GH2 outclasses other m4/3rd sensors

[RichA]

A combination of lower noise and better resolution helps. Still not APS clean, but very good. Chart is from Dpreview. However, you'll note the illumination differences on this chart. Truing up the brightness of the m4/3rds images with that of the Nikon D7000's lessens the differences somewhat.

 

[Tesselator]

As I see these the PL2 is the best with the GH2 a very close second. And of course the D7000 just makes a joke of all of them.

Also "Truing up the brightness" will make them worse not better. Gaining an image will increase noise.

 

[RichA]

As I see these the PL2 is the best with the GH2 a very close second. And of course the D7000 just makes a joke of all of them.

Also "Truing up the brightness" will make them worse not better. Gaining an image will increase noise.

Actually, not with those samples. Increasing the brightness will supress the colour of the speckles and the blotches you see.

 

[ggibson]

As I see these the PL2 is the best with the GH2 a very close second.

I disagree; the GH2 is retaining the best detail. But the PL2 is pretty impressive in its noise handling. Seems about the same as the GH2.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

What is the best sensor depends on a lot of factors. High ISO is only one. The GH2-sensor is very good, but it's very impressive to see what Olympus gets out of the "old" 12MP sensor.

 

[bradhusick]

My brief experience with the E-PL2 is not a good one at ISO levels higher than 200. You can see actual examples in my "WTB" post for an E-PL2.

This DPReview studio setup has IDEAL lighting that most of our shots will never have, so be careful drawing broad conclusions from it. I wish they shot the studio scene with several lighting conditions.

 

[ptomsu]

What is the best sensor depends on a lot of factors. High ISO is only one. The GH2-sensor is very good, but it's very impressive to see what Olympus gets out of the "old" 12MP sensor.

It is indeed!

I received my E5 some days ago, unfortunately without the lenses, but I am using an old Zuiko 3.5/50 Macro and I am really blown away by the results!

Cannot wait to get the 14-35 on this beast

 

[hawaiigent]

Makes one weep..."I complained because I had no clean ISO 6400 until I met a shooter with no clean ISO 3200..."
(My problem as I follow this thing is that I started out when ISO was called ASA. Or was it DIN. Why does this coin test not make me wince. I dunno, I am thinkin'.)

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Makes one weep..."I complained because I had no clean ISO 6400 until I met a shooter with no clean ISO 3200..."
(My problem as I follow this thing is that I started out when ISO was called ASA. Or was it DIN. Why does this coin test not make me wince. I dunno, I am thinkin'.)

I went to the lab yesterday and picked up two developed rolls of FP4. Can't remember that I had much problems with ISO 125 (that would be DIN 22) when I took the photos, but then, both of the lenses for my Contax RX are f/1.4

 

[bradhusick]

I suppose if the kit zoom lens on the E-PL2 was a constant f/1.4 for the same price then i might buy one.