DXO's Sensor rating GH1 vs GH2

[Austinite]

Even though the Gh2 is suppose to be an improvement, especially in high ISO performance DXO actually rates the GH1 better in that catagory and gives it a 64 overall while the GH2 gets a a 60. I found a real good deal on a GH1. I'd like to find a good deal on a GH2 but they are a tough find here in the USA right now. Any opinions from folks who have tried both?

 

[FreeForLife]

I have the GH1 and waiting for GH2 price to drop. Consensus seem to be GH2 is better than GH1.. I would agree too judging from the posted photos.

 

[Enir4]

I have the GH1, but never tried the GH2. I do trust the ratings of DxO quite a bit. They agree closely to what I find is the IQ of several cameras I owned, like the 5D, 40D, D90, NEX 5, GH1, E-P2, G11, etc.

Enrique

 

[kenw]

Even though the Gh2 is suppose to be an improvement, especially in high ISO performance DXO actually rates the GH1 better in that catagory and gives it a 64 overall while the GH2 gets a a 60.

The DxO numbers have two problems with the GH1.

First of all, the GH1 is doing RAW noise reduction at the highest ISOs the way DxO tested it (you can prevent this but it is counterintuitive and it appears DxO didn't understand what was going on). As far has their SNR 18% numbers which drive the "Sports" score the cameras actually appear to be nearly identical.

In the "Landscape" score, which would probably be better called the "shadow noise" score, they don't account for banding. A lot of the GH1s had fairly significant banding at the higher ISOs which the GH2 does not.

So in the end they are very similar. The GH1 certainly isn't "better" but it isn't clear the GH2 is really much of an IQ improvement either.

I found a real good deal on a GH1. I'd like to find a good deal on a GH2 but they are a tough find here in the USA right now.

I doubt there are going to be many great deals on the GH2 for awhile! On the other hand there are some amazingly good prices on the GH1. If all you are worried about is IQ I'd say the GH1 is the best deal available. The GH2, which I have now, does bring a lot nice UI improvements, EVF improvement, etc. etc. It is, however, a pretty steep price to pay for these benefits compared to the great deals available for the GH1 right now.
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 

[MichaelKJ]

then you should get the GH1 because it is much less expensive and still IQ is comparable. The DxO difference is trivial and I've yet to see anyone provide a photo demonstrating that the GH1 produces better images than the GH2. GH2 has slightly better resolution and GH1 has a little better DxO score (if you look at the DxO graphs you will see this is entirely due to slightly better performance at ISO800--performance at other ISOs is essentially identical).

Benefits of GH2 include a significant improvement in video and AF speed.

 

[streeteyes]

Don't forget the GH2 IS a 16 MP sensor with 16 MILLION pixels all crammed onto the same 4:3 chip.

So taking that into account if the DxO numbers between the GH1 and GH2 are THAT close that's not bad at all.

Now let's compare the GH2 to the new 16 MP APS-C sensor used on the Sony SLT A55 (another 'mirrorless' camera).

The thing I found interesting was on the GH2 the DR between 160 and 200 seemed flat whereas from 200 on up (or down if you go by the graph) it's quite linear. If the DR measured at 160 followed that slope it would have been around 12.3 on their scale instead of 11.8 which would have put it on a par with the Sony SLT A55 at its best ISO and the Sony's 16 MP APS-C sensor. NOT TOO Shabby at all.

I wonder what the story is there. Seems odd to me.

Meanwhile Pop Photo utterly RAVED about everything the GH2 did below 400. Great DR, great resolution (besting even a D7000), color and noise.

I can live with a camera at ISO 400 or under (already have with the G1). But I've seen images at 800 and 1600 and, all things considered, they aren't too bad either. Yeah there's noise but it's nice 'grainlike' pattern that I don't find all that objectionable. A quality that's been part of the Panasonic/Lumix DNA since the G1 I've noticed.
--
Life is an infinite series of moments called now. My job is to capture them.

 

[kenw]

The thing I found interesting was on the GH2 the DR between 160 and 200 seemed flat whereas from 200 on up (or down if you go by the graph) it's quite linear.

I wonder what the story is there. Seems odd to me.

It is a not too uncommon behavior with a lot of cameras at or near base ISO. Some actually tip over and are completely flat for their lowest ISOs (check out the 5DmkII). Typically this happens because of the limitation of read noise in the camera.
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 

[cameron2]

Even though the Gh2 is suppose to be an improvement, especially in high ISO performance DXO actually rates the GH1 better in that catagory and gives it a 64 overall while the GH2 gets a a 60.

The DxO numbers have two problems with the GH1.

First of all, the GH1 is doing RAW noise reduction at the highest ISOs the way DxO tested it (you can prevent this but it is counterintuitive and it appears DxO didn't understand what was going on). As far has their SNR 18% numbers which drive the "Sports" score the cameras actually appear to be nearly identical.

This is an important point. The DxO numbers appear to be "spot on" for the GH2, but they messed up the GH1 testing, making it out to be better than it was.

Also, with the GH2, it appears that only ISOs 160, 320 and 640 are "real" ISOs, with everything else extrapolated, so tests at other ISOs aren't going to have as good of results as they would otherwise.

The amazing thing with the DxO tests is there was no basically no degredation up to 800 or 1600, although that appears to be starting at a higher level of "base noise" (not surprising compared to the GH1, since their GH1 tests accidentally had noise reduction on).

I doubt there are going to be many great deals on the GH2 for awhile! On the other hand there are some amazingly good prices on the GH1. If all you are worried about is IQ I'd say the GH1 is the best deal available.

Yup. The $375 kit from Panasonic (EPP price) was incredible .. if I didn't have a GH2 on order already, I would have seriously considered it.

 

[_vlad]

AFAIK there is just one real ISO for each sensor - base ISO, nothing else. Everything else is combination of electrical gain and extrapolation
--
Vlad

 

[kenw]

AFAIK there is just one real ISO for each sensor - base ISO, nothing else. Everything else is combination of electrical gain and extrapolation

That is definitely true to a point, though most people consider ISO settings from electrical gain to be "real" and those from digital gain to be "fake". Depending on the ADC performance there may or may not be any benefit to the electrical gain.
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...[/U]

 

[tgutgu]

then you should get the GH1 because it is much less expensive and still IQ is comparable.

No its not. At least at high ISO. The GH2 shows more consistent IQ over the ISO range than the GH1 and is most notably better with regard to high ISO banding.

Additionally, the GH2 has a much better EVF than the GH1. Therefore, the GH2 is a better stills camera than the GH1 - even ergonomically too.

The DxO difference is trivial and I've yet to see anyone provide a photo demonstrating that the GH1 produces better images than the GH2. GH2 has slightly better resolution and GH1 has a little better DxO score (if you look at the DxO graphs you will see this is entirely due to slightly better performance at ISO800--performance at other ISOs is essentially identical).

Benefits of GH2 include a significant improvement in video and AF speed.

--
Thomas