c*net reviews GH1 -- slower?

[Ranger 9]

C*net's review of the Panasonic GH1 is out; see here.

One interesting factoid I noticed is that, down in the graph section, they seem to be claiming noticeably longer start-up time and slower shot-to-shot performance compared to the G1.

(Their reviewer also thought, subjectively, that the G1's high-ISO results looked a bit better than the GH1's, but that's an imponderable at this stage...)

The differences seem small, and I can see how the GH1 might take a bit longer to fire up, given its extra video overhead (longer self-test at boot time) and be fractionally slower from shot to shot because of its larger sensor (more data to read)... but I also wonder whether it might be due to some quirk in their test methodology, or differences between the as-tested lenses, or something else...?

 

[Jonas]

Isn't there something strange with the test method, or the presentation, if the "shutter lag" is different in bright and dim light respectively. From that I just understand I don't know what "shutter lag" is.

I also don't get the 0.9 second figure given for shot-to-shot timing. I don't have my G1 here right now but it certainly fires away a bit faster than that?

It doesn't matter much though, not to me and my needs at least. I knew before buying the G1 that it wasn't made for machine-gunning. When out taking images I also seldom turn the camera off. The start-up time in real life is very short that way and the camera is ready for use when I got it up in shooting position.

I have never read a C-net review earlier. I'm happy to see they notice the weak blue channel the G1 (and obviously the GH1 from samples I have seen) suffer from, but I don't know how to interpret their comments, what levels they are talking about and so on.

Thank you for the link.

 

[Ranger 9]

Isn't there something strange with the test method, or the presentation, if the "shutter lag" is different in bright and dim light respectively. From that I just understand I don't know what "shutter lag" is.

That's the tricky thing about reviews. If they include AF time, then "shutter lag" easily could be a lot longer in dim light, as the camera struggles to confirm focus. On the other hand, if they use a purely electrical measurement of the time that elapses between the shutter-firing impulse and the actual opening of the shutter, then their results won't necessarily correlate with an average user's real-world experience.

I don't know how c*net does their measurements, and I couldn't find any footnotes or methodology to explain it, which seems a bit casual on their part... then again, people who rely on c*net reviews probably are gadget buffs or computer techno-heads, rather than photography enthusiasts like most of us...