We've always had a soft spot for Canon's G-series of prosumer compacts, and it looks like
the new G10 won't be any exception -- Photography Blog just put the boxy camera through its paces and found that it's "undoubtedly the best ever" in the line. High marks were particularly given to the new wider-angle 28-140mm lens (which suffers less barrel distortion than the G9), higher-res LCD screen, and the new exposure dial, which allows you to fine-tune exposure settings without a trip to the menus. The new 14.7 megapixel sensor didn't receive the same praise, however: ISO 400 images were quite noisy, and the 800 and 1600 settings were "virtually unusable." That's not exactly news for the G-series, but it's pretty unfortunate -- especially considering that the G10's $499 pricetag edges into low-end DSLR territory. Still, if you're looking for a compact with deep manual controls and real optics, it sounds like the G10 is worth a look -- hit the read link for the full review.
posted Oct 27th 2008 12:23PM
Replace with Leica-looking micro four thirds model (like http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-drops-jaws-with-retro-micro-four-thirds-concept/) please.
You'd get less sensor noise and interchangeable lenses.
If you'd prefer Leica-related to Leica-looking, there's Panasonic's Micro four thirds offering (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/panasonic-launc.html), but it's $850.
Assuming that this could be found for a bit less dough ($500 is slightly steep, but I would guess you could expect a street price of more like $400), I think it could be an excellent little camera. There have been too many occasions when, whilst in less safe countries, my DSLR has stayed in the room for fear of muggings/confiscation by police. One of these could easily be slipped into a pocket but, hopefully, could obtain some tasty shots.
That's huge. At at point I might as well have a DSLR. I'm looking for a pocket camera, like Leica users have for ages.
I don't want to pay Leica prices though...
It's not that huge...the pictures are just blown up big.
Did someone sneeze on it before taking the picture?
I have the G9 and that is the finish (if you are talking about the top of it).
@caddy: must be hard to have all those cameras sneezed on at the assembly line
Looks like the metal is just textured, so technically the mold has a "sneeze" pattern in it as well.
Yeah that's how it's supposed to be. A lot of nikon DSLRs are like that.
It will be interesting how much the market for this camera will be affected by the Panasonic G1 and G...
actually thinking about it, I wonder if Panasonic named it the G partially because it is in competition with the Canon G series?
Why don't they put OLED screens in digital cameras?
Better contrast ratio and brighter colors seem like a no-brainer.
Not to mention at this size screens aren't outrageously expensive.
Although they're getting better, the lifespan of an OLED is still shorter than an LCD. Especially for "daylight viewable" screens.
To me it looks like lens aren't changeable.
Some people think, "Oh, sensor noise at high ISO. Thats nothing big." It's actually everything; these cameras are unusable in anything other than a brightly-lit environment. If manufacturers would put smaller but more sensitive sensors, they'd deliver great pictures. Unfortunately, all most people care about is the completely misleading megapixel measurement.
A Nikon D40 at the same price will mop the floor with this camera. If you're this close to a DSLR, you should go DSLR, not prosumer.
I do agree with you, but I'm in the boat that is considering this camera anyway. Meaning, I have a 20D and a preorder on a 5dmkII - but no camera that I can stuff in my pocket when I'm just heading out for a few minutes. Compact cameras have their place, and will never be replaced by DSLRs.
They must figure out a way around this high ISO problem, though. Let's hope Canon uses lower pixel densities and those fabulous new gapless microlenses in the next G10. In the meantime, we are still in search of a respectable compact shooter.
Sez "It's actually everything; these cameras are unusable in anything other than a brightly-lit environment."
You'll note it has a hotshoe. Every environment is potentially a well-lit environment with some strobist goodness.
Sadly, no DSLR will fit in my pocket. Which is exactly the reason why you buy a compact — it goes to all the places you would not want to take your DSLR. As cheap compacts tend to produce results in the "why bother at all" range, a high-quality compact is actually a very good choice, at least as a secondary. Nevertheless, the megapixel-madness takes a terrible toll in terms of noise, which is why I will most likely get the Lumix LX 3 over this, although I prefer the case-design of the Canon.
Not entirely correct.. Canon would have to fit a LARGER and more sensitive sensor rather than a smaller one..
Its all physics afterall. Noise will be dependent on the # of photos hitting each photoreceptor site.
Sadly the g10 won't fit in your pocket either.
@Mick O
There are still situations where a flash would not work. Like if they're forbidden, or the subject is too far away.
I agree that the noise is a huge issue that manufactures must address but SLR is not exactly a substitute for a compact pro-sumer camera like this. They have different applications. There are often times when I don't want to lug around my SLR and lenses. It's also good to have a pro-sumer cam as a backup tucked away with my lenses on shoots.
I would much rather have a 8M or even 6M clean pixels than 14M noisy ones.
I have always had Canon cameras (since Digital cameras came). However the thing which bothers me more than anything else is the mentioned noise. As soon as the environment becomes slightly dark (and you are forced to go to higher ISOs) photos become useless.
The only reason I might buy an Olympus (or something else) this time is because of the high noise.
The next bothering thing is the Lense movement mechanism which stops functioning (locks) sometimes and your forced to push it manually.
Why don't they put an exposure wheel on my $900 dslr? I can't stand wading through the menus to change settings that standard film cameras always had right at your fingertips.
What DSLR are you using that doesn't give you exposure controls on the body of the camera? You might as well be taking pictures with a $900 head of lettuce.
I think he meant an ISO wheel, right?
Every DSLR I've ever used has had an exposure compensation button either on top or on the rear of the camera. And usually you just have to hold this button down while turning the/a command dial to change the compensation.
Also, except on entry level models, DSLRs usually offer all the key settings (ISO, metering mode, flash mode, whitebalance, etc) at the press of a single button.
G10 or four-thirds?
Nikon D40 from eBay - if you want to go seriously. Pretty much standard de facto for beginners.
I have Oly 520 (4/3) and I'd love to recommend it, but unfortunately poor performance in low light is keeping me from doing that. (I bought 4/3 mainly because I was lazy to go through all the FAQs on which lenses work with which Nikon bodies + I have colleague who has Oly 510.)
If you want new camera, then G10 at $500 seriously makes no sense. With all considered, I'd rate then Oly 420 (14-42 kit for $450 on Amazon) as a better choice for the same money. And you can really learn a lot more about photography after using 420.
How big is a 14.7 megapixel image size? A normal JPEG taken right off the camera. 5 megs or more? How big resolution size too? Like 2600x3400?
it's big, but bigger ain't better.
see above for comments on the noise issue.
I have had the G9 for about 8 months now, and love it... The noisy sensor is still my biggest gripe, too. Would've gone for an slr, but this is more compact and thus better suited to sharing w/ the wife. I would be happier with less megapixels and more sensitive sensor. Looks like that's the one thing Canon still isn't getting right with the G10. Other than that I'm sure it's a great camera.
I was really looking forward to this camera when, according to rumors, it was speculated that Canon would fit a larger CMOS sensor into a G series camera....That would have solved most of the noise issues. My old Canon 10d that only had 6 megapixels on a medium sized CMOS sensor took much better quality images than any point and shoot cramming pixels onto a tiny CCD. Until they move to larger chips, you will just have to settle for underpar images with artifacts and color noise. As a professional who shoots stock, I am forced to stick to bulky SLRs and Medium Format/digital which is not very convenient when traveling. The technology is there- why is canon so reluctant to move in that direction.
The reason companies like Canon are reluctant to use larger sensors in their compacts undoubtedly relates to the lens. In order to get that same 5x zoom on a bigger sensor you would need to scale up the glass as well. Conversely, keeping the camera small means shortening or even eliminating the zoom. However that zoom factor is perhaps just as integral to their marketing as the MP count.
This megapixel nonsense has become so ludicrous that Canon engineers are how complaining about the marketing department driving megapixels up and quality down. They say they could make cameras that kill the competition (highly doubtful, but the point is clear) if they could make sensors with fewer megapixels. That would give each larger pixel more sensitivity, which would mean much lower noise.
But nooooo. Marketing drones thing people are stupid and will buy this nonsense. And people end up with crappy pictures when not taken in optimal conditions.
That being said, at low ISOs, this camera is tops. Luminous Landscape shot with this camera and a 39 megapixel Hasselblad and the G10 acquitted itself very nicely against the $40,000 outfit. I would be temped, but I like shooting at ISOs higher than 400 way too much to use one of these cameras. I guess I stick to lugging around a DSLR. Or get a real pocketable camera for those times when snapshots are just snapshots.
"""Canon engineers are how complaining about the marketing department driving megapixels up and quality down."""
Actually I thought that manufacturers drive megapixels, because it helps to hide JPEG artifacts. There is no point in driving megapixels up, unless you have good sensor and lenses with good optical resolution to back it up. All what is left - artifacts after postprocessing image and artifacts from JPEG. Former you can't change much, but later can be hidden to some degree by increasing pixel count.
This supports RAW though.
If JPEG artefacts are your problem, why not just turn the quantisation down a bit? Storage is cheap these days - an extra megabyte per picture isn't going to hurt anyone.
I've had a G9 since December of 2007, and I love it. Obviously, I would prefer less sensor noise, but it's no so bad that it bothers me. In a lot of the stuff I shoot and what I do with the resulting image, it doesn't matter.
I would love to have the dedicated exposure dial and the wider-angle lens, but this isn't enough for me to upgrade from the 9. I'll probably be sitting out the G-series upgrades for another round or two.
And hey, look at it this way. There are going to be a lot more cheap G9s floating around with the G10 out. :)
>Tony Bowman @ Oct 27th 2008 2:01PM
>I've had a G9 since December of 2007, and I love it. Obviously, I would prefer less sensor noise, but it's no so bad that it bothers me. In >a lot of the stuff I shoot and what I do with the resulting image, it doesn't matter.
Agreed. I've had the G9 for just over a year and it is a very fine camera. RAW 4,000x3,000 in decent light produces an incredibly deeply detailed and saturated image. But low light...not so good...
What I also like is that it will shoot Hi-Def movies limited only by the size of the memory card. I typically use a 2 GB card and recently shot an hi-def movie of about 70 minutes that plays back on a TV at a level far better than normal broadcast... Now it ain't 1080p, but it is still really nice. Use a tripod and let it run. The only real down-sides are: (1) low light; and (2) that once you start a movie shooting, you can't change the zoom or aperture... But a little planning will typically take care of those issues.
I had a G4 (still have it and like it) and didn't upgrade util the G9 which was a huge step up. I figure I'll wait for the G15 and that will have a direct earpiece interface to my brain so I can preview and control everything at near the speed of thought...
I'm a long time Canon user, but the G10 was the last straw. I just ordered the Panasonic LX-3 and am throwing my G9 on ebay. The noise problem is a killer and I have no idea how the Photography Blog can give such a high rating to a camera that takes bad photos starting at 400 ISO. I thought image quality was supposed to be the most important thing about a camera. Guess I was wrong.
G10 or Nikon's P6000?
What should I buy ?
Many argue that the G6 was the last of the "true" G-series. Fast ultra-sharp lens (f2.0-3.0), tilt&twist LCD (though not as large), top status LCD, the same battery as the 20D/30D/40D/50D, good noise control (though the max is ISO400), and Compact Flash support.
I'm going to continue to agree.
How about a comparison of the G10 vs. a Hasselblad H2 and 39MP Phase One P45+ back?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Interesting reading for sure...
--Bill
14.7mp in a compact camera noisy!? Suprise! ....Are there any decent high iso pocket cams?
Yes, if your pockets are large enough to hold an SLR. :)
I tend to favor Canon cameras. So I really wanted to get the G10 when it was released. But as soon as I read the specs and saw some preliminary reviews, I decided to take a pass on it. I opted for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 instead. Faster lens, better high ISO performance, and somewhat smaller form factor than the G10. It should be arriving within the next few weeks.
I hope Canon gets it right with the G11.
If the G10 doesn't float your boat, then take the alternative 'fighting for the title of best compact camera' from Panasonic instead.
G10... high pixel density, slow lens, long zoom, noise makes iso 400 or above unusable.
LX3... lower pixel density, faster lens, super-wide relatively short zoom, iso 400 fine and less called for due to lens
Personally, I want low light performance and wide angle in a compact format, so Panasonic have my cash.
Seriously, the LX3 outpaces this camera on many fronts. The 24mm wide angle, variable aspect ratios, and having a 2.0-2.8. The G10's got absolutely nothing. Props to Panasonic for actually delivering a worthy high-end P&S.
Can it be hacked to use the sensor of the Fujifilm f31d? They're the exact same size and 6MP is plenty. But wouldnt that kill the sales of DSLRs? Yes.
Not really. The f30/31 was excellent by compact standards, though it still showed it's limits when dealing with ISO 1600. Also you get very little depth of field control with a small sensor, and no single lens can cover every effective focal length one would ever desire while remaining sharp and relatively distortion free.