GX1 sensor

[Barugon]

So, up until now the sensor in the G3 and GX1 has been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why then, since the beans have been spilled that the same sensor is in the E-M5, does it now suck?

--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Nobody told me, and I was too sloppy to look, that it has a stop less DR at base ISO than the GH2 sensor.

If that is true, then yes, it sucks.

And it is a design choice, too. Better high ISO in the pursuit of marketing, at the expense of low ISO DR for photographers.

So actually Panasonic suck.

So, up until now the sensor in the G3 and GX1 has been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why then, since the beans have been spilled that the same sensor is in the E-M5, does it now suck?

--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[DirkL]

Because it is in Olys top-tier m4/3 camera.

The G3-sensor is probably ok for mid-range m4/3
models (although for most of us who are using
low ISO mostly, there is no improvement over
the old G1 sensor other than resolution).

The GH1-sensor is still the best m4/3 sensor out
there.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2

Oly should have used at least the GH2 sensor, and if not
allowed to do that, ordered one from Sony or Aptina.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Higher res means you have more DR. Because you can apply some NR and be back at the same level of detail.

And I don't think it is Oly's fault - nobody wants to make them a sensor that size, there is not enough money in it, I don't think. So they are stuck with hand me down Pannys.

Which would be fine if Panny tried to make a usable sensor. But it seems Panny have no interest. They are playing the high ISO game. Which means that poor Oly now have to launch a camera with second rate high ISO (that's a fact of MFT life, just don't worry about it) and, crucially, poor low ISO DR. And the latter is down to Panasonic's marketing people being a bunch of losers who could not find their backside with three hands.

I'm really devastated. I love Oly cameras, have tried loads of others and not much liked them, and I'd have loved to buy this thing, it is just wanted I wanted. But if it is going to have a stop less DR than the GH2, I simply can't.

So annoying. Trying to use the GH2, with its dire frame rate, missing control wheel and no remote flash control, makes it quite clear Panasonic can't make a camera, only flog tat, but I could forgive them that if they would sell Oly a decent low ISO sensor.

Also frustrating that there are now so many nice lenses. If only there was a body to use them on...

Because it is in Olys top-tier m4/3 camera.

The G3-sensor is probably ok for mid-range m4/3
models (although for most of us who are using
low ISO mostly, there is no improvement over
the old G1 sensor other than resolution).

The GH1-sensor is still the best m4/3 sensor out
there.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2

Oly should have used at least the GH2 sensor, and if not
allowed to do that, ordered one from Sony or Aptina.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Kuppenbender]

Nobody told me, and I was too sloppy to look, that it has a stop less DR at base ISO than the GH2 sensor.

If that is true, then yes, it sucks.

If

 

[Derek Bach]

The UK magazine Amateur Photographer had a good article in its 4 Feb edition entitled "Low Light". In part of this article Prof. Bob Newman compares what he calls the "read noise sweet-spot" of the G3 sensor with the Nikon D7000 and concludes that the G3 is designed for a sweet-pot at 1600 ISO and above whereas the D7000 is designed for 100 ISO and is more or lest constant between 100 and 6400 ISO and equal to the G3 throughout its range.

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison but it is interesting! He concludes by saying that: "by using the sweet-spot ISO and overexposing just before the point of clipping, noise can be kept to the minimum and the tonal range of a low-light image maximised"
Derek

 

[Louis_Dobson]

All still rumours.

But the augurs have spilled the chicken guts, and they are not looking too good.

Nobody told me, and I was too sloppy to look, that it has a stop less DR at base ISO than the GH2 sensor.

If that is true, then yes, it sucks.

If

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Which, sadly, makes it a paperweight in my book, and totally unsuitable for MFT.

Panasonic really do seem to be clueless.

Unlike most people I liked the E330 sensor, but subsequent events have shown that Oly could not have picked a worse partner. It really has ended in disaster all round.

The UK magazine Amateur Photographer had a good article in its 4 Feb edition entitled "Low Light". In part of this article Prof. Bob Newman compares what he calls the "read noise sweet-spot" of the G3 sensor with the Nikon D7000 and concludes that the G3 is designed for a sweet-pot at 1600 ISO and above whereas the D7000 is designed for 100 ISO and is more or lest constant between 100 and 6400 ISO and equal to the G3 throughout its range.

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison and I'm an electrical engineer with a math degree but it is interresting!
Derek

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Derek Bach]

Panasonic really do seem to be clueless.

Unlike most people I liked the E330 sensor, but subsequent events have shown that Oly could not have picked a worse partner. It really has ended in disaster all round.

