1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

GF1 vs GX1 high Iso...

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by sam_m, Dec 17, 2011.

  1. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    Thought I would try this just out of interest, these are 100% crops from images, RAW to JPEG..

    Iso 800
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]

    Iso 1600
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]

    Iso 3200
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 9
  2. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Thanks...I think. :D The difference at 3200 is amazing. The rest are pretty thought-provoking, too. My wallet says: :frown:
     
  3. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Yeah, I was never comfortable shooting at more than 800 with the GF1. 1600 was OK with the EP2 and is a better with the new Pens, but 3200 is still a step too far. 3200 looks workable with the GX1, if not quite as buttery as the X100. If I was in the market for an m43 body, I'd sure consider this one...

    -Ray
     
  4. SimonL

    SimonL Mu-43 Regular

    97
    Apr 15, 2009
    NW England
    Looks like just over a stop difference ?
     
  5. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    Id say so, and it looks to me the GX1 3200iso image picks up more detail than the GF1 1600iso image, (you can really notice it on the leaves of the plant) whether thats the sensor size partly having an effect on that im not sure.
     
  6. Of course the most important question is: how do the GF1 and GX1 compare for noise at ISO 200?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Depends on what kind of shooting you do as to whether that is most important or not ... I tend to take a lot of pictures at dusk from a moving car and inside really dark places, so high ISO is important to me.
     
  8. ...and ISO 100? Significant improvement of the GX1 relative to the GF1, but in absolute terms is the quality of the ISO 800 image captured by the GX1 acceptable?
     
  9. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    G3/GX1 don't go down to 100
     
  10. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    Never thought 100 or 200 would be that important to be honest as the GF1 was very good in this range. I can do a 200 and 400 though, in fact, why not add the 5Dii into the comparison :D
     
  11. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    Lets through the 5D into the mix... again 100% crops

    Iso 1600
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]
    5Dii
    [​IMG]


    Iso 3200
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]
    5Dii
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    ISO 400
    GF1
    [​IMG]
    GX1
    [​IMG]
    5Dii
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Even putting high ISOs aside, I haven't found any micro 4/3 camera that I have used (GF1, GH1, E-P1, E-PL1) to be particularly great when it comes to low ISO noise control, and the GF1 seems to be slightly the worst of those four. The GH2 and G3 seem to be have already made some useful improvements at high ISOs, so I see low ISO noise as the "next frontier" for micro 4/3.
     
  14. pawzitiv

    pawzitiv Mu-43 Regular

    119
    Apr 28, 2010
    Calgary
    Nic,

    I, too, am more interested in base ISO performance rather than high ISO performance. While :43: shouldn't be the tool of choice for a dedicated landscape photographer, it's still nice to know that :43: is able to produce a very respectable file with great detail and minimal noise.

    If it helps any, I've picked one of my GX1 + 25/1.4 image files at base ISO160 that has both blue sky and a nice chunk of detailed wall. First image (and crop) is the RAW image with no noise reduction or sharpening whatsoever. The second image shows what I think is the optimum amount of noise reduction and sharpening for online viewing (this would be different for printing, of course).

    I hope these help your evaluation of whether or not the GX1 base ISO noise performance is better (or worse) than it's Panasonic/Olympus stable mates.

    ISO160- STRAIGHT FROM RAW
    [​IMG]

    ... AND THE 100% CROP FROM THE RAW FILE
    [​IMG]


    ISO160- JPG W/OPTIMIZED NOISE REDUCTION/SHARPENING
    [​IMG]

    ... AND THE 100% CROP FROM THE OPTIMIZED JPG FILE
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Thanks Sam, there does appear to be a small advantage to the GX1 at ISO 400 which is good to see.

    Arie, thanks for your example @ ISO 160. It does look cleaner than what I would normally expect to see, particularly on a GF1. I don't mind the graininess of the early m4/3 cameras but it's not always what I want. It's better to add it when you want it than to take it away when you don't.
     
  16. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Interesting thread and thanks all who have posted images :smile:

    Yes and no... For the type of landscape photography I do (mainly hiking, much of it very remote and off-track), the ability to get great files out of something as compact and light as my GH2 makes it the perfect landscape tool...

    Case in point - I would not have walked four days off-track carrying a 5DII and 24-70 to photograph this...
    6375306429_4f35898b2f_b.