Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 real world samples gallery posted

lackilus: he Sony RX100III is very close. and excellent sensor. These 1"sensors are better than the first mFTsesnors and at base ISO by a wide margin. The latest mFT sensors especially in low light are about a stop better. But at base ISO I do not think anyone would be able to tell them apart. I understand the comparison as many will make it, but this cam is small WITH the possibility of interchangable lenses. RX100 is not as flexible and would not be as small if it had to use such lenses too.
From what I have seen and read, the LX100 is a more direct albeit siggnificantly larger compeitiro but it is a clearly superior cam over the RX100III. Simply a true photographers cam.
At least when I read the raving reviews. If I had a fullblow ILC I would probably go for RX100III or LX100 as a take everywhere cam.

Mar 18, 2015permalink

lacikuss

"If I had a fullblow ILC I would probably go for RX100III or LX100 as a take everywhere cam."

Exactly!

Mar 18, 2015permalink

rallyfan

I'm skeptical about high(ish) ISO and shadow details.

Hopefully the next generation will improve these two issues.

For now it's a very competitive product though. Size is good.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Well...very niced cam for the size. But I have to wonder what it gets us over a GM1 or GM5 basically...Selfies?

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Andy Crowe

It's a bit cheaper too.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

It's not any cheaper than the GM1, tho that may be on it's way out eventually... Flip screen and slightly more to grip some will be a plus to some, worse controls or battery life compared to past GFs tho.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

> It's not any cheaper than the GM1

German prices:
GM1's MSRP is 700€
GF7's MSRP is 500€

Mar 16, 2015permalink

GM1 is 500 euro in Germany and on ebay even less. GM5 is the expensive one, may be you are mixing them up?

Mar 16, 2015permalink

No mixup, just different markets and probably more leftover GM stock on this side of the pond... I bought my GM1 from Taiwan (NTSC) for $340, granted that's a body only import so you'd expect it to be cheaper...

Looking at Amazon tho, I'm seeing it for $430 from US sellers without lens and $530-600 with lens. Even if you ignore third party Amazon merchants, it's still only $600... Or was until the other day, it's prone to erratic price jumps.

The GF7 is $600 with lens and I'm not seeing any discounts anywhere, tho I'm sure they'll come eventually. For the purpose of the US market they're effectively priced the same and the current GF is coming in at $100 more than the previous one was at launch.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Oh dear, the shadows in the processed ISO 200 shot are awful, I've been spoilt by my NEX 5n. The low noise floor in modern Sony sensors really does make the files very robust when it comes to recovering shadows.

Could this technology not be incorporated into a 4/3 sensor?

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Revenant

The sensor used in Olympus E-M5/M10/P5/PL7/PM2 is made by Sony, of the same generation as the NEX-7 sensor, I believe.

The Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic's GH4/GX7/GM5/GM1/GF7 all use a Panasonic sensor.

I don't know if there's a difference in the ability to recover shadows between the two 4/3" sensors.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

What is this about judging the capacity to recover shadows on the basis of jpegs?

Get raws, and good extraction software, then make these generalizations.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Who cares what's in the shadows. If it were worth human attention, it would have been well lit.

Otherwise, Pana sensors have tad bit more read-out noise compared to the Sony's ones.

Also Sony (unlike Pana) does manipulate the point of black to remove the noise in the shadows. That, despite the fact that it needs it less than Pana. To achieve the same effect with the Pana images, just get the RAWs and process them yourself.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

"What is this about judging the capacity to recover shadows on the basis of jpegs?

Get raws, and good extraction software, then make these generalizations."

It was a RAW file so nothing you say is valid.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

"Who cares what's in the shadows. If it were worth human attention, it would have been well lit."

What a load of nonsense, I guess we should never take photos at night either right?

"Otherwise, Pana sensors have tad bit more read-out noise compared to the Sony's ones."

I have a Sony AND a Panasonic, the difference is much more than a "tad"

"Also Sony (unlike Pana) does manipulate the point of black to remove the noise in the shadows. That, despite the fact that it needs it less than Pana. To achieve the same effect with the Pana images, just get the RAWs and process them yourself."

Again, I use both systems and only an ignorant person would deny that Sony sensors have by far the lowest noise floor. No amount of processing is going to give the kind of noiseless shadow recovery that you get with Sony sensors. It's a well known fact and one that isn't denied by anyone with any credibility.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

fatdeeman:

Not true at all.

You seem to think all of a the capacity to lift the exposure of shadowed area is magically transfered from a raw to a jpeg at the time of extraction.

This absolutely wrong.

The time to do the shadow "lifting" is at the time of extraction not after to a jpeg.

In short, you have much to learn about the differences between raws and jpegs that started out as raw files.

Meaning: My entire point is valid.

Now, if you want comment on jpegs, feel free, but that has nothing to do with the capacity sought.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

This is becoming tiresome now....

How about before writing yet another drawn out yet ill informed response you go check out the gallery? The file in question should be easy enough to spot if you actually open your eyes because it has the letters ACR in the file name. Do you know what ACR stands for? I bet you do don't you?

Dpreview also went to the effort to tell you exactly what adjustments were made to the RAW file prior to converting it to a JPEG file.

Do you know what that means? Why it means the shadows were lifted at the point of extraction and prior to the jpeg conversion! Well how about that!?

So by your very own definitions your point is completely invalid.

Maybe next time instead of being condescending and accusing people of not knowing the difference between RAW and JPEG you should actually take the effort to go and look for yourself?

Mar 16, 2015permalink

fateeman:

The file is a jpeg, it doesn't matter that it started out as a raw.

You have no idea how much DPR lifted shadows.

Without the raw, and ACR 9, your comments aren't legitimate points.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

"It doesn't matter that it started out as a raw."

The file was processed in a RAW editor, that was precisely the point you were trying to make. You're just moving the goalposts and backtracking now to avoid being wrong.

"You have no idea how much DPR lifted shadows."

The following adjustments were made:

Exposure +0.65 | Highlights -55 | Shadows +55

I k now EXACTLY how much DPR lifted the shadows.

I'm done, if you want to carry on digging yourself into a deeper hole that's your choice.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

fatdeeman,

No, I'm not moving the goal posts.

You need the raw file, or huge amounts of processing data and charts, to make the claim you made and have a legitimate point.

You don't know what +55 in shadows means for the curves of this particular raw. You know how one slider was moved.

You don't know much about raw extraction I see.

I assume you're talking about image 3159435, there are 4 ISO 200 ACR files; the problem you're likely seeing, and this would be evident in a jpeg, is the fact that the mid range data under the curves doesn't have much to go with at extraction time. And the lack of mid range data influences, massively, what can be done with highlights and shadows.

In other words it wouldn't be the best image for lifting shadows from.

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

3160854 lends itself to shadow recovery much better 3159435; that's even from a jpeg. And the reason is that 3160854 has much more solid data under the curves.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Indeed marty.

Amateurs do shoot at iso 1600-3200 a lot. Indoor some motion. Or sports on cloudy days and there you go. But this sensor is still pretty good at those settings from personal experience.

Now if your child does indoor sports in poorly lit gyms. I would def advice a Nikon D5xxx series instead. The AF C of the Nikon plus the edge of the sensor just make it a lot better for that job.

But for casual family shooting including quick video clips. It's hard to beat a semi pocketable m43 at tge local restaurant with the 20mm f1.7 mounted.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

brendon1000

This is the sort of camera that mirrorless is all about. Good IQ in a very small compact body with small compact lenses too.

Sony and Fuji offer better IQ especially the A7 but those aren't terribly small anymore once you factor in the lenses.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

That's probably why recent DPR's m43 galleries are full of "social", almost candid, photographs.

Depending on a situation, full black or full white/silver m43 camera with a pancake lens rarely if ever stands out. Something that is extremely hard to accomplish with even the smallest DSLR.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

That's largely why I bought a GM1, less conspicuous (small + super quiet shutter even when not using the electronic one), and great backup/second body on other occasions to keep a different lens on for less swapping.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Simon97

Not crazy about the JPEGs. The noise reduction seems aggressive. perhaps there is a setting to reduce it. In the library shot you can see the mottled look around detail edges. It is better to let a little noise show through rather than screw up the pic. Would have hoped for better noise performance from this sensor.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

photofan1986

You can select noise reduction levels from -5 to +5. On my GM1, I use the -3 setting and much prefer the results.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

aris14

Cost effective.
In some cases noise is controllable up to 8000 ISO from what I saw.
Its lens is quite capable.
Interesting all rounder.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Does not matter what this camera is not.
But for that what it is, a beautiful and functional little device. Kudos to Panasonic.

Mar 15, 2015*permalink

vroger1

Just a comment- from an old time photographer that Panasonic listens to us more than any other innovative manufacturer. Though I have standardized on the Leica Typ 109 (Panasonic Lumix LX100) a digicam that does "everything" and does it well, over and over again Panasoinic says: "This is what they want". Fast lens- Fast lens superzoom (FZ200). The only problem is each time they come out with a viewfinder equipped professional grade (by feature) digicam, I buy it. pure joy from Panasonc. VRR

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

I agree with you. I like Panasonic cameras. I always had their Leica counterparts, but they are just as lovely and easy to use.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

burnin

Friends don't let friends use kit zooms.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

tkbslc

It's basically a GM1 with a little size added to make room for the odd flippy screen. Extra button or two. No surprises here.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Pretty sure it has less buttons and less useful controls actually... No custom modes or AF/MF switch, not a big hit for the target demo, but it also has less control points than the previous GF.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

tkbslc

Well it does have an extra button, but looking closer, it is an iA button and cannot be customized, so probably not that handy for most.

Didn't notice the lack of the C1/C2 dials.

Definitely a more "Auto" oriented camera.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

0mega

I just don't see how this can compete with Sony mirror-less.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

It's not trying to... Different price bracket, different market, and very different size once you account for lenses. It's priced kinda high for an entry level body still, but at least the kit lens is solid.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

It's smaller and the 12-32 takes the Sony 16-50mm for lunch.
The gf7 now has the gx7 sensor. Which is rather good for it's size.
Can create stunning images up to ISO 1600.
3200 is still acceptable. After 3200 well quality drops down a cliff.

Sony sensors are larger(50%)
And therefore will be more sensitive. But that larger sensor does mean significantly larger lenses.

It's a trade-off.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

Thematic

It isn't trying to. Panasonic have been very upfront that their picture quality will lag far behind Sony. This camera has other strengths.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Thematic:

"Panasonic have been very upfront that their picture quality will lag far behind Sony."

Where has Panasonic said this?

Until Sony released full framed mirrorless cameras, in very late 2013, Sony had notoriously bad lenses for their mirrorless system cameras. (Though yes there were better after market lenses by by the likes of Zeiss and Sigma.)

Sony mirrorless cameras, including the full framed variety, still have washed out raws.

While at lower ISOs, Panasonics have excellent image quality and have access to many very good and some more extraordinary system lenses, plus some at least very good Oly lenses.

I have no comment on this particular Panasonic's image quality for three reasons: I've not used it, I don't have raws and they wouldn't open with ACR anyhow, and these samples were shot with a kitzoom.

It is preposterous to claim that Panasonic mirrorless lag far behind Sony mirrorless for any thing but high ISOs. And Panasonic has a much better record with lenses.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

And how can Sony APS-C compete with full frame? And how can full frame compete with medium format? That's how...

Mar 15, 2015permalink

tkbslc

It competes very well with the Sony A5x00 line. Not sure what you mean. There's no appreciable difference in sensor quality and m4/3 has a WAY better lens selection.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Thematic

This camera isn't about picture quality. It has other great qualities. People looking to print images will obviously be better served with other products. Some people are ok knowing that the picture quality isn't that great.

Not the end of the world.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

@HowabotRAW:
" ...these samples were shot with a kitzoom."

In addition to the 12-32 kit lens, I note the use of The Lumix 7-14, 45-200 and Olympus 75mm

Mar 15, 2015permalink

JimW:

How are you finding this information? Is it from downloading all of the samples and checking meta data?

I admit I didn't do that.

Anyhow the best PanaLeicas aren't on that list. And those+raw+good extraction software are how to see what this camera can do at its best. I realize there are very good Olympuses too.

Mar 15, 2015*permalink

Revenant

The information about the lens used, as well as FL, aperture, shutter speed and ISO is right there below every image.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Revenant,

Okay, but the lens information, aperture, FL, information isn't included with the thumbnails.

Since jpegs aren't the way to judge IQ, I'd not looked at more than one or two of the full pages.

But thanks for the point. Indeed I generalized, where I shouldn't have.

Anyhow one has to open the page for each thumbnail to ascertain that data. And that means opening 43 pages to check lenses used for these examples.

In the end, I'm sure that this camera, when coupled with good raw extraction software and an excellent PanaLeica lens or the best m4/3s from Olympus, will do amazing image quality through ISO 3200. And indeed embarrass many Sony mirrorless cameras--FF bodies included.

Mar 15, 2015*permalink

Free Jazz

12-32 is much better than E16-50

Mar 15, 2015permalink

George1958

Sony have yet to compete with a lens range, lens and body size, this little Panasonic is a treat of a camera, it's not butt ugly like a sony either. Well done again Panasonic

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Well, from sales they very much do compete so go figure.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

rpm40

@thematic- what size do you often print that this camera could not live up to? I suppose it depends on your standards, but I have printed tons of 13x19 that turn out great. If you need to print larger sizes from images taken in less than ideal conditions, maybe you need 35mm or the like. For many, the IQ difference between the two isn't a dealbreaker. I'd go as far as to say that for most beyond pixel peepers, the difference between m4/3 and aps-c is unnoticeable.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

HowabouyRAW:
"Anyhow the best PanaLeicas aren't on that list. "

You are right about that.
However, I can certainly understand it. If I were showing samples that illustrated the capabilities of a camera, I would pick lenses from those most likely to represent the space in which the user would be operating: for a camera body costing somewhere in the $450 range and possessing the physical and feature characteristics of the GF7, I would probably not include lenses that cost 2 or 3 times the body cost. For a buyer to be willing to accept the premise that the ultimate cost of the camera could reach into the thousands in order to get acceptable pictures stretches credulity too far. That would just drive the consumer away. That said, once purchased and used, if the user ultimately feels the need for more (IQ, speed, sharpness, fill in the blanks), that opens the door to that never-ending search that we all know.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

JimW:

The extraordinary, optically, PanaLeica f/1.4 25mm m4/3s lens retails for about $550usd.

Does this camera body sell for $165?

Mar 16, 2015permalink

HowaboutRAW:

You are right, even though the body/lens cost is close to 1:1, the cost/quality ratio is appealing. In absolute terms an experienced user who is familiar with what they would be getting would probably find it exciting. I do think, however a relative novice user might find the 20 1.7 more appealing if they were buying early in their experience with the camera. Generally, I think there may be two distinct groups of potential buyers:
1) the experienced and discriminating user who is looking for a casual, take-everywhere second body with a broad range of lenses that could yield excellent results.
2) the novice user who is looking for a camera that will fit easily into a busy lifestyle - all while allowing them to memorialize their activities under a broad range of conditions and expectations.
In both cases the m43 mount allows access to a very broad range of lenses that can stimulate and support growth in photography - they need never fear they will be an orphan anytime soon.

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

JimW:

Yes, the 20mm f 1.7 lens is good, costs less than the 25mm f 1.4 PanaLeica and is smaller and lighter.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Peiasdf

Poor ISO performance like most cheap Panasonic m4/3. Only the GH4 and some say the GX7 have comparable sensor to Olympus' SONY sensor.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

This has the very same sensor... Along with the GM line.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

Gx7 gm-1 gm-5 gh4 gh3 all have comparable IQ to the olympus models.

The GF-6 used a older panasonic sensor which was not good enough to compete

Mar 14, 2015permalink

Put a good lens on the Panasonic GX7 and it's easy to use at ISO 6400, in raw.

I'm pretty sure the Oly EM1 uses a Panasonic sensor.

Also: Why are you making ISO claims based on jpegs?

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Peiasdf

@HowaboutRAW
GX7 is a bit different with the IBIS. I can force the shutter to below 1/15s can get good low ISO shots.

As for JPEG, I like JPEG. 80% of the quality of RAW directly out of camera. No slowly adjusting to taste. Of course critical photos are in RAW + JPEG in case I need WB or other adjustments.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

JPEG, especially from Panasonic, doesn't have close to 80% of the image quality of a raw. Just white balance alone makes that untrue.

