GH2 DxOMark is worse that GH1!

noirist said:
I don't think its a joke. When you try to squeeze more pixels onto a sensor, you must make the pixels smaller, and the sensor doesn't absorb as much light. Either the individual pixels can't absorb as much light relative to their surface area, or there's more space between the pixels that doesn't absorb any light, or some combination of the two. Take a look at the Nikon D3s, which has the most amazing low light capability because it has relatively few very large pixels on a giant full frame sensor. Panasonic made the GH2 pixels smaller so they could put more of them on the sensor for marketing purposes and now they are burned. It looks like the high ISO claimed for the GH2 is just a software trick.

P.S. The GH1 pixel pitch is 4.31 micrometers and tested ISO 772. The GH2 is 3.63 and tested ISO 655. The D3s is 8.4 and tested ISO 3253 (!).
Click to expand...
So this is an unfortunate casualty of megapixel race. One would think that imaging companies learned the lessons of gigaherz wars. 10MPs are already more than what most users need. Unfortunately, Panasonic took Canon's bait instead of sticking to 12 MP sensor and offering real improvements in sensititivity, not gamed ISO ratings. Also, aliasing-free teleconversion mode would have less of a crop (1.95x in 1080 mode instead of 2.6x) making those fast c-mount lenses a little more useful on the wide end. GH2 still offers great value on the video side with better 24p mode and clean HDMI out, but, alas, what an opportunity wasted to make it really great value by offering real improvements instead of illusory ones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top