I find the S90 a superior camera for my needs. Faster lens, smaller compact body. Same sensor. If G11 had video it'd be nice, but I much prefer the price and size of the S90.
OK what planet are canon designers on?
The G11 has a HDMI socket yet its movie clips are 640x480 30fps max
It really cant have been that difficult to put some form of HD movie mode in there can it just like most other new top (ish) end compacts can it
Roll on G12
matt4626 wrote:
Is this the long awaited sign that the pixel wars are over?? :D
Yes - the Stephenson gauge was adopted. Now we can all enjoy worse cameras forever more. All those who compared images at 100%, congratulate yourselves now. Viva Cuba libre!
brainiac wrote:
Yes - the Stephenson gauge was adopted. Now we can all enjoy worse cameras forever more. All those who compared images at 100%, congratulate yourselves now. Viva Cuba libre!
What do you mean. Sorry, but I don't follow.... You got some splaining to do Lucy....
G11
10Mp - ok, I'm fine with that.
no HD movie. - the lower end p&s from the same announcements have 720P.... WTF?
28-140 eqiv. - was expecting it to to be wider.
No thanks!! I'll wait for something better.
My point is that the large numbers of people who whinge about too many pixels have mostly formed their opinions by comparing 100% crops between 8 and 15 Mpixel cameras. Look at DPReview's noise comparisons if you don't believe me. The size of the Queen's head on the stamp is proportional to the number of pixels on the sensor. So punters and review sites alike are all comparing per pixel noise instead of image noise, and the great web myth that more pixels are bad has arisen on a false premise.
The quest to put more pixels on sensors hasn't lead to worse image quality, it has happened alongside ever-improving image quality. But Canon is a corporation and it must give the punter what he wants, no matter how misguided he is. Canon has almost certainly seen that DPReview et al. skew their comparisons heavily in favour of lower megapixel cameras, and that the camera-buying masses labour under a popular misconception about this issue, and so they have done what it takes to maximise profits. DPReview will rave about the per-pixel qualities of the camera and everyone will buy it, never realising that a better option should have been available by now. That's why it's like the Stephenson gauge. Sometimes people make the wrong choices because they don't understand arithmetic. Markets don't always make the best choice, they just make better choices than politicians and despots would.
Feel free to link to another fair comparison of image noise between the superb high iso D700 and the iso-limited 1Ds3. The only reason I have to post it so often is that the myth which it shatters is so widely believed and so often repeated. Unfortunately that myth now seems to be influencing engineering decisions at Canon.
brainiac wrote:
Feel free to link to another fair comparison of image noise between the superb high iso D700 and the iso-limited 1Ds3. The only reason I have to post it so often is that the myth which it shatters is so widely believed and so often repeated.
....and in a thread about the G11 too, which has nothing to do with either sample
As for less MP being the future norm, there will come a day, maybe 2014, when sales begin to fade for then popular 7 MP P&S at which point Canon will reintroduce the 15 MP G15, an entirely new concept of imaging with a Digic 7 sensor, HD2, 3D, Dolby 7.345 sound, GPS, and PlayStation availability. Can't wait.
>...and in a thread about the G11 too, which has nothing to do with either sample
If I am forced to explain why it's relevant then I suppose I must. People widely believe that the D700 has much better high iso performance than the 1Ds3 because it has fewer, and therefore larger, and less noisy pixels. People widely ignore the fact that the quantity of pixels in an image also affects noise. This misapprehension is the only reason one can imagine that Canon has decided to reduce the number of pixels in the G camera from 15 to 10, particularly since the G10 has better low light performance than any of its predecessors. The image I posted illustrates that there is a misapprehension in the meme that fewer pixels give you better images.
I look forward to the virtually noiseless 1 pixel camera, with 1000 stops of dynamic range.
brainiac wrote:
If I am forced to explain why it's relevant then I suppose I must. People widely believe that the D700 has much better high iso performance than the 1Ds3 because it has fewer, and therefore larger, and less noisy pixels. People widely ignore the fact that the quantity of pixels in an image also affects noise. This misapprehension is the only reason one can imagine that Canon has decided to reduce the number of pixels in the G camera from 15 to 10, particularly since the G10 has better low light performance than any of its predecessors. The image I posted illustrates that there is a misapprehension in the meme that fewer pixels give you better images.
I look forward to the virtually noiseless 1 pixel camera, with 1000 stops of dynamic range....Show more →
I guess we see this coin differently. ISO is but one factor and we shouldn't consider that the only variable in the equation.
I see the reduction as a possible move (unverified right now) toward better IQ than would have been possible if left unchanged. If the IQ is better at 10MP on a gnat-sized sensor, wouldn't you take that over worse IQ at 15MP on the same gnat-sized sensor? I would, because in the end, it's not all about MP, it's about real, out of the camera quality with no processing. At least in my view it is, but we're all free to differ.
N.B. I'm not against higher MP cameras and I'm well acquainted with the debates, but with the bayer-sensor techniques used today, IMO we're not making strides. The 50d has about 40-50% of the users saying "no IQ improvement" over the 40d...
brainiac wrote:
My point is that the large numbers of people who whinge about too many pixels have mostly formed their opinions by comparing 100% crops between 8 and 15 Mpixel cameras. Look at DPReview's noise comparisons if you don't believe me. The size of the Queen's head on the stamp is proportional to the number of pixels on the sensor. So punters and review sites alike are all comparing per pixel noise instead of image noise, and the great web myth that more pixels are bad has arisen on a false premise.
The quest to put more pixels on sensors hasn't lead to worse image quality, it has happened alongside ever-improving image quality. But Canon is a corporation and it must give the punter what he wants, no matter how misguided he is. Canon has almost certainly seen that DPReview et al. skew their comparisons heavily in favour of lower megapixel cameras, and that the camera-buying masses labour under a popular misconception about this issue, and so they have done what it takes to maximise profits. DPReview will rave about the per-pixel qualities of the camera and everyone will buy it, never realising that a better option should have been available by now. That's why it's like the Stephenson gauge. Sometimes people make the wrong choices because they don't understand arithmetic. Markets don't always make the best choice, they just make better choices than politicians and despots would....Show more →
For the benefit of those folks that are not mind readers it would be nice if you would label which camera corresponds to whatever side of your example above (my apology if I've missed an identifier somewhere), thanks.
While I can appreciate the point with regard to FF DSLRs, I don't think you can keep increasing pixel density of P+S sensors without paying a price. P+S IQ often wont stand up at big print sizes for lots of reasons and fewer lager pixels may well make sense in the G11.
Having more MPs in a FF DSLR gives more options and is a good thing at the moment all other things being equal but even with FF I think a point will be reached where more resolution is no longer better. That point may have already been passed in P+S cameras.
willis wrote:
While I can appreciate the point with regard to FF DSLRs, I don't think you can keep increasing pixel density of P+S sensors without paying a price. P+S IQ often wont stand up at big print sizes for lots of reasons and fewer lager pixels may well make sense in the G11.
I have the opposite experience, my G10 RAW files will print very very big indeed. Much bigger than any previous P&S I've owned
