Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Good idea. Love to see yoursI find it really weird that nobody seems to be buying/posting/using the G11 and the S90. What gives?
I'm strongly biased against the software dependency this leads to. Software based distortion correction locks you in to the manufacturer's software, much more so than a new raw format (like Nikon's P6000 NRF format, also a bad idea) does. In the end, only the few large software houses like Adobe can afford to rapidly bring out codecs for cameras that require software distortion correction. Smaller software makers won't be able to keep up. I do not think such a product should be promoted.@ Lars: the supplied software, DPP, corrects the WA distortion with a single click; I posted an example somewhere else here. Really impressive, IMHO, and this hardware–software interaction is the way we are moving, I feel. Honestly, I have some excellent and expensive lenses, but if we are talking high-end P&S, I think the partial software solution is sensible, if it gives the results.
Lars,I'm strongly biased against the software dependency this leads to. Software based distortion correction locks you in to the manufacturer's software, much more so than a new raw format (like Nikon's P6000 NRF format, also a bad idea) does. In the end, only the few large software houses like Adobe can afford to rapidly bring out codecs for cameras that require software distortion correction. Smaller software makers won't be able to keep up. I do not think such a product should be promoted.
This is a way for the camera manufacturer to save tons of money on the hardware construction. I can only dream of the profit margins on the S90 - likely much, much higher than on the G11.
perhaps I'm missing something, but what about tools like PT Lens?I'm strongly biased against the software dependency this leads to. Software based distortion correction locks you in to the manufacturer's software,
Each to one's own of course. At $500 these cameras are among the most expensive compacts today, so I wouldn't call them cheap toys. And yes, final IQ is the bottom line. I'm just still in the habit of preferring to pay more for a better lens. Slightly irrational perhaps.I get your position totally Lars, but honestly feel the rules are different for these cheap cameras (what, $499 USD?). That makes it a toy in my book, and all I am interested in is the final IQ. As an aside, there is a certain intelligence in doing in software what real mechanical and optical precision otherwise would be needed that is attractive in its own right for these low-end devices.
The dp1 is metall but thats about it regarding better feel IMO.finally had a chance to handle both at best buy. what struck me was the cheap construction. the g11 nowhere near as well-built as the g5 or dp1. of the two the g11 obviously offers the most. but it's very plastic. i don't know if you can set buttons like the ricoh or dp1. the dials certainly could not be seen under dark conditions. the viewfinder small and not full framed. still, as a journalistic backup, i'd get it for the speed. the s90 didn't seem worthy of consideration, not at 400 dollars.
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp
The viewfinder of the g11 is a tiny tunnel, but I find it better than nothing. I would check it out before buying the camera and see if it works for you.Two more weeks until I get my G11. Thinking about optical viewfinder, and what losing OVF on mainstream cameras means for people who require reading glasses for focusing at close distances. I just got my first reading glasses (I'm 47). My previous compact camera has no OVF, and it is becoming a problem (but my near vision was fine when I got that camera a few years ago). Another reason to shy away from the S90, I'm afraid.
We'll see how usable the G11 finder is. The G9 finder I did not care for much.
OK, I've decided on an s90. Had the s50 (nice flip open, reminded me of my Olympus Mju), then G6 (lovely lens), then G9 (good all-rounder) BUT ...I find it really weird that nobody seems to be buying/posting/using the G11 and the S90.
OK, I've decided on an s90. Had the s50 (nice flip open, reminded me of my Olympus Mju), then G6 (lovely lens), then G9 (good all-rounder) BUT ...
s90; What a sensor! It's a perfect little always-with-you camera that has a charming double personality: a good quality RAW shooter that delivers files you can get lots from and an Auto everything jpeg party shooter that even takes ambient light into consideration when taking indoor flash snaps. Talking of personality, one funny trait is the fact that said RAW files seem to come out with more sharpening than the jpegs, go figure.
Anyway, the man said posting, so I thought coming from the m4/3rds crowd I'd show you a couple of side-by-sides with a G1. All shots 16bit Raws just tapping the Auto button in Camera RAW then downsampled to jpegs for posting. I found that the s90's responded well to the Shadow-Highlight command in Photoshop at 100% Highlight/50% Tonal Width and the bottom slider I always leave on at the maximum 2500 anyway; no halos this way. No sharpening - as stated before, the s90's don't need them and I thought it fairer not to touch the G1's.
First the 28mm equivalent pair. Both at f/3.5 as that's the maximum aperture on the G1's kit zoom and although the s90 boasts f/2 at 28mm equivalent it's only for emergencies, f/2:8 is fine but for a bit more dynamic range I'd say f/4's the sweet spot (naturally at this sensor size, depth of field is the same anywhere you set the aperture on shots like this).
G1:
s90:
This second pair is at 90mm equivalent on the G1 (max zoom) and 105mm equivalent on the s90 (max zoom) both widest aperture here, i.e. f/5.6 on the G1 and f/4.9 on the s90.
G1:
s90:
Have fun (resisting temptation, that is!)
You're quite right really.I'm not quite sure what you want to communicate with these samples though - lighting is ideal so any camera on the market (and some phones) would have produced similar results (at this moderate resolution).
Not meaning to be rude here... but I do think the question needs to be asked what can anyone read out of the posted samples?
The only thing I see worth noting is that the S90 blows highlights in a less flattering way than the G1 (highlight reflection in the boat).