Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ100
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Nikon Coolpix S7000
Nikon Coolpix L840
Canon EOS 1200D
Apple iPhone 6s Review
Leica X-U Review
Sony A6300 Review
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS Review
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 Review
Page 1 of 3 pages
1 2 3 >
If you know what that means you won’t be interested in this camera.
1:44 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
If you know what this means, (and I bet you DO ), then marvel at what can be achieved by it.
2:22 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
The best result for 500 dollars today. Thank you
3:46 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
Nice, but the lack of HD video kills it for me.
4:14 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
It feels great in the hands if a little bulky in the pocket, but right now it’s just too expensive and the lack of a printed manual is inexcusable (but not unique to Canon).
And why is the G11 manual over 100 pages shorter than the G10?
Maybe when it’s dropped by 100GBP or so I’ll seriously consider it. But by then perhaps we will have the Panasonic LX4 and a new Ricoh as contenders (pure speculation on my part!).
4:26 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
“The Canon PowerShot G11 handled chromatic aberrations well during the review, with fairly limited purple fringing present around the edges of objects in high-contrast situations”
Really? No, REALLY???
I think the G10 is *much* better in this regard.
And decent PP will help noide at any ISO setting.
The LCD is a bit gimmicky.
Canon have just put out a minor update to a classic.
The G11 could and should have been much more.
Just watch the G10 price go up and up now!
4:36 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Canon G11 is a great P&S Camera. The build is solid and sturdy and the size is about right. Not to big or too small. The swing out LCD panel is great for overhead and low angle shots. The lower ISOs give nice detail and color with no noticeable noise. From ISO 400 to ISO 1600 the noise is fairly low compared to other cameras of this type. Canon did a good job by lowering the megapixels to 10. The one complaint i have is the viewfinder. It isn’t very good. It is way too small of a view (about 77%) and not very bright. Other than that it appears to be a top notch camera. Looks like a winner to me.
4:54 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
You really think this is worthy of 4/5 for value for money at a monkey? When you can get a G10 or an LX3 for £300. Pull the other one.
9:22 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
The 15 month old LX3 still beats the G11 on image quality and most important features. Canon is not innovative enough. They need to get some new senior staff in their design department to catch up.
9:45 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
Dean, you are quite right so why, indeed, was the overpriced G11 given 4/5 for value when it costs some 66% more than the LX3?
10:01 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
Umm….Mine came with a full paper manual.
10:24 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
Hayden in NZ
ummmmm let me see.. the G11 is stunning in low light, as previously mentioned it turns out totally useable images at ISO 1600, the vari angle LCD is a return on G series, does anyone remember G3/G5?
11:04 pm - Thursday, October 22, 2009
If you really think that low light performance is that important, then consider that the LX3 lens is a whole stop faster. So where you are shooting at ISO 1600 the Panasonic user will be at ISO 800. Let’s see how the tests at ISO 1600 for the G11 compare to the same tests at ISO 800 for the LX3 shall we? Come on dxomark.com get a move on. In all seriousness for serious hand held low light photography a faster lens is where it’s at.
And if you think a vari angle LCD is worth £200 then the financial world you live in is very different from mine.
The fact remains that this camera is overpriced. You can buy a DSLR kit for the same money, or less, and the bigger sensor will always give better image quality.
12:19 am - Friday, October 23, 2009
The G11 seems to address the only complaint I have about my G10, the noise at ISO 200-400 which are speeds which I like to use on occasion. Don’t think I’ll make the jump though as I’m too darned happy with my G10 and what it delivers at ISO 80. Resolution is down right stunning and the image stabilizer always leaves me shaking my head when I get sharp images at shutter speeds I would never have considered hand holding before.
5:04 am - Friday, October 23, 2009
Timothy D Morton, APSA
I will be staying with the G-9 as it’s better and doesn’t waste my time with movies as that a job of a specific type of camera called VIDEO and are a very very very very long way for it to be useful.
7:32 am - Friday, October 23, 2009
Report Stolen Camera
I know this is off-topic, but I just had a camera stolen. I filed a police report and tried to report the stolen camera with sites like http://www.stolen-property.com/
I didn’t have the serial number for the stolen camera, so I don’t think my chances are too good of recovering the it.
8:26 am - Friday, October 23, 2009
I have the G9 and the OVF is wildly inaccurate. If you center a part of the picture in the viewfinder, the object that you want centered is nowhere close to being centered in the picture. I have learned to compensate for this but it is a real pain.
I did a quick test of the G11 at my local store and it appears that Canon has solved this problem. Can anyone who actually owns the camera confirm this?
9:01 am - Friday, October 23, 2009
I have a G10, and a Panasonic LX3. In bright light the G10 is just wonderful, low light not so good. http://www.imaging-resource.com have a comparator which you can use to look at test images from competing cameras - the G11 produces noise free images at ISO1600 because Canon applies such high NR!!! Do that to the G10 and you’ll get similar results, noting that colour accuracy fades pretty quickly though as you push the ISO. The LX3 retains more detail than either of them but applies less NR (to JPEG files). LX3 or G10? I like them both but find the extra zoom range of the Canon more useful more of the time. And the CA is easily removed in PS. The G11 is not a worthwhile upgrade for me.
12:14 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
So Canon are applying lots of NR to the ISO 1600 images are they? What do the RAW images look like?
12:48 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
I’ve only owned a G11 since this morning but was compelled to write this review for two reasons. First, I am amazed at how well Canon listened to their customer base. People loved the G10 ( and I plan on keeping the one I’ve been shooting for the last year….) But the two biggest complaints/suggestions I’ve routinely heard are: 1. The high ISO noise is too obvious and noise filters blur the image. 2. I wish it had a flexible screen on the back. To those two complaints I would have added: It would be nice to have a better optical view finder with more accurate framing.
12:56 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
Why do the G10 and G11 use different batteries:Greed or Technology?
3:48 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
In itself the fact that Canon listened to their customers is admirable and it would be great if certain other manufacturers did the same. However I don’t see why this should justify what amounts to a 50 or 60% hike in street prices.
I have no objection to the camera itself, just the price. Have a browse around the web and you will see that many of the Canon faithful are raising the same concerns.
Luckilly for the Canon faithful who don’t think a vari angle LCD is worth the price hike the S90 can be had for something like the current street price of a G10.
5:57 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
To me this camera is a bit of an absurdity. All that bulk for that tiny sensor.
For about $300.00 you could get a used rebel and have magnitudes greater image quality.
The size difference in sensors is on the order of 10x. The size diff in size is 1.5?
9:32 pm - Friday, October 23, 2009
why are you comparing this with a DSLR???
Different class of camera. A camera to use without the bulk of a DSLR and lenses…
The G11 is a wonderful camera to be used for what it is meant to be..A camera that can take great pics that one can pull out of a jacket pocket or belt case
12:46 pm - Saturday, October 24, 2009
Why compare it to a DSLR? Simply because it costs more than an entry level DSLR kit and quite simply isn’t as good. When comparing products you have to look at the price.
Either the G11 should be *much* cheaper or it should have a sensor a large as a DSLR.
3:13 pm - Saturday, October 24, 2009
“Why compare it to a DSLR? Simply because it costs more than an entry level DSLR kit and quite simply isn’t as good. When comparing products you have to look at the price.
Either the G11 should be *much* cheaper or it should have a sensor a large as a DSLR.”
7:28 pm - Saturday, October 24, 2009
” Paul S
The G11 is a wonderful camera to be used for what it is meant to be..A camera that can take great pics that one can pull out of a jacket pocket or belt case”
At 80 asa it may take a good picture.
My problem with it is that it’s not that small, it’s not that light, it’s expensive, and it presents itself as something it’s not. It is a camera way to large for its tiny sensor and I think people aren’t aware of how small these sensors are. (A factor of 10)
In fact, much is made of the lower pixel density: well let’s say it’s about 39px per whatever; a cheap slr will be around 4.
You can get a small dslr and put it in a hip case and never remove its lens, or, get a less pretentious point and shoot and get pretty near the same quality. Both ways you save a couple of hundred bucks.
It’s a whole lot of mass to get a pretty good picture at 80 asa on a sunny day.
7:38 pm - Saturday, October 24, 2009
Great review. After reading the review the G11 remains the top candidate as my new “sufficiently portable camera”, completing my
- Ricoh GX100 (small enough, great 1cm macro, 19mm with wide extender, ace in manual controls, hot shoe, RAW, but slowish and limited in low light situations)
- 1D MkIII (great in just about everything, but too big, “showy”, and heavy for certain ventures).
I have been looking for a compact camera with:
- Swivel, turnable display, for those otherwise impossible angles
- RAW capable
- Not too small CCD / low noise
- Better tele range than the Ricoh (the G11’s 5x/140mm is less than what I was looking for, though)
- Hotshoe, for strobist and creative light shots (already owning some Canon flashes, eTTL is a nice bonus here)
- Compact enough to carry in a belt pouch.
Although the review is well written and gives a lot of insight, I had a bit of trouble ploughing through this particular sentence on page 1:
“Press this when in program or any of the other creative modes and sliding scale of apertures and corresponding shutter speeds appears along the bottom of the screen, scrolled through with the aid of - aptly enough - the scroll wheel surrounding the familiar four-way control pad to the right of the G11’s screen.”
Worth a rewrite?
12:45 pm - Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why do the G10 and G11 use different batteries:Greed or Technology?”
Umm, isn’t it the same battery?
Damn hope so, I have bought a spare for my G11, which is yet to be delivered :-).
1:37 pm - Sunday, October 25, 2009
The Canon G10 - G11 both use the NB 7L battery.
7:38 pm - Sunday, October 25, 2009
If you review is to be or real use to determine quality, you should test raw files, one of the most compelling reasons for buying this camera. 2. When you photograph something to show noise, you need to have one at each ISo which is of a grey card so we can SEE the noise introduced and then another of a normal daytime scene without any harsh highlights or deep shadows, so we can see the noise in a real situation. These test photos should be of the SAME scene, so we can compare without introducing variables, taken with the same light (outdoors at close intervals). This is the nitty gritty of a review of a camera - its bottom line. So please concentrate on these things before the rest in you wish to make your reviews more useful. Thank you.
8:00 pm - Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wow! Elliot if you know so much about photography why are you not providing your own review service? Furthermore has it occurred to you that Photographyblog is free? If you were paying for it maybe you could tell the editors what to do, but you’re not. This is a review of the whole camera, not just the SNR of raw images. If you want to see empirical tests of RAW images produced by digital cameras then there are places you can see that. Try http://www.dxomark.com for one.
The Sigma DP1/DP2 is a perfect example of why an obsession with SNR above all else is foolish and why a review needs to cover so much more. Of all the compacts I’ve seen tested the DP1/DP2 produces the lowest SNR (and so it should with it’s APS-C sized sensor) and the highest quality images, and yet I would never buy one. In every day use the camera is slow to focus, slow to save images, it has a poor LCD and is generally not user friendly. All that is very important. If a camera is not a pleasure to use then you won’t use it. Hopefully the Leica X1 will be a more pleasant camera to use, but unfortunately it is so over priced that you’d have to be very committed to buy one.
And another thing, raw capability is probably not the most compelling reason to buy this camera for most people. There are plenty of other reasons to buy the G11 and there are plenty of other compacts with raw capability. And many owners will never shoot raw. The G11 is is, when all is said and done a P&S compact.
If you want high quality images with low SNR then I’m afraid you are going to need a large sensor. The larger the better. You’re not going to achieve SNR nirvana with a copact, no matter what the price.
10:12 pm - Tuesday, October 27, 2009
This camera should be compared to the ep-1 and the gf-1. It’s the same size physically but with a much smaller sensor. Cheaper though.
1:07 am - Thursday, October 29, 2009
You know I love my G9 so much its a Exceptional camera I will stay with this marvel PAV
3:51 pm - Saturday, October 31, 2009
It is really a nice camera. Helpful for professional photographers.
11:23 am - Monday, November 2, 2009
I think I’ll get my Olympus C5050 Zoom fixed for $140 and wait for developments.
4:59 am - Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Bert, thank you for pointing out that sensor size has become the new or “JPEG VS RAW” garbage that wannabes constantly obsess over. Now they have something new to worry about while I go out and take pictures like a PHOTOGRAPHER should. It is meaningless. A good photo is a good photo. Have you not seen what people can do with 4 year old cameras? Probably far better than what you’re shooting (pictures of your toe as a “high iso test” ad nauseum.
9:34 am - Thursday, November 5, 2009
It’s a camera review of a bulky expensive camera with a tiny sensor. It does make a difference.
Jpeg VS. Raw: I wasn’t aware there was a debate. If you want your results to be as good as possible shoot raw. If you want to post to the internet - shoot jpeg.
My point is - save some money and get a cheaper point and shoot and it’ll be just about as good - Or, spend the same and get a small dslr and have magnitudes better pictures.
These things look the business but they’re not the business.
10:26 am - Thursday, November 5, 2009
The G11 has been made for idiots like me who don’t want to carry a 1D or 5d kit everywhere they go. It’s not a perfect camera, but it’s probably the best all-in-one package for those who have the interest or the money to want to carry the best camera they can wherever they go.
If I’m desperate to get the best results from a camera I’ll carry a DSLR, but it’s not always possible. I think the G11 fills that gap reasonably well. I would think about a micro four thirds, but it still seems a little bit too much like jumping into a new system. The G11 is not. I think this review has been fair, within that context.
11:12 am - Thursday, November 5, 2009
You’re quite right it’s the content of the image that matters, not the camera that you used to take it.
My first digital camera was a P&S compact and that was over ten years ago (blimey). A Kodak DC210, almost 1 million pixels. Wow! And I managed to take some reasonable shots with that. I’m only just preparing to buy my fourth digitial camera now. Some of the best shots I’ve ever taken were with a Ricoh 500RF. I even managed to take one or two startling photographs with a Kodak Instamatic 100. So the camera isn’t as important as many people would have you believe. Unfortunately as with almost every hobby amateur photographers have been distracted from this by the advertising driven media.
Likewise the obsession with messing around in Photoshop. A bad photograph will not become a good photograph because you’ve bunged it through a monkey’s worth of computer software. As the saying goes: “You can varnish it, you can polish it. But a turd is still a turd.”
If photographers should obsess about anything it’s their own photography skills, not the latest and “greatest” camera. As such I think my new camera will be a prime lens compact with as few features as possible. Such a camera makes you work to take the photograph so you, rather than clever electronics, are the author of the resultant image.
7:11 pm - Thursday, November 5, 2009
those idiots who still dont know what is the different between a P&S camera and DSLR pls shut their mouth off!!!
here we are talking about a digital compact camera so u guys who always compare the small sensor of this cameras with the DSLR pls get the F*** out of here!!
4:11 pm - Friday, November 6, 2009
#41 - you’re upset - I can tell.
Let’s see - a point and shoot is an inexpensive small camera for pointing and shooting.
The g11 is an expensive fairly large camera with a tiny sensor - hmmm
You see my problem. Maybe you can help me.
6:14 pm - Friday, November 6, 2009
It’s quite simple. The G11 costs more than most entry level DSLRs and therefore the comparison with a DSLR is valid.
Furthermore there is absolutely no justification for the price of the G11 when you compare it to the Olympus PEN. The Olympus scores over the Canon in having a larger sensor and interchangable lenses and yet it is as small as a compact. So the Olympus can be used as a P&S compact or a much more serious camera.
The Canon is priced to compete with the Olympus, but has neither the versatility or capabilities to match. If it were priced to compete with the likes of the LX3 or the like that would be a different story, but it isn’t it sells for something like 50% more.
Consider an automotive analogy. The Lotus Elise is a fine little sports car, no argument there. If, however, Lotus decided to sell it for the same price as a Ferrari 430 I think people might have something to say.
The G11 is a good camera, but at the wrong price point. As such I think it will only appeal to the Canon faithful.
Now if you can’t put forward a coherent argument, please take your fanboi attitude to one of those sites that suits it.
6:23 pm - Friday, November 6, 2009
Oh and there is such a thing as a compact with a large sensor, so your argument holds even less water. If you have some time take a look at some of the images at http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/index.html and tell me that the G11 can do that. And then look how many megapixels there are in those images.
6:28 pm - Friday, November 6, 2009
@ #42 Peter Harris
@ Norwegian Blue
yes i can understand what u mean,
but let me tell u something
at first i need a camera with good quality of picture and with at least 5X Zoom which sigma DP1 doesnt have this feature and also consider that i need something smaller than DSLR cameras
but also i wanna the professional one in my hand!! i would like photography too much.
panasonic GF1 and EP1 are so expensive for me at this time. EP1 even doesnt have Flash inside the body.
u r right with $500 u can buy a DSLR camera but here is just P&S camera which i need this that’s why i dont want to compare this with other DSLR models and i dont have more than $500 ;)
also i just saw a very useful link on DPreview forum and recommend it for all of you to see how canon G11 and canon S90 take shot at night or at least in low light environment. it’s right here:
S90 vs G11 at night with pics:
3:10 pm - Saturday, November 7, 2009
@ #44 Norwegian Blue
i agree with u that sigma DP1 take amazing picture but pls look at here. u can see the larg size of photos as well
canon G11 samples: pls just look at picture at page 9 to next.
3:21 pm - Saturday, November 7, 2009
I know the concentration has been on the photo quality and ability to take low light photos. I currently have a Sony H20, and am hoping to get the G11 as i need to get better indoor shots of my kid, and can’t bear the complexities and costs of an DSLR. Bear with my and i hope i get some answers for these questions,
1. Does the video mode allow OPTICAL zoom while recording? or is it just digital zoom :(
2. Does any of the still image features such as aperture, iso, etc work for videos (like the FZ35) or is just standard VGA low quality video that’s only “Good” due to the larger sensor?
3. Will i really get much better quality pictures indoors of a my small chap who has the ability to move fast and unexpected, that my sony nor my previous Lumix TZ4 can keep up with.
Thanks in advance, and hope to hear from G11 users.
7:00 pm - Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sorry, but you lost me in your opening paragraph. In use the G11 is every bit as complex as a DSLR and it costs more than many entry level DSLRs. So your reasoning in choosing the G11 seems somewhat flawed.
7:09 pm - Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sorry seems my words got my post muddled :)
When i meant complexities and cost it was with regard to the need for having multiple lenses, and the fact that it made the DSLR camera’s not handbag or coat pocket friendly (even the GF1 and the Pen with a lens that has similar lens capabilities to the G11 is large).
My need is that camera should be useable by my spouse for the occasional friendly events, and the rest is all my use. So this makes the DSLR not an option, though I do know the G11 is not that small either. However the proportions of the G11 is near identical to the Sony H20 i have and it seems to be fine.
However as posted, the confirmation i want is weather the G11 or G10 for that matter would provide me the ability to capture the small chap indoors under low light conditions.
In addition the zoom is also needed for the family trips (5X is a bit low, but i think i can live with that if the indoor shots are good) as i love the outdoor photos, and good macro shots.
The next need of course is the video. After having WVGA with the TZ4 and HD720p with the sony, i know VGA is step down with the G11, however if it has better indoor low light video quality (quality matters more than the size to me) and provides options like the FZ35 i would be more than happy.
If not my next option is to go for the FZ35 bridge camera which has a very powerful video capability, the extra long zoom for those family trips and a decent macro, though its a bit clunky in size. The price too is very attractive.
So does all this make the G11 good for me, or am i better of with the FZ35/38?
4:50 am - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Well - It seems the s90 fits the bill and is smaller and a bit cheaper, and way prettier.
Unless you’re shooting raw any decent p/s will probably do the trick and save you a couple of hundred in the bargain. Check out the panasonic line.
Anything over iso 200 is not going to be that good. when you talk “better low light” with tiny sensors, you’re still talking pretty poor lowlight.
Not to be a putz, but why not get a used rebel xt for $300.00 and throw it in a purse or bag. Put it on full auto and bang away.
Way better image - and when you press the shutter release it fires right away. You will catch junior at just the right moment.
5:49 am - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thanks peter for your response, that means the G11 is not really going to get me that great an improvement over my Sony H20 P&S.
Yeah a XT would be nice, but sadly need something that can do video as well :( Guess that means i need to save cash and get something like the GF1 if i want the video as well as good indoor photos.
2:25 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
In the real world we look at photos, not engineering charts.
Have a nice day :)
10:59 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Why put your faith in a cameras’ JPEG engine?
No matter what your photo skillz, you can still see your shot ruined.
P&S nubz shoot jpeg, pros shoot RAW.
11:03 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
People want DSLR performance in a less-than-DLSR sized body.
Physics will simply not allow it.
Most people are too lazy and/or dumb to understand physics.
So people will continue to buy gimmicks like the G11 and tell themselves it’s as good as a DSLR.
11:06 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Those ISO results are shocking! Awful!!
At ISO 400 and up the camera is useless, although it’s likely down to the JPEG engine.
Better learn to deal with RAW then…
11:09 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
So the megapixel wars are over. Good!
Sadly now we have the high ISO wars. Bad!
11:11 pm - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I like chicken.
7:01 am - Thursday, November 12, 2009
Yes chicken is good but, to fit in your pocket you really need a cornish hen.
some like goose, some turkey, but I’m a cornish hen man.
7:16 am - Thursday, November 12, 2009
I don’t see the point in comparing the LX3 to either the G9 or G10, let alone the G11!! . I’ve worked with all these cameras, except the G11. The LX3 is by comparison a nightmare, way too much work to get proper white balance, a horrible interface and it’s distortion levels leave very little to be admired. My G9 had consistently superior IQ at low ISO then my Lx3!! The way I see it is if your forced to settle for a smaller camera then Lx3 will have to do, otherwise don’t bother with such comparisons. For those that don’t know otherwise, Leica DOES NOT BUILD the Lx3 lens, Panasonic does, It’s called good marketing, which Panasonic is expert at.
7:31 pm - Thursday, November 12, 2009
So you are saying you make your living from photography? That’s what pro means. And what does nubz mean anyway? English is a rich language, there’s absolutely no need to invent your own words.
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. The hens in Cornwall are the same size as they are anywhere else. Trust me. ;)
Funny then that Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma manage to make small cameras with large sensors that easily outperform the G11. Your argument relies on ignoring the dimensions of several cameras. So presumably you were too lazy to bother checking the G11’s dimensions against those cameras or so dumb you failed physics. Hell the G11 is almost as large as some DSLRs.
From many of the above comments we can deduce that either the G11 atracts the same sort of blinkered fanboi as the Apple Mac or that those trying desperately to defend the G11 have paid full price for theirs. To the former I can only say, learn to be objective. To the latter, ha ha ha!
8:49 pm - Thursday, November 12, 2009
Zealots are everywhere and Apple Co. is a Zealot leader. But with massivley subjective statements like “easily outperform the G11” and “The G11 is almost as large as some DSLRs” Maybe your the one that’s defending a crappy purchase, or at least it may seem so. And why are we only judging a camera by the size of the sensor??.. Maybe those that are soley stuck on that should just purchase a huge sensor and try taking pictures with it. That’s almost as stupid as saying ” I just bought a Honda accord but it’s got a larger engine than the Porsche, therefore it will out perform the Porsche. Um.. NO.
And no, I don’t own a G11, just trying to make sense of some of this nonesense I’m reading.
12:34 am - Friday, November 13, 2009
The reason the size of the sensor keeps coming is two fold:
For the unwary it looks like the g11 might have a large sensor - indeed it’s whole look,marketing, and price seems to imply this.
what can be lost in the wash is that the difference in size between a g11 sensor and an APS-c sensor is a factor of 10. This has a lot of implications.
A simplistic way of looking at it is that to reach an equal size print, a g11 image must be magnified 10 times more. But even then the pixels are not recording the same info as a larger sensor - this has to do with mtf curves and it’s a bit beyond me.
so - for a high price you are getting a far worse image than a cheaper used canon xt. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Now the S90 - if it drops by a hundred bucks - is a more honest point and shoot. Small - fits in pocket - not a pretender. Just a bit pricey at the moment.
4:29 am - Friday, November 13, 2009
The reason for my mentioning the sensor size was simple. We had a post from somebody claiming that it was physically impossible to build a small camera with a large sensor. I was merely pointing out that it isn’t. And furthermore that the G11 isn’t a particularly small camera, as compacts go it’s a bulky brute. Maybe Canon made it so bulky to make it look more “serious”. Who knows?
When it comes to image qualioty, a large sensor will always whup a small sensor for a number of reasons, but to simplify greatly; Firstly larger photodiodes mean more accurate recording of the light and in low light less noise; secondly the larger sensor gives greater control over depth of field. A teeny tiny sensor means you can’t get shallow depth of field.
And yes I know Fujifilm have a mode that simulates a shallow depth of field, but how is that supposed to work with anything other than a completely static subject?
Now the funny thing is that the type of photography I’m involved in almost precludes the use of a DSLR, so I don’t even own one at the moment. I have two cameras; one has a similar sized sensor to the G11 but is physically much, much smaller; and other has a much, much larger sensor but is of a similar physical size to G11. A lot of the time the smaller camera gets used because it is less obtrusive than the larger camera and I accept the compromises that come with the smaller sensor. However there are days when image quality is everything and the larger camera goes in my pocket.
2:12 pm - Friday, November 13, 2009
I am an old Leica man- and have been searching for an alternative to my M6 without spending upwards of $2,500 (used M8). To use the Leica “legacy” lenses I use a Lumix G1 with M adapter- I have a beutiful little Leica DeLux 4 (same as a Lumix LX3) and have owned a G7 through G11 trading up each time. The G11 is so far the best of the modern G series. The key to its use for my style of street photography is the much maligned optical viewfinder. I am forced to use a non zooming accessory v/f on the DeLux 4 The Canon is a distinct impovement. I have shot at very high ISOs and find few problems- Blowing up very large photoshopped images (18X24) there are no noise problems any more than there were grain problems when shooting with my Leica. Frankly I don’t know the criteria we are using these days. Sharp colorful or black and white prints are now a reality with most digicams. The Canon G11 is a lovely machine and will provide the digital imagist with wonderful results. vroger
4:07 pm - Saturday, November 14, 2009
Welcome to thread that wouldn’t die.
An interesting post. I think the key here is that you’re shooting black and white. The most unpleasant noise is chroma which, in this case would be seen to emulate film grain.
One thing (and I know you know this) is that film grain and digital noise are 2 different things. Film grain is the very structure from which the image is formed, whereas digital noise is interference with the image structure.
Of course it can be used to creative effect - some of my work with scanners is dependent on digital noise - and it works for you.
For me this thread is not so much a bashing of the g11 but a clarification of what it is - and isn’t - so people can make an educated choice. The hype, and price, of these things can lead to unrealistic expectations. You knew just what you were aiming for and how to get it - a lot of people see a smallish slr type thing.
8:49 pm - Saturday, November 14, 2009
I understand our comments- My thing is street photography and is what I have done all my life- the G11 is almost fine for it- except that the shutter lag is just a trifle too much. The G9 was impossible, because of the v/f parallex problem, which no one has written about. Probably because no one relys on the v/f as much as I do. That being said- the most galling digital news to me is the left field introduction of the Ricoh GXR- a new concept which asks the question…wither go we???? What do they want from us besides our money? I have a soft spot in my heart for Ricoh. They’ve been around forever, but this concept is too odd for my blood. It’s bad enough that all our digicams are little more than computers. Now they are modular. That makes me feel we are no longer image makers- we are lab monkeys. VRR
9:31 pm - Saturday, November 14, 2009
Well photography has always been, in some sense, a product of industrial processes. First chemical/mechanical and now digital.
I see them as distinct and offering different possibilities. The digital camera is an extension of the computer. A digital file is plastic - I animate them, layer sound etc.
I could go on but the gist is - each medium is only as good as the ideas brought to it - digital enables different ideas but I don’t think monkeys give a hoot.
I embrace it without forgetting the beauties of film.
10:27 pm - Saturday, November 14, 2009
No doubt- I can’t forget film with a host of analogue cameras lovingly gathering dust- It’s just as a member of the “prosumer” class, I see less innovation and more attempts to promote the Pound/Dollar. Mind you- I don’t think I wanted anything more in recent years than the micro 4/3 G1 I bought and was suddenly able to use my 0.95 Canon which I had modified for “M” use. I don’t frown on innovation, but somehow I feel that the new Ricoh is innovation bordering on overkill. The proof of the pudding will be in sales- I will be watching with interest. VRR
10:53 pm - Saturday, November 14, 2009
These days, we’re not talking so much about the camera, but the ‘film’ itself. Most of today’s innovations seem to be about noise and resolution. There is some discussion about AF, MF and mechanical ergonomics, but I think that the questions about noise and resolution have drowned the chatter about use-ability.
11:41 am - Sunday, November 15, 2009
Which brings us full circle to the original thread- the Canon G11. Here we have a reduction in megapixels leading one hopes (I haven’t given it a full test yet) to less noise etc. This digicam and its predecessors (from G7 up) have finally given the digital imagist a functioning analogue set of controls. But, who am I kidding? Todays consumer isn’t looking for that, hence the lack of viewfinders on point and shoot models. Those of us who started in the darkroom, and transferred our conceptions and talents (if I may be so vain)to Photoshop are not the trade being aimed for by the manufacturers. That means that analogue resembling digicams, will be relegated to the DSLR (not as fast or for me not as satisfying as a rangefinder)and the Leica M digitals. Hardly a choice. That’s why I support the G11 and the progeny by Canon yet to be produced. vroger
2:30 pm - Sunday, November 15, 2009
I don’t see how you guys are still going to compare the G11 to a DSLR. Sure the G11 is similar in price to an entry DSLR…but they are two different types of cameras.
Lets put this in a different perspective for those who think similar price automatically means they can be compared.
Lets take a look at cars; you can get a BMW 3 series for about $42,000. Now also in the same price range is a Chevy Traverse. Are you going to honestly tell me you’re going to compare those two vehicles just because they cost about the same price?
My whole point is, some people might not want a DSLR(myself included) but want something better than your typical P&S cameras. I’m not saying the G11 is going to be the right answer, just saying don’t compare two different things.
7:17 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I believe that you have totally misapprehended what I was saying. I am not comparing a DSLR with the G11, price comparison or not. By the way, most reviewers have done just that. I AM saying that there is no bridge camera for those of us who would want a rangefinder like the USD 7,000.00 Leica, but are not well enough fixed to buy one, and are not willing to buy a digicam which will in fact be outdated within a relatively short period and replaced by a far better model. In this month’s Popular Photography, the M8 is taken to task in the magazine’s review of the M9, saying that the M8 was, for all intents and purposes a model used for development, which has been far superceded by a better digicam (the M9). If one spent the USD 5,000 for that digicam, how does one feel. The Leica costs far more than most DSLR digicams- the G11, does not, but sports one of the only zooming optical viewfinders in the market… if not, THE only one. Clearly, you want DSLR- get one. If you dont’t you have very little choice if you are a true rangefinder imagist. I am not comparing the two, I am just saying the G11 gets my support as the best choice now available.
8:28 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I believe that you have totally misapprehended what I was saying. I am not comparing a DSLR with the G11, price comparison or not. By the way, most reviewers have done just that. I AM saying that there is no bridge camera for those of us who would want a rangefinder like the $7,000.00 Leica, but are not well enough fixed to buy one, and are not willing to buy a digicam which will in fact be outdated within a relatively short period and replaced by a far better model. In this month’s Popular Photography, the M8 is taken to task in the magazine’s review of the M9, saying that the M8 was, for all intents and purposes a model which has been far superceded by a better digicam. If one spent the $5,000USD for that digicam, how does one feel. The Leica costs far more than most DSLR digicams- the G11, does not, but sports one of the only zooming optical viewfinders in the market… if not, THE only one. Clearly, you want DSLR- get one. If you dont’t you have very little choice if you are a true rangefinder imagist. I am not comparing the two, I am just saying the G11 gets my support as the best choice now available.
8:30 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I have bought a G11 and I am really impressed. people have knocked the viewfinder but I find it works when you want to grab a quick shot ,ok it only has 70% coverage and is small , but even with glasses ,you get a clear view .
I own an olympus dslr as well , it is difficult to see any difference in picture quality.
it works great, looks great and although heavy is samller than you expect
10:50 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What I don’t understand is why nobody makes a digital rangefinder camera (a “DRF”). In the film days SLRs had a distinct advantage over a rangefinder: through the lens viewing. But thanks to the digital pickup a rangefinder nowadays will show the same through-the-lens view on its video screen as an SLR! At the same time the lack of mirror means the DRF could use the lenses no SLR can accommodate: Biogon, Noctilux, Hologon. Read my lips: there is no really good superwide-angle lens for any SLR because the only good superwide-angle lens is an Aviogon/Biogon/Super-Angulon - none of which will fit an SLR because their rear elements almost touch the film/CCD. I’m really fed up with all those ZOOMS all over the place - can nobody see how bad optically they are?? The camera I want:
1. Digital rangefinder with the actual split image visible in its optical viewfinder (as usual),
2. Instantaneous AF override of some sort - either by twisting the lens barrel (wotta concept!) or some other extra-quick control knob like that on the Plaubel Makina 670. Naturally this focus change must be visible in the optical viewfinder via the split image thing (as usual),
3. Don’t make the body super-fancy. I am not a collector, I am a photographer, and I don’t need a Leica, I need a reasonably reliable body and most of my money in the lens.
4. Thank you.
11:12 pm - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Yay! Wonderful comment. Years ago I was told on the Leica Users Group (LUG) list that there would never be a digital “M”. Wrong!!! But it took so long and was so hard to accomplish that the expense to design the sensor and electronics is off putting to the consumer oriented marketplace. It would seem that a better optical viewfinder would do the trick on a digicam but that’s in the future when the digicams are bought by people we used to call “photographers”. vroger
12:55 am - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Well why shoot digital? It’s hard to present yourself as a hidebound traditionalist and then complain about digital cameras.
Voightlander has just what you need and you can scan your negs. People do it all the time. It’s only a question of whether your views are worth more than minor inconvenience.
Or get a panasonic gf1 with an evf - but you scoff. OK fork out for your m9. Hell, even the film leicas were way overpriced and known as “the dentist’s camera”.
It’s not as if rangefinders littered the streets in the “golden age’. There were some but not many. Plaubels were fragile cult items.
Regarding zooms: some suck and some don’t. Many are better than 70’s and 80’s primes.
In many ways it’s the golden age now. Stuff works without tiny brass bushings snapping - good optics are everywhere - film/digital take your pick. some stuff (kodachrome etc.) is sadly gone but other stuff is still around.
So what’s the problem?
2:16 am - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The problem, Peter, is that for my style of street photography- the G11 (our original thread) is just not quite fast enough, lens wise, and lag wise. Neither is the deLux 4 with a accessory v/f that doesn’t zoom. It’s merely a question of personal “feel” and preference- I could always “go back” to the M series of film cameras- but I wouldn’t dream of it. I love digital. My darkroom is forever shut- The G11 will work for me until the G12 (“no doubt” with a faster lens, no lag and a larger sensor). VRR
11:47 am - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Check this article out:
There have been many lower-cost rangefinders, but I guess the market is just not there. People have said that the cost is too high, but I think the problem is more that demand is so low that companies aren’t willing to risk spending the money.
As soon as technology removed the burden of thinking, people have flocked to the point-and-shoot. And why not? The average person never had passion for photography in the first place; they just want a picture.
2:37 pm - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
If you can afford a Leica X1 don’t bother getting a Canon G11, The Leica X1 will whip the bottom off the Canon G11 in all aspects as it’s sensor is about seven times the size meaning that there will be less noise at 1600 ISO on the Leica X1 than there would be on the Canon G11 set at 200 ISO, so start saving and forget about Canon’s toy.
7:17 pm - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Leica X-1. Fixed focal length, no viewfinder (except accessory) and a USD 2,000.00 price tag. Canon may have a toy but at USD 499- I’ll take it.
7:23 pm - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Well I myself have a Canon G9 myself, but if I can get the money together I would buy a Leica X-1, as far as fixed focal length most of the time one can move forwards or backwards to frame the shot, you can also clip a viewfinder on the hot-shoe. It’s just a different approach to photography, for many years I was taking great photos with a basic SLR with just a 50mm lens.
10:39 pm - Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Hmmm? Street photography.
Sorry, but I just don’t see the G11 as a good camera for street photography.
A fast lens and fast responses are important in spontaneous photography and the G11 doesn’t have them.
A viewfinder? Very low on my list of priorities when it comes to street photography. Things happen quickly and using an eye level viewfinder has two distinct disadvantages; firstly it takes time to raise the camera to your eye and often the moment has passed by the time you’ve got it there, better to compose by experience and shoot from the hip; and secondly people are very conscious of cameras, raise a camera to your eye and your subject’s behaviour will change as a result. I suppose if your street photography is posed portraits of street “characters” then that’s fine, but that’s not street photography for me.
Fast accurate AF is good, but I usually shoot MF on the street so it’s nothing I’d ever lose sleep over.
A zoom lens? Shooting street photography with a telephoto? It would lose the intimate feel of a good street photograph.
The vari-angle LCD? Well, it’s sort of a good thing in as much as you could use it as a WLF. Except that it contributes to the G11’s worst feature…
...Unwarranted bulk. Size is never good in a street camera. Getting back to my second point, a bulky camera cannot be easily concealed, as a result of it’s bulk it will be slower into action and it will call attention to itself. It tries to look like a big serious camera for some reason, people make assumptions about people with big serious cameras. They assume that somebody with a big serious camera is A PHOTOGRAPHER, somebody with a small plain camera is just somebody taking pictures. My old Ricoh 500RF and even the original Olympus Trip I used to use were tiny cameras by the standards of the day, easy to pocket, fast into action and so unobtrusive hardly anybody noticed them.
That Ricoh brings me onto another subject. Rangefinders? Nope. I’ve owned various (Ricoh, Olympus, Zorki, Fed) but since the camera seldom reaches my eye the added complexity was always lost on me.
So as a street photographers dream what are you left with? Well assuming you want raw capabilities, precious little. The Canon S90 would beat the G11 as a street camera for me, as would the LX3 and any of the Ricoh GRD family. The only problem from a Ricoh perspective is that I think the III is as overpriced as the G11. Likewise the D-Lux 4. The DP1 would be a winner for me were it not for the slow maximum aperture, make it two stops faster and I’d have one tomorrow.
That came out longer than I intended. Sorry.
12:32 am - Thursday, November 19, 2009
Apparently your street photography approach is different from mine. I shoot mainly from a distance with as long a lens as is possible. I intrude in people’s lives…but from a distance.
The image referred to in the annexed website was shot with a 100mm Canon f2 lens wide open, on a G1 Lumix adapted for Leica lenses:
The next image was shot with a G10 (predecessor to the G11).
Both qualify as “street photography” -both have a different feel. You shoot with the equipment you have at the moment. I am sure the X1 will be magnificent- but I can never move in close enough with a 35mm fixed lens. We all know our own styles and for me the G11 is fine for the street.
1:19 am - Thursday, November 19, 2009
vroger, I was not commenting towards you, your review of the G11 is great. I was aiming that post more towards the people who keep saying because the G11 is similar in price with entry level DSLRs, you should compare the two.
I’m hopefully going to be picking up a G11 for Christmas this year and I’ll be able to post up a solid review of it.
3:40 am - Thursday, November 19, 2009
Paul van Wijk
– The lens of the PowerShot G11 gives some barrel distortion, only in wide angle position. This can be corrected in Photoshop in a matter of seconds.
– The i-contrast functions is sometimes greyed out in the menu and cannot be chosen any more. There is no explanation in the manual and this may be an error in the software. A work around is to reset the camera. It is a happy coincidence that the reset function does not affect all settings.
– The optical viewfinder shows only 75% of the picture to be taken. Especially on the bottom the difference is major.
- Nowhere in the documentation: In RAW the bit depth is 8 bits per colour and the gamut is Adobe 1998
– The 193 pages manual is only supplied on CD. Intensive study is needed to get the best out of this camera. It is a camera meant for experienced users.
– Many buttons and wheels give a quick access to all important functions. The function of one button can be set as desired. This makes the camera a wonderful instrument to use.
- I take this camera always with me in a face cloth in my bag. I love it!
2:21 pm - Thursday, November 19, 2009
I still like chicken.
4:15 am - Friday, November 20, 2009
wow…what an incredible debate with some severe opinions!
my two cents worth…price is irrelevant.
a dslr is altogether different from the G11. if you’re after the added benefits of a dslr, then so be it, move in that direction.
However, if you’re a full-time professional photographer with a massive kit that sometimes gets tiresome on the back, then you want portability and performance in one package. that’s the point of the P&S or Compact. when i’m shooting something for a newspaper or magazine that isn’t commercial or a spread, whip out the G11, save my shutter on my Nikons…yes Nikon and please the editor with the impressive quality.
1:31 pm - Friday, November 20, 2009
All that’s left to say:....AMEN!!
3:05 pm - Friday, November 20, 2009
I hope I don’t insult anyone here, but I would like to see your red-eye test repeated on someone with blue eyes.
Among my children I have both dark brown and blue eyes. The kids with blue eyes are much more likely to have bad red-eye problems.
8:23 pm - Friday, November 20, 2009
To vroger, why AMEN? This is a UK photography website not a US religious website!
1:56 pm - Saturday, November 21, 2009
You’re kidding right? If not that’s why as a Brit, I live in the US.
2:10 pm - Saturday, November 21, 2009
One last word about the G11’s low light capabilities. I took the digicam out last night to an area in New York’s East Village. I did images in a restaurant and on the street. I found that despite its best intentions, the “street photography” potential of a 2.8 lens that stops down to 4.5 when extended is not enhanced by either the internal stabilization very high ISO or the lowering of the mp count. If you shoot movement in low light you absolutely need a faster lens. The G1 Lumix with interchangeable lenses is far superior. The results were not stunning and rather disatisfying. Bests: vroger
2:26 pm - Saturday, November 21, 2009
“If you shoot movement in low light you absolutely need a faster lens.”
Which of course takes us neatly back to cameras like the LX3, GRD III or even Canon’s own S90.
4:35 pm - Saturday, November 21, 2009
Absolutely!- ( I have learned my lesson about saying any other word that means I agree with the comment). The problem is the fact that the lens stops down when extended- that’s why the Lumix with an “M” adapter is so great. It allows me to use a long “prime” lens which gives me a wide open telephoto at f2. The LX3- only stops down to 2.8 when “extended” to 60mm which is wonderfully fast enough. vroger
4:58 pm - Saturday, November 21, 2009
Does larger CCD of this camera allow it to take much better indoor photography than the Panasonic FZ35?
I was evaluting this to replace my Sony H20 hoping that it will have faster autofocus and better indoor photos with flash, preferablly some without flash as well.
But the more i read it seems its not gonna be that great an advantage, and now i am leaning towards the more versetile FZ35 if it can give nearly the same pictures aided by its more powerful flash.
Why canon could not improve its video quality is a sad story for the G11, as if it had optical zoom for videos and maybe even an upscaled 720p hd to overcome its sensor limitations would definitely have increased the number of customers :(
12:00 pm - Monday, November 23, 2009
To Peter Harris at #77:
The problem is that the SLR crowd got the reasonably priced DSLR while the RF crowd did NOT get a reasonably priced DRF. The end result is that NOBODY can shoot through a Hologon or a Biogon digitally except those who are inclined to pay idiotic prices for body only. Why isn’t there a Canon-Rebel-like rangefinder out there?
7:49 pm - Monday, November 23, 2009
“Why isn’t there a Canon-Rebel-like rangefinder out there?”
Quite simply because the market is tiny, if there was a market somebody would be making them. Economies of scale would mean that, even if somebody made it, such a camera would sell for much, much more than a Rebel.
Reading your post anyone would think that cheap rangefinders were common before digital all but replaced film. So who exactly was making cheap interchangeable lens rangefinders in the 1990s? Nobody. So why should somebody make cheap digital rangefinders now?
8:11 pm - Monday, November 23, 2009
I’ve never understood the love for range finders but that’s just me. I do, though, appreciate the love of the tactility of older equipment - as opposed to the ruthless efficiency of the modern.
If the lenses you reference have m42 mounts - and the rear elements don’t protrude too far - you can - indeed mount them on any eos body. You will also have focus confirmation - and if you have a modern body you can use the “live view” for precise focussing.
Additionally you won’t have to deal with parallax issues and pale orange blobs in the evening dusk.
This cross platform mounting ability for canons is an unintended consequence of the width of their mount and the distance from the sensor. It enables an adaptor to fit and give infinity focus.
It may be do-able - check it out.
8:52 pm - Monday, November 23, 2009
Re. #99: Rangefinders are just different, not better, not worse. Their main claim to fame is they allow using lenses like the one I mentioned that:
1. are of superior quality (superior to anything equivalent in the SLR world),
2. cannot be used with an SLR because the lens elements would almost touch the film/CCD plane. Check the 43mm lens for Mamiya 7 to see what this looks like.
For example, Aviogon-derived designs like Biogon or Super Angulon are true wide angle lenses as opposed to SLR wide angles which are all out of necessity reversed telephotos (like a binocular looked through the “wrong” way). The necessity being that there must be empty space between the rear element and the film/CCD plane to accommodate the mirror box. Question: who needs a mirror box with a CCD?!
Frankly, I am simply _astonished_ the pros are not complaining (or screaming rather) about the unavailability of the Biogon on digital cameras. The timidity of lens criticising is quite surprising in general, I’ve read so far exactly _one_ review of the G11 which mentions its lens showing a slight barrel distortion at the wide range. 10 years ago that sort of remark would mean instant death sentence for the lens. I don’t know what’s going on today. Weird. And the fact that it’s a _zoom_ lens does not seem to bother anyone either. Weird. And I am just an amateur whose only claim to fame is his Plaubel :-)
5:35 am - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
2.8 inch LCD,
Canon PowerShot G11 Review
Camera Reviews ·
Camera Buying Guide
Camera Buying Guide
Lens Reviews ·
Photography News ·
Best Digital Cameras
Best Digital Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Photo Gallery ·
© Copyright 2003-2016 Photo 360 Limited