution and great to have you here. The OM-1 is really a game changer, I completely agree. It is such an incredible tool, it never ceases to amaze me! Thanks again and best wishes to Switzerland, have a wonderful day as well!

[@joerghummerjohann4854]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography 😀

[@m.scottgordon3475]

Another very helpful video!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad you think so!

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I have been using the Fuji XT5 now for about five weeks and this thing is incredible in lowlight and given that it's a crop centre camera and 40 megapixels it absolutely validates this video from Thomas. There is also a lot of other techniques you can use to minimise noise as well. And editing plays a part and you can use different grads as well

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@nevvanclarke9225]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I love your videos...I'm semi professional photographer and it's great. I also teach photography and many if the videos you've done I've shared

[@canucklehead28]

Make's sense! Thank you!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

You're welcome!

[@johnyutzey6504]

Both interesting and helpful, and thanks for making this video. I shoot M43 about 80% of the time (as well as APS-C, 1" P&S, and 35mm film). As an old film shooter, I frequently preach the importance of good shooting technique regardless of what format you are shooting or how technologically advanced your camera(s) might be. As good as current digital cameras are (and how much latitude/forgiveness they might afford you), they won't save you from sloppy technique in every shooting situation you might encounter. Low light is certainly one of those situations. This just gives me one more reason to preach. Great video!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for sharing your valuable experiences, I could not agree more! Preaching is definitely in order when it comes to shooting technique, it is a pity how often it is overlooked! Best, Thomas 📸

[@paulisraelsonisraelsonlaw654]

Thomas: As always, very instructive and informative. The detail you provide is most helpful. Thank you. PJI

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks again!

[@phsb66]

Thank you so much for this. A lot of people look down on MFT systems, because they have heard one thing about it, such as they are poor for low light shots and then refuse to even consider they might be unfairly prejudiced without looking at any evidence that shows they are wrong. The first time I used an MFT camera (Panasonic GX9) was at an outdoor concert at night. I hadn't yet heard about it being a poor camera for low light photos, but I managed to take some spectacular pictures. Sure they weren't the sharpest but I was pretty pleased with the results, nonetheless. I'm going to direct some of my acquaintances to this video, as I'm tired of being told that I've wasted my money investing in MFT. A cup of coffee is on its way to you. Thanks again.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, Paul! It is like you've said - I really dislike when people look down on other's camera decisions, to add insult to injury, those remarks are mostly based on misconceptions, misunderstanding and a lack of practical experience. Thank you very much for your kind comment and your support! Thanks also for sharing your experiences! You have to stay tuned for the next video, I think you will like it ☺️

[@cineffect]

Erstklassige, ausführliche Präsentation mit wichtigen Informationen. Danke! Great and thorough presentation with essential information. Thank you, I am subscribing!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen herzlichen Dank - thank you very much and welcome to the channel!

[@cochetnicolas4118]

I enjoyed this analysis very much and we return to the fundamentals of good photographic exposure. Cheer ! / J’ai beaucoup apprécié cette analyse et nous revenons aux fondamentaux de la bonne exposition photographique. Bravo !

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Merci beaucoup monsieur - les fondamentaux sont très important, et normalement, un flux de travail bâclé est le problème. Merci et cordialement, Thomas 📸

[@chrispatmore8944]

Another good one. For the past decade or so I've been primarily a live music photographer, so low light is my world, especially as I mainly shoot in small venues (i.e. pubs). I first shot some bands back in the late '70s and early '80s, on slide film. In fact, almost everything I shot was on slide film. Not much room for error there. My first DSLR was an Olympus Four Thirds, because I always shot with Olympus film cameras. It wasn't very good in low light, so I went to APS-C, then 35mm sensors. I switched back to Olympus M4/3 in the middle of 2021, expecting the low light performance to be a lot worse than my Canon "full frame" DSLR. I was really surprised at how little difference there actually was in noise levels, even when pixel peeping. On social media and my website, no one has even noticed that I switched camera systems. If anything, the photos have been getting more compliments. What I did notice was that the Olympus was actually getting more shots in focus, and the exposure was better, because I could see it through the eyepiece, rather than having to double check it on the back of the screen like I did with the DSLR. The biggest problem I have been encountering lately is the lighting. There seems to be a trend to much dimmer stage lights and increased use of the LED RGB primaries, so that the sensor is being blasted with red, green or blue, which makes getting accurate exposure difficult. As such, I now mostly shoot in B&W with a B&W preview. Basically, monochromatic lighting, monochrome photos. And B&W also helps reduce the noise. I print the photos full page in my 20 x 20 cm zine and there's no discernible noise. Although I mainly shoot digital, I still shoot some (B&W) film at the gigs. That's on HP5 pushed two stops. The grain on that it is a lot more visible than the noise on the M4/3 shots at 3200 or higher. But that film has a lot more latitude/dynamic range to play with, especially if it is under or over exposed. Having shot film for decades, I just treat my M4/3 camera like my film camera, but with an almost never-ending roll of film. I just set the same limitations. I don't push the camera's ISO beyond a certain limit, so if it's too dark, I don't have to shoot because I'm mostly not being paid. And if I am, I ask for the lights to be turned up because I'm working for the band. Another thing I have noticed is a certain snobbery amongst music photographers. If you're not shooting "full frame" then you aren't part of the club and can't be serious about it because FF is the only real format for the job. I'll admit, I was guilty of that attitude for a while when I started shooting FF. Switching to M4/3 was actually a bit of a humbling experience, because I realised that I can still get great shots without breaking the bank or my back. And as Groucho said, "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member".

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing your extensive experiences - that was very valuable! I could not agree more - and while every format and medium has its own advantages and disadvantages, in the hands of a capable photographer they are all sufficient. It is quite interesting that you mention the Autofocus of M43 - I also found it to be very good, especially in the OM-1! Thanks again and best wishes! 📸

[@b.s.4478]

Really like your explanations (and tips) with all the details. More important, it's from actual own experience and not from charts...Also, it's not about the latest and greatest tech. This channel is a breeze of fresh air. Thanks you and please keep up with the great work. This is one of the best photography channels on youtube and i hope it gets the subscribers it deserves. P.S: Loved your photos from the concert. There's also another Austrian photographer that i enjoy watching...Wolf Amri. Cheers from Portugal!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much for your exceptionally kind words. This means a lot, I'm truly honored! It is just super funny that through you I learned about Wolf Amri haha 😆 Did not know him before! Hope to read from you soon, and best wishes to most beautiful Portugal! One of my all time fav places to be, TBH!

[@androidgameplays4every13]

And now I want to watch an exposure tutorial!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I bridge the gap with this one - it is specifically about the OM-1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIq1kmywgbSajtU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

[@dustinhecker3986]

Great video as always and fantastic finishing line.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you hehe! Cheers!

[@paolopicchel653]

Excellent technical discussion, truly unique! I also find that there is currently a certain obsession with high iso, in my opinion the real disadvantage compared to full frame is a certain loss of three-dimensionality. Thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed - the look is completely different and either you like it or not. But high ISO is not an issue! Thanks for contributing!

[@torb-no]

While I use crop myself (APS-C), I certainly think *the look* is the best reason for basis of choosing format. Because the way the focus falls off really is very different depending on format!

[@mikafoxx2717]

​@@torb-noit's mostly down to practical lens designs, making an f1 on crop is a lot harder to do as well as an f1.8 on full frame, or such.

[@brucegraner5901]

As somebody currently shooting the MFT format I found this video very interesting and informative.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to read!

[@jamdontaylor]

Thomas, thanks for another enlightening presentation. I love the chrome analogy….gotta get it as right as possibly in camera.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! Glas you think so

[@mxyptlk]

Very well presented Thomas.... Makes perfect sense and you have a 'nack' (ability) to explain so clearly... I look forward to your presentations...! Regards...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks! So great to read, I appreciate your continued support, Gerry!

[@italy74]

always very clear and informative, Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I appreciate that!

