Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review

By dpreview staff on Nov 21, 2012 at 22:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Just Posted: Our Canon PowerShot G15 review. The G15 is one of the latest wave of updated enthusiast compact cameras and it follows this season's trend of gaining a brighter lens and CMOS sensor in the process. It still offers a 28-140mm equivalent lens range but its maximum aperture range has been pushed to F1.8-2.8 - a whole stop faster, throughout its range, than the older G12. It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder. Will this makeover of the G-series formula be enough to win back its place at the top of the heap? Read our review to find out.

144
I own it
31
I want it
13
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon PowerShot G15

Comments

Total comments: 340
12
spacegoret
By spacegoret (Feb 9, 2013)

To dpreview staff: the chart showing the equivalent max aperture of the lens at different focal length is the greatest addition ever to a review!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g15/6

This chart should be included on every lens and compact camera review from now on.

I just made the math at some focal length, and got some surprising results:

- At the wide end (28 mm) the RX100 lens is approximately 1 stop better than a µ4/3 kit zoom
- At 85 mm, the X10/X20 lens is equivalent to a µ4/3 kit zoom

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiycqirUgXEkdGNnVHlsWTVHcTZrclJqR204dndETEE

0 upvotes
Ciapka
By Ciapka (Jan 13, 2013)

After owning a G10 for over 4 years decided to upgrade. Was SO looking forward to my new G1X! Shots at low iso levels were amazing...however auto focus lag was unbearable and macro was useless. Photos were hit and miss. Returned tried the Rx100...not as great as it's made out to be. Finally picked up the G15...the photos are incredible...even usable at high iso. We can all talk about sensor size etc but in the end it's all about the quality of the shot and the G15 outperforms the others...hands down the winner in my books!! Thanks for all your reviews!

1 upvote
tommy leong
By tommy leong (11 months ago)

you are spot on with that...
I was soooo looking forward to G1X
BUT the buggy AF is such a loser.

Can't believe they released it that way.

YES, G15 beats even my first choice, which is the Fuji X20.
I am so sad.

0 upvotes
tutek
By tutek (Dec 6, 2012)

G10 is only 2mm thinner than the G11, insignificant 2mm, because of 2mm of thickness g15 lost swivel screen.!!??

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Dec 3, 2012)

Gold? Sheesh.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Dec 3, 2012)

"Photographers tend to be interested in how well a lens can blur backgrounds when shooting portraits at full telephoto, and in this respect the G15 does very well for a compact"

Who would use a compact to shoot head-and-shoulders portraits with blurred background? Why?

0 upvotes
Timo_T
By Timo_T (Nov 30, 2012)

How can it be, that the canon G15 Review is finished before the Nikon P7700 Review is finished? Even when the Nikon was introduced to the market before the Canon was.

You are sure, that you are an indipendent Review Company?

3 upvotes
Photo70
By Photo70 (Dec 4, 2012)

Since long time they not seem pretty independent.

0 upvotes
bronson
By bronson (Nov 30, 2012)

Why do no enthusiast cameras get marks of 80+%? I thought cameras were judged only to their piers but those high marks seemed to be reserved for mainly higher end DSLRs.

1 upvote
tutek
By tutek (Nov 28, 2012)

Too bad it does not swivel screen because at 112mm is f/2.5 (G1X f/5.8) and image quality are almost identical: g15 400asa = g1x 2000-2500asa !!!!

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 28, 2012)

The G20 will have a swiveling screen, Canon are giving choices to G series users, simple as that. So hang in there :)

C

0 upvotes
tutek
By tutek (Nov 30, 2012)

Where'd you get that about G20, imagine or read somewhere?

0 upvotes
SayCheesePlease
By SayCheesePlease (Nov 27, 2012)

How long is a gold award valid when there is constant progress in photography equipment? It is a target that moves monthly- daily!

One month a camera gets a gold, the following month an equal camera gets a silver. Why? The bar moved.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 28, 2012)

Uh, the awards are given based up to the date of publication. Pretty much common sense there buddy.

Equal camera, which? By your standards or DPR's? Face it, it's pointless dude.

C

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 26, 2012)

@Charrick...With all due respect are yo not being fanatical about not having optical viewfinders. I can understand if you've never used a good eye level viewfinder. I admit the one on G15 is not good nor accurate but even a bad viewfinder at times can be a life saver when shooting at the longer end of the zoom range. Just imagine shooting even at moderate telephoto settings how the camera shake is translated on to the screen whilst trying to compose. Having the camera rested against your face helps you greatly to hold the camera steady. I can personally live with a mediocre screen but not without a viewfinder. Ps. You don't have to be a "real photographer" to use view finders.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Nov 26, 2012)

All depends on how you shoot. I normally rest the camera against my knees, hips, or a wall with articulated screen. I would LOVE a nice optical viewfinder for those few occasions where I shoot eye level but for most of my shots I can't see through the viewfinder when the back of the camera is against the wall and I don't feel like laying on the ground for every knee level shot.

0 upvotes
Charrick
By Charrick (Nov 24, 2012)

I think that people who think of themselves as "real photographers" are fanatic about optical viewfinders.

Look at the paragraph and picture above. Here's one quote:

"It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder."

OK guys...be honest. What good is that? Can some "real photographers" tell me? It's a tiny viewfinder with a parallax error and has no shooting information on it (all problems the LCD lacks). Now look at the photo. A guy is inside a relatively dark room (not outside at noon on a clear day at the beach with lots of glare) and he's still using the tiny optical viewfinder with a parallax error instead of the back screen.

Seems a bit silly, don't you think? Alas, I can never be a "real photographer", because I often use LCD screens on cameras, and I think that flip-out screens are more important to have than optical viewfinders. I know. I'm such a noob.

8 upvotes
wansai
By wansai (Nov 25, 2012)

On my G's, I have rarely ever used the optical viewfinder. It's imprecise and so tiny, I have to perfectly align it with my eye to even use. Compared to the articulating display of previous models, the optical viewfinders of the G's are completely outperformed by the display.

Double the optical viewfinder surface area and fix the parallax and then they can start talking about how removing the articulating display was a good idea. the G's are really good for only 2 things; form factor and articulating display.

0 upvotes
jpsa
By jpsa (Nov 25, 2012)

Let me guess, you're not long-sighted?

I fully appreciate that many people have no need for an eye-level viewfinder; but I use the one on my A1200 nearly all the time, even though it's pretty crappy. I don't want to have to put my glasses on every time I take a picture, and my eyes can't get close to focusing on the LCD without them.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Nov 26, 2012)

It's a fair criticism: how bad does an OVF have to be before one starts to prefer framing on the rear LCD? Because the OVF on the G series is far from that of even an entry level dSLR.

The answer has a lot to do with how comfortable you are taking photos "cell-phone style", holding it out in 2 feet in front of you.

A lot of (older) people hate that. They like to hold the camera up to their face, braced up against their nose. It's more "traditional" (waist-level ground glass screens notwithstanding)... it is also legitimately a better grip for preventing camera shake.

To answer the unspoken question: why not make it an EVF? Well, probably cost at this point, but the better answer is "because the Canon G series have always had this optical viewfinder". It's a hallmark feature, part of the camera's reputation of having everything you might need, just in case.

0 upvotes
SayCheesePlease
By SayCheesePlease (Nov 24, 2012)

A statement that holds true to this review is ' all things considered ''.

There are many comments questioning why the RX100 was not rated higher. It has a fast lens and large sensor. Very important factors. But are they the only factors? No. Price, lcd, processor speed, video etc.

So with DPR's considerable camera knowledge and 'all things considered' from their viewpoint they did this review.

Take it or leave it, but I am sure this review was given much thought and debate before it was posted.

4 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 24, 2012)

So much partisan silliness on these forums. As I've actually proved a couple of times on the forums here, in blind taste, EXIF stripped, photo comparisons most of the worst fanboys cannot actually tell margarine from butter or one camera's output from another in real world shots. Buy a Porsche if you want to define yourself by an object.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 54 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
mark moe
By mark moe (Nov 23, 2012)

So DP review continues its inconsistent award system... Let's see, in the past week two Gold awards in the same category--almost pocketable zooms (Canon, Panasonic).

And when the camera that virtually professional reviewer says "the best pocket camera" they give a silver. Fine. Imaging resource reviews are better anyway. They emphasize print output and are consistent.

BTW: this negative comment is directed at the "poor officiating" here not at the camera. Enjoy your pursesable camera. Being a guy I'll stick to the best pocketable camera.

5 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 23, 2012)

G15 is perfectly pocketable, I fit it in my (none-too-large) business shirt pocket all the time. And your sneering sexism is not appreciated.

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 24, 2012)

So why are you here on this site? Amazes me that people use the free service of a site all the while attempting to degrade it. Really I'm curious to know.

Just because an opinion (which is what DPR's awards are...) doesn't match an individuals (yours in this case) it's inconsistent? Can you imagine if DPR rated cameras on readers opinions and not their own? Talk about inconsistent!

C

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Nov 24, 2012)

You shouldn't expect someone's subjective opinion to be a universal truth. The scoring system is meant to be as objective as possible, while the award is just the individual reviewer's personal opinion, and therefore reflect that person's preferences and bias. This should be no cause for alarm, because the DPR staff are just humans, and humans are by nature biased, because we all have needs, desires, preferences and emotions.
A technically superior camera isn't necessarily more enjoyable to use, perhaps because you don't like its ergonomics or whatever, and therefore it may very well fall short of a gold award.

2 upvotes
spigot
By spigot (Nov 26, 2012)

the fz200 isn't almost pocketable. its 'almost' as big as a dslr.

0 upvotes
Amin Sabet
By Amin Sabet (Nov 23, 2012)

In the 'Features' section there is a great figure comparing equivalent apertures, and I think the data shown for the Panasonic LX7 are based on the whole sensor dimensions (1/1.7" sensor). However, the implementation of that camera's multi-aspect ratio sensor is such that it is effectively 6.7 x 5.1mm (1/1.8") in 4:3 aspect ratio and less than that in other aspect ratios.

Taking that into consideration, the LX7 lens becomes 24-89mm f/7-11.6 equivalent with crop factor calculated based on sensor area or 24-91mm f/7.2-11.8 equivalent with crop factor based on sensor diagonal.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 23, 2012)

You may be right - I'll check when I'm back in the office. I've calculated the LX7's active area before but I can't totally rule-out forgetting to use that figure in these calculations. Thanks for pointing it out - I'll change it as soon as I can.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 24, 2012)

I was wondering why DPReview is grossly unfair to the Panny LX7 making it's sensor look so small when in fact it's wide sensor 3:2 is more relevant today than 4:3 'square' sensors.
-Larry

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 26, 2012)

We aren't being unfair to it - we're showing the proportions of the largest area of the sensor you can use (which is the 4:3 image size in this instance). That's the same measurement we're using for all the other cameras here, too.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 23, 2012)

Canon can do more...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Motobiker
By Motobiker (Nov 23, 2012)

Did you look at the review (or PHOTO above)before posting this pearl of wisdom?

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Dec 3, 2012)

And it will then cost more

0 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 23, 2012)

For my money, this is the perfect pocket camera at this price-point. As the technology develops and sensor prices drop, they really just need to make the sensor larger, oh and maybe add in-camera panorama-stitching. That's it. It fills up my pocket perfectly and handles like a dream.

5 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 23, 2012)

And give Jpeg users NR control in ALL modes.

1 upvote
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Nov 23, 2012)

If you want a larger sensor you can already buy the G1 X. But a larger sensor always means a larger and/or slower lens, too. :ife is full of compromises :-)

2 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 23, 2012)

Well, I did say, "pocket camera". ;-)

0 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 23, 2012)

I said, "this price-point", too. ;-) The G1X is 60% more expensive.

0 upvotes
Howard
By Howard (Nov 25, 2012)

FWIW, I paid $589 for my G1X 3 months ago (Adorama) - hardly a 60% premium...

0 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 25, 2012)

Good for you, Howard! Attaboy! Unfortunately, a miss is as good as a mile in this case. A 500 dollar price point (in round numbers) is still not a 600 dollar price point (in round numbers). Why do so many people on this comments board lack critical-thinking skills? A missed price-point is a missed price-point. And you still can't put the G1X in your shirt pocket. ;-) FYI: at the time I posted, the price difference at B&H and Yodobashi was indeed 60%. Adorama is irrelevant to me as they will not ship it to Japan. Cheers.

0 upvotes
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 25, 2012)

I just checked Adorama: the G1X costs 799 dollars. It is available *used* for 549 dollars. Hey Howard, did you buy yours used? LOL The G15 costs 499 dollars. That is a 60.12% difference. Case closed, point proved, I win. ;-)

0 upvotes
Hélios Méroé
By Hélios Méroé (Nov 23, 2012)

So I'll ask my question again since apparently nobody wants to answer?..
The Nikon P7700 was out well before the G15 and is logically in direct competition with the Canon G15.. so when can we expect a review of this APN? .. And would it not make more sense for a site like Dpreview and for customers to respect the timing of outputs in this category?..
Thanks by advance for the answer..it will probably help to remove some doubts (at least mine..) about the relative idépendance of photo web site like yours..

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 23, 2012)

We have limited resources, which means we can only review a small number of cameras at any given time. We prioritise cameras based on various factors, with most of it to do with how much interest there appears to be from our readers (and how interesting they seem when we try using them).

We have shot a samples gallery with the P7700 and will be including it in a round-up that will be published soon (along with several other cameras that we would have loved to have had time to review), but we can't review every single camera.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Nov 23, 2012)

Surely you can review every camera everyone here is interested in, make sure it gets the mark everyone wants to see, include Pulitzer prize winning samples, offer discount codes for the Amazon checkout, arrange to have your team come around to our houses for parameter setting support, take us out shooting with beautiful models and then arrange dates for us.

How hard can it be?

7 upvotes
FartIng
By FartIng (Nov 23, 2012)

i bought and returned the G15 for a G1X - Why?
Articulated screen, larger sensor, but I found the G15 still has awful noise on photographs and HD video above 800 ISO (like the G12 I had before that).

The only awful thing now I find about the G1X - Macro close up photography is impossible which is heartbreaking.

Now I use my Nokia Lumia 920-which seems to take better photos than the G1X!

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 23, 2012)

Do you really suppose anybody can take you seriously here when you claim 920's 1/3"-sized sensor takes better pictures than APS-C ?

5 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 23, 2012)

Wow!!! Do you really expect people to believe you? Or maybe you just like the look of bad photo's. Each to their own...

1 upvote
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Nov 23, 2012)

That Nokia must be MUCH better at that noisy pixelated grainy look than the Canon.

0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Nov 23, 2012)

Of course the G1 X is better than the G15 at a given ISO setting. However, with the G15's much faster lens you can keep the ISO lower and the difference becomes much smaller.

2 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 24, 2012)

Farting say the Nokia SEEMS TO take better pics than the G1x...

0 upvotes
mailman88
By mailman88 (Nov 24, 2012)

The "ole" fart doesn't know his gear, oh well..lets move on!

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Nov 26, 2012)

Maybe FarTing has a point. I also found that picture taken by Nokia phone is somehow better than some compacts(not from G15 league of course). The Nokia phone produces images with a lot of noise, but that's what NR software is for. Compact, on the other hand, overdo NR. Detail lost is worse than with no NR at all.

I not talking about G15, just compact in general.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 26, 2012)

It's sometimes "painfully entertaining" to read comments such as "FartIng" writes. He/she has no idea what sort of camera s/he needs but buys the most expensive fixed-zoom compact on the market only to find out it's not the one he/she needs. It's one more salesperson's success story.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Peter Kroll
By Peter Kroll (Nov 23, 2012)

Yep ... and along the dynamic range also the chromatic aberration. As non-picture quality related issues there are the consistency of the metering system and the overall system speed.

Anyway, coming back to the subject: No G15 for me. A fixed monitor is a deal killer to me. Second point: My G11 is far not as solid as I thought it is, judging from it's weight and feel. On mine as an example the optical viewfinder has massive dust intrusion. Everywhere the hands-on quality was praised, but the real world long term quality seems is a different subject.

Peter Kroll
Singapure

1 upvote
wansai
By wansai (Nov 25, 2012)

In Singapore's weather, the G11 does not faire too well. My G11 optical viewfinder has so much dust and sand in it, it's nearly impossible to see through in the few times I do use the OVF (thankfully, not a lot).

Also, the humidity and heat looks to have hardended the dust inside the OVF!

Still, it's my most reliable backup camera.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 23, 2012)

I understand and appreciate that use of the excellent dpreview is free. Thanks for the excellence of the website.

