Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: You've Got To Be Kidding!  (Read 18721 times)
tgphoto
Guest
« on: October 23, 2008, 07:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Great article, Michael!

I've wondered for some time now if the current crop of advanced point-and-shoots were approaching the image quality of an interchangeable lens system, and this article says it all.  The side-by-side shots taken with the MFDB and G10 were a real eye-opener.

Having just come back from a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, where I lugged a Mamiya RB67, lenses, film backs, etc. up 12,000 ft. peaks, the G10 has just jumped to the top of my list



Logged
soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2008, 08:02:47 AM »
ReplyReply

It confirms what I was seeing late last week when I took some snaps of some foliage in my back yard with the new G10, I was quite surprised at the pixel quality when shot at 80 iso and good late afternoon lighting. My G9 delivered somewhat mushy pixels, but the G10 seems to be in another catagory.
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2008, 08:22:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember the big shootout that Michael did a while back?

The baby of the pack was a Canon 5D. That shootout was what convinced me that the 5D was the camera for me. Were the big guns better? Of course, but the 5D sure was pretty darned good.

Over at dpreview Phil has just finished his review of the A900. One of his comments was how well the 5D still holds up.

And now we have the G10 muscling in.

I can't wait to see Michael's review of the Panasonic G1 when he gets his hands on one. Maybe I won't be "upgrading" from my 5D, but downgrading instead.

Does anyone else feel that this Photokina brought in an explosion of new ideas and possibilities? Simply amazing.
Logged

Provokot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2008, 08:52:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Now what we need is for the great lens race to begin in earnest. Once the lenses have better resolving power, then I invite the manufacturers to continue their mad megapixel count - to increase the 'cropability' of photographs.

I want to get a 10G that will come everywhere with me.
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2008, 10:19:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting read on this one.
Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..

As for the yet again

"In 2001 I wrote that the 3 Megapixel Canon D30 produced files competitive with scanned 35mm film at smaller print sizes. I was derided and vilified then, but of course was ultimately proven correct digital simply outperforms film, and few people today think otherwise"

I strongly disagree, and I own a 6mp APS-C DSLR, sorry you are wrong!



Logged
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2008, 11:24:19 AM »
ReplyReply

What is Michael saying?Huh?  HERESY!!!!  ;-)  LOL!

Just kidding of course, I don't even know if I have ever even seen a "Hassy" in person.  As for me, I've got a Nikon D700 and it is WONDERFUL!

Michael, this is a really, REALLY good article and very exciting.  I couldn't make it through all of Kurzweil's book, but he is coming out with a movie about the "Singularity"; I think 2009 or 2010?

Once again, kudos on this article, really fantastic!

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: tgphoto
Great article, Michael!

I've wondered for some time now if the current crop of advanced point-and-shoots were approaching the image quality of an interchangeable lens system, and this article says it all.  The side-by-side shots taken with the MFDB and G10 were a real eye-opener.

Having just come back from a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, where I lugged a Mamiya RB67, lenses, film backs, etc. up 12,000 ft. peaks, the G10 has just jumped to the top of my list
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5579



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2008, 11:44:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Great article, Michael!  Been thinking about a G10 for my wife.  Maybe I'll have to keep it for myself!

Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..


My understanding of what the article says is not 'the camera doesn't matter', but rather that the quality of digital cameras today is better than what many photographers will use them for.  An Indy race car may be capable of 300 km/h, but if you're commuting to work in the city, it will mostly be driven at under 50 km/h.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2008, 11:55:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think we need to get into the cheaper v expensive camera debate, we had enough of that not long ago! I was of course jesting on that..
On the 35mm v, well that is an interesting one, and I simply feel differently to some others. It also appears that many of the testers are unable to reach the same conclusions as each other. We have results from 6mp to 15mp and over..rather interesting to say the least. And as there are a good variety of films out there, blanket statements simply won't do for that either..

I looked at some of the G10 shots, and they look good to me, have to say that. Looks like a decent camera.

However, I would like to raise one point. I tend to find many articles such as this one, have an unhealthy fixation with "resolution""resolution" "resolution", and little else appears to matter.

I have been consistently disappointed with the dynamic range of smaller sensors, even for scenes I would not consider to be that difficult. Now I have no experience of the G10, maybe it's better. But this highlights an important, and often overlooked aspect of image quality. To be honest I am not really satisfied with the DR/Tonal response of some of the DSLR's I have tried. No question technology gets better, but simply hammering megapixels, is not enough IMO. This is one area that has bothered me the most, makers seem mostly geared to resolution, and not a lot else. I think it's high time we looked beyond that.
Logged
Dave Millier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2008, 12:15:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: barryfitzgerald
Very interesting read on this one.
Have to say, I got a "don't worry about the camera" vibe off of it.
Still, not to worry..

As for the yet again

"In 2001 I wrote that the 3 Megapixel Canon D30 produced files competitive with scanned 35mm film at smaller print sizes. I was derided and vilified then, but of course was ultimately proven correct digital simply outperforms film, and few people today think otherwise"

I strongly disagree, and I own a 6mp APS-C DSLR, sorry you are wrong!


Barry

Micheal made this comment in relation to smallish print sizes. Would you not accept that at some print size digital can match or surpass film?

Let's be extreme here - which is likely to offer superior 5 x 3 inch prints, 35mm Velvia or an A900 or 5Dii raw file?

Logged

My website and photo galleries: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2008, 12:40:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Dave, you are asking what would make the superior print, and what defines superior?

Resolution? Is that is??

As it happens I have an A900 print right by me.
I would expect the sony and canon to be almost the same, the difference in megapixels is small, and likely invisible in print. I would also expect them to resolve more details than velvia.
However, we know that velvia is not the highest resolving film for 35mm don't we...
I would also debate that resolution is not the only important aspect of image quality.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 12:41:56 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
maxgruzen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2008, 12:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply



When Michael wrote his review of the G8 I ran out and bought one and loved shooting the kids with it. It gave me a lot of flexability I coudn't get with my SLR.  What I missed must of all though was my Canon lenses.  For me it's not the camera that is the most important tool I own, but my lenses. I love what I can do with my 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and 200 f2,8.  I have a love affair with my lenses not my camera's.  I had fun with my G8 for a few months but don't use it much anymore.  The pictures just didn't have the beauty I achieve with a 85 1.2.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 12:45:29 PM by maxgruzen » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2008, 12:45:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I always like to see the sorts of comparisons Michael has made in this article. Cameras are tools and it helps to know what the strengths and weaknesses are of any particular tool in a particular set of circumstances.

I think the comparison might have been even more amazing if Michael had equalised the DoF in each image. As I understand, there's roughly a 4 1/2 stop DoF difference between a P&S image and FF 35mm of equal FoV. There's approximately one stop difference between FF 35mm and a 36x48mm DB for equal DoF.

The G10 shot was at F3.5, therefore the MFDB should have been at F22 rather than F11. Equalising DoF in this manner would have put the G10 at a lesser disadvantage in respect of absolute resolution, and it would have been a perfectly fair and legitimate thing to do.
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2008, 01:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting article!

I have taken up Michael's offer of downloading the image files shot with the G10, and the one shot with the Hasselblad.  Then printed them on my ipf6100 on A3
Permajet Oyster paper.  First impressions of the G10 images were that they were very good.  Then comparing with the Hasselblad file and I was amazed!  The
detail in both pictures is very similar.  I would say that I can just make out possibly a tiny bit more definition in the Hasselblad image on the near tree trunk.  The
depth of field is greater on the G10 image, so it does look a bit different in the background.  But for this image I actually prefer the greater D of F anyway.

This demonstrates that the G10 would be a great travel camera and for landscapes.  What a huge weight saving.

Of course it will have limitations, probably in the higher ISO range, and capturing action shots.  In addition, I love shallow depth of field, particularly when shooting
people.  The G10 might not be so good there.  However, for the types of pictures used in the article, it would be quite suitable for many people who do not want to
lug a DSLR around.  Combined with a very light tripod perhaps.

I have an LX2 at the moment, and am looking forward to the forthcoming summary of the LX3 and G10 with great interest.

Thank you Michael for making those images available.  I agree that to look at prints is much more practical than peering at the screen!

Jim

Logged
telecentricity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2008, 02:11:53 PM »
ReplyReply

What a refreshing and liberating article.  It has been said before:  small cameras can be thought of as an extra "lens" in your bag.  The G10 is cheaper than most of my DSLR lenses!!  I've always liked old 35mm film point&shoots (Olympus XA, Stylus Epic, etc.), polaroids, Holgas, Lensbabies, pinhole cameras - anything that adds creativity.  When I look up my favorites in my Lightroom catalog, I am surprised that many of them are taken with these oddball cameras instead of my "serious" gear.  Based on your glowing recommendation, I'm going out to get a G10 as yet another photographic tool.  The best camera is the one that's in your hand.  What a great time to be a photographer!
Logged

Gary
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2008, 02:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: maxgruzen
When Michael wrote his review of the G8 I ran out and bought one and loved shooting the kids with it. It gave me a lot of flexability I coudn't get with my SLR.  What I missed must of all though was my Canon lenses.  For me it's not the camera that is the most important tool I own, but my lenses. I love what I can do with my 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and 200 f2,8.  I have a love affair with my lenses not my camera's.  I had fun with my G8 for a few months but don't use it much anymore.  The pictures just didn't have the beauty I achieve with a 85 1.2.

This is an excellent point, and a possible problem with Michael's thesis.  Moore's Law applies to integrated circuit technology largely because of shrinking geometries and the extremely small delta cost to manufacture a 25-million transistor die vs. a 1-million transistor die.  Some may be tempted to extend Moore's Law to other fields of technology where it will not apply because economies of scale such as those applicable to ICs do not exist.

Lenses would appear to be one such technology.  A digital camera is comprised of electronics, electromechanics (in the case of a DSLR), and a lens.  Moore's Law, as it applies to digital cameras, is likely to soon run out of steam as the limiting factor in IQ moves away from the electronics (e.g., the sensor) and moves in the direction of the optics.

Bruce
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 02:51:14 PM by BruceHouston » Logged
christiaan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2008, 02:48:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Mister Reichmann, thank you for that clear, pleasant readable & balanced article.
Logged
dmcginlay
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2008, 02:58:27 PM »
ReplyReply

"Faster, better, cheaper!"

The mantra of the digital age!

Great article Michael.


Take care,

Don
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2008, 04:00:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peripatetic
.....Does anyone else feel that this Photokina brought in an explosion of new ideas and possibilities? Simply amazing.
The Panasonic LX3, intro'd just prior, validated a lot of what people here were asking for. Now the G10 offers a good contrast to the LX3, not just more of the same. That is exciting.
Logged
T-1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2008, 04:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Michael,
The G10 is a great camera, but I feel the P45 JPEG that I downloaded showed that you didn't exactly "NAIL" the focus, or perhaps you needed to stop down more.  I'm not telling you how to take photographs, but I've worked with P45 files, and this is one I would throw away due to nothing being in decent focus IMO.
Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2008, 05:33:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting article. What I'm looking forward to is a review of the G10's low-light performance. I have a G9 which I use for "social" pics, which are usually indoors in less than ideal light. The performance under such conditions is less than stellar (high noise) in comparison to DSLR's, and I would be really impressed if the G10 has made significant improvements in low-light imaging.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad