GH4, G9, RX10 IV comparison at ISO 6400

amtberg wrote:

JLWPhoto wrote:

ThePhilosopher wrote:

d3xmeister wrote:

- you are not really comparing sensors but jpeg engines

Technically it is both since the jpeg engine uses the output from the sensor. I purposefully used jpeg as 95% of the time I do not use RAW.

I think you are underestimating the impact of the jpg engine and the camera's high ISO NR algorithms to a final JPG.

100%. In-camera jpeg processing makes a complete hash of high ISO images and thus the comparison is essentially meaningless as far as evaluating sensor output.

Even as a 100% raw shooter, I have to agree with the OP, first that jpeg engines are much better these days, second that if one chose to shoot jpeg, they should compare jpeg instead of raw, and third that the difference in quality between cameras, or between jpeg and raw, are a matter of personal choice and preference.

I shot extensively and side by side with 1’’, m43, APSC and FF. While I can see there are differences in quality between these formats, to my eyes to me they were never that big to make a considerable difference, unless you jump one size, and I mean to really get a considerable IQ benefit (and worth the jump in size and price) I would not not ,,upgrade,, from 1’’ to m43, or from m43 to APSC and so on, I would go from 1’’ to APSC, or from m43 to FF.

Anyway, there are no ILC 1’’ on the market, but I always recommend people if they don’t plan to change lenses, not interested in ultra-wides, primes, fisheyes, super telephotos etc, a 1’’ camera is a better choce.