Reading mode: Light Dark

G1 and GH2 pushed three stops.

Go to last post
Louis_Dobson

Louis_Dobson

Forum Pro
Messages
27,582
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,349
Location
Faro, PT
One cheerfully says one will test stuff, and then one thinks about and realises it isn't that easy.

OK, shot the same scene from the G1 and GH2, 1/2000, base ISO, which is 100 on the G1 and 160 on the GH2, so f7.1 and f8 respectively.

Downsized the GH2 picture in LR to the same dimensions as the G1.

Boosted both shots by 3 EV,

Cropped to roughly the shady area.

No NR.

G1 first, GH2 second.

Things I haven't shown you: Both of these recover nicely with a bit of sharpening and NR. Take the G1 to 200ISO and you can forget it.









--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Huh, yes. Need to get another cam for indoor sports at 1600.

Scanned a lot of my films these days, results on 200ASA negative films looks quite similar to your G1 samples.

Btw., hope did the test before you floored all the wine bottles...
 
To me, it is the difference between a global NR filter in PS (30 seconds) and selective NR (five minutes). That adds up over a year...

But the other thing to say is that sensors really are good enough these days. Not many people pull shots by three stops (although I do) and not many people gain any benefit by shooting over ISO1600 (some do of course, but not nearly as many fuss about it).

And if you don't do either of those things, IQ is spot on even for large prints.
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Louis_Dobson said:
To me, it is the difference between a global NR filter in PS (30 seconds) and selective NR (five minutes). That adds up over a year...

But the other thing to say is that sensors really are good enough these days. Not many people pull shots by three stops (although I do) and not many people gain any benefit by shooting over ISO1600 (some do of course, but not nearly as many fuss about it).

And if you don't do either of those things, IQ is spot on even for large prints.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually it would have been nice to see the D700 (is that your Nikon FF?) on the same test.

Thanks Louis

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
 
So... why the stream of complaints about low DR and higher noise in m4/3? These samples look quite good. Is there some way they still don't meet your needs, or is this an indirect way of saying the earlier complaints made much ado a out nothing?
Louis_Dobson said:
To me, it is the difference between a global NR filter in PS (30 seconds) and selective NR (five minutes). That adds up over a year...

But the other thing to say is that sensors really are good enough these days. Not many people pull shots by three stops (although I do) and not many people gain any benefit by shooting over ISO1600 (some do of course, but not nearly as many fuss about it).

And if you don't do either of those things, IQ is spot on even for large prints.
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
The difference doesn't look that significant to me neither. How do they compare when printed? (I'm curious--but not interested enough to print the comparison myself.)
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
 
I haven't been saying M43 has high noise and low DR, on the contrary I've just moved to it because the DR is now so good it isn't worth the hassle of carrying an FF camera!

On the other hand you have to draw a line somewhere, and my mental line is drawn at the GH2. That's good enough . I don't wish to go backwards though.

It's clearly and visibly better than the G1...
phototransformations said:
So... why the stream of complaints about low DR and higher noise in m4/3? These samples look quite good. Is there some way they still don't meet your needs, or is this an indirect way of saying the earlier complaints made much ado a out nothing?
Louis_Dobson said:
To me, it is the difference between a global NR filter in PS (30 seconds) and selective NR (five minutes). That adds up over a year...

But the other thing to say is that sensors really are good enough these days. Not many people pull shots by three stops (although I do) and not many people gain any benefit by shooting over ISO1600 (some do of course, but not nearly as many fuss about it).

And if you don't do either of those things, IQ is spot on even for large prints.
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Well, you wouldn't print them like that! The thing is it would be a bit more work to get the G1 crop to a printable standard.
Philly said:
The difference doesn't look that significant to me neither. How do they compare when printed? (I'm curious--but not interested enough to print the comparison myself.)
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
D3, now sold, or I would have...
Brian Mosley said:
Louis_Dobson said:
To me, it is the difference between a global NR filter in PS (30 seconds) and selective NR (five minutes). That adds up over a year...

But the other thing to say is that sensors really are good enough these days. Not many people pull shots by three stops (although I do) and not many people gain any benefit by shooting over ISO1600 (some do of course, but not nearly as many fuss about it).

And if you don't do either of those things, IQ is spot on even for large prints.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually it would have been nice to see the D700 (is that your Nikon FF?) on the same test.

Thanks Louis

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
after two clicks on each image. Thanks for posting your samples and providing some additional context to your discussion and findings on DR and your needs with m4/3rds.
--



'How one responds to failure, not success, is the better measure of character.'
 
But for purpose of comparison, wouldn't a straight print provide useful interpretative information? Afterall, we are comparing unprocessed photos on screen here.

How about applying the same pp to the G1 crop that you would apply to the GH2 crop and comparing the prints? I guess I am wondering if this difference can be regarded as a 100% viewing difference or a perceivable print difference.

Note that my questions are just layman questions. I am not trying to argue a particular point.
Louis_Dobson said:
Well, you wouldn't print them like that! The thing is it would be a bit more work to get the G1 crop to a printable standard.
Philly said:
The difference doesn't look that significant to me neither. How do they compare when printed? (I'm curious--but not interested enough to print the comparison myself.)
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
I think what I've done makes the points:

1) They are both amazingly good. Really, all this "MFT is nearly as good as an SLR" stuff does annoy me.

2) The GH2 does have comfortably more DR than the G1. Please, Panny and Oly, don't reverse the trend.
Philly said:
But for purpose of comparison, wouldn't a straight print provide useful interpretative information? Afterall, we are comparing unprocessed photos on screen here.

How about applying the same pp to the G1 crop that you would apply to the GH2 crop and comparing the prints? I guess I am wondering if this difference can be regarded as a 100% viewing difference or a perceivable print difference.

Note that my questions are just layman questions. I am not trying to argue a particular point.
Louis_Dobson said:
Well, you wouldn't print them like that! The thing is it would be a bit more work to get the G1 crop to a printable standard.
Philly said:
The difference doesn't look that significant to me neither. How do they compare when printed? (I'm curious--but not interested enough to print the comparison myself.)
Brian Mosley said:
Well, I can, but not significantly!

Is this what you've been banging on about for the last couple hundred posts? sheesh!

Thanks for doing the test Louis,

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Let me put it this way Brian - if you saw them side by side, would you ever doubt which was which?

This stuff is so good these days that "close" means you are not sure which is which. I don't think there can be any doubt here...
Brian Mosley said:
Or scaled for web display.

I really think they're close.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
umm... the G1 looks to have better DR (but worse noise). look at the black part of the telescope stand--the G1 has detail, the GH2 is all blacked out. look at the labels on the wine bottles--the GH2 is almost blown out, the G1 shows more detail.

at the extremes, the G1 keeps more detail.
Louis_Dobson said:
One cheerfully says one will test stuff, and then one thinks about and realises it isn't that easy.

OK, shot the same scene from the G1 and GH2, 1/2000, base ISO, which is 100 on the G1 and 160 on the GH2, so f7.1 and f8 respectively.

Downsized the GH2 picture in LR to the same dimensions as the G1.

Boosted both shots by 3 EV,

Cropped to roughly the shady area.

No NR.

G1 first, GH2 second.

Things I haven't shown you: Both of these recover nicely with a bit of sharpening and NR. Take the G1 to 200ISO and you can forget it.









--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
The GH2 is much better to my eyes, but we have to remember that you pulled both of these three stops; I don't think I've ever gone that far.

The GH2 is better, but both seem more than adequate for day-to-day shooting, even in somewhat dicey situations. I think you have stated something similar.

Thanks, Louis. Comparisons are diffucult and fraught with compromises, are they not?

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
I guess I don't need more DR as I really cannot tell which has more DR. GH2 obviously has less noise, yes, but when I look at darker areas, I dunno, they appear to retain similar amount of details, at least to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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