Lance I like your optimistic view - I hope you are correct. I guess we'll be waiting for those first G10 reviews.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Lance I know what your saying, but I'm saying the P&S pixel has gotten out of control and it's time someone had the courage to say enough's enough and make IQ a priority. At ISO 80-100 some of them can deliver stellar IQ and if the cameras only came with say a max of ISO 200 they'd make sense. But you have cameras with 1/2.5" sensors, 10-12MP and offering ISO 3200, which woulkdn't make an aceptable postage stamp and yet they market this as a feature. I'm sure a point would come where they'll offer ISO 1600 which is quite good - Fuji has been almost at that point for 2 years at least, but unlike DSLR's they are coming from such a pathetic baseline, they should step back and use their improved NR technologies in combination with lower pixel density sensors first. Deliver clean ISO 1600 at whatever MP it takes and then when that's sorted gradually bump up the MP. But I still stand by my premise making large prints from tiny sensors only exacerbates IQ faults even if the ISO is not an issue. I just can't see the point of marketing a P&S as a serious replacement for a DSLR.

I still have my Fuji S7000 from 2004 and it was released in 2003 and have not seen a P&S since that's impressed me, except finally maybe the LX-3

I completely concur.

However, you and I both know that wont happen. Everything is driven by marketing.

I am in the IT industry and I see it ALL the time. The marketing people tell you Product Y can do it that much better than Product X, and it has all of these new "enhancements" etc, etc, etc., and the product rarely delivers what the marketing idiots say it will.

This is what all of this amounts to; people always want more on paper, but not always better. Only "better" if the marketing people say it is.

As an example, I was shooting an even for the dog sport I participate in. I had one of my 30D's w/ grip, 70-200/2.8, all mounted on my 'frotto 680B 'pod. Some woman who claimed to be a "professional" came walking up to me and says, "Show off.". I didnt understand what the hell she was talking about, and then she said "Flaunting your 70-200/2.8 are ya? What body are you using?". I simply replied "A 30D.". She then goes, "Well at least my camera is better, I have a 40D.", and then she walked off...

Now, in a nutshell, I think that pretty much sums up where the masses are at.

I dont think the MP race will ever slow. How could a marketing person sell "only 7 MP, but BOY does it have great IQ at 1600 ISO!"? Your average PnS buyer would pass over such a camera, as it "only" has 7MP.

It's sad but true.

I've been trying to find a Fuji F30 for some time now, but for the price of a used one, I can almost buy a new G9, so some people are at least wise to this situation...

Edited by Lance Couture on Aug 27, 2008 at 08:33 PM GMT

Ron Hew wrote:
Andrew,
Go try the Ricoh GX200 out. 24.2-70 mm F2.8 if you really like P&S and I like the Panny LX-3 too

That was on my list as well to look at...Read a bunch about it too.. Glad to see at least a couple of manufacturers that are at least attempting to make more serious P&S's.. Perhaps because they don't have SLRs/Lenses to push..

apdieb wrote:
Interesting.. I want black though.

If you call on the phone ... they will sell the black model for $419.

Has anyone printed a G6 shot and a G9 shot of the exact same scene in the same light, at iso 800?

I think the reason everyone says iso 800 sucks on the G9 is that they are comparing 100% crops to 100% crops from lower megapixel cameras. That's completely misleading. It is my view that the entire "we want fewer pixels" crowd has made a basic error when examining noise: they are viewing files at different magnifications.

Below is a little reminder that if you bother to uprez crops so that they can be shown at the same magnification, then denser pixels doesn't necessarily mean more noise:

UCSB wrote:
apdieb wrote:
Interesting.. I want black though.

If you call on the phone ... they will sell the black model for $419.


Good to know! Can't believe the silver version is already instant rebated $100 and it hasn't hit the shelves in the US yet.

Here we go again.

brainiac wrote:


Below is a little reminder that if you bother to uprez crops so that they can be shown at the same magnification, then denser pixels doesn't necessarily mean more noise:

Lance Couture wrote:

I love how everyone derides higher MP/sensor (50D and now G10), as if the technology never improves with these increments.

Maybe we should be trying to push old Pentium 150s to run at 5GHz, instead of shrinking the dies and adding multiple cores?

Give your heads a collective shake, people.

Lance,

I followed the discussion between you and several on this thread and do shake my head at the collective "truth" that more pixels = poorer IQ. Let's posit that there is some finite limit to the number of sensors that can be placed on a sensor of a given size. Let's also acknowledge that we don't currently know what that limit is. (By analogy from Moore's Law.} Let's also remember that the technology for light transforming sensors is younger than that of microprocessors. I suspect that our current level will be viewed as rather crude in a very short time given the rates of change for both sensors and processors. (For proof, simply note the rate of change in computing at large.)

Many photographers on this and other forums don't seem to recognize that a digital image is created as an interaction between the sensor and its processor. The actual A/D (analog to digital) transformation takes place at the sensor. I can assure you that our current sensor sizes are thousands of orders of magnitude larger than a quantum of light! So claiming that we have too many sensors in a given area is disingenuous at best. An extraordinary amount of time, brains, and money is being poured into sensor technology and material science. As far as I know no one has even begun to explore what the impact of nano-tech will be on light sensing. I find it incomprehensible that people don't realize that Canon (and other manufactures) is constantly updating and creating new/better sensors.

Each sensor produces a complex digital stream. Multiply this times the number of sensors (pixels) and you start to get a sense of how much data is involved. This is where the processor becomes important. I don't know what sort of algorithm is involved here but I suspect involves a massive number of fast Fourier Transformations applied some sort of vectored matrix algebra. This is a level of mathematics well beyond my pay grade! The processor then becomes the key to what the image looks like. I note that this "G10" and the actually announced 50D are using the DigicIV.

I don't know what all Canon has done to its processor and I suspect it is a closely held trade secret, but I'm certain that each generation is faster, has greater capacity, and has larger sections microcoded into the silicon. If a maker were to simply just dump more sensor data into an existing processor then yes, everyone would be justified in claiming that they were degrading IQ. This is not what the manufacturers are doing. To do so would be corporate suicide.

I've also suspected since the beginning of the DIII AF brouhaha, that the real problem lay in the processor code. Something is actually deciding too fast in certain situations as to what constitutes focus.

I can't believe that anyone would say my first PS (an Epson 3.1 mp gadget - wahoo!!) created a better image than my 12mp G9.

So you might as well all acknowledge the following things. Marketing hype aside, there will continue to be more sensors in every class of camera. (Funny that no one complained that the 1DsIII was "degraded" when it went to 21mp.) I'm certain that we will soon be looking at Giga-pixel sensors and people just won't be bothering to actually count them anymore. (Anybody remember when having 64K RAM in a PC made you the hottest thing on the planet? I've got 8GB in my current one and looking for more!) Processors will become faster, smaller, more efficient and we will increasingly have multiple processors so as to off-load tasks in order to speed up image acquisition.

Come on people! The fastest, best camera on earth is nothing compared to our eyes. I'm looking out the window above my monitor, thru a screen past the low branches of two trees and seeing a tall sunflower catching the morning light in a soft breeze. Everything is in focus and there is no "bokah". No camera can even begin to "see" this. We've a long ways to go!

Hmm, think I'll take my clumsy black box out there and see what interpretation I can create from this scene.

Robert

brunobarolo wrote:
brainiac wrote:


Below is a little reminder that if you bother to uprez crops so that they can be shown at the same magnification, then denser pixels doesn't necessarily mean more noise:

I preordered mine today from Amazon. I've got a powershot TX1, which is more of a toy than a serious camera. Really - anything above ISO 100 is super noisy. The 720p is cool, but it encodes it in a weird format and so I have to transcode it to something usable. If the G10 had 720p, I'd think it'd be awesome (it's nice to shoot video clips) but I'd be happy for something I can put in my pocket and get awesome shots at higher ISO.

I don't like the image quality of my G9. I have to work a lot on those raw files in order get decent pictures. So, unless the G10 has better high iso performance, it's not for me. I do like the idea to have a 28mm at the low end, but I can bet that I could get that + better high iso performance in other P&S. I will also look into the new Canon P&S that has the CMOS sensor. I know it has no raw possibility, but for P&S purpose I would trade it off for better IQ.

Giulio

UCSB wrote:
apdieb wrote:
Interesting.. I want black though.

If you call on the phone ... they will sell the black model for $419.


Bill, I'm curious as to why you went for the LX3 without having seen the G10 samples? I'm on the fence between both models too, and am waiting to see more high ISO samples from both.

Valerie S wrote:
UCSB wrote:
apdieb wrote:
Interesting.. I want black though.

If you call on the phone ... they will sell the black model for $419.


Bill, I'm curious as to why you went for the LX3 without having seen the G10 samples? I'm on the fence between both models too, and am waiting to see more high ISO samples from both.

J&R had the LX3 on sale for $399 plus they were also offering 15% back through live.com cashback that brought my cost down to $339 (with free shipping). I felt (with J&R's 30 day return policy) that it was worth a look and if it started to look like a bad decision I could return it or sell it. So I felt I had to act on the deal.

But, here is my logic.
1. I like the G9 and use the higher end of the 35-210mm range more than I expected. So I considered the LX3 as camera that I would use in combination with the G9.
2. I felt the LX3 offered a very flexible option with the f/2 lens and good ISO performance. My testing has confirmed this. For indoor shooting the f/2 allows you to balance the room light and your flash to get nicer results. Plus you can shoot without a flash in many cases. My LX3 is sharp at f/2.
3. 24mm is very useful for close in social shooting and in general. The LX3 has a nice flash and the wider angle allows you to make better use of the flash in group pictures (because of distance limitations with these small flashes).
4. Both the G9 and G10 have f/2.8. - f/4.8 lenses. With the shorter FL of the G10, you are up into those higher aperture settings faster. This mean that you are at a 1 to 1.5 f-stop disadvantage over the LX3 ... this is apparent when you look at your images.