1/15 of a sec. + IBIS may allow for some lower ISO shots, but not if the objects in the shots are moving.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Em1 has a Panasonic sensor. Gh4 have. I have EPl5 9Sony) and GH4 (panny) and the Gh4 is the better sensor. better Dynamic range, signifantly better lifting of shadows whle retaining good highlight. Just nonsense. This cam has the Gh4 sensor, which is very close to Nex6 for instance in performance.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

webrunner5

You have to admit in the beginning Panasonic Jpegs sucked. They were terrible. They have come a long ways. I like them better now then the over saturated Oly Jpegs. Not that the Oly ones are terrible. Just not really realistic.

Both are doing well and that is a good thing. Rocky start for sure, but they may have made the right idea in the long run. Grats too both of them.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

inorogNL

new jpg engine is indeed miles ahead from my Gh2 files. very good job here

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Any shutter shock?

Mar 14, 2015permalink

Same shutter as the GM line, with the same benefits and limitations. It's a hybrid shutter, but even under 1/500 it's very soft and uses an EFC... So SS is very very unlikely.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

True. I hate that the mechanical shutter is so slow...seems almost worthless. The flash sync speed is the true shutter speed. To get 1/500s shutter, the shutter is only open 1/5th (or 1/10th?) of the way and moves across the sensor at the flash sync seed is my understanding (1/100s or 1/50s?).

Electronic shutter is also misleading. 1/1600 (or whatever the max speed is) is only for each row, not the whole image. These cameras have no ability to freeze action. I think the Oly PM2 has a 1/250 flash sync speed - I suppose that would suffice (I'll be using it on moving vehicles - my R/C planes and helos/quads).

Never noticed slow shutter issues with my Fuji F20 (on my airplanes), so maybe it uses a leaf shutter or some other factor. Shutter speeds are 1/250-1/800 typically.

Mar 15, 2015*permalink

There are several bits of information I think would be useful in evaluating this camera using this set of samples:
1) Were all pictures taken on automatic or were there differences other than ISO in exposure determination?
2) Did one person process all images or did the person taking any given image process it? In other words, are we seeing one version of "to taste" or several?
3) In the case of image 2, I would like to know if the dramatic underexposure was intentional to evaluate how much could be pulled out of such dense shadow. What was the decision process?
4) So much of the dullness I see in the out doors shots, particularly distance scenes, I attribute to atmospheric haze - given that most persons viewing these images may not live in climates like Seattle, might there be some few examples to illustrate just how good the images could be with judicious de-hazing. Not just this camera, but all cameras - I can't think of a single camera that automatically clears haze.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

RichRMA

"De-hazing?" Hazing is the result of blue light being scattered by particulates or water-vapour in the atmosphere. You can eliminate some of the effect with yellow or orange filters, but then your colour balance will be shot. It works better with a black and white image, for obvious reasons.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

b craw

RichRMA:

'Haze' is a term used very generally, as well as a term used in a more specific 'scientific' sense. The haze you describe is just one which is caused by suspended water droplets; this type is subject to the Tyndall effect, and may be corrected, to some degree, through the use of photographic filters. Other forms of 'wet haze' may also include contaminants such as sulfur dioxide which then converts to sulfuric acid suspended in humid air masses. Still other haze is 'dry', including dust and other particulates, smoke, ground level ozone - these tend to be referred to as 'smog'. Living where I do, in the California Central Valley (one of the higher air pollution areas in the US), the haze I see obscuring visability is most often the latter type, except in cases of a regional phenomenon known as Tule Fog.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

I use the term "haze" as a general, not specific one. Many of the comments regarding the flatness, softness, lack of vibrancy, etc. I attribute to the atmospheric haze seen in many untouched jpegs straight out of the camera. It is the generally blue haze one sees with pictures taken in areas like Seattle and other areas of relative high humidity. Consequently, I believe one cannot appropriately evaluate a camera/lens combination unless one deals appropriately with this phenomenon. I merely generalize the phenomenon to reflect this belief regardless of the absolute source of the "hazing" effect

Mar 15, 2015permalink

SmilerGrogan

To remove haze in Photoshop it's Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask and start by setting the Amount at 10 percent and the Radius at 200 pixels. Increase or decrease the two values in 5 percent increments till you like the results.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

RichRMA

If it can remove haze while leaving the overall colour balance the same, that is pretty impressive.

Mar 15, 2015permalink

Dan Bracaglia

@JimW-203 1) We shoot our sample galleries with the camera in Aperture Priority mode and using Auto ISO as much as possible. This gives us a chance to see what kind of settings the camera chooses on its own. Also, four different editors submitted to this gallery, and we all have very different shooting styles. 2) The Raw conversions in the sample gallery were all done by one editor. 3) You are correct, that image was underexposed on purpose to see just how far we could pull the shadows. 4) We haven't gotten the chance to bring the camera outside of the PNW just yet. We will update the gallery with some fresh images if one of us escapes the land of grey skies.

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

prossi

Color saturation is 'off' & pictures look compressed IMHO. While geometric architectural motifs and sunset horizons come alive and look very dramatic, other types of picture suffer. For ex the details such as blooming trees and portraits lose 'airiness' and have no depth. Don't know if its a sensor or a processing issue but is seems common for oly and pana 43.
I was always forced to go for raw when I tried them and still could completely solve the issue.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

electrophoto

Regarding the "airinerss", depth etc... colours and stuff:
I can't say why this happens with the GF... and I have - aside from the LX100 - no experience with panasonic in general...
But at least my my Olympus OM-D E-M1 this is really NOT the case.
The E-M1 stacks very favorably against my other gear...
it doesn't compete truly with a full frame (35mm) - but it very well competes with any other APS-C Sized DSLR I had used in the past.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

Marty4650

This entire photo set could be used as a primer on "why shooting raw is a good idea." The jpegs look pretty good. The edited raw files look better.

This is really a very capable compact camera, especially for the price.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

Aur

I disagree, the RAW images remind me of those people who do "HDR" and come up with those unrealistic oversaturated pictures. The JPG look better.

Picture 9 RAW looks terrible, it's obviously really dark outside and a nice sunset, and the roof of the house in front is reflecting light that is impossible. Someone has been messing with the lightroom exposure slider a bit too much.

It looks totally edited and fake, like many people just moving sliders about at random.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

It's hard to decide I think when editing whether to make an image look like what a camera would take versus what the eye can see, which is a lot more DR than what cameras could capture until recently.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

This camera seems to produce some of the most beautiful colours I've ever seen. But strangely, at ISO 12800, they also seem to loose a lot of saturation. Nonetheless, I just might buy one for me and keep the ISO at a reasonnable level. Very nice!

Mar 14, 2015permalink

"But strangely, at ISO 12800, they also seem to loose a lot of saturation."

Is that an ironic use of "strangely"? I hope.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

"But strangely, at ISO 12800, they also seem to loose a lot of saturation."

Is that an ironic use of "strangely"? I hope.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

No, not ironic at all, even if this is a normal phenomenon on shots taken at high ISO, but not at all at the level seen here. And nowadays, most cameras are able to compensate in-camera to this behavior. Obviously, Panasonic did not make an effort on this one.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

Marty4650

JeanPierre..... how often do you shoot at ISO 12800?

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

Euh.... Not often, really. Just for test shots maybe.

But still, today's technology allows for good saturation at high ISO but Pana doesn't have it yet or didn't want to put it in this one.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

@Jean, it is not camera function per se. It is the function of the RAW development. The built-it in-camera JPEG conversion generally tends to err on the safe side of things. While the dedicated PC software has much more CPU/RAM resources to analyze the image in detail and produce better results.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

halfwaythere

Beside the A7s I can't think of any body on the market today that offers a good iso 12800 file.

Expecting more from a sensor a quarter the size is a bit overboard. Even with today's technology.

Mar 14, 2015permalink

half:

The D4S, the Df, 1DX all easily shoot at ISO 12800, so too the D750 and the 6D, even the D810.

That's setting aside the APSC bodies that can be pushed there fairly easily: The D7100, the 7DII, and the NX30.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau:

The drop in contrast and saturation: It's a normal phenomenon at that ISO level on pretty much anything--even far more high high ISO able cameras like the Nikon Df.

In early 2015: ISO 12800, even in raw, is really pushing things for any and every 4/3s camera. Even for the best APSC bodies that's a high ISO.

To get easily usable raws at ISO 12800 you'll need full framed camera.

Mar 14, 2015*permalink

Reducing saturation is what all cameras do at high ISO to reduce noise.

Mar 14, 2015permalink