Panasonic GX1 gets DxOmarked. The same quality as the G3.
The new Panasonic GX1 just got DxOmarked! The results aren’t that much different from the G3 which has the same GX1 sensor. There are only minor differences as you can see from the image on top. Hope the new year will bring us some kind of major improvement on the Panasonic sensor quality!
Click here to play with the DxOmark camera comparison tool!
Panasonic GX1 preorder links: Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Paul Rattay: The GX1 is a fragile piece of hardware. ...
Comment from JF: Yes ok, I mean the two lowest iso points...
Comment from DR: Well, we can see where it's headed by lo...
Comment from Bob B.: JF...um...the GX1 um...has no ISO 100???...
3232
5 months ago |foveon give it a rest.. all sigma cameras suck.
you write some fancy names like “random pixel array” but there is NO indication yet that these things will really improve a sensor or if it is only marketing blablah to sell new cameras.
don´t sound like a kid who sees a new toy.
admin
5 months ago |wow.
Grzegorz Maj
5 months ago |lol, wrong forum
Esa Tuunanen
5 months ago |Yep. We don’t need more buzzwords and bullshit called as marketing but real advances.
Ever seen actual reviews praise Foveon sensor cameras for low noise level?
Their sensitivity sucks compared to even light wasting traditional bayer CFA sensors and instead of higher effective resolution both better DR and lower noise are far more needed.
For getting rid of CFA this should be the route pursued:
http://www.43rumors.com/foveon-like-sensor-patent-from-panasonic-flash-sync-patent-from-olympus/
Principle is similar to three sensor video camcorders which have both higher sensitivity and effective resolution compared to single bayer CFA sensor camcorder. But instead of separate sensors for colour channels it’s all integrated into one package.
As for organic, let’s wait for confirmation that tech actually gives something better and isn’t weaker in anything important than pure CMOS sensor.
And Fuji has been playing with sensors differing from traditional bayer CFA sensors since ten years ago and always dropped well short of hype.
If different CFA actually increased effective resolution so much don’t you think that bigger sensor makers hadn’t already used it? And it definitely needs way different and more complex demosaicing.
frosti7
5 months ago |Esa, wrong, sorry.
Panalympus need Foveon sensor (or alike) until then they will ALWAYS be behind sony\canon sensors.
3232
5 months ago |you just repeat the nonsens other people tell you.
Igor
5 months ago |However, neither Sony nor Canon use “Foveon sensor (or alike)”. New Canon G1X sensor is almost the same size as micro 4/3. Let’s wait how it would show itself against the Panasonic sensor.
Panasonic, as we can see from the already published patents, is working on many of the mentioned above technologies. Don’t you think, if they created some new “revolutionary” and commercially viable sensor they would hide it from us.
Assuming that the DxO tests proof us something, it is remarkable that even with increasing number of pixels with the same sensor size (PEN vs EP3) some technological ideas allowed Panasonic to keep (and even slightly improve) the new sensor parameters.
BLI
5 months ago |5-6 years ago, the Fuji point and shoot cameras with EXR sensors were considered better than any other p & s cameras wrt sensor, and were used by pro photographers as tiny back-up cameras. The Fuji DSLRs in Nikon D200 bodies were highly regarded. The tests/pictures I’ve seen of the X100 indicates a better sensor than that of the newest Sonys. To brand Fuji’s claims as hype, and state that that is all they’ve been doing the last 10 years, is quite remarkable. In my view, there is every reason to expect that the sensor in the X-Pro 1 is very good.
Kylberg
5 months ago |I thought the Fuji X100 sensor basically was the same as in Nikon D90 – a Sony sensor.
Esa Tuunanen
5 months ago |> EXR sensors were considered better than any other p & s cameras wrt sensor, and were used by pro photographers as tiny back-up cameras
Which in no way means that they were really revolutionary like claimed by marketing hype.
Something like decade ago they were playing with different photosite layout on sensor and claimed it to be able to produce lot higher resolution final picture than number of photosites. (like foveon claims 3x number of pixels compared to bayer CFA sensor)
Obviously that didn’t work so well as advertised considering even they dumped that.
And for that revolutionary noise performance which was their next claim…
It was lot more about very strong NR processing and incrementally better sensor than some revolutionary sensor.
