Reading mode: Light Dark

GF1 vs. GH1 High ISO test

Go to last post
A

Activatedfx

Leading Member
Messages
957
Reaction score
264
Location
NY, US
I have been using the GF1 for about 5 months now, and have been more than happy with the image quality. Lately, I have been really enjoying using old manual focus lenses, but using the GF1's LCD to focus is giving me headaches! I didn't have confidence that the EVF1 was going to be good enough, and decided that spending $200 just for the EVF1 didn't seem worth it when I could pick up a GH1 body-only for $650 and get a 2x better EVF, articulating LCD, 1080p HD, better IQ and high ISO performance... so I bought a GH1.

Pixel-peeper that I am, my 1st instinct after opening the GH1 today was to compare it to the GF1 and confirm (or deny) that my investment was a good one. Spoiler alert: I made a good choice!

I made a little "set up", mounted the 14-140mm HD lens on both cameras, set it at 25mm (50mm equiv.), dropped the f-stop as low as it would go (see note below) and proceeded to shoot a range of ISO shots from 100-3200 with both cameras. I did the same series with my Canon 5D MkII + 24-105 f/4 L, just for kicks and giggles. :)

Well, the GH1 certainly lives up to it's reputation. There is definitely 1 stop+ better high ISO noise performance between the GF1 and GH1. But here's the interesting part: for some reason, the 14-140 on the GH1 at 25mm opens the aperture 1 stop bigger! I don't understand why, but the GF1 sets the aperture at f/5.6 at 25mm, and the GH1 sets it at f/4.7... so, in reality, the GH1 is giving 2 full stops of better low light, high ISO performance! (At least with the 14-140 HD lens.)

Look at the samples. GF1 vs GH1 side-by-side at 400, 800, 1600 and 3200, as well as a pair from the 5D MkII at 1600 and 3200. The GH1 blows the GF1 out of the water, and the 5DII looks as good at 3200 as the GF1/400, GH1/800. (And yes, there's a little banding in the GH1 image, but ONLY noticeable at 3200.)

One other note is that the GH1 3200 ISO image cleans up beautifully with DFine... very useable, whereas the GF1 image still looks a little crunchy. Also, the GF1 and GH1 images are equally sharp at low ISO's. No real difference there.

These are from RAW files, with NO processing. Opened in ACR, all sliders ZEROED and no sharpening or noise reduction. 100% crops. Any difference in DR is due to the fact that these are completely flat images. I'm sure that the GH1 images "open up" nicely while remaining low-noise.

Enjoy!













--
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47813047@N03/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1659785
http://activatedfx.smugmug.com/
 
What mode were you shooting these samples at? How comes the f-stop and

shutter speed were diiferent on each camera? Why couldn't you set both cameras in M mode and shot with the same f-stop and shutter speed???

Willing
 
Are you getting rid of your GF1? I have a GF1 also and planning on buying the GH1 again (sold it, regret it). Might keep both because even thought the GF1 has a limit of ISO 800 before it starts looking bad, I like the build quality and the looks of it.
--
Canon 7D with grip, 580EX2, 24-105, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 70-200 2.8
 
You did everything right except for test both cameras with the same settings. Until you do that you can not make any conclusions. Can you retest them and use manual mode to select the same ISO, shutter, and aperture. If the GH1 can use a lower aperture then the GF1 then that is fine. Just note it but used the same value for both cameras.

This is a great test and I would love to see the results. However, it needs to be a fair comparison. The same lens(including aperture value), same settings, and same shot for both cameras.

Also could you test the different noise reduction settings for both cameras. I find it interesting that the GF1 appeared to be sharper at ISO 400 than the GH1 at the same ISO. I wonder if the GH1 default noise reduction is higher than the GF1's? That would explain some of the difference.

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
 
Thanks for the comments, but I don't understand why everyone jumps on a little innocent comparison like this, saying "oh, but you did it wrong"...

IMHOP, the fact that the 14-140 opens a stop bigger on the GH1 at the same focal length is 100% RELEVANT to the differences in the two cameras. That extra f-stop makes the GH1 2 stops more useable in a low light situation. (And before you ask, no, I haven't tested it through the range.)

I'm not a professional tester, and I'm honestly not going to re-do the test, because I think my comparison is actually more "real world" than it would be by forcing the settings. The 1 stop difference is not going to make any visible difference in DOF or sharpness, but it DOES give a full stop FASTER shutter to capture low-light action.

:)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47813047@N03/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1659785
http://activatedfx.smugmug.com/
 
I suspect you're using P mode, and those were the apertures and shutter speeds chosen by the cameras. You can override these default selections in P mode by using the control dial. The GF1 can provide the same f stop at a given focal length as the GH1. By default, in your examples, the GH1 chose a 1/2 stop larger aperture and a full stop shorter shutter speed. Note that the overall exposures were not equivalent. The GH1 underexposed relative to the GF1 by about 1/2 of a stop. In any case, either in P mode or A mode, you can choose a larger aperture if desired on the GF1.
Activatedfx said:
Thanks for the comments, but I don't understand why everyone jumps on a little innocent comparison like this, saying "oh, but you did it wrong"...

IMHOP, the fact that the 14-140 opens a stop bigger on the GH1 at the same focal length is 100% RELEVANT to the differences in the two cameras. That extra f-stop makes the GH1 2 stops more useable in a low light situation. (And before you ask, no, I haven't tested it through the range.)

I'm not a professional tester, and I'm honestly not going to re-do the test, because I think my comparison is actually more "real world" than it would be by forcing the settings. The 1 stop difference is not going to make any visible difference in DOF or sharpness, but it DOES give a full stop FASTER shutter to capture low-light action.

:)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47813047@N03/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1659785
http://activatedfx.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
 
We are only saying that because we think your test is useful. If you redo it with the same settings then it would be a very helpful comparison.
Activatedfx said:
Thanks for the comments, but I don't understand why everyone jumps on a little innocent comparison like this, saying "oh, but you did it wrong"...

IMHOP, the fact that the 14-140 opens a stop bigger on the GH1 at the same focal length is 100% RELEVANT to the differences in the two cameras. That extra f-stop makes the GH1 2 stops more useable in a low light situation. (And before you ask, no, I haven't tested it through the range.)

I'm not a professional tester, and I'm honestly not going to re-do the test, because I think my comparison is actually more "real world" than it would be by forcing the settings. The 1 stop difference is not going to make any visible difference in DOF or sharpness, but it DOES give a full stop FASTER shutter to capture low-light action.

:)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47813047@N03/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1659785
http://activatedfx.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
 
... because you clearly indicated the exposure data so people can adjust for that.
Activatedfx said:
Lately, I have been really enjoying using old manual focus lenses, but using the GF1's LCD to focus is giving me headaches!
Click to expand...
Good to know, I think I might feel the same.
Activatedfx said:
when I could pick up a GH1 body-only for $650 and get a 2x better EVF, articulating LCD, 1080p HD, better IQ and high ISO performance... so I bought a GH1.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Didn't know they had started selling body-only.
Activatedfx said:
Well, the GH1 certainly lives up to it's reputation. There is definitely 1 stop+ better high ISO noise performance between the GF1 and GH1.
Click to expand...
You may find this thread interesting
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32879549

There, I analysed the read noise (mostly affecting the darker tones) of the GH1 and G1 (and the GF1 is the same as the G1). Also note elsewhere in that thread how the NR setting can affect the raw data. NR+1 or NR+2 (sic!) is the setting to use if you want to avoid VSS, Vertical Shadow Smear at all ISOs.
Activatedfx said:
But here's the interesting part: for some reason, the 14-140 on the GH1 at 25mm opens the aperture 1 stop bigger! I don't understand why, but the GF1 sets the aperture at f/5.6 at 25mm, and the GH1 sets it at f/4.7...
Click to expand...
That's actually around 0.51 stops bigger, f/4 would be one stop.

