Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
going to help in low light.

Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
more readily available.

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
(expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
interchangeable lenses.

Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces. I
know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.

> DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
> Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
> going to help in low light.

The biggest advantage is interchangeable lenses. The second biggest
advantage is autofocus speed. Low-light performance might, possibly,
make it in as #3.

> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
> more readily available.

Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.

I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).

The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Don Wiss<donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:
>
>> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
>> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
>> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
>> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
>> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
>> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.
>
> The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
> (expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
> interchangeable lenses.
>
> Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
> 1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
> back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces. I
> know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
> viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.
>
>> DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
>> Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
>> going to help in low light.
>
> The biggest advantage is interchangeable lenses. The second biggest
> advantage is autofocus speed. Low-light performance might, possibly,
> make it in as #3.
>
>> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
>> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
>> more readily available.
>
> Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
>
> I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
> should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
> the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).
>
> The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
> and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.
Hi,

I recently took some low-light pictures indoors at a public event with
my pocketable Canon S100, set at ISO 1,6000. I expected terrible pix at
that ISO setting, and was quite pleasantly surprised. Up to 5x7" prints
were surprisingly sharp and noise-free. At 8x10" prints, there was a
small but visible decrease in sharpness and a mild increase in noise.
However, good 5x7" prints were a real bonus, as I did not expect it.
Again, a small camera in my pocket gets better pictures than a large SLR
plus lenses left at home in my closet.

Regards,

Mort Linder

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

On Dec 22, 10:39*am, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.
>
> DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
> Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
> going to help in low light.
>
> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
> more readily available.
>
> Don.www.donwiss.com/pictures/(e-mail link at page bottoms).

Here's the thing. The G3 and GH2 have the best low-light performance,
but if you compare them to the earlier G1, G2, G10, GF1 and GF2,
you'll find they are less sensitive to light. Which means instead of
having a 1.5 stop advantage, the newer ones are about 1 stop better.
So, right now the G3 and GH2 are the best, unless Panasonic has done
something new with the GX1. Now you can get a decent add-on EVF for
the GF cameras, that puts the GX1 in the running with the G3 and GH2
as far as versatility is concerned.

Here's the GH2 versus the Nikon D7000

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/d7000_gh2_noise_tests

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
<long rant snipped>
> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1
becomes
> more readily available.


If you need the best in low light, buy a DSLR. Don't even consider
m43.

All Panasonic m43 bodies produce visible noise even at base ISOs.
The noise is not intrusive but it is there if you look for it.

The Panasonic bodies that best control noise at higher ISOs are the
G3, GX1 and GH2. I use the G3 and find that noise levels hardly
change up to ISO 800. Even at ISO 1600 the noise is mostly
acceptable. The GX1 uses the same sensor and essentially the same
processor, so the image quality is essentially identical to that from
the G3.

Neither the G3 nor the GX1 compares with a good DSLR for low noise at
high ISOs. If you buy an m43 camera in the expectation of low noise,
you are guaranteed to be disappointed.

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

Mort <mort@cloud9.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Don Wiss<donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

>> Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
>>
>> I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
>> should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
>> the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).
>>
>> The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
>> and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.
>
> I recently took some low-light pictures indoors at a public event with
> my pocketable Canon S100, set at ISO 1,6000. I expected terrible pix
> at that ISO setting, and was quite pleasantly surprised. Up to 5x7"
> prints were surprisingly sharp and noise-free. At 8x10" prints, there
> was a small but visible decrease in sharpness and a mild increase in
> noise. However, good 5x7" prints were a real bonus, as I did not
> expect it.
> Again, a small camera in my pocket gets better pictures than a large
> SLR plus lenses left at home in my closet.

I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).

The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:00:20 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:
>I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
>or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
>put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
>ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
>Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).
>
>The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
>super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).


The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1 Series.

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:00:20 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>>I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
>>or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
>>put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
>>ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
>>Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).
>>
>>The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
>>super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).
>
>
> The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
> approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1 Series.

And the Nikon 1 gets fairly good ratings for low light. Still, I think
I'm pretty much done with fixed-lens cameras.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> writes:
> > The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
> > approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1
Series.
>
>
> And the Nikon 1 gets fairly good ratings for low light.


Indeed, it is better than any m43 sensor in that respect. Of course
it has fewer pixels, which helps a little.

The most useful review of a 1 Series body that I have seen so far is
the one by Thom Hogan on his new site, sansmirror.com. Obviously he
writes from the viewpoint of a pro user, but he savages the J1 body.


It is probably the most negative Nikon product review that I have
ever seen from Thom, and completely justifiable from his point of
view.


>Still, I think I'm pretty much done with fixed-lens cameras.


I thought that too, but now I really regret selling my Canon
PowerShot G9.

My Panasonic G3 is a very satisfying camera, but it lacks the sheer
portability of the Canon G9. With the 20mm f/1.7, it gets close, but
only at the expense of losing the reach of the Canon's excellent
lens.

Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:02:50 -0500, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you just buy a standard DSLR?
>
>I have a standard DSLR. It weighs a ton. Plus I max out at 300mm
>equivalent. Going higher requires much more weight. With the Panasonix m4/3
>lenses I can go from 14-600mm equivalent with less weight than I now carry
>for 18-300mm equivalent.


Just don't expect (from m43) the sort of low noise/high ISO
performance that you get with most DSLRs. You cannot have it all.