Pictures at those “revolutionary higher ISOs” had strong plasticky look with lower contrast details seriously smeared by NR where other compacts outputted images with strong visible noise. (for stationary object shooting image stabilization embraced by others lot earlier evened difference)
Though that DSLR sensor with smaller less light gathering (=less sensitive) photosites in between main photosites for improvement in highlight dynamic range sure worked at the cost of more complex demosaicing.
Curious thing is that no one else has used these sensors despite of most camera brands buying sensors from outside source.
So was Fuji unwilling to sell them to others?
I don’t believe that sensor division would have been run just as slave for camera division so it would be only natural to sell sensors to others for making more money for the whole company. (like Sony does)
So was it that these sensors are notably more expensive to make causing others to look their advantage not worth the extra cost or what?
Like it usually goes with technology and basically any product it’s only common sense to expect less that what marketing claims and believe only when advances have been actually proven.
grzegorz maj
5 months ago |I wonder why DXO never marked any foveon camera. This is true that foveon is bad at high iso, but it has great dynamic range, and tonal depth, and sharpness.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucbyhet/6101405114/sizes/l/
Bob B.
5 months ago |Hey…3232…there are TEN, count’em…TEN, tips for you here!!!
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/anger-management/MH00102
Bob B.
5 months ago |DR
5 months ago |“Would be nice to have something new like foveon, organic or random pixel technology”
Admin, you’re staring at the wrong brand if you want any of that action.
If you want a Porsche, you wouldn’t go to the Ford dealer would you?
I’ve ordered an XP1 from a reputable dealer and will wait for m43 to catch up. Its crazy that Panasonic are so prolific with lenses yet so slack with sensors, every year they fall further and further behind.
Nothing needs to be said about the add-on lenses, just laugh. Surely they are not real, Panasonic is playing a joke on us? HaHa, very funny Panasonic, you had us there.
Now go back to work on a new sensor!
Jesper
5 months ago |But that “random pixel technology” has not impressed yet. Need to wait for a throughful review to know what that sensor is really capable of.
3232
5 months ago |and it will not.. wanna bet?
007
5 months ago |Yes, how much you’ve got?
John Krumm
5 months ago |Hey, my E5 still beats it by 1 point. Not sure why, since the G3 and GX1 clearly have better DR and noise levels at iso 400 and higher, according to their measurements.
Archer Sully
5 months ago |I gave up trying to figure out exactly what DxOMark is telling us years ago.
Esrhan
5 months ago |People ought to be satisfied at some point. I’m still content with my little over a year old GF1 and am happy to see from the sideline what new products come out. Waiting for something to catch up will never actually happen since a new thing is always around the corner.
Esa Tuunanen
5 months ago |> People ought to be satisfied at some point.
That’s when performance is up to that what’s possible from photosite/pixel size of GH2/G3 (~16MP effective) sensors. Sony’s 24MP APS-C sensor has only slightly larger pixels and both DR and SNR are far ahead.
lnqe-M
5 months ago |One thing is important for Panasonic, and the realy Global shutter.
Anonymous
5 months ago |GH1 remains the best m43 sensor ever made. Not to mention the multiaspect feature.
JF
5 months ago |Sad…Only “improvements” since GH1 are software fiddling. I stay with my GH1 until it doesn’t work or a real improvement on sensor performances
Bob B.
5 months ago |I really think the GX1 is a great camera…as it the G3. They have a lot of improvements on my GF1 (which will be sold to the highest bidder tonight on eBay!!!!). The GF1 is still a very valid camera.
Everybody is so nuts about the improvements. One thing I am sure of right now…the small size, hugh variety of lenses, the speed of use and the user interface creates a VERY good photography experience. I know that the files may be soemwhat better on the new Fuji X-Pro 1 with better high, high ISO performance….but the Pany MFT system as a whole has the Fuji beat for now, for my needs… It has it all. I am guessing we have to eventually see a sensor revolution here, though…right?
I know that Panasonic is getting more and more stiff competition.
Kylberg
5 months ago |Agrees with what Bob says! I have the G3 wich produces HQ images. Using RAW you can extract a lot from it’s files. The decent pricing enables you to follow development and invest in new and better cameras and lenses.
I would like to have the smoothness of Canon 5DMkII files though – m4/3 is not there – yet
Bob B.
5 months ago |yeah…we just need more dynamic range. It will come.
Ranger 9
5 months ago |“Would be nice to have something new like foveon, organic or random pixel technology…”
Interesting. Until the day before yesterday, nobody had ever heard of “random pixel technology,” and all of a sudden it’s something we’ve all absolutely GOT to have (even though nobody has seen any actual results yet.)
Ditto “organic” (as of now, a mythical beast) or Foveon (a technology that has been around for years without convincing most of the marketplace that it is really better.)
It sounds as if we are just asking Panasonic for exciting new buzzwords! How about if they announce that their next camera will incorporate “unicorn technology” or “flying pig technology” or “Goldilocks technology” (not too hot, not too cold, just right!) Those terms would be just as meaningful as the ones noted above…
Vivek
5 months ago |LOL!
What I wonder is, suppose Panasonic have already done the “random pixel” mixing in their GH-2….
Well said about the “organic sensor”. MYTHICAL is the word. I am sure no one who keeps harping about these catch phrases has any clue as to what it actually involves and might produce.
Bob B.
5 months ago |Well…if you could get the filter out from in front of the sensor in MFT…there would be an improvement right there!….of course…the sensor would then have to change. …
3232
5 months ago |that´s done long ago for some cameras.. and it DID not work miracles.
it will be better without an AA filter but you guys seem to think that will catapult sensors to new higths… it is not gonna happen.
Bob B.
5 months ago |3232 please try just ONE of the ten suggestions.
Vivek
5 months ago |It would be but it can not be done. The m4/3rds have 3 separate filters. One of which is epoxied on to the sensor (a flex strip in case of Panasonic cams) which is non-removable.
The thick stack (AA, UV/IR cut) is *replaceable* with another glass of similar thickness but not removable entirely.
The dust shaker can be removed and the camera will still function (no shaking off of the dust though).
It is a horrible construction and most of the money goes into it.
I tried to contact (literally a wild stab in the dark) Pana about it. Nothing happened.
frosti7
5 months ago |AMAZING ACHIEVEMENT FOR PANASONIC !!!
I have yet saw a company that on span of several years gets LOWER dxo mark with every new camera!
The GH2 scored lower then GH1
G3 lower then GH2 – and GX1 got one point lower then G3!!!
Incredible! Panasonic, whats next? would you break the “50″ barrier with GH3?
Bob B.
5 months ago |frosti….I bet you short-sell stock, too…don’t you?
duncan
5 months ago |I have both GH1 and GH2. When the scene is bright, I always use GH1 instead of GH2, because GH1 has cleaner output than GH2 at the base ISO.
JF
5 months ago |@ frosti7: Sad but it’s true…I think the sensor should stay 12 MP and improve DR and noise, banding in shadows is a bad issue too in my GH1.
Efat
5 months ago |The sensor of GH1 remains the best m43 sensor ever made. Not to mention the multiaspect feature.
Panasonic, could You please produce a GX2 with a GH1 (or better) sensor and a built-in EVF?
Aaa
5 months ago |Then you can buy another GH1. Which has a GH1 sensor with EVF built in. Idiot
simonl
5 months ago |If they’re the same sensor why does the GX1 spec say it’s a CMOS and the G3 spec say it’s a Live MOS? Is it the same thing?
Also, this is fairly telling: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/754%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/724%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/632%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic
I don’t shoot sports so do I still have a pretty good camera and I should keep my money where it is? You bet.
Pana and Oly now need to step up a gear or 3 and offer radically better sensors rather than very small incremental upgrades.
Vivek
5 months ago |“If they’re the same sensor why does the GX1 spec say it’s a CMOS and the G3 spec say it’s a Live MOS? Is it the same thing?”
ALL m4/3rds sensors are NMOS sensors (a variety of CMOS) and are made by Panasonic. Olympus coined the phrase “live MOS” that has no technical significance at all, only a marketing ploy.
DR
5 months ago |This is pretty relevant too:
http://tinyurl.com/6ubowvu
It’s a dxo comparison of GX1, Fuji X100 and Canon 5DII
(dxomark url too long, substituted tinyurl)
Pretty obvious who is doing the R&D and who is sitting on their hands.
Fan
5 months ago |Interesting, the DxO mark does not care about resolution. So, a 7 year old camera can get the same scores as one from today. For example, the Konica Minolta DYNAX 7D gets a better score and better sub-scores than the E-P3.
I still prefer the E-P3, I’m sure.
So, does the DxO mark mean anything?
Trevor
5 months ago |You wouldn’t expect an Olympus VR-350 at 16mp to get a better rating than an EP3 just for more megapixels, would you? Then why should a Konica get punished for only having 6mp?
DxO mark evaluates aspects of a sensor independent of resolution and sensor size so that raw performance of the sensor can be compared. Raw sensor performance doesn’t necessarily equate to the best photograph, but it is the best quantitative comparison of cameras you can get.
JF
5 months ago |Dynamic range, color depth will not be improved by number of pixels, it is what is…
Zonkie
5 months ago |How about Oly buying a sensor from that company called invisage? They claim to have an organic sensor (QuantumFilm) with global shutter (QuantumShutter). They got funding from Intel and were supposed to be sampling by last summer and their sensors appearing on small devices early this year, though since then they said nothing new.
I wonder if we will ever see this sensor in action and in a big size format.
http://www.invisageinc.com/
MJr
5 months ago |Why is there a rectangle cutout in the middle of that G3 image? You can see right through it !:D
Rutrem
5 months ago |DxO Mark sucks, the camera is not just the sensor.
A great camera with a bad lens will produce bed photos
A bad camera with a great lens will deliver better photos.
Until the sensor will start produce images without the lens the sensor alone is not the only part responsible for ur images.
DR
5 months ago |Its a chain. Put something ‘bad’ in the chain and it becomes the limiting factor.
A bad sensor or a bad lens in an otherwise good camera will limit the output to the best possible from the bad component.
A bad camera with a great lens will not deliver better photos.
Sensor is core, it cannot be upgraded in your camera but you can throw a rubbish lens away and get a better one.
So if a ILC camera is ‘bad’ because of the lens, you can fix it. If it is ‘bad’ because of the sensor, you’re stuffed, you have to buy a whole new camera.
david
5 months ago |But if the sensor is bad, you only have to throw away one camera body to improve your whole collection of lenses. Think of the cost savings!
bilgy_no1
5 months ago |I don’t think DXO ever called a mft camera ‘bad’. That’s just what the diviners on this forum infer from the numbers.
Jason
5 months ago |Bring on the pro cams
Yun
5 months ago |GX1 is an excellent camera ever created in M4/3 world . It’s the capability to perform under low light make it triumph among the rest . But it always being overshadowed by NEX & now X Pro .
Panasonic or Olympus have to react faster if they still intend to retain their mirrorless position .
Marcelo Guarini
5 months ago |Well, I have always taken the DxO mark with a grain of salt. Yes, I know that DR of the 12 Mpix Oly sensor is limited, I suffer that, yes I know the noise of the sensor is also limited (to around ISO 800), but in the end, results are not to different from the big boys, at least for my style of photography and my maximum print size, which is around 15 X 20″.
Last monday and tuesday, together with around 120 colleagues, I was at a strategic planning meeting of our school of engineering. Many of them brought their cameras (Mainly Canon 50D’s, 60D’s, 7D’s, and Nikon D300 and D7000). Mine was the only Olympus (E-P3 with 45mm and 12mm), and was considered by most of them as a toy camera. Well, that was until I started to show my pictures in my 17″ macbook pro calibrated screen. All of them were stunned, and asked me to load their images in my computer for comparison, and to say the true, their images were not as good as mines. To be honest, they were using kit zooms or other lenses of lesser quality. I told them that lens quality is better than Mpixels and for Canon users I suggested the 100mm macro or 70-200 white zoom, simmilar equivalents for the Nikon users. Quality of lens is far more important than the quality of the sensor
We hired a photographer to document the event, he used a Canon 7D, mainly with the 24-105mm L lens. When he saw my photos he was quite impressed and as soon as I mentioned him I also have an E-P2, he ask me to sell him the body. I did it for US $450.
Here is a full size picture I took during the event with the E-P3 and 45mm lens. Just a jpeg straight out of the camera, no manipulation whatsoever.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42632173@N08/6681706553/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Regards
Tom
5 months ago |MacBook Pro 17″ has 8 bit display and 1920 x 1200 resolution…at what point do sensor advances not matter for that viewing condition….
BLI
5 months ago |Wrt to resolution — it is possible to zoom in, you know.
CRB
5 months ago |4 years of almost no progress….take a look at a sony sensor 4 years ago and now…huge difference…
Anonymous
5 months ago |M43 users are getting shafted, I got the E-P1 and still no sensor improvement whatsoever. Look at Sony, and how the quality goes up.
If the new Oly camera to be announced on february is not containing a new sensor I will give up.
Mungo
5 months ago |No surprise there, considering the logic of any major manufacturer when they come up with new stuff: no company has resources to come up with revolutionary products every step of the way. Still, it would have been nicer to have better results on GX1…
Pixnat
5 months ago |Who cares about DXO?
In 2011, a photographer have made award-winning pictures with a 2003 5Mpix cameras, which is even not rated by DXO.
Did he care about DXO? certainly not…
Open your eyes floks, and care about what is important, especially if you don’t know how to interpret DXO scores!!!
Raist
5 months ago |Well yes, but other things equal, this becomes important when you swipe that credit card. Of course if people went with what’s really important we wouldn’t see so many upgrades so fast in a row.
Pixnat
5 months ago |“Of course if people went with what’s really important we wouldn’t see so many upgrades so fast in a row.”
Sad but true. What a waste of time, ressources and, nowadays, money (see Olympus huge losses…)…
Mike
5 months ago |You can’t compare image quality based on Dxo: E-5 and E-3 have the same score and the same values (except high iso, where the E-3 is better!!!)
Raist
5 months ago |Actually the E-3 and E-5 have pretty close performance in ISO and DR. The E-5 has more resolution due to higher resolution sensor and weaker AA filter. Both have about the same DR. The E-3 more in shadows, the E-5 more in highlights.
People like to point at DXo but they don’t bother reading what they show to really understand it.
Mike
5 months ago |Exactly! Same DR, but less clipped highlights – this can make a big difference. Also the higher resolution, which is not part of the score (as far as I know).
So the same number of points means nothing – and I agree: its good the have “scientific” tests like dxo. But I don’t think the score makes any sense. This is what I wanted to say
Zonkie
5 months ago |These results are based on raw output. The biggest advantage of the E-5 over the E-3 is in JPEGs. Otherwise they are pretty similar, as DxO correctly shows.
Yes, a bit more resolution for the E-5, but with the same kind of sensor more resolution means more noise. Once printed at the same size (converted from raw), images will look about the same.
Regarding clipped highlights on E-3, if you shoot raw you have to underexpose a bit and bring exposure up a bit in post. That’s what the E-5 does with it’s JPEGs. It doesn’t mean more dynamic range, it’s just better technique for shooting.
user
5 months ago |get used to it, panasonic screws you back an forth and you stil buy the crap.
get ready for the olympus and gh3 wonder sensor,
now some will say dxo is biased, lololololol, all 43 suck except the old CCD’s from kodak
user
5 months ago |I’d welcome a tweaked GH-1 sensor in the new olympus, all other G3/GH2 and the rest suck to no end
Pixnat
5 months ago |“…the rest suck to no end”
What a stupid statement!
My E-P1 still takes excellent pictures. My E-1 too, and it’s even not DXO rated.
Robert
5 months ago |He said the ccd from kodak are ok so the e1 is excluded i guess
Jordan S.
5 months ago |Ok, all of you need to know a few things about DxO, and a few things about these cameras. I own the GH2, GH1 and GX1…I can speak to their respective qualities quite well.
1. DxO’s measurements do not take any aesthetic quality into account…it’s strictly a numbers game. You may think: This is great! The bad part is, it makes you think, looking at the graphs, that the GH1 has the best noise control of any m4/3 camera. It DOESN’T. Above ISO 800, it starts to exhibit banding, and the noise grain is much larger than in the other two, so at ISO 1600 and above, it looks FAR worse than the GH2 and GX1.
2. DxO’s score numbers are only based on the base ISO. You see lower dynamic range for the GX1, but it’s not the case for the most part. I did a high contrast test between the GX1 and GH2 when I first got my GX1, and the RAW files are essentially identical at low ISO. The GX1 hangs on to slightly more highlight detail, and the GH2 hangs on to a little more shadow detail…other than that, they are almost identical. At HIGH ISO, though, the GX1 has noticeably better DR…much better in both the highlights and shadows.
3. The GH1 at base ISO is a little cleaner per pixel than the GH2 or GX1. However, reduce them to the same size on screen, or print them at the same size, and they look identical. The higher resolution negates the slightly cleaner per pixel (which is slight anyway) output of the GH1. At high ISO, it’s no contest, the newer sensors are MUCH better than the GH1.
4. The GX1 has the best high ISO performance of all m4/3 cameras. Not only is noise slightly better controlled (in RAW…I don’t shoot JPEG), but the colors are MUCH more accurate than the GH2 at extreme sensitivities, and as mentioned before, the DR is much better as well.
See this shot, which was taken with my GX1 and Oly 45/1.8 at ISO 12,800 with only VERY light noise reduction done in lightroom (luminance 20..very light for this ISO). You could never get this quality with the GH1 (or GH2 for that matter) at this ISO.
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/still_life_12800.jpg
JF
5 months ago |@Jordan S: “Above ISO 800, it starts to exhibit banding, and the noise grain is much larger than in the other two, so at ISO 1600 and above, it looks FAR worse than the GH2 and GX1.”
What you are saying is very interesting. I suppose you are talking about RAW files ? banding is one problem I have with my GH1: even at 100 ISO with long exposure, shadows are full of banding and it is impoosible to increase luminance of the shadows in post process without making them noticable. If the problem is resolved by GH2 and GX1, it is a very good point !
Bob B.
5 months ago |Jordan…the GX1 is a great camera. I just sold my GF1 on ebay last night. I recently bought a GX1..and an open-box sale G3 for a second body as I shoot with primes and it is nice to have a two different focal lengths around your neck at times. (That is a breeze with these LITTLE cameras).
I have to say…DxO also does not take into account..the fact that the GX1 is built well, has better switches, has a faster frame rate, has faster focusing, has more programable buttons (making it much faster to use), better high ISO images, a very excellent touch screen (I thought I would just turn off the touch screen until I used it…its GREAT!). So compared to my GF1…I can’t tell you how much better this is…just the buffer improvement makes shooting (not waiting) a more fluid experience.
Would I like a new sensor with more dynamic range…yeah. …but there are a lot of improvements in this camera and there is a lot to like there. The viewfinder for the GX1 is lightyears better than the old one, both mechanically and visually. If you do not want to spend the money (which is considerable, no doubt), pick up a G3..you can get a lot of the improvements (certainly not all) and the same image quality as the GX for 1/2 the price (of GX1 w/VF).
I do not understand what all of the complaining is about????????
Mr Hipsta
5 months ago |About the DxO results: If the sensors are the same in G3 and GX1, why don’t they get identical scores? Is it because natural variations in sensors, variations derived from the equipment used to measure (you don’t get the same results if you measure twice on the same camera) or is it because of different hardware (or software) in the cameras other than the sensor?
safaridon
5 months ago |Why in these DXO comparison pictures is the GX1 shown to be larger size than the EP3 when it is actually smaller? Accident? I don’t think so.
Robert
5 months ago |Enough is enough, bye fourturds
Jordan S.
5 months ago |Because one website has numbers that are lower? DxO’s methodology is suspect, and it has never told the whole story. The fact is, the G3, GH2 and GX1 are all superior to the GH1 in real life. (as I said above…I own the GH2, GX1 and GH1 and have used them all in a variety of situations…the GH2 and GH1 for over a year). The GH2 and GX1 have better noise control, better resolution, and much better high ISO performance than the GH1. It’s FAR better than my Canon 30D I used to own, and pretty darn close to my 1Ds Mark II, which was the standard for pros for years. I highly doubt your photographic skills would be held back by any of the recent m4/3 cameras.
napalm
5 months ago |looks like the Canon G1X sensor has just outclassed Panasonic’s latest:
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-bruit-electronique-12.html
what else
5 months ago |what else did you expect???????
JF
5 months ago |Wow shit! just checked the measurements curve, dynamic range of GX1 at 100 and 200 iso is very bad compared to GH1 !!! no way !
Bob B.
5 months ago |JF…um…the GX1 um…has no ISO 100??????????????? LMFAOROTF!!!!!!!
Maybe you or DxO needs to check their numbers!
JF
5 months ago |Yes ok, I mean the two lowest iso points !
Bob B.
5 months ago |It would be interesting to see a dXo comparison of a MFT, Fuji X Pro1, and a 5DMarkII. I am extremely curious to see how the new Fuji sensor stacks up.
DR
5 months ago |Well, we can see where it’s headed by looking at the X100, and it doesn’t look good for mft:
http://tinyurl.com/fuji-mft
X100 doesn’t beat the 5DII, but it’s streets ahead of GX1 even though its a year older than the GX1.
I’ll wait for the GX1 price to crash and pick one up cheap to replace my GF1. It will be a useful second system next to my X-Pro1.
Best
5 months ago |That sensor in the new canon seems impressive, so is the fuji one.. M43 seems to be messing around with the g12…
Paul Rattay
3 months ago |The GX1 is a fragile piece of hardware. Mine lastled 4 weeks and will no longer power up. Panny voided the warranty due to a tumble and wanted 1/2 price to repair it. Worst new product experience in my book to date.