Real-life ISO 1600: Panasonic GH1, G1, and Canon S90

Important note: An astute reader pointed out a significant mistake in the sample files used in this comparison. The S90 was shot at f/2.8, while the G1 and GH1 were at f/2. This means that the S90 sensor was given a stop less light, which invalidates the conclusions. I'll have a better, more controlled comparison up soon. Apologies for the error!

There has been quite a bit of hype about the Canon S90 high ISO noise performance. Some say it is right there with Micro Four Thirds in noise performance. Can it be true?

Reader's of this blog know that it is possible for any camera to have amazing noise performance. Simply pile on noise reduction, and noise will be very low. The real issue is how the detail and noise vary together at a particular shutter speed, f-stop, and ambient light level.

The S90 sensor is less than one fourth the size of a standard Four Thirds sensor as shown to scale below:



As such, we would expect a roughly two stop difference in high ISO detail versus noise between these two systems, similar to the two stop difference seen between Micro Four Thirds and 35mm full frame.

Before considering the Canon file, let's see how the Panasonic G1 and GH1 files differ. It is often said that the GH1 has significantly better noise performance than the G1. Some have put the difference at as much as a stop. Meanwhile, it is said that the GH1 suffers from shadow banding at high ISO, whereas the G1 and GF1 do not. I believe that most of the difference between the GH1 and G1 (and presumably GF1) comes down to the on-chip noise reduction.

There is no question that GH1 high ISO RAWs are "cooked", whereas G1 (and GF1 most likely) RAWs seem to be raw. As has been well documented on the DPReview forums, setting the GH1 film mode to -2 NR at ISO 1600 actually cooks more NR into the RAW file than does setting the film mode to +2 NR. I'm guessing that this on-chip NR makes the banding much more apparent, and that it actually is present but simply obscured by noise in the G1 and GF1 files.

In this example, I set the GH1 and Lumix 20 to ISO 1600, +2 NR (+2 is the least NR one can apply to GH1 high ISO RAW), 1/50s, f/2, and took a snap of my son Philip. The RAW file was processed in Iridient Software's Raw Developer, which adds no further NR or sharpening unless those settings are enabled. For the purposes of this comparison, those settings were disabled. Here's the resulting image (Click for larger version):



Now a snap with the same lens, same settings, same workflow, and G1 substituted for GH1 (bit of fooling with the white balance and black point in Raw Developer to get the picture looking more similar) (Click for larger version):



Here's a 100% crop from the GH1 shot:



Now the G1 crop:



If you look at the full-res version, you'll see banding in the GH1 file.

If you look carefully at the G1 full-res version, there's a bit of banding obscured by noise.

For comparison, I took the same snap with the Canon S90, also at ISO 1600, f/2 and 1/50s. I had to push the resulting RAW file in Digital Photo Professional (Canon's RAW processing app) to get it to the same apparent exposure as the Panasonic files. Like Iridient's Raw Developer, Canon's DPP seems to be an "honest" RAW converter in that it is possible to completely disable NR and sharpening. Here's the resulting resized image (Click for larger version):



The S90 crop:



The full-res S90 image is here.

Click here to download the RAW files used in this comparison.

Unlike the usual comparisons posted on this blog, these were done handheld without a tripod. I took enough snaps with each camera to know that handshake was not a significant factor in the selected representative images.

Posted by Amin

Comments (15)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Amin,

First of all, thank you for this great comparison as well as the wonderful site. I was wondering how you found these compared to the nikon d40/d60 RAW (I believe you had one of these at one point)... I'm presently shooting a d700 which is a high iso miracle, but i need something a little more portable.

I purchased a s90, but will be returning it (I cant get used to using the rear screen for composition or the seemingly infinite dof). Perhaps I am too picky coming from 4x5, but I cant get used to what appears to be a limited color gamut/dynamic range of many of these compacts (G1 and 4/3 included). Though larger, Im wondering if a d60/35 f1.8 might be the only option?
4 replies · active 807 weeks ago
Hi Eric, I am a D50 user, with occasional access to a D40. I recently bought a used D80 - it was a great deal and I wanted to compare it to my D50 and possibly upgrade. Handling was much better, but the noise on the 10mpix sensor was a touch worse (chroma) than the noise on the D50. Per pixel sharpness was worse. I liked the B/W mode, but ended up keeping my D50, which also has twice the flash sync speed.
If I were you I would buy the 6mpix D40. The IQ is even better than a D50 and the only issue I have with it are the missing vertical focus points. And you get 1/500 sync which you don't get with the 10mp cameras.
PS. but I am tempted by the GF1 + 20/1.7 . Would be great if someone did a D40 vs GF1 sensor performance comparison. Maybe the newer technology of the GF1 will compensate for the difference in sensor size... I'd really like to believe in that, but it's a little harder after doing the 2003 6mpix vs 2006 10mpix comparison...

Let's also not forget the rumore Leica X1 clone from Nikon (if you're not in a hurry). That would have the advantage of the 12mp Nikon CMOS chip and even smaller size.
Hi Eric,

Thanks for the kind words about the site. I have not owned a D40 or D60, but I recently had a D5000. I compared the D5000 to the D40 and D60 in a local camera shop and found the size and weight to be very close, contrary to the specs listed on some sites.

The D5000 has the D90 sensor and has significantly better high ISO performance than the Micro Four Thirds cameras. It also has noticeably better dynamic range performance. Having looked at a lot of comparisons, I'd say that the D40 and D60 are somewhere in the middle and probably just slightly better than Micro Four Thirds in terms of image quality.

In terms of other aspects besides sensor image quality, I mostly prefer my G1 and 20/1.7 (or GH1 and 20/1.7) to the D5000 and 35/1.8. For one thing, I find 40mm equivalent more handy than 52mm equivalent. Second, the 35/1.8 shows longitudinal CA (color fringing on out-of-focus elements), whereas the 20/1.7 is less susceptible. I prefer the 100%, large, bright EVF to the more tunnel like OVF (though the OVF has advantages of no lag and shorter blackout). I prefer the smaller size/weight of the Micro Four Thirds kit, though either is very small and light compared to your D700.

If the limited tonal range and dynamic range of Micro Four Thirds eliminates those cameras for you, I would recommend the D5000 and 35/1.8. Despite the longitudinal CA, the 35/1.8 is an excellent lens, especially for $200.
But you can be two stops faster with the 4/3 cameras due to different M factor . Means that you can use lower ISO to get same results from the 4/3 and the Canicon mafia bodies!
Hi Amin. Thanks for the comparison. It's really interesting. I recently bought a GH1. It's an interesting camera. At first I was pretty excited. I took some pictures and they looked gorgeous, even at ISO800. Then I compared such pictures to what I am able to achieve with my Sigma DP2, and the comparison is stunning. The DP2 has a depth of image (a 3D character) that blows away the GH1 pictures. Too bad it's such a bad camera (the DP2) -- a hit or miss camera that can't be used indoor (the autofocus just does not work). So, now I am left with a dilemma. On the one hand I need a second camera given the unreliability of the DP2 in many conditions. On the other hand I am so spoiled with the few amazing images I can get with the DP2 that everything else looks mediocre in comparison. I guess the only alternative at this point might be a high-end Nikon DSLR like a D700. What do you think?
3 replies · active 807 weeks ago
I'm in the exact same position as you. I have been back and forth on getting a GH1, but what I really want is a better DP2. As a consequence, I've almost talked myself into getting a used M8...
Well, I just decided to take the plunge and got a Canon 5D MKII with a its fabulous 35/1.4. I am now curious to see how one of the best full-frame Bayer cameras compare to what the DP2 can do in decent light conditions.
My problem is I am starting with the 5D II and I know the IQ it can produce. For me, the best (current) answer is the DP2. I would much rather deal with a few minor in-camera issues and get great images from such a small camera. If I could somehow put an auto focus light on it (read: keychain flashlight) it would be a perfect for me.
I took a few pics with the 5D II and I can already tell that it's pretty amazing. I need to test it in a variety of different light situations, but the few preliminary tests tell me that it seems to produce the kind of 3D effect that I get with the Foveon sensor. Plus you can use it indoor up to at least 1600 ISO. To your point, Patrick, I think that if you have the 5D II and the DP2, the package is pretty powerful. You use the DP2 outdoor or when you cannot afford to carry a heavy bag, and the 5DII when light is an issue or whenever you want to take a great picture and weight is not a major issue. as far as I can tell, the GF1 or GH1 are excellent choices, but they compromise on IQ, which is what I care the most about. Do they take great pictures? Yes. Do they take memorable pictures -- pictures you never get tired of staring at -- like the DP2 or (I think) the 5D II? I doubt.
4 replies · active 807 weeks ago
I think you've basically got it figured out. If image quality is the end all be all, then Micro Four Thirds is not for you. My advice is to not try digital medium format (or even the Sony A900 at low ISO for that matter), because that may ruin the 5D II for you :-p.
Interesting. I am surprised by what you say about the A900...I never tried one, but what I've read about it seems to suggest it's a tad below the 5DII. Do not tempt me with medium format :)
Seriously, medium format and my wallet are currently incompatible. Recently I've been keeping the DP2 with me where ever I go and been very happy with the results. I like that I can make good quality prints if I choose. Obviously, for planned shoots I will just grab my 5dII for versatility and lens options.
I haven't used an A900 for more than five minutes, but the general consensus seems to be that it is unmatched amongst 35mm full frame DSLRs for low ISO performance.
I think the Panasonic LX3 as well as the Canon S90 has a 1/1.7" sensor, which has a focal mag. factor of 4.6x. Compared to 135FF, that is a handicap of -4.32EV.
For the Micro Four thirds, which has a 2.0x focal mag. factor, that gives a handicap of -1.94EV compared to 135FF.

However, the old Sony prosumer sensor 2/3" (Two-Thirds) is half of the Four Thirds sensor, having a 3.9x crop factor and a -3.89EV handicap.

Noise reduction is easier to do with a MOS technology, rather than with the CCD. However, backside illumination sensor technology is expected to become moreimportant for a smaller sensor, which is a significant future technology to bridge the performance gap to larger sensors.

One should also not forget the improvement in noise reduction algoritms.

Post a new comment

Comments by

 
Copyright 2007 | Andreas08v2 by GeckoandFly and TemplatesForYou | Design by Andreas Viklund
TFY Burajiru