GH2 could be incredible!

[RichA]

My first reaction; I don't care about the video (though many will) I would like to couple fast primes to it if it performs like the potential suggests.
In other words, I want a body for about $800, not a body-lens combo for $1800.

 

[pellicle]

In other words, I want a body for about $800, not a body-lens combo for $1800.

that would have been the G1

:ROTFL:

 

[RichA]

If 2 stops better ISO performance, I'd like it

that would have been the G1

:ROTFL:

That I have, but if this thing is a couple stops better in the ISO category, I'd like it.
BTW, you know how Nikon released the D3s with a workable ISO 25,600? (They claim 102,400, but that's pushing it). This is the G1 at 3200 with a -3 stop underexposure, a simulated 25,600. The full-sized image below (link) is not for the faint of heart.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/122061931/original

 

[pellicle]

Re: If 2 stops better ISO performance, I'd like it

That I have, but if this thing is a couple stops better in the ISO category, I'd like it.
BTW, you know how Nikon released the D3s with a workable ISO 25,600? (They claim 102,400, but that's pushing it). This is the G1 at 3200 with a -3 stop underexposure, a simulated 25,600. The full-sized image below (link) is not for the faint of heart.

certainly that image is ugly, but I don't think that a -3 stop underexposure is a proper simulation of the pushing. There is no appropriate analog gain applied to the signal to move it away from the floor noise. This stuff happens at the analog side of the sensor before A to D conversion. Playing with the RAW file isn't quite the same.

It is interesting to compare the bigger frame cameras with their higher ISO, but this is where the 2.4 MP/cm² pixel density of the 5DMkII over the 5 MP/cm² pixel density of the G1 comes in handy. What really interests me is seeing how well the Canon 7D performs up there with it having 5.4 MP/cm²

must be some serious analog signal processing happening there my friend

oh, and don't take it that I'm against improvement of the G1's high ISO ability. Even if they improved ISO by pixel binning down to 6 megapixels and gave nice images to 1600ISO I'd be comfortable. As it is the use of 1600ISO on the G1 in RAW seems unattractive and shows nasty grids on plenty of occasions.

 

[RichA]

Re: If 2 stops better ISO performance, I'd like it

certainly that image is ugly, but I don't think that a -3 stop underexposure is a proper simulation of the pushing. There is no appropriate analog gain applied to the signal to move it away from the floor noise. This stuff happens at the analog side of the sensor before A to D conversion. Playing with the RAW file isn't quite the same.

True, the chromatic problem gets worse as you drop in ISO and raise brightness values to compensate. But my idea would be that the Nikon's 25,600 ISO is eminently usable, that is how far Nikon has gotten and if we could somehow get 2 more stops above a current G1's high ISO performance, one of the only issues with the camera would be resolved very well. And I could use my D300 even less!

 

[pellicle]

Re: If 2 stops better ISO performance, I'd like it

if we could somehow get 2 more stops above a current G1's high ISO performance, one of the only issues with the camera would be resolved very well. And I could use my D300 even less!

you've got my vote!

:thumbup: