http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/ Engadget Comments for Canon PowerShot G10 reviewed http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 12:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
I don't want to pay Leica prices though...]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 12:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
actually thinking about it, I wonder if Panasonic named it the G partially because it is in competition with the Canon G series?]]>Oct 27th 2008 12:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Better contrast ratio and brighter colors seem like a no-brainer.
Not to mention at this size screens aren't outrageously expensive.]]>Oct 27th 2008 12:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 7:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 12:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 12:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
You'll note it has a hotshoe. Every environment is potentially a well-lit environment with some strobist goodness. ]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
Its all physics afterall. Noise will be dependent on the # of photos hitting each photoreceptor site.]]>Oct 28th 2008 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
There are still situations where a flash would not work. Like if they're forbidden, or the subject is too far away.]]>Oct 27th 2008 7:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
I would much rather have a 8M or even 6M clean pixels than 14M noisy ones.]]>Oct 27th 2008 8:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.

]]>Oct 27th 2008 11:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 12:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 28th 2008 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 6:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
see above for comments on the noise issue.]]>Oct 27th 2008 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 1:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 29th 2008 1:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 1:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 27th 2008 1:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
]]>Oct 27th 2008 8:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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. :)]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/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...


]]>Oct 27th 2008 6:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 2:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
What should I buy ?]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
I'm going to continue to agree.]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Interesting reading for sure...

--Bill]]>Oct 27th 2008 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
I hope Canon gets it right with the G11.]]>Oct 27th 2008 3:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/
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. ]]>Oct 27th 2008 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 9:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/]]>Oct 27th 2008 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/27/canon-powershot-g10-reviewed/Oct 27th 2008 8:08PM