Canon PowerShot G11

#1 Christopher Harland

I realise that pixel counting is a bit barmy but the G10 is 14.7 megapixels. This G11 is 10.00. What happened to the 4.7 extra pixels?

1:21 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#2 Yianni

Christopher, The more megapixels on the same sized sensor only makes image quality worse especially in low light conditions.

The megapixel war seems to be over and manufacturers seem to be concentrating on image quality like they should have done in the first place.

The lower pixel density of the G11 thanks to having less megapixels on the same sized sensor as the G10, should help it produce better quality images especially in higher ISO condititions.

It seems Canon have been given a lesson from Panasonic with their LX3!

Thank god for some compacts that are focusing on image quality!

I'm really sick of seeing these 12+ megapixel compacts with 1/2.33" sized sensors!

Cheers

2:01 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#3 Jacob

@Christopher Harland:
Maybe they decided to use a lower pixel density to help with noise levels at high ISOs. I agree, though, that it's weird for a company to use a LOWER megapixel count in a new model, but i would be perfectly happy if they stuck with 10MP and put all their research into reducing noise and increasing ISO.

2:15 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#4 Christopher Harland

I know, I know. Its just that I am a marketing person and I think that there will be a lot of people who may not experience the quality of these superb cameras (my wife runs a G9 and its brilliant) simply because they are pixel counting. I am sure this G11 will also be superb.

2:21 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#5 Mike

I have a G9 and I thought that it will be my compact camera for the next 5 to 6 years. When the G10 came out, I thought there's no need to upgrade since I'm very satisfied with my G9. But now comes G11 and I'm already thinking of junking (selling) my 2 year old G9 for this. Oooh.. I want this G11.

3:12 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#6 Yianni

Christopher, I don't think Canon is worried about the drop in megapixels, although this is probably the first time in history that a new model has less megapixels than an outgoing model.

The key here though is that the G11 is aimed at enthusiasts that know what they're doing. These photographers know that the drop in megapixels was a sensible one and it shouldn't have any affect on sales to be honest.

Of course dropping megapixels say on their IXUS range would be suicide as 99% of these sold are sold purely to happy snappers that don't know much about cameras and megapixels is probably the best thing that they look at.

Cheers

3:32 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#7 Jacob

With the recent push for HD video capture in digital SLRs, you'd think they would have included it in this camera (being the point-and-shoot for SLR owners it is). The Canon website states that it captures video at 640x480.

And, before you all say it, i realize that some purists believe a still camera should just be for stills, but i prefer to get as much functionality as i can for my money.

3:40 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#8 Beth Van Houten

I'm just switching from film -- a Canon A-1 with a 35 - 105mm lens -- to digital. One key use of the camera is to photograph my oil paintings for archival, show jurying and, soon, I hope, a Website. Is a G10 or G11 better for my purposes. (I am a colorist. I have never heretofore been satisfied with digital results, but show jurying is migrating to digital, so.......I am about to take the plunge.)

Educate me, please.

3:49 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#9 Scrooge

£569?? And $499.99 in the USA?? That's equal to £305 at today's rate. Who's pocketing the extra £264 (an 87% mark-up)?

7:22 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#10 Tom Jenson

"October 2009 priced at £569.00 / €659.00 RRP inc. VAT. The US price is $499.99."

$499.99 is £302.50 GBP, what is with the massive price gap? I understand there is no such thing as like for like pricing, but that is a massive amount us UK people will have to pay.

7:46 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#11 rob

Beth, I know that for a person who until now has used only analog cameras it may come as a shock, but at this point in time, you would never be able to get as good results with your 35mm film camera as with a good quality digital - even with a sensor as small as that in G11.

And yes, G11 should produce much better quality images than G10 - precisely because of lesser megapixels-count / bigger pixels.

Christopher, as a marketeer, you've got a chance to educate consumers (and your bosses, too) as to the importance - or, rather, lack thereof - of exceedingly high megapixel-count. That knowledge will benefit ALL consumers, not just those who have no clue, because manufacturers will be able to stop the madness of pixel wars and concentrate on things that are more important...

7:48 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#12 rob

Tom, the market in the US is massively bigger than in the whole of Europe, therefore, all technology goods are much cheaper in the US. I understand that that seems grossly unfair to the European consumers, but it makes perfectly good sense to manufacturers from an economical point of view. BTW, similar disparity exists between European and Asian markets.

7:54 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#13 Tony Harris

G9 - tiny sensor, slow lens
G10 - tiny sensor, slow lens
G11 - tiny sensor, slow lens

Anyone spotted a pattern here? I've used a G9, it's only any good in bright light. Why do the majority of photo websites claim it's a brilliant camera? It's as useless as a disk camera.

Come on Canon (& Nikon) where's your answer to the Olympus Pen???

8:54 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#14 Mandeno Moments

I am very glad to see that Canon has had the sense to reduce the pixel count (on a CCD of the same size) because this should improve the image quality.

The vari-angle LCD is an excellent feature that was on earlier Gx cameras. I have a Canon with one of these and it's brilliant: for example, I can hold the camera at waist level when doing street/candid photography from a standing position, or sit down and shoot with the camera on my lap.

I have had a look at the G11 instruction manual and it looks like the new Quick Shot mode (the camera icon with speed streaks on the mode dial) could be very good. The basic idea is that you compose with the viewfinder and all your camera settings are visible on the LCD and can be adjusted with the control wheel + the Func/Set button. The LCD reports all your shooting settings, live histogram, battery status, shots remaining, and so on. It's very SLR-like.

I hope that Canon have improved the viewfinder and thereby made this mode really useful, but I doubt it very much. Mr Canon, can we have a decent optical viewfinder? Then it'd be a "real" camera that would supplant the rangefinders of old. All your lens specialists must be clever enough to make a large, bright, and accurate optical viewfinder. Pretty please.

http://mandenomoments.zenfolio.com/

9:56 pm - Wednesday, August 19, 2009

#15 MJA

What? Still no 720p HD video??
That was already ridiculous with the G10.

5:00 am - Thursday, August 20, 2009

#16 Mike

It's easier to sell digicams with high megapixel as selling point than explaining to newbies or "happy snappers" about the the functions and tecnical aspects of sensors, iso, etc... The technology for making or for increasing megapixels on even the tiniest digicams is already available for manufacturers so it's easier for them to just go with the trend of increasing megapixels.

2:44 pm - Thursday, August 20, 2009

#17 Nick White

Beth

I've been shooting for Galleries from some 10 years now and digital for the last 6 both oils and watercolours so if you need any advice let me know. You may have better white balance (ie colour) control with an SLR camera lens combination as I know artwork colour fidelity is one of the prime factors.

4:25 am - Friday, August 21, 2009

#18 HariGS

My first was a 5MP Sony V1. Great, and with manual options. I had six months a little pocket Sony auto-only that gave decent results but needed tweaking and juggling.

Then I got money for my G9 a year ago. It's amazing (although I still take in 5MP mostly). My favourite is available-low-lights, and the G9 is quite good until 200 ISO. I constantly use my tiny table tripod against walls, posts, etc. Or just hold the camera against door frames, walls, even on my knees or my own head! It helps keep it quiet enough.

I work down to one-fourth of a second with good rate of useful shots. And the image stabilization is an advantage over those early models (G's or no-G's).

The flip-out screen will help with all those against-the-corner shots when you want to include "just a little more" of the room or hall, apart from those raised-arms pictures. I was missing my favourite angle of 28mm, and I was seeing a G10 somewhere in my future. Has anybody check G9 and G10 side-by-side on noise (have you got files to show me? thanks. Find me in vyasa.g at email . com)

But the main appeal for me in that G11 is the lower pixel count; therefore bigger sensor PIXEL size. Larger area at pixel level gets more photons, and so software doesn't need to increase the signal and "guess" from just a few loose photons. That's basically why DSLR (with bigger sensors) have so much less noise. DPREVIEW.COM gives you that data of "pixels by square milimetre"; go and see the differences. Compacts: about 40 million pixels by sq. mm. DSLRs: 4 or five million pix/sq.mm. G11: about 24 million. We'll see what that means in the final images.

Let others buy horsepower, 12x zooms and trillion pixels. Lets show the manufacturer that WE are here for image-quality models.

I usually wait a few months before buying, until they "iron out" software and little things as cameras and customers bring in the feedback.

Thanks for all your comments.

8:32 pm - Saturday, August 22, 2009

#19 HariGS

I meant: "pixels by square centimetre"

3:14 am - Sunday, August 23, 2009

#20 Tony Harris

Ok, lets get things straight, G9 = 10 mega pixels, G11 = 10 megapixels. Sensor size is the same, so it's unlikely that the pixel size is bigger, therefore how is this a 'big appeal' and a new feature when we have already had the same before with the G9?

Don't be fooled the G11 is unlikely to be nothing new, demand better!

7:27 am - Sunday, August 23, 2009

#21 Mike

The press release claimed that the G11 has a new feature called: "Dual Anti-Noise System" which they claimed can reduce noise at higher ISO. We just have to wait for some reviews before we can really say it's a better compact than the G9 or G10.

3:46 pm - Sunday, August 23, 2009

#22 HariGS

Hey, Tony, don't run. and DO get things straight. Canon G9, G10 and G11 have respectively 12 megapixels, 14.7 MP and 10 MP.

dpreview.com says sensor size is the same in the press release, and pixels-by-sqare-centimetre are respectively 28, 34 and 23 million. I see a change of trend, though I haven't done the math myself to confirm what seem logical figures.

Each generation of cameras tends to have better technology to deliver similar quality from smaller or more packed sensors. If they improved the technology and didn't increase the pixels... that's a first indication (hopefully) for better images. And when you see they reduced the pixels by some 32 per cent (from the G10)... that's another hint of changes to be expected.

Is it all marketing aimed at those of us who are geeky, gadget-crazy who just speak-burp back what they feed us? Well, we'll see.

If it is, we'll just have a G10 with swivel LCD and I-don't-remember-what-else for 100 dollars more. Take it or leave it.

I just hope and wish and thank that we have a life worth photographing and the call to express ourselves. No manufacturer can beat that... camera manufacturer, I mean.

Wink and wave to you all,

7:43 pm - Sunday, August 23, 2009

#23 Tony Harris

Ok, so I got it wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that the sensor is smaller than a kodak disc frame, so its still poor.

5:52 am - Monday, August 24, 2009

#24 foobar

HariGS, its funny but my first camera was also the Sony DSC-V1, and I have bought the G9 about a year and a half ago
When I got used to the G9, I wondered how did I manage to shoot with the V1 - the starting would take forever, the zooming in/out was extremely slow, the tiny LCD display.. :D
Im happy with the G9 and I dont think I will be buying another camera anytime soon. I'll wait for a G12 or a G13.. until I get at least a 720p @30fps.. and a larger sensor would be great too.. but the lowering of the resolution is definitely a step in the right direction

6:54 am - Monday, August 24, 2009

#25 Beth

Nick, would appreciate the advice offered. Color accuracy is everything for me. Wight and lack of complexity, though, also matter. I've noticed the newly announced Canon PowerShot S90 offers more white balance flexibility -- though no OVF and no hot shoe.... what do you think?

1:19 pm - Monday, August 24, 2009

#26 Brian

I would love to know where the price markup between USA and Uk goes ,, I'll bet it is not to Canon .. we are being royally ripped off in Europe, especially UK. The total european market has to rival USA.
And I cannot understand why no HD video either ..

4:37 pm - Tuesday, August 25, 2009

#27 HariGS

foobar... send me your email adress at mine (see my first posting). I have some files you may like about the V1.

Beth (and Nick), I've taken some oil paintings, some stained glass, and a few others. I suggest, Beth, you put the "lack of complexity" a little down in your priority list; you have to do justice to paintings that take weeks/months to be ready. A few hours studying your camera, and a few minutes to take the repro are really worthwhile. IMO.

If I had a regular flow of that kind of work, I would even go to a DSLR and a serious lens between 70 and 120 (to avoid geometrical distortion), fixed-focal-length and not-too-wide aperture (to prioritize sharpness). Good tripod, natural light or good lightning equipment, etc., etc.

Still, I think my few repros with the G9 at mid-zoom and 80 ISO, f 5.6 on natural light are good enough for the size and price of my investment.

Have a nice day.

9:16 pm - Tuesday, August 25, 2009

#28 John Fenwick

As I suffer from knee joint problems low angle shots are very difficult for me, so I have waited eagerly for the flip screen and I will definitely buy a G11.
I do have an A640 which has a flip screen and this would do fine if only it could shoot in raw mode.

5:16 pm - Saturday, August 29, 2009

#29 Eleanor Maw

I was hoping that the G11 would have a lens that would have gone as wide as 24mm but no such luck, I love my G9 and the only time I will go for a Canon G upgrade is when they go as wide as 24mm, my husband has a Lumix LX3 and I often borrow it from him, very useful having that 24mm in tight spaces, I think the G11 UK prices are a compleate rip off and If I buy a G12 if it has a lens that can go as wide as 24mm then I will wait until I go to the USA.
PS-I have just bought a Nikon D5000 with a Tamron 10-24mm and it is brillant and that would not be that much cheaper in the USA, about £50 cheaper all told.

5:24 am - Wednesday, September 2, 2009

#30 Alex

...I would love to know where the price markup between USA and Uk goes ,, I'll bet it is not to Canon .. we are being royally ripped off in Europe, especially UK. The total european market has to rival.....

you forgot government takes 18% in VAT, plus a bit in import duties

3:50 pm - Wednesday, September 16, 2009

#31 mark palmos

Quick Shot is promising for a street photographer, but I hope the optical viewfinder is better than the G10. I saw the G10 today and thought, nice camera... but the optical viewfinder is terrible -tiny and seems to be very inaccurate for framing (paralax aside) and I would not consider buying this camera unless the optical viewfinder was accurate and bigger.

Thanks
Mark.

2:17 pm - Monday, September 28, 2009

#32 John Fenwick

Mark, I couldn't agree more I have the G10, would like the G11 for swivelling screen, but would not consider it with a viewfinder like the G10. It seems to me that Canon always leave something for updating.

John

9:33 am - Tuesday, September 29, 2009

#33 Barry Porteus

Interesting comments these. I have a G9 and it is the most superb small camera. Canon got this right. The G10 isn't as good for some reason. Going back to 10 megapixels is a good idea - these cameras are not aimed at happy snappers anyway- and concentrating on noise reduction is long overdue. Why have thes stuck the irritating tilt and turn view screen on though? With the G9 the view finder was fine and the fixed screen was even better. They ought not to fix what isn't broken!

11:22 am - Tuesday, September 29, 2009

#34 Graham

Christopher:
"I know, I know. Its just that I am a marketing person and I think that there will be a lot of people who may not experience the quality of these superb cameras (my wife runs a G9 and its brilliant) simply because they are pixel counting. I am sure this G11 will also be superb."

Ahh, so it is people like you who are to blame for the megapixel madness.

3:55 pm - Friday, October 2, 2009

#35 Hari_GS

My Sony V1 made most files between 2 and 2.5 Mbytes with its 5 Mpixels.

My Canon G9 makes most files between 2 and 3.5 MB when in 5 Mpixels, and files between 4 and 6.7 MB when in 12 Mpixels.

Canon G11 (check samples in websites) makes 10 Mpixels files between 2 and 3 MB.

I'm always refering to JPEGs, of course. And this would clearly show that the G11 seems to compress and smooth out photos to -let's say- "disguise" noise and look nicer, but you'll lose detail and resolution. Am I wrong? This has put the G11 down on my ranking.

11:33 pm - Friday, October 2, 2009

#36 Mandeno Moments

Hari_GS:

Higher JPEG compression will exaggerate, not hide, any image quality problems. Also, JPEG size varies according to the complexity of the subject, so no direct comparison can be made unless all cameras have taken a photo of the same scene.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. We can't know what the image quality of the G11 will be until we see the reviews, but fewer megapixels means that better image quality is likely.

http://mandenomoments.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/photo-trip-viaduct-harbour-5-9-09/

1:37 am - Saturday, October 3, 2009

#37 smartvergin

We'll certainly be going back for seconds, but at first blush Canon's new PowerShot G11 is quite the attractive piece. The real standout, of course, is that flip-out LCD -- which feels bolted on by the gods -- but really the whole camera's build quality (and corresponding weight) is immediately obvious. We found the LCD plenty bright and colorful, though it certainly feels small for a modern camera. The price isn't small, but hopefully the RAW, 10 megapixel results will speak for themselves.

4:49 am - Saturday, October 3, 2009

#38 Hari_GS

Hey, Mandeno Moments, you are right... but 'm righter. Read my previous carefully. Yes, a photo with some empty sky will give a smaller file than a full-foliage or grass image if they are compressed the same.

That's why I mentioned RANGES of file size, higher ones corresponding to images with more small detail. And there you can see that my Sony V1 gave its biggest files not much higher than 2.5 MBytes. My G9 gives the biggest 5 MPix photos in sizes around 3 to 3.5 MB. And the original G11 sample files you can see in dpreview.com are 3 MB. for TWICE as many image pixels.

So, image noise (dotty patterns in dark or shady areas) usually show in JPEGs and also gives bigger files. Anybody reading this can see it for him/herself taking the same afternoon picture twice, at 100 and at 800 ISO. She / he will notice how 800 ISO gives more noise (dark and light grain in darker areas) and bigger file size.

If the camera software keeps the noise, it may give less-nice shady areas... but will respect and keep some more fine detail (small print, fabric texture, etc.). If the camera tries to iron and even out the grainy noise (inexistant in the scene photographed) it may give nicer areas with more even light and colour... but it will also iron out the details in foliage, hair, skin texture. I prefer the bigger files which keep more detail.

Last disagreement: did you say we cannot know the image quality until we read a reviewer's opinion? Or -I hope- you mean "until we see the actual photo files produced by the camera"? And THAT I had done in that website, that's why I was giving my comments.

Thanks, and let's keep making nice images that mean much for people.

11:37 pm - Saturday, October 3, 2009

#39 tony Harris

I still can't believe so many of you are excited by a glorified Kodak disc camera, it's really quite sad.

9:12 pm - Monday, October 5, 2009

#40 Samuel Jones

I am thinking of buying a G11
Sam Jones

2:30 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009

#41 Julie Harmon

My husband bought me the new G11 as an upgrade to the G9. I took photos at my Grandson's party and don't like the quality at all. I tried on different settings, automatic, kids, indoors etc. I'm going to try a landscape shot today with both to see the difference on my laptop. As it stands, I'm not impressed. :(

9:08 am - Monday, April 12, 2010

#42 Hari_GS

Tony Harris could be right; we ARE pathetically excited about a "glorified Kodak disk camera" (not a compliment to Kodak, hee, hee!).

But if Tony is "young" enough as some of us to remember disc cameras... aaaand if "glorified" means (imagine on those days!) a camera that makes prints as nice as a 35mm camera up to sizes 20x25 (8x10) or more... has a 35-210 zoom f 2.8/4.8, can adjust the white so the lab doesn't give you photos with a colour cast, has all those Programmed, manual, priority exposures, spot metering (like my Olympus OM4 and my Canon T90), Matrix (like my Nikon 8008), 1 fps shooting, rolls of several thousand pictures, video of several qualities, sound recording, image stabilization, aaaand... you don't even need to go through a lab for all the cropping, enlarging, printing, adjusting, aaaand... your friends around the world can see them that same afternoon, aaaand...

Come on, man! Don't be grumpy! We would ALL have believed it was better than a Star Trek or alien gadget!

Enjoy the day!

6:39 am - Tuesday, April 13, 2010

#43 Tony C

Hi,
Purchased a G11 at the start of the year here in the UK. Camera I like, trying to get additional kit I don't like. 3 months for Canon to ship a lens adapter and teleconverter for instance. I am now trying to acquire grad/neutral and polarising lens. Again no news on availability, so local Canon photoshop suggested Cokin. Only trouble is, it doesn't fit (58mm). Anyone out there had similar problems or can offer advice?
Thks
TC

5:28 pm - Thursday, April 29, 2010

#44 Hari_GS

BETH... how are you getting along with taking pictures of paintings ?

JULIE HARMON... how are pictures from your G11 comparing to those from your G9's now that you are getting the hang of it. We would really like to know.

TONYC... I know this is not the answer you expect, but... Polarizers were the only filters I used to use in my film SLRs, apart from a constant UV for protecting the lens.
Now I use one of those old polarizers just looking through it, deciding on the angle, and then holding it in front of the G9's lens. It works... uncomfortable for more than a few shots, but it works.
Keep it very, very close to the lens (I try not to actually touch one with the other) so you don't get reflections on the inner surface of the filter, which would spoil the photo.
I used to do the same with my Minox 35 cameras, and was clumsy but worked.
Even more today, with editing software avialable, I don't feel like buying, carrying and using filters for results that can be "replicated and improved upon" with a few strokes and mouse waltzes.

3:35 pm - Friday, April 30, 2010

#45 Beth

Thanks for asking how I'm coming along with pics of my paintings. Ultimately, I acquired an Olympus E-P2, for its interchangeable lenses, color quality and range of customization, small size, in-body stabilization. I'm still too new with it to tell how it's going to go. But I think if I work at it I will be satisfied.

5:42 pm - Friday, April 30, 2010

#46 Mike L

This Tony character is a hoot! Kodak Disc camera indeed...I've been doing fairly advanced photography since 1972. Had many generations of SLRs, dozens of accessories and lenses and filters, ranging 24 right up to 500 telephoto mirror lenses, AND a large format Hasselblad.

I'll tell you what, unless you have thousands of hours to spend on your hobby, and unless you are looking to make a wal size enlargement...in the REAL world of today's photography, the G11 beats ALL those suitcases of gear hands down!!

For $450 Bux (plus a few bucks for an adapter and polarizer, and a few filters), You can shoot thousands of shots in dozens of modes quickly, and extract out the 'gems' that end up beautifully capturing your subject matter, with excellent results.

I recently did a tour of California wildflower bloom, with the Big Sur coast thrown in for good measure, and some wilfelife photography, along with several corrolary subjects. I could never even dreamed of having gotten the dozens of excellent shots I ended up with, (out of hundreds of shots), if I was mired back in my SLR days fiddling endlessly with exposure options, hoping to have the right variables dialed in, unable to bracket with whole ranges of options at no cost.

A Kodak 'disc' camera? LOL! The G11 produces results approximately 10 X 8 30th power better than that, in real world conditions.

It's not a DSLR, obviously, but you can't beat it for a light weight, ease of use tool that will produce very high quality output, excellent results for those times you are looking at literally hundreds of photo opportunities, over a very short period of limited time.

My old Olympus, Ricoh, Nikon, Hasselblad, and suitcases full of lenses/accessory days are gone..and good riddance! I produce much better shots, in quantity now, than I ever could have with all that gear.

I can forgo the occassional near 'perfect' resolution enlargement of a single pic, at the expense of hundreds of excellent missed pics....for what I can achieve today with this kind of camera.

I find now that unless I have a very specific single subject matter to shoot, my Canon EOS30D / lenses stays home on aggressive travel / photography trips, and my G11 goes along and gets the dozens to hudnreds of shots I would have missed, had I been traveling 'heavy' with limited time.

9:28 pm - Tuesday, May 4, 2010

#47 Tony C

Thanks to Mike L (where did you get the Kodak Disk camera strand from?)and everyone who replied to my Canon G11 question re lens attachment. I think I have got a result via a Seattle based organisation Lensmate. WIll see when their adaptor arrives. Shttp://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G10.htmlee

6:50 am - Wednesday, May 5, 2010

#48 Julie Harmon

To Hari_GS; I'm by no means a professional but I do like to use a good digital camera and have upgraded over the years from the Canon Sure Shot etc. I don't use filters and wouldn't know what they're for, but I think I take a pretty good shot!
Now I'm used to the G11, I absolutely love the outdoors shots, so clear! I live in beautiful Hampshire and am having fun photographing landscapes and historic buildings. I still can't get a good indoor shot though although I have realised sans flash is a very good idea:).
One thing I have noticed is the viewfinder is quite a good size although there was some concern on previous postings, BUT it's way out of alignment! Also when I zoom in on my screen on the laptop the picture isn't as clear as the G9.

10:20 pm - Wednesday, May 5, 2010