S1II has been added to photonstophoto / looks promising

[CharlesH]

I don't know exactly what the abbreviation "DGO" stand for.
But I guess the difference by using ISO 80 or ISO 400 as two different base ISO settings, for merging it into one image.
An improvement as by noise levels and dynamic range, "above" ISO 400 within the camera system.

Yes, DGO stands for Dual Gain Output. It is described pretty well in this PetaPixel article, and by the video in that article by Horshack. It looks like a very important advancement in dynamic range for the S1 II over other cameras, and George is exploring whether it might be possible for Panasonic to do the same thing with the S1R II.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I don't know exactly what the abbreviation "DGO" stand for.
But I guess the difference by using ISO 80 or ISO 400 as two different base ISO settings, for merging it into one image.

Yes, Charles is right - I was talking about the advantage S1RII owners would see if Panasonic were to add DGO (which is currently only available in the S1II) to the S1RII. Basically, we would see substantially cleaner shadows from a single shot, which is quite valuable.

But yes, one could always run an existing S1RII ISO 80 shot (which therefore does not have DGO) through DXO and I'm sure there would be improvements over Capture One. Likewise, one could also use traditional HDR techniques, etc.

However, the appeal of getting super clean shadows from a single shot with no special PP is quite strong, at least for me.

As PetaPixel and Horshack have said, it seems likely that DGO will eventually make it's way into many future FF bodies from all the manufacturers. And, if Panasonic were to add it to the S1RII, I think a very strong case could be made for the S1RII becoming the best FF body currently on the market for landscape - a throne that is now held by the Leica and Sony bodies that have the 60 MP sensor. I'd personally give up 15 MP to get those shadows, and I'd be willing to give Panasonic money for a firmware update that enables it in the S1RII. I hope they are listening!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Just asked Sean @ Lumix if the S1RII could get DGO (or whatever Panasonic calls it) and he said that the S1RII is a "completely different system". Meaning, how it does DR boost vs. expansion. So it looks like the answer if "no dice." Oh well.

Now I have to think about whether or not I also get an S1II. It never ends...

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

So, I downloaded the base-ISO "+6 Stop" (i.e., images that are underexposed by 6 stops) for the S1II, S1RII, Sony A7RV, and Nikon Z7II from the DPR test widget. Pulled the raws into the latest version of Capture One, and pushed them all six stops. Below is what I ended up with. Top left = Nikon. Top right = Sony. Bottom left = S1RII. Bottom right = our new star pupil - the S1II.

All are at 200% zoom on a MBP panel.



I'm now seriously considering buying an S1II to compliment the S1RII.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

OK, so I decided to compare some 24 MP sensors. The Sony A7III (to keep it at 24 MP), the S1, and the S1II. Again, all "+6 stop" images from the DPR test widget.

It's interesting that the difference between the S1 and S1II are not that great. Sure, the S1II is better, but not by much. Perhaps about what might be expected based on Bill Claff's numbers., where the S1II measured out at about 0.4 stops higher than the S1 at base ISO.

But the A7III does look considerably worse, even though it's base ISO PDR is right in between the S1 & S1II.

So now I'm confused. Has Panasonic been leveraging the dual-ISO all along - even with the S1? Or perhaps I'm out in left field technically and making apples-to-oranges comparisons here. Not sure.

 

[Babylonia]

So, I downloaded the base-ISO "+6 Stop" (i.e., images that are underexposed by 6 stops) for the S1II, S1RII, Sony A7RV, and Nikon Z7II from the DPR test widget. Pulled the raws into the latest version of Capture One, and pushed them all six stops.
Below is what I ended up with. Top left = Nikon. Top right = Sony. Bottom left = S1RII. Bottom right = our new star pupil - the S1II.

By "base-ISO" you do mean the lowest native ISO RAW images ??
As for the Nikon Z7II - the lowest base ISO = 64
The other camera's - the lowest base ISO = 100

And pushing it up to 6 Stops by Capture One.

I am willing to check later what DXO can do with it.

I'm now seriously considering buying an S1II to compliment the S1RII.

Keep in mind though that for a better insight comparison as by resolution differences, you have to enlarge the S1II output for about 2x
Or down-size the higher pixel camera output of the other camera's to the lower MP count of the S1I.

I think by that (my own expectations), the differences are not that big any-more to justify buying an extra camera??
(Unless you have enough money for spending - and you don't care at all ).

 

[Quentinquirelino]

....

So now I'm confused. Has Panasonic been leveraging the dual-ISO all along - even with the S1? Or perhaps I'm out in left field technically and making apples-to-oranges comparisons here. Not sure.
...

Try to compare it with a Nikon Z6II. Nikon and Panasonic always got a little bit more out of the sensor.

However, I think you're wrong. You have to compare the S1II to the Z6III. Then you see the improvement due to DGO. The previous 24 Mpix sensors have been much better and with the S1II, Panasonic just getting on the same level or only a little above.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

By "base-ISO" you do mean the lowest native ISO RAW images ??
As for the Nikon Z7II - the lowest base ISO = 64
The other camera's - the lowest base ISO = 100

Yes - thanks for that. Missed the Z7II's base ISO.

And pushing it up to 6 Stops by Capture One.

I am willing to check later what DXO can do with it.



Keep in mind though that for a better insight comparison as by resolution differences, you have to enlarge the S1II output for about 2x
Or down-size the higher pixel camera output of the other camera's to the lower MP count of the S1I.

Yes, of course true. But right now I want to focus on pixel level noise without any upsampling or downsampling. The question is - am I so enamored with the shadows on the S1II that I'd be willing to give up the resolution of the S1RII in at least some situations.

I think by that (my own expectations), the differences are not that big any-more to justify buying an extra camera??
(Unless you have enough money for spending - and you don't care at all ).

LOL. No, I want to justify it. Won't spend the money if I don't need to. But Horshack's analysis indicates there IS a significant difference with the S1II over basically every other FF body right now when shooting base ISO with mechanical shutter, which is my normal way to photograph.

Right now, I'm trying to determine if the DPR S1II test images used the electronic shutter, in which case they would not exhibit the improvements I am looking to validate. It would explain what I'm seeing (a relatively small difference between S1 and S1II). So far, the extended EXIF viewers I have tried do not seem to report shutter type. Not sure if it is encoded.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

. You have to compare the S1II to the Z6III. Then you see the improvement due to DGO. The previous 24 Mpix sensors have been much better and with the S1II, Panasonic just getting on the same level or only a little above.

Yes I agree, the Z6III is the right choice to compare 24MP sensors. But until I can validate that the mechanical shutter was used with the S1II shots, the comparison isn't going to be very interesting.

 

[Andreas]

Yes I agree, the Z6III is the right choice to compare 24MP sensors. But until I can validate that the mechanical shutter was used with the S1II shots, the comparison isn't going to be very interesting.

If you exam the EXIF file you will see that the mechanical shutter was in fact used for these test shots. It says "Shutter Type Mechanical".

The differences between the S1II and S1 are very small in these tests. Boosting underexposed shots at ISO 100 shows a very small advantage for the S1II over the S1, but on the other hand the ISO 6400 shots show a very small advantage for the S1 over the S1II (both normally exposed and underexposed). It's difficult for me to imagine the circumstances where these small differences would be photographically relevant when viewing the final images at normal viewing distances, either in print or on the screen.

 

[Andreas]

... So far, the extended EXIF viewers I have tried do not seem to report shutter type. Not sure if it is encoded.

Sorry, I missed this before I posted my last response. The shutter type is reported in the manufacturer-specific section of the EXIF file. Raw Therapee shows this information so I assumed that other RAW editors would do so as well, but maybe not. By the way, this section of the EXIF file also shows that Shading Compensation is set to On, which might be a cause for concern when comparing parts of the image near the periphery. As I understand it this setting affects the RAW files as well as the JPEGs, although I could be wrong about this.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

If you exam the EXIF file you will see that the mechanical shutter was in fact used for these test shots. It says "Shutter Type Mechanical".

The differences between the S1II and S1 are very small in these tests. Boosting underexposed shots at ISO 100 shows a very small advantage for the S1II over the S1, but on the other hand the ISO 6400 shots show a very small advantage for the S1 over the S1II (both normally exposed and underexposed). It's difficult for me to imagine the circumstances where these small differences would be photographically relevant when viewing the final images at normal viewing distances, either in print or on the screen.

Yes, I agree, the tests I have done do not justify a new body.

However, if you watch Horshack's video (link below) he compares images from the S1II that were generated with mechanical vs electronic shutter, and the difference is substantial. Further, the difference is far greater than shown in my test (although he is pushing the images more than I am). So it would seem that (a) there is something there, and (b) my tests are not showing it.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Note that the PP article includes an acknowledgement from Panasonic that they are doing DGO in stills mode with the S1II, but they don't want to say - for the time being - the circumstances in which it is used. Which tells me that the implementation could change in future firmware versions.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I chatted with somebody at DPR, and they did validate that they used the mechanical shutter when creating the test images. They also said that are doing more investigations into the DR of the S1II based on Horshack's results. It will be interesting to see where this all ends up.

 

[Babylonia]

If you exam the EXIF file you will see that the mechanical shutter was in fact used for these test shots. It says "Shutter Type Mechanical".

I am using the EXIF tool by Phil Harvey. (By my knowledge, for many years the most extensive exif info reader).

ExifTool by Phil Harvey

A command-line application and Perl library for reading and writing EXIF, GPS, IPTC, XMP, makernotes and other meta information in image, audio and video files. For Windows, MacOS, and Unix systems.

exiftool.org

Besides the following information, of the S1II image,
e.g. a shutter release delay of 2 seconds is used.
RAW file = 14 bit.

 

[Pete_W]

Now I have to think about whether or not I also get an S1II. It never ends...

Ha!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Ha!

Yes, I understand the irony.

 

[Babylonia]

But right now I want to focus on pixel level noise without any upsampling or downsampling.
The question is - am I so enamored with the shadows on the S1II that I'd be willing to give up the resolution of the S1RII in at least some situations.

But let this thought don't fool you.

In the situation it is your daily job e.g. doing video, you can have much benefit of these new technique,
getting cleaner dynamic range footage.

But with photography like what you describe as "at least some situations".
There are other options that can be far more effective, than buying another "half" MP resolution camera IMO.

Like exposure bracketing by using e.g. one stop EV difference for each image.
(Three images = 2 stop EV difference. Five images 4 stop EV difference)

You can overlay the different shots as separate image layers over each other, within image processing.
And "brush" one or another layer with the best shadows (versus highlights) for the best overall image experience.
Eventually use "HDR" tools within existing imaging software, which greatly can automate this process for you.

Normally you need the use of a tripod to overcome misalignments of separate images.
However I don't know if in the case of a "hand held" exposure bracket in a "burst",
tiny misalignment errors within images, can be corrected automatically in today’s HDR software??
(I "should think", today’s AI driven software should be smart enough to do this job).
-

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

But let this thought don't fool you.

In the situation it is your daily job e.g. doing video, you can have much benefit of these new technique,
getting cleaner dynamic range footage.

But with photography like what you describe as "at least some situations".
There are other options that can be far more effective, than buying another "half" MP resolution camera IMO.

Like exposure bracketing by using e.g. one stop EV difference for each image.
(Three images = 2 stop EV difference. Five images 4 stop EV difference)

You can overlay the different shots as separate image layers over each other, within image processing.
And "brush" one or another layer with the best shadows (versus highlights) for the best overall image experience.
Eventually use "HDR" tools within existing imaging software, which greatly can automate this process for you.

Normally you need the use of a tripod to overcome misalignments of separate images.
However I don't know if in the case of a "hand held" exposure bracket in a "burst",
tiny misalignment errors within images, can be corrected automatically in today’s HDR software??
(I "should think", today’s AI driven software should be smart enough to do this job).
-

Yes, I'm quite aware of all the techniques.

I'm not being fooled by anything. So far, it seems the situations where DGO is active is base ISO (or somewhat above it, if you prefer) and using the mechanical or EFC shutter. Which is 90% of my landscape photography. There are also situations in continuous drive where it active, but you have to set the right option in the menus.

I prefer to avoid multiple shots whenever I can. DGO would give 3-stop cleaner shadows out of a single shot. Which is well beyond the benefit one gets when going to medium format (Fuji GFX or Hasselblad). No blending in post, no motion artifacts.

Of course, it might turn out to be a bust. Since there is no coverage in the user manual, Panasonic could change it or even remove it altogether if it turns out the in-camera stitching of the two exposures is problematic. But the benefits are plain as day when you compare the G9 to G9II. So we know it can work.

I understand being skeptical, but if it works, I'll probably pay for it. You probably will not, which is of course fine. But it's not a fool's pursuit, IMO. Otherwise no one would do exposure bracketing or have graduated NDs.

I think it could even be beneficial for astro - ISO 100 or 200 to keep the stars from blowing out or being overly bright, and ISO 800 for everything else. Particularly when doing long (2-4 minute) tracked shots with a fast lens. Probably not so much for a quick 15 second exposure and/or a slower lens.

I'm considering renting an S1II for my upcoming trip into the SW.

 

[Babylonia]

I prefer to avoid multiple shots whenever I can. DGO would give 3-stop cleaner shadows out of a single shot. Which is well beyond the benefit one gets when going to medium format (Fuji GFX or Hasselblad). No blending in post, no motion artifacts.

I didn't releasee the difference is "3 stop" EV improvement.
Yes, I can imagine it is a very attractive position what an S1-II camera body can achieve, by just "one shot" taking pictures.

I'm considering renting an S1II for my upcoming trip into the SW.

That's a very wise option, to discover yourself what a real practice experience and judgement of normal taken images can bring to you.
Instead by judgement of "measured" test shots, by some standard settings, and standard used software options.

As you wrote, you specially are doing "landscape" photography.
I wonder if the about half MP pixel count of an S1-II camera, in comparison to your S1R-II camera,
the advantages by the more wider dynamic range above a certain ISO setting + DGO,
can concur by the disadvantages due to (far) less detail in comparison to the S1R-II camera ?

All comes by advantages and disadvantages.

So I'm curious about your practical experience, you shall encounter in this matter.
-