Brian G
Mu-43 Veteran
I would appreciate hearing from those GH2 users who can speak to the best image quality you can obtain from your GH2, relative to either earlier m43 models, or in direct comparison to current crop of DSLR's, notably the Nikon D7000, Canon D60, Sony models, and so on. Comparisons can include full-frame models (I've been following soundimageplus' comments on the Sony A850 with keen interest - love your blog, David!).
I'm less interested in noise comparisons, except at base ISO or up to, say, ISO 400. I do appreciate that noise and use of noise reduction is intertwined with sharpness.
I'm particularly interest in sharpness (acuity) and file quality overall. These have more weight for me than high ISO noise performance. I'm aware of dynamic range differences.
I would prioritize the ultimate quality of RAW files - nice OOC Jpeg's are a bonus, but low priority.
I love the weight / portability of my G1 kit, but would (grudingly) accept less convenience if there is a real-world payoff in IQ, particularly resolving power.
I'm contemplating my next camera; I presently have a G1 w/14-45 and 20mm lenses. I have a GH2 on order, but I would reconsider that choice if I could achieve better file quality with a DSLR. (But it has to have sharpness i.e. "bite", not just lower shadow noise at the expense of acuity.)
I happened to notice that Imaging Resource's "Comparometer" images show the GH2 sample as looking a bit soft, particularly as compared against the Nikon D7000. But, having been around this block a few times, I know that this can be due to other factors, and may not be a reliable comparison. Some other down-loadable images have occasionally indicated some softness and low contrast, but there are many others that look just fine. The problem is that much of this material is derived from OOC Jpegs at standard settings, and can for that reason be misleading.
I also noted that Pop Photography just reviewed the GH2 as having a higher "resolving power" number than the Pentax K5, and generally similar to the Nikon D7000. Does this really make a GH2 file every bit as sharp as the best of the DSLR's in a large-ish print?
See why I'm confused?
Thanks in advance for your insights; if possible, can we avoid such observations as "the camera you have with you is the best", "good enough for . . .", etc.? This is about absolute differences, particularly re: resolving power that translates to prints in the range of 11 x 14 up to 20 x 30.
Edit: I should add that I couldn't care less about video - only stills.
Brian
I'm less interested in noise comparisons, except at base ISO or up to, say, ISO 400. I do appreciate that noise and use of noise reduction is intertwined with sharpness.
I'm particularly interest in sharpness (acuity) and file quality overall. These have more weight for me than high ISO noise performance. I'm aware of dynamic range differences.
I would prioritize the ultimate quality of RAW files - nice OOC Jpeg's are a bonus, but low priority.
I love the weight / portability of my G1 kit, but would (grudingly) accept less convenience if there is a real-world payoff in IQ, particularly resolving power.
I'm contemplating my next camera; I presently have a G1 w/14-45 and 20mm lenses. I have a GH2 on order, but I would reconsider that choice if I could achieve better file quality with a DSLR. (But it has to have sharpness i.e. "bite", not just lower shadow noise at the expense of acuity.)
I happened to notice that Imaging Resource's "Comparometer" images show the GH2 sample as looking a bit soft, particularly as compared against the Nikon D7000. But, having been around this block a few times, I know that this can be due to other factors, and may not be a reliable comparison. Some other down-loadable images have occasionally indicated some softness and low contrast, but there are many others that look just fine. The problem is that much of this material is derived from OOC Jpegs at standard settings, and can for that reason be misleading.
I also noted that Pop Photography just reviewed the GH2 as having a higher "resolving power" number than the Pentax K5, and generally similar to the Nikon D7000. Does this really make a GH2 file every bit as sharp as the best of the DSLR's in a large-ish print?
See why I'm confused?
Thanks in advance for your insights; if possible, can we avoid such observations as "the camera you have with you is the best", "good enough for . . .", etc.? This is about absolute differences, particularly re: resolving power that translates to prints in the range of 11 x 14 up to 20 x 30.
Edit: I should add that I couldn't care less about video - only stills.
Brian