dazedgonebye
Veteran
As far as the sensor is concerned, is anyone in a position to compare the G-1 to the R-D1?
I read all the reviews and I still don't seem to have a good mental point of reference for noise levels on the G-1. Statements that the noise is good till 800 iso and not so good at 1600 don't really help much. I mean, reviewers used to pixel peeping $5k FF cameras are bound to find fault in a consumer level half-frame sensor.
I think there is also a great deal of expectation creep. What would have been called "clean 800 iso) when my 300D came out would be considered very noisy by today's standards.
I am familiar with the noise characteristics of the R-D1 and the 300D at 800 iso. I consider them to be adequate but mostly something I'd like to avoid.
If the G1 can deliver a stop or 2 improvement on the R-D1, I'd be very pleased with it.
Any thoughts?
I read all the reviews and I still don't seem to have a good mental point of reference for noise levels on the G-1. Statements that the noise is good till 800 iso and not so good at 1600 don't really help much. I mean, reviewers used to pixel peeping $5k FF cameras are bound to find fault in a consumer level half-frame sensor.
I think there is also a great deal of expectation creep. What would have been called "clean 800 iso) when my 300D came out would be considered very noisy by today's standards.
I am familiar with the noise characteristics of the R-D1 and the 300D at 800 iso. I consider them to be adequate but mostly something I'd like to avoid.
If the G1 can deliver a stop or 2 improvement on the R-D1, I'd be very pleased with it.
Any thoughts?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Never owned/used a RD-D1. But I understand its sensor is the same as the Nikon D70. At least it has the same specs and is from the same generation.
Having shot tens of thousands 1600 ISO shots with the D70, I am extremely familiar with its limitations there. I also have taken quite a good look at the hi-ISO pics of the G1 I found on-line.
Failing an A-B test, I'd say they look about similar. Acceptable at 800, usable at 1600, but not pretty.
The advantage your are looking for in the G1 it most likely can't offer. You are getting into Nikon D300/D700 teritory there.
Having shot tens of thousands 1600 ISO shots with the D70, I am extremely familiar with its limitations there. I also have taken quite a good look at the hi-ISO pics of the G1 I found on-line.
Failing an A-B test, I'd say they look about similar. Acceptable at 800, usable at 1600, but not pretty.
The advantage your are looking for in the G1 it most likely can't offer. You are getting into Nikon D300/D700 teritory there.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I'd expect to see an improvement in noise characteristics based on the tests of the G1 I saw in Luminous Landscape. Eventually we may get to see a side-by-side comparison.
I'd think the G1 offers other advantages compared to the RD-1:
less or no vignetting
lighter body (and less expensive)
more accurate focusing
faster operation
better battery life
larger SD card
takes a huge variety of lenses
and so forth...
Advantages of RD-1:
RF
analogue-style hard buttons and film advance
smaller crop
I'd think the G1 offers other advantages compared to the RD-1:
less or no vignetting
lighter body (and less expensive)
more accurate focusing
faster operation
better battery life
larger SD card
takes a huge variety of lenses
and so forth...
Advantages of RD-1:
RF
analogue-style hard buttons and film advance
smaller crop
You can compare the noise numbers from the Pop Photo review, but keep in mind that since then there has been a firmware upgrade for the G1 which is supposed to have impoved the high sensitivity performance, so that is a good thing. Also, with noise reduction post processing how much improvement while maintaining sharpness is possible?
From what I have seen and read in the past weeks, I am convinced that the G1's performance is at least as good as APSC DSLRs up to iso 800. For me, the jury is still out above that, but again, this is all an opinion, not fact.
From what I have seen and read in the past weeks, I am convinced that the G1's performance is at least as good as APSC DSLRs up to iso 800. For me, the jury is still out above that, but again, this is all an opinion, not fact.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I have an R-D1 and G1. I'll do some tests and post the results here. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see? I'm not a pixel peeper so I don't usually do A-B tests.
/T
/T
back alley
IMAGES
in the 'my g1 arrived today' thread, i have posted some shots taken at 800 iso, also in my flickr, if you care to look.
i am quite ok with the look of the 800 iso shots, i have not had any printed yet though.
joe
i am quite ok with the look of the 800 iso shots, i have not had any printed yet though.
joe
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I tell you what's driving me.
I've got an old Canon 300D. The G1 would be a replacement for that camera and for most of my 35mm film needs (Hexar AF will be pry'd from my cold, dead fingers).
I just want to be sure I'm picking up something more than just a smaller camera. I want significantly better image quality than I'm getting from my several years old DSLR. I would think that enough sensor technology has gone under the bridge to ensure that.
Comparing the G1 to my 300D I see:
Half the size (or there abouts) and twice the pixels. Now if I knew I could get a stop or two better low light performance, I'd be pretty well sold.
My original question was sort of a back door way of finding this out, since I figured I'd have better odds of someone doing a comparison to a R-D1 than a 300D.
I've got an old Canon 300D. The G1 would be a replacement for that camera and for most of my 35mm film needs (Hexar AF will be pry'd from my cold, dead fingers).
I just want to be sure I'm picking up something more than just a smaller camera. I want significantly better image quality than I'm getting from my several years old DSLR. I would think that enough sensor technology has gone under the bridge to ensure that.
Comparing the G1 to my 300D I see:
Half the size (or there abouts) and twice the pixels. Now if I knew I could get a stop or two better low light performance, I'd be pretty well sold.
My original question was sort of a back door way of finding this out, since I figured I'd have better odds of someone doing a comparison to a R-D1 than a 300D.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I wouldn't call myself a pixel peeper either. Still, I would think the chance to test a brand new type of camera against the established competition would be compelling.
Heck, you can even use the same lenses.
If you get a chance, I'm sure many here would find the results informative.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Ooh, yes please!
I would be very interested in the following comparison:
Same scene (something shot in a church from a tripod would be great)
Same equivalent focal length
Same exposure FOR THE IMAGE (tweak in camera to get it right if needed). By this I mean that the images should be properly exposed and look about the same, even if the ISO/F-stop/aperture doesn't quite match. Otherwise we compare apples to oranges.
Then I would like to see shots at 800 and 1600, with NR off or at minumum and with NR on (dunno how configurable it is). Shoot JPEGS.
The same, but then for RAW shots converted to JPEGS afterwards.
That's a tall order
but it would be nice to be able to compare them.
outbackphoto.com has the same ISO tests done with many different cameras. Reviews are done as they receive review cameras, so one test might have been done a year or more before another. I'm not familiar with all the Canon DSLRs, the comparison you are looking for might be on the site.
For example, below are ISO tests of the G1 and the M8:
G1 ISO 400
M8 ISO 320
G1 ISO 800
M8 ISO 640
M8 ISO 1250
Original scene:
For example, below are ISO tests of the G1 and the M8:
G1 ISO 400
M8 ISO 320
G1 ISO 800
M8 ISO 640
M8 ISO 1250
Original scene:
Johnmcd
Well-known
You have probably already looked at my thread here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66839 to see 800 and 1600 R-D1 images.
I heard that the sensor is from the D100 (not the D70 for what it is worth). I have never had a D100 but people that have had both cameras say that the R-D1 output is very different.
Cheers - John