I would appreciate however if the reviews of that class of camera would include information about the dynamic range (allowing me to compare the dynamic range of cameras of that class).

For me, the dynamic range (even for that type of cameras) is one of the most important criterias (other important charachteristics for me are of course the dimensions, the zoom-range, optical viewfinder, the visibility of the subject on the screen in bright/sunny environments,...)

Thank you in advance for considering that for future reviews

3 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 23, 2012)

Open up your own website and review yourself. If there was a review for every point in detail. Every Review would be a War and Peace. Be a little realistic...

1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Nov 27, 2012)

Techradar.com show dynamic range comparisons over all the ISO's on their reviews if you want to see this. In fact I have just noticed on the G15 review the XZ-2 is showing 12ev at 100 ISO in JPEG which is amazing and if correct would blow the opposition away. I agree with you that this is an important number but few reviewers quantify it.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 23, 2012)

The Canon G series reached the limit of it's practicality genre in the G7.

With the way Canon is churning out cameras of all kinds, pretty soon there will be a new Canon camera every $100 from $300 to $3,000.

It goes the same way to Nikon too.

...and soon, Sony.

Panasonic.

Olympus.

.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 23, 2012)

Some of the cameras being churned out are pretty interesting, though.

3 upvotes
Unum sed Leonem
By Unum sed Leonem (Nov 23, 2012)

An ugly camera, just as ugly as all of its predecessors.

4 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 23, 2012)

In your's a some other opinion, not mine and many others... That's why there's a nice Big choice out there. Isn't it great :)

1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 24, 2012)

The G series is beautiful.
Why else would Nikon copy it's looks?

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 23, 2012)

What I would actually like (I'm a G12 owner) is a 2/3" or 1" sensor with 8 to 10 mp.

5 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 23, 2012)

Of you go a build it. You may make some money... :)

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Nov 23, 2012)

DPR puts RX100 in a different class. They claim the scores are not comparable between different classes, but yet they mention RX100 everywhere in this review. Isn't that hilarious?

RX100 should have been in the same class as S110. These cameras are competing for the same market. Same buyers.

Putting RX100 in the same class as larger -- not pocketable -- big sensor p&s (such as G1X) or cameras with a fix lens primes like Fuji X100 was really really dumb.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Nov 23, 2012)

Dude, I think DPR was bang on mentioning the RX100 camera as they did. Sensor size matters and for most point & shoot users, it becomes a question of price versus performance. DPR made that abundantly clear in this review. Not hilarious.

3 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 23, 2012)

To say that the RX100 is in the same class as the S100, is like saying the Mercedes E Class is in the same class as the Toyota Camry . Maybe somewhat similar size. But a big price difference(and diferent sized sensor/engine).

5 upvotes
mark moe
By mark moe (Nov 23, 2012)

Yeah, the inconsistency here is out of control. It's like sports officials with instant rep,ay and they still get it worong and come up with lame excuses.

Ditch the award system or make it more fair. Other sites are more consistent.

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 24, 2012)

"Putting RX100 in the same class as larger -- not pocketable -- big sensor p&s (such as G1X) or cameras with a fix lens primes like Fuji X100 was really really dumb." And yet RX100 owners are, time after time, the first people to do it.

1 upvote
Lawnmower Shooter
By Lawnmower Shooter (Nov 24, 2012)

Are your feelings hurt or something? Classes are stupid anyways, people spend money on a camera, that's the only class that matters. Do I want to spend $100 or $1000? Is the RX100 the EXACT same size as the S110? Of course not, it is only within your limits of acceptability. Well, maybe the RX100 vs G1X is within theirs.
And what's with the multiple edits? Did you realize how you sounded each time and had to change it up? Shady...

0 upvotes
Mark Chan
By Mark Chan (Nov 23, 2012)

Obviously going to come off as an OLY fanboy, but I do not understand how your review did not mention the XZ-1 OR the newer XZ-2 as comparable competition, and have to actually resort to mentioning the Nikon 1 series or m43.

I have held the XZ-2, and its is equally built like a tank; has the fast AF akin to that of the PEN series if not the RX100, and has a nice f1.8 - 2.5 lens, albeit shorter (112 vs 140 at long end). I would expect that your reviews do mention competition in its entirety.

Oh btw, the XZ-2 is a lighter package WITH a similarly sized sensor.

7 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 23, 2012)

Good point Mark. The absence of DPR comment tells me their cleverness has run its course. Perhaps they should all shave their heads.

1 upvote
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 23, 2012)

price point is different on the XZ-2.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 23, 2012)

There are too many competitors to discuss every single one in every review, so Lars focused on the nearest competitors. We'll be doing a roundup of this class of cameras in the coming weeks, including the XZ-2 and a handful of others.

4 upvotes
Savic76
By Savic76 (Nov 23, 2012)

"nearest competitors". Now RX100 is nearest competitor but not in same class. Wery odd. Silver award for RX100 is troublesome for you and you not include RX100 in any class because of silver award.

5 upvotes
Mark Chan
By Mark Chan (Nov 24, 2012)

Oh yeah, the XZ-2 is more expensive; oh wait...theRX100 is even more expensive than the more expensive XZ2; wrong price point not being the correct term.

To DPR; I cannot fault the fact that there are too many points to discuss, but I really don't agree with your statement that its difficult to mention them at the end; You guys have the most uptodate info of all new AND old cameras, its only fair to have them ALL mentioned - which most are, in the span of one or two sentences as notable 'competitors'.

If you were to mention nearest competitors, you should mention those in the appropriate range - i.e. the fixed zoom lens group. This was done, but it sort of shows that those mentioned were the only similar cameras; then your review added the Nikon 1 Series and the PENs and suggested they were very close.

This is seriously misleading. As much as the new sensors deliver competitive images to other cam types, your 'professional' reviews should make it clear who the competition is.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 23, 2012)

"The camera feels like a mini-EOS 1D, extremely solid with soft and comfortable rubberized hand grip and thumb rest. The magnesium alloy surfaces have been very slightly roughened, giving them a quality feel. It'll be hard to find another compact camera that feels this well put together".

This passage from this review seems a bit over-enthusiastic. I get what the reviewer is trying to say, but an EOS 1D is a completely weather sealed tank of a camera. That level of build isn't found in any compact, and just because this camera is made by Canon doesn't make similar as far as build. A P7700 is all magnesium alloy and few would say it's like a mini-D4.

Lastly, i haven't handled a G15 (I have handled other G series cameras), but the reviewer thinks "it'll be hard to find another compact as well put together". The all metal Fuji X10 and GRD IV are about as good as it gets for build quality and I assume DPR remembers them. Maybe he meant "put together better"?

7 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Nov 23, 2012)

go to the shop and play with one, feels more solid to me than anything else I in this class.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm not doubting that it's solid but questioning whether it's possible ("hard to find" as you wrote) a compact as robust. There is very little plastic on an X10, LX7, GRD IV, and from what I've read, a P7700.

I thought that section came on a bit strong, but I will let you know when I play with a G15 down at B&H.

2 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Nov 23, 2012)

@marike6

If G15 feels like a mini-EOS 1D built like a mini tank, then P7700 feels like a mini-D5200 built like a mini plastic..........aha ha ha!

0 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (Nov 25, 2012)

We are photogs...these are cameras. Take yourself down to the shop and check it out for yourself. I've handled the g15, and it's indeed a great feeling, solid little unit with great upgraded spec- but my g12s articulating screen is way too valuable to lose, so ill check back next year.

I'm reading this thread just to pass the time but I see a ton of heavy handed, disrespectful comments to the site. You dudes should really check yourself, or just move on. Take your lazy butts and create your own site. You may not agree with so called missing camera reviews and the like, but at least don't be an a- hole about it.

2 upvotes
Zigadiboom
By Zigadiboom (Nov 23, 2012)

Perhaps in their next release Canon can adopt the following features into one highly competent camera. That is the G15's fast lens, AF speed, macro capabilities and 5X optical(modify to 24mm) combined with the G1X's large sensor, optics and articulating display. Price it between the G1X and G15, include a decent OVF and improve the movie recording capabilities and then I'm sure the other manufacturers and brand loyalists will have no choice but to take notice.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 23, 2012)

If you want G1X's large sensor, than buy a G1X. The G15 and future G16 are different animals and will not have a sensor that big. If they have another camera like you mentioned it will not be a G16 but a G2X.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 23, 2012)

Zigadiboom: I too would be interested in such a camera.

I would however like to add also the following requests:
- it should be as pocketable as the G15
- the content of the display/monitor should be well visible in a bright/sunny environment (important for those like me, who shoot primarily outdoor)
- it should have a good dynamic range (I have unfortunately not the slighest idea, how good the dyanamic Range of the G15 is).
- and perhaps a good in-camera HDR support

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
fox-orian
By fox-orian (Nov 23, 2012)

Hey Lars, just to verify: the G15 still does NOT have *fulll* manual video recording, right? You can set exposure compensation, but as far as I understand you don't have direct input of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO for video, am I correct in this?

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 22, 2012)

OVF on compact camera might be rare these days, but considering how good are EVFs today I really cant understand reason for using it. Except it might be cheaper.

Image quality seems ok, so its probably usable. Just cant find reason for buying it.

3 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 22, 2012)

Oh yes Canon badly needs you to buy this camera. Pleeeeese buy one. We're relieved that you think the image quality is ok.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Im glad you felt need to respond as much as Im glad you are feeling threatened by my opinion. :) It usually means Im right.

2 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 23, 2012)

Mescalamba (or other users): since I have only an extremely limited experience with Elkectronic Viewfinders, may I please ask about how good EVFs are today? My only experience with EVF was with a Leica EVF for my Lumix DX5 and I was very disappointed. Absolutely no pleasure when looking at what the EVF was showing. I therefore returned the EVF.

Did this change substantially with newer EVF?

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 23, 2012)

@Mescalamba... I'm so threatened I don't know what to think now. Please share your wisdom more with us. We may feel threatened but we'll become better and wiser people nevertheless. By the way, what cheap propaganda ridden psychology magazine do you read?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Robert Eckerlin

Well they are certainly better than what you used. That add-on EVF you had on your LX5 was actually worse than one in original Panasonic G1, since then EVFs became quite a bit more mature. For example one in OM-D EM-5 is actually very good, more detailed, much faster and even DR is pretty ok. Same goes to one in for example Sony A99.

Im not exactly fan of EVF, but they are only solution for mirrorless and all alike. In case of Sony NEX EVFs, you have 100% viewfinder (which is truly 100% no matter what as it sees exactly what sensor does), you can magnify up to per-pixel level or you can switch focus peaking for much faster manual focusing (if you wish for it).

Latest generation of EVFs for m4/3s and NEX/Alpha are actually quite pleasant to use, they could be always better, but its pretty usable tech right now.

So I really dont know why Canon havent used one, it could improve usability of G15 quite a lot (and same goes to EOS-M).

1 upvote
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Nov 22, 2012)

Remember the macro capability - small sensors do have advantages.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Thats right, but not-so-small-but-still-small Nikon 1 or better m4/3 have same advantage while having much better sensor and much better offering of lens. But ofc not new cams, only SH can reach 500 USD price. Still its possible..

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 23, 2012)

@Mescalamba

Not sure I understand all of what you're saying, but the Olympus E-PL1, body only, is $150 on Amazon right now.

1 upvote
FartIng
By FartIng (Nov 23, 2012)

100% spot on here - people need to know this

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Well, E-PL1 isnt exactly new, thats why I mentioned SH stuff. But I guess some old cams can still be bought new. 150 USD is nice price. :)

Otherwise for example Panasonic GX1 can be bought for 450 USD SH. Pretty decent compared to G15, isnt it? :)

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Nov 22, 2012)

I have always been a huge fan of the G series, and this one looks quite drool-worthy, and more than capable of bearing all of the expectations that come with that esteemed G letter name. I helped convince a friend to get a G9 not too long after it came out a few years back, and he still shoots with it and loves it. These cameras are as tough as they seem.. their build quality is no joke. And that Canon is one of the very few still using an optical viewfinder, is something I commend them for. I am not a Canon fanboy by any means (if I had the money, my bags would be chock full of Zuiko Super High Grade glass, so that lets you know which side of the fanboi fence I sit on, in case my moniker did not tip you off!) BUT, I can definitely give credit where it is due, bravo Canon, and bravo DPReview for another great review. Don't ever change that studio scene comparometer, it is so warm and familiar (and full of utility) .. we NEED it!

3 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Nov 22, 2012)

By scoring RX100 and G15 in different classes do you mean to say that your scoring of both cameras will be of little use for those who are considering one out of the two? Or the potential buyers have to decipher the fact that RX100 is a better camera by drawing parallel lines from equivalent points on the spectra of different classes of cameras ( the only geometric solution to your scoring system ).

7 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 22, 2012)

No - I would not like

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 22, 2012)

Limited zoom range fixed lens. "Viewfinder" is basically totally useless (I tried the camera, that's how I know). Nikon P7700 gives plenty more features and better specs for about the same dough. Of course, this one has the word "CANON" emblazed on it, so for some, that may be worth a few hundred bucks right then and there, huh?

3 upvotes
quitomarez
By quitomarez (Nov 23, 2012)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I currently have a G15 and found myself using the viewfinder a lot. As for me, no viewfinder implies no purchase (and I am sure that the Nikon is an excellent camera).

0 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (Nov 25, 2012)

The Nikon p series has always been carp compared to the g series. It's no contest.

0 upvotes
DVT80111
By DVT80111 (Nov 22, 2012)

Not rugged enough to take with me to the trail. The collapsible lens is nice for putting in my pocket but if any sand or dust get in the mechanism, the camera is done.

1 upvote
Mike604
By Mike604 (Nov 22, 2012)

Not rugged enough? I have owned my S100 for a year and have beatin' it. Hiking, up Mount Fuego in Guatemala to see the active volcano, on fishing trips, on the windy beaches of Cancun and what have you. I am pretty sure this is more durable than my S100.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Nov 22, 2012)

Ultimately no digital device is indestructible but the G15 is as good as it gets for a compact camera.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm no Canon shill, but my relatively crappy SX230 travel zoom survived a fall on pavement that left me a little bloody. It was in my pocket and took the brunt of the fall. The lens protector was totally crushed, but worked after I spent a while bending the leaves back into rough shape with pliers and other tools. It still doesn't always open automatically, but I can coax it open. The LCD has a couple of purple spots with no resolution. The bottom line is that image quality is perfect and I still use the camera all the time. Kind of surprised me, to be honest. My hat's off to Canon. I fell on that sucker HARD.

2 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (Nov 22, 2012)

175 replies in a few hours? I think this tells something about G15, right? :)

2 upvotes
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 22, 2012)

Yep, the latest scandalous waste of money out of Canon. Old tech, reset price. Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn. 174 other people spotted that too by the looks of it.

9 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Nov 22, 2012)

That's what hapens when a 10 yrs. old sensor tech repeatedly stamping on the competition. Look at P7700 as a example, that is suppose to their latest greatest(sensor).........flap once again. Slow lense, slow AF, mushy IQ, slow response and bulky too aka obese. Nikon just can't stop selling LEMON.

1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Yea it means angry mob is rising to stomp Canon.

And few ppl which actually might buy it. Fanboys or ppl with less than average knowledge about technical aspects of photography (read "gear").

1 upvote
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Nov 23, 2012)

Have you tried it? look what critics are saying comparing both: P7700 has better detail until ISO800, better DR, snappier AF even in low light, more true to life screen colors,... Maybe it's a little more sluggish in operation than G15 ( and especially Lumix LX7), but nothing in the way of Mammoth speed like P7000. I am no fanboy, and I have tried both G15 and P7700 extensively before buying. Nikon one this time is just better in every way (apart color, and NR in high ISO).

1 upvote
mark moe
By mark moe (Nov 23, 2012)

Yes,it's more about the capricious DP reviews wars system than the camera.

Nice camera... However DP reviews is showing how out of touch they are...

1 upvote
Bruce W Roeser
By Bruce W Roeser (Nov 22, 2012)

Best pocket-sized Canon I've ever owned. Worth the price.

5 upvotes
mark moe
By mark moe (Nov 23, 2012)

What pockets does it fit? Purseable, yes...my pockets on a 6
Foot frame don't accept cameras this size in any shirt pocket and only a few of my pants. The pant's pocket would lead to: is that a big camera in your pocket or you just excited to see me?

1 upvote
JohnRinJapan
By JohnRinJapan (Nov 24, 2012)

It fits all of my shirt pockets except the polo shirts: business, casual, everything. Except the polos. Slips in nicely, can carry it there all day. Of course, I am 6 foot one inch tall and weigh 70kg (154lbs). Not exactly a huge guy. Your mileage may vary.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Nov 22, 2012)

I shoot about 95% with articulated screen so I am really disappointed that Canon would "upgrade" by REMOVING the articulated screen. It is something they helped pioneer and they did it well and some of us actually NEED it for what we do. So why would they reduce their own potential market by removing this? Makes no sense to me. They have already developed it. There is very little extra cost to add it. And how much camera thickness does it really save to remove it? Likey not much.

12 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 22, 2012)

Typical Canon modus operandi. Just look ast the new Canon EOS C300 camera that goes for a hair under $30,000. Canon claims it is a 4K capable video camera -- it is just that it cannot record in 4K resolution, and Canon does not even make a 4K recorder for it. In their own promotion they mate the EOS C300 to a $30,000 Codex external video recorder made by a company totally not affiliated with Canon.

So, the $30,000 Canon "4K" camera suddenly becomes a $60,000 camera + external video recorder package. No wonder then that Sony is eating Canon alive when it comes to digital video cameras. Canon's camera prices really have no factual basis in reality any more.

6 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Nov 22, 2012)

You guys are crazyyy ... its about the same price as Nikon P7700 and cheaper than Oly XZ-2, and IMO a better G series camera.

2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Nov 22, 2012)

@ Francis Carver: so? If true, then the laws of Capitalism will send Canon in the history books, and quickly. Let's discuss again when this will happen. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm sure other people need the faster lens the G15 has

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 23, 2012)

Cheaper than this, cheaper than that..

And you can buy second-hand GF1 for half of price of that.

2 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Nov 22, 2012)

RX100 repeatedly stamp to the ground by G15. G15 is the Ferrari in its category. No weak link in its packaging........Canon is owning the competition!

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 22, 2012)

In terms of IQ the RX100 has considerably better resolution and detail.

12 upvotes
Mike604
By Mike604 (Nov 22, 2012)

I don't know what it is but the G15 handed the p7700 a good beating. I still don't see all the hype and magic with the rx 100? It may resolve a bit more but the lense of the g15 is quite stellar.

1 upvote
fox-orian
By fox-orian (Nov 22, 2012)

No...? They're both top-notch, category-leading cameras. Both have strengths and weaknesses, there's no denying either of them. Get whichever one looks more interesting to you and I assure you, you'll take great pictures with either. That is, if YOU'RE good enough to utilize their capabilities and compensate their shortcomings.

4 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I'll take the younger one, if not both.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 22, 2012)

@ Viva North Las Vegas: what are you high on this time around, brother? Must be some good Sin City mushroom.

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 22, 2012)

> G15 ist der Ferrari in seiner Kategorie<
ha, ha, ha - rarely laughed so much

1 upvote
mikegriffin
By mikegriffin (Nov 22, 2012)

No articulated screen no consideration by me.

7 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 22, 2012)

That would have cost Canon another $2.85 or so in manufacturing costs, you see.

4 upvotes
quitomarez
By quitomarez (Nov 22, 2012)

Thank you for the review. As usual I found it to be informative, precise and well written. Almost absolutely agree whith your views respect to the camera.

As a G15 recent user (before it, I had a G12) I love its results & usability (yes, ergonomy is a big factor here as, for example, I never will consider purchasing a camera without some kind of ovf/evf in it).

I am sure thet there are another good compacts out there but the G15 is clearly a very serious contender. As for me, DPR's review makes justice to that.

Quito, from Spain

2 upvotes
PedroMZ
By PedroMZ (Nov 22, 2012)

I am only quessing but I suspect that the average age of DPs commentators is fairly young.Many photographers,amateur at least,are over 50 and need reading glasses to view rear screens. The poor visibility of these screens(yes I have tried the Sony) in good light added to the fact that one needs to put on glasses means that viewfinders are much the better option, apart from anything else the camera can be held much more steadily . One can also get a much better "feel " for the composition.I have never understood how people can take great photos with a camera at arm's length. The Sony is a great camera but with no viewfinder ,not even an option of one ,so sensibly offered by panasonic/olympus on their expert compacts,is a serious omission,and will put off many "senior" photographers. The Canon vewfinder is far from ideal but is certainly better than nothing. A built in EVF would be great and hopefully considered for a future model.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 22, 2012)

I use an inexpensive, 2x magnification Vivitar brand LCD VF loupe (model DSLR-LM3) that blocks out for me 100% of the outside light and gives me a huge, super-clean image to see and focus on. Not only that the VF gained this way using the camera'as LCD screen is colossal in apparent image size, my nose does not have to press hard against the camera's rear side in trying to squint through some tiny VF's peep-hole. I recommend it highly.

http://www.vivitar.com/products/106/camera-accessories/1007/dslr-lm3

1 upvote
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Nov 22, 2012)

Personally, I've always relied on the face-mash as a third point of contact for stability when I'm not on a tripod/camera stand. And I've got a schnozz, not one of those cute button things some folks have. (I hate shooting MF hand-held for that reason, though the results make me feel a whole lot better about it.) Chacun a son goût, I suppose.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Nov 23, 2012)

Francis: Thank You for your interesting Post.

I took a look at the vivitar webpage that you mentioned....Unfortunately for me that biest is much too large when used with a compact camera.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Nov 22, 2012)

Great camera but this is the end of a small sensor capabilities, the lens is fast as hell so what is next? 1" sensor or maybe G1X... right away.

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Nov 22, 2012)

The G15's image quality is simply incredible... An absolutely stellar high ISO performer...

Totally kills the P7700 for sheer IQ ... RAW write times... focussing... f2.8 at max zoom... and from what i gather the G15's video is superior too - at least sharper, more pronounced details... & better optical stabilization too...

Nikon always seems to be playing catch up to Canon with every iteration of its P series cameras... sadly this year the trend continues...

2 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Nov 22, 2012)

P7700 would be best for video as it has full manual exposure, different frame rates, flip out screen, and external mic port. Image quality is on par IMO. Both great cameras though.

2 upvotes
ELOJR
By ELOJR (Nov 22, 2012)

Love your extensive camera reviews.

Having said that: what is the shutter lag on the G15?

I own a G10 and its lag is one of the cons in an otherwise terrific compact.

Sooo...one important performance spec for me in deciding whether to upgrade is how much shorter, if at all, shutter lag on the G15 is compared with the G10.

2 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 22, 2012)

I liked your post . I agree. I own a G12 (and a G5 years ago) and the small sensor was less of a problem than I thought it was going to be.

Even the limitations in video didn't bother me much. The shutter lag is what bothers me.

Maybe I have unrealistic expectations from a compact non-dslr camera.

Othe than that, it just keeps taking great pictures.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike604
By Mike604 (Nov 22, 2012)

Excellent Image Quality. Very sharp and bright Lens. Well done Canon. It's time for me to ditch my S100 and Pick up a G15. After all the comparisons I have, I truly believe the G15 did outperform in a lot of area's to my eyes!!!

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 22, 2012)

I have no issue with the fixed screen- bar self portraits, the screen has exceptional viewing angles and there's less fiddling involved. Now don't get me wrong, both types of screen I can appreciate- and have, but it just makes for a different shooting experience with either is all. I kind of like how the G15 is slimmer and more compact and it is noticeable for sure over the G12 and especially the G1X.

Carl

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Nov 22, 2012)

I wouldn't change the rotating screen on my G12 for a G15. But that's just me.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 22, 2012)

Great. I can understand both sides of the argument and agree with both. It's really just personal preference. I can use either and be happy but I'm also aware of the compromises of using either.

Just the way the cookie crumbles.

C

0 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Nov 22, 2012)

Given the RX100 and the G1X, why does this camera exist? The RX100 has pocketable with great IQ nailed perfectly. The G1X is larger with an articulating screen. The G15 is large with a small sensor and no articulating screen. Also, giving the G15 a gold and the RX100 a silver looks very much like favoritism.

9 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 22, 2012)

Why does anything exist?

17 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 22, 2012)

This camera has better IQ on than RX100 in some situations (such as shooting @ tele end or closeups)

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 22, 2012)

"Also, giving the G15 a gold and the RX100 a silver looks very much like favoritism."

Tell your buddies at Sony to lower the price of the RX100 to $450, and I'll pick one up.

6 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 22, 2012)

"... looks like favoritism " I suppose you mean for everyone, right?

C

0 upvotes
paulski66
By paulski66 (Nov 22, 2012)

Would you like some whine with your thanksgiving dinner?

2 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Nov 22, 2012)

New cameras exist to keep reviewers employed.

1 upvote
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Nov 22, 2012)

You should not base all judgement on spec sheets. I'd prefer the G15 over a G1 X any time. It's so much faster in every way, and smaller and while the IQ is not quite the same it is still very good. These enthusiast compacts have improved a lot over the last few years.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 22, 2012)

Yep me too Lars, I agree. The 1 1/7" sized sensors also have, pretty good compromise overall considering the compact package and brighter optics for the size that can be achieved.

C

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 22, 2012)

who cares about what DPR or any other reviewer says. Look if the features it has fit you, find pictures online and see what IQ it has and decide to buy or not buy. It needs to fit you and match your needs. What DXO, DPR and others say is just indicative. And, do not take DPR shots as a status to mek up your mind, 85% of all shots you see in their review are far from what a camera is able to do. Sometime it seems to me that those who shoot need a serious lesson in picture taking. In a camera review, there should at least be 5 shots in different scenery that need to match in every test, so you can compare how a camera performs on the same subject, giving and idea of sharpness and color cast. The marine museum that comes back quiet often is such a subject, but, you have to fix one place or one frame that you keep as a reference.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Nov 22, 2012)

How can you compare cameras if you do not find the same shot in every test and the studio set-up is not reliable since DPR omits to select the same exact focusing point in the tests. Every time i have to analyze and find where the camera focused before I can imagine how good it performs. It is obvious that cameras who select a different AF point by their own, make a picture studio setup obsolete if you let the camera seek for what it things to be best to set it's focusing point.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 22, 2012)

I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:
a, high ISO,
b, fast lens
c, efficient image stabilization.

In case you have b) or c), you don't need a).

0 upvotes
Samuli Pulkkinen
By Samuli Pulkkinen (Nov 22, 2012)

Well, I'd say it's good to have all three for versatility:

If your subject is moving, you'll need a) and b), or if you need more DOF you would like to have a) and c)...

Only thing I don't get, is how anyone can say that I should not need a), b), c), d) or e).

3 upvotes
mauritsvw
By mauritsvw (Nov 22, 2012)

Let me introduce you to a fourth manner to shoot in low light: the tripod.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 22, 2012)

@mauritsvw

Ha, ha, the original and best method. But wait, isn't using a tripod cheating? It means you don't have to spend a lot of money to get inferior in-camera or in-lens image stabilization. I don't know, sounds a little fishy to me.

0 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 22, 2012)

@Samuli Pulkkinen

In the ideal world, all of us would get a)-z). But in this world it is pretty expensive to do a), and if b) provides the same benefits with lower cost, I am glad that b) exists.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 340
12