Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 3, 2010, 3:25 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
No, it was not but it is a m4/3 sensor, and they are limited in their low light ability by the laws of physics. That is all. I do not want to miss lead Marcelo in the performance of the m4/3 camera in low light. This is not what they excel in.
And I was just pointing out to him that the m4/3 sensors aren't really any more inherently limited by physics than the APS-C sensor, which is about all you will find in the under $1000 range in DSLRs. Full frame is clearly the best option for low light.

Or more specifically, that the size difference per physics from the Canon APS-C is a mere third of a stop of light, which really isn't going to make a material difference in low light capability. Factors like sensor technology used, image processing, noise reduction algorithms, availability of IS, availability of wide aperture lenses, low light viewfinder capability and low light autofocus capability, rather than sensor size, are going to be the factors which determine which DSLR or MILC cameras in that price range do best in low light.

And again, if the issue is image noise through ISO 3200, the GH-1 will actually match the 7D. However, in some of these other areas it will fall short!
kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2010, 3:35 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

For sub 1000 dollar, you can get couple of great low light dslr with a aps-c sensor both the canon T1i and pentax K-x are below 800 dollars. The new T2i and sony A500 are under 1000 dollars. All have 12800iso. At 6400iso you have a bunch of options.

But lets be honest, at the current level of sensor technology. M4/3 and 4/3 can not match the aps-c in low light performance. They have gotten better, 1600iso is acceptable with the pen's and oly's dslr. Shoot the E3 is not bad at 3200iso. But they still do not match aps-c at 1600 or 3200. And they are not there yet to be able to give you anything usable at 6400iso.

There is no such thing as a perfect camera. Some may try to say that it exist. But with over 20+ years of photography. I still have not seen that perfect camera. The panny GH1 and G1 has their place, and in that space. They are really good. But there are things that they are not suited for like low light.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2010, 5:19 PM   #33
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Default

Hi,

It's clear that sensor size alone means nothing. It's a very importantant factor, of course, but tecnologies like NR, higher sensitivity, isolation to electrical noises, etc can make better results even on smaller sensosr. A proof is that most P&S today performs better any pro camera from a decade ago...

But after I decided to go to a dSLR after considering prosumers (like P90), I'll not take a non-SLR GH-1. I want at this moment a full SLR (even not being the most professional tier). Later, if I need a more compact camera I'll check the prosumers again, and also these 4/3 category that I still think is very intersting.

BTW: Did you noticed that P90 is goiung out of line? In B&H site its clear. In it's place there is a P100 that is weaker in some resources, inlcuding resolution that is slower (only 10 MP) - I didn't understand this move back from Nikon...
MarceloRSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2010, 1:50 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Having an ISO 12800 setting available doesn't mean the camera is any good at that setting.

And I'm not saying the GH1 sensor performance is as good as ANY other in that range; the K-X is better, the D5000 is better, the T2i is likely better. But the K7 or T1i would at least be close through ISO 3200. And the E3 may be decent at 3200, but the GH1 is clearly better there than the E3.

So yes, I'm agreeing the smaller sensor means some disadvantage, but just saying the GH1 is the best of the four-thirds so far at ISO 1600-3200, and will be pretty competitive there with at least some APS-C.

If you need to shoot low light action, then you may find settings like ISO 6400-12800 useful, if they are of sufficient quality. But for most natural light shooting, ISO 1600-3200 with IS available is plenty, and the GH1 is competitive there.
kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2010, 6:47 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

At 6400iso the T1i, Pentax k-x, nikon d5000 and a bunch of others all perform well, And the pentax k-x and the T1i and the T2i will produce a decent photo at 12800iso. I have posted the t1i at 12800 iso on this forum before. It is about the level of noise that the E3 4/3 system has at 1600-3200iso. That is a very useable photo.

There is no doubt the GH1 is a great camera. But Low Ligtht is not where it performs honestly, but panny has push m4/3 and has gotten better. But still not at the level of aps-c.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 4, 2010 at 6:53 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:49 PM.