Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: tgphoto on October 23, 2008, 08:54:01 am
-
Great article, Michael!
I've wondered for some time now if the current crop of advanced point-and-shoots were approaching the image quality of an interchangeable lens system, and this article says it all. The side-by-side shots taken with the MFDB and G10 were a real eye-opener.
Having just come back from a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, where I lugged a Mamiya RB67, lenses, film backs, etc. up 12,000 ft. peaks, the G10 has just jumped to the top of my list
-
It confirms what I was seeing late last week when I took some snaps of some foliage in my back yard with the new G10, I was quite surprised at the pixel quality when shot at 80 iso and good late afternoon lighting. My G9 delivered somewhat mushy pixels, but the G10 seems to be in another catagory.
-
Remember the big shootout that Michael did a while back?
The baby of the pack was a Canon 5D. That shootout was what convinced me that the 5D was the camera for me. Were the big guns better? Of course, but the 5D sure was pretty darned good.
Over at dpreview Phil has just finished his review of the A900. One of his comments was how well the 5D still holds up.
And now we have the G10 muscling in.
I can't wait to see Michael's review of the Panasonic G1 when he gets his hands on one. Maybe I won't be "upgrading" from my 5D, but downgrading instead.
Does anyone else feel that this Photokina brought in an explosion of new ideas and possibilities? Simply amazing.
-
Now what we need is for the great lens race to begin in earnest. Once the lenses have better resolving power, then I invite the manufacturers to continue their mad megapixel count - to increase the 'cropability' of photographs.
I want to get a 10G that will come everywhere with me.
-
Very interesting read on this one.
Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..
As for the yet again
"In 2001 I wrote that the 3 Megapixel Canon D30 produced files competitive with scanned 35mm film at smaller print sizes. I was derided and vilified then, but of course was ultimately proven correct – digital simply outperforms film, and few people today think otherwise"
I strongly disagree, and I own a 6mp APS-C DSLR, sorry you are wrong!
-
What is Michael saying????? HERESY!!!! ;-) LOL!
Just kidding of course, I don't even know if I have ever even seen a "Hassy" in person. As for me, I've got a Nikon D700 and it is WONDERFUL!
Michael, this is a really, REALLY good article and very exciting. I couldn't make it through all of Kurzweil's book, but he is coming out with a movie about the "Singularity"; I think 2009 or 2010?
Once again, kudos on this article, really fantastic!
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
Great article, Michael!
I've wondered for some time now if the current crop of advanced point-and-shoots were approaching the image quality of an interchangeable lens system, and this article says it all. The side-by-side shots taken with the MFDB and G10 were a real eye-opener.
Having just come back from a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, where I lugged a Mamiya RB67, lenses, film backs, etc. up 12,000 ft. peaks, the G10 has just jumped to the top of my list
-
Great article, Michael! Been thinking about a G10 for my wife. Maybe I'll have to keep it for myself!
Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..
My understanding of what the article says is not 'the camera doesn't matter', but rather that the quality of digital cameras today is better than what many photographers will use them for. An Indy race car may be capable of 300 km/h, but if you're commuting to work in the city, it will mostly be driven at under 50 km/h.
Mike.
-
I don't think we need to get into the cheaper v expensive camera debate, we had enough of that not long ago! I was of course jesting on that..
On the 35mm v, well that is an interesting one, and I simply feel differently to some others. It also appears that many of the testers are unable to reach the same conclusions as each other. We have results from 6mp to 15mp and over..rather interesting to say the least. And as there are a good variety of films out there, blanket statements simply won't do for that either..
I looked at some of the G10 shots, and they look good to me, have to say that. Looks like a decent camera.
However, I would like to raise one point. I tend to find many articles such as this one, have an unhealthy fixation with "resolution""resolution" "resolution", and little else appears to matter.
I have been consistently disappointed with the dynamic range of smaller sensors, even for scenes I would not consider to be that difficult. Now I have no experience of the G10, maybe it's better. But this highlights an important, and often overlooked aspect of image quality. To be honest I am not really satisfied with the DR/Tonal response of some of the DSLR's I have tried. No question technology gets better, but simply hammering megapixels, is not enough IMO. This is one area that has bothered me the most, makers seem mostly geared to resolution, and not a lot else. I think it's high time we looked beyond that.
-
Very interesting read on this one.
Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..
As for the yet again
"In 2001 I wrote that the 3 Megapixel Canon D30 produced files competitive with scanned 35mm film at smaller print sizes. I was derided and vilified then, but of course was ultimately proven correct – digital simply outperforms film, and few people today think otherwise"
I strongly disagree, and I own a 6mp APS-C DSLR, sorry you are wrong!
Barry
Micheal made this comment in relation to smallish print sizes. Would you not accept that at some print size digital can match or surpass film?
Let's be extreme here - which is likely to offer superior 5 x 3 inch prints, 35mm Velvia or an A900 or 5Dii raw file?
-
Dave, you are asking what would make the superior print, and what defines superior?
Resolution? Is that is??
As it happens I have an A900 print right by me.
I would expect the sony and canon to be almost the same, the difference in megapixels is small, and likely invisible in print. I would also expect them to resolve more details than velvia.
However, we know that velvia is not the highest resolving film for 35mm don't we...
I would also debate that resolution is not the only important aspect of image quality.
-
When Michael wrote his review of the G8 I ran out and bought one and loved shooting the kids with it. It gave me a lot of flexability I coudn't get with my SLR. What I missed must of all though was my Canon lenses. For me it's not the camera that is the most important tool I own, but my lenses. I love what I can do with my 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and 200 f2,8. I have a love affair with my lenses not my camera's. I had fun with my G8 for a few months but don't use it much anymore. The pictures just didn't have the beauty I achieve with a 85 1.2.
-
I always like to see the sorts of comparisons Michael has made in this article. Cameras are tools and it helps to know what the strengths and weaknesses are of any particular tool in a particular set of circumstances.
