DPReview Slams the Canon G10
Comments(49) I have just finished reading the review of the Canon Powershot G10 by DPReview, actually by Don Wan: Technical writer (reviews) [bio to follow], as DPR advises. Would love to know more about Mr. Wan, especially after his review, which can be found here. The review slams the G10, and concludes with this statement:
“Considering the wider market, with pressures coming from the cheaper LX3, and with low end digital SLRs getting cheaper all the time, it is hard to see who the G10 audience will be. Mainly those who own higher end DSLRs (especially Canon ones) looking for a compact second camera? Perhaps, but these users would certainly be discriminating about image quality, and the G10 might not live up to their expectations. So the G10 is in the ‘flawed gem’ category that, while great fun to take pictures with, is surpassed in image quality by other cameras in the same price range, and the same market segment. At its price the G10 just cannot overcome the image quality shortfalls to achieve our highest rating.”
After reading the review, I asked myself the question “Do I own the same camera? Am I missing something?”
I was especially shocked by the last sentence which implies that the G10 has “image quality shortfalls.” Perhaps at higher ISOs this may be true, but frankly the images DPReview has displayed for the Panasonic LX3, which they highly recommend, show similar issues at higher ISOs. Besides, any serious photographer knows that a compact camera will not perform well at higher ISOs, the sensor is too small, about 20 times smaller in surface area to my Canon 1Ds Mark II. So this whole issue of noise might be important when considering a DSLR but it totally irrelevant when considering ANY compact camera.
And, indeed, other conclusions baffle me, like this one:
“But the problems arise when the user gets back to a computer and downloads the images from the G10. In trying to keep ahead of the megapixel race, Canon has produced a camera that in the real world can’t deliver on the promise of the styling and control layout. In the studio it produced some incredible results at base ISO, but out in the real world and as ISO settings increased, the loss of fine detail and increase in noise really let it down. A camera is ultimately about taking pictures, and that is why we put so much emphasis on the image quality output.”
The “real world?” Mr. Wan should have been with me at the top of a mountain range in Slovenia when the wind was blowing at 50MPH and the temperature was below freezing! His real world is downtown London taking snapshots. Here’s the shot I did handheld, what I like about this shot is the fantastic dynamic range the camera captured:
Mr. Wan’s statement flies in the face of what Michael Reichmann, a highly respected photographer has said in his review. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Worse is the contradiction of DPReview’s own conclusions, found in this statement:
“That is not to say the news is all bad in the image quality department. As stated earlier, at base ISO and in high contrast conditions, the G10 can produce detail and resolution that is astounding (better than some DSLRs). If your main use is in good lighting conditions outdoors, and you are prepared to take care with correct exposure, this camera is almost as good as it gets in compacts. Also if you were to only make small prints, view the images on computer monitors, or the images are mainly for web use, the the G10 would be a great choice.”
So, if it is “as good as it gets” how on earth would DPReview give the camera less than it’s highest rating? But then, again, I have no idea who Mr. Wan is, or what his credentials are. On this point I agree with Mr. Wan, it is as good as it get with a compact camera. I sure wish Mr. Wan could follow his own findings though, his logic falls apart after he makes the statement.
And the other statement that is totally misleading is that one can only make “small prints” from the camera! Yet, prints I have made at 19 X 13 inches are, well, pretty dern good. And that was what Michael Reichmann found when he did large prints as well. And BTW, Michael has some splendid shots on his site done at ISO 200.
Here’s what Michael had to say:
“Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19″ prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.
In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider.
The Results
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19″ prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.”
Well, I guess the “expert,” that is Mr. Wan at DPReview, knows something that Michael Reichmann doesn’t know. I doubt that, Michael has over 50 years of photographic experience.
Course, Michael and I shoot in the “real world” under very trying conditions and we obviously aren’t into doing snapshots in downtown London. I have to wonder if Mr. Wan tried some large prints, or did he just come to his conclusion without trying? Michael’s commentary speaks for itself, images from the G10 produce large prints that are comparable with a Medium Format camera!
In my view, after shooting with the G10 in a variety of situations, including extreme weather conditions, over a three week period in two continents, the camera produced outstanding images that are comparable with those done by DSLRs. It is a compact camera with a small sensor and is useless at ISOs above 400. However, when shooting with the camera at ISO 200 or less, it is almost impossible to distinguish between shots done with the G10 and cameras costing hundreds of dollars more. If one understands it’s limitations, it has no equal.
Mr. Wan’s poorly written review, contradictory statements, incorrect statements about prints, and misleading conclusions aren’t the sort of stuff I thought DPReview was about. Seems to me that Mr. Wan started with a conclusion, then did his review. And, for gosh sakes, one would think that the editors of DPReview would be very much aware of what respected photographers like Michael Reichmann have said about the G10. I gather that DPReview lives in it’s own world and has no regard for what experienced and qualified professionals think.
DPReview should have hired Michael Reichmann or another competent and well known photographer to do the review. If they had done that, I might have some respect for their review.
And please remember, I am not a professional photographer, I am not an expert, I am just a guy who travels extensively and loves photography. So, take my thoughts with a grain of salt. To me the proof is in the results; and all the technical mumbo jumbo in the world won’t make me a better photographer or improve what I do. In the meantime, I will be out in the “real world” shooting and posting shots done with the G10 for you to view. And, you know what? — I will love doing it, because finally I have an excellent small camera that produces images I am proud of.
If interested, my review of the Canon Powershot G10 is here.
My G10 gallery is here.
I would agree with you Bill. I recently got a G10 and have completely fallen in love with it. Over two short weeks I’ve gotten some fabulous pictures that look marvelous when printed 13×19. The reviews from you and Michael Reichmann got me interested enough to get one and I’m not sorry in the least. I too am a bit perplexed at DPR’s conclusion. I can only conclude that you and Reichmann must not shoot “real world” photos. Perhaps we all need to spend more time inside shooting pictures of liquor bottles and little robots…
I’m no where near the caliber of you or MR but some of my landscape photos from the G10 can be seen on Flickr under a people search for Nurse Kato. I guess these might be considered “real world” from an average Joe.
DPReview are obviously unaware of the vast number of serious shooters that requires a good compact and are already aware of the benefits of the SLR but cannot carry one all the time.
Josh and Omar,
Well, I don’t understand the review either. If DPReview were really serious, then no compact camera would ever get a “highly recommended” rating and only DSLRs would.
While many reviewers like the Panasonic LX3 as a comparison, of the shots posted with the camera I can’t see any improvement over the G10 shots, in fact the LX3 shots I have seen show serious barrel distortion and terrible color rendition — while the G10 has excellent clarity and beautiful color rendition.
I gather that DPReview started with a conclusion, then did the review. I have always respected DPReview for it’s thorough reviews, but I am beginning to question just how “expert” the experts are at DPReview. To my knowledge, none of the reviewers are well known photographers and certainly none of them have the same experience or reputation as Michael Reichmann.
I’ll take Michael’s opinion over DPReview any day. And I find it interesting that the DPReview authors did not mention or cite what Michael found. It’s as if DPReview is in it’s own little world, shooting photos of “liquor bottles and robots,” and then offering up opinions that don’t fit with what experienced and respected professionals find otherwise.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill I stopped listening to DPreview long ago. Just look at how they slammed the 50D….oh but we “Highly Recommend” it (just incase Canon read the review and decide not to send any more test units their way no doubt!). In almost all of their sample comparisons the G10 wins, even when it is noisey it is at least sharper than the competition!
I still haven’t bought one but I might.
Hi Neil,
DPReview does not buy cameras that it reviews, instead camera manufacturers send cameras to DPReview for “evaluation.” This is a conflict of interest. How can one do an honest review of a product if your business relies on manufacturers to provide the products for review?
This is why I have always appreciated companies like Consumer Reports that buy the products they evaluate.
The other issue is that DPReview has expanded it’s staff due to the high demand for more and more reviews. In so doing we now see reviews authored by people we know nothing about. A good example is the G10 review by a new technical writer. I know nothing about him. If I did know something about him I might be able to form a better view of his thoughts. But, I would bet you good money that he does not have the expertise of someone like Michael Reichmann. So, DPReview is beginning to suffer from getting too big too quick. Big organizations quickly become dumb organizations simply because they are unable to maintain the level of quality controls that existed when they were smaller organizations.
Course, the other factor that I love is that guys like me, who are not experts and don’t claim to be, can write a review and post it on the web for others to consider. I wish I had Michael Reichmann’s knowledge, for example, I do not and I will never be in his class.
So, I do hope that readers of my blog will consider that my reviews are not based on knowledge or expertise but are based simply on picking up a camera, using it, and then writing about the experience.
And, yes, I buy cameras I review.
Best regards,
Bill
Hello Bill.
I’m just a casual shooter who owns a Canon SD870 IS.
i have recently discovered liking in taking photographs, specially after my baby daughter was born a year ago.
i wanted to upgrade to a DSLR but still consider myself a newbie/rookie and dont want to splurge yet on a $1000 camera.
i also love to take photos of moving subjects, like a sporting event or something…
my questions is, will the G10 satisfy my needs?
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Happy Holidays!
- MIKE
Hi Mike,
You would be disappointed using the G10 for sporting events, it simply is not made for that kind of photography. Much better to buy a decent DSLR and a good zoom lens, at least one that goes out to 300mm. An entry level camera like the Canon Rebel XTi and the 70-300mm would fit the bill. But that will cost you a tad more than the G10. Nikon has similar offerings.
Another possibility is to search Craigs List for your area. Sometimes real bargains pop up on the list and what is great is that you can meet the person selling the equipment (do it in a public place) and test out the stuff before you buy.
I bought the G10 primarily for landscapes and street photography. Occasionally I might do a portrait or a group shot of family. I would never consider using it for sports, the lens does not have enough reach.
Best regards,
Bill
How is the video on this camera? I think I’m going to get one anyway
It’s quite amusing that every Tom, Dick and Harry photographer who’s upset that their new toy wasn’t drooled over enough by dpreview thinks they know better than the people who have been reviewing cameras professionally for years.
Hi Fred,
Yep, just a Tom, maybe a Dick, and I do know a Harry. And guess what, we know as much as the “experts” — that is the power of the new world, where the Internet has changed the way we learn and share.
Count me in as just another one of those guys who no longer accepts what “experts” offer up to the masses.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill – where is *your* review of the LX3?
Where is Michael Reichmann’s review of the LX3?
Ah, yes. For that, we have to go to DPR.
The world, it seems, is full of folk who have just bought a G10 and feel hard done by. You’re not a professional, but you still feel perfectly entitled to slag off people who review a camera that you haven’t used.
Why?
In fact, why not buy an LX3 and prove to your readership what a rubbish camera it is, compared to the incomparable G10? Will you feel better?
Will you, in fact, be happier?
Perhaps you should just take great photos with whatever camera you have to hand. The final test is the result – no one ever remembers the chisel a master craftsman used.
I don’t think that any of us are saying that the G10 is the end-all, be-all camera. It does have its shortcomings. However, it is also a darned good camera that can be an absolute pleasure to use and sure has the ability to deliver. Just like all cameras much is dependent on the photographer and just like many of todays cameras to see a significant difference in quality you really have to knit pick minutia. People conducting reviews should really know what they are doing behind that lens.
I love the comment from Darwin Wiggett, “The one thing I do know is that if I shoot with a 4×5, a medium format film camera, a point-n-shoot digital or film camera, or a high end DSLR that my photos still end up all looking the same. I have not yet found a camera that improves my photography!! Doh! Seems that the person behind the lens really has a lot to do with what the camera does – go figure eh?”(www.darwinwiggett.com/equipment.html)
Bill,
You need to get a grip. It was just a review. And I wouldn’t say giving the camera an effective “A-” or “B ” rating is the same thing as a “slam”. Michael Reichmann has made similarly controversial statements in his own reviews and is not the be-all and end-all of photographic “experts”. (I highly doubt his contention that the G10 can produce images the equal of a Hasselblad medium format, for example. That’s more outlandish than anything DPReview wrote. Give me a break.) Your pictures are mostly well-done and make a good enough statement as is without you belittling yourself by making highly personal, ridiculous and vindictive attacks on another reviewer. That’s just bad form…. and tacky.
DPReview is fighting for a noble cause, and I think some credit is due. We desperately need a low-light P&S camera, and Canon / Nikon seem very stubborn in this respect.
I’ll be the first to admit that they are quick to crucify any P&S that suffers from detail smearing or highlight clipping in it’s JPG output. I think they could throttle back on that and do well with the “rest” of the community.
But anyone who tries to say that even the G10 isn’t still severely short-changed compared to what COULD be, well, I don’t have the interest or energy to debate that. To me, the differences between the image files is undeniably clear.
Don’t get me wrong. I know very well what “f/8 and be there” means. I’ll use a G10 happily if it’s the only thing around. The RAW quality is fine. But I’m just saying… Give DPR some credit for at least pushing a *good* agenda, that of better image quality…
=Matt=
Hi Bill,
I have never met you and don’t know much about your photography career, but this article seems a little arrogant to me. You came to a different conclusion than Mr Wan in your “real world” experience but why does that make your opinion and conclusion better than Mr Wan’s? You’ve completely assassinated his character without knowing anything about him except that he reviewed a camera differently to you (and did so with the same standard tests used for every review on dpreview).
This is not a comment on the G10 as I have not used one but I think you have been more than unfair here.
BTW your images from your review of the G10 are very nice, but they don’t exactly test the apparent drawbacks of the camera that others have mentioned do they?
As a final note, it’s all very well to aspire after Mr Reichman’s technical photography knowledge (as you did mention him nearly 10 times in all the above dialogue), but that’s the only aspect of his photography I would be aspiring to.
Kim,
The video is excellent but is limited to VGA, 640X480. What I do like is that I can now zoom while doing video, something I could not do on the G9. For the average user, the video will be very useful. I only wish Canon had offered HD.
Best regards,
Bill
———-
tickettyboo,
Unlike DPReview, I don’t get cameras sent to me from manufacturers, I must buy a camera to review it, and doing camera reviews, while of interest to me, is not my primary purpose with this blog. Perhaps I will someday have the opportunity to shoot with the Panasonic LX3 or the Leica version of that camera. From what I have read, users like the camera given its limitations, primarily those associated with its lens. Of the photographs I have seen done with it, frankly I don’t see much of a difference in IQ over the G10, but it is unfair for me to judge something I have not used.
And I agree completely, it is not the chisel that produced a Michelangelo.
Best regards,
Bill
———-
Hi Josh,
Darwin is a good friend of mine and I highly respect his work and indeed he could make world class photos using a pin hole camera!
I wish I were better at knowing what to do “behind that lens” as well. What I do know is that the real issue in photography is light and more and more I look carefully at the light before I attempt to take a photograph. Problem is, I still do not see what masters like Darwin see, it is as if he has a special gift for being at the right place at the right time.
Best regards,
Bill
———-
Hi Mark,
Sorry I appeared “tacky.” I don’t think I was being “vindictive” about another reviewer, the problem I had was not with him, but with his inconsistent reasoning. Writing is a tough business and getting across what we mean is very difficult to do. I gather that he liked the G10 but felt compelled to point out its weaknesses over its attributes.
Best regards,
Bill
———-
Hi Matthew,
Perhaps DPReview is fighting for a noble cause, but the problem is not Canon, it’s engineering issues that cannot be overcome with small sensors. Any compact camera, with a small sensor, will produce signal noise as the ISO is increased. The issue here is not Canon, not the G10, or the LX3 — the problem is judging a compact camera by the same standards as one would judge a DSLR. They are two different animals completely, and even DSLRs vary greatly in their engineering success. As I stated in my review, “given it’s limitations . . .” by that meaning one has to recognize that the sensor on the G10 cannot produce the same IQ as a sensor 20 times larger. DUH! Therefore, judging the G10 by DSLR standards is really going well beyond reason.
Best regards,
Bill
———-
Hi Nick,
Yes, some of my friends describe me as “arrogant.” I don’t think I “assassinated Mr. Wan,” I did not question his motivations, I questioned his own words. I found his review inconsistent and contradictory. Writing is difficult; and that is why we need to pass our words to others for their inspection before we publish. And, I found some of his statements to be totally misleading, particularly his reference to the “real world” and the results one might expect when examining images after shooting. And, at one point, some of his statements were totally wrong, particularly those relating to prints. In one phrase he highly commends the IQ of the camera, then later slams the camera because of it poor IQ. Which is it?
Best regards,
Bill
To those who are thinking DPR is fighting for a “noble” cause, and they are pushing a “good” agenda, you should know one thing:
Even if a goal is worthy, it doesn’t mean any approach to obtain it is justified. To distort in the review in order to reflect their ideology certainly isn’t justified.
And I don’t see the need for them to push the agenda to reduce pixel count, LX3 G10 virtually produce similar results at similar ISO.The differences are more down to NR.
Hi tickettyboo, you really need to be so harsh?
I have both LX3 and G10, am I entitled with my own opinion? I cannot see any significant difference between the two IQ wise (though G10 is a bit better here). Oh…yeah I know people will not believe, because dpr is the place where they never make mistakes.
Hi passing by,
When I studied Journalism at the University of Florida, my professors hammered one point constantly, that a journalist’s first duty was to be objective, that is, remain impartial or disinterested.
I like the word disinterested, it is used in the judicial system of the USA to mean that a judge is not involved in the presentation of the case, but remains there to enforce the rules of the proceeding. In other words, the judge is impartial.
The task of a reviewer is to remain impartial and stick to what the evidence presents. It is also practiced in the scientific community, where data are analyzed and presented without prejudice.
In many ways I identify with Mr. Wan, the reviewer. He is, after all, a hired technical writer, not one of the owners of DPReview. In other words, he is an employee. And if he is smart and wants to keep his job, well, it pays to go along with what the boss espouses.
Of course, the problem occurs when the boss develops an agenda which is different than the mission of his organization. This often occurs when organizations get large and powerful. Suddenly the objectivity is replaced with agendas, with suppositions, with prejudice.
What this leads to is the abandonment of objectivity, thus the mission and purpose of the organization takes on a whole new purpose.
In my view, any website that does reviews of cameras or any product should remain disinterested in the outcome of a review. That should be their purpose, to present facts clearly and without any prejudice. Else, they become advocates for this or that, not reliable and believable custodians of the consumers best interests.
I hope very much that DPReview has not become such an organization because, frankly, right now it holds the number one spot on the Internet for information about new camera equipment that consumers are interested in knowing about. So, DPReview has a major responsibility to keep itself committed to objective reporting, to remain disinterested, and to present facts without trying to force an agenda. If DPReview keeps doing this, it will remain in its present position, if it does not, an objective and trustworthy site will replace it.
But, what bothers me are statements like this one in the opening of the review done by DPReview:
“The things we criticized the G9 for (the unneeded increase in resolution, and the slow-ish lens) have not been addressed. Instead Canon has increased the resolution for the sensor even more, to 14.7 megapixels.”
The keys words are: “have not been addressed.”
In my opinion, this sentence tells me from the very outset of the review that an agenda was there, that the following review would show prejudice, and that the review was not a review but an editorial. I find it interesting that a camera review site thinks it has enough power to force a manufacturer or a group of engineers to do what it wants. In my opinion, it smacks of arrogance.
Best regards,
Bill
Gee, what an issue this seems to be.
Bill, thanks for your time to give us an opinion on such a popular camera that seems to meet the needs of many of us.
Your comment on light and to, “look carefully at the light before I attempt to take a photograph” is spot on. I’d love a blog article on your view of light.
Guys like Darwin sure do seem to have some magical ability to see that light. Yes, he probably could take a master photo with nothing more than a crayon.
Hi Josh,
Interesting idea. I will give it some thought. Perhaps what I should do is contact some photographers I admire and ask their permission to use some of their works as examples.
In my view, one of the best landscape photographers in the world is Melanie M. Go have a look at her work here: http://www.lastinglight.smugmug.com/
Her Scotland and Lakeland galleries are stunning.
And what makes me appreciate her work is that I have been at the same place at the same time shooting with her, and other photographers from the UK, and then I look at what she found and what I found, and her stuff makes me look like a beginner.
She can see light. She is a master of light. And she has been a mentor to me for some time.
Mentoring is one aspect of photography that probably should be part of such a post, for it is through mentoring that one finds the great value in photography. It is the sharing of knowledge that is the basis of human culture.
Best regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
I think you’re correct in having identified an editorial agenda/bias/prejudice in the DPR review of the G10. Unlike some people have suggested, I don’t for a moment think that this has anything to do with advertising or anything personal having to do with Canon. But for some time now, and at every opportunity, DPR has been promoting the view that the industry’s move toward higher MP sensors is just plain wrong. And now, in the G10, we have a camera that, by DPRs own measurements, is superior to the G9 in just about every respect, including higher detail with no increase in noise, but features more megapixels than its predecessor. The logical conclusion would have to be “in this case, higher MP did not result in a deficit in image quality.” But to do so would have undercut DPR’s anti-MP crusade. So, instead, DPR chose to downrate the G10–and, make no mistake, a mere “Recommended” is damning with faint praise–the rationale being that the camera could have been so much better if Canon did what DPR said thay should do in the design of their cameras, and that for the same price you could get a low-end DSLR, with better IQ (true, but the same is true about the LX3, and people buy this type of camera because it’s smaller/lighter than a DSLR.
Thank you for speaking out, and for posting your images, whose superb quality speaks for itself.
There is one point you make that I would disagree with: the comment that shots using ISO above ISO 400 are “useless.” While I prefer to shoot at ISO80 whenever possible, it seems to me that whether a shot is useful or useless depends on what you want to do with it, and, depending on the kind of use you have in mind, shots with ISO above 400 can be quite useful. I discuss this in a posting here:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=30162197
Bob
Hi Robert,
I must refrain from using terms like “useless” when I write.
Yes, one can use the camera above ISO 400 when the need arises. I suppose my comment related directly to the type of photography I do with the camera, which requires the utmost clarity and detail. Meaning that lower ISOs are superior to higher ones when doing such shots.
I saw your post at DPReview and I was very impressed with your results. So much so that I must turn the dial to ISO 400 or more to see if I can get the superb quality you found in that range.
Best regards,
Bill
I’ve owned the G10 for a two weeks now and it is indeed a fun little camera. It was exactly as good as I expected it to be, no more, no less. I bought it for street photography and I’ve been very happy with some of the studio style portrait work I’ve done with it. It was refreshing to see your review which was much more relevant to me than the scientific style of DPreview (both of which I read only after I had bought the camera).
For some reason, in many reviews noise has been singled out as a “cure all” parameter that ultimately determines whether the camera is any good. There is a lot more to image quality of a modern high-end compact camera than just the speed of the lens, sensor size and noise. In many situations the image stabilizer and the image processor in the camera make a big difference as well.
As a side note, I’d like to point out that you can only zoom digitally while shooting a video with the G10. The resolution of the captured video drops immediately after you touch the zoom lever. It is the equivalent of zooming on the video in a video editing program. Other than this, the video mode works as expected.
Hi api,
I have never much cared for techy reviews, one can only look at so many photos of toy rabbits before one starts going mad! The real test for me has always been to just pick up the camera and shoot then look at the images when I get done.
We are at the beginning of a revolution in digital photography, what we are using today will pale in comparison to what will be available in two years.
And I suspect that more megapixels will be a big part of that as engineers improve the sensor technologies. Dark silicon holds an enormous promise, potentially providing us with cameras that are hundreds of times more sensitive.
Noise will always be a factor in small sensors, and to expect that a compact camera will match a high quality DSLR with a sensor that is 20 times larger is a false expectation.
One cannot compare apples and oranges. The two are different beasts.
What the G10 and the LX3 and DX4 do provide us is the freedom to shoot in circumstances we might not otherwise try. I think the G10 is a fabulous street camera, and I must get out and do some of that type of photography soon.
Good point on the video. Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill
Can anyone tell me the shortest fucus distance when G10 is in macromode at the tele end?
Or haw many cm. of the real world will be on the sensor then?
It looks like G10 performs very well.
Photos looks even greater, when you take them, Bill.
After reading Don Wan’s review, I was googling for his profile. And I found some interesting writing here that spell out all my feeling. Thanks Bill.
After over 2000 exposures made with the G10 and intense observation of the results, I have come to the following realization…the G10 has allowed me to gather images that I would have missed before simply because I did not carry a camera everwhere…after thirty years and 50 or more countries of photographic experience I have learned to accept and work around equipment weaknesses. My artistic results have retained.the same level of quality regardless of camera used. Bottom line, in my real world of photography the G10 is my solution for the moment as it delivers in every way that I require. The web has really changed the playing field in every way. There is a book, THE CULT OF THE AMATEUR, which will give insight into what this thread and discussion has been about. Love your work and enjoy your words Bill. Thanks for the effort. Ron
Ramus,
The G10 manual says that the focus range, from the end of the lens, is 30-50cm when in telephoto, 1-50mm when in wide.
Best regards,
Bill
Hi Ron,
I agree. We often “work around” the limitations of the gear we use. My desire for smaller and lighter equipment prompted me to first buy the G9 then the G10. I drooled over the Leica M8, but then read the reviews and looked at its shots. And the price tag was simply too high.
In my view, the power of the web lies in our totally open ability to communicate with one another across boundaries that separated us just a few short years ago.
More and more I learn from others who have had experiences I have not. I get good advice on where to go, when to go, and how to prepare for a trip. And, goodness knows, I have learned more from the web than I ever thought possible.
One thing is for sure, though, I will never claim to be an expert. I know so very little about this art form. And I hope my readers understand that I have limited knowledge. I am a shooter, nothing more.
Would love to hear more about your travels. 50 countries! I haven’t reached 25 yet!
BTW your website and your work is simply awesome.
Best regards,
Bill
Thanks Bill.
The manual should know.
Rasmus.
Hi Bill
Really appreciate both your report on the G10 and your critique of the dpr review. I agree with your assessment of the review.
To give this camera a mere “Recommended” rating seems to me to be quite unjustified, and was, I think, a very poor decision.
One can not help but to be struck by the various negative and subjective comments of the reviewer, many of which seemed to fly in the face of the actual presented data or images.
For example, the reviewer harps on the blown highlights rendered in jpeg,and he describes the highlight recovery in RAW as problematic. Yet, his supplied images show a completely white area easily recovered to show gray bricks with good detail.
He grumbles about CA, goes out of his way to demonstrate this using a 100% crop of boat taken in blazing sunlight, and then states that the CA can be corrected easily using software!
It gets worse. In another example of CA, he excuses the LX3 of image softening because its CA is being corrected in camera:
“The LX3 is noticeably better in dealing with CA than the G10. The LX3 is performing lens correction (for CA and possibly distortion), this more than the difference in resolution and sharpening makes this part of the image look softer in the LX3 crop.
If the LX3 had not existed, and the G10 was only compared to the Nikon P6000 then we would be happy to say that it was an improvement over the G9, and that it produced great detail and noise for a compact. But with the LX3, Panasonic has shown that it is possible to do better with a small sensor compact. What could Canon have achieved had they taken are more conservative approach to sensor resolution? If only we could take a LX3 sensor and put it in a G10 body.”
So, the G10 CA is inexcusable, and due to an unconservative approach to sensor resolution, while the LX3 CA is merely corrected in camera which excuses any softening of the image. Double standard, anyone?
One can not come away from the dpr review without the impression that the G10 is so noisy that even at base ISO skies need noise correction, and that detail blurring is a large problem (even though the LX3’s detail-blurring noise reduction system was not important enough to downgrade it below the highest rating).
All from a camera that delivers the highest resolution and image quality ever seen in a compact. Dr Freud, call your office!
Best regards,
Gingerbaker
Hi Gingerbaker,
Well, what can I say? All I know is that I pick up the G10, go for a walk, take a few shots, come home process the best shot, post it at a well known forum, and walla it gets picked as Photo of the Week.
All done with a camera slammed by DPReview.
Gotta get out tomorrow and do some more shots. Course, it will be difficult to do in the “real world.”
Best regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
Thanks for a great review on the G10. Your photos of Slovenia and Scotland are beautiful! I shoot mainly in jpegs. Other than the obvious advantage of shooting raw, can shooting jpegs be a limitation to the capabilities of the G10? I mean, can images be as stunning as you’ve shown them to be?
regards,
Oliver
Hi Oliver,
I prefer to shoot in RAW and post process using the Adobe DNG converter, the Adobe Camera RAW (ACR), the Photoshop.
However, the one shot that I am most proud of, “Dancing Light at Loch Leven” was shot in JPEG only.
So, it depends on how you intend to use the images. RAW provides much greater capabilities post processing with substantially more data to work with.
Best regards,
Bill
Having already owned Canon Digital rebel; Canon 10D and Canon 30D I bought the Canon G9 because I was blown away with the results I saw others get with this compact. Several thousand shots later, my 30D is almost redundant, along with the lenses flash etc I carted around with it. Put simply, I got better results with the G9 and its accessories.
A wider angled lens, and a superior button set up are the “first sight” appeals to me along with increased MP. However, once bought and tested, the ease of use is highlighted. So in my eyes after just a few days of ownership the G10 is even better.
OK, so the 30D will resume it’s function from time to time for action shots. But for me, the G10 is the tool for landscape; macro and travel shots in urban or rural areas. Noise is not an issue. I shoot 15 sec exposure night shots and any noise I do get is easilly cleaned up.
I have to question bad reviews. Indeed I often wonder why I bother to read at all. Certainly, I have nothing but praise for G9 and G10 compacts.
Hi Bill,
I am considering gifting a G10 to my wife; we have ayoung child and do not have the luxury of toting a suitcase full of equipment (she has a Pentax K1000 with a couple of lenses, including a 28-200mm one). She likes to take pictures of landscapes, street photography, and likes to compose shots with porttraits or still objects (we get too excited when something moves (sports etc…) and forget to take pictures anyways). I forgot birds and butterlies. We also live on a lake, and there’s lots of wildlife (eagles, sparrows, otters…).
I know the G10 is not the ideal camera; a D40 or equivalent would be. I also know a “big” camera with lenses would stay home 90% of the time. Would she enjoy the G10 for the above mentioned shots?
Bill, I have one more question; I watched a youtube video of the G10, and Canon has a “safe zoom” that can provide 20x optical zoomat the lowest possible resolution. Have you ever tried this, just for the heck of it?
Love your G10 shots
Hi Roland,
You wife will love the G10 for most of the shots you have mentioned. Maybe not for eagles, although when in Alaska this year I got some great shots of bald eagles with my Canon G9, course I was close, about six feet or so. But, generally, it is not a wildlife camera, the lens is not long enough at 140mm.
But for family stuff, yes, it is perfect. Especially if one uses a tripod or is working on still subjects. You will be blown away by the quality of the images if you can stay below ISO 200.
I have not tried the safe zoom, and frankly I know I would be disappointed. What works is to just keep the G10 at its widest setting when doing video. And frankly the video is simply wonderful. I am disappointed in no HD video, Canon should have done that. But if you can live with 640X480 (good on most TVs) then you will love the video output. And BTW, it is perfect of YouTube.
And just for the heck of it, I may go out now and give the safe zoom a try.
Best regards,
Bill
Hi Dave,
Your experience is mine. Both the G9 and the G10 produce astonishing images for a compact camera. So much so that it is difficult for me to justify finding anything better. As the technology advances though, we can only look forward to what the Canon engineers will provide us in the next two years. Gosh I can’t wait to test the G11!
Best regards,
Bill
I done did it Bill, or sould I say I did done it!!!
When I make an expensive present to my wife, I usually get butterflies in my stomach; I’m always afraid that she’s gonna get mad at me. Well, not tonight, no butterflies looming around in me belly! I really think she’s going to love this (I really hope).
I picked up a G10 tonight for her X-Mas present. I took advantage of a great offer at a local store (Best Buy in USA matched the $399 Circuit City price which is out of stock). If you’ve been thinking about the G10 and you live in the US, it’s the best price I could find- web, brick and mortar or other.
Bill, I want to thank you for your user review; long term user reviews matter to me a lot more than “pro” reviewers who behave like film and book critics (if they don’t find something wrong, they’re not doing their jobs). BTW, Don Wan’s review confused the heck out of me (it seemed that he really liked the camera, but that his editor told him to not give Canon a free plug, so he nitpicked).
Also, your pics from the G10 are what sold me. I had seen Michael Reichmann (Luminous landscpe pics) and Ken Rockwell’s (great desert pics), but your portrait of the Scotsman is what sold the camera for me (I really love that picture). I will have my wife, Julia, upload her work; she’s brilliant too.
Thank you again, you really helped me make a decision.