The UK magazine Amateur Photographer had a good article in its 4 Feb edition entitled "Low Light". In part of this article Prof. Bob Newman compares what he calls the "read noise sweet-spot" of the G3 sensor with the Nikon D7000 and concludes that the G3 is designed for a sweet-pot at 1600 ISO and above whereas the D7000 is designed for 100 ISO and is more or lest constant between 100 and 6400 ISO and equal to the G3 throughout its range.

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison and I'm an electrical engineer with a math degree but it is interesting!
Derek

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I did add a little to my contribution after your comment as an edit:

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison but it is interesting! He concludes by saying that: "by using the sweet-spot ISO and overexposing just before the point of clipping, noise can be kept to the minimum and the tonal range of a low-light image maximised"
Derek
PS. I still did not spell-check it unfortunately!

 

[Louis_Dobson]

At the end of the day, if you crop the sensor right down to four thirds, you wither have to give up the ability to PP RAW meaningfully, or the ability to shoot at silly ISOs.

I know which I need.

And I think I know which blasted Panasonic, in their infinite wisdom, have lumbered us with.

I don't shot at ISO1600, ever.

I do push and pull two stops in RAW.

So Panasonic are unlikely ever again to choose to make a sensor I want, which at this point makes it unlikely Oly will ever again be able make a camera I would want to buy (Panny never will, they have no idea how to make a usable camera).

This is immensely depressing. And potentially very expensive.

Panasonic really do seem to be clueless.

Unlike most people I liked the E330 sensor, but subsequent events have shown that Oly could not have picked a worse partner. It really has ended in disaster all round.

The UK magazine Amateur Photographer had a good article in its 4 Feb edition entitled "Low Light". In part of this article Prof. Bob Newman compares what he calls the "read noise sweet-spot" of the G3 sensor with the Nikon D7000 and concludes that the G3 is designed for a sweet-pot at 1600 ISO and above whereas the D7000 is designed for 100 ISO and is more or lest constant between 100 and 6400 ISO and equal to the G3 throughout its range.

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison and I'm an electrical engineer with a math degree but it is interesting!
Derek

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I did add a little to my contribution after your comment as an edit:

I'm not sure I fully understand his calculations or the implications of this comparison but it is interesting! He concludes by saying that: "by using the sweet-spot ISO and overexposing just before the point of clipping, noise can be kept to the minimum and the tonal range of a low-light image maximised"
Derek
PS. I still did not spell-check it unfortunately!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Andy Crowe]

At the end of the day, if you crop the sensor right down to four thirds, you wither have to give up the ability to PP RAW meaningfully, or the ability to shoot at silly ISOs.

I know which I need.

I don't shot at ISO1600, ever.

I do push and pull two stops in RAW.

What about negative exposure compensation? I've often pushed a photo 2 or 3 ev perfectly well on my lowly GF2 despite the high shadow noise. I haven't had my GX1 long so haven't put it through its paces yet, but just a few tests I've done already it PPs underexposed images much better.

So Panasonic are unlikely ever again to choose to make a sensor I want, which at this point makes it unlikely Oly will ever again be able make a camera I would want to buy (Panny never will, they have no idea how to make a usable camera).

If you need to maximise your DR above all else what on earth are you using M4/3 for? You should be using a full frame camera for this. If you want to compromise DR for a smaller sensor and smaller camera then you're going to get less than class-leading DR even with the GH2.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

I don't need ludicuous DR. I've just come from ff. The DR of the gh2 is suffintly close to make ff more trouble than it is worth. It seems though that Panny have discarded that dr in pursuit of high now....

At the end of the day, if you crop the sensor right down to four thirds, you wither have to give up the ability to PP RAW meaningfully, or the ability to shoot at silly ISOs.

I know which I need.

I don't shot at ISO1600, ever.

I do push and pull two stops in RAW.

Ever tried using negative exposure compensation? I've often pushed a photo 2 or 3 ev perfectly well on my lowly GF2 despite the high shadow noise. I haven't had my GX1 long so haven't put it through it's paces yet, but just a few tests I've done already it PPs under exposed images much better.

So Panasonic are unlikely ever again to choose to make a sensor I want, which at this point makes it unlikely Oly will ever again be able make a camera I would want to buy (Panny never will, they have no idea how to make a usable camera).

If you need to maximise your DR above all else what on earth are you using M4/3 for? You should be a full frame camera for this. If you want to compromise DR for a smaller sensor and smaller camera you'll just have to put up with less than class-leading DR.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[WAGeo]

But if it is going to have a stop less DR than the GH2, I simply can't.

Oh jeez...

DXO Mark is the absolute worst thing to happen to photography EVER!

What the heck does one less dynamic range stop even mean! Please show me an IMAGE that illustrates this fact....

I recall the oft attributed to Frank Zappa quote:

"talking about music is like dancing about architecture"

Same with this pseudo scientific sensor analysis; "....dancing about architecture"

Download an actual full rez image and judge for yourself the IQ.

Handle the actual camera and see how it feels in your hands and if it think s the way you do. Can the camera respond the way you like....

Real simple stuff void of opinions...

Act like a photographer.

Somebody give me a hand off this soap box please...;D

Warren

 

[hello world]

Show me a printer that can print 10+ stops of DR, oh wait... does JPG even have 10 stops of DR?

Common

 

[Louis_Dobson]

No, if you don't do heavy PP, then any current sensor will exceed JPG and print.

Show me a printer that can print 10+ stops of DR, oh wait... does JPG even have 10 stops of DR?

Common

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[WAGeo]

Show me a printer that can print 10+ stops of DR, oh wait... does JPG even have 10 stops of DR?

Common

When I first got a D300 I was SO disappointed because the sky always had lots of noise. Tons of doom and gloom posts here at DPR...almost sold it.

Then I finally got a decent printer (Epson Pro4000) and discovered noise does NOT print! (for the most part!).

One must realize DPR is rife with hand wringing gear heads who value stats more than image making. That's all cool...but if your purpose is to create photographs I suggest a change of mindset.

Just saying'....

Warren

 

[Louis_Dobson]

That's off my D3 at ISO 400. It has been heavily PPed of course, and the boat has needed NR as a result. Nothing else has.





This is off a G1. ISO 200, much less PP, but a lot of NR sprinkled around. That's the difference.

This is off a GH2. Less PP, but even so I never even considered NR.





The GH2 is more than adequate. I can do fine with GH2, don't need the D3, hence the switch. The G1? I can do it, but it is limiting, and I'm not paying good money in this day and age for that base DR. And, apparently, that's the kind of DR I can expect from the GX1 sensor. Meh. In 2012, not good enough. and mainly because it is aimed at high ISO, for silly, marketing, reasons.

I assumed the E-M5 would offer GH2 quality. I didn't realise the GX1 had be crippled by Panny for high ISO reasons.

But if it is going to have a stop less DR than the GH2, I simply can't.

Oh jeez...

DXO Mark is the absolute worst thing to happen to photography EVER!

What the heck does one less dynamic range stop even mean! Please show me an IMAGE that illustrates this fact....

I recall the oft attributed to Frank Zappa quote:

"talking about music is like dancing about architecture"

Same with this pseudo scientific sensor analysis; "....dancing about architecture"

Download an actual full rez image and judge for yourself the IQ.

Handle the actual camera and see how it feels in your hands and if it think s the way you do. Can the camera respond the way you like....

Real simple stuff void of opinions...

Act like a photographer.

Somebody give me a hand off this soap box please...;D

Warren

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[peppermonkey]

I don't shot at ISO1600, ever.

Hmm...if my camera could shoot lovely ISO1600 I think I'll be good on the high ISO range. Constantly wanting to go to ISO 1600 when indoors (and no, I don't like flash and only use it if I absolutely have too).

So Panasonic are unlikely ever again to choose to make a sensor I want, which at this point makes it unlikely Oly will ever again be able make a camera I would want to buy (Panny never will, they have no idea how to make a usable camera).

Oh no! My GF1! It's not a usable camera??? Guess it's to the dumpster for my camera then...

--
Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX and my wife's old K110D



http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 

[peppermonkey]

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Thanks for the examples. I was honestly really interested from a curiosity stand-point. Although I don't think I would ever 'want' to push it like you have in your first photo, I think being 'able' to push a photo that 'needs' it would be most welcome, but that's just a preference.

I do want more DR just like you but I also want better high-iso capability...or rather...if they can give me great ISO 1600 and usable ISO 3200 I think I'll be good to go and would rather have Panny work on DR. GX1 seems to get close to what I want in the high-iso front but well, yeah, higher DR would be most welcome.

--
Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX and my wife's old K110D



http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 

[ljmac]

Don't forget: we're only talking about 2/3rds of a stop on DxO here!

DxO's measurements are hardly flawless - they often give compacts better DR scores than DSLRs! There's obviously several ways to measure these things, and all have their flaws.

Judging from all the real world samples I've seen though, the G3/GX1 sensor is at least as good as the GH2 sensor for stills. I suggest you scour the net for image samples, particularly once the OM-D comes out.

This could all be much ado about nothing.