[@rasmus_mattsson]

Very nice video and conclusions. It's nice to hear someone other than my self finally mentioning the actual benefits of more depth of field rather than always whining about the slightly more difficulty in using shorter depth of field. Other situations where this comes in handy is street and documentary photography for example, the old saying "F8 and be there" is with m43 (given the same field of view) F4 and be there, that alone gains you two stops of ISO or shutter speed depending on what you want. Macro is another huge benefit where people struggle with too shallow depth of field. I'm saying this as a user of the L-mount (Lumix S1R) who shot m43 for 7 years and now realize I should have stayed with that. It's easy to look to the other side and different systems but the cameras are not limiting factors, we are. Picking up my old E-M5 to go out and shoot is such a huge relief, small, compact and light I don't notice it on my shoulder and the image quality is superb even now 11 years later. Ps. With software like DXO Photolab now my old E-M5 files looks like a new sensor a few generations newer, that software is magic and brings out the best of what old and new cameras are actually capable of.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for this comment and for sharing your valuable experiences. We've got quite some things in common - once you realize that M43 is more than good enough, it is just a very compelling system. You can get the job done and enjoy off time with light, capable gear. Again, completely agree and thanks for the comment!

[@DavidFlowerOfficial]

Absolutely spot on. Great technical advice again! After recently getting into micro four thirds I can genuinely say that for my use there is nothing that my Olympus can't do that I would see a significant improvement in by using a larger sensor camera. I've had Nikon, Sony and still have Canon FF cameras and while there's a noticable difference at high iso (above 3200) the difference below this is negligible if, as you correctly stated, the exposure is accurate in the camera. Great Video, Thomas🖖

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you David! I very much appreciate you sharing your experience and the kind comment.

[@imatrOlda]

Eine sehr gute Arbeit, Thomas! Danke und Grüße nach Wien aus Finnland.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen herzlichen Dank und beste Grüße nach Finnland!

[@davyboyo]

The point you made about treating digital sensors more like slide film definitely mirrors my own experience recently when moving from negative film to digital. Cheers

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Ah, great to hear - it really is a thing, even with new sensors! Thanks for sharing your experiences

[@davyboyo]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography thank you for sharing yours!

[@hachimitsu3351]

As somebody who has never used slide film, can you elaborate on that?

[@davyboyo]

@@hachimitsu3351 well I am speaking in reference to negative film, which handles over-exposure very well. If a scene has excessive dynamic range it's sort of possible to expose for the shadows and the film will just begin to compress the highlights at a certain point, so they don't really truly blow out the way that digital sensors will if you reach their exposure limits. Slide film is similar to digital in that regard. Basically what I'm saying is that with digital, much like slide I feel like I'm always hovering around the edges of my exposure latitude and it's so easy to get a poor image just with slight under or over exposure. I'm always having to decide whether I prioritise my highlights or shadows with digital but with negative film I never really had to worry about it because I never found a scene that the film couldn't capture.

[@hachimitsu3351]

​@@davyboyothis makes a lot of sense, thank you for taking the time to reply

[@BrentODell]

I recently went from Canon FF(R6 and R5) to a Panasonic Lumix G9. I previously used a G9 and an Olympus E-M1 mk ii, and sold them to chase sensor size and megapixels. I've realized that I'd rather have a compact, weather resistant kit and work a little harder the nail exposure than to have a larger, more expensive kit and have more ability to fix it in post.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for sharing that. It is a very relatable "journey", one that many photographers can relate to, including myself. The G9 is an amazing camera, and the price is just incredible. I'm sure this was the right call for your and you will get the results you are looking for. Best wishes!

[@theosolberg]

I ran into this same discussion again at a ballet performance recently. Four photographers, 3 full frame shooters and me with my Olympus M43 gear. Two of them with the "standard opinion": "M43 sensors are not good enough in low light situations." I did not want to get into a long discussion so I just said that they might be surprised. I have let the resulting shots do the rest of the talking.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing that - I think the reason this is coming up every once in a while is that there is a lack of understanding of the impact of the interplay between noise, dynamic range and print size in digital photography. Many thanks for the comment!

[@stefanostefani4273]

Great video! Really interesting and very useful to improve in making better images from our sensors. Thank you!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome, great to hear. Thanks for your continued "viewership"!

[@stefanostefani4273]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Thank you. If I may one day I'd like to hear your advice on the best exposure with external flash or hot shoe. It often happens to me in dark places and I bring home good results with sensitivity between 1000 and 1600 iso but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right or if some choices can still improve. Thank you

[@wwz3320]

Thank you for your work! Great video!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for watching!

[@dominiclester3232]

Nice discussion, thanks! One other relevant technical tool you should mention is stabilisation. The IBIS on the OM is much better than full frame mirrorless cameras, let alone your D800 without IBIS. This results in much lower available shutter speeds for when the subjects are not moving too quickly. I’m also a Nikon and Olympus user and have compared my cameras in low light tests.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Good point! I agree, the IBIS is absolutely spectacular, especially if you use the handheld assist, that is game changing. As long as stuff does not move, as you've said, the sky is the limit with the OM-1. Thanks for the comment!

[@akeluify]

Just recently full frame ibis broke olympus record. For example the new Sony A7RV has 8 stops ibis.

[@TheMickebostrom]

Interesting aspects, as always!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@gregm6894]

Great video -- and right on target! It is funny that you mentioned treating digital capture the same as shooting chrome. When I first transitioned from film to digital, that was my exact experience also. You really need to nail the exposure in camera, and not get lazy thinking you can 'fix it' in post processing. Thanks Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Greg! Thanks for sharing that - I know exactly what you mean by getting lazy. "Oh, it is about right, it will do" - no it won't, at least not when we apply high standards

[@decay999]

I really appreciate your in depth technical analysis on the these cameras and sensors. I have shot full frame landscape photography for a long time but have recently purchased an EM5 mk 111. I am amazed at the quality of the images it is producing, I think this and your videos are convincing me to switch over fully to micro 4 thirds, thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words! I'm convinced that MFT gets the job done - if you've been happy with what you got so far, I think you can definitely make the switch, especially if you do not want to "maintain" two systems!

[@FART-REPELLENT]

EM3 Mark Hundred & eleven?; that's 200 years in the future, the recent one is the Mark 3

[@decay999]

@@FART-REPELLENT haha, you knew what I meant 😀 There's always one, isn't there!

[@FART-REPELLENT]

@@decay999 Instead you should have typed it as: EM3 Mark III or 3; I knew what you meant, I just saw an opportunity to make a joke

[@evgenipoptoshev4112]

Completely agree with you on this one as well. Correct exposure is the most important factor, in order to get the most out of any photographic medium. Realizing this, Ansel Adams developed the zone system for large format cameras.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! It seems that the "digital revolution" made many people forget about those things.

[@misterbrickest]

Dude I didn't know Hitman has a photography KZbin channel!! Just kidding. But I just upgraded to a Canon R5. But I've used long exposures with/or light painting on my APS-C cameras and had beautiful results. APS-C sensors absolutely are capable and I would encourage people to use different sensor sizes as tools to fit specific jobs. With denoise AI programs like Topaz or DXOPure RAW and some skill in Lightroom/Photoshop, noise from high ISO images (assuming it's a properly exposed image) is almost not an issue. I do miss the extra reach of APS-C when using my R5 now but I'll just have to get some longer lenses. My 70-200 2.8 is the best I have now. Gotta keep saving I guess. Love your content! Great video and great topic!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Well, he does! :-) Many thanks for the feedback and sharing your experiences - and the R5 is an excellent camera that will sure serve you well.

[@flagger2020]

Very sensible and correct analysis.. some of my favorite shots were with the LC-1 a 2/3 sensor.. as the latitude of correct exposure is so limited, we often save small sensors to good/daylight only scenarios where we are more likely to get it right.. so in future I'll try exposure bracketing more.. thanks for the thoughtful video and happy shooting

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much for the kind comment - and yes, the correct exposure is usually the most important piece of the puzzle! Happy shooting to you as well, thanks for the comment, again!

[@avishmayovitsh5038]

very informative, thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Stephen.Bingham]

I think it’s very important to clearly define “low light performance” in such discussions. For me the only way to compare cameras with different sensor sizes is when they are taking the same image - with the same depth of field and motion blur (shutter speed). In such a comparison m43 cameras operate at two stops lower iso than full frame, for example. For sensors of the same technology generation image noise in such a comparison is largely independent of sensor size. From a Physics/engineering perspective this makes perfect sense - for a fixed depth of field and shutter speed the amount of light used to create the image is also a constant (independent of sensor size).

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I agree that the definition of low light has to be included - that is why I was specifically referring to a 3 EV scenario for this purpose. It might be difficult to achieve perfect comparability, because the practical situation in LL dictates certain exposure parameters and there is often no way of matching them in practice, only in theory. In around 3 EV scenarios when you need 1/500, your camera has to be set to around 12.800 and f/1.4. Regardless of which sensor size. The litmus test is whether you find the result pleasing at these settings or not. Every other situation - as stated in the video - allows the use of the big equalizer, better known as tripod. Then you can pick everything you want in terms of exp settings Thanks for contributing!

