How good is the G9 at High ISO ?

Started Oct 15, 2018 | Discussions thread
left eye
left eye Senior Member • Posts: 1,803
Re: Using the studio-scene comparison...

JosephScha wrote:

Re: "I've never found the OOC jpegs from the G series to be that great..." but I see you do not own a G9, and (as the review states) the OOC JPEGs on the G9 are substantially improved - better color accuracy mostly - compared to previous G series cameras.

Colour is totally fine with my GH5, probably not a million miles different to the G9. In anycase for OOC jpg I always shift the WB towards amber (with all my cameras) - just personal preference - and relates to daylight balanced film 'in the old days' being calibrated for 'cloud' kelvin temperature rather than 'full sun'. Daylight 'sun WB' these days is too cold - also auto WB is generally too cold.

Re: "mainly too much NR is applied to hide the inherit noise from m43 sensors. I'd rather see the noise (and the detail). So you do need to turn NR to minimum - but even then too much NR is applied IMO. The sharpening radius is rather crude also." You definitely should be shooting RAW + JPEG fine. Then, if the JPEG is good, wonderful; use it. If you decide to develop from RAW so that the noise reduction and sharpening will be to your taste, you can do that.

I was replying to the OP based on their OOC jpeg question. Personally I don't think the OOC jpeg quality is good enough (it's ok, but not good enough for me), so I only shoot raw now 90% of the time.

Re: "In fact ISO 800 (and shooting raw) is my limit for ok quality." You are, of course, entitled to that opinion.

Grain becomes 'a look' at ISO 800 and above. I don't use excessive NR to iron out noise, so at ISO 800 and above grain is a major part of the quality. It does remind me of 35mm film, and does mean there's less retouching to be done.

I'm not finding the dual-IS to be that effective that I can keep ISO below 800. So most indoor work is at ISO 800. Indoor = grain.

Re: "Really I find you need to shoot at ISO 200 or maybe 400 if you want good quality (i.e. detail retention). ISO 3200 is never going to be a strong point for a fairly small sensor! I would avoid it at all costs." Well I think that is overly harsh, especially for the G9. Although perhaps it applies to OOC JPEGs more than to raw. While it is certainly true that a 20MP m43 sensor will have slightly more noise than a 24MP APS sensor, the Fuji T3 has significantly more noise at its highest ISOs than the the T2. See the review. They think it's because the readout electronics are faster.

Not sure I'm seeing that apart from those DPR examples. Some comparisons may even show the inverse...

So my opinion - which nobody asked for - is that up to ISO 800 is usually fine (don't underexpose, if you can avoid it); 1600 and 3200 are recoverable from raw but - as the basketball pictures show - if looked at at 100% you will see remaining noise; the person who developed those ISO 3200 images clearly did not trade aware resolution by getting rid of all the noise. I'd make the same judgment for ISO 3200, I think.

...sure, for those basketball photos I'd leave more noise in.

 left eye's gear list:left eye's gear list
Olympus E-300 Pentax K-5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Panasonic GH5 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow