New G10 - liberating!

<p>After reading positive reviews on the G10 as a backup camera for DSLR users I bought one and am stunned with it. It'd be nice to see a G10 users group form here and share photos. Here's one example, found on the side of the highway on a trip to the city.</p><div></div>

<p>what, exactly, am i supposed to be impressed by in this pic?</p>

<p>Hi Howard......I had a G10....lovely camera. But there are others, quite a few others, which equal or better it's performance. Best might be for more people to appreciate all the things the small cameras <em><strong>can</strong> </em> do, rather than the few they can't....regards, Bob</p><div></div>

<p>Eric - I liked the juxtaposition of the graphics on the rail car and the wildflowers. Sorry if it bores. Ironically there are no links on this sight to your photos. I was hoping to see some<strong> <em>really</em> </strong> good stuff.</p>

<p> Eric, I don't know whether your blunt comment was meant technically or aesthetically. Howard's picture depends on the contrast between the organic forms of the plants & flowers, and the Rothko-ish man-made background. The earthen color of the background reverses the normal order of things.</p>

<p> Bob, I agree. The best camera you own is the one that's in your hands when it matters, and smaller cameras manage to do that best. As I'm sure you know, a guy named Oskar Barnack created the Leica precisely for this reason, sacrificing the image quality that 4x5 and 6x6 provided for the sake of agility, faster handling, portability, and more. Others, like the incomparable Maitani took the concept further, and to the masses. Olympus XAs and the Stylus Epic are magnificent image-making instruments. I still own and use several XAs and one Stylus Epic.</p>

<p>Now that everyone has become a pixel peeper and lives and dies by the Moore cycle, the trend has reversed.<br>

One sees tourist mommies and daddies at Disney World laboring under the heft of $8,000 toaster-sized DSLRs/fat lenses, that are bigger and heavier than the 4x5s were. </p>

<p> In cameras, as with everything else, there are many compromises. Knowing the limits of your gear, and how to finesse the most out of it is the key. A chef has many knives. An archer various arrowheads for different uses. I own an embarrassing number of fly rods, reels, and zillions of flies. It's the same with cameras. A good-quality P&S has its place in any photographer's quiver -- and pocket.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Horses for courses - I love my G10 for travels (and my dSLR rig when I want to carry heavy loads.... ;) )</p>

<p>I like my G10 too. The digital answer to a Leica CL. However, the forthcoming Oly micro 4/3 has me pretty excited.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09060201olypen50years.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09060201olypen50years.asp</a></p>

<p>Howard, the G10 sure seems to be an amazing camera. I don't know personally because I got my wife an LX3 but I recall Michael Reichmann's article from last year about the G10. You might want to check it out.....</p>

<p><a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</a></p>

 

<p>Bruce, Thank you for the article on the comparison. I have been on the fence about whether to purchase an SLR or try the Canon G-10. In my old age, I am reluctant to go back to an SLR, with the weight, and complication of extra lenses.  I want to simplify.  The comparison is truly startling that a point and shoot could compare so well to the BIG gun Hass.  Seeing that this is a thread by users, rather than industry connected testers, I have one final concern before I plunk down my bucks.  How is the shutter lag on the G-10.  I know this is truly a subjective question, but is it acceptable, or does it cause angst like most other point and shoot digitals I have used. <br>

That leads me to a question.  If a Digital SLR can focus and set exposure on the first depress of the shutter button, then actually shoot on the final push.  Why can't a point and shoot be made to do the same?  Did film point and shoots (I used SLRs back then) have a shutter lag?</p>

<p>Ken: Mike Pasini at Imaging Resource.com posted a test at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G10/G10A.HTM and had this to say about the G10's performance: "You would expect above average rankings for any flagship digicam, and the Canon G10 doesn't disappoint. In fact, there isn't a single spec that isn't among the best in high-res prosumer digicams.<br /> <br /> That starts with a quick two-second startup time and a faster 1.2 second shutdown time. In the field that meant we never waited for the G10, either to get the shot or to return to our jacket pocket.<br /> <br /> Wide-angle autofocus shutter lag was 0.57 second, and telephoto was 0.67, both above average. Wide-angle was marginally quicker but telephoto didn't penalize us noticeably. And unlike the Panasonic LX3, the G10 does have a telephoto range to its zoom. Enabling the flash increases lag to 0.92 second (you can credit the preflash exposure check for that).<br /> <br /> Prefocus lag was even above average for a digital SLR at 0.068 second, although that's becoming more common these days. Autofocus capability is one of the distinguishing traits between digital SLR and digicam shooting, with the SLR having a significant edge. Prefocusing can even the playing field."</p>

<p>"Prefocus lag was even above average for a digital SLR at 0.068 second"</p>

<p>"Wide-angle autofocus shutter lag was 0.57 second, and telephoto was 0.67"</p>

<p>The numbers are impressive to read, but when you start shooting in adverse lighting conditions, you will discover that the camera fails on locking fast focus, obtaining sharp pictures despite IS, etc. </p>

<p>Also the lens quality for 14.7 MP camera is not sufficient. Good for printing smaller size, but not for much cropping and enlarging. Not surprising since entire camera costs fraction of a good SLR lens.</p>

<p>What is this camera liberating your from ? - from need to spend $$$$ perhaps?</p>

 

<p>I, too, am debating DSLR v G10 (or, possibly, other high-end P&S). I've enjoyed reading the entries here - thanks.</p>

<p>Sorry Mr Skomial, but that's just not the case. First of all, the lens on a proper G10 is stunningly sharp across the full frame. Second, because of the combination of small sensor and wide angle I defy you to tell me what is in or out of the plane of focus on 95% of the shots taken with ANY digital minicam. I dont even bother to wait for focus lock on the G10 and I've never had a shot blown because of the focal plane.<br>

The G10 is a funny camera in that it draws out a lot of negative responses, mostly from non-owners. If one takes the time to use it correctly (shoot RAW, turn off Luma noise reduction) it can produce pretty remarkable images even at 400 asa.</p><div></div>

<p>"What is this camera liberating your from ? - from need to spend $$$$ perhaps?"</p>

<p>Frank - True, $$$$ are in the equation. But it's also liberating me from lugging around 5 pounds of DSLR equipment in the desert SW at 100 degrees plus, this summer. It's liberating me from changing lenses in a big hurry, so as not to get windblown specks of sand in my DSLR interior and on the sensor. It's liberating me towards live view for composition again, and from the more critical focusing needed with the shorter DOF of an APS-sized sensor. It's liberating me from security people at events who badger DSLR-toting photographers. -All I can think of, for now...</p>

<p>howard, no offense but that pic doesnt seem very sharp. i've certainly seen better g10 examples, ones which made me say, "if i shot landscape and maybe some candids at base ISO, this would be the perfect camera for hiking and/or casual use."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, I don't know whether your blunt comment was meant technically or aesthetically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's a little of both. in howard's pic, while those colors are nice, the flowers were a bit blurry (or it could be noise, depending on your ISO setting), which distracted me. i'm not sure what the focal point of this composition is supposed to be--the block lettering, the graffiti, or the flowers--or what's so special about this shot that couldnt be done with any camera. the lack of internal space within the shot--there's no separation in the background, just a block of brown steel--is also a bit claustrophobic IMO, since there's nowhere, really, for your eye to go. i probably would have just deleted this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Howard's picture depends on the contrast between the organic forms of the plants & flowers, and the Rothko-ish man-made background. The earthen color of the background reverses the normal order of things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you got all that from <em>that</em> image? imagine what a sharp pic with a well-defined sense of composition would have inspired you to write...obviously you've been to art school.</p>

<p>OTOH, dan's G10 shot has a main subject in the foreground, and a sense of movement leading to the background, which emphasizes the depth of field, as does the center dividing line. for me, anyway, it's a much more interesting image from a compositional standpoint. and bob's shot is also a nice composition, and sharper as well.</p>

<p>[warning: blunt yet honest comment follows] howard, not trying to be overly critical here, but hopefully you do have some G10 shots which are, in fact, stunning, so the rest of us can see what you're referring to. i'm not knocking the camera at all, as i'm sure its capable of exquisite shots by someone who knows how to use it... IMO, if you're buying an advanced P&S and shooting in Auto mode, you're not taking advantage of the manual controls, which is the main difference between a $200 P&S and a $500 one.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ironically there are no links on this sight to your photos. I was hoping to see some<strong> <em>really</em> </strong> good stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>one of these days i'm sure i'll get around to posting a gallery on PN, so you might just want to krazy-glue your socks to your feet now in anticipation of that day, or you could just peruse various threads where i have posted pix, like the nikon WeDnEsDaY forum...</p>

<p>Geez, Eric. Okay, here are a couple of links from shots made today while mountain biking at a park. There are no adjustments made in post processing. These were just straight jpegs downloaded and posted. The flowers shot is full 14MP resolution. The tracks at sunset leading to the elevator shot is 5 MP. Notice the numbers on the sign along the tracks and the stones (No, I don't think that's just noise.) Granted, I'm not going to wow you, but if I can just aim and shoot from a bike and get this kind of edge to edge sharpness and color, I'm still "liberated" from what I was doing with the DSLR - measurebating and pixel peeping to see if it was worth the trouble.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the 5 MP</p><div></div>

<p><strong>NOTE</strong> : These files were apparently compressed in the process, so now we have less resolution and some lossy artifacts. Also, in both cases the focus point was nearer the bottom. Please wait for it all to load. Thank you, over and out. From here on, I'm just reading.</p>

<p>Howard,<br>

I am glad you are enjoying your G10. Anything that makes the process more fun or compelling is worth it to me. I have made some pictures I really enjoy with my Canon point and shoot and it certainly weighs less than my D300 and all the darned lenses. The best camera is the one you have with you, and it is easier to have a point and shoot with you...so cool. Post more.<br>

I would also like to point out that Eric Arnold gets the fastest wanker award. Howard, you posted a non-contentious and enthusiastic thread and Eric immediately bagged your photo. He offered no constructive criticism or insight into the G10 or your photo, just simply an entre into the standard arguing that us nebbish males with a bit too much free time seem to proffer.<br>

This means he is a prick. <br>

He also does not have any photos posted, which I think detracts from his credibility.<br>

Eric mode of participation is more and more rampant here on photo.net, which is unfortunate. I hope he goes somewhere else.<br>

Howard, I hope you enjoy the G10 and photography in all it's forms. Please continue to post some shots from it.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Jay</p>

<p>I took a G9 with me on a recent trip to Vietnam. I was pretty pleased w/ the quality of the photos if I kept the ISO low. What was maddening was the shutter lag. Vietnam is hustle and bustle. I had people walk into my shot while waiting for the shutter to snap, and I always missed getting fast moving action. Even a half squeeze on the shutter button didn't help much. I got a couple of shots that captured a "decisive moment" but they are sheer luck. Trying to shoot people on cycles and sometimes even moving boats was mostly and exercise in futility. The G10 and G9 have the same size advantages over an SLR so I know I would like a G10 SIZE for travel. Another poster reported the lag time for the G10 but I haven't found yet how that compares to a G9. All this is leading up to my question. How do we all feel about the shutter lag and focus time on the G10. I'd also like to point out that travel in the tropics has lots of photo op time at oh dark thirty in the a.m and cuz it gets dark at 7 p.m. you miss a lot of great stuff because the hi ISO is pretty crappy. How do you find nite photography to work w/ a G10?<br>

PS. aladennis.blogspot.com has mostly shots taken w/ a G9. Some were taken w/ a little waterproof P&S. Static and slow moving stuff can look good, and probably better w/ a G10. How much more fun would a G10 give me in terms of focus time, shutter lag and noise issues?</p>

<p>Shutter lag on a compact. Come on guys switch on manual focus, prefocus to say 2m and set an aperture value of say f/4 and you have near instant shutter operation and pretty much everything in sharp focus. Works in good light. This is not a good camera for low light work both because of sensor noise, non fast lens (only f/2.8 max), and reduced AF performance in such conditions.</p>

<p>In this article: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml</a>, the same author states "As good as they can be, (see my <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">G10 vs Medium Format article</a>) these aren't really a replacement for a DSLR let alone a medium format camera when it comes to image quality. They're good, but not that good."<br>

In effect, he was just kidding... I also have a LX3, it's very good but no replacement for a good DSLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2355248">Bruce Margolis</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 03, 2009; 07:55 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Howard, the G10 sure seems to be an amazing camera. I don't know personally because I got my wife an LX3 but I recall Michael Reichmann's article from last year about the G10. You might want to check it out.....</p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml" target="_blank">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</a></p>

</blockquote>

>>> Eric mode of participation is more and more rampant here on photo.net, which is unfortunate. I hope he goes

somewhere else.

 

I dunno, I think he's a funny guy (krazy-glue comment), he takes great pix, and offered an honest/frank assessment. You

want to vote him off the island for that?...

<p>I agree that a G10-like camera (I have a G9) can be a good alternative to a DSLR when carrying a DSLR is inconvenient, as long as you can live with some trade-offs (a little shutter lag, noise, less precise macro focusing, etc).</p>

<p>By the way, I did not find Eric's comments in the slightest bit offensive. He disagrees, and has done so here in a forthright manner. But was perfectly polite in doing so. And his criticisms were of the photo, and the ideas expressed. They were not personal. Polite, constructive disagreement is a good thing.</p>

<p>I think we are truly spoilt with the quality of the small pocket cams we have access to - the G9 (I own one) and G10's, the Ricoh GR series etc - they are really quite remarkably competent for their size, even with all their shortcomings. No they're not a DSLR replacement, but they are perfectly capable of producing repro-quality work when needed. Every time I pull mine out I smile, whether its a jpg on the hoof, a considered RAW or a wee bit of video to capture something cute. What they do, they do exceptionally well.</p>