Canon G10
Jonathan Valin -- Sun, 12/07/2008 - 02:54
I've been a semi-serious photographer for many years and, in the heyday of film, owned virtually every kind of camera on the market--from Sinar, Deardorf, and Toyo 8x10s to Linhof, Sinar, and Toyo 4x5s to Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Rollei 2-1/4s to Nikon, Leica, Canon, Minolta, and Contax 35s. Though my experience with digital cameras is relatively limited, I have to say that--compared to film cameras--Canon's latest "advanced" point-and-shooter, the 15Mp G10, is a model of excellence and convenience. Yes, it is noisier and a touch softer and less dynamic than bigger-sensor cameras, particularly at ISOs above 400. But it is so so easy to use and carry and, with a little bit of Lightroom touch up (or Noiseware'ing above ISO 400), the quality of its images is so astonishingly high that I hardly ever trot out my full-frame 15Mp SLR and all those expensive "prime" lenses anymore. I'm truly sold on this little automated workhorse, which, thanks to its built-in rangefinder and excellent lens (which zooms from 28mm to 140mm), feels and functions to me like a tiny, lightweight Leica. Currently priced at about $429, it is a superb deal.
For examples of how it shoots in bright sunlight and drizzly overcast, in color and black and white, see: http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p344622584, http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p948865592, http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p940913383
and http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p299991704.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Yeah, its almost as good as a Panasonic LX-3 or G1 (ducking and laughing)...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Yeah, that 60mm telephoto must come in real handy, Steve!
Frankly I can always WALK closer, but I've yet to figure out a way to back through a wall when I can't get farther away. I zoom with my feet...
I'll take that 24mm effective focal length and give up some telephoto "reach" anytime.
Also the latest tests show the Lx-3 beats the G10 in low light situations, which is a situation that I find myself in much of the time.
Basically the G-10 and Lx-3 appeal to very different kinds of photographers. If you are an ex-Leica rangefinder available light shooter the LX-3 will bring back soem serious deja-vu moments. Its like having a miniaturized M-5.
For more general purpose photography the G-10 may touch more bases. But then there's the new Panasonic G-1. Want to use all your Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus lenses on the same body? Try the G-1. I'm loving mine.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Yeah, you're right. "Walking in" with a 60mm lens will give you the exact same perspective that, oh, a 105mm portrait lens would give you. Good thinking!
Frankly, if I know I'm going to need a longer than 60mm focal length (which would only be in a portrait situation) I use a different camera.
The Panasonic G-1 would be my choice if I had to do a portrait. It also offers better PQ than the Cannon due to its larger format (4:3). This was done with the G-1.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Nice photo! Does he always look so pissed off?
It's a little unfair, however, to use a G-1 for this discussion, isn't it?
Here's a snap from Amsterdam with the G-10 (at that inadequate 28mm and 200 ISO).
(I wanted to post this below your B&W street scene but the nesting feature cut off part of the picture)
Yes, that particular cat is not a big fan of people. She would prefer to spend all her time only in the company of other cats..jpg)
Nice street scene - JPEG or RAW? B&W in the camera or post?
Here's one I did tonight with the G-1 in really rotten light.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I don't get this. This farchachdat Web site cut off about one-quarter of the photo I posted! Go to jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p940913383/h1a069a7d#h1a069a7d to see how it's supposed to look!
I suspect that either the website has some issues with our photographs or we are much better at audio and photography than we are at dealing with websites...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Heh-heh!
You were right. I got the size right now (see above). You have to enter the height and width of the photo in pixels in the Insert/Edit Image page.
<<Nice street scene - JPEG or RAW? B&W in the camera or post?>>
This was shot as a JPEG (while we were in Europe I shot JPEG to conserve space on the G-10 memory card--those 15Mp RAW files really eat up space, even on a 8GB SDHC card). I prefer the post flexibility and image quality of RAW, but the G-10's JPEGs actually look pretty good. The B&W was done post (among other tweaks) in Lightroom 2.1. Speaking of which, I'm eagerly awaiting a Lightroom upgrade (supposedly this month) that will add a G-10 RAW profile, so I can download to and manipulate RAW files directly in LR rather than downloading via Canon's software and having to convert the RAW file to TIFF (which kind of defeats the purpose of shooting RAW).
All kidding aside, I really do think this is one sweet camera. I know DP preferred your Panasonic, but almost everybody else (and I mean everybody) has raved about this little number, and I know any number of professionals worldwide who are now using it almost exclusively for street/travel/nature shooting rather than lugging around a bigger-bodied camera (even one as compact as a G1) and a bunch of lenses.
I know the G-10 is supposed to be slightly less good at higher ISOs than your Panasonic, but here's a considerably cropped handheld shot taken in the famous Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque) in Istanbul at ISO 800.
This ain't bad for a point-and-shooter in very low light.
I'll be posting a review of the Panasonic DMC-G1 in the next day or so. Suffice to say that when we meet at CES I think you'll be surprised by how light and compact the G1 actually is. Also with its interchangeable lens mount and ability to accept many lenses (including Leitz rangefinder lenses) many of those pros who are currently using G-10's may soon be jumping ship for the G1
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'm sure the G1 is excellent. (I had a DMC-L1k that I liked--and I think I may have been the only one who liked it--precisely because I could use all my wonderful Leitz and Nikkor lenses with it). But you're kind of missing the point. A G10 weighs 12.3 ounces, complete with optical rangefinder, inexhaustible battery, f2.8 28mm to 140mm zoom, and a 8GB memory card. It's a one-stop solution. You don't have to carry around a bag full of primes (and Lord knows I've done enough of that in my life) or even a couple of zooms.
Here is a 100% crop of an ornate Elizabethan gown in the museum of the Globe Theater in London. The costume was housed in a plexiglas case fitted on a mannequin and brightly lit under artificial light. The snap was taken handheld at 1/15th, f2.8, ISO 640. Once again, this ain't bad for a point-and-shooter in extreme conditions at a high ISO.
Frankly, I'm not that impressed with this shot. It exhibits what is often referred to as "watercolor softening effects" from the JPEG noise reduction.
The edges are softened to avoid excessive grain and there's some color smearing.
I'll be posting some 400 ASA shots from the G1 soon.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Like the crop (and it is 100%) or not, I'm pretty familiar with watercolor effects, and this photo doesn't have them. The colors aren't smeared and the textures aren't blocky, although I grant that the colors aren't particularly vibrant. But then they weren't vibrant in life because of the overhead lighting and thick shadows. There is definitely a good deal of noise here, although textures held up surprisingly well. This is very old cloth, Steve. What you see as "water color effect" is simply the way the colors of this ancient apparel look.
For the sake of this argument, here is another photo taken with the G-10 at ISO 640. This one of dCS Scarlatti circuit boards. Does this look smeared or water-color-like to you?
Here's a recent indoor shot with the Panasonic G1. 400 ASA. Note the lack of chromatic aberration by the edge of the lap shade edge. Note the sharpness. Look at the chair fabric texture and the wall detail. Lastly note the lack of any noise in the dark areas..jpg)
.jpg)
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I HATE THIS NESTED FORMAT. I spent at least ten minutes to get this #$#$%##$ picture FULL FRAME WITH NO CROPPING and it still screwed up.
Nesting sucks....
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Steven -- we've been working on nesting vs. non-nested issue and I'm afraid I don't understand the problem, hence this request for a little help. If you don't want to make a nested comment, then you don't hit "reply" you just hit "Comment". I may be misunderstanding your issue, though. Thanks for any help you can provide.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
<<Lastly note the lack of any noise in the dark areas.>>.jpg)
Yeah, but also note the complete lack of detail in the shadow areas and the blown highlights in the lampshade, which (at least on my screen) are "blooming" (softening acutance). And, honestly, Steve, I know this was done for illustrative purposes, but talk about "unimpressive" photos! That murky one of the bar wasn't exactly Edward Weston, either. (Not, God knows, that I'm comparing my own snapshots to Weston!)
Compare highlight and shadow on your motel room shot with this, taken as night was falling (it was very nearly dark), from Bankside across the Thames looking toward St. Paul's, also at 400 ISO. (This is also about half the frame.)
In any event I look forward to seeing your G1 at CES.
Jonathan, has your screen been calibrated recently? I calibrate mine once a month with Spyder Color Pro so it stays at D65 and matches my printer.
I could have lifted the shadows, but I wanted to go with a straight JPEG. There is detail and NO NOISE in the shadows. On my screen there is separation between the dark curtains and zone 2 black. Also "blown" highlights are spectral highlights. This picture has a MUCH wider dynamic range than your overcast shot of London (but when is London NOT overcast?) Also when you compare the transition between highlights with texture and spectral highlight the Panasonic makes a very smooth transition while the light in the London shot goes more abruptly between yellow and spectral highlight.
Funny, but when the site is in "respond" mode I can see your whole image, otherwise not.
As for the bar shot, it demonstrates depth of field sharpness AND lack of shake at a very low shutter speed - 1/5 of a second.
Funny you mention Ed Weston. He and I both have photographs in the collections of the Bibliotech Nationale and the Library of Congress.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
<<This picture has a MUCH wider dynamic range than your overcast shot of London (but when is London NOT overcast?) Also when you compare the transition between highlights with texture and spectral highlight the Panasonic makes a very smooth transition while the light in the London shot goes more abruptly between yellow and spectral highlight.>>
Honestly, Steve, if you see substantial shadow detail then your screen must be MUCH differently calibrated than mine. Your picture IS far more contrasty than the London photograph, which was taken in the very soft light of dusk (it wasn't overcast; it was sunset and already dark on the Bankside). Contrast is low (as it was in fact). OTOH, you can easily see shadow and highlight detail in the London photo and gradations in between. To me your motel room photo looks far too oontrasty--all highlight and shadow without much gradations in between. Nor do I see "smoother transition" between Zone X highlights and Zone VIII and IX highlights. Most of what I see is featureless Zone X white.
I don't doubt that the G1's 4/3rd sensor has lower noise than the Canon G10's. It ought to--it's considerably larger and has fewer and bigger pixels.
<<Funny you mention Ed Weston. He and I both have photographs in the collections of the Bibliotech Nationale and the Library of Congress.>>
Look, I don't doubt you're an excellent photographer, Steve. I just don't think the bar photo and the "motel room" photo are candidates for the Bibliotheque Nationale or the Library of Congress.
The two posted pictures are examples for technical purposes. Here are some of my other photographs.
http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u248/Stone8807/muisc%20shots/
Here's a portrait I made of John Hartford about two weeks before he passed away.
From what you've written I strongly suspect your monitor is set with overly high contrast, but without running a complete color calibration including gray-scale, contrast and brightness, I can't know for sure.
Here's a shot done with the LX-3's predecessor, the LX-2. the actual image is HUGE and prints without artifacts at 19 x 13. This, because of this website's limitations, is in essence a thumbnail.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Once more the edges are cut off by this _____ web interface.
You may notice I use back borders on many of my images.
Spot quiz - who was the first photographer to use black borders....hint...Fortune Magazine.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
<<From what you've written I strongly suspect your monitor is set with overly high contrast, but without running a complete color calibration including gray-scale, contrast and brightness, I can't know for sure>>
You're not the only one who regularly calibrates his monitor, kiddo. But...what the heck, I'll leave this question of contrast up to others to judge.
As for your quiz...if he worked for Fortune, I take it it was Walker Evans, although I don't remember black frames on the Evans' prints I've seen up close (a friend of mine owns a passel of 'em and a goodly number of just about everyone else's, including your compeer Ed Weston). If he (or whoever it was) made contact prints of his Fortune photos, it would stand to reason that they'd have black edges. Of course, that was an aesthetic statement--to show the world nothing was being cropped or enlarged.
You've got the reason sort of right.
The answer is Margaret Bourke White. She didn't do any of her own darkroom work, so to make sure her photos weren't being cropped she insisted on black borders for all prints. Her first big Assignment was for Fortune before she went over to Life.
Another Margaret Bourke White question - what pet did she keep in her Time/Life office?
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Excuse me why do you need 15mp?
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
That's a good question. The common wisdom is that megapixels don't matter--or that they don't matter as much as other things, like superior performance at higher ISOs. And yet the general reaction to the 15Mp G10 has been that it is "jaw-droppingly" high in image quality at lower ISOs (below 400). And so it is. Indeed, as I've already said, I've never seen this kind of resolution before in a point-and-shooter (and I've owned a few, including several from Leica/Panasonic). There is an interesting discussion of the G10 (vis-a-vis the Panasonic LX-3 and the Nikon P6000) at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml. (Also see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml.)
Have the Pana LX2. Did not realize how bewitching the 16:9 format would be. Always liked the 3:2 35mm format better than 4:3 or square. Thought it would be a gimmick. Far from it. Not sure I like loosing the top end of LX2 zoom range for LX3 wideness. Love wide angles, 3 24mm film lenses + a 15mm non fisheye on film. Fisheye for the Pentax K10 & 20D. Still it seems to make the LX3 a more specialized camera. Not a well rounded "jack of all trades".
Easy way to get more in is take 4 pics (double row vertical) and merge in post processing. Unless its moving. Have a Pentax Z10 P&S that does 2 wide in camera. Works amazingly well.
Find more megapixels, with good camera, gives a more 3D image. This was very easy to see taking Pentax 31 & 77 Limiteds from DS (6mp) to K10D (10mp), and finally the biggest pay off the K20D (14.6mp). Also made a world of difference on Pentax A*200 macro.
thanks
barondla
Welcome aboard.
I also have a Pentax system with the 21, 50, 77, and 100 Macro primes as well as the 16-45 and 50-200 zooms. I also have a 28/2 M prime which is great but won't meter accurately on the K10 (works fine on the K100 however). I haven't gotten a K20 body, I decided to skip one generation after the K10. I am tempted however....
I totally agree about the 3-D image and shooting with wides. I'm eagerly awaiting the equivalent of a 21mm on 35mm focal length lens for the G1.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Have similar lenses to you. Have 10-17, 16-45, 31, A50 1.7, 55-300, 77, DFA100 macro, A*200 macro, A400 5.6. Many k mounts too and a few screw. Even a Lens Baby Composer (fun).
Understand buying every other model Pentax. The rumour is a new K20D will appear tuesday. Interesting to see if its true. Will say my K20D works better with older lenses (as does DS) than the K10D. The exposure seems more accurate. Not saying it couldn't be better. Wish Pentax would put the proper linkages back into the next K..D. Also wish they would enable the darkframe subtraction to be turned off on time exposures. This is the only reason I hang on to the K10D. K20D is poor for time exposures, fireworks, lightning , etc. Do a 20 sec exposure and the K20D is automatically locked up another 20Sec. Ouch. Everything else the 20 does a little better than the 10.
thanks
barondla
<<Not sure I like loosing the top end of LX2 zoom range for LX3 wideness. Love wide angles...Still it seems to make the LX3 a more specialized camera. Not a well rounded "jack of all trades">>
Well put, and precisely the reason why I went for the G10. (The other side of this argument is that, in addition to width,you gain a full stop of speed with the LX3's f2.0 compared to the G10's f2.8, which is nothing to sneeze at.)
Although this thread seems to have turned into a G1 versus G10 debate (which is a little unfair to both cameras, since one is an extraordinarily compact SL--well i guess it doesn't have an R, does it, unless it stands for "rangefinder"?--and the other is a superb pocketable point-and-shooter), it started off as a discussion of the G10 and then was quickly (but briefly) turned into a debate about the G10 versus the LX3, before people's egos got involved.
Like you I own an LX2 (actually the Leitz version of the LX2, the 28mm-112mm 10Mp D-LUX 3) and like you I think it is a superb little camera (and did use the 16:9 format quite regularly). Vis-a-vis the G10, the only advantages of the Canon are its slightly (but usefully) longer reach at the telephoto end, its superior controls (including a nifty top-mounted EV compensation knob), its sturdy build-quality, its rangefinder (which makes it a bit easier to frame, hold, and brace on long exposures), its slightly superior auto-functionality, and its noticeable edge in image quality (at ISO 400 or lower and, especially, at ISO 80-200). Whether that last is due to sensor or lens or both, I know not. I just know what I see (which is part of what this silly argument with Mr. Stone is about).
The G10 is quite noisy above ISO 200, unacceptably so for larger-magnification prints. Although in my entire photographic life I rarely enlarged a "35mm" negative much above 8x10 (I was so obsessively Zone-oriented I used to contact print 8x10 negatives, and even made my own platinum printing paper, which you had to use a SUNLAMP to expose--for several hours!), times and tastes have changed. Now bigger seems to be considered better, regardless of the size and quality of the "negative" you start from. (i see this trend as part of the digitization of aesthetics that has overtaken the world.) Nonetheless, for small prints and especially for on-screen images, the G10's higher ISO output is quite acceptable up to about ISO 640-800, though you may have to Noiseware the images to remove excess chroma noise (and that will also remove some detail). Perhaps the next generation of Canon pocketables will improve on higher ISO performance, without sacrificing the superb image quality at lower ISOs--Canon certainly had a reputation for excellent high-ISO performance with its SLRs, until Nikon seized the "high ground" with the D3/D700.
BTW, I have long been a fan of Panasonic/Leitz efforts (and, as noted, actually liked and owned the original 7.5Mp DMC-L1k and especially the superb Leitz zoom that came with it) i don't know whether the short and longer zooms that are available with the G1 use Leitz glass, but the Pans that have (including the LX3, which I've played with some) are extraordinarily good. But so is the glass in this Canon. For grabbing quick shots that are much tougher to get with other bigger, more complicated cameras--like this snap of our pretty Turkish friend Gurur (this shot was taken on a rocking motorboat in the middle of the Bosphorus at ISO 200, which'll tell you something about the Image Stabilization of the G10 and the suitability of its lens for portraits)--it is superb.
Of course, there are things that an SLR or medium-format camera can do that the G10 can't come close to doing. But for travel or street snaps, it is hard to beat.
Haven't seen the G10 yet. Checked out the G9. It was a nice camera. Coveted the hotshoe. Not sure its really that useful on a super small camera - but photographers always want more. Thats the one they took raw off of wasn't it? Not fond of that nor the way the LX2 makes one record jpegs with raw. That 10mp camera on raw has bigger file sizes than my Pentax K10D on raw. Raw doesn't seem to net me much greater quality on that camera. It does on dslrs.
Bought the LX2 from a friend. He bought it because I recommended it. Too small for his hands. He bought Canon G9 as replacement. I could have as easily ended up with a Canon. The Pana does have P&S controls. Also shoot Olympus E300 & 330. Nice cameras. Prefer the Pentax K20D & primes for most things.
Zone system is great to work with. Always wanted to do a work shop with Fred Picker and Zone 6. Have the Beseler motorized 4x5 enlarger. Never made my own emulsion. Have made many contact prints. So far digital B&W lacks a certain life vs film (especially Tri X, or Verichrome pan). Viewed an Ansel Adams exhibit once and the B&W quaility took my breath away. Like there is b&w and color then B&W. A whole different quality. Seared into my memory. Same as the first time I looked thru a Leica slr with a 180 Leitz lens on it. Mind altering.
Have heard certain aspects of music do this too. Heard Maurice Andre play trumpet at Powell hall in st. Louis Mo. Have never forgotten those high notes. My trumpet never made those tones in high school. Heard "land mark moments" in audio systems a few times. Never heard bass like the ribbons on the big Apogees. Even my Maggies didn't have that airy bass. Heard the giant Genesis system. Amazing how the system could sound consistent at any volume level.
thanks
barondla
First of all, what a great post! But then you and I seem to think alike.
<<Raw doesn't seem to net me much greater quality on that camera. It does on dslrs.>>
With the G10, RAW does gain you a little added detail and lower noise, a little better color saturation and contrast, and of course more leeway to fiddle in post--enough to make it worth using if possible--but those 15Mp RAW files really eat up space and, honestly, the G10 JPEGs are pretty good (for which see all of the above pix).
<<Never made my own emulsion.>>
It was fun, man. A lot of work (and a lot of money--not only do you have to buy the platinum for the emulsion, you also have to buy gold toner--and I mean real gold). It looks friggin' neat though. Imagine the warmest tone paper you've used, reduce contrast to a Grade One or Zero, add a small touch of selenium purple, and you have an idea. Soft, warm, luscious.
<<Always wanted to do a work shop with Fred Picker and Zone 6.>>
I did too, although I always thought of him as Ansel Adams Lite (or maybe Double Lite). I studied Adams' three books on printing like they were holy writ, met him once, went to seminars and galleries, and read and looked about just about everything Zone-y.
<<Have the Beseler motorized 4x5 enlarger.>>
I had one, too, But I substituted a custom-made 8x10 cold light head for the Bessler condenser head.
<<Zone system is great to work with.>>
With large-format B&W film it sure is (or was).
<<So far digital B&W lacks a certain life vs film (especially Tri X, or Verichrome pan).>>
Ah, TRI-X! The gold standard. What a great, incredibly flexible film! And I agree with you about digital B&W versus film B&W, although this may have as much to do with the printers we use for digital as the cameras/sensors. Digital B&W tends to look better on screen than on paper.
<<Same as the first time I looked thru a Leica slr with a 180 Leitz lens on it.>>
I have one of those very lenses, buddy! 180 APO. And it IS terrific.
<<Have heard certain aspects of music do this too.>>
You are so right. It can be mind-altering. Even through a stereo system.
I should note that while the G10 isn't weather-proof I used it in pretty trying conditions (on the Bosphorus and Sea of Marmora in Turkey and, as seen below, on several cold drizzly misty late November afternoons in Amsterdam) without any problems. I should also note that, unlike my D-LUX 3, the battery in the G10 never seems to wear out. I don't know how many pictures you can take between rechargings, but judging by my experience you're certainly safe for an entire day or two, which, if your traveling or hiking, is a huge plus.
Amsterdam photo shows strength of a P&S camera. A quick shot that you would never probably get other wise. Sure dslr is fast enough, if you carried it and had it ready to shoot. Not always possible or likely. Good shot of bicyclist and bridge.
One of my favorite photographer/ writers is Dewitt Jones ( National Geographic). His piece in Outdoor Photography magazine about carrying "wee" cameras was great. Used LX2 & a Canon. He and a buddy just went out shooting for fun. I was lucky enough to go to one of his seminars. Incredible motivational speaker.
LX2 battery doesn't last too long. It is fairly small. Have never ran out of juice while shooting anything important. Don't shoot that many pics at one time. Its my emergency camera. One day it will leave me powerless. Try to carry dslr when theres a chance of "taking pictures".
Yes, Fred Picker reminds me of Ansel lite. Will never forget Picker and his fondness for eating off plastic plates. Not sure that bothered Ansel much.
thanks
barondla
And thank you, barondia, for the kind words about the Amsterdam shot.