I think the comparison might have been even more amazing if Michael had equalised the DoF in each image. As I understand, there's roughly a 4 1/2 stop DoF difference between a P&S image and FF 35mm of equal FoV. There's approximately one stop difference between FF 35mm and a 36x48mm DB for equal DoF.
The G10 shot was at F3.5, therefore the MFDB should have been at F22 rather than F11. Equalising DoF in this manner would have put the G10 at a lesser disadvantage in respect of absolute resolution, and it would have been a perfectly fair and legitimate thing to do.
-
Very interesting article!
I have taken up Michael's offer of downloading the image files shot with the G10, and the one shot with the Hasselblad. Then printed them on my ipf6100 on A3
Permajet Oyster paper. First impressions of the G10 images were that they were very good. Then comparing with the Hasselblad file and I was amazed! The
detail in both pictures is very similar. I would say that I can just make out possibly a tiny bit more definition in the Hasselblad image on the near tree trunk. The
depth of field is greater on the G10 image, so it does look a bit different in the background. But for this image I actually prefer the greater D of F anyway.
This demonstrates that the G10 would be a great travel camera and for landscapes. What a huge weight saving.
Of course it will have limitations, probably in the higher ISO range, and capturing action shots. In addition, I love shallow depth of field, particularly when shooting
people. The G10 might not be so good there. However, for the types of pictures used in the article, it would be quite suitable for many people who do not want to
lug a DSLR around. Combined with a very light tripod perhaps.
I have an LX2 at the moment, and am looking forward to the forthcoming summary of the LX3 and G10 with great interest.
Thank you Michael for making those images available. I agree that to look at prints is much more practical than peering at the screen!
Jim
-
What a refreshing and liberating article. It has been said before: small cameras can be thought of as an extra "lens" in your bag. The G10 is cheaper than most of my DSLR lenses!! I've always liked old 35mm film point&shoots (Olympus XA, Stylus Epic, etc.), polaroids, Holgas, Lensbabies, pinhole cameras - anything that adds creativity. When I look up my favorites in my Lightroom catalog, I am surprised that many of them are taken with these oddball cameras instead of my "serious" gear. Based on your glowing recommendation, I'm going out to get a G10 as yet another photographic tool. The best camera is the one that's in your hand. What a great time to be a photographer!
-
When Michael wrote his review of the G8 I ran out and bought one and loved shooting the kids with it. It gave me a lot of flexability I coudn't get with my SLR. What I missed must of all though was my Canon lenses. For me it's not the camera that is the most important tool I own, but my lenses. I love what I can do with my 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and 200 f2,8. I have a love affair with my lenses not my camera's. I had fun with my G8 for a few months but don't use it much anymore. The pictures just didn't have the beauty I achieve with a 85 1.2.
This is an excellent point, and a possible problem with Michael's thesis. Moore's Law applies to integrated circuit technology largely because of shrinking geometries and the extremely small delta cost to manufacture a 25-million transistor die vs. a 1-million transistor die. Some may be tempted to extend Moore's Law to other fields of technology where it will not apply because economies of scale such as those applicable to ICs do not exist.
Lenses would appear to be one such technology. A digital camera is comprised of electronics, electromechanics (in the case of a DSLR), and a lens. Moore's Law, as it applies to digital cameras, is likely to soon run out of steam as the limiting factor in IQ moves away from the electronics (e.g., the sensor) and moves in the direction of the optics.
Bruce
-
Mister Reichmann, thank you for that clear, pleasant readable & balanced article.
-
"Faster, better, cheaper!"
The mantra of the digital age!
Great article Michael.
Take care,
Don
-
.....Does anyone else feel that this Photokina brought in an explosion of new ideas and possibilities? Simply amazing.
The Panasonic LX3, intro'd just prior, validated a lot of what people here were asking for. Now the G10 offers a good contrast to the LX3, not just more of the same. That is exciting.
-
Hi Michael,
The G10 is a great camera, but I feel the P45 JPEG that I downloaded showed that you didn't exactly "NAIL" the focus, or perhaps you needed to stop down more. I'm not telling you how to take photographs, but I've worked with P45 files, and this is one I would throw away due to nothing being in decent focus IMO.
-
Very interesting article. What I'm looking forward to is a review of the G10's low-light performance. I have a G9 which I use for "social" pics, which are usually indoors in less than ideal light. The performance under such conditions is less than stellar (high noise) in comparison to DSLR's, and I would be really impressed if the G10 has made significant improvements in low-light imaging.
-
I had to buy a new pocket camera after my Canon S70 recently became unreliable. I ended up with a Ricoh GX200 as the G9 simply was not the tool for me only having a 35mm wide lens compared to the Ricoh's ideal for me 24mm. Also I really like the Ricoh camera design as it has some very nice touches to it that are truly excellent.
Sadly the image quality isn't as good as the design quality, I daren't use it over 100ISO due to the awful noise. Not good for an $800 camera! So whilst the Canon may be better despite the MP increase over the G9, it seems the GX200 is markedly inferior to the GX100 in that department. I tested the older version a short while back and it was certainly usuable at the higher ISO, but appalingly slow at RAW capture, so no good for me.
I'm now wishing I'd known about the G10 as I may have well have bought that instead. Maybe I could buy one for the other pocket!!
-
Very interesting article. What I'm looking forward to is a review of the G10's low-light performance. I have a G9 which I use for "social" pics, which are usually indoors in less than ideal light. The performance under such conditions is less than stellar (high noise) in comparison to DSLR's, and I would be really impressed if the G10 has made significant improvements in low-light imaging.
It is clearly not the point of the article, but yes, that is indeed a good question.
The P6000 that I have been using is capable of very decent results at base ISO, but things get worse quickly beyond that.
I am sure that just about 10MP+ compact used at low ISO would have delivered results similar to that of the G10. Now do the test again at ISO 400 and the story will probably be pretty different. Still, it would seem that the G10 is among the best at medium ISO values though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My admittedly brief impression of the G10 is very different from Michael's. Since the G10 uses the same 1/1.7 CCD as the G9, and 17% more pixels crammed into that tiny chip, how could we expect its performance to be better? And, of course, it's not. At ISO's above 100 the image begins to get flatter and coarser. By 400 the images, to my eyes, were much noisier in the darks than the G9, which produces a usable dim light 400. The ISO 80 that Michael used is lovely on the G9, and apparently also on the G10. But it's not a realistic practical benchmark.
If I did not already own a G9 I'd probably grab a G10. But the G10 is just not a $500 step forward from the G9.
Apparently I'm not alone in my opinion, either. The G10 price is already beginning to erode, while the remaining stocks of new G9s are selling at their original $500 or, in many cases, far ABOVE that mark.
Addendum: The (also) new Powershot SD990IS is very much worth a look if you just want a good occasional p&s. No, it doesn't shoot raw. But in nearly all other respects it has nearly equivalent specs to the G10 for $150 less. Same sensor. Same pixellage. Same Digic processor.
-
I just came back from two weeks in France with a G10 in my pocket every day. I bought it because I was getting tired of lugging around a Rebel with a zoom. I wanted something with good if not excellent picture quality and an unobtrusive presence. I didn't take a laptop with me so I had to wait until coming home to see what things looked like. ISO 80 and 100 were literally stunning—a substantial improvement over the Rebel and demonstrating the quality that Michael describes. After that . . . well, things get noisy pretty fast. 200's OK; 400 is time for Noise Ninja; and 800 & 1600 are grim.
I didn't find the weight a problem at all. Coat pockets were fine. What I did find irksome was the controls: they're too close together. Why they couldn't have stretched the camera a bit so you don't have to do finger yoga before using it is a real question. And I really do not like power zoom but I know at this size it's pretty much a requirement.
The one thing I notice is consistently burned out highlights in pictures where I simply wouldn't have expected them. There is an exposure compensation dial that will reduce this but I've found I always forget to set it and then get really irritated when I don't need it and forget I've set it.
%^)
All in all I'm very pleased with the G10 but still hanker for the grace of the Spotmatic that I used decades ago.
Dave
-
My admittedly brief impression of the G10 is very different from Michael's. Since the G10 uses the same 1/1.7 CCD as the G9, and 17% more pixels crammed into that tiny chip, how could we expect its performance to be better? And, of course, it's not. At ISO's above 100 the image begins to get flatter and coarser. By 400 the images, to my eyes, were much noisier in the darks than the G9, which produces a usable dim light 400. The ISO 80 that Michael used is lovely on the G9, and apparently also on the G10. But it's not a realistic practical benchmark.
All the P&S cameras that I've owned have produced reasonably good images only at base ISO and about one stop above base ISO. I think we have to accept this limitation.
Nevertheless, there is a particular, narrow set of circumstances where the P&S camera can almost take on the much more expensive, heavier and bulkier camera. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the latest P&S models, such as the G10, can actually exceed the image quality of the more expensive DSLR or MFDB in certain conditions.
Specifically, supposing the photographer requires both an extensive DoF for a particular shot and a reasonably fast shutter speed to freeze movement in the scene, say a street scene at dusk. Flash doesn't have the range and a long exposure on a tripod would produced too much blurring of people moving.
The options might be a Canon G10 at F3.5, ISO 80 and 1/100th sec exposure, or a 1Ds3 at F16, ISO 1600 and 100th sec exposure, or an MFDB at F22, ISO 800 underexposed 2 stops (if that's the highest ISO setting) and 100th sec exposures.
If all images have the same DoF, the same shutter speed and the same FoV, which camera will produce the best image quality in the circumstances described? Any of you bright chaps know?
-
Love the article Michael,
I have been searching for a good p&s camera,..was going to buy the G9 last year but I got over ruled lol...so instead took my 30D and all three L lenses on holiday... great way to loose weight lol
15 years ago I backpacked through Europe, I had my Eos 35mm and two lenses, plus a p&s with a glass lens.... after my two year stint, i sometimes would look at an image and find it hard to tell which camera it was shot with, until I check the rest of the negs,... seems you got that same feeling with the G10
.. now its two cameras i want,.... the 5D2 and the G10 lol
its exiting times to be a photographer
Adrian
-
When we went to Alaska earlier this year I of course took my Mamiya/P30+ for landscape as well as a Canon 1Ds II for wildlife; we also took a Canon G9 for a walk-around. We used the G9 almost everyday and at the end of the day as I was saving the daily images I kept being surprised at the image quality. No, I’m not getting rid of my medium format but then again I’m not about to toss the G9 out either. I was offered a G10 when they first came out however I think I’ll wait till the G12 come out – just think what the quality will be then
Good article Michael – as usual.
don
-
My admittedly brief impression of the G10 is very different from Michael's. Since the G10 uses the same 1/1.7 CCD as the G9, and 17% more pixels crammed into that tiny chip, how could we expect its performance to be better? And, of course, it's not. At ISO's above 100 the image begins to get flatter and coarser. By 400 the images, to my eyes, were much noisier in the darks than the G9, which produces a usable dim light 400. The ISO 80 that Michael used is lovely on the G9, and apparently also on the G10. But it's not a realistic practical benchmark.
If I did not already own a G9 I'd probably grab a G10. But the G10 is just not a $500 step forward from the G9.
Apparently I'm not alone in my opinion, either. The G10 price is already beginning to erode, while the remaining stocks of new G9s are selling at their original $500 or, in many cases, far ABOVE that mark.
Addendum: The (also) new Powershot SD990IS is very much worth a look if you just want a good occasional p&s. No, it doesn't shoot raw. But in nearly all other respects it has nearly equivalent specs to the G10 for $150 less. Same sensor. Same pixellage. Same Digic processor.
How can it be the same sensor, if contains more photo sites? Canon states it is a new sensor, why couldn't it be? Why assume that a higher density sensor cannot deliver a lower noise image? Technology improvements have been doing this for a long time, and there are several of those improvements in the G10. If smaller pixels always led to more noise how could we have ever gotten to where we are today - that is what engineers have been doing for a couple of decades now. Where's the limit? Don't ask me ... according to many the 1DsMark2 was pretty much the limit, yet my 1DsMark3 easily out performs it. Who knows - the only absolute limit would be a sensor with no noise .. so until we get to that point I can't assume ways won't be invented to improve on what has already been done.
I have shot both cameras side by side specifically to see how the cameras handle noise. I even posted the images for anyone interested, and those that responded agreed that the G10 appears to have better noise performance. Neither camera performs well at 400 and above - snapshot performance at best. Not much reason to discuss this, but it clearly indicates that despite the increase in pixel count, engineers have indeed managed to lower noise. If I capture the same physical area with higher resolution, but the total noise remains the same, have I not lowered the overall noise? Same data spread over more pixels (signal), same amount of pixels with noise. Sounds like an improvement in the signal to noise ratio.
Your assessment of whether there is a reason to upgrade is a different discussion, and you might be right. Well exposed G9 images would have performed very similarly in a side by side test of 13"x19" prints - the G9 performs very well. However, I do believe the G10 may offer some improvements in some cases, such as more aggressive cropping or larger sizes.
The need for a camera to record and resolve detail has always been dependent on the amount of desired cropping latitude and overall desired print size. There really is no right or wrong here ... just each persons goals and desires, as well as their budget.
-
Addendum: The (also) new Powershot SD990IS is very much worth a look if you just want a good occasional p&s. No, it doesn't shoot raw. But in nearly all other respects it has nearly equivalent specs to the G10 for $150 less. Same sensor. Same pixellage. Same Digic processor.
You can hack Canon Firmware on the P+S cameras and I think, you can enable RAW as well as lots of other features. Even more handy now an Ixus has manual controls, shame it isn't the one with the 28mm lens.
Hacking Canon Article (http://lifehacker.com/387380/turn-your-point+and+shoot-into-a-super+camera)
The hacks (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK)
-
15 years ago I backpacked through Europe, I had my Eos 35mm and two lenses, plus a p&s with a glass lens.... after my two year stint, i sometimes would look at an image and find it hard to tell which camera it was shot with, until I check the rest of the negs,... seems you got that same feeling with the G10
As both had the same 'sensor' i.e. film, there shouldn't be the big differences that you see with digital P+Ss compared to FF cameras.
-
The one thing I notice is consistently burned out highlights in pictures where I simply wouldn't have expected them. There is an exposure compensation dial that will reduce this but I've found I always forget to set it and then get really irritated when I don't need it and forget I've set it.
Dave,
That's the main issue with these compacts, DR typically sucks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do wish these "Moore's Law" vibes would stop. It has been changed over the years in an attempt to make it fit.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/ (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/)
Nobody really cares about it, and those in the computer industry, mostly ignore it.
Back to cameras, dynamic range is again the thorny issue here, and I am not convinced technology is driving things in the right direction. If it were, we would have smaller sensor with much better DR than we currently do.
So yes things get better. but not at the rate many suggest, nor in the areas that some want.
Another point here, you can only megapixel these small sensor cameras so much, already diffraction is a problem, and it's going to get worse. Companies are going to have to come up with something a bit more interesting in years to come.
Lastly the difference between the G9 and G10 is a mere 12 to almost 15mp, pretty much invisible in giant sized prints. The most interesting move is the lens which now starts at 28mm, not a few extra lousy megapixels. Yes sensors get better, but not at the rate people would like, or suggest
-
That's the main issue with these compacts, DR typically sucks.
Yes, and that's the usual caveat in such comparisons too : resolution itself doesn't depend on sensor size alone (until you hit the wall of light wavelength), but DR does.
On a french forum there also has been a 450D (the latest Rebel, XSi I think) vs. 5D comparison : the two images really held the same details, though there were discriminant ones (ie evident things near pixel size), but the scene was a street with a portion of sky, and the street being exposed the same, in one shot the sky was burnt, in the other not. Guess which is which!
Micheal article is great, in that it can draw photographers' attention to what really counts : photography itself, and not the toys we use for it. But it does also mention that large pixels do retain some avantages in some situations, yes of course.
So, I'd have a request for the G10 vs P6000 review : Michael, if it's not too late, would it be possible to include some DR-specific shots?
I'm thinking to a 9 or 10-stop scene (eg an interior shot with view outside the window), exposed to the right and then processed to pull some detail out of the shadow. Of course high ISO shots tell a part of the tale, but some real-world situation like that might be useful too.
Anyway, maaaaany thanks for all the informations you provide!
-
I am currently working on the review, and yes, I will include some DR examples and comments.
Michael
-
Interesting article.
I have experienced something similar, in a way.
I use a Fuji s6000fd as a "car seat" camera.
Meaning, when i can shoot from the road side, and do not want to get out and set up.
(i know, lazy
I use a little beanbag on the partially rolled up window as a rest for the lense.
Landscape speaking, an am still surprised by its IQ (at 100 ISO, and it is 6.3 mp, sensor is a 1.7 SCCD, similar size to the G10) at the size I normally print (8x10ish) in comparison to my DSLR's (two 10 mp ones).
BTW: One little nit to pick at. The Moore's law thing is limited to central processor chips (the CPU in your desktop/laptop etc), not technology, generally.
-
Well done for having the nerve to publish this, despite the criticism it will ineviatably attract from some. A very interesting and valuable insight, as were the things you've been putting out about the convergence of still and video.
Neil.
-
Nevertheless, there is a particular, narrow set of circumstances where the P&S camera can almost take on the much more expensive, heavier and bulkier camera.
Ray, I know this isn't what you were thinking about but there is an interesting little flash photography trick that can be done with the Canon G9 and, I assume, the G10, that is not available on (any?) DSLRs. The G9 will sync to flash at up to 1/2000 sec (depending on connections) provided it does not think the flash is a Canon flash. By sync, I don't mean the high speed pulsing mode of Canon flash -- just a basic flash. I learned this from the Strobist (who also has a G9) and it a handy little trick to turn day into night except for the effects of flash -- not to mention fun to tinker with.
-
Hi Michael,
The G10 is a great camera, but I feel the P45 JPEG that I downloaded showed that you didn't exactly "NAIL" the focus, or perhaps you needed to stop down more. I'm not telling you how to take photographs, but I've worked with P45 files, and this is one I would throw away due to nothing being in decent focus IMO.
I totally agree with this poster. The G10 files in this low contrast light seem nice, BUT Michael, this is a lousy example of a MFDB file. If this is what you have been getting/expecting for quality out of your Hasselblad/Phase, you don't know what you have been missing. I don't shoot Hasselblad or Phase, but I'm sure the quality should be close to what I achieve my Contax/Aptus. Maybe your equipment has suffered from recent travels and needs a checkup.
-
Oh come on.
This was one file, and both cameras had the same advantages and disadvantages under the situation.
Lots of other files were shot and my point about experts not being able to see differences on 13X19" prints stands.
One can nit pick, but it doesn't change the results.
And yes, trust me, after some tens of thousands of medium format shots with a dozen different cameras and at least half that many backs I do indeed know what a technically good shot looks like.
If I'd posted another pair someone would likely have found some other nit to pick.
Just download some of my sample G10 files, make a print or two, and then judge for yourself what this little sucker can do.
Michael
-
I totally agree with this poster. The G10 files in this low contrast light seem nice, BUT Michael, this is a lousy example of a MFDB file. If this is what you have been getting/expecting for quality out of your Hasselblad/Phase, you don't know what you have been missing. I don't shoot Hasselblad or Phase, but I'm sure the quality should be close to what I achieve my Contax/Aptus. Maybe your equipment has suffered from recent travels and needs a checkup.
The point has probably been missed by some of you, that F11 on a DB produces a shallower DoF than F3.5 on a P&S, so there are inevitably some parts of that MFDB image that are less sharp than the G10 image. This is why I say that the circumstances where the P&S can take on the much heavier and more expensive camera are narrow.
Michael appears to have started with the MFDB shot, choosing an aperture that is moderately sharp and which provides a reasonable DoF, then as an after thought decided to shoot the same scene with the G10. To get the same DoF with the G10, he would have needed to use F1.8 which the G10 obviously doesn't have. Alternatively, he could have retaken the DB shot using F22 instead of F11. Doing that might have produced an even more shocking result because then the DB image might have been noticeably less sharp than the G10 in all parts of the image.
-
Oh come on.
...
Your skin must be at least two or three inches thick!
Thanks for the G10 and other small camera reviews and experiences.
-
If you saw some of the emails I receive, or what people write on "some other forums" you'd have some idea of why an elephant hide is necessary in this job.
Now I know how politicians must feel with their every word and action parsed and critiqued.
Michael
-
If you saw some of the emails I receive, or what people write on "some other forums" you'd have some idea of why an elephant hide is necessary in this job.
Now I know how politicians must feel with their every word and action parsed and critiqued.
Michael
Michael,
Have you noticed that the most frequent, nastiest posters almost never post or have links to their photos? When, in the rare case they finally do make one available, they are truly awful. I have seen that time and time again.
The other thing I see is the difficulty of trying to determine comparisons or facets of a camera or lens compared to another one. I used Nikons (film) for years, switched to Canon (1Ds,1D2,1Ds2), then back to Nikon (D3) because of the AF tracking of the D3 (worked better for what I was doing). The perennial question is whether to buy the Nikon version of the 300 f2.8, or get the 200-400 f4.0. Try posting a question about them and you get many strong opinions, but very few examples of images - and most I saw were simply unsharp. (I ended up taking a chance on the 200-400, and while long and heavy, it is very sharp with excellent contrast).
I find the information on your site to consistently be the best available - When I use equipment or software you have reviewed, I find myself in agreement with comments you have written. I am glad you do have such thick skin!
Bill
-
I might disagree with Michael on a few things, but the key element here is respect.
Have to say, I wouldn't want to compare myself to a politician though, as I think so little of them in general, find an honest one..you will be kept looking for some time.
Overall this is a good site, with mostly good people. Though I have always felt that the emphasis has been a little too much on testing. But then I am not the one running a "successful" website, so credit where it is due.
Most people are adult enough to be able to disagree, in a civilised way. I like Michael's work, it's very nice, still does not convince me about the 6mp v 35mm argument though ;-) But there are surely more important matters to concern ourselves with.
-
After Michael's review I engaged in some "impulse buying" and rushed to my local camera store and purchased a G10. Since I don't have a little discrete camera to carry around I though this would be a good move. What I found after carrying the camera around with me yesterday quickly shooting this and that, is this can be a handy thing to have. I can carry it in my very small purse, hang it from my wrist, or drop in my Camelback pack during a hike.....For me I need to stay at 80 or 100 iso (preferably 80) and have reasonable lighting. (but keep in mind I always try to use 50 iso on my Phase back and the "L" setting on my Canon).... I made a stunning 13X19 print of some flower pots and you would be hard pressed to tell this was from a point and shoot...really. (excellent detail in highlights and shadows)..... I am used to shooting with an H2 with a P45+ Phase back so I know what good files look like. Of course this is different from my Phase files and from my larger Canon 35mm files but these files from this little camera are good and all I had to process the raw from them was the Canon software which isn't all that great.
Attached is a small jpg of the file I printed from 16 bit tiff. (or I hope it's attached because I don't see it in the message window!) Eleanor
-
Ray,
I think that Michael just did an adhoc test. We all now that smaller formats have greater DOF, in some cases this works in favor of smaller formats and sometimes against. I actually had a similar experience when I was shooting MF film when I run out of 135 film. I was shooting MF as I would shoot 135, results were really worse than with 135 mostly because of lack of DOF. Normally my MF pictures were much better than my 135 work but not this time. Horses for the courses, Michael used to say.
I would say that tripod is what makes MF work. With tripod you can stop down. A tripod also helps to calm down, work slowly. With a small camera you can shoot free hand, large aperture. Image stabilisation certainly helps. I guess that smaller format always wins regarding convenience. To fully utilize larger formats needs some careful work.
Best regards
Erik
The point has probably been missed by some of you, that F11 on a DB produces a shallower DoF than F3.5 on a P&S, so there are inevitably some parts of that MFDB image that are less sharp than the G10 image. This is why I say that the circumstances where the P&S can take on the much heavier and more expensive camera are narrow.
Michael appears to have started with the MFDB shot, choosing an aperture that is moderately sharp and which provides a reasonable DoF, then as an after thought decided to shoot the same scene with the G10. To get the same DoF with the G10, he would have needed to use F1.8 which the G10 obviously doesn't have. Alternatively, he could have retaken the DB shot using F22 instead of F11. Doing that might have produced an even more shocking result because then the DB image might have been noticeably less sharp than the G10 in all parts of the image.
-
After Michael's review I engaged in some "impulse buying" and rushed to my local camera store and purchased a G10.....
Very nice photo. If what you get from a camera is a function of how much effort you put in (given the skills you already have), then the return ratio on the G10 is very, very good.
-
Very nice photo. If what you get from a camera is a function of how much effort you put in (given the skills you already have), then the return ratio on the G10 is very, very good.
This is my first post to this forum and my decision to join was triggered by Michaels' article which struck a chord with me, (though I have been visiting the site regularly for years).
Without going into to too many details, I earn 75% of my income from teaching digital photography and related skills and I have been expressing the same sentiments as Michael in classes for a long time now, in fact I have held 2 exhibitions in the last 6 months in which the great majority of the images were shot on compacts (all 10 megs or less). The most common question I get from students and exhibition attendees is usually "what camera did you shoot that on" I actually try to avoid telling people as much as possible, usually saying something like "well what do you think of the image'. The problem is a lot of people seem to equate the value of the image with the gear used, so as soon as you say Oh it was shot on this (expensive camera or DSLR etc) they respond with, "so that's why its so good". This really is an insult to the photographers skill and vision, so I try to avoid it so as my students can start to realize that learning skills is more important than collecting gear.
Of course when they find out that the 20 by 24 inch image they are looking at was shot on a lowly 6 meg Fuji f30 or similar they are at a loss for words.
I really do thank Michael for his article, I think it is fair, down to earth and makes very valid points, I just hope his flame suit is intact as the fires are breathing heavy over at DP review, suddenly he has gone from knowledgeable expert to hack snapper, what an insult to his skills and contribution to the art over the years. We have great gear out there in all formats and there is no reason why they can't all find happy homes side by side in camera bags. Right camera for the right job, that's what really matters I feel.
A couple of quick questions: Is it Ok to place a link to ones website here in a post, some folk may be interested to have a look at my compact exhibition images (note there is no indicators on any image of what they were shot on, I have stripped the exif date deliberately).
Secondly to Michael, I have a 10 page article on this very issue which I have written over the past 3 weeks and I am posting it to my Website tomorrow, I was wondering if it would be OK to cut and paste a couple of you conclusion paragraphs for the article, (with credit and links of course), it would add a little extra I feel. (I can send you a PDF first to look at, if you like).
Cheers
Brad
-
Michael,
Have you noticed that the most frequent, nastiest posters almost never post or have links to their photos? When, in the rare case they finally do make one available, they are truly awful. I have seen that time and time again.
And if queried about not showing their work they come up with all sorts of really lame excuses.
It would be nice if you could only post on here if you didn't hide behind an alias and also had a website to show your work.
Brad's post above reminded me of the fact that some of the most popular images in my print portfolio were taken on an Ixus II - a 2.1MP camera.
I'd be interested to see your shots Brad. BTW - You can simply add your website to your signature or to your profile.
-
And if queried about not showing their work they come up with all sorts of really lame excuses.
It would be nice if you could only post on here if you didn't hide behind an alias and also had a website to show your work.
Brad's post above reminded me of the fact that some of the most popular images in my print portfolio were taken on an Ixus II - a 2.1MP camera.
I'd be interested to see your shots Brad. BTW - You can simply add your website to your signature or to your profile.
Thanks JJJ, sorted that out.
By all means check the site, its pretty new (just a couple of months) so I still have lots of pics and articles I have written to post but time is short till Christmas, most colour images are shot on compacts, though some are on film and DSLR. Monochromes are from compacts and film.
-
Ray,
I think that Michael just did an adhoc test. We all now that smaller formats have greater DOF, in some cases this works in favor of smaller formats and sometimes against. I actually had a similar experience when I was shooting MF film when I run out of 135 film. I was shooting MF as I would shoot 135, results were really worse than with 135 mostly because of lack of DOF. Normally my MF pictures were much better than my 135 work but not this time. Horses for the courses, Michael used to say.
I would say that tripod is what makes MF work. With tripod you can stop down. A tripod also helps to calm down, work slowly. With a small camera you can shoot free hand, large aperture. Image stabilisation certainly helps. I guess that smaller format always wins regarding convenience. To fully utilize larger formats needs some careful work.
Best regards
Erik
I know. I wasn't criticising Michael's comparison. Merely pointing out that any sense that the MFDB image is not as sharp as it could be is probably due to its shallower DoF, plus the fact that modern lenses designed for MFDBs, with their smaller image circle, are generally not sharpest at F11, although maybe acceptably sharp.
The fact is, the higher pixel count DBs have the pixel density of full frame 35mm DSLRs, and we all know that F22 (the equivalent DoF aperture to the G10's F3.5) is the aperture where diffraction effects are fairly obvious and resolution noticeably soft.
The strengths of the P&S are its extensive DoF and excellent macro capability. It's weaknesses are in the areas of DR, shutter lag, lack of shallow DoF, slow frame rates. I'd like to see a P&S like the G10 made of lighter materials, and the weight savings used to provide additional circuitry and processing power to enable faster frame rates in RAW mode (6 fps) with autobracketing of exposure to help overcome its DR disadvantage.
-
Greetings,
I am that chap who went on shooting with Michael for a few days in beautiful parts of Ontario. So I had a chance to examine prints made from the G10 first hand, my own judgement is such that I would have no problem selling fine art prints up to 13x19 carefully crafted with the G10! ymmv
I was tempted to offer Michael a bet on how many BS emails he will receive in the first 24 hours after releasing this article, my guess would have been above 100.
As Jeff Schewe probably would say <grin>...."In the grand scheme of things....", this camera is capable to produce stunning details, comparable to the output of backs that cost considerably more.
Best wishes
Georg Baumann
Oceanviewstudio - Ireland
-
I am that chap who went on shooting with Michael for a few days in beautiful parts of Ontario. So I had a chance to examine prints made from the G10 first hand, my own judgement is such that I would have no problem selling fine art prints up to 13x19 carefully crafted with the G10! ymmv
I'm convinced! But my G9 isn't bad either at low ISO and in good light. I'm looking forward to a direct comparison between the G9 and the G10 using the same RAW converter for both (when support for the G10 becomes available), to see if the improvement is large enough to warrant the upgrade from G9 to G10.
-
(but keep in mind I always try to use 50 iso on my Phase back and the "L" setting on my Canon)....
Eleanor
FWIW I remember reading some time ago (from a source I respect but cannot now remember) that the "L" setting on Canons roughly halves the base ISO, but the image quality is actually a little poorer than that at the base ISO setting.
It's not something I've tested for myself, as I've been perfectly happy with the image quality of my Canons at 100 ISO and have not felt the need to go down to 50 ISO.
Thought it was worth mentioning....
Regards
Frank
-
I'm convinced! But my G9 isn't bad either at low ISO and in good light. I'm looking forward to a direct comparison between the G9 and the G10 using the same RAW converter for both (when support for the G10 becomes available), to see if the improvement is large enough to warrant the upgrade from G9 to G10.
I would say the same altho' I don't really plan to upgrade regardless, but my problem isn't with IQ but rather with the use of the G9. I just have problems using the LCD for composition. In moderate light or with shadowing with one hand (and I hate shooting with just one hand) then I can generally see 'well enough' to compose, focus, but in many cases with just normal daylight, its really not good enough to be more than generally sure. I bought a Voigtlander 35mm VF and like it at 35 very much--but don't use it at that FL all the time. I tried adapting to the 80% or so view of the VF and sometimes that's fine, but just in general---I find myself often frustrated wtih the LCD. Then there are lower light issues where I can compose and focus just fine--but the need for higher ISOs negates the pluses. I did find the IS did make it possible to shoot at lower ISOs and lower shutter speeds by a good bit from my DSLRs though.
I'm ready for a really good small cam. I'll hang onto the G9 for now (though I use it very little--I bought a used 400D that I carry with small primes for hiking) and watch as things evolve in the small camera market.
Diane
-
Hi, First post here.
A compact like a G10 isn't a bad idea for landscapes at all.
If a higher resolution is needed just do a multishot and stitch them.
No MF needed unless you want to play with DOF.
At Max Lyons Forum: http://tinyurl.com/6colyd (http://tinyurl.com/6colyd) all Hi-Res images are composed.
My own from april this year:
G9, RRS L-bracket, Q-Top Quickmount, Feisol 3441 Travel tripod, upper part of the centre column used as rotator,
1,4 kilo all together
Camera at M, AF, only one row, JPG, 80 iso, daylight etc. 8bit.
http://tinyurl.com/3fowux (http://tinyurl.com/3fowux)
Use the arrows left/right at the bottom for next/previous
01) 18498x3997 pix - 211,5Mb
02) 19360x3904 pix - 216,2Mb
03) 14130x3651 pix - 147,6Mb
04) 5807x3382 pix - 56,2Mb
05) 15764x2898 pix - 130,7Mb
06) 11825x3829 pix - 129,5Mb
At 100% these images are not as nice as results from a dslr.
Should have shot RAW's :-(
Good enough for print anyway.
The G9 misses a remote option and bracketing at "M".
The G10 has a remote option but still misses bracketing at "M".
Shooting with more rows can result in very Hi-Res images.....
No need to buy a Hassy for me..
Have Fun !
-
Thanks Frank for your input. My personal experience with "L" setting (ie: 50 iso) is that I get better dynamic range and smoother overall tonalities---I have "better exposed pixels" to work with in the low range for RAW adjustments and end up with really wonderful results. I can pull tons of information out of my shadows.....I never liked grain when I worked in the darkroom with film and I don't like noise in digital...that's just me. eleanor
Eleanor
FWIW I remember reading some time ago (from a source I respect but cannot now remember) that the "L" setting on Canons roughly halves the base ISO, but the image quality is actually a little poorer than that at the base ISO setting.
It's not something I've tested for myself, as I've been perfectly happy with the image quality of my Canons at 100 ISO and have not felt the need to go down to 50 ISO.
Thought it was worth mentioning....
Regards
Frank
-
Thanks Frank for your input. My personal experience with "L" setting (ie: 50 iso) is that I get better dynamic range and smoother overall tonalities---I have "better exposed pixels" to work with in the low range for RAW adjustments and end up with really wonderful results. I can pull tons of information out of my shadows.....I never liked grain when I worked in the darkroom with film and I don't like noise in digital...that's just me. eleanor
Eleanor, please look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp)
DR @50 is Less !
