Canon G11

[mountainhouse]

Have to wait for the reviews, but this looks VERY interesting!

 

Link to Canon G11

[pierces]

Have to wait for the reviews, but this looks VERY interesting!

 

Link to Canon G11

 

Look at the S90.

 

Interesting pocket camera,

 

 

Dave

[Bodger]

First, let me qualify this by saying I am not a Canon user or a Canon fan.

 

According to Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com) with whom I sometimes agree, the G11 is a downgrade from the G10. (Is this a new direction from Canon, bringing out new cameras that are downgrades from the previous product, like the follow on to the SD880)?

 

Rockwell is also touting the S90. He has been using a pre-production unit and is very high on it, recommending it over the G10 and suggesting that folks get their orders in now for October delivery.

 

Bodger

[pierces]

" the G11 is a downgrade from the G10..."

 

My own disclaimer: I am a Sony/Minolta shooter, but have a long, happy relationship with my little Canon SD800 compact.

 

 

One of the reasons the first blush reviews of the G11 are panicking that it's a "downgrade" it that the CCD sensor is a new high-sensitivity 10MP instead of the somewhat noisy 14.7MP in the G10 (same size sensors). Canon has finally come to it's senses and jumped off the megapixel race. They have found that 10 million clean, quality pixels are better than 15 million of them noisily fighting each other for that scrap of light hitting the tiny sensors in compact cameras.

 

Sony has done the same with their new 10MP TX1 and WX1 compacts that use their own high-sensitivity back-lit CMOS sensor technology. 10MP seems to be a good compromise between resolution and noise with the latest sensor tech.

 

I have a feeling that when the full reviews hit the web, the improvement in image quality, especially at higher ISO, will settle a lot of concerns about the camera.

 

I just checked something and found that the S90 that Mr. Rockwell (and myself, for that matter) is so ga-ga over uses the same sensor as the "downgraded" G11....?

 

Perception is everything! :D

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[mountainhouse]

Canon has finally come to it's senses and jumped off the megapixel race. They have found that 10 million clean, quality pixels are better than 15 million of them noisily fighting each other for that scrap of light hitting the tiny sensors in compact cameras.

 

I think these companies should have seen the opportunities with the success of the Fuji F31. I guess it took the Panasonic LX3 to make it clear to them... which I noticed yesterday is still backordered on B&H.

 

Yes! The S90 is very interesting also. I really hope the test results are good. If they are, I might go with the G11, so I can use my Canon flash.

[donaldsc]

Look at the S90.

 

Interesting pocket camera,

 

 

Dave

 

The S90 does not have an OVF. For me, that removes it from any consideration as a camera.

 

DON

[pierces]

The S90 does not have an OVF. For me, that removes it from any consideration as a camera.

 

DON

 

I guess you will never own a video camera...? ;)

 

Seriously, I would rather have a bright, clear LCD on a compact than the distorted hotel-door-peephole like the one on my SD800! This is especially true if you're going to clamp it into a housing and take it underwater. An OVF is critical for action or studied composition, but I use a DSLR for that, not my 24x7 pocket camera.

 

Just my 2¢...YMMV!

 

Dave

[donaldsc]

I guess you will never own a video camera...? ;)

 

Seriously, I would rather have a bright, clear LCD on a compact than the distorted hotel-door-peephole like the one on my SD800! This is especially true if you're going to clamp it into a housing and take it underwater. An OVF is critical for action or studied composition, but I use a DSLR for that, not my 24x7 pocket camera.

 

Just my 2¢...YMMV!

 

Dave

 

I guess that I should have said "eye level viewfinder" as I would accept a GOOD electronic viewfinder. The problem with the non-electronic eye level viewfinders is that none of them are very accurate and none of them have the bright frames that used to be standard on film cameras for years - mainly because buyers have never used a camera with a good eye level viewfinder and have been convinced that holding your camera at arm's length is the best way to see what you are taking and also the best way of holding the camera steady for longish exposures. The fact that it is difficult to hold a camera steady if it is at the end of a long lever arm does not seem to have occurred to them.

 

Cameras such as the G11 are capable of taking high quality pictures and IMHO, the best way to compose a picture is through an eye level viewfinder, not by using a LCD.

 

Just my 3 cents worth but then again, I am bit of a luddite.

 

DON

[mountainhouse]

Just my 3 cents worth but then again, I am bit of a luddite.

DON

I still have my old Yashica 44. Unfortunately, 127 film is hard to come by. It was my first real camera. I really liked composing photos at 2 feet from the screen. I feel I compose differently than with an eye level viewfinder. So for me, the eye level viewfinder is newer. Who's the Luddite? :D

 

Also, I'm hoping these new hi-res lcds are a little easier to see in the sun. Wait and see I guess.

