DXOMark results for GH3

No big surprise with the same score as the E-M5.  Only difference is the measured ISO on the GH3 is closer to actual ISO vs the E-M5.  Also ISO125 seems to be base ISO as all results improve at this ISO.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3

This almost certainly means the GH3 is using the same Sony sensor as the E-M5, no?  I know there's been a lot of speculation about this, but every single metric is identical between the two cameras.  If it were a Panasonic sensor, I would expect it to have slightly different strengths and weaknesses.

It is definitely based on the same Sony technology.  But due to AA filter and other slight variations they are not exactly the same.

My use of ISO 125 confirms this, but with the caveat that JPG's show much more easily easily blown highlights. This should be fixable in firmware. RAW's, though, are comparable to ISO 200 as far as highlight recovery goes, and seem to have equivalent shadow depth.

Pete

Then I have to wonder if 125 is really the base ISO, or more akin to ISO50 on the 5D Mark II, where it produces cleaner files but at the cost of highlight headroom.

Hi Rick,

This has already been tested in prior threads and DxO confirms those findings: ISO 125 is a real ISO, more specifically the native (base) ISO of the camera, not a "fake" ISO like the ISO 50 on the 5DII. Why Panasonic labels it "extended" is anyone's guess.

Yes, it does. I have thought that such was the case all along and the DxO figures confirms it.

Anders - thanks, hadn't seen that. The behavior seemed analogous to the 5D2, but the cause is apparently different.

Even stranger, ISO 125 isn't even available for shooting video, where it would often come in handy.

Sure, it's the same sensor. Sony or Toshiba, not that important. But, wait until  exdeejjjaaaa shows up with quotes from Panasonic executive - "our sensor", "our sensor group", etc. Then this whole round of arguments will start again.

What I found interesting - in review conclusion DxO call GH3 "small and light". They didn't say these words about E-PL5 and E-PM2 in reviews. DxO just called them "compact hybrids".

The GH3 IS small and light, to anyone who's ever handled a full frame or APS-C DSLR. I'm a healthy, full-grown adult, the GH3's size and weight doesn't bother me one bit on extended shooting. The fact that it's heavy enough to perfectly balance with the 100-300 on there is a GOOD thing, since I can actually shoot one-handed.

Interesting. Didn't know that. As you say, it would be useful for video to keep shutter speed in the proper range. Unless it's not just an oversight to be fixed in the next FW release, the only reason for not allowing it that I come to think of is that it might take longer to read big charges (at least if you want to minimize read noise) and that this might pose a problem for video.

Well, we'll see what exdeejjjaaaa says. But in my book, the DxO results counts as harder evidence than the one he repeatedly comes up with.

It's probably because they locked out extended ISO for video, and 125 is classified as extended.  I suspect Panasonic was really just trying to prevent ultra-high ISO in video and 125 got bumped too because of how they programmed it.

Wow:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/836%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/842%7C0/(brand2)/Panasonic/(appareil3)/793%7C0/(brand3)/Olympus

Didn't see the 6D as being that far ahead... 3x the low ISO score... then again 4x the sensor size... Physics huh...

I am considering getting a GH3, but at over 1Kg with the 14-140 (which I already own) I'm not sure "light" comes into it... I think the 12-35 is almost required to manage that (855g the pair, although my GF1 with the 12-35 would be a much more reasonable 653g, well, if the light was good anyway)...

The results here:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.optyczne.pl/202.1-Test_aparatu-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH3.html&usg=ALkJrhhKhDVfD_eDQEe8-2XqFzxtlW5tmw

Suggest the sensors are quite different...

it suggests only that Optyzne is using nominal ISO values... they shall stick to what they can do - lens tests only

here we go again... DR curves are not Sony-type (check proper implementation of Sony Semiconductor sensors in Nikon and Pentax bodies)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/28/qa-with-panasonic-the-story-behind-the-new-gh3-and-compact-system-tech

"Panasonic: Our main priority was image quality, both for stills and movies. For our former models, the GH1 and GH2, we developed a special sensor that was a little bigger than Four Thirds. However, because we wanted to make so many improvements with the GH3, we didn't have a larger sensor available. The Four Thirds-size sensor was what was available from our sensor group."

"Panasonic: It's actually not possible to reset the whole sensor, because it's a CMOS, not a CCD. Instead, you can reset each line separately, and also read out separately. How many lines you're resetting, capturing, and then reading out at once sets the shutter speed. This means from top to bottom, the readout speed is limited to around 100 milliseconds. Of course, 100 milliseconds is longer than some other cameras like the Nikon 1, because it has only 10 megapixels, and we have 16 megapixels. Our sensor isn't specially designed, so it just scans normally."

"Panasonic: We don't publish a specification for dynamic range, but yes, we increased the saturation electron number and also improved the signal-to-noise ratio."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/01/14/qa-with-panasonics-darin-pepple-the-importance-of-connectivity-and-video

"when we've poured so much R&D into making the Micro Four Thirds sensor so good, and you can see that in the GH3"

........

STOP DREAMING ! ask a simple question - Panasonic pioneered big FPS readouts for CDAF in GH2... where are 120fps, 240fps readouts in other Sony Sensors somehow that was and is present only in m43 sensors starting from GH2 and... you draw your conclusions

In what sense is the DR curve not Sony-type (looking not only at Nikon and Pentax but also Sony bodies, including NEX)?