Interesting, though. The 14-140 is an HD lens with "smooth" aperture. I wonder if that is the reason, and the GF1 for some reason not fully HD-lens compatible?

If you compare f/5.6 on the GF1 with f/6.3 do you get the expected 1/3 EV difference? If you compare f/4.7 with f/5.6 on the GH1 do you get the expected 1/2 EV difference? I'm thinking there could be a bug in how the aperture is reported.
Activatedfx said:
One other note is that the GH1 3200 ISO image cleans up beautifully with DFine... very useable, whereas the GF1 image still looks a little crunchy.
Click to expand...
Most people seem to be happy with the DFine. I did see one example once where some saturated fine colour detail was harmed by the debanding. Have you tried it on such subjects?
Activatedfx said:
These are from RAW files, with NO processing. Opened in ACR, all sliders ZEROED and no sharpening or noise reduction.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you can't rely on the converter to treat the cameras equally. But it's still a good comparison. Thanks.
 
Activatedfx said:
Thanks for the comments, but I don't understand why everyone jumps on a little innocent comparison like this, saying "oh, but you did it wrong"...
Click to expand...
Ummm ... because your method was poor.
Activatedfx said:
IMHOP, the fact that the 14-140 opens a stop bigger on the GH1 at the same focal length is 100% RELEVANT to the differences in the two cameras.
Click to expand...
No. It is relevant to that camera and lens combo only. If you set the apertures the same, then your test gives the differences between the cameras only - which is more useful. Also, there's a part of me that suspects that something is not set correctly on the GF1. The lens should operate at f/4.7. Does the GF1 have a constant aperture option that is on? If the GF1 really won't open the lens to f/4.7, then that is a flaw and may be eventually corrected in firmware for the camera or lens.
Activatedfx said:
That extra f-stop makes the GH1 2 stops more useable in a low light situation. (And before you ask, no, I haven't tested it through the range.)
Click to expand...
It isn't a full stop of difference. f/4 to f/5.6 is a full stop.
Activatedfx said:
I'm not a professional tester, and I'm honestly not going to re-do the test, because I think my comparison is actually more "real world" than it would be by forcing the settings. The 1 stop difference is not going to make any visible difference in DOF or sharpness, but it DOES give a full stop FASTER shutter to capture low-light action.
Click to expand...
Hey. It's your time. Spend it as you see fit. Just be aware that the way you've done this limits it usefulness to others. Presumably you posted it to provide just that kind of utility.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Ehrik said:
Interesting, though. The 14-140 is an HD lens with "smooth" aperture. I wonder if that is the reason, and the GF1 for some reason not fully HD-lens compatible?
Click to expand...
I haven't figured out what is so "smooth" or stepless about the 14-140HD aperture. When I zoom in and out while shooting video the lens cannot hold a smooth and constant aperture. Maybe I have something set wrong, but I hear distinct aperture clicks and see the small brightness shifts in the video. Very annoying.

BTW, I agree that the comparison as given is useful. But it would be better if the exposures were the same.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Ehrik said:
... because you clearly indicated the exposure data so people can adjust for that.
Activatedfx said:
Lately, I have been really enjoying using old manual focus lenses, but using the GF1's LCD to focus is giving me headaches!
Click to expand...
Good to know, I think I might feel the same.
Ehrik said:
when I could pick up a GH1 body-only for $650 and get a 2x better EVF, articulating LCD, 1080p HD, better IQ and high ISO performance... so I bought a GH1.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Didn't know they had started selling body-only.
Ehrik said:
Well, the GH1 certainly lives up to it's reputation. There is definitely 1 stop+ better high ISO noise performance between the GF1 and GH1.
Click to expand...
You may find this thread interesting
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32879549

There, I analysed the read noise (mostly affecting the darker tones) of the GH1 and G1 (and the GF1 is the same as the G1). Also note elsewhere in that thread how the NR setting can affect the raw data. NR+1 or NR+2 (sic!) is the setting to use if you want to avoid VSS, Vertical Shadow Smear at all ISOs.
Ehrik said:
But here's the interesting part: for some reason, the 14-140 on the GH1 at 25mm opens the aperture 1 stop bigger! I don't understand why, but the GF1 sets the aperture at f/5.6 at 25mm, and the GH1 sets it at f/4.7...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The answer is simple. It's because your shutter speed is also up by 1 stop. In essence, you do get the same exposure. Look at your shutter speeds and you will see that it's about double that of the other.

Also, f4.7 vs f5.6 is not 2 stops. Look at the progression:

f2.8-> f4.0-> f5.6-> f8.0

In-between it's f4.0-> f4.5-> f5.0-> f5.6 in 1/3 stop increments.

Hence your f4.7 vs f5.6 is just about 1/2 stop only or slightly over 1/3 stop. But as I said, look at your shutter speeds. You may be at f4.7 vs 5.6 with the GF1, but your shutter speed is also faster with the GH1! In effect, your exposure is about the same if not the same.

For sure, there is no 2-stop advantage.

The GH1 is indeed much less noisy on a pixel level. In theory, they should be the same or very close. But they are not. Since they both are 4/3 sensors, I don't know if that has something to do with Panny using a different sensor with the GF1 or their Venus engine is tweaked differently, or if the GF1 uses the Venus engine at all.

What is certain is if Venus engine and/or the GH1 sensor is doing a good job. Let's hope that the Venus II engine will be better and the GH2 will be heads up above board than the older models. I am waiting for the end of the year for the GH2 as I am eager to augment my Canon lineup with the GH2.

--
--------------------
  • Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'
 
caterpillar said:
In-between it's f4.0-> f4.5-> f5.0-> f5.6 in 1/3 stop increments.

Hence your f4.7 vs f5.6 is just about 1/2 stop only or slightly over 1/3 stop.
Click to expand...
Actually it's 0.51 stops if the apertures are exact (which they certainly aren't but that's what we have to go with).
caterpillar said:
But as I said, look at your shutter speeds. You may be at f4.7 vs 5.6 with the GF1, but your shutter speed is also faster with the GH1! In effect, your exposure is about the same if not the same.

For sure, there is no 2-stop advantage.
Click to expand...
I think the OP meant that because the GH1 allowed him to shoot with the lens opened up more (if that was what happened and not just a bug reporting the wrong aperture to the camera or EXIF) it would give an extra low-light benefit with that lens .
caterpillar said:
The GH1 is indeed much less noisy on a pixel level. In theory, they should be the same or very close.
Click to expand...
Yes -- or no, because the GH1 uses another sensor with (allegedly) VGA and ADC on-chip affecting read noise (and apparently differences in microlenses and colour filters or other factors affecting quantum efficiency).

The difference in shot noise (going by DxO) is about half a stop, which is pretty huge in these days; most QE improvements are in small steps. Part of it seems to be less discriminating colour filters meaning you get more chroma noise, instead of the luma noise you got rid of, once the file is converted. But chroma noise is easier to filter without damaging IQ.

The difference in (random) read noise, which affects the darker tones, is bigger and the main reason behind the difference people experience between the two cameras.
 
The GH1 may offer a cleaner high ISO image than the GF1, but it does so at the expense of detail. I much prefer the GF1's approach to that of the GH1. You may also wish to check your NR settings on the GH1. There is a bug in the GH1's firmware that applies the highest level of noise reduction to RAW when NR is set to -2 and vice-versa. Panasonic need to sort this out quick smart. The problem I faced when using the GH1 was that if I wished to preserve detail in my RAW photos I had to set NR to +2 which in turn caused excessive loss of detail in my movie files.

This article may also be of interest:

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/10/real-life-iso-1600-panasonic-gh1-g1-and.html
 
please notice that the GH1 applies a different tone-curve or as Ehrik found out clips the blacks differently, which results in darker shadows-tones. you can also see it in your examples.

i did the same comparison with G1 and GH1, when i got my GH1. maybe it is not a full stop difference, but the GH1 has close to 1 stop advantage over the G1, even if the tone-curve is adjusted and shadows brightened so that they match the G1 better.

here some crops, taken with the pancake. the iso1600 shots were both taken at f/3.5 1/20, the iso800 G1-shot for comparison was taken at f/3.5 1/10.

i processed both G1 and GH1 in lightroom 3b with equal settings, only applying a bit more fill-light and pushing the tone curve in the shadows of the GH1 raw more in order to make it more similar to the G1. i also had to apply a bit of split-toning in the GH1 shadows, because they were too green in comparison to the G1, which on the other hand became too blue at iso1600. as last step the GH1 had also a bit of debanding:



here are the original files:

GH1 iso1600: http://www.bildercache.de/anzeige.html?dateiname=20100115-161119-483.jpg

G1 iso1600: http://www.bildercache.de/anzeige.html?dateiname=20100115-161142-820.jpg

G1 iso800: http://www.bildercache.de/anzeige.html?dateiname=20100115-161236-782.jpg
 
Well fault or not with method - its good enouff to see that the GF1 is the most noisy and the GH1 is whipping its butt.... Also good to see the 5DmkII is only about 1.5stops better than the GH1 - I reckon your 800ISO from the GH1 is better than the 3200ISO from the 5D!.... how much extra $$$ was the 5D?
 
There is also a considerable difference in the raw noise, even with the NR+2 (which doesn't give any VSS, vertical shadow smear).

I've actually measured VSS depending on NR setting in the GF1/G1 too but it's much, much weaker relative to the noise and hardly visible.

I agree they need to sort this out, and the best way is if every owner who is bothered by this complains to their local Panasonic distributor/service.

Issues that get more complaints get higher priority.
 
I checked the ISO 800 images. The GF1 photo is between 0.3 and 0.4 stops brighter than the GH1 photo. Since the GF1 got about a half stop more exposure in the ISO 800 shot, that indicates that their actual ISOs are pretty close.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude
 
  • This are good examples, but about the GF1 noise and G1 that is the same, try to clean it with Noise Ninja and they look great, the problem is the chroma noise, but with Noise Ninja (or Noiseware that is very good) you can control that and have a clean image without much loss of detail
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
 
Hey all. OP here.

Sorry if I was a little miffed at the initial responses... I should know better than to think everyone would just clap and pat me on the back for a job well done! Ha. ha! :)

Reading through the rest of the posts this morning, I'm happier to see some constructive comments and agreement my results. I'm going to look into that NR-2/NR+2 bug and see what's up with that!

As for my test, I did the test for MYSELF to see if the GH1 was really better than the GF1. My test achieved MY goal. Job done. I only posted the images here to give others some idea of the differences in the two cameras, since there have been a lot of discussions about "GF1 or GH1?" lately.

In conclusion, I am KEEPING the GF1 and the GH1, but will probably part with my 5D2. I was on the fence after shooting with the GF1 and now that I've seen the GH1 images, it seems more likely. I am not a pro, and bought the 5D2 for shooting my kids' soccer games and school shows, etc. Now that they are in college, I don't really need the fast AF and low-light abilities of the gigantic 5D2. The GF/GH will work just fine for my current needs.

I think the GF will ride with me in my daily bag with the 20mm and maybe a 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon. The GH will be my "good" camera, and I'll take that when I'm out specifically to shoot.

If I have time today or this weekend, I MAY re-visit this test... just for my own curiosity.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47813047@N03/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1659785
http://activatedfx.smugmug.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Japanese bar in lower Manhattan
Replies
1
Views
2
Edward Lowy
Edward Lowy
paul613
X30 RAW + DxO Photo Lab 8 is quite usable at ISO 3200
Replies
3
Views
1K
John McCormack
John McCormack
F
  • Question Question
Tips for RF 1.4 Extender
2
Replies
30
Views
16K
Zeee
Z
J
High iso Fuji - x-T50 / X-S20
Replies
8
Views
3K
Rightsaidfred
Rightsaidfred
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Good performance at a Bargain
Replies
1
Views
8K
DDoram
DDoram

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top