[cruise47]

I own a Nikon D40 and it does take great pictures.

[pierces]

I guess that I should have said "eye level viewfinder" as I would accept a GOOD electronic viewfinder. The problem with the non-electronic eye level viewfinders is that none of them are very accurate and none of them have the bright frames that used to be standard on film cameras for years - mainly because buyers have never used a camera with a good eye level viewfinder and have been convinced that holding your camera at arm's length is the best way to see what you are taking and also the best way of holding the camera steady for longish exposures. The fact that it is difficult to hold a camera steady if it is at the end of a long lever arm does not seem to have occurred to them.

 

Cameras such as the G11 are capable of taking high quality pictures and IMHO, the best way to compose a picture is through an eye level viewfinder, not by using a LCD.

 

Just my 3 cents worth but then again, I am bit of a luddite.

 

DON

 

People don't miss what they've never had!

 

I will agree that a good OVF is both a blessing and rare. They have never been great on compacts, but the entry level DSLRs are sometimes a shock to someone who's owned a film SLR. The current crop of entry-level DSLRs don't match the brightness and coverage of the old film SLRs because manufacturers have replaced the solid glass penta-prism viewfinder with a penta-mirror setup to save weight and cost in almost all of the entry-level and even some mid-level DSLRs. The extra surfaces in the arrangement eat up a lot of light. The entire mechanism is also fed by a mirror that is ½ the size of the one in film SLRs (or full-frame DSLRs). Add the fact that a kit lens with an f/4 maximum aperture only passes ¼ the light that even a cheap f/2 50MM standard lens does and you end up feeling that you're composing through an empty toilet paper roll.

 

One of the many reasons that I chose My Minolta 7D and later, the Sony A700, is that they both have a glass penta-prism and a very bright viewfinder with good magnification. Though light-years ahead of the entry-level cameras, they still don't match up to my old Maxxum 7i film camera. In a fit of daring, I stopped at a camera store the other day and played with the full-frame A900 with it's 100% viewfinder. Big mistake! I've started skipped meals to save for it. What a view!

 

I guess we will just have to agree on the optical viewfinder's advantages, but you may never buy into my willingness to sacrifice it on a good compact. :)

 

As an aside, unless it is in good light, I seldom compose with the LCD at arm's length. Pulling one's arms in close or leaning against a tree, fence or wall are still good ideas no matter what you're shooting. I think we both agree that with either OVF or LCD, holding the camera steady makes for a better shot!

 

We're up to a nickel now...

 

Happy shooting!

 

 

Dave

[donaldsc]

 

One of the many reasons that I chose My Minolta 7D and later, the Sony A700, is that they both have a glass penta-prism and a very bright viewfinder with good magnification. Though light-years ahead of the entry-level cameras, they still don't match up to my old Maxxum 7i film camera. In a fit of daring, I stopped at a camera store the other day and played with the full-frame A900 with it's 100% viewfinder. Big mistake! I've started skipped meals to save for it. What a view!

 

 

 

We're up to a nickel now...

 

Happy shooting!

 

 

Dave

 

Aside from the fact that my wife would kill me if I bought the full frame dSLR that I would really like to get, what would I do with the expensive less than full frame lenses that I own? You are going to save on a lot of lunches to by the A900.

 

BTW, I do find it interesting that people are making all sorts of comments, both positive and negative, on a G11 that they will not even be able to try until October.

 

Can we call that "review by guesses".

 

I will match your nickle and raise you to a dime.

 

DON

[pierces]

Aside from the fact that my wife would kill me if I bought the full frame dSLR that I would really like to get, what would I do with the expensive less than full frame lenses that I own? You are going to save on a lot of lunches to by the A900.

 

BTW, I do find it interesting that people are making all sorts of comments, both positive and negative, on a G11 that they will not even be able to try until October.

 

Can we call that "review by guesses".

 

I will match your nickle and raise you to a dime.

 

DON

 

Review by guess...? How many movies have you gone to after reading the review and wondered if the critic ever went to see it? I often wonder if the members that vote for the Oscars even bother to watch the crap films that usually win.

 

The A900 is only about $2600 now and the new A850 full-frame (a little slower FPS with a 98% viewfinder instead of 100%) will likely be right at the $2000 mark. I'll lose some weight saving up, but I think it's reachable.

 

The only DT lens I have is my 11-18 ultra-wide. All the rest from the 17-35 to the 70-200 are full-frame lenses. I gambled that full-frame technology would drop from the stratosphere when when I bought lenses, and it looked like it has paid off.

 

I'll probably go for the new 70-400 zoom before I get another camera. It has been reviewing as the best in it's class and I need a good wildlife lens.

 

I need to get a cheaper hobby....

 

17¢...

 

 

Dave