Image courtesy: Imaging Resource
We talked a lot about the GH4 amazing 4K video quality. But now let’s focus on the brand new stills test:
Imaging Resource added the GH4 to their comparometer.
Photograhyblog posted a set of full size image samples and a short ISO test.
ePhotozine also posted image samples, ISO samples and White balance test. You can also download the RAW files.
Would be nice to hear your opinion about the GH4 stills quality. As far as I can tell there is small improvement over the GH3 and also a different kind of handling noise.
–
North American preorders, shipping date and price:
GH4 camera at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), and Panasonic (Click here). Price: $1,698. In Canada at Vistek (Click here).
GH4 camera with interface unit at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here). Price: $3,298
Interface unit only at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and Panasonic (Click here). Price: $1,998
Europen preorders, shipping date and price:
Germany: Wexcameras, Marcotec-shop.de.
UK at Wexphotographic, CameraWorld, UKdigital, CVP, TipTop.
Holland at Fotohanskeuzekamp.
Belgium at Fotokonijnenberg.
Norway at Fotovideo.
Sweden at Cyberphoto, Skandinavianphoto.
Finland at Telefoto, Topshot, Verkkoauppa.
France at Photocineshop.
Spain: Fotoboom.
22 Responses
GH3 looks sharper
Yeah, the red swatch has better contrast too. GH4 looks like more noise reduction.
They’ve still got some adjustment to do, but the main improvement I’ve seen is their longstanding problem: chroma noise.
Hopefully, they’ll make some adjustments to the version 1.0 firmware to clean up things at all ISO sensitivities but ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 look better, and a majority of my basketball and other indoor sports shots end up at ISO 3200, so this would be helpful over the GH3.
GH4 looks smoother and has less noise.
To me, the GH3 images look better. Not a good sign. Too much focus on video??
I think this just proves that we hit the image quality plateau with contemporary sensor tech. Yes, one may tweak the signal processing pipeline and trade one sort of visual artifact for the other but I don’t think the difference in image quality alone would prompt anyone to ditch his older camera – which is unfortunate for manufacturers but there are also other areas to focus on, e.g. connectivity.
Yes, that is likely the case. If improved image quality is a must the only resort is to increase your sensor size. That said, the abilities of the GH4 are good enough for most people and its flexibility makes it outperform most competing cameras on the market.
I don’t see any significant difference between the GH3 and the GH4 or really even the GH2 if you go back and compare that camera. The GH4 is a nice piece of kit but I’ll be using my $1,700 elsewhere.
this is imperative because my clients pixel peep my videos
I know it sounds crazy but some people take stills lol
surely there’s more suitable cameras for great photography! 🙂
The GH3 and GH4 are perfectly suitable for “great photography”. I get the impression you have really no interest in or knowledge about photography. = /
I think something is wrong with either the test conditions or the GH3 unit they used, because it is reproducing something that is not there, look at the starnge shape under the reflection like two squares on top of the bottle label, and then again the 4th top tiles from left in the mosaic.
Totally different reproductions and the GH3 one seems unnatural.
If you look at the full test, that blotch shows up on most of the other cameras’ tests. There are other differences between the position of the light and shadow between models, but I think the test still illustrates the performance of each camera very well. My takeaway is that each of the cameras performed very similarly – similarly enough that your audience probably won’t be able to tell the difference.
I see what you mean. But, doings pixel peeping tests with different lights completely negates the purpose. That site will never make to my bookmarks.
I agree that this test is pointless for pixel peeping, but (assuming equal exposure settings between models) it still shows noise degradation pretty well. I personally am less interested in pixel peeping and more interested in the overall aesthetic (good or bad) that the noise adds, so this comparison works.
Still pretty sloppy of them though.
I think the GH3 looks better at imaging-resource. Less noise reduction and more details. The GH4 images look more like the GX7.
But… the GX7/GM1 (same chip/engine) are both among the most highly rated and appraised of all MFT cameras. I’m talking image quality not features. Reviewers and pixel geeks are nuts about it.
JPEG comparisons are absolutely worthless to determine any microscopic changes in image quality. Though even with RAW I expect the results will be pretty much the same as every other current 16mp mFT camera. There has been no worthwhile gain in image quality with mFT since the E-M5 , the EM1 sacrificed some high ISO for a bit better DR.
Until we get some new exciting sensor tech I think we are stuck with ever decreasing gains between models. It is true in other formats the Sony A7 & A7r are just the same sensors as the D600/610 and D800 , in a smaller body..If you have one of the recent mFT cameras released in the last 2 yrs there is little if any reason to change camera with regard to image quality
Comparing Jpegs? Please.
Compare the RAW files. I’d wager there’s a difference. In fact I’d bet the GH4 has the best RAW files in M43.
The GH3 is clearly very slightly better as a stills camera at all ISOs.
That was my take on it too, the last time this comparison was done, about a month ago (some of the same photos too). I would certainly pick the GH3 over the GH4 since I am mainly interested in stills and have no interest in 4K at all. The video of the GH3 would more than satisfy me, and the price is much more appealing. The only other camera I would consider right now is the EM-10, and it is a toss up between the two. Better video and the fully articulated screen on the GH3. Better EVF and internal image stabilization on the EM-10 which is also smaller, and less expensive. Not being very video oriented, having the 25mm and 45mm non-stabilized lenses and wanting the 60mm Macro and maybe the 75mm as well (both also non-stabilized), I will likely fall to the EM-10.