[@Stephen.Bingham]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I think we need to bear in mind that larger sensor cameras have a larger maximum iso than smaller sensor cameras - full frame cameras typically have a two stop higher maximum than m43 cameras, for example (assuming sensors of the same type and vintage). So I don’t really see why one is forced to choose a particular iso when making such a comparison, as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps the most important aspect of your point is the question of what is the best choice when one doesn’t care about depth of field? Astrophotography is an example of this. In this case one chooses the camera with the largest entrance aperture (the physical size of the hole, not the f-stop). Sensor size is unimportant from a noise performance point of view. However, in practice it is usually easier and cheaper to construct large aperture lenses for cameras that have large sensors (because aberrations are difficult to control in lenses with small f-stops, especially for wide fields of view). Thus in practice one will often choose a large sensor camera for cost reasons. A set of f/1.8 primes for a full frame camera is likely to be cheaper than a set of f/0.9 primes for m43 camera of similar image quality, for example. F/1.4 primes may be available for a full frame camera but f/0.7 primes for a m43 camera would be an enormous technical challenge to construct. I think it comes down to this - is it misleading to say “large sensor cameras have better low light performance”, or would the more accurate statement “it’s cheaper to obtain shallow depths of field with larger sensor cameras (and by the way you get better low light performance for such shallow depth of field shots)” be clearer?

[@RichardBO9]

Great video. "Expose like slide film" is spot-on advice. My photos improved greatly when I started exposing more for the shadows. Make sure the important parts of the shadow area are Zone 3 or better.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely! Thanks for sharing that!

[@SamTaylors]

Another great video - you’re really on a roll sir! Such clear and well reasoned advice. My own experience has been very much as you describe, with great results from really quite modest kit provided I nail exposure in camera. Oh and I should add that your gig shots were the epic icing on an already awesome cake 😄

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Sam! Again, I very much appreciate your considerate and kind comments - awesome. Great to hear that we are again on the same page with this one - I think it is often overlooked.

[@ottomellar6774]

I just explained this to a friend, will be sending this to him. I am an Olympus user, and had been considering moving up sensor size, but will look at using ISO more. Likely going to OM-1 is now likely. And I am a super fan of the Lumix LX100, over 180,000 exposures.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Uh, 180.000 - that is a lot! You will be very happy with the OM-1 - a great camera & futureproof platform.

[@tommacbride3654]

The best camera is the one you have with you😂 Good show! I like your style, Cheers!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you! Agreed!

[@iphone4duc]

Super Video! Da werden einige Mythen aufgeklärt......Gut Licht! Helmut

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen Dank!

[@thaweepworadech]

This VDO make me WOW!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you!

[@roopinpatel5147]

Really love your videos. The OM/Olympus lens comparison really helped me nail my decision to buy a lens that suits my needs without breaking my bank. I shoot mostly birds during daytime, many of them small, and the OM1 + 150-600 combo is what I am going to buy upgrading from the Sony Superzoom Rx 10iii so you can imagine the jump. I wish you made a video of what customs settings to use for bird photography that would work best (and more importantly fastest) with OM 1 + 150-600.

[@jonerikrolf2029]

Excellent discussion re how to make high ISO images as usable as possible whether photographing still, action or wildlife subjects. I photograph wildlife in difficult low light environments. My OM-1 gives me the depth of field I need even when shooting at 800mm f/4.5 (with the 150-400mm lens). I generally keep both a sufficiently high enough shutter speed and f-stop set manually with auto-ISO on. I use center-weighted exposure metering on birds to enable better continuous exposure on the moving subjects. Even so, it is still easy to exit the safe dynamic range of the sensor if one doesn’t carefully watch the movements of the histogram and make slight +/- EV adjustments. Yes, there is a need to pay more attention to exposure required for the photographer when in low light using a pro m43 sensor camera than a FF sensor. But that is a slight penalty to pay for a wildlife photographer when getting more portability, better kinesthetic ergonomics, weather sealing etc. with O-1/Olympus gear.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely agree - thank you very much for taking the time to share your invaluable experiences! Thank you again!

[@okaro6595]

Well on a larger sensors you can always stop down to get depth of field.

[@jonerikrolf2029]

Yes, one can close down the aperture on a FF camera to match the DOF of a m43 camera, but it will require about 1.5 f/stops or a little more to do so. With wildlife photography one is working in the relatively dim morning and late afternoon light where one still needs to have relatively high shutter speeds (at least 1/1250 to 1/3200 of a second) to avoid motion blur. As you stop down the aperture, the ISO needs to increase a lot (approximately double per f/stop increase). It is the dark out of focus areas that show the most noise, and the double DOF of the m43 sensor vs the FF sensor helps level the playing field in producing publishable wildlife images created in low light with high shutter speeds.

[@Drmikekuna]

Another great video that got me thinking about low-light photography differently. I shoot a lot of interior architectural HDR images using existing light plus a tripod and can get excellent results with little effort. Years ago, I was obsessed with a camera's ISO ability and (sadly) bought more than one camera because it was claimed to be "so much better" than the previous model. I was almost always disappointed. Model-to-model variation seemed more of a product of advertising hype than reality. However, low-light performance is better for my current cameras than my original DSLR, a 2003 Canon 300D. But, even with that old camera, there were work arounds-turning: on the lights in a room, adding a flash, etc. Much of the low light improvement of modern cameras should be shared between the sensor and the microprocessor. Because of computational photography, my iPhone 14 has good low-light abilities (considering its tiny sensor size). Thank you for this video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Mike, thank you so much! Great statement - valid points! Exactly bc of the HDR-tripod thing, I will soon follow up with a video about professional HDR photography, just like the one you are doing. It is actually quite easy if you follow a few principles - and then, the sky is the limit even with an old camera. Cheers and thanks for watching!

[@chrisbrown6432]

Thanks for a thorough lesson on small sensors in low light. The advantages of micro four thirds in low light plus twice the depth of field than full frame are often overlooked by photographers who dismiss micro four thirds. Plus the fact that with the IBIS in Olympus cameras being so good, We can shoot at lower ISOs sometimes than one could shoot with a full frame camera without that fantastic IBIS. So the noise problem might be evened out a bit between micro four thirds and Full frame cameras.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! As long as it does not move, there is no limit at all to MFT. I am also using MFT for LL, so I am confident to state that you can get the job done w/o any issues.

[@jakesdewet3567]

Hi Thomas, thanks for your education. I recently bought into the OM system and do mainly nature and landscapes. I recently had a debate with another professional that apply the following "philosophy" using OM-1 for action and wildlife. Shoot in A priority, ev -1.7 or up to -2.3, f 4 on the 300 f4 lens, ISO 3200 or even 6800 to gain a shutter speed of 1/32000... the purpose of this is ev -1.7 or higher "protect the highlights on white birds but also push up the shutter speed, the high ISO is used to also gain max shutter speed. This is used in good light and mostly birds in flight. Most other bird in fligh photographers use ss of 1/3200 or if light is good 1/6400 and manage to keet ISO around 800 or even less. to protect highlights ev-0.7 is sufficient in 99% of the cases on White feathered birds. Am I missing some logic here?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Jake! I don't think you are missing anything here - it is important to keep in mind that different RAW software will give you different usable dynamic range. So you really should test your specific workflow. In any case, I think -2.3EV is excessive, considering the dynamic range of the OM-1. Nonetheless, if you want to protect all color channels, it might be feasible - again depending on the software used. Hope this helps!

[@jakedooom]

Well said. I do a lot of low light work in theatre, on stage and at night outside with micro four-thirds cameras. I completely agree that the pictures I find unacceptable are always where I have screwed-up the exposure, so I need to keep attention on exposure and consequent dynamic range in the range: low-mids to highlights. As for the blacks, they become about shape, silhouette, and composition… and I need to pay attention to this as I work. I also agree with you about colour noise, and so my signature style is monochrome, using colour only for images with exposures that allow it, and that benefit from colour artistically.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your extensive comment and sharing of your experiences! That is very valuable. With bright lenses, MFT is very capable in low light - if the exposure is right as we both found out. Thank you!

[@andreaabout]

Thank you for a really informative video. I agree getting the exposure correct is the most important thing. I use Micro Fourthirds (E-M1 MkII and E-M5 MkII) and have been pleased with the results I get. I have done low light shots with the cameras and as you point out the images exposed correctly give the better results. I use DXO Photolab 6 with DeepPrime to remove any noise and works extremely well. Thank you again.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing your workflow and the kind feedback! Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding low light - it is great to hear that other photographers like you arrived at the same conlcusions! Thanks and best wishes!

[@artisans8521]

Everything you said, I always said. My GH5 goes up to 6400 nicely. And with a manual focus lens by Nikon being a 50 1.4.....no problemo. As an analog photographer, I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 and 25 for my Nikon F, F2, F3 and F4. And Velvia 50 for my GX680 system and my GF960 "compact" camera by Fuji. And yes these are haevy beasts especially with a 50 in your kitty. Shooting landscape and stills low light never was a problem. And when I had to shoot in low light I used porta 400 or 800. Now people are yelping about 25.600 noise, what a luxury indeed.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for the excellent contribution - completely agree!

[@imagenatura]

Wow. Great video! I agree, shoot as if it's a jpeg that needs correct everything and you'll get good results no matter the sensor size.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely!

[@ppzart]

Thanks for putting all theory and expertise in a practical perspective - the one that matters in the end. These are tools and their limits are shown well by a good craftsman! It is to conclude, too, it's better to work on my craftsmanship before I blame the tool.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for the kind and thoughtful comment, I agree!

[@janwilson9485]

Thanks for this truely useful information. I always prefer 'real world' usage based analysis, particularly if linked to practical actionable advice - you ticked all the boxes so well - thanks.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great. to hear, thanks for the feedback!

[@benmcconnell6008]

Indeed, I find that correct exposure is where I tend to have messed up. Maybe a bracketed exposure of shots might be a fall back position when the situation permits.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely! Bracketing is q viable option!

[@tommimartikainen8930]

Yet again, a fantastic video. Thanks a lot 😁 and long live mft system

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Cheers to that! Thanks for the kind words!

[@lanceevans1689]

Just subbed, loving your channel! I'll share that I was somewhat known for doing low light night work "back in the day", with reviews in the NY Times, etc. This was film days and I swear I can still smell the exotic film developers I used to use to eek out the last bit of film speed and shadow detail. Kodak's Tri-X pushed, and 3200 iso films were my go-to. And shooting medium format, the grain wasn't an issue. But other than the super high ISOs we have today, all the old negative film was more forgiving than digital. As you say, we must think of digital as being similar to shooting chrome. But thankfully, digital is far more forgiving than slides ever were. As to MFT DOF, you are correct that it is larger than the same f/stop would be on a larger sensor camera. The rule of thumb is to calculate using 2x, between FF and MFT. So we get the same bokeh and DOF from - for example - a FF lens of 50mm at f/2.8, and an MFT lens of 25mm at f/1.4. Fine. But the problem quickly becomes obvious: If you want to match a FF rig with a 50mm/1.4 lens, you will need a MFT with a 25mm/0.7 lens. A lens that simply isn't made. Something like a mitakon zhongyi lens would be the closest, at around f/0.95. But I hear they aren't very useable wide open.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Fantastic - I'm honored! Welcome to the channel, Sir! I think you made some very valid points here: 1) Choosing a sensor format means choosing a look, at it is not practical try to emulate the look of the bigger/smaller sensor. I mean, no one was talking about achieving a large format look with a small format camera, in the film days, right. It is just not feasible and reasonable. 2) Film is absolutely awesome, in many ways. More and more photographers use it from time to time / or regularly and hey, there are good reasons for that. Thank you for taking the time to engage and share, much appreciated!

[@lanceevans1689]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography And thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, if I want that very shallow look, I'll go medium format. But in truth, I have a Canon FD 50/1.4 that can achieve crazy shallow DOF on MFT. And with the booster, it's f/1.0. Bokeh enough for me.

[@jfcunningham]

Very helpful!!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear!

[@trevorbrooks813]

Excellent video, I appreciate your oh so subtle sense of humour. Sadly, I need to sell some gear. My head says keep the Canon APSC, yet every tactile sense in my body says keep the Olympus M43. You've confirmed what I had recently come to accept, the larger sensor just gives me more opportunity to fix things in post production. In other words, I mess up a lot. For me M43 is simply more fun. Thanks for posting, coffee on the way.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Sorry for the selling thing - but really, you will be perfectly fine with either of those systems. And if your "heart" tells you MFT, then go for it. You will get every shot you need. Everyone messes up a lot, but only few admit it, so don't worry. Thank you for the Coffee, I very much appreciate your generous support!

[@Lawman212]

Thomas, these Olympus videos are top notch. You have my three favorite camera systems in this video; they strike me as being very intuitive. I would love to get your take on the Pentax though. I've never had a camera that is so transparent in how to operate it. It would definitely be the medium format camera that I would buy. I already know that it is good, but I would love to hear your thorough discussion of it.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many many thanks - that means a lot! I actually have a block about the Pentax planned for this channel - it is not only a camera worth talking about but an excellent piece of photographic equipment. I can highly recommend it, it is definitely highly recommended. If you want a medium format digital, this is the one to get IMHO. Stay tuned, more to come hehe 😉 Many thanks again!

[@louiebodenstaff6772]

Great insights Thomas, thanks for sharing your knowledge. I shoot with Olympus M4/3, your video gives me more confidence in my gear!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

That is great to hear! M43 is an awesome platform and I am absolutely convinced of it's capabilities.

[@mr.l6982]

Very well done and explained! Would you please consider creating a video on achieving the proper exposure and using the correct ISO in various shooting scenarios?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! It is already on the list!

[@fahrupitak695]

Hello, I understand english not much, but I am enjoyed your explanation..., thx so much...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind comment! Much appreciated and thanks for watching!

[@josgeusens4637]

Indeed the experience with slide photography pays off when using any digital sensor. Recently I decided to photograph a comet and therefore the best lens I could use without any form of tracking possibilities, was my Nikkor 180 mm at f/2.8 Because without tracking your exposure time is limited due to the motion of the earth and causing star trails, I had to use a high ISO setting while exposing 3 seconds. After tests, I used my OM-D camera with the 43-NF adapter instead of the Nikon D600 (which is exceptionally good in low light). At 5 seconds exposure with ISO 3200, there is no resulting noise after stacking them and twice the comet size too. Five seconds at ISO 3200 also gave me enough information to show the histogram never being in the lowest area, which means no loss.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing your valuable experiences - I have no real experience in astrophotography, so this was very interesting to read about! Indeed, stacking is a great way of improving IQ. In a future video, I will illustrate how the liveND filter actually is an in-camera RAW stacking function and therefore useful for many applications (probably not astro, though). Thanks again, I very much appreciate the input!

[@adamdagosto570]

Couple things... please take a suggestion. First I 100% agree with your assertions. My suggestion is, your video would have been even more powerful with a significant increase in photo examples. Every time you made a statement, if you could show a couple examples, it would have helped you. Again, I believe you, but a skeptic probably won't given a lack of "proof". Otherwise, your videos are excellent. Keep going!!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Adam! Thank you very much for the feedback, I very much appreciate that! Welcome to the channel, it is a pleasure to have you here.

[@adamdagosto570]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography On that note about evidence...if you don't mind, could you address this question? You said that all that is needed to capture the blackest blacks and the whitest whites was about 9 stops. But would 11 or 15 or 9+x stops just provide more data to use and manipulate thus providing even more texture to the image? OR do you find that the addition DR just doesn't translate into additional beauty? I really like that you made this video all about "reality" and real live application. You did the same in the video about noise. All too often we get caught up in the details and not just worry about shooting!!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Adam! I think your question regarding the advantage of more or less stops, this in-depth video I recorded recently will cover what you want to know: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4qyo2mqbdGfncU&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Let me know if this is what you've been looking for!

[@adamdagosto570]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography That was well worth the visit to that video!! Yes. That video explained it extremely well. Also, really great use of visual examples in that video too. The conversation about display media and 8-bits pretty much blew up my thought process. Great job teaching!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! I'm very thankful for that and I'm super happy that you watched the video 📸

[@PerEng2405]

I highly appreciate your thorough and in-depth videos. Thank you al lot(!) Thomas. Btw I am expanding my Nikon D800 ecosystem with Olympia MFT 🙂 Unfortunately not OM-1 Mark II. At least not yet. Have to aquire pro glass first. Shout out from Per (Denmark).

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Your journey sounds oddly familiar to mine, haha. Thanks for your kind comment and welcome on board!

[@randomstuffman01]

Good video. thanks. toronto canada.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!