Author Topic: the GH2 has 16 megapixels! (Read 1025 times)

lisandra · « **on:** September 07, 2010, 05:41:23 PM »

http://www.43rumors.com/category/rumor/
I dont particularly dig it since in most cases more megapixels=more noise but hey, let's hope for a miracle!

peterb666 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2010, 06:33:50 PM »

Agree. I have never found an issue with having only 12mp. I would prefer less noise, greater dynamic range and a lower base ISO.

It will be interesting to see who this camera turns out. The sensor is not a 16mp sensor but a 18mp sensor but the cropping gives a maximum 16mp effective.

adash · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2010, 10:44:17 PM »

I want a 3MP PEN! I never printed an image bigger than 15x20cm.

lisandra · « **Reply #3 on:** September 08, 2010, 10:27:54 AM »

Quote from: peterb666 on September 07, 2010, 06:33:50 PM

I would prefer less noise, greater dynamic range and a lower base ISO.

definitely. If they diverted their efforts on this when developing sensors instead of trying to reach the gigapixel....sigh..

Centauri27 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2010, 11:26:03 AM »

Quote from: adash on September 07, 2010, 10:44:17 PM

I want a 3MP PEN! I never printed an image bigger than 15x20cm.

Well, don't forget the extra pixels are useful if you need to crop the image (sometime drastically). I just took pictures of the Peking Acrobats performance. Though I was sitting fairly close, I only had my Panasonic 20mm and this is how the camera saw it:

The fast 20mm lens allowed me to use a lower ISO and higher shutter speed; the 12 megapixels allowed me to get a good close-up crop:

adash · « **Reply #5 on:** September 08, 2010, 11:32:52 AM »

But a bigger pixel will allow more light to be captured at higher ISO, thus less noise and (hopefully) better performance with the cheaper zoom lenses.
Magnificent photograph, by the way.

tamoio · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2010, 01:57:59 AM »

I'd trade 4 megapixels for weather-sealing and a different battery pack.

Centauri27 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2010, 02:23:42 PM »

Quote from: adash on September 08, 2010, 11:32:52 AM

But a bigger pixel will allow more light to be captured at higher ISO, thus less noise and (hopefully) better performance with the cheaper zoom lenses.
Magnificent photograph, by the way.

Thanks. I thought I'd try it this way rather than use a longer, slower lens, which might have had motion blur and increased noise.
Bigger pixels is certainly desirable, but the "more pixels" philosophy is winning the race. Perhaps some day. I think we're overdue for a total revolution in digital imagery.

lisandra · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2010, 06:08:29 AM »

Of all the times he's been wrong I hope this is one. My panny informant friend told me this thing is gonna be $1500 and can only be bought as a kit. Well, olympus kinda lost me and panasonic is officially pricier than leica, so... what now?

Centauri27 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2010, 09:17:18 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on September 16, 2010, 06:08:29 AM

Well, olympus kinda lost me and panasonic is officially pricier than leica, so... what now?

What makes you say that? I thought the cheapest Leica was still several times more expensive than a "mass market" camera.

voyager · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2010, 11:12:52 AM »

I really doubt that will happen. Panasonic doesn't seem to be as stupid as Olympus in pricing their cameras.

Centauri27 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2010, 04:01:47 PM »

Well, the GF1 was initially more expensive than the E-P1. And the 20mm and 7-14mm are breathtakingly priced... But the G10 is much more affordable, though still more than the E-PL1 and the entry-level DSLRs.

lisandra · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2010, 06:05:53 PM »

The Leica comment was sarcasm, but still, you gotta admit that's expensive. I kinda understood the GH1 price as I understood the lens wasnt really a kit lens. But what are they gonna stick on this to justify the price? BTW I just saw on 43rumors that the price will be 1500$, damn it...

Panther · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2010, 06:07:23 PM »

Quote from: Centauri27 on September 16, 2010, 04:01:47 PM

Well, the GF1 was initially more expensive than the E-P1.

And it doesn't even have in-body image stabilization....

Centauri27 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2010, 01:53:21 PM »

Quote from: Panther on September 16, 2010, 06:07:23 PM

Quote from: Centauri27 on September 16, 2010, 04:01:47 PM
Well, the GF1 was initially more expensive than the E-P1.

And it doesn't even have in-body image stabilization....

Yeah, but that was offset by its higher res LCD and built-in flash. But then it doesn't have stereo mikes, so in the end everything is a wash.

the GH2 has 16 megapixels!