Anyone know if the G2 is has less noise than the EP-2 for higher ISO's?

[awilder]

Given the cost of the M9, my inclination is to go with micro 4/3 probably the Lumix G2. I think I'd prefer the handling with the built-in grip of the G1 to the slim EP-1 when mounting heavy lenses like the 90/2 AA or 135/2.8 Elmarit-M. The biggest knock against the G1 is the noise at higher ISO's, something the EP-2 handles a little better. Since the G2 is supposed to have an improved processor allowing for an effective ISO of 6400, will this now at least match or beat the EP-2 for relatively clean images at say ISO 1600? Has anyone read anything other than Panasonic's hype?

 

[ampguy]

I'm interested in this too. I doubt anyone really knows, since even dpreview's hands on unit had pre-release firmware that even acted up with the touch screen. The big new things seem to be new video modes, and the touch screen. To be seen is how well they work.

The new 6400 ISO setting might indicate better noise reduction, but images, and dxomark reviews show all of the 4/3rds offerings, even the latest Olympus and through the GF1 to be quite a bit below an entry level DSLR or APS-C offering, so I wouldn't expect the G2 to exceed an M8 or RD1 anytime soon.

With the longer lenses you are mentioning, you might benefit from the in-camera stab. of the Olys.

I'm keeping an eye on the EPL1 or its successor when the price drops for the tiny size, and M-mounting capability. I think that's pretty much going to squeeze out the best of the 4/3 sensor size for a while, with it's tiny sensor (relative to APS/FF, film) anyways and diffraction limits.

 

[count_zero]

I don't know what the criteria DXOmark uses to determine good vs. bad. It seems like that crop factor plays a role in their rating. From numerous image comparisons online, the EP-1/2 out performs many APS-C offerings at high ISO.

 

[M4streetshooter]

I would think the Pens would out perform the Panny...

 

[rover]

I would think the Pens would out perform the Panny...

To date that is the consensus I have seen regarding high iso performance.

 

[ampguy]

Ok

Ok

I haven't done a lot of side by side comparisons, I know the reviews all show the EP2 having less chroma noise than the Panny 4/3rds.

The comparison for high iso behavior in dxomark shows the current EP2 at about the level of 3-4 year old DSLRs (e.g. just below the Nikon D40x), and a good 20-30% below current shipping APS-C DSLRs (for example, the Nikon D300, and Canon 40D).

I don't know what the criteria DXOmark uses to determine good vs. bad. It seems like that crop factor plays a role in their rating. From numerous image comparisons online, the EP-1/2 out performs many APS-C offerings at high ISO.

 

[Finder]

Here is a link to DPreview of the E-P1 noise test (I don't think Olympus went backward with the E-P2):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page36.asp

It seem to hold its own against APS-C size DSLRs.

 

[ampguy]

ehh

ehh

When you magnify them on screen (and I would guess in prints), there is quite a lot of detail loss - the heavy handed noise reduction is evident, but it could be effective depending on level of detail wanted in the end image.

Yes, the EP-2 gets it better, at least according to reviews like dpreview, and dxomark.

But not like an APS sized sensor, there's just no substitute for the increased size and momentum behind the processing technology behind this size sensor.

Take a look at RD1 or Nikon D70 images of wildlife. The technology of these cameras is generations behind u4/3, but the images have a lot of detail without a lot of heavy noise reduction processing.

Here is a link to DPreview of the E-P1 noise test (I don't think Olympus went backward with the E-P2):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page36.asp

It seem to hold its own against APS-C size DSLRs.

 

[count_zero]

That's ironic considering the Olympus E-3's claim to fame is for it's superior use in wildlife photography. And you figure the current m43 sensor is more advanced than a 3 year old 4/3 sensor. A larger sensor is so over rated. As sensor technology improves the only "advantage" a larger sensor gives you is larger heavier lenses.

 

[ampguy]

well

well

I agree with you that on the long tele side of things, 4/3 lenses are smaller, but on the wide and normal sides, we've yet to see many smaller lenses of equivalent 35mm focal length be much smaller. There's the MFT 17 and 20 primes, but are they much smaller than small 35-40 lenses for FF 35mm, APS and 1.3x sensors? If the 35 Summicron and some of the CV lenses were any tinier, I'm not sure I could easily focus or handle them. Some of the cine converted fast 25s are smaller than a Canon or Leica 50/0.95, but are they equal in image quality?

That's ironic considering the Olympus E-3's claim to fame is for it's superior use in wildlife photography. And you figure the current m43 sensor is more advanced than a 3 year old 4/3 sensor. A larger sensor is so over rated. As sensor technology improves the only "advantage" a larger sensor gives you is larger heavier lenses.

 

[Finder]

When you magnify them on screen (and I would guess in prints), there is quite a lot of detail loss - the heavy handed noise reduction is evident, but it could be effective depending on level of detail wanted in the end image.

Yes, the EP-2 gets it better, at least according to reviews like dpreview, and dxomark.

But not like an APS sized sensor, there's just no substitute for the increased size and momentum behind the processing technology behind this size sensor.

Take a look at RD1 or Nikon D70 images of wildlife. The technology of these cameras is generations behind u4/3, but the images have a lot of detail without a lot of heavy noise reduction processing.

There does not seem to be a loss of detail in the review comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page26.asp

 

[ampguy]

agreed

agreed

At your link below, with ISO 100/200, the resolution is very good.

Here are the links for higher ISO comparisons:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page18.asp

Move your mouse over the 800 and higher ISOs

If they look good to you, that's all that matters. To me, they are a bit noisy. But the EP2 and EPL1 improve a bit over the EP1.

There does not seem to be a loss of detail in the review comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page26.asp

 

[Finder]

Depending on jpg or raw, or depending on the type of noise, sometimes the m4/3 does better than APS-C and sometimes it does not. This is hardly showing that the larger APS-C sensors perform better, which I think was your argument.

 

[M4streetshooter]

The Pen 1 & 2 both are better in low light than the G1. I have all 3. At 2000, the difference is startling. AND....the pens focus slower for sure but more accurate in very low light. That's not a big deal cause who's in a hurry.....

The Pen's are great cameras with a certain Leica M feel....bear with me, it's a very nice form that satisfies that area of the RF brain. It's an odd situation, the G1 has many great features and works great but in low light, the pen shines...