vrankin Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Before purchasing a Canon G10 I wasn't able to find much about it, or images from it here at PN. In a few days I'll begin an extended camping/hiking/photo trip in the SW USA. Reading how the Canon G10 has become a worthy lighter backup camera for DSLR users I sold a bunch of older equipment and bought one. I've posted some preliminary photos before leaving for the trip, at: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=918772 so that others can find samples in broad ranges of light. Particularly I find the RAW and iContrast features helpful for landscape work. Noise at up to ISO 200 is actually pretty decent. I hope these samples are somewhat helpful for someone considering this as a lighter, backup to a DSLR or even as a main camera. Perhaps others can add G10 photos on this thread.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Since images of larger size than 1500 X 1500 weren't possible, here's a 50% sized sample of the first shot in the folder.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Thanks for sharing your photos. I have been thinking of picking one of these up...or maybe the g9. I would like one for low light situations and for when I don not feel like carrying a bunch of gear. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Noise at up to ISO 200 is actually pretty decent.</p> </blockquote> <p>hmm, not that reassuring, since 200 isn't that far from base iso. i have an older fuji f20 which can shoot cleanly at ISO 2000, although the lack of manual controls on that one really keeps it from being completely stellar.</p> <p>still, i like your shot, very detailed. is it possible to see a crop of the horse?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Eric: I've actually used ISO 400 happily, but don't mind a hint of film-like grain. Here's a crop of the horse as requested.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summitar Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Nice photos, Howard.<br> You can find a very detailed review of the G10 at http://dpreview.com<br> Look in the "cameras" file along the upper left border.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofoto Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Hey Howard, what, exactly, am i supposed to be impressed by in this pic? ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Paul - I'm impressed not so much by my pic, as by the G10's tonal range, resolution and color qualities, which I hope are revealed here. It's not about me or my picture. I hope maybe some others will post better pics on this thread to show what the G10 can really do. I posted this because I've hoped that a heavy DSLR with multiple lenses isn't the only way to bring home really good images. I'm sixty years old, and will spend quite a bit of time in desert and canyons hiking in the heat in July, and am happy to have an imager that doesn't weigh down on my shoulder. That's all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Canon SD880 image quality is just as good, with less barrel distortion and color fringing at wide angle, and less noise at ISO 800. The SD880 costs less and fits in your pocket, and with CHDK can produce RAW images. Flash shoe, (inaccurate) viewfinder, and 140/4.5 are three reasons to prefer the G10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Whilst the jpeg compression kills this picture, rest assured that the RAW file prints spectacularly at 12x16. Not only are the tinyest parts of the shell rendered very well but the sweat pores on the ridges of the fingerprints are well deffined. How much more can you want from a P&S? I really don't care that I can't take a picture with it when it is dark, unless I use flash.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Whilst the jpeg compression kills this picture, rest assured that the RAW file prints spectacularly at 12x16. Not only are the tinyest parts of the shell rendered very well but the sweat pores on the ridges of the fingerprints are well deffined. How much more can you want from a P&S? I really don't care that I can't take a picture with it when it is dark, unless I use flash.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 <p>Sorry I had a server problem.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les_lammers Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Scott,<br> We all know the G-10 is awful. No need to rub it in by posting pics from a digital Hassy. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Doh! You got me there Les, you were not supposed to read the exif :-)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Huh? The seashell-by-the-seashore lacks EXIF. Nice bokeh, though. To all those who say you need a DSLR to get bokeh, I thumb my nose in your general direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p> Full EXIF from the jpeg, I took jpeg and RAW at the same time on this trip, don't have the RAW on my laptop with me though. Bits of interest, not much, but it was at its widest zoom, 28mm "normal camera" viewing angle or 6.1mm for it. And the f stop was 5.6, not even wide open. This particular shot negated the two more interesting, to me, features of the LX3 and that was the only other point and shoot I was interested in when I bought mine, namely the Canon is wide enough and fast enough for me. I also work in good light mostly, at 80 iso the Canon was considered the better IQ, that is where this picture was taken.</p> <p>The key for shallow DOF effect on small sensors is to separate the subject from the foreground by as much as possible.</p> <p>For me the G10 is pretty close to perfect.</p> <p>Aperture Value: 4.96875<br /> Color Space: sRGB<br /> Compressed Bits Per Pixel: 5<br /> Custom Rendered: Normal process<br /> Date Time Digitized: 2009:03:16 12:08:13<br /> Date Time Original: 2009:03:16 12:08:13<br /> Digital Zoom Ratio: 1<br /> Exif Version: 2.2.1<br /> Exposure Bias Value: -0.3333333<br /> Exposure Mode: Manual exposure<br /> Exposure Time: 1 / 640<br /> Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode<br /> FlashPix Version: 1.0<br /> FNumber: 5.6<br /> Focal Length: 6.1<br /> Focal Plane Resolution Unit: inches<br /> Focal Plane X Resolution: 15123.29<br /> Focal Plane Y Resolution: 15123.29<br /> ISO Speed Ratings: 80<br /> Max Aperture Value: 2.96875<br /> Metering Mode: Pattern<br /> Pixel X Dimension: 4416<br /> Pixel Y Dimension: 3312<br /> Scene Capture Type: Standard<br /> Sensing Method: One-chip color area sensor<br /> Shutter Speed Value: 9.3125<br /> White Balance: Auto white balance<br /> Firmware: Firmware Version 1.00<br /> FlashCompensation: 0<br /> Lens Info: 6.1, 30.5, 0, 0<br /> Lens Model: 6.1-30.5 mm</p> <p>Take care, Scott.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>i've said this many times, i'm happy with my g9 as a travel, carry around camera. VG at iso 80 and tripod. I haven't used the g10 but it's a shame they took the time lapse video mode out as I use it all the time on the g9. Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_bryant2 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 <p>Try this one.<img src="../photo/9424854" alt="" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now