Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2011
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


I didn't write anything about wanting an optical viewfinder. An electronic
is fine. I am referring to their new GX1. It is supposed to appeal to the
DSLR people, but the electronic viewfinder is optional and when in use
there is no external flash.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Don Wiss writes:
>> 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).


I agree. But 6MP would never sell. What I think they did wrong was to go
from 12MP to 16MP on the new GX1.

I only shoot for the web. I shoot at 1/4 size. So a 16MP camera gives me a
4MP image. Still way more than I need.

The question really should be what is the best light in 1/4 resolution.
Does merging four pixels into one dot give such a resolution a better low
light response?

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.


Versatility is less with GX1, as no external flash plus viewfinder. And
with the viewfinder it weighs more than the G3.

On this page: http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasoni...-Panasonic-GX1

In comparing the GX1 and G3 it has:

Better maximum light sensitivity 12,800 ISO vs 6,400 ISO
The DMC-GX1's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better

The problem is Panasonic has no best camera. The G3 with the articulated
screen, built-in viewfinder, and flash shoe has the best form factor. But
the GX1 is better in low light. And both have too many pixels.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Don Wiss writes:
>>> 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).

>
> I agree. But 6MP would never sell. What I think they did wrong was to go
> from 12MP to 16MP on the new GX1.
>
> I only shoot for the web. I shoot at 1/4 size. So a 16MP camera gives me a
> 4MP image. Still way more than I need.


I've got a 24x36 print on my wall at home (and work bought a copy at
20x30) that I printed from a 6MP digital original. It's better than I
could have done on 35mm film, back when I used film. It's not perfect;
if I'd shot it on 4x5 film I think it could have been better. But it's
very very nice, nobody would complain about the resolution.

And I very rarely need to even THINK about going to that size from my
secondary camera.

I have framed 8x10 prints on the wall made from my first 2MP digital
camera. Again, there's really nothing wrong with them technically; only
infinitessimal value to be had by making them "better".

The megapixel race is really crazy.

> The question really should be what is the best light in 1/4 resolution.
> Does merging four pixels into one dot give such a resolution a better low
> light response?


Maybe; but it's better to do binning before rendering RAW into RGB.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The megapixel race is really crazy.


It is a marketing thing. I think I've figured out what Panasonic is up to.
The marketing people are in charge of teh bodies. The GX1 is being marketed
as an enthusiast camera. Take a look at it. It was designed to resemble an
old Leica viewfinder camera, which was very much an enthusiast camera.

Then look at the G3. With the built-in viewfinder and articulated screen it
has a superior form factor. But look at it again. It looks just like all
the high end P&S's with long zoom. What enthusiast wants to have a camera
that looks plebeian? Hence the crippled GX1.

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Dec 22, 6:59*pm, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> I didn't write anything about wanting an optical viewfinder. An electronic
> is fine. I am referring to their new GX1. It is supposed to appeal to the
> DSLR people, but the electronic viewfinder is optional and when in use
> there is no external flash.
>
> Don.www.donwiss.com(e-mail link at home page bottom).


Honestly, if someone is coming from a DSLR today, and has no
experience with the mirror-less cameras, I'd try to test a few out,
Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic. They all offer various attributes
and negatives.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Dec 22, 7:58*pm, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >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.

>
> Versatility is less with GX1, as no external flash plus viewfinder. And
> with the viewfinder it weighs more than the G3.
>
> On this page:http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasoni...-Panasonic-GX1
>
> In comparing the GX1 and G3 it has:
>
> Better maximum light sensitivity 12,800 ISO vs 6,400 ISO
> The DMC-GX1's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better


All they are doing is adding another gain stage to get that. There is
no reason to expect it's any better than simply "pushing" a G3 image
in post-processing. Again, I'd experiment.
What is a good idea that they've added to the GX1 is the grip, which
is something you will miss using the early GF models, if you've come
from a DSLR.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Honestly, if someone is coming from a DSLR today, and has no
>experience with the mirror-less cameras, I'd try to test a few out,
>Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic. They all offer various attributes
>and negatives.


Wide angle is important to me. It was one of the two reasons I went to DSLR
(the other being low light). I now get 18mm equivalent. I could change my
wide angle lens and get down to 15mm. I'm not so sure going from a fixed
aperture to a variable one can be called an upgrade. A Panasonic lens gets
me down to 14mm. It is their lenses that I like.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2011
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Don Wiss says...
>
>> Wide angle is important to me. It was one of the two reasons I went to DSLR
>> (the other being low light). I now get 18mm equivalent. I could change my
>> wide angle lens and get down to 15mm. I'm not so sure going from a fixed
>> aperture to a variable one can be called an upgrade. A Panasonic lens gets
>> me down to 14mm. It is their lenses that I like.

>
>With panorama stitching you can get as wide as you want.


I am aware of this. I do a lot of stitching with PTGui. But that is a lot
of work when I want to get a picture of a storefront and there is a truck
parked in front. And stitching does not work well when there is no horizon
in the picture.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light? RichA Digital Photography 2 12-25-2011 07:58 PM
Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light? RichA Digital Photography 2 12-25-2011 07:57 PM
Pcos low carb diet. Low carb diet program. Cholesterol low carb diet.Low carb diet foods. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb diabetes diet. Low fat high carb diet. The low carb diet.Low carb diet pregnancy. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb calorie diet. No low carb diet. Free low carb diet. Low carbdiet meal plan. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM



Advertisments