Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

  1. #1
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    This is the image you are not supposed to see! Apparently, the Toronto guys got the camera 4hrs before the show started, installed 3 firmware updates. As such I was told (too late!) that we weren't to take images as this is pre-production. I asked what about the one Dpreview and others got? They got production samples. In any case the lowdown from the tech is that the G3 does not have the same "level" sensor as the GH2. It is about 1 stop noisier. However, it is considerably better than the G1, G2, GF1 and GF2 sensor. I haven't opened the raws (I fired about 10 shots before getting shut down) but here is a JPEG.
    Disclaimers: It is pre-production, it was shot through the mundane 14-42mm kit lens, I don't know what noise reduction was set.

    As for the camera, I like it. It gives me most of the G1's features, but it is smaller and with the 14mm, pocketable in a coat, if not pants.


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Some how the math of what the rep told you doesn't make sense. If I recall correctly, the GH2 is about 1 stop better than the G2, so if the G3 is 1 stop noisier than the GH2, then I don't see how it can be significantly better than the G2 (etc).

    Also, the reviews we have seen so far seem to imply it is on par with the GH2, no?

    I guess we will see as more info comes out.

    Thanks for sharing the pic,

    Doug

  3. #3
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Hi

    nice one

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    In any case the lowdown from the tech is that the G3 does not have the same "level" sensor as the GH2. It is about 1 stop noisier. However, it is considerably better than the G1, G2, GF1 and GF2 sensor.
    interesting. Seeing as I don't see much difference in noise (and I'm uncertain I can quantify it as accurately as a stop) between my G1 and my GH1 its all looking good.

    certainly a clean looking camera JPG and perhaps better than anything I got out of my G1 without resorting to RAW and some post capture fiddling.

    I'm pleasantly impressed :-)

  4. #4
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by greypilgrim View Post
    Some how the math of what the rep told you doesn't make sense. If I recall correctly, the GH2 is about 1 stop better than the G2, so if the G3 is 1 stop noisier than the GH2, then I don't see how it can be significantly better than the G2 (etc).

    Also, the reviews we have seen so far seem to imply it is on par with the GH2, no?

    I guess we will see as more info comes out.

    Thanks for sharing the pic,

    Doug
    Honestly, I think the GH2 is more than a stop better than the G1. It's close to the Nikon D7000 at ISO's up to around 3200.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    Honestly, I think the GH2 is more than a stop better than the G1. It's close to the Nikon D7000 at ISO's up to around 3200.
    I wonder if that is in JPEG or Raw comparisons. Don't get me wrong, I am very interested, but IQ improvements are really the key here for me (and it sounds like for many others as well).

    Looking at the comparisons already up for JPEGs, I find it hard to see too much difference between the GH2 and the G3. Raw will be the key for me though.

    Doug

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by greypilgrim View Post
    I wonder if that is in JPEG or Raw comparisons. Don't get me wrong, I am very interested, but IQ improvements are really the key here for me (and it sounds like for many others as well).

    Looking at the comparisons already up for JPEGs, I find it hard to see too much difference between the GH2 and the G3. Raw will be the key for me though.

    Doug
    I am also waiting to see some RAW testing. The jpegs look very good, and you can't have great jpegs without great RAW, but still, this is where my interest lies.

  7. #7
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelao View Post
    I am also waiting to see some RAW testing. The jpegs look very good, and you can't have great jpegs without great RAW, but still, this is where my interest lies.
    There are some RAW samples here, but unconverted!

    http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...sample_images/

  8. #8
    Senior Member M5-Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Camby, Indiana
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Here is DPR compare of the
    G3/K5/D300s/7D at 1600

    Draw your own conclusions... but I see the K5 as the closest contender in JPG anyway


  9. #9
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    For me the G3 looks mest.

    But I don't give a ..... on JPEGs OOC, I always do RAW!

  10. #10
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    For me the G3 looks mest.

    But I don't give a ..... on JPEGs OOC, I always do RAW!
    Panasonic JPEG's seemed to have improved.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by M5-Guy View Post
    Here is DPR compare of the
    G3/K5/D300s/7D at 1600

    Draw your own conclusions... but I see the K5 as the closest contender in JPG anyway
    Be very careful using this to compare. There are different areas of the image that can vary wildly, sometimes due to lens DOF. This happens a lot. There's a guy around that likes to compare for example the playing came card hearts/queens whatever but he has been way off when you look at the general shot.

    - Raist

    PS: And to be clear, not saying the G3 doesn't look good- it does but I find that you just can't take an image slice and conclude. I would still for example expect a K-5 to do better high ISO than the G3, overall.

  12. #12
    Senior Member M5-Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Camby, Indiana
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Be very careful using this to compare. There are different areas of the image that can vary wildly, sometimes due to lens DOF. This happens a lot. There's a guy around that likes to compare for example the playing came card hearts/queens whatever but he has been way off when you look at the general shot.

    - Raist

    PS: And to be clear, not saying the G3 doesn't look good- it does but I find that you just can't take an image slice and conclude. I would still for example expect a K-5 to do better high ISO than the G3, overall.
    This may be true overall, as you say. I am glad the sensor technology for the 4/3 senors are finely delivering results that ARE comparable to lager sensors in today's DSLRs. That means DSLR sensors are also getting better, and we'll shall see some clean IQ images at any speed we want in the next Generation or 2, IF, the MP count is kept reasonable to take full advantage of the new technology.

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    the lowdown from the tech is that the G3 does not have the same "level" sensor as the GH2.
    It has been my experience that, sometimes, techs say things and make claims that can't be backed up in practise. Given the success of the G range, and the evolution of the sensors, I am doubtful that the latest iteration would have a "lower level" sensor, unless the G3 is effectively much less expensive than its siblings. What do others think?

  14. #14
    Senior Member M5-Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Camby, Indiana
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Not having the same level could mean a higher level also

  15. #15
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    I am doubtful that the latest iteration would have a "lower level" sensor, unless the G3 is effectively much less expensive than its siblings. What do others think?
    +1

  16. #16
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Be very careful using this to compare. There are different areas of the image that can vary wildly, sometimes due to lens DOF. This happens a lot. There's a guy around that likes to compare for example the playing came card hearts/queens whatever but he has been way off when you look at the general shot.

    - Raist

    PS: And to be clear, not saying the G3 doesn't look good- it does but I find that you just can't take an image slice and conclude. I would still for example expect a K-5 to do better high ISO than the G3, overall.
    There is something wrong with the Pentax images. The detail is smeared, even in the RAWS. It has lower noise, for sure, just like the Nikon D7000, but definition seems lacking. I am definitely getting the G3.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    There is something wrong with the Pentax images. The detail is smeared, even in the RAWS. It has lower noise, for sure, just like the Nikon D7000, but definition seems lacking. I am definitely getting the G3.
    Rich

    Based on these images I would come to the same conclusion as you.

    However, based on my experiences with the K-5 and those for whom we all have respect e.g. Jono Slack et al I think that something is very wrong with the DP REview tests here.

    Please understand that I am not trying to defend the K-5 (I also shoot with the Leica S2 system and my standards are pretty darned high) and I certainly am not trying to compare with the G3 about which I know nothing. I am simply trying to caution you about making any decision based on the DP Review comparisons.

    Good luck and happy shooting with whatever tool you choose

    Woody

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party here.

    Panasonic pretty much has a two-tier sensor scheme, oversized with cropless aspect ratios + higher performance (GHx series), and standard-size with cropped aspect ratios and slightly lower performance (Gx, GFx). I'll bet their product staff consider the std-size sensor to be "lower level," and I don't think the G3 has the oversize sensor. From that point of view, the G3 does have a "lower level" sensor.

    It's also a newer sensor, and seems to come very close to GH2 quality and maybe surpass GH1 by a bit. In a compact body with integrated EVF and an affordable price point.

    Good times....

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    I am doubtful that the latest iteration would have a "lower level" sensor, unless the G3 is effectively much less expensive than its siblings. What do others think?

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Indeed good times. I can't wait to get my G3 but still have a few reservations since I originally expected to opt for the GH2. Now I anticipate waiting until the GH3 if I feel I want a bit more (or try to keep my mind open to other bodies or systems. Has to have OVF or excellent EVF, reasonable ergonomics all other things being about equal).

    Dianr

    Quote Originally Posted by pcb_dpi View Post
    Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party here.

    Panasonic pretty much has a two-tier sensor scheme, oversized with cropless aspect ratios + higher performance (GHx series), and standard-size with cropped aspect ratios and slightly lower performance (Gx, GFx). I'll bet their product staff consider the std-size sensor to be "lower level," and I don't think the G3 has the oversize sensor. From that point of view, the G3 does have a "lower level" sensor.

    It's also a newer sensor, and seems to come very close to GH2 quality and maybe surpass GH1 by a bit. In a compact body with integrated EVF and an affordable price point.

    Good times....

  20. #20
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    Rich

    Based on these images I would come to the same conclusion as you.

    However, based on my experiences with the K-5 and those for whom we all have respect e.g. Jono Slack et al I think that something is very wrong with the DP REview tests here.

    Please understand that I am not trying to defend the K-5 (I also shoot with the Leica S2 system and my standards are pretty darned high) and I certainly am not trying to compare with the G3 about which I know nothing. I am simply trying to caution you about making any decision based on the DP Review comparisons.

    Good luck and happy shooting with whatever tool you choose

    Woody
    Fair enough, I had the K10D and the K20D and they didn't produce that effect.

  21. #21
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    Indeed good times. I can't wait to get my G3 but still have a few reservations since I originally expected to opt for the GH2. Now I anticipate waiting until the GH3 if I feel I want a bit more (or try to keep my mind open to other bodies or systems. Has to have OVF or excellent EVF, reasonable ergonomics all other things being about equal).

    Dianr
    I'm hanging on to the G1 until I get to wring-out the G3. I want to see how the menu-driven controls effect shooting. I owned an Olympus E-410 and didn't mind the menu controls because you didn't have to go down through multiple layers to get at key functions.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    That's my plan too. In fact probably won't sell the G1 at all but use it as a second body and pass my GF1 to my husband if I can persuade him he'll like it better than his G9 LOL. To be truthful the G1 is just about the right size and ergonomics for me except for the front dial so the GH2 would likely be closer to what I'm comfortable shooting for the last almost 2.5 years but I've been told I will probably like the touch screen and think the grip will be alright so I won't know, like you, until I dhoot awhile with it. Time is getting quite close one would think.

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    I'm hanging on to the G1 until I get to wring-out the G3. I want to see how the menu-driven controls effect shooting. I owned an Olympus E-410 and didn't mind the menu controls because you didn't have to go down through multiple layers to get at key functions.
    Hi

    Having to dive through menus for key functions is something I cannot live with either. In fact, I would prefer, for those functions, no menu at all> dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be very pleasant.

    Depending upon what you regard as crucial, when I handled the G3 recently I found that it follows the standard Panasonic pattern for key things like ISO, aperture, exposure comp etc: press an assigned button and then navigate to your choice via the thumb wheel, the 4-way buttons (with the camera to your eye or via the main screen) or via touch screen. It worked well.

    I see the G3 as having great potential for the easy-carry kit: the camera plus, say, 4 lenses would fit in a small bag and be very light. The lenses on offer are a great strength to the overall system, in my view: the 14, 20 and 45 making a nice prime set-up.

    Depending on your final output image quality seems likely to be somewhere between more than good enough to excellent.

    I am interested to see what the EP3 brings. if it does not have a built-in VF it is dead to me. If it does, I will look, but I did not like the EP2: it was simply more difficult to configure than the GF1.

    I am also interested in the likely Nex 7. Rumour (for what it is worth) mentions a built-in EVF and more direct buttons for things like ISO etc. The Sony sensors are simply great, and this camera looks interesting. However, it is only the camera, and the Sony range of lenses just does not, in my view, match what I can get for M4/3.

    This always swings me back to looking carefully at the whole system. A camera body might be very good, but are the lenses available to my quality expectations and shooting needs?

  24. #24
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    That's my plan too. In fact probably won't sell the G1 at all but use it as a second body and pass my GF1 to my husband if I can persuade him he'll like it better than his G9 LOL. To be truthful the G1 is just about the right size and ergonomics for me except for the front dial so the GH2 would likely be closer to what I'm comfortable shooting for the last almost 2.5 years but I've been told I will probably like the touch screen and think the grip will be alright so I won't know, like you, until I dhoot awhile with it. Time is getting quite close one would think.
    The G1 body skin was a mistake, since it wore in specific areas, but even so, I find the G1 easier to hold onto than the GH2 which is slippery. A friend of mine sold his and kept the GF2 just because of the size.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    For me the G3 looks mest.

    But I don't give a ..... on JPEGs OOC, I always do RAW!
    Me too. But I wonder at what point we'll all have to concede and just say frak-it? I mean besides for creative processing and/or major surgery...

    When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.

    Even the GH1 was approaching jpeg perfection under certain conditions. I recently did a series where I shot the first 100 shots in RAW, then the next 100 in full sized JPegs, and then the next 100 in medium sized jpegs, and then the last 100 in small jpegs.

    I was pretty astonished to find that the small Jpegs looked almost exactly like what I was ending up with after post processing and scaling the RAWs for the web. Below were all shot Small Jpeg:




    Unless I wanna do selective sharpening and selective NR I can't get the RAWs to look any better than that - even the tone curves are approximately perfect. And selective edits are way time consuming.

    As I see it the GH1 represents Panasonic's second try at in-camera jpeg processing. It goes like this (in my mind anyway) if we start the revisioning from their first M4/3 offering:

    G1 = 1st try.
    GH1 = 2nd try.
    G2 = 3rd try.
    GH2 = 4th try.
    G3 = 5th try.

    And the GH3 when it arrives will be their 6th try at getting it right. I dunno how "scientifically accurate" or even reality based that is but that's kinda how I see it.

    RAW on the other hand unless they're offering up massively pre-processed RAWs, doesn't change much without changing the sensor type or the sensor size. The G2 and the G3 should look just about identical if they both have the same size sensor with the same pixel density. I'd say the G1 and G3 should be identical too but the G2 got a boost in pixel density thus changing it up a little. This would indicate to me anyway, that the advantages of RAW processing will diminish even as Jpegs surpass them at some point (for general photography). Currently I think we're just bout at that point right now.

    It should be the case (again unless Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw) that every modern APS-C camera produces less noise at any given amplification (ISO Gain), than all M4/3 cameras. There are some factors like the quality of the components, and the board level layout, and etc, that can influence the amount of noise that ultimately ends up in our images but as I understand it the main factors are hard physic oriented aspects of the sensor itself - mainly size and pixel density.

    So.... when I read someone saying that the G3's RAW image is so much better than the G2 or that it directly competes with higher end APS-C models the only things I can think of are:

    1. The tests they're looking at are flawed or rigged.
    2. They're just wrong. Or,
    3. Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw - which I guess is about the same as #1


    If Panasonic's RAW's are like fat, partially processed jpegs I'm OK with that - it means less PP for me and more time shooting! But it seems somewhat disingenuous to credit the sensor or to credit Panasonic for anything other than better in-camera processing.

    When I read them saying the same things about the in-camera JPeg results it's obvious (to me anyway) that they like the new processing better - period. Well besides the possibility for flawed or fudged tests anyway.


    .
    Last edited by Tesselator; 6th June 2011 at 06:18.

  26. #26
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: RAW vs JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.
    Been thrashed to bits time and again, but here goes:

    OK, but it's not always a case of saving time in a conversion; if you just shoot and print, so-to-speak, fine.
    If you want the best "negative" to work on when you capture that special image there's nothing like being able to extract all the juice from a basic 16bit file instead of grappling with a pre-cooked 8bit set of ones and noughts.

    It's always a case of us fishermen having the best gear in the boot* just in case we catch the big one - that's what RAW's for.
    Yes, there's a little button on the side of a Pentax, for example, that let's you have a RAW image when you're in JPEG mode - you know, the button you'll never remember to press when the time comes ...

    *For you odd people across the pond who speak strange English it's "trunk".

  27. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    GTA, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    Me too. But I wonder at what point we'll all have to concede and just say frak-it? I mean besides for creative processing and/or major surgery...

    When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.

    Even the GH1 was approaching jpeg perfection under certain conditions. I recently did a series where I shot the first 100 shots in RAW, then the next 100 in full sized JPegs, and then the next 100 in medium sized jpegs, and then the last 100 in small jpegs.

    I was pretty astonished to find that the small Jpegs looked almost exactly like what I was ending up with after post processing and scaling the RAWs for the web. Below were all shot Small Jpeg:




    Unless I wanna do selective sharpening and selective NR I can't get the RAWs to look any better than that - even the tone curves are approximately perfect. And selective edits are way time consuming.

    As I see it the GH1 represents Panasonic's second try at in-camera jpeg processing. It goes like this (in my mind anyway) if we start the revisioning from their first M4/3 offering:

    G1 = 1st try.
    GH1 = 2nd try.
    G2 = 3rd try.
    GH2 = 4th try.
    G3 = 5th try.

    And the GH3 when it arrives will be their 6th try at getting it right. I dunno how "scientifically accurate" or even reality based that is but that's kinda how I see it.

    RAW on the other hand unless they're offering up massively pre-processed RAWs, doesn't change much without changing the sensor type or the sensor size. The G2 and the G3 should look just about identical if they both have the same size sensor with the same pixel density. I'd say the G1 and G3 should be identical too but the G2 got a boost in pixel density thus changing it up a little. This would indicate to me anyway, that the advantages of RAW processing will diminish even as Jpegs surpass them at some point (for general photography). Currently I think we're just bout at that point right now.

    It should be the case (again unless Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw) that every modern APS-C camera produces less noise at any given amplification (ISO Gain), than all M4/3 cameras. There are some factors like the quality of the components, and the board level layout, and etc, that can influence the amount of noise that ultimately ends up in our images but as I understand it the main factors are hard physic oriented aspects of the sensor itself - mainly size and pixel density.

    So.... when I read someone saying that the G3's RAW image is so much better than the G2 or that it directly competes with higher end APS-C models the only things I can think of are:

    1. The tests they're looking at are flawed or rigged.
    2. They're just wrong. Or,
    3. Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw - which I guess is about the same as #1


    If Panasonic's RAW's are like fat, partially processed jpegs I'm OK with that - it means less PP for me and more time shooting! But it seems somewhat disingenuous to credit the sensor or to credit Panasonic for anything other than better in-camera processing.

    When I read them saying the same things about the in-camera JPeg results it's obvious (to me anyway) that they like the new processing better - period. Well besides the possibility for flawed or fudged tests anyway.


    .
    A very interesting post. I am a hard-core RAW person, but I also am prepared to question my assumptions.

    I too have seen jpegs improving steadily. It's not always the case, or across the board with regards to the subject or light, but often the jpeg will be very, very good.

    Output plays a part in this. If you are shooting for the screen, and the conditions are not too challenging, jpeg may well be what you need.

    I had an EP2 for a while, and I do agree with the much touted Olympus jpeg look: natural and very pleasing. I think Panasonic are working hard to meet this challenge.

    For now I will continue to shoot RAW or RAW + jpeg, but I think your point is well made. When I shoot both and the jpeg looks like what I had in mind, I will use it.

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    A question to those that have handled a G3:

    Does the touch screen allow you to move the focus point with a single touch, or a 'click and drag' kind of gesture? On the G1, you click the L button on the 4-way, then the bottom one, then move the focus point, all of which takes time.

    This is the only thing I'd use the touch screen for, but if it could do that, I'll get one.

    Those JPEGS look good—but with memory so cheap (I'm using two of the 16GB cards that I use for video here while in Italy) why wouldn't you shoot Raw plus JPEG as a matter of course (assuming the G1/2/3 can do that? I too only shoot Raw, for now.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Kit, I saw a video of using the G3 with the touch screen for sort of the equivalent of "pulling focus" but using an AF lens instead of using an MF lens. I'll have to see if I can find a link for it. I don't really have an interest much in video but this demonstration convinced me that touch for focus will be useful for me. It was a surfboard shop I think. They would touch the front board in the line of boards, then the next--and the next all in the foreground. Then the far background, back to one of the boards in the foreground. Very good demo of choosing focus with the touch screen. I'll look for the link and add it here.

    Found it.. The one I'm referring to is the last clip and its a snowboard shop not a surfboard--a bit of difference LOL.

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...o_review.shtml

    Diane

  30. #30
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Be very careful using this to compare. There are different areas of the image that can vary wildly, sometimes due to lens DOF. This happens a lot. There's a guy around that likes to compare for example the playing came card hearts/queens whatever but he has been way off when you look at the general shot.

    - Raist

    PS: And to be clear, not saying the G3 doesn't look good- it does but I find that you just can't take an image slice and conclude. I would still for example expect a K-5 to do better high ISO than the G3, overall.
    theres another guy around that inserts 'K5' into every thread on the planet

  31. #31
    Senior Member hot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    2,170
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG


  32. #32
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

    Ah; thank you all. I didn't mean use the touch screen to focus, I meant use the touch screen to move the focussing point (and then use the shutter half depress to actually focus)...

    I am thinking that the only change I make regularly is when moving from landscape to portrait; I move the focussing point to the top third of the frame, where the eyes might be.

    It's late here in Italy; I hope this makes sense. Thanks everyone

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •