Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80 Review
Sigma sd Quattro Review
Fujifilm X-T2 Review
Olympus TG-Tracker Review
Pentax K-70 Review
HTC 10 Review
Sony RX10 III Review
Canon EOS M10 Review
Microsoft Lumia 950 Review
Nikon Coolpix A100 Review
Canon EOS 1300D
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS
Nikon Coolpix S7000
Canon EOS 1200D
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Sony RX10 III
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V
Page 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >
Re. #98: I agree with you except there is one tectonic change here: before the CCD, rangefinders did NOT have TTL viewing. Now they have it. In other words, an entirely new, previously not existing, camera type is born, which I called “DRF”. I bet many people who now buy SLRs would buy a DRF: smaller, better and smaller lenses, TTL viewing. What’s wrong with that??
But I agree that consumer education may be tricky.
5:42 am - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
How do you propose to combine TTL viewing with rangefinder focusing? It’s an interesting challenge for sure.
You couldn’t use an old fashioned mechanical RF linkage since the EVF would give a TTL view.
An electronic system? How would you get the central rangefinder image? A second sensor and a second lens? Hardly cheap is it?
It sounds like a nice idea in theory, but I think you’ve a long way to go before it’s practical.
8:12 pm - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Re. #102 Not sure about your question… Just do the same thing exactly as in a rangefinder camera. The only difference is that the pickup is electronic, not film. (So optical viewfinder: split image. Video screen: whatever came through the lens.)
10:03 pm - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Now you’ve lost me.
Most exponents of the rangefinder will tell you that it’s greatest asset is that it enables you to find focus quickly. It’s detractors will tell you it’s greatest shortcoming is the parallax view. But if you want to frame with the LCD and then focus with the rangefinder (or vice versa) then you have lost that quick focusing altogether.
That quick focusing advantage over the SLR was lost years ago anyway. Take a step back to the early days of the 35mm SLR and the rangefinder had a nice bright viewfinder and the split image to find focus quickly. Most SLRs of the time had dim ground glass focusing screens, the dimness plus the fact that the photographer had to carefully judge focus made focusing slow. Wind forward a few years and the ground glass screen had been replaced by a bright with a split prism at the centre. Just as bright and just as quick to find focus as a rangefinder.
As for the mythic quality of your preferred lenses , well maybe. If you’re shooting medium format or bigger and printing really big then maybe it counts. But an APS-C sensor printed A4. Nobody is going to see the difference.
So good luck waiting for somebody to bring out an entry level digital rangefinder that will take your preferred lenses. I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath.
Oh and getting back (sort of) on topic. Whatever happened to the Nikon P6000 or it’s replacement? Could the fact that it’s disappeared indicate that Nikon are about to enter the DVIL market? Could the launch of the G11 indicate that Canon are still some way from entering that particular market?
11:20 pm - Tuesday, November 24, 2009
I simply want a good quality camera which is not stratospherically priced. Such creatures used to exist. Really. Because of the TTL viewing available via digital pickup, I don’t need the weight and lens compromises of an SLR anymore. Whether I’d use the optical rangefinder or the video screen or the AF will obviously change from one picture to the next. I don’t think I’m asking for anything non-obvious.
The difference between a true wide angle and an SLR-style wide angle is very visible: distortion.
In general I’m seeing a lot of weird regress in terms of design in the digital camera world. I hope it’s all just temporary confusion of exploring a new medium. There are suddenly zooms everywhere. There are suddenly fixed focal length lenses which are abysmally dark, like it’s 1930s all over again. A new idiotic, unnecessary, constraint in lens design appeared - “telecentric” - which again forces dark lenses on the market. Nobody complains.
9:59 pm - Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Nope. Still not getting it.
There are *suddenly* zooms everywhere? There *suddenly* fixed focal length lenses which are abysmally dark?
Suddenly? There have been zooms everywhere for much longer than digital cameras, it’s hardly sudden. They are available because they sell. They sell because the average Jo/e doesn’t want to carry around, and can’t afford and doesn’t want the hassle of swapping a whole case full of prime lenses.
As for your slow primes. Where are they? None of the major manufacturers are selling primes any slower than they were in the film days.
These days I have a compact with a 10x zoom for snapping. And another more serious compact with a wide prime that, despite what you believe, shows no noticeable sign of distortion. I have no SLR these days. I find have a single prime lens my photography is better. I like the idea of the new DVIL stuff, but I’ll wait for now. Given a little more time we’ll see competition reducing prices. And of course more choice of things like lenses. Then maybe I’ll take the plunge.
What you want is a niche product at a populist price. Sorry, but capitalism doesn’t work like that. No manufacturer is so altruistic as to use one product line to subsidise another just to allow a tiny minority to pay the same prices as the majority.
10:50 pm - Wednesday, November 25, 2009
There seems to be willful “purist” logic going on here.
How pure do want to be? if you truly want no compromise get a medium - large format bellows camera and go have a blast.
This rangefinder stuff is annoying.
Sorry to break it to you but modern computer designed lenses - using modern materials - have more resolution and than your golden age behemoths. Where flaws exist, such aberrations such as barrel distortion and CA can be cleaned up with software with no loss of detail. (see DXO) Further: many have vibration control so low light shooting will be far sharper than was possible in the past.
Geez - this was a forum about a mediocre- overpriced - tiny sensor- semi point and shoot. Man oh man…
2:45 am - Thursday, November 26, 2009
OK, let’s compromise then. I’ll try to make it as simple as possible:
1. We all love SLRs,
2. All I’m saying is: provide a variation which is EXACTLY like an SLR in EVERY respect, features, what have you, EXCEPT remove the mirror and the pentaprism.
3. That’s all.
4. It’s not true in general that lenses used with digital cameras have “more resolution”. I studied lens design a bit as a hobby (I am a mathematician) and it’s more complicated than that.
Removing mirror box allows in addition mounting lenses that cannot be used with an SLR AND it reduces the bulk and weight of the camera body AND it removes the mirror slap.
5:53 am - Thursday, November 26, 2009
I didn’t say that lenses used with digital cameras are generally better - I said that all lenses are generally better and the bad ones are generally cheaper. Use of CAD, molded aspherical elements, different coatings, stronger plastics and adhesives, low dispersion glass - exotic things are now common place.
Take the new IS canon kit lens - you can pick it up for $90.00.
It has very very good resolution across the frame, it has image stabilization, if you run it through DXO, aberrations will be automatically corrected . It’s 90 bucks and as a light focussing apparatus it’s very good.. it has all the tactile pleasure of a plastic stick
But I will say that the digital sensor has driven lens design forward. The sensors are perfectly flat (excepting the kodak sensor in the new lieca which is curved at the edges) and the pixels are sensitive to light angles. Any flaws are ruthlessly revealed - film had more leeway.
The new micro 4/3 cameras fit your description: no mirror box etc.. Strangely, they’re not that small and they are pricey - I don’t get it. A rebel xsi is lighter and not too much bulkier (unless you’re using the mediocre pancake lenses). I’ve got a very nice little zuiko on mine and it’s a very handy package on good camera.
The truth is lenses aren’t the issue. There aren’t any sensors that have the dynamic and tonal range of film - and that’s not going to happen any time soon.
One last thought; I studied physics and I always wish I’d focused on math - the planets and stuff seemed to always get in the way of a nice equation. Vector calculus makes me wistful. My hat’s off to you.
7:07 am - Thursday, November 26, 2009
As a pure amateur who has just acquired a G11 I have to say I am thrilled to bits with its features and performance. Its Kuala Lumpur duty free shop price of £364 is also, I think, about where it should be. Just a pity it cost around three grand to pass through there…
9:42 am - Thursday, November 26, 2009
What was said about the weight of prime lenses against a zoom is very true. I bought the G1 micro 4/3 for one reason only- to be able to use Rangefinder “M” lenses (or lenses converted to “M” mounts) with digital. I have been extraordinarily happy with the results- BUT, the weight of those prime lenses is immense.
6:18 pm - Thursday, November 26, 2009
Guys if you simply want a camera that’s not an SLR but has interchangeable lenses and a reasonably large sensor then that’s going to happen. We already have the micro 4/3 system, but other DVIL systems will be along soon.
When anything new hits the market prices will be high for two reasons. Firstly there are all those R&D and tooling costs to offset. Secondly, with anything new, there are always those suckers who will pay a premium to have the lasest thing.
So assuming other manufacturers come in to compete with M4/3 we’ll be seeing the cameras you want at a lower price. I honestly can’t see rangefinders being part of the equation.
There is, however, one caveat. I suspect that to reduce costs and ensure a wide range of lenses, several manufacturers will stick with their tried and tested SLR lens mount. This will mean that it’s unlikely yo will see lenses with their rear element
Oh and by the way. Even the best software can’t correct aberrations and distortion without the loss of some detail. For example, in correcting barrel distortion you’re moving pixels and there will be nothing to replace them so other pixels have to be “stretched” to fit. This inevitably means a loss of detail. Remember no software can put back detail that wasn’t recorded in the original image. Unless that is you happen to be watching an episode of Spooks. ;)
7:23 pm - Thursday, November 26, 2009
As I understand correcting pincushion adds interpolated data but squeezing the barrel adds no interpolated “detail”.
I could be wrong - it wouldn’t be the first time - but I know from medium format to point and shoot this is standard practice for wide angles. If you look at gf1 pancake or s90 at the wide end they’re balloons prior to correction.
7:36 pm - Thursday, November 26, 2009
If you think about it you could “squeeze” the barrel and you’d have to use interpolated data towards the edge. You could actually stretch the image towards the corners and you’d have to use interpolated data. Finally you could squeeze the barrel and crop the edges in order that you weren’t using interpolated data, but you’d then be losing detail where you cropped.
It’s true that it’s better to have no distortion than to have it and correct it, but you don’t have to have some special esoteric lens in order to achieve that particular nirvana.
And on the subject of film. I have to say that the Foveon sensor is getting close to the rendition achieved with film. Of course it’s not too popular because most consumers seem to be obsessed with the pixel count and in Bayer terms the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD14 is less than 5MP.
Oh and by the way: Jan please don’t make the assumption that we all love SLRs.
8:00 pm - Thursday, November 26, 2009
I shoot for several car magazines and my go-to camera is a Canon 40D.
I bought the G11 to replace my old G3 backup camera. I use the backup if my 40D fails (hasn’t happened yet) or if I’m at an event where I don’t want to lug my 40D (like a car show).
Even though the video isn’t HD it’s VERY good quality and better than some el-cheapo HD cameras I’ve seen.
Would it be nice if it had a larger sensor? Uh, yea.. but it takes great images and that’s what’s really important. It was a great addition to my gear bag.
4:36 am - Friday, November 27, 2009
Quick comment about the G11-
the above link is to an image taken with the G11 using it’s “candelight” feature. Turned out, the image could have been taken a full resolution @3200ISO. This was at a reduced resolution, it’s noisy, but you must understand the room was dim enough so that when I entered it, I could barely see the people there. The G11, limited as it is, lens speed wise, does give options. Shot at the International Center of Photography, New York City- group watching a movie on 4 screens. vroger
12:02 am - Sunday, November 29, 2009
@ Peter Harris
“At 80 asa it may take a good picture.”
Are you kidding? I’ve taken stunning pictures with my G9. The G11 just gets better. It seems you’ve got a lot of negativity to spread about a product you obviously have no experience with. Why do you bother?
7:46 am - Monday, November 30, 2009
Is there any way to filter out the comments by Peter Harris? All that clutter and not one useful thing said. Maybe photographyblog can add an “ignore this person” like Amazon does in their discussions, so I can save time scrolling away from all his posts.
7:51 am - Monday, November 30, 2009
Wow, that’s quite an attitude you’ve got there. Everybody is entitled to express an opinion. If you don’t want to read somebody’s posts then don’t read them, it’s pretty easy to do since their name appears at the top of the post. However it’s staggeringly immature to only want to read the posts of people who agree with you.
My own opinion of the G11 is that it is a capable compact camera, but is something like 50% over priced. It’s also far too bulky in relation to it’s capabilities. It seems to me somewhat silly to build a compact that sells for DSLR money and is almost DSLR sized, but does not have a DSLR sensor. That, however, is my opinion which differs quite significantly from yours. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. That’s the thing about opinions.
8:24 pm - Monday, November 30, 2009
Re. #113 : “As I understand correcting pincushion adds interpolated data but squeezing the barrel adds no interpolated “detail””.
With a good quality true wide angle lens this is not an issue. That’s my main reason for not liking SLRs 100%.
But I noticed only few days ago that Olympus and Panasonic are actually introducing something very much like a “digital rangefinder”: Olympus EP-1 and Panasonic Lumix GF1 (the “four thirds” thingy).
I still don’t quite understand why they didn’t go all the way with the sensor size but it’s a step in the right direction. Something like a digital version of the Contax G2 and its lenses would be excellent.
10:03 pm - Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Now hold on a cotton picking minute.
“But I noticed only few days ago that Olympus and Panasonic are actually introducing something very much like a “digital rangefinder”: Olympus EP-1 and Panasonic Lumix GF1 (the “four thirds” thingy).”
Are introducing? Both those cameras have been mentioned in this thread, indeed they have been mentioned in posts responding to you. Both those cameras been reviewed by Photographyblog, one as early as july. The EP-1 has been around for much longer than the camera under discussion here (the G11 in case anybody forgot) and the EP-2 is around now. Have you been walking around with your eyes closed? Have you been reading this thread with your eyes closed?
Yes DVIL as a whole is the coming thing. Not the Micro 4/3 system alone, other manufacturers will be launching their own DVIL systems soon. Although the launch of the G11 suggests that Canon are somewhat behind the game on this one.
The significant thing about these cameras, however, in terms of your arguments is that they are not rangefinders. A rangefinder is a focusing mechanism, saying a camera is a rangefinder does not suggest to me that it has interchangeable lenses. Indeed I have owned several rangefinders with fixed lenses. In spite of a certain niche fanbase, with the exception of Leica rangefinders had pretty much shot their bolt thirty years ago.
Your insistence in banging on about rangefinders has detracted from your argument. Yes the mirror on an SLR does introduce compromises in lens design, but it’s disadvantages are largely offset by TTL viewing. However the very nature of digital cameras means that a mirror is not necessary to get a TTL view, so those compromises could be avoided. The only problems are that using an LCD screen is not an option in bright daylight and EVFs are not cheap and don’t lend themselves to manual focusing. So there are other compromises on the way.
EVFs are, however, improving quickly, although I think quick manual focusing is still a way off with EVFs. Having said that I’ve found that the focusing screens on a lot of DSLRs do not lend themselves to quick or easy manual focusing.
The long and the short of it is that a rangefinder mechanism is a red herring in your argument.
I would rather have a good lens that correct a bad one with post processing. No matter what anybody tells you it is impossible to correct distortion or aberrations without loss of image quality in some other area. But then I would be very unlikely to use a DSLR, not for the same reasons as you. I find most of them bulky and cumbersome and that to me anathema. But then I don’t feel I have to carry around a huge camera and a bag full of lenses to take good photographs, nor do I worry that carrying a small unobtrusive camera will lead to my not being taken seriously as a photographer.
10:53 pm - Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Well let’s all take a deep breath.
i think the word “rangefinder” is getting in the way here. It’s true that a camera without a mirror enables the rear element to be closer to the sensor/film and that does avoid compromises.
Because of the distance on an slr the wide angles are all telephoto so a lot of magic has to happen. (before I get angry mail: telephoto is a lens that creates an artificial subject focusing point - it has nothing to do with how “long” the lens is)
It is a frustration for certain precision oriented work. It’s also strange that the 35mm focal length is one of the least developed and possibly , especially with cropped sensors, the most useful. Things get better at 28mm and below - at least in terms of edge to edge resolution.
So, the new micro 4/3 and , in fact, all 4/3, overcome this. But they’re really not much smaller than a small slr, except if you stick with the pancake lens, and are much pricier.
I don’t want to kindle the flames of barrel distortion - it’s not good OK. If you’re shooting jpeg you should be aware that corrections are automatically applied.
I will also say that barrel is pretty easy to correct, as long as it’s not mustache, and if “pinched”, the correction is not discernible.
No new info is added - no detail or resolution is lost. The file dimension will be a bit smaller. The $30,000 phase ones do this in camera. Sorry for kindling - I can’t help it.
Thank you for your time. Your pal pete.
12:11 am - Wednesday, December 2, 2009
I’m using the word “rangefinder” as “the other (non-SLR) standard that was common in 35mm” rather than “the rangefinder mechanism per se”. The funny phrase “digital rangefinder” was intended to be understood in that (former) sense. Sorry I didn’t make it clear. And I really wasn’t aware of the 4/3 cameras until last week.
But then you (#121) are also saying: “However the very nature of digital cameras means that a mirror is not necessary to get a TTL view, so those compromises could be avoided. The only problems are that using an LCD screen is not an option in bright daylight[...]” - which is why I said it would be nice to have the optical viewfinder WITH a rangefinder. Isn’t it, like, the most obvious feature request in this context? What ELSE could possibly substitute for a video screen that’s hard to see in bright sunlight?
5:57 am - Wednesday, December 2, 2009
“I’m using the word “rangefinder” as “the other (non-SLR) standard that was common in 35mm” rather than “the rangefinder mechanism per se””
So you’re using the term “rangefinder” in a context that it has never been used before. OK.
“What ELSE could possibly substitute for a video screen that’s hard to see in bright sunlight?”
How about an EVF. Having used the EVF on a Ricoh GX200 I was very impressed, the EVFs on some bridge cameras are relativley poor but this is probably a cost issue. Most bridge cameras come in at under £300 and have huge zooms and loads of featurers meaning there’s probably about £3.57 left in the budget to spend on an EVF.
As a long time rangefinder user I can also tell you that as a focusing system there were problems. Firstly short based rangefinders were often little better than focusing by dead reckoning. Secondly wear and tear and generally getting knocked about could knock the mechanism out of line. The effects of this are are much more noticeable on short based finders. Now the problem with cameras like the micro 4/3 kit is that there just isn’t the space to fit a long based rangefinder. So you’d end up with all the limitations of a short based finder.
The problem with the viewfinder on non TTL interchangeable lens cameras is that it’s hard to get them to work properly for different focal length lenses. It’s not impossible, an internal zoom mechanism controlled by sensing the focal length in use is possible, but difficult to implement with a rangefinder. All of which is why many none TTL interchangeable lens cameras had accessory viewfinders available for different focal lengths.
All in all I think it’s better to leave the whole issue of coupled rangefinder focussing out of it. You can always get a none coupled hot shoe mount rangefinder from ebay if you like the idea.
12:45 pm - Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Re. #124: “So you’re using the term “rangefinder” in a context that it has never been used before. OK.” I disagree.
“How about an EVF.” Does EVF mean electronic viewfinder? It’s fine with me but then it must be a black and white CRT, nothing else will do. Professional camcorders well into the 5-digit range all have B&W CRT viewfinders for a reason: they are the only ones that are good enough to see focusing errors with (other than the optical ones, of course).
I had a cute experience once of finding out my video footage from a high school reunion in Europe was ruined through a malfunctioning AF - which could not be seen on the spot at all through the color LCD viewfinder. Needless to say, my next camera had a B&W CRT viewfinder.
Which is OK, but again it’s hugely non-obvious that such an EVF will be more reliable or cheaper than a well-made mechanical rangefinder. It all depends on the workmanship at this point. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Mamiya 7 has a mechanical rangefinder which is notorious for going out of alignment too quickly. Plaubel Makinas OTOH seem to never go out of alignment (mine is 22 years old and is still 100% accurate).
