Thoughts on The Best Digital Cameras, Part 6
If you’ve followed us on our merry journey through the world of digicams, you’ve seen us discuss pocket cameras, long-zoom cameras, and a new near-SLR type of camera. Those cameras will cover the needs of more than 95% of consumer photographers. But what if you’re not in the 95%? What if you are willing to pay a bit more to get some special features aimed at photographers who want a bit more control or higher image quality in a small camera? Well, as you’ve probably guessed, that’s what this installment of Thoughts on the Best Digital Cameras is about.
There are a handful of cameras that could be considered in this category. Guest Gadgetmen Jonathan Valin and Steven Stone think two cameras are at the top of the heap. I asked them to answer a few important questions about each camera.
What are the key features and image quality enhancing elements of this camera?
Jonathan Valin (Canon G10): The Canon G10 is so loaded with useful and thoughtful features and so sturdily built (DP Review felt it was as well made as Canon’s 40D/50D SLRs) that it almost qualifies as a professional camera. To begin with, it has an exceedingly sharp, very well behaved (no vignetting, very low distortion) f2.8 (W)/f4.5 (T) 28mm-140mm zoom lens that retracts into a self-protected housing when not in use (no annoying tethered lens cap). The zoom range makes it ideal for just about every situation (save for wildlife photography or sports), and the way the camera is programmed in auto modes takes advantage of the lens’ speed, prioritizing the faster (wider) apertures to give you lower ISOs and better image stabilization. (Just the opposite of the Panasonic LX3 in “P” mode, BTW.)
Second, it has a 15Mp sensor. The conventional wisdom is that the number of pixels doesn’t count as much as their size and distribution and subsequent behavior in low light. Here, by consensus, the number of pixels does matter, although there is a trade-off (for which see my answer to question three). Put simply, at relatively low ISOs (from 80-200 and particularly from 80-120), the G10—a little more noise notwithstanding—is very nearly as sharp as the best full-frame DSLRs. Indeed, Luminous Landscape compared 13x19-inch prints made with the G10 to the same size prints made through a gold-standard Hasselblad medium-format camera with a 39Mp back and no one could reliably tell the difference between the G10 print and the ’Blad print. That’s standard-settingly impressive image quality from a point-and-shooter! (See the aptly named “You Got to be Kidding!” at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml.)
Third, it has an optical viewfinder that changes its field of view with changes in focal length. Granted the viewfinder only shows you 77% of what your lens actually shoots, but, frankly, so what? Once I got used to compensating for it (and I got used to it fast), I haven’t found this to be at all limiting. Having a built-in viewfinder allows you to frame and shoot far more quickly, by holding and bracing the camera against your face as you would a rangefinder film camera (which greatly aids in image stabilization). Since the G10 also has an excellent grip, it is perhaps the easiest-to-use point-and-shooter on the market. Although the Canon has a 3-inch LCD screen with startling high resolution, I think I’d only use it to frame and focus in a pinch—or if I had the camera on a tripod.
Fourth, the G10 has dedicated ISO and EV compensation dials on its top panel (meaning you don’t have to hunt and peck through menus to make these critical adjustments). That EV compensation dial (which is essentially a brightness control) is particularly valuable, for which see Ken Rockwell’s discussion of same at http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm. The camera also has a hot shoe, allowing you to use several Canon (and after-market) flashes.
Fifth, its high-capacity battery is seemingly inexhaustible—good for a day or two or maybe even three of picture-taking. This is perfect for travel, hiking, or street shooting, as you never have to worry about running out of juice (or swapping batteries).
Sixth, it shoots RAW files as well as JPEGs, giving you the added resolution, color and contrast gamut, and post flexibility that come with RAW. However, I have to say that the Canon’s JPEGs are excellent.
(continued on the next page; see page numbers below)
Comments
Thanks for the insightful reviews. I just bought the g-10 and figure why not have both camera's so I'm covered regardless of the situation. Will I still need the D-300 I was planning to get for archive stuff, time will tell. Meanwhile can you tell me why DP Review didn't give the G-10 a highly recommended rating? Everything else I have read, even with shortcomings withstanding; would still warrant the highest rating- especially since they gave it to the G-9 and all agree this is a better camera. Thanks.
DPReview is a fine publication, but from time to time, I'd say they take an overly technical stance. They are leading proponents of the "small sensors and lots of pixels is a bad idea" school. In some ways, that makes sense, but in this case I think they punished Canon for violating orthodoxy.
As their own tests show (see: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page8.asp), the extra resolution of the G10 almost compensates for the extra noise reduction necessary due to the smaller pixels. What that means is that the G10 will give higher resolution (allow larger prints) at low ISOs (say 100 or 200). The LX3 will give slightly better resolution at higher ISOs (say 400 or 800) and the same exposure (a key point). But since the LX3 has a wider maximum aperture, it can in fact get away with a lower ISO setting in low light. Thus in low light situations, the LX3 will have better noise performance (regardless of print size). In good light, the G10 will allow larger prints (which is what Michael Reichman at Luminous-Landscape is psyched about).
As I said at the beginning of this series, competent engineers face basically the same tradeoffs. What makes products different is less the capabilities of the engineers (this matters, but it is the last few percent) and more how they decide to make tradeoffs to suit different uses. In this case, Panasonic and Canon have made very different choices, but made them pretty well. That's why we have two reviewers who really like each camera (and don't like the other so much).
AVGuide webmaster and general drudge
<<Meanwhile can you tell me why DP Review didn't give the G-10 a highly recommended rating? Everything else I have read, even with shortcomings withstanding; would still warrant the highest rating->>
You tell me. DPR has a thing about adding pixels to small sensors at the cost of higher noise at higher ISOs. Virtually everyone else who has reviewed the G10 has raved about it; indeed, most have preferred it to the LX-3! Anyway, I wouldn't brood about this review. Keep in mind that any number of well-known professional photographers are on record saying that they now use the G10 as their "pocket camera."
Thanks to both of you for these interesting reviews. One thought I want to put out there about LCDs is that they are wonderful for allowing you to see the exposure and depth of field of your picture, before you take it. As you reduce or increase exposure you can see the picture in the LCD adjust.
I have the LX3 and find that, when I need to, I can sight over the flash shoe and pretty much keep what I want in the frame, even if it is moving. Also, I can frame in the LCD and gradually bring the camera up to my face to steady the camera at slow shutter speeds and see enough of the LCD to hold the framing reasonably well. Just a thought for those with the LX3 who have not purchased an external viewfinder, they might want to try these work-arounds.
I know it's peculiar, but I don't like taking pix via LCD displays. For me (coming from decades of film cameras), it's counterintutive and awkward to hold the camera out in front of you like a spread-out newspaper. With handheld cameras, even very lightweight ones, there is (for me) something natural and reassuring about holding a rangefinder or viewfinder to the eye. I also like the added shooting stability this gives you. However, I admit that I spent years (under dark cloths) framing and focusing upside-down images on the focusing screens of large-format cameras, which isn't all that different from framing and focusing via LCD screens (although, save for a few Speed Graphics, the 4x5s and 8x10s were always mounted on tripods). And I also admit that you can get excellent results via LCD screens.
I think a lot of people find having a viewfinder is valuable (certainly for tracking subjects, and also for the most stable hand-held shots). But then we should ask with the G10 (or G11) why we can't have a ~100% viewfinder? This camera isn't trying to be the smallest on the market by a long shot. If it had to be a little bigger to squeeze in a better optical finder, why not? Of course, then we'd add a tiltable screen, interchangeable lenses and a bigger sensor and pretty soon we'd have the Panasonic G1 or an SLR. But a little better coverage and a faster lens seem like obvious improvements that are consistent with the concept of the G. Since the G series refuses to die, maybe Canon will figure out that they can charge $50 more for this camera and make it that final step better.
You're right, of course. Canon should've gone for a 100%-coverage rangefinder. But I prefer shooting via rangefinder and haven't found Canon's hard to adjust to. (BTW, as you clearly already know, holding a camera out in front of you, tiltable LCD screen or no, is scarcely a recipe for precision framing/leveling/shooting, particularly if you're holding the camera at a 90-degree angle with that tethered lens cap dangling in front of the lens.)
Actually, holding a camera out in front of you is an EXCELLENT recipe for precision framing if your camera is light, you have a 100% WYSIWYG viewfinder and you have some tone in your arms. I do it all the time with both the LX3 and the G1. As you can see from my samples the framing is exactly what I intended.
Perhaps you need to do a few more push-ups? Oh, I forgot that G-10 is sort of a brick isn't it? Oh, well, nothing a gym membership couldn't cure... :)
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Yeah, buddy, you can "zoom with your hands" while you "zoom with your feet"! Get that LX3 in real close, arms-length and a foot or two from the subject, with that lens cap swinging in front of the lens, just like Cartier-Bresson. He would've loved working like that all right! Running at his subject, arms-extended, to capture that decisive moment! :))
There's no swinging lenscap - I don't use that string. Do you?
From your description, you don't use the viewfinder for framing very much. With the LX3 I only need to use one hand - I hold the camera up, I frame, I shoot. And I do it in less time than it took you to read this line.
I'm as quick, if not quicker, with an LX3 with LCD viewfinder as I am with an optical or eye level finder.
Look at the shot of the old coot with the guitar. That is a decisive moment.
Jon. You've lost this argument...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
<< Look at the shot of the old coot with the guitar. That is a decisive moment.>>
I thought Cartier-Bresson as soon as I saw it.
<< Jon. You've lost this argument...>>
If you say so, Steve.
There is validity to both of your arguments. Having both a Canon 40D and a pocket A620 - there are plenty of situations where shooting arms outstretched looking at the LCD is valid on the digicam. I think the problem lies with buying a 400+ P&S camera. For an extra $50 you could get a D40 with kit lens which, in my opinion, is a better camera. Before you start yelling your megapixel argument, just compare the two at www.dxomark.com. Better IQ = Better IQ. Your enlargements will be better if the original is better. But I am straying from the point. Jonathan, you seem to suggest that a quality photograph cannot be obtained from shooting with outstretched arms. Before I got my dSLR, I took all my pictures this way with my P&S and never had any framing problems. If something was framed wrong, you could always adjust it in a photo editor. I love it for macro shots so I don’t have to lie down in the mud to get close to a subject. I had no problem selling many shots this way either so other people must agree. Now that I have my dSLR all the shots on that I shoot looking through the viewfinder and I can see that if this is what you are used to, it would be hard to shoot the other way. But don’t say it can’t be done!
EDIT – As I reread my post I found I am not saying much and wonder why I originally wrote it. I think it is because Jonathan starts by saying he doesn’t like shooting via LCD because he isn’t used to it but gives the following disclaimer “that you can get excellent results via LCD screens.” Which is fine but then goes on to state later “holding a camera out in front of you, tiltable LCD screen or no, is scarcely a recipe for precision framing/leveling/shooting” which then starts a flame war with Steven Stone. So, next poster, stay on topic and ignore the flip/flopping Jonathan.
There is validity to both of your arguments. Having both a dSLR and a pocket digicam - there are plenty of situations where shooting arms outstreched at the LCD is valid on the digicam. I think the problem lies with buying a 400+ P&S camera. For an extra $50 you could get a D40 with kit lens which
Thanks guys for bringing the G10 to my attention. Jonathan's ears...I will add before my comments...compliment mine olmost ot a Q-Tip. His taste in audio I speak of. ESLs, CLSes and Pass amps to be specific. Kudos. And hi Steve, long time!
The G10 is at this time the ideal COMRPOMISE for the "normal", as opposed to fanatical photographer. JV and I appear to be of a similar age, meaning I grew up with Leicas from the IIIf to M5 and no doubt I got the best B&W shots of my life...with the II!f ! An almost unusable viewfinder...so I don't doubt JV's take on the G10's. What I'll say is don't worry, be happy, use your head and heart for taking photos and buy yourself, along with the G10, the story of Cartier Bresson.
As a fan of "real" cameras, meaning film and dark rooms, I also had a Hasselblad 500c and later, Nikons to the F5. It took a psychological readjustment to go for digital and I say this now: there IS, no going back. I travel the world, and will no longer put up with lugging a huge SLR, digital or other, around my neck...as one has no choice while on the road and can't just leave his valuables in hotel rooms in strange places...or for that matter, in strange bedrooms where I prefer to find new avenues to Heaven.
I have abandoned high end audio because of the fantastic iPhone's built in iPod with hi rez files and the Shure 530SE, and of course, a change in life style. I feel no regret at all, sorry,, and I am no longer trapped, physically or emotionally by either audio or photo technologies. This same kind of freedom from the SLRs is afforded by the barely compromised, but spectacularly hi performing new midsize pocked digicams. And thanks again guys....AGB
Post new comment