Admiring Light
Menu
  • Home
  • Review Index
  • Shop Talk
  • Technique and Vision
  • Opinion
  • Portfolio
  • Site Index
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
Menu

Trying out Handheld Night Shooting with the OM-D

Posted on May 2, 2012May 2, 2012 by Jordan Steele

Took the OM-D out for a quick spin of night shooting this evening on the way home from work, sans tripod.  The in-body IS was rather astounding, and enabled me to keep the ISO relatively low even with a little longer lens.  This shot of the Main St and Town Street bridges in Columbus, was taken using the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 at ISO 640 and 1/6 second, handheld.  New possibilities await!

Bridges of Columbus - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 45mm f/1.8, ISO 640, f/1.8, 1/6s

4 thoughts on “Trying out Handheld Night Shooting with the OM-D”

  1. yukonchris says:
    May 9, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Having shot Olympus digital for a number of years, I would say that unless you’ve applied some noise reduction in post, this image represents an impressive piece of evidence for the improvements made with the OM-D E-M5’s sensor. Very promising indeed!

    Reply
  2. Nobuyuki Sakamoto says:
    May 13, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    I consider this a huge accomplishment.

    Having given up film for the Olympus E-1 and recently starting to use the E-5, I avoid low light (without flash) at all costs, though I tried a few shots with the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 and was disappointed.

    If this is where they’re going, by the time they get to the E-P14 or E-M16, they’ll be ahead of the APS-C based dSLRs.

    Reply
  3. Rob Walker says:
    May 14, 2013 at 2:53 am

    Love your images – especially how “clean” you manage to get them to look. First stumbled across your work while looking for tips on OM-D noise, and saw this post:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1181930/0#11268536

    I’m really enjoying my OM-D, but am still struggling to get to grips with effective noise reduction when using the RAW files. Wondering what RAW processor and approach you use to get such a nice clean look?

    I have LR4.3, but am really no expert in all the settings. Have also started looking at alternatives, partly to see if C1, Photo Ninja or DxO can get more out of the raw files, and also because I’m starting to get put off by Adobe’s move to a subscription model.

    I realise of course all of those tools can probably be made to achieve much the same, so when I say “get more out of” I mean that as a relative novice, they’ll enable me to process a better image in less time.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Steele says:
      May 14, 2013 at 5:57 am

      Well, one thing is that you’re seeing web reductions. There is certainly visible noise at 100%, especially in those ISO 6400 shots you linked to…the noise is dramatically lessened when reduced for the web. however, this also approximates what it looks like in similar sized prints, and frankly, those are the only two areas I care about. Does it look good when viewing the whole thing on screen, and does it look good in print (I love prints, especially good size prints). The OM-D is plenty capable in that area. I typically use Lightroom 4.4 for most of my processing. For my OM-D, I have a luminance NR or 10 upon import, which helps to smooth out any very minor noise that tends to hang around in the skies at base ISO, without touching the detail at all. At ISO 1600, I generally use a luminance NR of about 25-30 or so.

      Every once in a while, when I need additional NR without compromising detail, I’ll run an image through Topaz Denoise, which does a very nice job. Often times, I’ll do that if I have a high ISO shot with a lot of background blur, and I’ll run a relatively aggressive NR job through Topaz (RAW Moderate, sometimes RAW high) on a separate layer, and then mask out the detail areas, so that only the blurry parts get the extra noise reduction. As a result, I get a silky smooth background and I don’t hurt the detail in the file. you need to be careful there, though, to avoid making the image look like that. You can’t be too heavy handed on the noise reduction, nor too cookie cutter on the areas you mask.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Me:

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Mastodon

Most Popular Posts

  • "Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter (286)
  • Fuji X-Pro 2 vs. Sony A7 II: Noise Comparison (70)
  • Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron (63)
  • Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) (56)
  • Review: Olympus OM-D E-M5 (48)

Recent Comments

  • Frank on Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS vs. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
  • Giorgio on A Tripod in the Sky – DJI Air 2S Review
  • Sam Taylor on My Favorite Photos of 2022
  • Damien on Review: TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4 ASPH (RF Mount)
  • Jordan Steele on Review: TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4 ASPH (RF Mount)

Archives

©2023 Admiring Light | Theme by SuperbThemes
We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. Accept Reject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

SAVE & ACCEPT