MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Extensive Review for Canon Powershot G10  (Read 15783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 03, 2008, 12:55 »
0
... as a little backup p&s camera to carry everywhere and be unobtrusive, I'm tempted by the G10.

Read this review on Luminous Landscape, where it was put head-to-head with a $40'000 Hassy.

If you've already got a G10, sounds like you've got yourself a bargain.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 12:56 by Bateleur »



« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2008, 13:43 »
0
interesting write up.. thanks for the link

grp_photo

« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2008, 07:43 »
0
Review of the G10 is now online:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/

Very noisy AND very expensive for what it does. I you want a handy camera i would recommend you the Olympus E420 with the Pancake (about the same price and still DSLR-Quality)

« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2008, 07:45 »
0
Dpreview has just released it's extensive review of the Canon Powershot G10.. and by extensive they mean it.  Very thorough and a nice look at the camera.

[Dpreview.com]

edit:.. daaah.. you beat me to it :)
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 07:50 by leaf »

« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2008, 05:09 »
0
It seems that Panasonic DMC-LX3 might be a better alternative.

« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2008, 05:26 »
0
yes the DMC-LX3 looks good too bad the zoom is not so powerful.....
A second hand G9 on E-bay would be a cheap alternative I guess  ;D

« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2008, 12:37 »
0
Tom Hogan has an extensive comparison of the LX3, G10 and p6000 and the G10 comes off as the best by a slim margin over the LX3. http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm

I picked up a G10 recently and I really like it so far...


« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2008, 16:25 »
0
Of those of you who own a G10 do you have any problems getting images accepted? I want to buy my daughter a camera and would like to know if I could use it the odd time.

Peter



AVAVA

« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2008, 17:00 »
0
Hi Zeus,

 I just had this conversation with some Stock shooters last week. They say the noise levels for Macro RF or RM will not pass but they like to use it for individual elements ( that will be used as a piece of another photo ) and also for full frame backgrounds they blur when making images in the computer ( blur taking care of the noise and artifacts ). They felt for that use it was great because it was easy to always keep with them but they would not use it for submitting an entire image from one file to Getty or Corbis at 48 mgs. Micro I imagine would take it up to a certain size but I can't offer any advice on that as each agency seems to have it's own technical specs.
 
Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2008, 17:19 »
0
Of those of you who own a G10 do you have any problems getting images accepted? I want to buy my daughter a camera and would like to know if I could use it the odd time.

Peter

Peter, this would be a great camera for your daughter to learn photography with.

For yourself: Use RAW at all times with lowest ISO to help control noise and CA's I have hundreds of images accepted with the G6 and G9 and I will now buy the G10. All of my equipment is Canon DSLR's and with "L" lenses and the G10 is no match for them. So why own one? Simple, I always have a camera with me and if I have a planned shoot it is the DSLR's that get the job. How many times have you said "I wish I had my camera now?"  I never say that anymore as I do not leave home without it. (Any camera is better than no camera.)

Noise and CA problems for ANY camera can Be greatly reduced with proper exposure, lowest ISO and RAW. Then reduce th size of the image to about 2000 pixels on the short side.

Hope this helps!

-Larry

« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2008, 11:28 »
0
Thanks guys, that does help a lot. Here's my protege at work at this weekend shoot.


« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2008, 23:54 »
0
I've just got a G10 this Saturday and tested it yesterday.
For it's size it takes pretty good pictures.



Here you can see a full res 7Mb file saved with quality 12:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cool-photos/3093655660/sizes/o/

ISO 80, RAW  -> JPG. Zero noise reduction, zero sharpening.

« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2008, 07:18 »
0
thanks for the image.

the noise in the sky would probably be too much for microstock, but if one were to bring the image down to 6mp I would think the sharpness and noise would be pretty much under control.

« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2008, 15:50 »
0
I've just got a G10 this Saturday and tested it yesterday.
For it's size it takes pretty good pictures.



Here you can see a full res 7Mb file saved with quality 12:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cool-photos/3093655660/sizes/o/

ISO 80, RAW  -> JPG. Zero noise reduction, zero sharpening.


First class example! You are properly exposed (with flash fill from the camera) while the background is way under exposed and noisy. If someone views your image at each of the available sizes from your link, you can quickly see what happens when the original file is made smaller.

Just for fun, re post the shot with the image size on the short side at 2000 pixels and from there it would require very little processing to sell it. In fact try selling the "Photographer in the alley" shot and see if you actually can. I vote yes!

-Larry

« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2008, 16:45 »
0
Well, first - it's not me in the picture :-)

This sample has zero noise reduction.
After I run Noise Ninja on it the background is good enough for microstocks, so I am pretty sure I will be selling it without downsizing (except Shutterstock.
I did not post the noise edited version for the sake of fair representation of G10. Perhaps I should post it for comparison.

« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2008, 17:58 »
0
Well, first - it's not me in the picture :-)

This sample has zero noise reduction.
After I run Noise Ninja on it the background is good enough for microstocks, so I am pretty sure I will be selling it without downsizing (except Shutterstock.
I did not post the noise edited version for the sake of fair representation of G10. Perhaps I should post it for comparison.

I for one would like to see the finished version @ full size.

Good work.

-Larry

RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2008, 00:35 »
0
I've just got a G10 this Saturday and tested it yesterday.
For it's size it takes pretty good pictures.



Here you can see a full res 7Mb file saved with quality 12:

ISO 80, RAW  -> JPG. Zero noise reduction, zero sharpening.


I always wonder if the 80 ISO is real or software? If it's software, might as well be shooting at 100 ISO for better pictures.

Your watch is 10 minutes fast or the camera is 10 minutes slow? I can't see why people are complaining, it's plenty sharp. Noise depends on the subject and exposure. Lets be real, this shot has fill flash, natural light, dark areas, and a back lit sky. It's 100% There's bound to be something that's not perfect. It's a nice little camera. Sky has noise, shadows have noise. It's asking for an awful large amount of latitude for a pocket camera.

I'd say the test I'd like to see is one shot with a G10, side by side with the same shot taken with a 10D. I suspect the 10D would win.  :)

Good entry level camera, just below a DSLR for control, way ahead of a P&S. Simplicity, slightly over "pocket" size but manageable.


[quote = Zeus] Of those of you who own a G10 do you have any problems getting images accepted? I want to buy my daughter a camera and would like to know if I could use it the odd time.[/quote]

I have G6 photos accepted micro, shot ISO 50. 10D photos accepted at micro and Alamy. Others with the G10 have had them accepted on many sites, including Alamy, with their 48mp size requirement. Heck I have Canon  A400 3mp photos accepted at micro sites, the G10 should be much better.

When you, edit, adjust and reduce the image to micro requirements, to compress the pixels, it should pass fine. Real manual settings, RAW, plus size should make it an excellent entry level camera for someone starting out and learning. Wired remote is an option I like.

1.7 15mp pixel packed sensor. I wouldn't expect it to be as good as anything with a larger sensor, even with less less resolution.

DMC-LX3 looks like a very nice camera too. 1.6 10mp sensor, no optical viewfinder, however sleeker design. G10 has more control options available, but I can never tell if someone would need most of them.

B&H prices, G10 = $419 /  DMC-LX3 = $419

Both very similar cameras at identical prices.

I'm still happy with the G6 but I wouldn't mind moving up to a G10.

AVAVA

« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2008, 12:36 »
0
Try over exposing the ambient light and turn down your strobe. That will take care of your noise. Then post process the raw to give you the mood you want, noise is now gone. Expose for the shadows develop for the highlights.

AVAVA
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 13:01 by AVAVA »

« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2008, 13:37 »
0

[/quote]



I have G6 photos accepted micro, shot ISO 50. 10D photos accepted at micro and Alamy. Others with the G10 have had them accepted on many sites, including Alamy, with their 48mp size requirement. Heck I have Canon  A400 3mp photos accepted at micro sites, the G10 should be much better.

When you, edit, adjust and reduce the image to micro requirements, to compress the pixels, it should pass fine. Real manual settings, RAW, plus size should make it an excellent entry level camera for someone starting out and learning. Wired remote is an option I like.

1.7 15mp pixel packed sensor. I wouldn't expect it to be as good as anything with a larger sensor, even with less less resolution.

DMC-LX3 looks like a very nice camera too. 1.6 10mp sensor, no optical viewfinder, however sleeker design. G10 has more control options available, but I can never tell if someone would need most of them.

B&H prices, G10 = $419 /  DMC-LX3 = $419

Both very similar cameras at identical prices.

I'm still happy with the G6 but I wouldn't mind moving up to a G10.

[/quote]

Thanks for the additional info. I have a G7 which only shoots jpgs. I should try and see if it works with the micros. I got two sales in the past couple of days on Alamy shot on the G7 so it works there.

Pete

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2008, 17:06 »
0

Thanks for the additional info. I have a G7 which only shoots jpgs. I should try and see if it works with the micros. I got two sales in the past couple of days on Alamy shot on the G7 so it works there.

Pete

Amazing. I wouldn't submit anything to Alamy from the G10 if I had one, getting something from a G7 accepted is interesting.

When I said I have photos from the A400 3mp camera on micros, there's an obvious point. None of the sites that require something larger than 3 mp shots.  ;D Just pointing out that a $99, outdated pocket P&S, shooting JPGs, with not so good resolution and minimal features, plus a small 1/3.2 " sensor, can get accepted on micro sites, if the photo has good lighting and good exposure. Shot at ISO 50.


« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2008, 17:20 »
0
Quote
Amazing. I wouldn't submit anything to Alamy from the G10 if I had one, getting something from a G7 accepted is interesting.

I also have a 10MP G7 and occasionally submit photos from this camera which are accepted on all sites. I use the manual setting mode to keep everything from getting overexposed.

« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2008, 17:28 »
0

Thanks for the additional info. I have a G7 which only shoots jpgs. I should try and see if it works with the micros. I got two sales in the past couple of days on Alamy shot on the G7 so it works there.

Pete

Amazing. I wouldn't submit anything to Alamy from the G10 if I had one, getting something from a G7 accepted is interesting.

When I said I have photos from the A400 3mp camera on micros, there's an obvious point. None of the sites that require something larger than 3 mp shots.  ;D Just pointing out that a $99, outdated pocket P&S, shooting JPGs, with not so good resolution and minimal features, plus a small 1/3.2 " sensor, can get accepted on micro sites, if the photo has good lighting and good exposure. Shot at ISO 50.



The world outside of micros has lived with upresing for a long time. It was established that a 50 MB 8 bit file was the best size to offer clients. So everyone upsized to this standard. Only certain cameras are acceptable for this.  Micros think this is taboo and I guess it is, if it is done wrong. Even though I read the fine print I initially submitted to micros upresing to 50MB because that's how my workflow works. I was accepted to iStock using this technique and submitted quite a few images upsized. I've since changed things around since it's easier to submit smaller files. All this will change when I retire my trusty 1Ds for the 5DII.  But don't think because micros don't technically allow upsizing that it can't be done with good results.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5833 Views
Last post October 10, 2008, 21:07
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
5852 Views
Last post August 20, 2009, 05:37
by MicrostockExp
2 Replies
3672 Views
Last post March 18, 2011, 17:51
by helix7
24 Replies
9541 Views
Last post February 08, 2012, 02:47
by sharpshot
2 Replies
3722 Views
Last post January 31, 2012, 03:37
by alyssaly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle