Canon G3 vs M6TTL/35 Con

[feli]

In the spirit of some of the previous threads regarding shooting digital vs Leica M in

real life situations (street, documentary etc), here is an experience I had a few days

ago.

 

On Friday at work I got dragooned in to shooting publicity stills of a visual fx shoot

we had going on. The producer demanded that I shoot digital and handed me one of

the companies Canon G3 cameras. It ended up being a comparison between the G3

and my M6

 

Location:

 

Visual effects film shoot on a sound stage. Fogged miniature set, being photographed

with a huge robotic motion control rig. Lots of people, action, light stands,

miniatures, occasional pandemonium. Lighting was "murky". Darkness,

fog, pierced by everything from 300W theatrical lights to 5000 watt HMIs.

 

 

G3:

 

I had used the G3 on a few occasions before, so I actually knew how to use it.

 

Pluses:

 

- Good auto exposure. Even on the fogged stage, with difficult lighting situations the

G3 did very well.

 

- zoom lens. The zoom function came in very handy in framing shots.

 

- Instant feedback. Did I get the shot? Was the exposure right?

 

- silent

 

- Hundreds of shots without reloading, depending on card size

 

- Mix color and Black/white "on the same roll"

 

- 100% finder when using the LCD screen

 

- Lots of DOF

 

-Auto color temperature (shoot in daylight or tungsten, whatever)

 

- No moving parts that could cause vibration at slow shutterspeeds

 

- No cost of operation

 

- No delay due to developing

 

Minuses:

 

- 400 asa setting is noisy.

 

- Not the fastest lens

 

- Fixed lens, but it's a zoom

 

- Too much DOF

 

- Limited exposure range

 

- high shutterlag

 

- Autofocus was sometimes confused by the forest of light stands etc.

I found it sometimes difficult to catch fast action, because the focus would be

somewhere else than where I wanted it to be. Experienced some "focus hunting".

 

- Manual operation is clumsy.

 

- Camera feels flimsy. Too light and small to hold steady.

 

- Lousy, squinty finder

 

- Too many buttons

 

- No soul.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

M6/35 Summicron.

TX400

Delta 3200@1600

 

Pluses:

 

- Great meter, if you know where to aim it.

 

- Quiet

 

- Perfect low light focusing, except for the occasional dreaded flare.

 

- Big, bright viewfinder

 

- Very sharp, fast lens

 

- Lens can be swapped

 

- Great exposure range

 

- Perfect ergonomics/weight

 

- Sharp shutter release

 

- Camera feels solid enough to hammer nails.

 

- Total manual, creative control

 

-Shallow DOF

 

 

Minuses:

 

- Mediocre meter, if you don't know where to aim it.

 

- Finder flare. At 10k light at 11 or 1 o'clock = no picture unless you pray and fire

blind.

 

- No zoom, but I guess I could use a Tri-Elmar. (I prefer primes, over zooms)

 

- 36 shots per load.

 

- Inaccurate framelines

 

- Shallow DOF

 

- Color temperature is tied to filmstock and compensation filters

 

- Delay due to film developing

 

- Delay due to film scanning

 

- Operating costs (film, developing)

 

 

I shot with the G3 for a while and managed to get some good shots, but I found it to

be a frustrating experience. I felt like the camera was in control, not me and I was

missing shots. Things would have been much better if I had been given our 10Ds or

D60, which operate more like a film based wiz-bang SLR. The deficiencies I

encountered with the G3 really had nothing to do with the camera being digital or

film based. It simply was the wrong tool for the job. The G3 struck me as a digital

P&S. I think I would have been just as frustrated if someone had handed me a good

film based P&S. I would be curious see how much of an improvement the G5 is, but I

doubt that I will be trading my Ms for one any time soon.

 

Besides the technical issues I encountered, I found shooting with the G3 to be an

"empty experience". Without wanting to get too touchy feely here, I think most of us

here know what I'm talking about and to me that is a big issue.

 

After nearly two hours I had enough. So, I walked back to my desk, grabbed my M6,

the 35 Cron and a pocket full of film and shot like that for the rest of the day. That

night I went home, developed the rolls and enjoyed a nice Martini while the film dried

and on the TV Bogart advised General Strasser against invading certain sections of

New York city. Tomorrow I'll drop off the negatives with publicity. What are they going

to do? Fire me?

 

 

Cheers,

 

feli

[fotografz]

Feli, you shouldn't use the word "soul" here...prepare to be

flamed by the thought police.

 

Also, you should have set the G3 on RAW, then there is no

fiddling with any temp controls, saturation levels, color or B&W,

etc. You do all of that on the computer with the RAW developer

afterwards.

 

ISO 400 does have noise, but that is controllable using the $15.

PhotoShop ISOR Actions from Fred Miranda.

 

But in reality, I agree with you, having shot a lot of production

stills with both types of camera. It really comes down to how the

company is going to use the images.

[pcg]

Having used the G5 now for a week & a half, I generally concur with feli (& w/ Marc).

The G5 is a slightly improved beast over the G3 (better software, bigger files, faster

focus, less shutter lag), but it cannot replace a Leica for quick, spontaneous shooting.

For much of what I shoot (setups, landscapes, portraits), it equal to or better than my

Leicas. But for street shooting, or the kind of image capture feli describes, the G5 is

terribly inadequate. It's definitely not a P&S--probably best defined as a hydrid

between the old P&S and a pro SLR.

 

Now, that being said, it's a fabulous tool for many photographic uses. Each of us has

to really consider what we shoot & what technique we favor. City scenes, day & night?

Perfect w/ the G5. Studio stills, landscapes? Ideal. Shooting wiggling babies?

Remember Jay's experience? Probably not a good idea.

 

A last comment. Speed for AF on the G5 depends on several settings. You can speed

it up considerably or slow it down, depending on how many demands you key into

the programming. Best to experiment before cursing.

[roger_michel]

again, if you preset focus and aperture (whether permanently locked -- like i use my Ms or "preset" seconds before a shot by depressing the shutter halfway and waiting for your shot), there is no lag time.

[oliver_s.]

For me, it always takes some time getting used to the tool, but once I'm beyond that stage, I can do pretty well with a digital camera. (I'm a little rteluctant to call the Powershot G models point'n-shoots as they're capable of much more). And remember we always warn M newbies that they'll need time to get used to their new tools, so neither the G3 nor the Leica M has the edge if you haven't extensively used any of these. (Feli, aren't you an experienced M user?)<p><i>What are they going to do? Fire me?</i><br>OK, Feli, I have a job offer...

[feli]

Ok, a Sureshot is more capable than your average P&S. Performance and features are up there with a more sophisticated camera, but the egonomics are not. It's like a Honda Civic with a Porsche engine.

 

 

feli

[andrew_grant]

While they certainly share many features with the Digital EOS SLRs (E-TTL, manual controls), performance is not even close. Image quality of the DSLRs is far better and they allow for photos with shallow DOF. Shutter lag, metering and AF perfomance for the EOS digitals is identical to the EOS film SLRs. Shutter lag of the P&S digitals is much worse (yes Roger even when you prefocus and lock exposure).

 

In some respects the digital EOS bodies are easier to use without a manual that the film bodies (try setting a custom function on a film SLR without a manual or cheat sheet). Switching between a digital EOS and film based EOS is easy (when shooting film I keep looking at the back of the camera for the screen). I used to own an Olympus P&S similar to the G1/G2. I dumped it to buy a D30. To slow to use and the images were too noisy at ISO 400. My advice, if you want to shoot digital, get a DSLR.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

In an earlier topic I noted the struggles I had with a Canon G3 when I helped a

Casting Agency set up a digital studio a month ago. I wrote more than enough back

then so I won't repeat myself, but I agree with Feli in that using the G3 was - for me -

a huge fight.

 

Doesn't work with any flash, but only special units. Manual focus is horrible and has

to be reset after every shot(!). RAW mode might deliver better image quality, but you

have to fiddle as much on a computer with it as you do a film scan. The optical VF

sucks big-time whereas the LCD screen is too small to see properly what you are

doing. And the interface, menu-upon-menu-upon-menu with button after button

after button.

 

The f8 min aperture is also useless in bright sunshine, although a poster corrected

me that there is a built in ND filter which can be flipped into the lens. Okay. And this

is on which page of the 150 page manual?

 

Who designs these things? After the hateful experience with the G3 I am determined

never to use *any* digitoy again until the interface is properly designed so that I can

set the shutter speed & aperture (down to f22 please) & focus simply and quickly.

 

And the values f'ing stay set at what I want until I decide otherwise. Grrrr.

[ilkka]

Nice comparison. Just one point, if you prefer primes over zooms, shouldn't the pluses and minuses be the other way around? You say a zoom is a plus for the G3 and lack of it a minus for M6. If a prime is better, then it is a plus. Right?

[andy_piper2]

"again, if you preset focus and aperture (whether permanently locked -- like i use my Ms or "preset" seconds before a shot by depressing the shutter halfway and waiting for your shot), there is no lag time."

 

 

roger: sounds just like me defending the Contax G2 back when I had one - "Oh, the autofocus is no problem so long as you use focus lock ahead of time".....except for the times the camera STILL hesitated before firing, because - who knows? - it didn't like the exposure or changed its mind about whether things were really sharp.

 

So long as the camera has the power to decide whether or not it will actually fire when you push the button, it's in control, not you. It may work fine for 9 out of 10 pictures, but I want 10 for 10.

 

I believe there WILL eventually be a non-SLR digital camera that will leave me in control - just not yet.