gdi
Veteran
from my bedroom window.
gdi
Veteran
You are probably right - I just did some sharpening and cropped in LR. It happens to be the most interesting shot (other than my kids!) I have taken wih the G1. 
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Would you mind showing the original, uncropped image, to show just how much "heavily cropped" is?
gdi
Veteran
dng88
Dennis
Wah! Nice place to live, isn't it? What if you have the 45-200.
Diane B
Member
I did some not very rigidly done tests with the G1 and the 5D using nonL lens but nice primes (28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8) and the G1 kit lens, 14-45. It was a dull day, grey lifeless skies, etc. I did use a tripod, same settings (knowing that sensor size would affect it but didn't deal with that but kept it in mind when comparing). The scenes had lots of foliage, detail--and I have to say I am a lot more confident of shooting with the G1 now. I feel the G1 shots (forgot to say I shot in RAW and processed in LR 2.2 which I use all the time) need more contrast, clarity and a bit more capture sharpening to begin to bring them to their best--and a reasonable comparison (even really thinking its not a fair comparison), but that's easily done--even presets in LR could be created. I had some areas of very dark shadow and the G1 files were able to have detail brought out without a lot of noise resulting also.
I also have been shooting some test shots indoors with very low light--and surprised what I can get with higher ISOs--I'm used to the 5D so have a fairly high standard. I wish the lens were faster--but then they would be more expensive and larger I assume.
I don't have legacy lenses--surely wish I did--but I'm waiting for the 20 f/1.7 and I may look around for some others that will give me what I like from images. In the meantime, the 14-45 is a very nice lens and the 45-200 can also give some very nice results though I don't feel its as good as the 14-45.
To sum it up---I'd add more contrast, clarity, capture sharpening to any file to get the best out of it. I don't shoot in jpeg so can't compare there.
I neglected to say that using the MF assist is just terrific in many circumstances though the AF works very well. Using MF assist makes it possible to put my focus wherever I want it (as well a the ability to move your AF around with a small change in the settings)--a lot more difficult to do MF focusing with the 5D and I often MF with tilt shift and macro lenses so am used to doing it. Even with an anglefinder C on the 5D--I would say the G1 is much easier.
Diane
I also have been shooting some test shots indoors with very low light--and surprised what I can get with higher ISOs--I'm used to the 5D so have a fairly high standard. I wish the lens were faster--but then they would be more expensive and larger I assume.
I don't have legacy lenses--surely wish I did--but I'm waiting for the 20 f/1.7 and I may look around for some others that will give me what I like from images. In the meantime, the 14-45 is a very nice lens and the 45-200 can also give some very nice results though I don't feel its as good as the 14-45.
To sum it up---I'd add more contrast, clarity, capture sharpening to any file to get the best out of it. I don't shoot in jpeg so can't compare there.
I neglected to say that using the MF assist is just terrific in many circumstances though the AF works very well. Using MF assist makes it possible to put my focus wherever I want it (as well a the ability to move your AF around with a small change in the settings)--a lot more difficult to do MF focusing with the 5D and I often MF with tilt shift and macro lenses so am used to doing it. Even with an anglefinder C on the 5D--I would say the G1 is much easier.
Diane
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
I think so, but my wife is tiring of living in the sticks! I fear I may have to move to a... gulp... Suburb....:bang:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Diane, what ISOs are you speaking of when you say 'higher ISOs?'
Diane B
Member
ISO800--and I even tried ISO1600 a few times--that needs NR a bit, but much better than I expected. It seems best for b & w IMO for 1600 though.
I feel you have to have a pretty good exposure at those ISOs and not expect to push and pull them much in processing, but when you have to have that ISO to get the shutter speed you need--its not bad at all. I would certainly prefer ISO800 but there are times LOL. I have a test shot of my dog on my Pbase site at ISO800 that allowed me to shoot handheld. Very little issue with noise in this one. I think it depends--if its a very shadowy shot with lots of dark areas--that's going to show color noise particularly at SIO 1600 so I think you try what you have to and see what works in each circumstance. BUT---for a small camera to be this good at higher ISOs---I'm really pleased.
Right now on dpreview (Panasonic forum) there is a thread about higher ISOs--there is an ISO1000 shot--quite clean--pretty good example.
Diane
Last edited: