Canon G10 RAW compared to Leica M8 RAW

[Lars]

Brad,

So essentially what you are saying is that for the select few with a budget substantially larger than the $500 or so price range for pocketable compacts, there is no high-end alternative.

Walking further down that path... you are willing to spend a significant amount on a pocketable camera as an complement to an SLR/rangefinder, mostly because of convenience? But... that just means that you are lazy! :ROTFL: (I schlepped an 8x10 monorail around Australia for a year, so I'm entitled to say things like that hehe.)

I wonder, if you res down the G10 image by a factor of 2x2 to 4 megapixels, how will it withstand your critical evaluation? I would imagine that highlights and noise would look a bit better then. But it's difficult to view a 15Mpx camera as 4 Mpx, so easy to zoom in on screen and do pixel-peeping.

David,

Good point about WB - tungsten WB really tends to bring out blue noise. A blue filter on the lens can keep blue noise at bay (albeit with longer exposure time). Not so relevant with a compact though.

 

[bradhusick]

Brad, understood, for me, the compacts need to be good enough so that I do not regret not having my big DSLR.
In short the the convenience/image quality must overlap enough for my tastes.

Still deciding about the G10, its that or the E420 for me right now.

What does the full ISO 800 image look like, not at 100% but rather as one would see it here, normal web viewing?

Here's about 70% of the full frame at ISO 800, resized to 900x900.
The M8 file is second (ISO 1250, resized to 900 pixels wide)

No noise reduction.

 

[charlesphoto]

The noise was not really the issue but more the DR and if I can get just a little closer to the M8 that will be just fine and yes i agree i am being very critical. My issue is i am actually looking for something that may have to save my butt . I'm thinking maybe the Oly 520 is really what I need or the G1

Well, I was hoping Leica got off their butts and was going to give us their version of the G10/ Nikon 6000 (minus the unneeded extra mp) this year but no. To me there's still no better p&s than the M8.

 

[bradhusick]

Brad,

So essentially what you are saying is that for the select few with a budget substantially larger than the $500 or so price range for pocketable compacts, there is no high-end alternative.

Walking further down that path... you are willing to spend a significant amount on a pocketable camera as an complement to an SLR/rangefinder, mostly because of convenience? But... that just means that you are lazy! :ROTFL: (I schlepped an 8x10 monorail around Australia for a year, so I'm entitled to say things like that hehe.)

I wonder, if you res down the G10 image by a factor of 2x2 to 4 megapixels, how will it withstand your critical evaluation? I would imagine that highlights and noise would look a bit better then. But it's difficult to view a 15Mpx camera as 4 Mpx, so easy to zoom in on screen and do pixel-peeping.

David,

Good point about WB - tungsten WB really tends to bring out blue noise. A blue filter on the lens can keep blue noise at bay (albeit with longer exposure time). Not so relevant with a compact though.

Lars, I don't consider myself to be a lazy person. I think many here (who are past the consumer level) prefer to have a set of choices about what tools to take on particular jobs. I am not telling anyone how to spend his money, just looking at alternatives. That's the spirit of our discussions here on GetDPI. Welcome to the group and we hope you enjoy the learning that takes place here.
-Brad

 

[Lili]

Here's about 70% of the full frame at ISO 800, resized to 900x900.
The M8 file is second (ISO 1250, resized to 900 pixels wide)

No noise reduction.

Thanks so much Brad, the M8 image looks wonderful.
As it should
As to the G10, the image is a bit desaturated and the noise viels the shadows a bit. It might clean up well with post processing.
Again not as Bad as I feared, but not as good as I had hoped.
At least is not blotched or clumped.

 

[Lars]

Thanks Brad just joking around I know the level of discussion here is high.

The ressed down G10 crop looks much better (as expected) but there is no substitute for a larger sensor (and with that a wider aperture opening).

I had a G9 for a few months but sold it for a few reasons: not wide enough, to much DOF, noise above ISO 400, and really bad viewfinder.

It seems that Canon has tried to address most or all of those issues. For obvious reasons the viewfinder in the G10 has been reformulated, are you in a position to subjectively compare the G10 viewfinder to that of the G9? Specifically, the G9 viewfinder had serious parallax problems with both vertical and horizontal shifts as you zoomed, so it was almost useless for framing.

 

[asabet]

For those who mention the huge price difference ($500 - $5000), for an M8 or MF shooter, that's the price of one or two lenses. Many pros would pay $1000 or even $1500 for the RIGHT compact camera. Amateurs are a different story. For them (like my wife) the Sony W300 is the perfect combination of features at only $350.

I'm an amateur, but some of us too are willing to pay a premium for such a camera. Right now, I believe that the DP1 is the closest match. An E-420 with 25mm pancake attached is another alternative. However, I believe that 2009 will be the year in which we see the digital equivalents of cameras like the Hexar AF and Fuji Klasse cameras. Amongst the Sigma DP1/2, Micro Four Thirds, and the recent Samsung "hybrid" system announcement, there are consistent whispers of Canon and Nikon jumping into the large sensor compact camera market. Canon's recent interview at DPReview suggested as much.

That said, for those who want a 3x or greater zoom range in a compact, sensor size will need to remain small. In this case, there are several alternatives - you can have more dynamic range and slightly less noise along with high resolution or less dynamic range and slightly more noise along with lower resolution. Fuji's latest sensor technology is interesting in that their small sensor will allow us to choose between high dynamic range, low noise, and high resolution depending on the circumstance (Super CCD EXR). They expect to have this sensor in an advanced compact this coming spring. However, unlike what could be possible with a large pixel compact, the EXR sensor forces one to choose between dynamic range and noise performance, two factors which usually cosegregate.

 

[bradhusick]

Hi Lars,
Okay, joke taken
I only tried the G10 for a few hours and I never owned a G9, but in that short time I can say that the optical viewfinder in the G10 was not at all enjoyable to use. Too small, too much distortion. I think my expectations for this camera were way too high.

It's probably the nicest $500 camera in the P&S range, although I'd prefer shooting a Rebel XTi or XS any day, and these cameras are approaching that price range.

Say, can or has anyone done similar test shots with the Leica D-lux3 or D-lux4? I am curious about the ISO performance and DR at 400 or 800.

 

[asabet]

Say, can or has anyone done similar test shots with the Leica D-lux3 or D-lux4? I am curious about the ISO performance and DR at 400 or 800.

I don't have the D-LUX 4 or G10 yet for testing, but here are some DR tests at ISO 400 for the D-LUX 3, G9, and Sigma DP1. This was the test scene:

Here are the highlights, before and after a -2EV adjustment in RAW:

Below is the shadow detail from the ISO 400 images:

The rest of my DR testing of those three cameras is here.

 

[jonoslack]

That said, for those who want a 3x or greater zoom range in a compact, sensor size will need to remain small.

Hi Amin
I don't think I agree with this - it should be completely possible in a micro 4:3 camera, and they have a sensor with 6 times the area of a G10.

 

[bradhusick]

Here are some tests I did today at Glazers Camera in Seattle with the new D-Lux4. These are resized to 900 pixels wide. JPEG from camera, no adjustments.

 

[bradhusick]

and a few more from the D-Lux4
ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 center crops at 100%

 

[asabet]

Hi Amin
I don't think I agree with this - it should be completely possible in a micro 4:3 camera, and they have a sensor with 6 times the area of a G10.

True, a micro 4/3 camera with a slow 3x zoom could be pretty compact.