GH4 Low Light King GX7 |GH3 | GH4

I own the GX7 and GH3 and find the GX7 to indeed be far superior to the GH3. I get nervous using the GH3 at ISO 1600, but I'm happy to use the GX7 at ISO 3200 when I have to. Less noise and nicer structure to it.
 
divide said:
It does worse than the GH3 and GH4 according to DXOMark.
Click to expand...

I've learned not to take DXOMark scores too seriously as they aren't real world scenarios, a lot of it depends on what you are shooting. Go try the studio comparison tool on dpreview.com and compare the LX100 (m43 sensor) to the Sony A6000 (APSC), the LX100 is actually on par if not slightly better in some areas with regards to noise performance at high ISO.

This is sure as hell not evident on the DXOMark scores but it makes perfect sense considering the pixel pitch is larger on a 13MP sensor compared to a 24MP sensor.
 
I was told to sell my gh3, thats how much better the gx7 is in low light the person was advising me.

James Fisher said:
I own the GX7 and GH3 and find the GX7 to indeed be far superior to the GH3. I get nervous using the GH3 at ISO 1600, but I'm happy to use the GX7 at ISO 3200 when I have to. Less noise and nicer structure to it.
Click to expand...
 
themac said:
I've learned not to take DXOMark scores too seriously as they aren't real world scenarios, a lot of it depends on what you are shooting. Go try the studio comparison tool on dpreview.com and compare the LX100 (m43 sensor) to the Sony A6000 (APSC), the LX100 is actually on par if not slightly better in some areas with regards to noise performance at high ISO.

This is sure as hell not evident on the DXOMark scores but it makes perfect sense considering the pixel pitch is larger on a 13MP sensor compared to a 24MP sensor.
Click to expand...

Im looking at dpreview.com and GX7 falls behind a6000 in raw... Also due bigger sensor photo comparison isnt acutare cos picture is more "zoomed" on aps-c and that gives u bit false idea about it... Also im not wery impressed about those tests there, it depens HUGELY on what lense u are shooting whit.. Is it a kitt lense or Otus f1.4 what those pictures are taken whit.
 
There may be small visual differences in the low light due to the profiles and how the curves are applied to achieve the 8 bit recording but in the end we are talking a similar 4/3 " sensor from the same general generation so there wouldn't be a huge difference. The GX7 could have more of a baked in look out of the box that gives the impression of it being better but there is no technical reason based on physics why it would be significantly better.
 
terozzz said:
Im looking at dpreview.com and GX7 falls behind a6000 in raw... Also due bigger sensor photo comparison isnt acutare cos picture is more "zoomed" on aps-c and that gives u bit false idea about it... Also im not wery impressed about those tests there, it depens HUGELY on what lense u are shooting whit.. Is it a kitt lense or Otus f1.4 what those pictures are taken whit.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying about the zoomed in part, all shots in the studio comparison tool are shot with the same focal length of 85mm no matter what camera and they choose the best in class lens that the camera has access to, so no kit lenses. It is a pretty accurate comparison and btw I was referring to the LX100 not GX7 which I have no experience with, the LX100 which I have now is a newer camera than the GX7.

Also if you're interested in seeing noise performance for VIDEO you look at JPEG not raw as none of the cameras we're talking about record raw video. The video goes through the JPEG processing engine (picture profiles and such with NR you can't turn off) as it is compressed and encoded.
 
Last edited:
DXOMark measures raw performance, hence the difference in real-world experiences. As mentioned video isn't done at raw level for these cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top