Other considerations:
1. LX3 is smaller and lighter than the G9 (G10). I actually like the G9 (G10) weight and size, but the LX3 is more of a compact.
2. G9 (G10) is compatible with all of my Canon accessories (430EX, ST-E2, remotes).
3. The higher MP count on the G9 (G10) will give you slightly more detail in your images. But, since most of the time P&S images are not printed that big and just shared on the internet, final images will look the same. This MP advantage disappears rapidly as you increase ISO from 80; when compared to G9. LX3 is at least one f-stop better in ISO performance in comparison to G9.
4. 24-60mm range on LX3 is somewhat limiting for general use.

At this point in time it is best to wait and see what the G10 ISO performance is like. If it is good and you are going for a single camera, then I think the G10 has a lot to offer. I'm not sure I where I am going to end up ... I've only had the LX3 since Friday, so it will take me a little while longer before I decide what makes sense for me. I will be following the G10 results carefully ...it will need to get a one stop improvement in ISO performance at ISO400 over the G9 or I will stick with the LX3/G9 combo

Also ... I should add that the LX3 allows you to make 720P (16:9) HD movies ... I'm still exploring this option. Plus it offers 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratio shooting. The 3:2 option made sense for me when I was going to be adding the P&S shots into a sequence with my Canon DSLR shots. If I was just shooting something little that I wanted to show people on my 1080p HD TV, I could shoot RAW + JPG in 16:9 and take the images straight to the HD TV. I haven't connected the LX3 directly to my TV yet ... but, Im going to give this a try.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/689939

Oh and forgot this...

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_G10/index.asp

I still have my Fuji S7000 from 2004 and it was released in 2003 and have not seen a P&S since that's impressed me, except finally maybe the LX-3

Excellent camera...will produce a sharp A3+ print...not quite small enough to fit in the pocket unfortunately...

I got my G10 today from Amazon.com (I love you Amazon)

A few notes:
*Having never handled a Powershot G camera, I didn't know what to expect, but it feels like a real point and shoot versus a toy (I had a TX1 before, and it was a toy).
*Que surprise: Lightroom and Photoshop can't recognize it the raw files.
*Why can't Canon stick with the same batteries for different models? I was looking at getting a spare battery, until I saw that they were $70. hahah on me.
*The solutions disk (v38.1) came with DPP 3.5, Zoombrowser EX 6.2, Photostitch 3.1 and EOS Util 1.1a.
*With quick snaps, I shot my messy apartment at 400, 800 and 1600 ISO. The 400 noise wasn't that bad. 800 it was noticeable and 1600 it was pretty bad. I'm pretty sure you can clean some of it up, but it was in your face. I'll try to take some better pictures tonight, but I have to be out the door at 5am tomorrow. Plus I've been drinking and watching the Sox game.
*The Canon RAW codec software for Vista is being nice and popping up and saying "Canon RAW Codec found a new CR2 file that is not supported by the installed version." with a link to click to check the update (which, of course, isn't there).

The G9 used the same battery as the XT, XTi. You could buy them from 3rd parties for about $15 ... so it is easy to get an extra battery.

It would be great if you could post some images and links to the original full size images. For these to be really useful, you will need to post ISO 80, 100, 200 and 400 minimum. ISO 800 and 1600 would be great, but things are usually falling apart by then. The reason you need to have the same images at ISO 80 is that these cameras start losing resolution almost immediately and can show noise as low as ISO 80 (noise will become more noticable through this range). It is really important to understand how the image starts to break down at each stop between 80 and 400. IMO, the ISO 400 images are very critical because this is a very common ISO setting for indoor shots.

I think people are too hard on the G-series noise. Yes, it gets noisy at ISO 400-1600. Sometimes it's objectionable. Still, at 400, it's good for pretty much any normal sized print. It won't make a great 20x30, but it'll still be a good print. 800 I think is definitely doable for 8x10. 1600 is good for 4x6 shots. Yes, per pixel, it's much noisier than a DSLR. No doubt, but I've had no problems with my G9 and ISO 400-800. I try and stay away from 1600 if I can.

Here are two from my G9 at ISO 800:

The G10 uses some NB-7L battery which is new to me. I'll go and snap some photos. Stupid White Sox making me drink!

http://public.fotki.com/whereishawkins/stuff/canon-powershot-g10/ are shots at 80, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. If they suck, I'm sorry. They were raws that were exported to jpg with no PP within Canon DPP.

I thought the G9 was going to be the right compact for me (and I've had loads of them) but I just couldn't get on with it. I didn't like the grip, the viewfinder (if you can call it that) or the files in anything other than perfect light.

I doubt very much the G10 will be that different, sadly.

David

I got a G9 sitting in my glove compartment almost unused. The damn thing is too heavy to easily slip into a pocket, but not good enough (slow, bad ISO, bad VF) to use for real shooting. So, my current move is to put a 50D into the car, with some of my cheaper lenses (50 1.8, 85 1.8, Sigma fisheye) and see if that encourages my activities regarding spontaneous photographic opportunities.
BTW, I most definitely will NOT buy another Point&Cr#p, and if anybody wants to buy a mint G9 with WA Raynox lens, and aq handy Lowepro carrying baggy, email me