-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DFD coming to other Panasonic cameras
- Thread starter SHood
- Start date
Maybe a bad translation? I would vote for the same or slightly better. Maybe the GH4 CPU or circuitry somehow makes it slightly better? Sensor readout is faster and there is less rolling shutter.
No. It is a Panasonic sensor so it is simply different with a similar endresult.
Jon555
Veteran Member
https://translate.google.com/transl...ews/interview/20140530_649605.html&edit-text=
Tang: New image sensor of GH4 is the equivalent almost the GH3 is dynamic range specifications of the sensor itself, but there is some margin to the dynamic range in GH3, there was a region that has not been used for picture making.
Actually I get more annoyed that the GH3's EVF gives a version of the DR that doesn't even vaguely agree with the final JPEG. You get a completely black foreground in front of a light sky, take the pic and see the foreground is quite well lit after all. (Not that I'm complaining about the latter!)
Tang: New image sensor of GH4 is the equivalent almost the GH3 is dynamic range specifications of the sensor itself, but there is some margin to the dynamic range in GH3, there was a region that has not been used for picture making.
Actually I get more annoyed that the GH3's EVF gives a version of the DR that doesn't even vaguely agree with the final JPEG. You get a completely black foreground in front of a light sky, take the pic and see the foreground is quite well lit after all. (Not that I'm complaining about the latter!)
Last edited:
Jon555
Veteran Member
Less rolling shutter in 1080p, it's a lot less fun in 4k. (Not that I don't think 4k is the killer video mode on the GH4, it is, the moire and aliasing of the GH3 and GH4's 1080p modes magically disappears and is replaced with great images...)
Jon555
Veteran Member
I'd agree it's the best of the mirrorless cameras (well, after the Nikon V3) but I'm with Thom on it still being behind PDAF for a number of situations (alas):
Loading…
www.sansmirror.com
Not that I'm unhappy with my GH4's AF other than when a body of water is involved, it's really very good in both AF-S and AF-C, but on water-based subjects it sucks IMHO, really really sucks...
The rolling shutter I saw, I think at 4K, were indeed horrid!
I have shot EPL5 and GH4 at the same time in the same circumstances (sunset on the beach) and the GH4 clearly showed the seaweed on the rocks in the foreground whereas the EPL5 showed a black shade. Both were in RAW. The sky however was similar. Not scientific of course and will try it again and focus on it.
We can agree here mostly, but to be clear I was not talking about mirrorless AF-c. i was talking about CDAF based AF-c. Nikon V3 seems to be really ahead still. But GH4 seems to be doing better in some (nonscientific) reviews I saw. Systems that have PDAFOS. I was very surprised by that.
Thm has not used the GH4, so his comments are confined to other cams even though he mentions GH4 there. I am not saying GH4 is better than these, just that Thom cannot know.
What do you mean with problems with water-based subjects. You mean subjects that are in the water or (or may be "and") subject that have water at the background?
I will look into that.
My main gripe is that 100-300 mm and 45-200 ar eboth so far behind and in fact lock the cam up in such a way that the focussing is 2-3 fps but also the EVF stalls so you cannot even use the 2-3 fps effectively. There are ways around this (MF with FP or I think AF-s 12 FPS constantly pushing the shutter again and again)...
With what lens?? I have not had any issues with the GH4 when water in the frame.
Also, Thom's article is behind the times. He quotes examples of the X-T1 which is the worst of mirrorless behind Nikon, Panasonic, Sony and Olympus.
Jon555
Veteran Member
The ducks and rowing boats I mentioned were on the water, also people in front of water once.
Mostly the 35-100, possibly some with the 14-140 mk I.
Usually using a single small central focusing point, although I suspect the DFD ares is larger than the size of the focusing point shown on the screen.
Not that I don't get a lot of good ones with water in the frame, I do, it's just thinking about all the issues I've had sunlit water does seem to be a common thread. It may, of course, just be that I'm around water a lot, but it seemed statistically odd.
Mostly the 35-100, possibly some with the 14-140 mk I.
Usually using a single small central focusing point, although I suspect the DFD ares is larger than the size of the focusing point shown on the screen.
Not that I don't get a lot of good ones with water in the frame, I do, it's just thinking about all the issues I've had sunlit water does seem to be a common thread. It may, of course, just be that I'm around water a lot, but it seemed statistically odd.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum