Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon G7 review  (Read 30167 times)
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2006, 06:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just as I said in a previous thread, Canon does not want you to see how much noise is in the raw data. A few second's thought reveals that Westfall's argument is, of course, nonsense, since it only applies to the detail/noise property of an image, and does not address the other advantages of raw, such as control over WB, contrast curve, etc.

What they should do is generate the "raw" file from the post-NR stage of their signal processor's output. That would save their face while giving the serious photographer all the other advantages of the raw file format. But let them steer their present path: it just leaves the door open for some other company to get it right and walk all over them in the small camera market. If Panasonic, for example, ever gets the signal/noise ratio of their sensors down even to Sony levels and puts that in an LX model camera, that would do the trick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As a former Fuji F10 owner (my wife has it now), and now a G7 owner, I'm a bit depressed at how much worse the G7 noise is at anything above base ISO compared to the Fuji - and not even the latest Fuji at that. Then again, there is no raw mode with the Fuji.  No one has really filled the gap in the market for a pocket sized pro portable camera.  Why is that?   The G7 is great in many respects but I want lower noise and a raw mode, and I want it NOW!

Am I really asking for too much?

Quentin
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 07:00:20 PM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2006, 05:44:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quentin wrote:
Quote
The G7 is great in many respects but I want lower noise and a raw mode, and I want it NOW!
Fine. I'm right there with you. And hopefully you are also willing to take a hit in megapixels to get those things. Fuji seems to be the only mfg with enough smarts to stop at 6 mp. (Of course, given their double photo-site technology, the detail is more like 7 or 8 mp.) The reality is that thumbnail sensors can be divided into 2 or 3 nice clean megapixels or 4 to 6 medium-noise mp or 7+ nasty, yucky mp.

From the mfg's point-of-view failing to up the mp count every generation is a recipe for disaster. You know better; I know better; the engineers who design these things know better. It's Joe Public who buys these things in quantities sufficient to support the industry that makes his buying decision based on more mps = better camera. Or at least, so the mfgs believe.

But it seems to me that Fuji's success at selling 6 mp cameras in the same market that Canon and others are flooding with up to 10 mp cameras gives the lie to the theory that Joe Public only knows from megapixels.
Logged
grabshot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2006, 10:05:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hmmm... I wonder how many of us would have bought a camera that would only shoot slides and wouldn't take negative film?

I'm not sure that any of my film cameras have ever had a roll of colour negative film in them. I know that colour neg can have its advantages but I've always treated colour transparency as the only serious film type of choice.

Black & white film is a different matter altogether (though being a colour shooter, I don't use any of that stuff either).
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2006, 02:15:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quentin wrote:

Fine. I'm right there with you. And hopefully you are also willing to take a hit in megapixels to get those things. Fuji seems to be the only mfg with enough smarts to stop at 6 mp. (Of course, given their double photo-site technology, the detail is more like 7 or 8 mp.) The reality is that thumbnail sensors can be divided into 2 or 3 nice clean megapixels or 4 to 6 medium-noise mp or 7+ nasty, yucky mp.

From the mfg's point-of-view failing to up the mp count every generation is a recipe for disaster. You know better; I know better; the engineers who design these things know better. It's Joe Public who buys these things in quantities sufficient to support the industry that makes his buying decision based on more mps = better camera. Or at least, so the mfgs believe.

But it seems to me that Fuji's success at selling 6 mp cameras in the same market that Canon and others are flooding with up to 10 mp cameras gives the lie to the theory that Joe Public only knows from megapixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, and Fuji are to be commended on going for quality over quantity.  That old F10 still rocks.  However, there is no reason why the sensor in compacts has to be so small.  A scaled-down Leica without the price tag would do me fine, with a sensor size big enough to handle 10mp comfortably.  There were plenty of 35mm film cameras as compact as the G7.  

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2006, 02:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree, and Fuji are to be commended on going for quality over quantity.  That old F10 still rocks.  However, there is no reason why the sensor in compacts has to be so small.  A scaled-down Leica without the price tag would do me fine, with a sensor size big enough to handle 10mp comfortably.  There were plenty of 35mm film cameras as compact as the G7. 

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Off Topic: My f10 bit it on the 366th day of ownership.  i just know they set a death clock in the firmware.
Logged
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2006, 05:59:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a former Fuji F10 owner (my wife has it now), and now a G7 owner, I'm a bit depressed at how much worse the G7 noise is at anything above base ISO compared to the Fuji
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
try the G7 at 6MP and ISO400
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2006, 07:13:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
try the G7 at 6MP and ISO400
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What! Have we got some sort of 'binning' capability here. I didn't know that.

The principle of binning is that you can get a higher dynamic range and lower noise but at the expense of lower resolution.

I beleive this principle could be very useful in providing high quality video in DSLRs.

I don't understand why this video feature has not already been provided.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2006, 07:46:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What! Have we got some sort of 'binning' capability here. I didn't know that.

The principle of binning is that you can get a higher dynamic range and lower noise but at the expense of lower resolution.
Yes, and Fuji uses this principle in their 6 Mpx cameras (e.g. the F10/F11/F30/F31fd), since they have 12 million photosites, whereof half are there for increased dynamic range in the highlights.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2006, 07:56:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, and Fuji uses this principle in their 6 Mpx cameras (e.g. the F10/F11/F30/F31fd), since they have 12 million photosites, whereof half are there for increased dynamic range in the highlights.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jani,
But having 2 photosites under the one microlens seems to present additional problems for smooth integration of RAW data. The consumer may lament the lack of RAW capability, but I see no-one on this site has accused Fuji of arrogance.

Are you listening, Jonathan   .
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2006, 09:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But having 2 photosites under the one microlens seems to present additional problems for smooth integration of RAW data. The consumer may lament the lack of RAW capability, but I see no-one on this site has accused Fuji of arrogance.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The two photosites are supposed to have the same center, so it is absolutely essential for them to sample areas with the same center.  The microlenses probably are like a funnel with one opening at the top, but with two different sizes of outlets on the bottom.
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2006, 11:05:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The two photosites are supposed to have the same center, so it is absolutely essential for them to sample areas with the same center.  The microlenses probably are like a funnel with one opening at the top, but with two different sizes of outlets on the bottom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I should have wrote, "the effect is like", as the microlens itself probably has the equivalent of one outlet.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad