GF-1 High ISO performance and Lightroom

[fotomik]

Just a quick heads-up, in case someone hasn't tried the Lightroom 3 Beta; you should:

... since it makes quite a difference. The original is underexposed about 3 stops at ISO 640, and then pushed 2.75 stops in LR, so it's about ISO 2500... And the difference is quite visible.

I can't wait for the full release of this.

 

[sojournerphoto]

It's still quite noisy though for iso 2500. This is actually intersting as I've been considering a micro 4/3 camera as an everyday reaplcement for my dslr and I'm not sure it's there yet fro high iso performance.

I do agree that I saw significant improvements using LR3 beta for my canon files too.

Mike

 

[igi]

I don't actually know if my eyes are deceiving me but it looks like high ISO photos indeed look better on LR3.

 

[fotomik]

Well, I printed the LR2-file at 30x40cm (or 15x20"?), and the noise is not very distracting to me. Of course I know, and can see, that it's noisy, but it's something that I could live with easily.
I'd say it replaces my Nikon D200 blow for blow as far as IQ is concerned for the things I'd use it.

Sure, not comparable to D300s or Canon 7D, or the FF-cameras, but that's not really expected, is it?

 

[gcogger]

It's still quite noisy though for iso 2500. This is actually intersting as I've been considering a micro 4/3 camera as an everyday reaplcement for my dslr and I'm not sure it's there yet fro high iso performance.

I do agree that I saw significant improvements using LR3 beta for my canon files too.

Mike

My first impressions are that my Panasonic G1 is about a stop worse than my Canon 40D (ISO800 on the G1 is similar to ISO1600 on the 40D).

 

[fotomik]

My first impressions are that my Panasonic G1 is about a stop worse than my Canon 40D (ISO800 on the G1 is similar to ISO1600 on the 40D).

Quite true, I see the same sort of difference on the screen, but on the print, again, for the things I use them, there really isn't that much difference. That's how I feel, at least.

 

[retnull]

The LR3 noise is indeed more pleasing to the eye than the LR2 noise.

Sort of a backhanded compliment to the GF-1, though....
(personally, I love m4/3 and my GH-1).

 

[januaryman]

@ sojournerphoto (about using this test to evaluated the CAMERA)

I may be wrong, but adding exposure to a shot already captured by the digital camera cannot not equate to raising a camera's ISO. I mean it's not the same thing. This is pushing an image that has already been processed by the camera and then pushed almost 3 stops via SOFTWARE. So using this to say the camera produces too much noise on a basis of badly under-exposed image by looking at post production results is just wrong.

The image can surely be used to show noise reduction improvements in LR3, but any reader of this thread should not base their evaluation of the G1's noise output on a calculated ISO rating. Apples and oranges.

I agree with the OP, however, when he claims to prove LR3 is better at handling noise in PP than LR2- a fact I'd never refute. But for comparison of noise in digital cameras, I suggest going to DPReview for their unmatched excellence in detailed camera reviews.

 

[fotomik]

Indeed, this was only intended as a realworld-example of noise reduction in two different versions of Lightroom, under rather dismal circumstances (the underexposure and it's subsequent correction that is.)

Make no judgement about the GF-1 from this shot. The properly exposed shots are certainly much better than this.

Besides, you don't know how much I've enlarged this.