Here are some full size sample images from canon.com:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2008/PS_G10/sampleimg/sampleimg_2.jpg

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2008/PS_G10/sampleimg/sampleimg_3.jpg

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2008/PS_G10/sampleimg/sampleimg_1.jpg

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)

It seems that Panasonic DMC-LX3 might be a better alternative.

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...

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

Thanks guys, that does help a lot. Here's my protege at work at this weekend shoot.

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.

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'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.

[/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

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.