One more thing Bill, and then I’ll leave you alone. We are from Florida, between Orlando and Daytona Beach. If you ever hold some kind of a “G10″ in the area, we will come.
Roland,
Gosh, if she doesn’t like it you can always blame me!
And your idea of a seminar sounds interesting. Would love to get Darwin Wiggett to fly down for a day or two.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill i firmly agree with you about dpr. I have voiced my opinion on their message boards and then get trounced because “i slammed them on their review”. I work in a commercial photo lab and make large prints for a living. I have taken G10 images up to 20×30 and they look beautiful,at low iso easily matching canon or nikon entry level slrs with kit lenses. And when i’m hiking in the mountains enjoying the scenery with my G10 i’ll look over at the guy with 40 pounds of gear trying not to have a heart attack carrying that stuff. Thats what it’s all about. All the high end gear in the world won’t take a good picture if your not enjoying yourself.I think thats what Darwin Wiggett found out to and why he loves his G9.
Jim
Hi Jim,
WOW! 20×30 prints! Fantastic. I need to send you some shots to see what you can do with them in your lab.
Don’t be concerned about DPR. There are too many others out there whose experiences with this camera are flooding the net. You can’t keep a good piece of equipment down in such circumstances. Quality always goes to the top.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill, nice website, love your photo’s.
I have a Nikon D200 and a swag of expensive glass (incl. the awesome 17-55 f2.8); its a fantastic camera, I love it. But its all so darned heavy and bulky that I find myself not taking photos simply because I dont want to hump it.
I bought a G10 a week ago; I wanted something that I would carry more often and thus take pictures when I might otherwise not have brought the D200. We have a basic Canon P&S but its not the same.
I have to tell you, I think the G10 is a fantastic camera. I can live with shooting in the less than 400 iso range. The image quality is just amazing for such a small camera.
I prefer to read a camera review from a photographer, someone like yourself, not a tech-weenie over at DPReview. I bought my camera to take pictures of the real world, not a grey card pinned to the wall.
Thanks for the website
Dave
Hi Dave,
I am glad you are enjoying the G10. Lugging heavy equipment over difficult terrain is always a problem. Knowing that I can shoot with confidence and not worry has been the best part of buying the G10. In today’s world of choices, it is the best of the cameras available in my opinion.
Keep shooting.
Best regards,
Bill
Not wanting to be contrary, but I guess any review is, to some degree (excluding empirical data), the view of the reviewer. I checked out Don Wan’s website http://www.zhenphotography.com/ and he is indeed a photographer. I am not going to critique his work.
I think the point is that we develop trust for particular reviewers because their approach or method or judgment is a known quantity (example – movie reviews!!) Hence, reviews from you and Michael Reichmann and others carry more weight than Don’s – maybe he will get better.
FWIW, I have a G3, now almost an antique, but it was a gem in it’s day.
Hi Greg,
Don Wan is a technical writer for DPReview. At the time when the review of the g10 was published, DPReview did not have a bio of him published on the DPReview website, thus I knew nothing about him or his work.
I suspect that Mr. Wan did the technical part of the review. But, I suspect that the conclusions and overall rating of the G10 by DPReview was done by it editors.
My biggest issue with the review was not with Mr. Wan, but with rating the G10 on value less than the LX3, when the prices are nearly identical, and slamming the G10 image quality when the review specifically stated “at base ISO and in high contrast conditions, the G10 can produce detail and resolution that is astounding (better than some DSLRs).” How can one then slam the camera’s image quality? “Astounding,” is a pretty good endorsement I think.
Yet, I must state again, I am no expert. Doing camera reviews is not my business. I receive no compensation for doing reviews. I buy what I review personally.
My reviews are based on my field experience and I like to pass on to others what that experience is like and how well the camera works under different circumstances. Thus, my reviews are not technical, I don’t take shots of stuffed animals.
I suspect Mr. Wan did a decent job on the technical side of the review, but from there DPReview editors made certain that the camera review slammed Canon because DPReview has its own agenda, one which I think steps outside what a review is about.
In today’s world, we have an opportunity to share with one another what our experiences are simply because the Internet provides us with a very powerful tool for communication and information. The days are gone when a magazine or newspaper dominated public opinion. And, increasingly, well-known websites that may offer reviews or opinions about equipment, are finding out quickly that others like myself have the ability to take exception to their findings and publish our own opinions.
That fact, in itself, is the real message.
Best regards,
Bill
Here’s an interesting article that seems to invalidate dpreview obsessive concern about lots of pixels on small sensors:
http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/canon_powershot_g_evolution/
What’s really cool is they were able to find a sample of every G camera Canon made.
It seems the smaller pixels make the noise less obtrusive. I’ve learned to take dpreview’s reviews with a grain of salt. The results I’m getting with the G10 are the best I’ve obtained from a small camera. It’s with me just about always.