DxOMark: Panasonic GH4 Has The Best Micro Four Thirds Sensor Yet!

[Wasabi Bob]

Some interest reading about GH4

http://www.thephoblographer.com/201...thirds-camera-according-dxomark/#.U0jBjvk9jTp

 

[STR]

And then you drill into their graphs and realize that you're never, ever going to tell the difference between the GH4 and the EM1/GH3/GX7/GM1/EM5/EM10 unless you're staring at a test diagram. About the only useful bit of info from the DXO test was that the GH3 has legit ISO100, even though it's labelled as ISO125. GH4 labeled its ISO100 properly.

Another point of contention: why link to that site, which doesn't appear to even link to the source? Is that your site? You should probably add this link: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-GH4

I'm a bit of an academic. Proper citation, even as it exists on the web, should be observed.

 

[Wasabi Bob]

No its not my site. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!
Thought some might enjoy reading it.

 

[GFFPhoto]

Some interest reading about GH4

http://www.thephoblographer.com/201...thirds-camera-according-dxomark/#.U0jBjvk9jTp

Thanks Bob. The GH4 looks like it will be the king of m43 for a couple months at least, and the DxO crown champion... leading to much joy and much angst from those who pay attention to DxO

 

[jnewell]

...by a measurable but immaterial increment?

 

[Amin Sabet]

Darn, title got me excited for real progress and it turned out to be just click bait. The least Phoblographer could have done is link to DxOmark .

 

[meyerweb]

I've never put a lot of stock in DXO, especially the summary numbers. The reality is that any sensor differences between those cameras are so small they're be overwhelmed by any and all processing differences: color balance, sharpening, you name it. Unless you routinely shoot at ISO 6400, make 30 x 40 enlargements that you expect to view from 24" or less, or need razor thin DOF, any of today's current m43 cameras will produce stellar results, IF THE PHOTOGRAPHER KNOWS WHAT S/HE IS DOING.

 

[jnewell]

I've never put a lot of stock in DXO, especially the summary numbers. The reality is that any sensor differences between those cameras are so small they're be overwhelmed by any and all processing differences: color balance, sharpening, you name it. Unless you routinely shoot at ISO 6400, make 30 x 40 enlargements that you expect to view from 24" or less, or need razor thin DOF, any of today's current m43 cameras will produce stellar results, IF THE PHOTOGRAPHER KNOWS WHAT S/HE IS DOING.

I strongly agree on the summary number DXO comes up with. Even the major category numbers are not all that useful. It's a lot more meaningful to look at the results of their individual tests, but in most cases today what you find is that the differences are really minor. Sensors are simply not what distinguishes front-rank cameras today.

 

[crhawkeye]

Essentially same as the others. Variance will give you small difference like you see.

 

[dhazeghi]

Essentially same as the others. Variance will give you small difference like you see.

Precisely. And when you consider that the GH4 (and for that matter the E-M1) are basically the same as their predecessors, it's actually rather disappointing. More than two years since the E-M5, we still have yet to see a newer sensor offer a significant improvement for images. Video yes, but stills no.

 

[dav1dz]

Just incremental improvements until E-M5 II, I bet you. It's just how the industry works. Sensor technology are on longer cycles than the annual body refreshes.

I am interested in how the GH4 auto focus system works in real life. Sounds like a cool implementation. Since it's not a phase detection system there are no missing pixels.

[video=youtube;HwarLGh75OA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwarLGh75OA[/video]

 

[Wasabi Bob]

"Same as their predecessors??"

Precisely. And when you consider that the GH4 (and for that matter the E-M1) are basically the same as their predecessors, it's actually rather disappointing... More than two years since the E-M5, we still have yet to see a newer sensor offer a significant improvement for images. Video yes, but stills no.

Perhaps I missed something, but I'd totally disagree. The GH4 has a totally new sensor and its focusing is noticeably faster than GH3. Their DFD technology seems to be working, very well! Walking around dimly lit streets in Japan, it nailed every shot I took. If anything, Panasonic isn't giving enough attention to the GH4's still performance.

 

[dhazeghi]

Perhaps I missed something, but I'd totally disagree. The GH4 has a totally new sensor and its focusing is noticeably faster than GH3. Their DFD technology seems to be working, very well! Walking around dimly lit streets in Japan, it nailed every shot I took. If anything, Panasonic isn't giving enough attention to the GH4's still performance.

Okay, maybe I should have said 'a significant improvement for still image quality'. AF performance is really orthogonal - poor sensors can have good AF (think E-P3) and good ones poor AF (Fuji's X-Pro 1 comes to mind). But none of these newer sensors lets me get the same quality shot I can take with the E-M5 at ISO 1600 at ISO 3200, or anything like that. That's an example of what I'd consider real progress.

 

[Wasabi Bob]

Increamental is the new norm.

Okay, maybe I should have said 'a significant improvement for still image quality'.....

You know, when a PC ran at 10 mhz, upgrading to a 20 mhz CPU was a huge improvement. As the operating speeds increased, each upgrade became more incremental. Today, speed is not the issue it used to be. For what ever value it may have, the incremental improvement GH4 offers did inch out over Oly, at both DxO and Imagining Resource's evaluations. I've compared the GH4, side by side to the current Oly's. The GH4's focusing speed is noticeably faster, even in low light. As each new camera is released the improvements aren't going to be what you might consider "significant".

Another recent endorsement GH4 received was at this years NAB where it received a "Best of Show" award. A consumer camera at at Broadcast event - now that's pretty impressive. I saw the photos where Panasonic had their "varicam", a $60K camera. At times the crowds were deeper for GH4 than for the Varicam! What ever side of the fence you are on, this is a very exciting time for Micro Four-Third cameras!

 

[jnewell]

You know, when a PC ran at 10 mhz, upgrading to a 20 mhz CPU was a huge improvement. As the operating speeds increased, each upgrade became more incremental. Today, speed is not the issue it used to be. For what ever value it may have, the incremental improvement GH4 offers did inch out over Oly, at both DxO and Imagining Resource's evaluations. I've compared the GH4, side by side to the current Oly's. The GH4's focusing speed is noticeably faster, even in low light. As each new camera is released the improvements aren't going to be what you might consider "significant".

Another recent endorsement GH4 received was at this years NAB where it received a "Best of Show" award. A consumer camera at at Broadcast event - now that's pretty impressive. I saw the photos where Panasonic had their "varicam", a $60K camera. At times the crowds were deeper for GH4 than for the Varicam! What ever side of the fence you are on, this is a very exciting time for Micro Four-Third cameras!

Dhazeghi was speaking of image quality, and the differences that DXO reports between the GH4 and EM-1 are probably within the realm of pure sample variation (0.2 bits color depth, 0.1 EV dynamic range, 791 vs. 757 ISO). Even greater difference simply do not show up in practical photography, even if printed at large scale - there are too many real world variables that consume the theoretical advantage. The camera wars, in the short term, are not going to be won on sensor performance and image quality.

Faster focusing speed, better C-AF performance, better UI - these are the things that are going to allow camera makers to differentiate their product, at least until there is some significant improvement in sensor technology.

 

[meyerweb]

I am interested in how the GH4 auto focus system works in real life.

Ditto here!

The GH4 has a totally new sensor and its focusing is noticeably faster than GH3. Their DFD technology seems to be working, very well! Walking around dimly lit streets in Japan, it nailed every shot I took. If anything, Panasonic isn't giving enough attention to the GH4's still performance.

That's good to hear. Have to shot moving subjects enough to get a feel for it's performance with C-AF nailing subjects moving towards or away from the camera?

 

[STR]

You know, when a PC ran at 10 mhz, upgrading to a 20 mhz CPU was a huge improvement. As the operating speeds increased, each upgrade became more incremental. Today, speed is not the issue it used to be.

Speed is still very important to computing, if not all users. However, what you're trying to get at is called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, where improvements are cheap and significant early on. As time goes on, improvements get slower or more expensive (or both). Finally there comes a point where the marginal return is so low, it just makes more sense to plow your resources into a something entirely new.

It's called a law because it applies to R&D, resource extraction (Peak Oil Hypothesis is just a narrow (and slightly misapplied) LoDMR), the size of organizations, and project planning/management. Even agriculture. I mean, picking the low-hanging fruit is easy and bountiful. The last apple at the top of the tree? Not so much.

Camera sensors are already pretty darn efficient. It's unlikely we'll be able to squeeze any more than a couple of more stops out of them without changing them dramatically.

 

[mjgraaf]

Ah, the end of science? Speak to you in 10 yrs :-D

Sent from my C6503 using Tapatalk

 

[RRRoger]

I want to know how DXO figures the camera ISO scores?
They seem to be wrong to me.

GH4 lower than GH3?
D4s only slightly higher than D4?
D5300 only slightly higher than D5200 and D7100 when the usable ISO is twice as high?
When I am able to take so much better Pictures and Video in poor light at higher ISO, how can they rate them this way?

 

[mjgraaf]

I want to know how DXO figures the camera ISO scores?
They seem to be wrong to me
When I am able to take so much better Pictures and Video in poor light at higher ISO, how can they rate them this way?

Which is exactly why you should be carefull with DxO. They do very precise measurements, trust these. But the measurements are based on preconditions of what to measure and these do not nessecarily have to relevant for your shooting style...

Sent from my C6503 using Tapatalk