GH2 vs Sony Alpha 55

Started Mar 24, 2011 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,507Gear list
Like?
Re: GH2 vs Sony Alpha 55
In reply to Anders W, Apr 4, 2011

Anders W wrote:

El demontre wrote:

I have them both, 10fps on the sony is very useful to me, I have more lens choices for it too (like a 50mm f1.4) and that's why I kept it. Still, good lenses for it are big and expensive, either sony or zeiss, it looks ridiculous with the 400mm G. I rarely shoot video and for stills, the GH2 definitely beats the A55 in detail. At firs I thought it was me, but the studio comparison here confirmed it, the A55 applies detail destroying noise reduction even to RAW files and there's no way to turn it off. Go to the studio scene comparison in RAW in the review and drag it to anywhere you want (good areas are the grandma's face and the statue of david's face as well as the dime). At ISO 800 its quite noticeable, theres much more detail in the GH2 files, and a lot of blurring in the A55s. Even at ISO 3200 theres more detail with the GH2 and by the time you get rid of the noise AND sharpen the A55 file itll look much worse than the noise reduced GH2 file. Ive had the GH2 since xmas and its proven once and again to kick my APS Cs ass thoroughly.

I think you are right about the conclusion (more detail from GH2) but not about the reasons. To my knowledge, there are no reports suggesting that the A55 does NR in RAW, and a site like DxOMark would surely have spotted it (they are pretty good at that by now). However, the GH2 (as well as several other m43 cameras) have very weak AA filters, and this, along with the high pixel density of the GH2 (and good lenses) makes for unusually good resolution.

Some further information here:

http://www.lenstip.com/269.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_LUMIX_G_20_mm_f_1.7_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

El demontre wrote:

There is not one camera maker that does not manipulate their RAW file. period. Even the RAW file is a conversion done by the processor (to become digital). Its how new models get better in RAW mode despite using the same sensor. DxO would have certainly miss this because they dont look or take into account the camera's processor. Pentax learned this the hard way after the K7, Now suddenly the K5 is the best thing ever.

Certainly, all camera makers use a "processor" (if you want to call it that) known as an ADC (analog-to-digital converter) to convert the analog signal to digital form. This is nothing new, however (all digital cameras ever made have at least one ADC), and does not imply that the data are manipulated but merely that they are converted from anolog to digital form. Manipulation refers to something beyond that.

As to DxO, they do look for signs of manipulation, and sometimes discover it, for example in the K-5, which "cooks" its RAW files a bit above ISO 1600. Consequently, DxO disregards that part of the ISO range when scoring the K-5, and shows, in their diagrams, that the above-ISO-1600 data have been tampered with.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow