Should I buy a GH1

[richie15]

I currently have a GF1 and G1 and like both for their own reasons. I use the G1 for mf lenses and the GF1 for travel and AF lenses.

I am thinking of upgrading my G1 to GH1 and wonder if this upgrade is worth it. It will cost me c£250 after selling the G1. I understand the GH1 has a better sensor. Any views welcome.

 

[Vivek]

The GH1 has a "better" sensor for video.

If you are into still captures, the G1 is better. One site compared the performance of these two (can't remember that now) and the G1 fared better.

 

[richie15]

Thanks, not really interested in video, I will keep the GF1 for that. If the G1 is equal or even better than the GH1 for still captures then I may as well keep what I have.

 

[Terry]

I wouldn't upgrade right now. First I would wait and see how well the new G2 interface does with the touch controls (shipping starting this week). Let's see how G2 image quality compares to GH1. Then there should be a new GH2 announced for Photokina in the fall.

So, i would stick with your current lineup and see what plays out over the summer.

 

[Paratom]

as far as I know the GH1 sensor is about 1 stop better regarding higher ISO/noise behaviour.
I would also wait- as soon as a gh2 will be announced you can either buy the gh2 or a gh1 for a lower price than today.

 

[Vivek]

as far as I know the GH1 sensor is about 1 stop better regarding higher ISO/noise behaviour.

"Better" than what? Where can I find information on that?

All I know is that GH1 gives still shots with noticeable banding which the G1 does not. If that isn't the case, please enlighten us with some information to correct that thought.

 

[Fahim]

According to the reviews, GH1 provides better quality in higher ISO than G1.

Luminous-landscape.com

Changes From the G1

The following is my report on the Lumix GH1 considering it primarily as a video camera. As a still camera it is little changed from what I wrote about in my initial review. The sensor is new, though still effectively 12MP. This allows the camera to shoot various still aspect ratios, from 4:3 to 3:2 to 16:9, all with the same coverage angle. The new sensor also seems to have given the camera somewhere between a half stop and a full stop of extra ISO, at last in terms of low noise. ISO 800 on the G1 was acceptable but not great. Now on the GH1 it is on a par with cameras in the APS-C sized sensor category from other manufacturers, and ISO 1600 is acceptable, which before it was not.

That's about it for upgrades from the G1, so if you'd like to learn more about the still photography side of the GH1 please read my original G1 review and then come back here to learn about the video side of things.

dcresource.com

The GH1's photo quality was very good. Photos were generally well-exposed, though it did underexpose by a third of a stop on more than a few occasions. Colors were vivid -- no complaints there. The original DMC-G1 was a little soft, and the GH1 seems a bit worse, though I think the kit lens has something to do with that. If you agree, it may be worth turning up the in-camera sharpening a notch or two. While it's not quite as good as the best D-SLRs in terms of noise, the DMC-GH1 is competitive, and a bit better than the G1. You can safely shoot through ISO 400 in low light and ISO 800 in good light -- and shooting RAW will let you go a little higher. Panasonic cameras automatically remove purple fringing, so that wasn't an issue. I did spot some highlight clipping here and there, but it wasn't major. Redeye levels were mild.


I ordered an GH1, can't wait to have it in my hands.

 

[Vivek]

Luminous-landscape.com

The new sensor also seems to have given the camera somewhere between a half stop and a full stop of extra ISO, at last in terms of low noise.
That's about it for upgrades from the G1, so if you'd like to learn more about the still photography side of the GH1 please read my original G1 review and then come back here to learn about the video side of things.

dcresource.com

The original DMC-G1 was a little soft, and the GH1 seems a bit worse, though I think the kit lens has something to do with that. If you agree, it may be worth turning up the in-camera sharpening a notch or two. While it's not quite as good as the best D-SLRs in terms of noise, the DMC-GH1 is competitive, and a bit better than the G1. You can safely shoot through ISO 400 in low light and ISO 800 in good light -- and shooting RAW will let you go a little higher.

None address the question.

The first quoted "review" site says "seems".

The second "review" site is talking about things that do not make sense (G1 was soft?).

Is there any information from the manufacturer to make the claim that the GH-1 makes a better still camera compared to the G1?

 

[photoSmart42]

I can't say I've seen any banding issues on my GH1 either, but I also don't push it much beyond ISO 800. I might do some side-by-side testing with my G1 to see if I can tell the difference.

Some differences between the G1 and the GH1 sensor:

1: GH1 sensor is slightly larger, and it allows constant angle of view regardless of image format. That also means in 16:9 mode, you get a bit of extra FOV horizontally, thus increasing your wide angle capability slightly.

2: The GH1 has a slightly thinner AA filter because of the video capability, which some tests have discovered may have resulted in slightly increased DR over the G1.

3. Some of the later GH1 sensors were built in a different factory than the original G1 and GH1 sensors, so there may be process variations inherent in those sensors across cameras. Not sure what the impact on IQ is for that.

So is the GH1 sensor 'better' than the G1 sensor? I guess that depends on your definition of better. It is for me, especially since I haven't experienced the banding issue. FWIW DXO shows significant differences in the two sensors when compared side-by-side, so assuming they performed the same tests on both and that they have no reason to pump up the GH1 performance, there's something measurable between the two.

I'm excited to see what the GH2 will have. I hope for a lot of improvements, but I suspect it'll be more of an incremental approach in order to get to market by Photokina and respond to the Sony NEX and whatever Canon/Nikon may have in the works for mirrorless cameras.

 

[Vivek]

2: The GH1 has a slightly thinner AA filter because of the video capability, which some tests have discovered may have resulted in slightly increased DR over the G1.

Dragos, Allow me to take that (though it is going off topic) to ask for some clarification.

How is an anti aliasing filter related to dynamic range?

Who finds out if an AA filter is thinner or thicker? I ask this because in a few cameras I opened up, I could never identify the AA part of the filter nor could I determine how thick it might be.

There are some review outfits that keep invoking this AA thickness to rationalize all sorts of things. I never understood how that is possible.

Yes, the new sensor of GH-1 (larger size, various aspect ratios and all that) has been claimed by Panasonic as being a good thing for video.

BTW, I do have a hacked G1 which is devoid of the AA/UV/IR filter stack. I have not found aliasing a problem. Pana weaves some interlacing magic (if you process the RAW files on an antique computer, you can actually witness this process! ) to achieve that.

 

[sagar]

Thanks to this thread, I ended up buying G1 instead of G1H and saving few $$$

 

[richie15]

Thanks to this thread, I ended up buying G1 instead of G1H and saving few $$$

More money for glass

 

[photoSmart42]

Dragos, Allow me to take that (though it is going off topic) to ask for some clarification.

How is an anti aliasing filter related to dynamic range?

Vivek, I'm simply mentioning it as something Panasonic said is different about the GH1 sensor over the G1 sensor, and correlating that change (absent knowledge of any other significant changes) to the improvement in SNR, DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity reported by DxO. From what I read, the absence of the AA filter in the M9 also has a lot to do with the improved DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity of that camera (in addition to other features of their sensor technology), so to me that was an additional data point to see that the presence/absence of an AA filter has some effect on all those performance parameters. I couldn't explain to you the physics behind it because I haven't spent the time to dig that far into it. I can imagine having an extra piece of glass in front of the sensor has a lot of unwanted effects, and I can see how it could affect all those parameters.

Frankly I'm just happy taking great photos with my GH1, and my wife is very happy with her G1. Alles gut!

P.S. Some day I'll get the courage to hack my wife's G1 similar to your changes (once I get her something new, of course - perhaps that pink GF1).

 

[Vivek]

I can imagine having an extra piece of glass in front of the sensor has a lot of unwanted effects, and I can see how it could affect all those parameters.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

It is my understanding that anti aliasing filter is just for what it is supposed to be for. Otherwise, there will be moire like M9 pumps out. Same about the presence or absence of UV/IR cut and other filters on a sensor. Absence of them or ineffective ones would churn out cyan casts and would lack color fidelity. Post capture massaging to overcome such flaws is going to affect the image quality of the picture as well.

Every sensor has extra piece of glasses, including the Leica M8 and M9 (two pieces of glass on each sensor).

The thicker stack of glass (fairly thick in case of G1) has little to do with the strength of the anti aliasing effect the filter brings about.

Though I have not had a chance to look (yet), I would think the AA/UV/IR/anti shake glass stacks in front of the sensor on Nikon D3s are very thick- way thicker than the ones in a Leica M9.

 

[Fahim]

I received my GH1 three days ago.......and I'm happy so far. Takes great pictures...

Got it for a real good price at £800 only...

 

[richie15]

Vivek, I'm simply mentioning it as something Panasonic said is different about the GH1 sensor over the G1 sensor, and correlating that change (absent knowledge of any other significant changes) to the improvement in SNR, DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity reported by DxO. From what I read, the absence of the AA filter in the M9 also has a lot to do with the improved DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity of that camera (in addition to other features of their sensor technology), so to me that was an additional data point to see that the presence/absence of an AA filter has some effect on all those performance parameters. I couldn't explain to you the physics behind it because I haven't spent the time to dig that far into it. I can imagine having an extra piece of glass in front of the sensor has a lot of unwanted effects, and I can see how it could affect all those parameters.

Frankly I'm just happy taking great photos with my GH1, and my wife is very happy with her G1. Alles gut!

P.S. Some day I'll get the courage to hack my wife's G1 similar to your changes (once I get her something new, of course - perhaps that pink GF1).

Dragos

Earlier in the thread you mentioned you might be able to compare the G1 against the GH1 and see if there is any difference in IQ, I would be very interested to see this if possible.

Thanks

Richard

 

[Jerry_R]

Banding:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174654
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=200440

GH1 bug with RAWs, read whole thread, or at least:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32843973
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32816733

 

[photoSmart42]

Dragos

Earlier in the thread you mentioned you might be able to compare the G1 against the GH1 and see if there is any difference in IQ, I would be very interested to see this if possible.

Thanks

Richard

I'll try to find some time to do that, but it won't be to the level of testing referenced in the links above. I'm not sure how relevant the banding issue is, if it exists across all the GH1s, or how it affects my photos (which I haven't noticed).

I'm not sure why someone would take a high-ISO photo with noise reduction turned to negative (isn't that ADDING noise?), and not expect artifacts, whether they by banding or otherwise, but that's just me. It makes for an interesting experiment on the capabilities of the camera, but not for a very interesting photograph. I take my photos with NR at +2, and I rarely, if ever, go above ISO800, and realistically not much even above ISO400.

 

[gcogger]

I took a look at the reviews of the 2 cameras (G1 and GH1) on dpreview. Comparing the RAW image crops of the 2 at ISO800 and 1600, I'd agree with the reviews noted above - the GH1 looks between 1/2 and 1 stop better for noise. It's enough to convince me to upgrade from my G1 some day (OK, video is a 'nice to have' too).

 

[richie15]

Do the film modes and different noise settings just apply to JPEGS or can this be applied to RAW files?