New Canon G10

New Canon G10

A link to the G10...

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=17624

It just came out last week and I was able to find one in the area. Just in case you were curious about it I took some sample pics in low light which seems to be everyone's main concern right now. These have not been through PP or anything. This is straight out of the camera.

I was at f3.5 and the shutter speed varied. I was also on a tripod

3200 ISO feature: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0135_3200.jpg
1600 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0136_1600.jpg
800 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0137_800.jpg
400 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0138_400.jpg
200 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0139_200.jpg
100 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0140_100.jpg
80 ISO: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/dacubanskillz/G10/IMG_0141_80.jpg

Damn, everything looks good at 80....

apparently, someone in another forum thinks it has a considerable amount of noise compared to his L. I barely shoot lowlight with a point and shoot so it doesn't bother me. But regular pictures are outstanding, IMO.

I just can't wait til lightroom and Photohop get the ACR file for the G10 cause right now its RAW files aren't supported in either. I have to use the crappy software that came with the camera.

Yeah, there seems to be a bit more noise in the higher ISO - but that is to be expected. Still see a little bit of noise at ISO 200 and maybe a hint at ISO 100 - but fairly good overall. For a compact P&S - that is hard to beat. Newer generation image processor and better optical IS - decently sized LCD, huge image sensor - I'd say 90% of the people that pick that up will be thrilled by the results.

For low light - still can't beat film cameras anyways - so I'm not 100% sure what the big deal is anyways. To get ultra low noise in CCDs (scientific grade cameras) - you are looking at $$$$$ - not the right market for a consumer or pro-sumer level cameras.

For low light - still can't beat film cameras anyways - so I'm not 100% sure what the big deal is anyways. To get ultra low noise in CCDs (scientific grade cameras) - you are looking at $$$$$ - not the right market for a consumer or pro-sumer level cameras.

from the D300 D700 D3 D90, XSi 40D 5D 1D and newer models...
that's really not true...

CMOS technology is really must better now than film, shit....
I made a whole shot @ iso1600 and boss was telling me if I was using ISO400 to shoot at night, (iso 400 film the one he uses for general purpose NPH400 pro)

and I told him no.

The greatest problem with ccd or cmos tech on lowerend cameras (well really compacts in general) it's the small sensor, and the pixel density it causes...

smaller pixels means less lights hits it, and becomes super saturated (purple fringing) with too much light, or not enough light (noise in shadowy areas)

but nikon and canon are improving every where and in-chip (ccd or cmos) noise correction, noise algorhythms in the imaging chip (dig!c or Expeed) etc etc etc.


shot @ iso1600, with a XSi & 55-250 IS lens

I think I've talked long enough xD

as much as I love canon, the G10 didn't do it for me. I had fun with the G series until G6. But the elph series cameras are now pretty darn good for a compact camera that i've transitioned to those and for all the good pictures, all about SLR. I really really want the 5D Mark II but i will settle for the 50D. <---*hint*hint* in case anyone wants to buy me a xmas gift this year. LOL

nice 1

Actually I don't quite agree here.....

I bought my D300 because of it's great low light/high iso settings.... but really the technologly just allows the photo to be blurred... instead of the finer details coming through with graininess, the D300 (and like cameras) use a blurring function built into the camera.

In the photo you showed.... if you were to look at it at 100%, then best guess is that the strings, the music, etc (finer details) are all blurred together. For all practical purposes, if you had the optimal F stop and a low Iso (like 50 or 100) and a longer exposure, then looked at it 100%, you'll see the finer details.

That being said, I really love the D300... we also have a D40x and a D80 and they just don't compare. However, the performance of any DSLR is really up to the user's capabilities.

If you look through Ken Rockwells page you'll find exactly what I'm talking about (on a short break at work and don't have time to find it).

There was talk about the G11 coming out. They're trying to address the low light issue with the G10. but they are lowering the MP. I forgot if it was going to 10 or 12MP. its been a month or more since I read that article.

old thread is old, and no they weren't stuck together, they WERE playing and they are a bit blurred when they moved.... nothing more after that

and it's not a blurring action, it's noise reduction the problem with nikons it's that it hits chroma and luminance noise with the same force, hence slightly blurry pictures... now canon doesn't hit luminance as hard but treats chroma noise the same as nikon, which... means less noise correction but it preserves some details better

Yeah but anything you PIXEL PEEP will come out in less-than-expected-quality than if you were to look at the picture at a normal zoom like everyone else.

FYI, Ken Rockwell isn't that credible with a vast amount of photography forum members.

he mentioned the guy that reviews cameras without owning them? LOL...