New Michael Canon G11 Hands-On Report

[eronald]

This thread shows how many people are really, really interested in the G11.
It's pretty clear that  a lot of people want a better pocket compact. They won't get it from Canon or Nikon because it would cannibalize their existing SLRs.

Edmund

First of all, I would like to congratulate Michael for an informative comparison. The setting in which the G11 has to compete is completely diffeent from when the G10 appeared. Micro-four thirds cameras are clearly pushing the envelope in terms of the combination of "larger sensor/small camera" style of cameras.

However, I think there is still a place for cameras like the G11 (or Panasonic/Leica LX3/D-Lux 4, or the little Ricohs), if you want a travel camera with compact form factor, and do not have to use high ISO's. The advantage of the G11 is the flexibility of the zoom; once you attach a zoom lens to the Panasonic GF1, you end up with not so much a compact camera anymore.

In the end, there is no contention that cameras with larger sensors have better image quality; however, at lower ISO's, the difference is less notorious. I am happy there is a large choice for us photographers, it means we can pick the right tools for our endeavours.

[Josh-H]

The G11 is on my shopping list as a back-up camera to take to Iceland next year. I think a lot of professionals want a small high quality compact for just this sort of purpose. Where its too heavy and too inconvenient to carry another full size DSLR (1DS MK3 in my case) as a back-up - even a 5D MKII (which would be a better back-up) starts to push the space and weight envelope. A G11 that shoots RAW and good quality RAW at low ISO is just about the ideal back-up at just about the ideal price.

Its never going to replace a DSLR for a serious photographic expedition - but it (and others of its ilk) might just crown itself/themselves as the ultimate field back-up.

I dont think better compacts will cannibalise Canon or Nikons sales too much - not in the professional market anyway. There are too many trade off's that pro's are just not willing to make.

[Daniel Browning]

Where did you get your information? Everything I've read indicates that the G11's sensor is the same size as the G10's. A larger sensor would require a new lens, and other major changes, which doesn't appear to be the case.

My mistake. I was thinking of the marketing material released by Sony themselves about the new sensor in the G11 (ICX685). The sensor it replaced was 1.5X smaller (ICX665), but Canon didn't use the ICX665 in their G10. Sorry for the noise.

[thierrylegros396]

My mistake. I was thinking of the marketing material released by Sony themselves about the new sensor in the G11 (ICX685). The sensor it replaced was 1.5X smaller (ICX665), but Canon didn't use the ICX665 in their G10. Sorry for the noise.

Anyone you know which sensor is in the G10 ?

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry

[Quentin]

Glad I purchased a G10, which I mostly use at 80 or 100ISO.  Double glad given the insane Canon pricing for the G11 in Europe / the UK.  Triple glad I purchased the G10 in Toronto at a discounted price.  Yeah, I'm glad  

I think the G10 just about represented the current max you can squeeze out of a small sensor.  The G11 is an evolutionary dead end, trying to compete with larger sensors for higher ISO performance and ending up falling between two stools.  I hope the G12 moves to a larger sensor, which is necessary to match the competition.

Quentin

[soboyle]

I tried the G11 and sent it back, my results were similar to Michaels, not that much of an improvement over my G10, so the G10 stays and the G11 goes back. When shooting at low iso's, the g10 makes more sense, more resolution, and very fine images. In low light shooting, take a bigger camera, or live with the noise.