-
Prehaps I used dynamic range when I should have said shadow range or something of that effect. What I'm interested in is a minimum amount of noise in my shadows and I want the option to pull out all the high quality shadow noiseless detail I can and by trial and error L "curve" setting gave me that option. Honestly I very seldom read instructions and don't pay too much attention to charts...I experiment with different settings on my cameras and find the settings that do what I'm looking for and go from there.......and the L setting really works for me in many instances for the reasons I've outlined. My background is in low iso 4X5 large format films and fine grain developing and the need for that "look" carries over to digital for me. I also have a Canon 5D that is converted for IR photography only and have tried the L setting on that camera too and and am getting some really nice results. Eleanor
Eleanor, please look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp)
DR @50 is Less !
-
Oh come on.
This was one file, and both cameras had the same advantages and disadvantages under the situation.
Lots of other files were shot and my point about experts not being able to see differences on 13X19" prints stands.
One can nit pick, but it doesn't change the results.
And yes, trust me, after some tens of thousands of medium format shots with a dozen different cameras and at least half that many backs I do indeed know what a technically good shot looks like.
If I'd posted another pair someone would likely have found some other nit to pick.
Just download some of my sample G10 files, make a print or two, and then judge for yourself what this little sucker can do.
Michael
In fact, if it were the case that a MF camera was so hard to use that even a long-time user like you, trying to be precise, would still not be able to get a good shot, then that'd be another bonus for the G10: They can actually be used by human beings.
-Lars
-
Michael,
Have you considered, or would you consider, a brief appraisal of the G10 as an instrument for street photography? I've just been going over some of my G7 and G9 shots and continue to think either or maybe the G10 would make a decent street camera. I've truly enjoyed the street photography segments you do for the LL videos and I just want an inconspicuous digital rangefinder style camera that is light and quick to use. But for all three of these G series cameras my main complaint/concern has been the optical viewfinder being of little utility. At 80% of total scene . . . well, that just doesn't seem adequate to the purpose. I suppose the real question is, why is it so difficult to design and build today an optical finder that was in use two decades or more ago? Kind of a poor man's Leica.
Don't get me wrong, I love these G cameras; I just can't get used to looking at my camera's LCD instead of through a decent optical finder.
Bill in WV
-
The G10, nor any digicam for that matter, just don't have the reflexes (no pun intended) for street shooting. Not that it can't be done, but the combination of relatively slow AF, slowish lenses, and poor viewfinders makes them less satisfactory than they should be.
I'm curious though how something like the Panasonic G1 might fare at this. A different animal, but possibly with the chops if enough fast micro 4/3 lenses become available.
Michael
-
GX200? I only suggest because of the hyperfocal focusing mode that I love on my GR1.
-
.....why is it so difficult to design and build today an optical finder.....
Not difficult, but the target demographic wants a big LCD, and viewfinders are sacrificed accordingly. Just go to Best Buy and see for yourself. Now, if the big camera makers could make a model with viewfinder NOT for distribution by Walmart et al, then we'd have a chance at more pro features.
-
The G10, nor any digicam for that matter, just don't have the reflexes (no pun intended) for street shooting. Not that it can't be done, but the combination of relatively slow AF, slowish lenses, and poor viewfinders makes them less satisfactory than they should be.
GX200? I only suggest because of the hyperfocal focusing mode that I love on my GR1.
Another vote for the Ricoh here. Particularly as it has a clever[optional] electronic viewfinder which allows 'waist' level shooting, fast lens too and a '24'mm w/a lens.
I'm very surprised you have not considered it alongside the other quality compacts you've recently reviewed. A bit flawed but some very clever design aspects to camera. More of a pocketable camera than the G10 too. I had a play with a G10 the other day, very, very nice, but a little too big for my requitrements for a P+S. Now if it had a bigger sensor.....
Shame Canon gave up on the slightly smaller S60/S70 range as the S80 was a big improvement on the design, bar the droping of RAW. An S90 with 8MP + RAW and good 400+ ISOs would be nice.
-
The G10, nor any digicam for that matter, just don't have the reflexes (no pun intended) for street shooting. Not that it can't be done, but the combination of relatively slow AF, slowish lenses, and poor viewfinders makes them less satisfactory than they should be.
...
I don't have a G10 but have been using the G9 very regularly for a year. I agree that it (my G9) is not good for street shooting. Strangely, even if the camera is set completely to manual mode -- including manual focus, no flash, focus assist lamp off, display off -- it just does not fire quickly. Sometimes, if the shutter button is just jabbed (yes, I know I'm not supposed to do that), the camera does not fire at all. I maintain that the G series needs a "half pressed shutter button" button (or menu option) to accomodate these fully manual intentions.
-
Strangely, even if the camera is set completely to manual mode -- including manual focus, no flash, focus assist lamp off, display off -- it just does not fire quickly.
I always thought this was due to battery capacity. P&S cameras have small batteries, and to prolong battery life they don't keep the sensor "alive and ready."
The shutter lag has nothing to do with focusing, flash or display. It's simply waking up the sensor.
Dave Chew
-
If I did not already own a G9 I'd probably grab a G10. But the G10 is just not a $500 step forward from the G9.
Since my earlier remarks I have had quite a bit more time with a G10. After my remarks here, and at TOP, I was -ahem- "encouraged" to take another look at the camera. I am not a camera reviewer, per se, but I must now largely agree with Michael. The G10 is a noticeable and verifiable leap forward in Canon's Powershot G series. Images are sharper and cleaners, the camera's start-up is almost immediate, general handling is tighter. In terms of imaging the G10 can rival my M8.2 for certain types of scenes. For that matter, it can also rival my 5D for certain scenes. Unfortunately, shot-to-shot gap time has not improved. But Michael's remark that the G10 feels like a more "finished" product feels correct to me.
So if you're a fence-sitting G9 owner try to get an opportunity to take a closer look at the G10.