As above…I’m noticing poor detail on my GF2 in dusk shots etc, is a DSLR going to improve on this much?

The GF2 is several generations old now. Newer m43s will have better high ISO performance, as will most dslrs. For equivalent money a dslr will usually have a bit better low light performance, maybe a stop or so. Get over to dpreview and use their comparison tool.

A modern apsc will give similar results at iso 2000 that you’re getting at iso 800, a full frame dslr iso 3000 will be similar.

So yes, very noticible.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012810/article/15-Low-Light-High-ISO-All-Stars

I’ve got a panny G1 (first gen mu43), x100 (well regarded crop frame) and I use a D750 in low light for work (current cream of the full frames, also the best sensor of the modern crop frame nikon too, D3300).

I can tell the difference between them all. However, a bad photo’s still bad on them all, a good one still good.

Throwing that aside, the biggest step in low light performance is up to the D750, there’s not a big deal between the rest in comparison. And there’s a bigger difference in using a tripod on any of them – though that depends on subject matter of course. And there’s a bigger difference in lens choice than body choice too, though depth of field issues there of course.

Practically, looking at acceptable low light quality, the G1 looses a stop or so to the X100/crop nikons, and they loose 3ish to the D750, though I also use a faster lens on that.

A modern apsc will give similar results at iso 2000 that you’re getting at iso 800, a full frame dslr iso 3000 will be similar.

So yes, very noticible.

But not a big difference if you have a tripod, doubling (and a bit) the shutter from a hand-holdable speed won’t matter for most subject…

However I’m playing devil’s advocate here (from a position of experience). If you want justification for shiny new kit I can provide that too, after all there’s a reason I use the good kit*… 😉

What lens on the GF2?

* a reason that probably doesn’t matter for your purposes, I need high res pixel perfect images in low light…

It’s more a case of newer vs older than dslr vs csc. A big full frame job will give less noise at low light but you’re a mug if you want to cart one of those around Imo. Pros notwithstanding!

If you have more than just the kit kens with the GF2 then go and find yourself s secondhand GX1 from £120 – big improvement .

Ta. Its the std 14-42. Package only worth £80 odd now 🙁

It’s bulky enough that I think a DSLR isn’t much of a step bigger.

Something pocketable with decent images is the next idea…

I still use my GF1 – it’s not amazing in low light but the 20mm 1.7 makes it much better.

However, in classic STW fashion – user skill/experience will be the main limiting factor. 😉

It’s more a case of newer vs older than dslr vs csc. A big full frame job will give less noise at low light but you’re a mug if you want to cart one of those around Imo. Pros notwithstanding!

Very true but there are very compact full frame cameras out there like the Sony A7 and RX1. The issue you’re describing OP is people refer to as dynamic range, ie the ability to record without clipping extremes of bright and dark. Bigger sensors tend to give bigger ranges of that ability and thus better high ISO performance in low light. Typically the lower the pixel count for a given camera, the better it will be at recording dynamic range as the photosites are bigger with greater light gathering capability (At least that tends to be true for full frame cameras. Not sure if it applies elsewhere). The sony A7s for example has a pixel count of (just) 12million but it can nigh on see in the dark.

Not suggesting you trade your GF2 for one mind. Fuji range of CSC cameras tend to do very well in low light and have low noise high ISO capability.

Ta again. I’ll do dome research. As ever its on a budget…GF wants a £200 DSLR her pal uses, so I’ll check that one out.

I just upgraded from a GF1 to EM5.
I wanted a viewfinder, better JPGs and better low light pics – the OMD has less noise at high ISO and has image stabilisation.

Think I paid about £220 on eBay for it.

Other good upgrades would be a GM1 (tiny but has really good image quality – same as GX7), the GX1 mentioned above, an Olympus EM10 or a Panasonic GX7. The second hand prices are all pretty low now.

M4/3rds works for me – the image quality is very good and the size is significantly smaller than a DSLR. I have the 20mm prime so use that most of the time – keeps the size down.

Wait.. £220 for an em-5? Ooooh….

a. Its the std 14-42. Package only worth £80 odd now

It’s bulky enough that I think a DSLR isn’t much of a step bigger.

Try the panny 20/1.7 or oly 17/2.8 depending on field of view preferences, both a lot better in low light (DOF not withstanding) and make it smaller.

A GF2 up to a DSLR is a big size jump with a smaller lens on it. I used to carry a GF2 with a oly 17 in a jersey pocket, try doing that with any DSLR…

Problem is – the fast lenses in M4/3 are very expensive relative to
DSLR – unless you use an older lens with an adaptor and manual focus – this works well – but you do end up with a chunky lens on the end of an adaptor.
I do have the 20/1.7 Panasonic – but only bacause I spotted a bargain when it was bundled with a G1 and some other bits .
The 20/1.7 is a great lens but 200 quid… , when the DSLR primes can be had for half the price..

