Is the gh2 the new low light high ISO DSLR king

Danielvilliers

Danielvilliers

Veteran
I ask this question, because it never occurred to me before that it could be the case. I always saw it as a true high resolution, no moire/aliasing/over heating camera but never high ISO. Now with constant improvement with the hack and the unlocking of the ISO, I see an example as the one below at ISO 10 000


I am asking myself if the combination of high resolution and preserve detail in the shadows of the gh2, has resulted in an image that might be a little noisier than the Canon but scaled to the same resolution is better. The example above cleans up very well because of much more detail with some noise reduction software. As you are starting up from a much more detail in the end even if you loose some you end up still better. It is the same thing as pixel binning to reduce noise. If you compare the Nikon D700 to the Canon 5d2, at pixel level the D700 is better but as the Canon as about twice the number of pixel at the same viewing size or print they are nearly equal. Another very nice one here with the high bitrate hack and test of underexposed high iso shots



For sure with the advent of the 1dx it could completely change, but I really never saw the gh2 (hack) as a high Iso camera but the two video above are really making me think twice.
 
Last edited:
Could be. However, rumors are pointing to a Digic5 650D/T4i in a few months, which could really give the GH2 a run for its money. At this point in the game, I'd wait and see.
 
Those two videos are quite impressive. Very little to no noise. My T2i would be incredibly noisy if I tried to shoot at hight ISO's as above. I know noise reduction was taken place, but either way that was quite impressive.
 
And in my thinking... why would you even ever need it? I've had my 5D for a year now and have never shot video at over 1250, rarely do I go above 640.
Granted I'm not a doc/event guy, so I'm basically never shooting anything without lights being involved.
 
Not that impressed considering that this was shot with a Voigtlander at F0.95. Would be more impressed by a 1.4 or 1.8. I have shot in similar situations and got some of the same results without having to shoot at 0.95 and 10000 ISO. My 60D paired with Canon 24mm 1.4L shoots great in low light and I never go past 1000 iso.
 
Ian-T said:
Oh boy...here we go.
Click to expand...

ROFL. Nah, this topic has been open for nearly a week and hasn't exploded past one page of comments yet.
I think its safe to say that most of us are already well enough aware of how this works to start a comment/flame/misinformation war. I hope.
 
Supreme photographic power comes from a mandate from the masses! Not from some farcical nocturnal ceremony!

If I went around saying I was an emperor just because somebody lobbed a paper lantern at me, they'd put me away.

Besides, I thought we were an autonomous collective...
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
And in my thinking... why would you even ever need it? I've had my 5D for a year now and have never shot video at over 1250, rarely do I go above 640.
Granted I'm not a doc/event guy, so I'm basically never shooting anything without lights being involved.
Click to expand...

You can get away with a smaller/less powerful lighting package if the camera can deliver higher sensitivity with low noise. The FS100 essentially has clean video at ISO6400...think about how much cheaper those night EXT shots get if you don't need as much lighting and grip.
 
Rayden said:
Not that impressed considering that this was shot with a Voigtlander at F0.95. Would be more impressed by a 1.4 or 1.8. I have shot in similar situations and got some of the same results without having to shoot at 0.95 and 10000 ISO. My 60D paired with Canon 24mm 1.4L shoots great in low light and I never go past 1000 iso.
Click to expand...

I personaly don't know in what condition he shot that and I guess you also. Unless you and I would be there with a lighmeter we will never know what was the lighting level. He did shoot very bright and this will be better for noise. he has posted a short 1080p version in the commentary below with a comparison between with and without NR.

As for me I am more interested in the second at 3200 ISo. I downloaded the 1080p version and I am stunned by the quality because it is quite underexposed as the shooter wanted to test it like that and the details are very very good. No blotchiness and mush in the shadows, still lots of details in the mid and high. I never thought the hack would affect the high Iso
 
I'm impressed by all this, I just can't believe it. I agree with M. Gilden I'll wait the new Canons and see. I don't expect nothing near that though :S
 
Last edited:
Danielvilliers said:
Is the gh2 the new low light high ISO DSLR king
Click to expand...

No.

Digital ISO numbers has nothing to do with anything. And, I don't see the point with clipped highlights as I could do that in post with any clean start.

I'm still liking mk4, obviously 1dx will outperform most stuff in video.
 
The 3200 Iso video has so much detail that I am not even sure if a canon can match it at low ISO. As for the 10 000 iso one, it reminds me a lot of Canon high iso images because it has much less detail and quite some mush. Now I guess the gh2 will have this crown only a short time until the 1DX comes out, but it is still very nice to have a $ 700 camera perform at such a level.
 
thanks Daniel.
and what's with all the Canon fan stuff?
the hacked GH2 is light years ahead.
what gives?
 
roei z said:
that may be,
but the price difference, my friend... the price.
Click to expand...

Actually both of the canons that I shoot with cost less than a GH2 (T2i through the loyalty program is under $500). I like the GH2, but I like my native Canon lenses for photography, and the feature set of Magic Lantern (audio monitoring, focus peaking, magic zoom, etc).

If the GH2 had better native lenses for photography work and magic lantern for a more extensive video tool set, it would be a no brainer. Until then, its really not as one sided as you make it out to be. Both cameras have their advantages that the other does not yet.
Meanwhile, I'm willing to wait and see what digic5 brings.
 
basically you're right, storytelling wise it doesn't really matter. it's all bullshit.but with theater screenings, film look and more professional result, right now the GH2 is worlds apart.i don't know about Digic5, what T4i, 5DIII (price?!) or other canon models will bring.by then will have GH3 with even higher specs, so the wheel will turn again.anyway, i use the trusty cheap vintage canon FD's on the GH2 and i'm 100% happy. i personally don't have any lens limit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top