Canon G10 DPreview review lukewarm....

[hassiman]

It seems like the folks at DPreview weren't that stoked by the G10.  I have been shooting mine for a week now... but without ACR 5.2 to view and work with the G10 CR2 RAW files I couldn't tell how good the results REALLY were.  I was surprised by the review, especially after the LL crew display  ed such stunning results from the G10... but I guess it comes down to trusting critics or trusting craftsman who actually use the tools.  I won't be able to tell until I get back to California.  

Anyone here tried one with the new ACR 5.2?  G10 good?

[jmwscot]

It seems like the folks at DPreview weren't that stoked by the G10.  I have been shooting mine for a week now... but without ACR 5.2 to view and work with the G10 CR2 RAW files I couldn't tell how good the results REALLY were.  I was surprised by the review, especially after the LL crew display  ed such stunning results from the G10... but I guess it comes down to trusting critics or trusting craftsman who actually use the tools.  I won't be able to tell until I get back to California.  

Anyone here tired one with the new ACR 5.2?  G10 good?

I think the G10 is great. I use it for my own personal photography and use my 1Ds MK3 for professional work. I am getting superb print quality from the wee camera with my Epson 3800, printing my normal sizes of A3 for portfolio box and larger for mounting. I have been spoiled with Lightroom which I use exclusively now. By comparison Canon DPP is clunky and a bit limited in the adjustments side but the rendering is excellent.

I used the G10 and DNG 5.2 Convertor with Lightroom today so I can give you my impressions. The colour rendering using the default Adobe Standard makes blues a bit too much on the green side and yellows and browns a bit too red. However if you select Camera Standard in the Camera Calibration panel the results are virtually identical to DPP Standard, which with the G10, I prefer. (With the 1Ds MK3 in Lightroom, I do prefer the Adobe Standard as opposed to the Camera Standard).

DPP rendering gives a more noise free result than Adobe, especially noticeable at 400ASA. That's using Adobe's default of 25 chroma and 0 luminance. Increasing Adobe's luminance just makes the noise go out of focus and clumpy so forget that. I used Noise Ninjah and did just the basic profile image and noise reduction and the result is at least as good as DPP with no obvious softening of the image which did surprise me. I've had Noise Ninjah for a while but thought I never really needed it with the big camera even at 3200ASA so I must explore that a bit more.

All the real benefits of Adobe 5.2's really easy image adjustments, good highlight and shadow recovery and file management do now come into play.

I hope this helps, John

[jmwscot]

DPP rendering gives a more noise free result than Adobe, especially noticeable at 400ASA. That's using Adobe's default of 25 chroma and 0 luminance. Increasing Adobe's luminance just makes the noise go out of focus and clumpy so forget that. I used Noise Ninjah and did just the basic profile image and noise reduction and the result is at least as good as DPP with no obvious softening of the image which did surprise me.

I've just done some more tests regarding noise at 400ASA with DPP and DNG 5.2 and Noise Ninjah. Noise Ninja smoothes the image just too much - even with adjusting its sliders. Very Noticeable on faces but less so on architecture etc. I think I prefer the effect of Adobe's noise reduction. At Luminance 53 and chroma 25 it's not bad. At 100% on the screen noise on blue sky is a bit clumpy but printed out it looks fine and is close enough to DPP. Note that I am not adding any additional NR in DPP. It simply renders a more noise free image.

Otherwise what I said before remains. You will be happy with ACR 5.2 or Lightroom. The final image looks much the same from Adobe and DPP but Adobe is much easier to adjust.

John

[Tony Beach]

It seems like the folks at DPreview weren't that stoked by the G10.

... but I guess it comes down to trusting critics or trusting craftsman who actually use the tools.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30133441

[rainer_v]

although the g10 is just incremental better than the g9 this little step is a big one because it makes a good p+s camera ( g9 ) to a very good one ( g10 ) ... i love to use it, the iso wheel is great and it has app. 1- 2  stops lower noise  than the g9.
the only thing i dont like are the CA wich are too strong for my taste. till a good degree they can be removed in the raw conversion but it decrease sharpness slightly and in overexposed hard edges there remain some artefacts still.

[httivals]

I agree that the chromatic aberration is probably the biggest drawback (though it's only in the corners, and is still less than the CA I saw in the LX3 I used for a week or two).  Rainer: you should go to DXO Optics Pro website and put in a request that they support the G10.  DXO's chromatic aberration correction is just about perfect in my experience.

although the g10 is just incremental better than the g9 this little step is a big one because it makes a good p+s camera ( g9 ) to a very good one ( g10 ) ... i love to use it, the iso wheel is great and it has app. 1- 2  stops lower noise  than the g9.
the only thing i dont like are the CA wich are too strong for my taste. till a good degree they can be removed in the raw conversion but it decrease sharpness slightly and in overexposed hard edges there remain some artefacts still.