Again, all I’m asking for is: make a camera with all the imaging internals like in a DSLR except:
1. remove the mirror box and the pentaprism,
2. keep some sort of eye-level viewfinder which allows manual focusing at least as reliably as a mechanical rangefinder.
“You can always get a none coupled hot shoe mount rangefinder from ebay if you like the idea.” That’s beside the point. Obviously I can buy parts to make a grand piano or a car. What does that prove.
4:44 am - Thursday, December 3, 2009
A step in the right direction:
6:00 am - Thursday, December 3, 2009
i,ve canon mark 2 & 50D both professional cameras , but i’m very happy to have this compact digital with me all the time. Happy with the results too.
2:33 pm - Thursday, December 3, 2009
Your posts of late have left comparisons to the G10 behind. I bought a G9, then sold it for the G10, which I love and is always around my neck.
I don’t need a swivel viewfinder, and I shoot at 80ISO in RAW as much as possible.
What is great about the G10 is previewing +/- exposure compensation on the screen (not possible on a DSLR). What I miss is being able to set slower speeds than 1/60s with flash in Program (a feature appearing on the latest Canon DSLRs, allowing balanced ambient/flash mix in P).
Shoot raw all the time.
I’m not convinced about the reduction from 15 to 10mp, or I would still use my EOS1DSMk11 instead of the 5DMK11 (which has a beautiful sensor and is stunning at high ISO, and produced beautiful video - does anyone remember Vincent Laforet’s “Reverie’? Awesome with the fast prime lenses).
The perameters of photography are changing so quickly as to be unrecognisable to the iconic images taken in a more simple world by Leicas in black and white throughout most of the last century. Ditto with film making: quote Kevin Spacey at a recent US film festival, who pointed out that the new genre of film makers is 15 minute shorts for teenagers to see on their mobile phones.
Gosh. Think I’l keep shooting B&W on my M6, and dig out the Wista for making beauty.
And I’m going to stick with my G10 for a must-have-with camera, as a less bulky alternative to my EOS5Dmk11 with all the lenses.
BTW: regarding smaller compacts. Never trust a camera that looks like a cigarette case. The menus are designed for people who don’t want to learn about photography, and therefore can accept that half of their photos will never come out, as they can’t adjust settings manually.
I don’t mind the bulk.
Other cameras to rave about: the Leica M8 (will buy the f/f M9 to fit all my Leica lenses when I can afford it) and my Wista triple-extension 8x10” wooden field camdera with a 150mm super-wide Nikon lens (though I may have to start stockpiling the film.
I prefer fish to chicken, though there are not so many left to eat in the oceans any more. Plants are better protein than meat, America.
Happy shooting. Remember the Alamo and the G10 (joke, like the NRA gun lobby). x
11:47 am - Friday, December 4, 2009
To James Bartholomew: What a great comment- From a Brit in America who is also Vegetarian (though not Vegan)I understand everything you have said- I am tired of colour and am shooting B/W with most of my digitals including the G11. As to using the “legend” Leica r/f lenses (or Canon r/f lenses) the micro 4/3 allows me to do it without the expense of a used M8 or new (gasp!) M9. vroger
2:03 pm - Friday, December 4, 2009
thanks for support from the land of the free.
Actually I’m an anglo-american, living in London since 1984 (last time). People are mostly thinner here, and more restrained, but deeper underneath the veneer sometimes.
Speaking of leica: long ago I traded in a perfectly good 50mm summicron f2 for an older C/F one with the goggles. Sad that it doesn’t work for the M8, either with or without the glasses. Best lenses for the M8: 35mm and 24mm or 28mm.
Explain the micro 4/3.
And how do you shoot b&w in digital? Post, in PS with desaturate, or channel mix?
You realise of course, that b&w film is impervious to solar flares, power blackouts and disc crashes, compared to digital files? I think old is best…
Having said that, you would get an M9 if you could afford all the lenses with it, wouldn’t you?
I live near Stratford, E London, by the Olympic zone. In 2012 if I have my druthers, I’d ruther be far away, touring India on my BMW motorbike (if I can figure out how to get there without going through Iraq or Afghanistan). Comparing the 5D Tamrac knapsack bag with lenses, to the M6/M8 with 5 lenses and a flash in a little tamrac waist bag, is no contest!
Keep the flag flying! Vinnie Jones flies a 6’ Union Jack outside his house, next to Tarantino.
3:10 pm - Friday, December 4, 2009
To James: I’m in London to lecture every so often- I lived there for about 9 years in the 90s commuting back and forth to New York every 2 weeks. In the event, Micro 4/3 is a new format brought out by Panasonic and being followed by Olympus, and others who will get in line. The huge joy of this format is that with an inexpensive adapter, your Leica “M” or LTF (with “M” adapter)lenses work. The Panasonic Unit (G1) which I RAN to buy has an electronic viewfinder (evf) which gets brighter as you stop down the lens. All you do is set the camera on aperture priority (or program mode)and it automatically sets the exposure. You lose no brightness in the v/f no matter how far you stop the lens down- just get a bit of graniness. The G1 comes with a nice small zoom- . The second model is the GH1, which adds HD video, and the newest is the GF1 which is the size and has the look of a compact. The G1 and GH1 are mirrorless tiny SLR-like digicams.They are somewhat bigger than the GF1. When I first read about the “M” adapter in “Rangefionder” Magazine- I had never even heard of Micro 4/3. What it means to me is I can use my Canon 0.95 lens which I had adapted for “M” mount. The G1 at the time (when the exchange rate was a bit better) Cost me USD700. They should be available used by now. It is a joy to use. I have looked at the title page to your website and am looking forward to going to the site immediately as I finish this note. As to Black and White- As I noted, I am tired of shooting colour. I have always been a Leicaman shooting, processing and printing Tri-X. These days, I shoot in colour at ALL ISOs, but print often in Black and White. I generally use the “mode” on Photoshop- but sometimes I desaturate. I call your attention to some of the images in “Women Of Paris” which appears as one of the categories in my URL:
v-images.smugmug.com. Technical details are available on the site. You will see that I use many cameras. As far as an M8/M9 the price of the body is prohibitive. Soon we will have bigger sensors on smaller cameras. Leica is nice, but wholly unnecessary. Bests: Roger Rubin (vroger)
5:16 pm - Friday, December 4, 2009
$479 in USA, that’s about £270
A steal for a camera so good, whereas UK prices are just a steal full stop!
3:08 pm - Saturday, December 12, 2009
to Nick- That’s why I buy cameras for my UK friends, and bring them with me- I would think ordering on line from Adorama.com and paying a small duty would still be less expensive than UK prices which are prohibitive in light of the U.S. prices.
6:06 pm - Saturday, December 12, 2009
I paid $449 on eBay and that included tax AND shipping…
I also got an 8% Bing cashback rebate so my total out the door price was about $410.
Received the camera and I simply love it as a back-up to my DSLR equipment. Even though the video is not HD it’s pretty darn good and the camera shoots great in low light.
6:56 pm - Saturday, December 12, 2009
Firstly; I’ve seen the G11 for £319 in the UK which is a massive hike. 479 USD converts to 295GPB at current exchange rates. And when you consider that the pre VAT price of a 319 quid camera would be 278 quid it looks perfectly reasonable. Does the 479USD include sales tax?
Secondly; A warning. A friend of mine one brought some gear in from the US. Since it was clearly boxed and new customs worked out that the equipment was not for use on his holiday. Since he had no receipts about his person he was charged duty at the UK retail price. So be careful if you’re playing this game. Don’t bring sealed and boxed retail goods with you. If customs spot them they will assume you are importing the goods and charge you any import duty and VAT due. A note to US readers: UK VAT (sales tax) is levied at 15%, currently reduced from 17.5%, which reduction ends on 31/12/09.
7:10 pm - Saturday, December 12, 2009
£319 is not a price I can find anywhere, £390 being lowest
It is $479 all in with post from amazon.com not uk and sent to the US buyer who will bring my ‘gift’ over, as it is the present giving season I assume customs will not be draconian about it.
I do not normally buy grey but this is to replace my lost G10 (fabulous camera) and I am already out of pocket on that loss, so not happy to pay a penny more than necessary! The difference is considerable,
8:03 pm - Saturday, December 12, 2009
When you bring in equipment and don’t wish to pay duty, it is common sense to unwrap it etc. Regrettabley having the box and other nicities are great fun. The price differential is worth it. VRR
12:10 am - Sunday, December 13, 2009
NEW G11 OWNER
This is my first camera. I bought it to shoot myself to get a headshot with instead of always paying a prof. to shoot me. I also like that I can shoot video n post it on utube. So I know there’s a portrait setting but can anyone recommend the best settings to utilize the 35mm capability, and just in general what should I set the settings to get best professional headshot? I am buying the 270 speedlight and also the diffuser as well and oh I will shoot headshots outdoors in sunlight. Please help.
New Canon G11 owner
3:11 am - Sunday, December 13, 2009
Unwrap and take a few pictures with it too!
Boxes only take up space and I heard that unlike my G10, I wont get a printed manual in the box anyway.
10:27 am - Sunday, December 13, 2009
Conversion rate of my amazon purchase
449.95 US dollars = 276.36 British pounds sterling
Exchange rate: 0.614200
Rate valid as of: 13/12/2009
£276 for the G11 seems fine to me
3:23 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
I don’t know where you people get this rumor that you don’t get a paper manual with the G11… I just bought one and I recieved TWO PAPER MANUALS, one in english and one in spanish…
5:27 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
well because after the first flush of G10s in the UK, the printed manual stopped being included.I assumed this would be the same with the g11
5:52 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
I just paid the same price for an Olympus E-420 with a 14-42 lens. I know which I’d prefer. Not much of a choice given the teeny tiny sensor on the G11. How big are the photosites on that sensor again?
6:38 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
But the olympus is a dslr, I have a dslr, the point is that I dont believe in dslrs anymore except for action/sport/weddings etc
I am more concerned with size for carrying with me all the time, than size of sensor or any other technical fol de rol which I think is really irrelevant for those people chasing great images not technical excellence. Some of the greatest images of the last 50 years were captured on less than perfect cameras even by the standards of the time.
My G10 took marvelous pictures through a combination of easy to access ‘real purpose’ settings like a proper film camera as well as portability and I am sure the G11 will do the same.
Now an Olympus Pen might tempt me, but it’s too pricey and having handled one I thought it great looking but didnt inspire confidence with its build.
6:54 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
I suspect you are being somewhat disingenuous. Were you truly concerned with a camera being pocketable then you would not consider for a moment something the size of the G11. Compared with something like its sibling the S90 it is huge.
7:39 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
I’m not so sure about this “I am more concerned with size for carrying with me all the time, than size of sensor or any other technical fol de rol which I think is really irrelevant for those people chasing great images not technical excellence. Some of the greatest images of the last 50 years were captured on less than perfect cameras even by the standards of the time.”
Maybe some were maybe some weren’t. I’m sure they got the best they could. For example: “The Americans” was shot with a leica. A lot of people used the Nikon F. You might say that a nikon f wasn’t as good as a leica. It was very good and more to the point they all used the same sized film.
Photography is a mechanical medium - that’s the way it is. Gear matters as do ideas.
Digital presents different issues. The sensor is the primary one. For less money you can get a 10x larger sensor and use better lenses. Not much argument there. Not fol de roll.
If it’s all about convenience - let’s just state it clearly - and that could be had a lot cheaper too - but let’s not get poetic about it.
Heck, for a few hundred more you could get a used full frame which has what - 25 x the area.
I don’t know - I’ve got ot bake apie.
8:04 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
“Some of the greatest images of the last 50 years were captured on less than perfect cameras even by the standards of the time.”
Go on then. Name half a dozen of the “greatest images” since 1959 that were taken on less than perfect cameras. OK so greatness is subjective and every camera is less than perfect, but I’m assuming by “less than perfect” you actually mean something equivalent to today’s compact camera.
I can’t off hand think of a single “great” image where the equipment is known to have been much less than pro quality.
8:35 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
We are once again losing sight of this set of crtiques. The G11 is great for what it does. DSLR digicams are great for what they do. Use the equipment for the moment. The equipment is changing far more quickly these days than it ever did before. The G11 is great, but wait until you see the G12…
8:57 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
I think the issue most people have with the G11 is that while it is very good at what it does it is overpriced.
I don’t think anybody has described the G11 as a bad camera. It’s a good compact which is for some reason more expensive than many an entry level DSLR. It doesn’t take photographs any better than the S90, but costs more. And if compactness is crucial to you then the S90 wins hands down and has a faster lens to boot.
Yes, it’s a case of horses for courses. I just can’t see what course the G11 is suited to.
9:02 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
Seriously considering a G11. Have a DSLR—Canon XTi. Going to a South Africa game park. Would prefer not to take the bigger camera with long lens (70-200) because so bulky. Would I be happy with G11 and its 5x zoom? Or is zoom too small and I should just swallow the size of the DSLR and get the Tamron 18-270?
9:26 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
For an important trip- take the DSLR and get the Tamron lens which is a teriffic size for travel when you add the conversion factor. There is no need to use the G11 unless it were purchased as a back-up camera. DSLR cameras are best for important travel images. If you have standardized on a dslr, I would recommend a used G10 if you were to get a backup and could get a good buy on one. I would stay away from the G9 because of parallex problems I encountered because I use the optical v/f mainly.
9:42 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
Very helpful. Thanks.
10:52 pm - Sunday, December 13, 2009
You know I’ve just been thinking about an old compact of mine, an Olympus Camedia C-2020 Zoom. OK so it’s only 2MP, other than that it surprises me to think how little compacts have really moved on in the last few years.
Look at the Olympus and the salient points of the G11 are already there. In the last nine years beyond more advanced electronics very little has changed. Most of the other changes are just fripperies. For example the variangle LCD isn’t as useful as the swivel on various Nikon Coolpix models going back to the 900 and ending, I think, with the S10 and those are considered terribly old fashioned now.
The one thing I think the digital compact should have achieved over the last decade is a larger sensor. There is no technical reason why more compacts should not have a sensor as large as that of an entry level DSLR. Excepting that a compact has something a DSLR doesn’t (like extremely small dimensions) I can see no reason why a compact of the same price as an entry level DSLR should have a tiny sensor.
Hopefully the coming profusion of DVIL or EVIL cameras will kill off the prosumer compact for good and all. OK so current DVIL kits start at above the price of a G11, but competition will bring that down over the coming year. And then we shouldn’t be surprised if the G11 turns out to be the end of the G line. Other hefty prosumer compacts such as the Nikon P6000 and the aforementioned line of Olympus (Olympi?) have already bitten the dust.
12:09 am - Monday, December 14, 2009
No one is going to be put off a great image because, looking at it very closely, they can see some loss of quality. Unless that image is intended for advertising or similar.
A dSLR is invaluable for action, sports,weddings, studio work etc but as a camera for travel you have to weigh up, literally, whether it’s the best option. Great when you actually use it, but a pain when wheezing up a hill carrying it and all its lenses. And not so good in rough neighbourhoods. The G10/11 may not be pocketable but it is more discreet
My G10 lived in my work satchel along with my mp3 voice recorder and notepad, I am a food/travel journalist. Thus it was always with me and capable of taking shots that picture editors had no reservations about using.
I felt the price in US dollars was acceptable for the quality of the build and the way it felt to use
Too many people use dSLRs as, what Terence Donovan once called, ‘male jewellery’. A display item.
8:59 am - Monday, December 14, 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. ...”
EXACTLY! I’m heading to France in a few days and the weather turned wicked. Instead of dealing with cold, hot, wet, condensation… I decided on a G11. I want it warm and safe in a pouch pocket, and ability to shoot and run while not worrying about the elements. I want to enjoy the trip. After playing with Panasonics, Pentax, .... this camera felt right. I’ve fixed many older camera images in Photoshop and see no reason these won’t hold up as well, particularly with simultaneous recording of jpg and RAW. Some of my best pictures come from “quick” shots, totally unplanned, and I expect the same from this.
3:06 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Nicely put- The G11 is convenient and very well built- The late lamented Konica had a slogan: “The lens alone is worth the price” In this case the “build alone…” well, you know the rest. It isn’t a fantastic available light camera- but for what it CAN do, it’s a very good buy, and travel companion.
3:29 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
The G11 should be better at low light, but tbh low light photography is not a priority for most of us and some loss of quality when we do go there is acceptable
In the late 70s I freelanced for music papers in UK as a photographer and my Nikons F and F2 loaded with Trix pushed to 800 did produce grainy pics, but they looked so good! Modern digital shots of live bands seem to have no soul. In a recent Sunday Times feature on Blur’s reunion Penny Smith took a range of stage and off stage shots using her old Pentax Spotmatic and black and white film. The grain, the overexposed (inevitably) stage lights and the dark underexposed areas make the pics magical.
The image is all.
3:47 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Once again, absolutely right- I was thinking about it yesterday. I have taken some of the most unbelieveably bad images on digital using available light. I have never been anything but an available light photographer and my equipment is balanced towards that, however, I always seem to believe (somewhere in my pea brain) that digital solves all problems. When I shot Tri-X and developed it in Edwal FG7, I had magnificent results- now I find that digital requires far more concentration when shooting available light. I don’t know if its the plethora of images possible on a large card, or just general sloppiness on my part- but I resolved to go back to my old techniques and do that voodoo that I did so well- only now with digital.
4:06 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
What I now miss about film is that with only 36 exposures per camera, you had to pick your shots with care, not take 200+ and then sort through them later! Also I had 28mm on one camera and 135mm lenses on another, no zoom. This again made you concentrate on the shot and not endlessly vary the framing. (By the way when I did use a zoom it was the push pull trombone type which let you focus while zooming, do any modern zooms use that method?)
Ah manual focusing, so much easier than picking ‘zones’!
4:17 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Well… I’m back to manual focusing y’know- with the Lumix G1 and the “M” adapter, I am using my old “legacy” Leica lenses which are manual focus. Their only problem is weight- Focusing is not as fast as with autofocus lenses, but passable. The G1 kit lens is not too bad and it has auto focus. As to push/pull zooming- I personally know of none today- and being a old trombonist (really!) I know whereof you speak.
4:30 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Yes you can manual focus with a G10/11 of course but its not a pleasant process. I would change my Nikon screens to microprism for low light work, but use the split ‘rangefinder’ screen for daylight. Focusing speed I found not a problem, unless the lens was wide open the depth of field would take care of any slight inaccuracy if I was in a hurry.
I found the way early AF lenses ‘hunted’ in low light most irritating although I expect the top of range lenses today are better
At least with manual focus the lens knew who was boss.
The price of old Nikkor, pre AF and AI lenses on ebay is scary, but a reminder of the quality.
Whereas a Nikon F70 with lens is only about £40!
4:47 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
That’s the problem- all my analogue equipment is worth nothing. I keep it for memories’ sake- I picked up a 135mm Hektor on Portobello Road some years ago and now use it wi the G1- It’s only f4.5 but for general daylight shooting it’s fine-Top of the line lenses today, while unaffordable for most (including me) do everything of which we’d dream, but I leave taht to those who make the investment because they do it for a living.
5:26 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Some of the old gear holds value, the decent stuff. My old Nikon F and F2 both with motor drives and with a range of lenses still are worth something.
Not that Id sell them, I have a darkroom and still believe that a great analogue image, properly printed and washed, will be around long after even giclee prints have faded away while my digital pics will almost certainly be on a storage medium that no one supports any more:-(
Just the other day I fished out a DVD of images from last year and the **** thing is unreadable! So those images are gone forever. What can you trust? What digital storage medium is future proof?
5:39 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Much has been written about the probability that todays media are not as stable or accessable as those which are film based. Certainly as DVD disks are phased out in favour of some blue -ray clone- and as “progress” is made- we shall be left with hard drive back-up, off computer storage facilities (like smugmug) and etc. I have no idea what’s going to happen to my myriad disks check full of information. I guess we’ll just do the best we can- and finally all go back to film.
9:25 pm - Monday, December 14, 2009
Thomas the Tank
People if you want a G11 fine, but don’t try to justify it by claiming the camera is small and portable. To do so is nothing short of laughable. It’s got to be the least portable compact on the market today. And why is it so big? It does nothing that its own smaller and cheaper sibling can’t. And the images are no better, indeed the S90 is a more capable camera in low light.
Sorry, but I think the G11 is a penis camera. It’s for those photographers who daren’t be seen with a truly compact camera. It’s sad that so many people feel a camera must be big and bulky and have knobs and whistles all over it to qualify as a “proper” camera. Don’t worry guys, nobody will think any the less of you if you carry a camera that will fit in your jeans pocket. It’s the images that count not the bells and whistles on your camera.
1:10 am - Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I think the point is that the g10/11 is smaller and more portable than a dSLR, there are smaller cameras available of course.
The knobs are practical rather than decorative, giving easy access to the most used settings.
I do find G10/11 aesthetically pleasing it’s true, but I don’t think that makes me a solopsistic jerk, just a bit design conscious.
Having a bit of taste is not a bad idea if you want to take good photos.
8:40 am - Tuesday, December 15, 2009
An update - I got to play with a G11 today in the camera shop. First impression is that the build is not the same as my G10, feels more plasticky and less pleasant. The articulated screen is handy, but is smaller and the stuff that makes it articulate has made the back of the camera lumpy. On screen feedback to user seems to be aimed at people with learning problems, very Jack & Jill
I have seen the test shots re noise, and that’s definitely improved. So I shall be glad of that aspect when my G11 arrives, but Canon have killed the ergonomics and feel.
1:09 pm - Thursday, December 17, 2009
Not really…I’ve had them all from the G7 on up-I am happy with the build on the G11. BUT the final word is from DPREVIEW.com. They have just done a full hands on test. Take a look. You’ll be happy you bought it. VRR
7:54 pm - Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wow ... unbelievable thread-jack here. Five minutes searching for helpful advice on purchasing a non SLR camera in this forum only to be met by insane, dry, pretentious comments.
Thankfully, photography isn’t a life-threatening job that requires proper training from the experts. If it did, God help us all.
3:46 am - Friday, December 18, 2009
It’s a actually a discussion on the canon powershot G11, the clue is in the thread title ’ Canon G11 Powershot Review’. it’s not actually ‘advice on purchasing an non dSLR camera’.
Still he was writing it at 3:46 am so he may have been a bit tired.
@vroger, yeh I read the DPP review. I am confident that objectively and under lab analysis the G11 is better than the G10, but subjectively I do miss the ‘feel’ of the G10 and the screen was definitely bigger and flatter and nicer to look at and the rear controls felt better in use.
To be even pickier, I even preferred the G10s on/off switch which was harder to trigger by mistake.
8:59 am - Friday, December 18, 2009
12:18 pm - Friday, December 18, 2009
I see now, I missed it the first time, that the G11 rear shell is made of plastic and not the metal of the G10.
I’m fighting this terrible feeling that picture quality or no, I preferred my G10 and rather wish I hadn’t chosen to ‘upgrade’ The G11 feels cheaper and the screen is not the composing ‘plate camera’ the G10 was.
1:51 pm - Friday, December 18, 2009
You are a man after my own heart- I felt the same way- but let’s look at the reality. Most cameras today are made of a composition material. The G11 is sturdy, beautifully built and offers niciteies not found in the G10. The compromise as to a part of the camera not being metal isn’t important. Used for a while, you’ll never think of it. Aren’t most DSLRs made of composit material?? I believe they were aiming at weight. Were the camera all metal, we’d be grousing about the increase in weight. Enjoy it for the digicam that it is- a distinct improvement on the G10.
4:26 pm - Friday, December 18, 2009
Im sure it’s an improvement technically, but, but ...ah well, nothing to be done eh?
Incidentally I had the lovely brown leather case on the stolen G10, do the cases one sees on line still fit the G11 because I would have thought the lumpy screen and the hinges etc would make that not possible or at best a squeeze.
10:45 am - Saturday, December 19, 2009
In point of fact, I attended the Photo+Expo Show in NY some time ago and I saw a “G” leather case for the firat time. I hadn’t known they exist. In the event, I asked the Japanese young woman, who was carrying it, where she got it and she said they weren’t available in the US. I went to E-Bay and found a plethora of G11 cases. I bought one. It’s a tight fit, but actually does fit without a problem. Mine came from Hong Kong, was $8 (that’s right, $8) with a $22.00 shipping charge- so $30 in all and works fine. It does not appear tight and does not pull or otherwise seem as though it wouldn’t really fit. There are some better units available up to $79.00 and all are marked for the G11.
6:16 pm - Saturday, December 19, 2009
Actually with the G10 the brown case with matching leather neck strap is available from canon once you have registered your purchase with them on line. The ebay ones as far as I can tell do not come with straps and are generally inferior.Im assuming when I register the G11 I will again be offered a Canon case for it and it was reasonably priced for the quality. The ebay ones may say they are for G11 but I think they are the same ones they sell for the G10 and they are hoping people wont mind that they arent a bespoke fit.
7:02 pm - Saturday, December 19, 2009
Bespoke? No. Serviceable? Yes. I stopped using cases years ago but since this has no straps I find it easier to use. I don’t think Canon ever offered it in the US. I’ll have to look. Do you have a website?
1:46 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
If you’re a fan of retro styling the brown case from Canon is/was a cracker. String it around your neck, the front section unclips, and it’s very handy as well as providing good padded protection for the camera.
Going back to the CanonUK site I now see no reference to it all, I can’t remember whether it was on the accessories page or only appeared after you had registered the purchase of a G10. I think the latter.
I am told the ebay cases are G10 cases really, the makers being a bit sly, and as such don’t let you articulate the screen. Seems a shame as Canon have imho ruined the screen to provide that ‘feature’ that those cases wont let you use it.Does yours let you spin the screen?
2:32 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
Absolutely- and the front pops off just like any old “(n)eveready” case. It also protects the digicam. The rear is totally cut out, and that would be necessary to use a screen, articulated or not. The leather isn’t the greatest in the world, and from what I see, there are other very good soft cases available, but far more that I need. This is good all around protection and was very inexpensive.
3:08 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
I am just checking because on other forums its been said that the cases are a tight fit (owing to the chunkier rear of the g11) and that while the rear is cut out for the screen, it does overlap the hinge area so that the screen cannot be hinged out?
4:36 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
I have found a seller with a pic of the rear
This one clearly has been designed for the G11 and is pricier. The others don’t show the rear shot so Im a bit doubtful
4:42 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
The one I received for $8 has no separate strap, but has cut outs to use the strap on the camera. It is not a “bespoke fit” but the screen moves freely and it suits my purposes perfectly. Looks very good too.
4:51 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
I guess I may buy the JP seller one, its very pricey tho. Does have Canon on the front!
On a positive note I have just found my my Pre AI Nikkor 28mm, the lens that God uses, after it went missing a year ago. Im so pleased, they are silly prices on ebay as they are so very, very good.
5:11 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
Never had that one- have an F2S and Nikkormat FT2 (mint)with limited lenses- but they sit there gathering dust. I cannot see my way back to film. I did handle a Lumix GF1 at a dinner meeting with the Leica Users Group the other nite. Very sweet digicam. I am waiting to see what comes out now from Canon, Nikon etc. besides Panasonic and Olympus. I am gussing we’ll soon be inundated with micro 4/3 models.
7:30 pm - Sunday, December 20, 2009
There will always be new digicams, the beauty of film is that a camera like the F2 will be state of its art forever. It will probably never ever wear out and batteries won’t ever be needed and negatives don’t corrupt
As long as they make the film Ill keep using it.
I still do my own B&W dev and print. I wonder how many of us ever actually have our digital pics printed and framed? Not many I bet. Digital pics just seem to reside scaled down online or in a hard drive.
All this technology is rarely used to make a decent sized print, I don’t know why people bang on about that level of quality so much. How many 20 x 16 prints have any of us ever made from a digicam?
Price is more off putting to sizeable printing than a bit of noise
9:31 am - Monday, December 21, 2009
You’ve possibly been able to interpret from what I have said that I was always a darkroom photographer. I started printing when I was a teen ager and never stopped. I’ve always felt that whether using an enlarger or a computer the image wasn’t mine until I personally turned out a finished product. I print at home 8.5X11 and send out for larger prints up to 18X24 after I have finished the manipulation in Photoshop. I have particularly enjoyed blowing up images to the 18X24 size from 4-5 megapixel digicams. Using the Photoshop 10% image enlarger, the images are tack sharp with so little noise,that it is not a noticeable factor.
Those of us who do not do printing of at least 8X10 are missing the whole point of image making. To park images solely on line, misses the true meaning of the art of first photography and now digital image making.
Some years ago, I got rid of my darkroom and converted solely to digital. I agree that my analogue equipment will never die- but my results from digital have been so very good- that I cannot return to film.
1:41 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
One more quick word about the G11 which I have not mentioned… As I was packing up today and checking the G11 as to batteries, card etc., I realised that one “unsung” advantage is the sheer number of images available. On an 8 Gig card, the G11 gives almost 3,000 images. It has reduced pixels, and no longer has the “superfine” option. Without losing image quality, the smaller files give you more options.
1:59 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
Yeh but I was a rock photographer and to me B&W film is the only way to photograph bands live - the grain, the grit, the tones etc. Digital is like HD movies - a bit sterile.
Its funny my 1.3 mp Olympus may not produce the sharpest images at 10x 8 or larger, but then who presses their nose against a 10x 8 print anyway? What it does have is amazing picture quality and feel. If it didnt take about an hr to write each shot to card, Id use it more.
I shot jpg +raw on the G10 with a 4GB card, got about 300 images which is probably enough at any one time! The danger of 8GB cards to my mind is that you end up with a lot of images in one basket. I prefer to use a couple of cards as a way of minimising risk. Saw a mate of mine pull his hair out when the one card he had used on holiday corrupted and only showed half of each image
2:34 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
What I have learned to do is treat my “card paranoia” by travelling with a 40GB portable hard drive and a net book. I back-up my cards every nite to both. The portable HD is battery operated and very small. The net book is also very small indeed.
As to “gritty” black and white- I agree that this is the medium of choice, and towards that end I attach some 4 and 5 mp images shot with a Leica Digilux 1 and Canon G5. Extra noise in black and white- resembles grain, and I rather like the effect.
8:14 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
Apparently, I am unable to attach the images-
8:16 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
Do you know, how moor better G11 vs G7?
8:36 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
Image Quality G7 - 5
Image Quality G11- 4.5
Is G7 better?
8:47 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
5 at the time, quality comparison between ‘eras’ is probably not valid
11:37 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
yes I carry my iBook if on assignment to download and then Flickr for safety each evening. But of course carrying kit does rather undermine the whole point of choosing a compact in the first place!
I used to be paranoid with film, especially with x-rays!
email me those pics? Id like to see them please
11:45 pm - Monday, December 21, 2009
I need the email address
1:27 am - Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Here’s hoping I dont get spammed into 2010!
That Leica Digilux 1 looks rather interesting, especially the fold out hood which supports my feeling that a camera that isn’t being used for action or sports doesn’t need a viewfinder. In fact a screen is a far better compositional aid as the photographer stands back and assesses the image as a ‘print’ - all at once - whereas with a viewfinder the eye is moving or largely only looking at the centre.
There seem to be none for sale anywhere, so it must be good.
9:10 am - Tuesday, December 22, 2009
When are they going to put ‘Bulb’ setting on a bridge camera?
9:23 pm - Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Im looking for a new compact camera and as always its hard to navigate in the jungle of good advise ad reviews :) atm im looking at the Canon G11 and Panasonic TZ7.
I need a camera for everyday use, easy to bring and handle. I would like to be able to take “action photos” i.e. kids fooling around or playing ice hockey as well though….. any thoughts on what (if any) compact camera might be able to handle that better than the rest?
1:19 pm - Saturday, December 26, 2009
I hadnt thought about having a bulb setting on a digital. I find the camera’s own ability to expose for as long as it takes sufficient. Would a bulb setting not put the sensor in some kind of danger?
11:06 am - Sunday, December 27, 2009
A negative - Auto WB - it doesn’t. I am astonished to find the G11 cannot handle indoor/tungsten automatically and needs to be manually set to tungsten. If not, the pics come out a fearsome orange. I don’t recall my G10 having this problem.
A plus - If you shoot in RAW +jpg, the G11 lets you delete the shot you have just taken as either the RAW or the jpg or both. This is handy when you decide to dump the RAW shot to save card space, but want to keep the jpg as a record, even tho it isnt a great pic.
9:08 am - Wednesday, December 30, 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