Typically the lower the pixel count for a given camera, the better it will be at recording dynamic range as the photosites are bigger with greater light gathering capability (At least that tends to be true for full frame cameras. Not sure if it applies elsewhere).

yep, hence all the highest scoring high ISO cameras have relatively low pixel counts by modern DSLR standards eg 12 Mp or there abouts.

The 20/1.7 is a great lens but 200 quid… , when the DSLR primes can be had for half the price..

But not if you want a body too, and it’ll not be as compact.

And not half the price either, e.g. the closest comparable lens is probably the Nikon 35/1.8 – about £150. Not half the price…*

I got my Oly 17/2.8 for about £100.

*yes you can get the 50 cheaper, but it’s not comparable field of view.

[HIJACK]Molegrips seeing as you are likely to follow this thread. i have an olympus FL-60r flashgun i want to shift. i presume this works with panasonics too? whats it worth?{/HIJACK]

re OP any modern sensor of a decent size like the sony compacts or newer m4/3 will give you better images than a gf-1/2

I need a remote flash, got a wedding to do in the summer.

Do you mean FL-50R or FL-600R?

There is a lot to consider on a budget – I would still consider a GX1 – its
a lot nearer the size of the GF2 than the GF1 . It will be a familiar machine but much faster in operation – black ones are better – why ? – Because you can see what is written on the buttons.
You have image stabilisation on your zoom and its pretty good – most of the primes are not stabilised so you would need to go Olympus to get that in body,
and I found the Oly interface less intuitive compared to what I was used to – Nikon and compact Pannies.
Otherwise look at the more compact LX`s – or Fuji Xxx things – they are all really nice – and would give you the compact size + image stabilisation.

Do you mean FL-50R or FL-600R?

sorry yes fl-50r it has built in slave and i guess it communicates with a 4/3 m4/3 body mail in profile if you want to make me an offer i cant refuse

Ok cool – that’s exactly what I was after. I’ll have a chat with the Mrs tonight.

Thanks all, v informative. Will get googling tonight and prep for a chat with Mrs.

Molegrips…anytips?

I should let these things go. But I can’t

The issue you’re describing OP is people refer to as dynamic range, ie the ability to record without clipping extremes of bright and dark. Bigger sensors tend to give bigger ranges of that ability and thus better high ISO performance in low light. Typically the lower the pixel count for a given camera, the better it will be at recording dynamic range as the photosites are bigger with greater light gathering capability (At least that tends to be true for full frame cameras. Not sure if it applies elsewhere). The sony A7s for example has a pixel count of (just) 12million but it can nigh on see in the dark.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Sports

The only sub 16 Mp camera stacks up high ISO is the A7s. All the rest 16, 24 or even 36. The only benefit that cameras like the D4 and A7s derive from big pixels is that they are big enough to fit micro lenses to. This gathers more light in total. More pixels brings a benefit in terms of lower noise across the whole image but not per pixel

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape

Micro lenses does not benefit dynamic range so all the best sensor for dynamic range have loads of pixels. Large pixels can store more electrons but that doesn’t help as their larger area gathers more electrons. The main thing that’s needed for high dynamic range is low noise at low iso. That’s achieved with more pixels. So in the above list all the top cameras have lots of pixels. The A7s is 33 on the list and beaten by crop sensor cameras

Any tips? With what? Pictures in low light?

My camera is an SLR with a similar sensor you have in your m43, but with different software.. I’ve learned a few things about how to get better performance in lower light.

1) If you have a gradation setting, make sure it’s not set to something that brightens up shadow detail (mine defaults to this). I change this because when the picture is noisy it just amplifies the noise. Personally when it’s dark, I like dark shadows. See point 2

2) Under expose in low light. The camera (at least mine does) tries to expose to make the picture look normal, but you want it looking dark because it’s a dark scene and it’s dark when you’re there. You can go a stop or even more under and it’ll look better. You can do this by reducing the ISO and you’ll reduce noise.

3) If you don’t have image stabilisation, get it. I can take hand held pictures down to 1/15 easily, and down as low as 1/4 or so if I can prop the camera against something. Longer exposure means you can reduce ISO. I find I can usually prop the camera on something and use a timer for long exposures – you might consider something like a beanbag to help with this.

4) Try reducing the noise reduction setting. I like mine with low or no NR – the result is grainy but that seems to add more character whilst preserving detail, rather than smearing it all out.

With those things in mind I am how happy to take photos at 2500 or sometimes 3200 ISO whereas when I started, using the default settings, 3200 looked shite.

The main thing that’s needed for high dynamic range is low noise at low iso. That’s achieved with more pixels.

I believe this is highly controversial…

Micro lenses does not benefit dynamic range so all the best sensor for dynamic range have loads of pixels.

Don’t let it go. It’s good to learn. So I was confusing high dynamic range with high light sensitivity? Actually I might have read that the A7s might have the ability to ‘see in the dark’ but it doesn’t have as high a DR as other cameras.

So thanks for clarifying.

The a7s is an oddity. It’s optimised for video and high iso. It has lower dymanic range and more noise than it’s higher resolution siblings but as soon as you get beyond iso 6400 it holds up much better as the others drop.

In general newer sensors have more pixels, better dynamic range and lower noise than the models they replace.

So I was confusing high dynamic range with high light sensitivity?

Looks like it

I think the A7s D4 etc. are quite weird in specification. They get microlenses for great low light work but I think the low pixel count is also about the fast read for video and high frame rate stills

molgrips – Member

Any tips? With what? Pictures in low light?

I was jokingly referring to chatting with the Mrs, but those tips are helpful.

dpreview comparison tool is amazing. GX1 looks good, NEX5 also. Looks like I can get a decent step up in performance by spending £100 or so. Will see what DSLR Mrs is on about first though (and yeah they are BIG!)

I was jokingly referring to chatting with the Mrs

Lol.. ok.. if you ever get to chat to my Mrs I’ll give you some tips there too 🙂

finishthat – Member

If you have more than just the kit kens with the GF2 then go and find yourself s secondhand GX1 from £120 – big improvement .

A GX1 on its own will seemingly make a decent difference for (say) £50 spend…I am going to have to spend a fair bit more to make much more of a difference? Seems similarly priced SH DSLRs don’t perform much better than the GX1.

EDIT – and I’m not going to find anything truly small (~IXUS) that will compare image-quality-wise?

EDIT – and I’m not going to find anything truly small (~IXUS) that will compare image-quality-wise?

Sony RX100 III is pretty small.

Yes GX1 is route of least ££ , I recently got one second hand , already have GF1 GF2 and G1 , I got most of these from a well known action site looking for newly listed buy it now listings where the seller was clearly a serial upgrader or moving stuff on after not using it. GX is in slightly poor cosmetic condition but was less than 1/2 of the typical low sale price so I was happy to take the risk – I am pretty relaxed about patina because it allows me to be stress free when actually using the thing.

The GX1 is the best so far naturally – the GF2 is the least satisfactory in terms of interface – GX1 touch screen is massive improvement + having the manual buttons. – As per my earlier advise – if you do look for a GX1 then definitely go for black – mine is silver and the button writing is invisible in poor light.

The cheapest thing to do is shoot RAW and use a modern RAW converter. Doing this will get you half way to a new camera. The cheapest option would be Adobe elements, although I prefer Lightroom.

Download and try it for a month

Comparing sensor the GX1 isn’t much better than the GF2, maybe half a stop at best. Plus there is no gain in dynamic range

Looks like the best MFT sensors are one stop better the GF2.

For comparison the 16MP APS-C sensor is 2.5 stops better than the GF2

If you want an equivalent to your old camera (small and cheap), but with a big modern high performance sensor with dslr like AF then it’s a short list. It’s an a5000.

amptill ta, looking at the GX1 vs a NEX5 there’s v little between them using the dpreview comparator at high ISO.

Will check out an a5000 too, ta

Dpreview was nonsense. They didn’t have a standardised test or equalised ‘real’ isos back then. You need to look at dxomark.com graphs if you want accurate comparisons. Dpreview now partner with dxo so I assume they’re now credible, but going straight to dxo is easier.

I had a nex5 and a ep2 (which I believe uses the same Panasonic sensor as your camera), the nex was so much better it was daft. Dxo certainly reflected what I saw in working with the images.

Refurb Sony A5000 ordered 😎

Had several generation of m4/3s – GH1/GH2/GX1/GH4 , they’ve all got better in low light (and artefacts) over time. Sensors have improved.

I always think they full short of best current APS-C but I suppose physics is on the side of the APS-C. And you get some nice benefits with m4/3s. I’m a fan of the m4/3s for travel.

We currently use the GH4 and the Red Epic Dragon for moving image rather than stills. The Dragon was currently at the top of the tree on DXOMARK. So that says some good things about the GH4 from our point of view.

Blatant plug. My EOS 650D DSLR is in the classifieds.

Along with a camera bag.

EOS650D

Lowepro Vertex100