G5 Review=Worse Than G3

[Dean Smith]

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review. I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the 2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

 

[AlfredB]

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review.
I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did
NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to
allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the
ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the
2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their
new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

As a G3 owner, the last line of Phil's conclusion (skip the G5 and get the G3) made my day.

 

[EJE]

Phil's not saying that the G5 is a worse camera than the G3, he's saying that the G3 is probably a better value camera.

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review.
I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did
NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to
allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the
ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the
2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their
new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

 

[KR2]

that the G5 actually scored higher than the Sony, but only got a recommended as opposed to the highly recommended that the Sony got. Hmmmmm. The G5 beat the Sony in features and ease of use, and the only thing that the Sony beat out the G5 in was price. Yet it still got the highly recommended and the G5 only got the recommended. Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Rgds
KR

 

[KR2]

Phil's not saying that the G5 is a worse camera than the G3, he's
saying that the G3 is probably a better value camera.

With less noise above ISO 50.

Rgds
KR

 

[Dean Smith]

Phil's not saying that the G5 is a worse camera than the G3, he's
saying that the G3 is probably a better value camera.

"The G5 suffers from higher noise than the G3, and notably higher than the competition, it also has a chromatic aberration problem which is more than I would expect to see on a modern digital camera."

Add to that, re. more pixels "Four to Five megapixels - 30% increase (Not worth it)"

So if the G5 & G3 were priced the SAME, are you saying you'd pick the G5??

I'm pretty sure I would NOT!

Dean

 

[Jeff]

From the G5 review - Comparing the G5, Nikon 5400 and Sony V1

Tonal response - equal
Color response - quite similar, some subtle differences (reds mostly)
Best resolution / detail - Canon G5 followed by Sony DSC-V1
Best lens sharpness - Canon G5 followed by Sony DSC-V1
Least visible chromatic aberrations - Nikon Coolpix 5400
Lease visible noise - Nikon Coolpix 5400 followed by Sony DSC-V1

I can live with a G5 with the best resolution, detail and lens sharpness.

Jeff
http://www.shagnow.com/pics

 

[David Saulnier]

After reading the 3 reviews it seems I would still be happiest with my G3+420EX. To me the camera isn't complete indoors without the 420. The Sony's V1 looks ridiculous with its flash but has better/faster autofocusing. The Nikon 5400 seems to have better build quality and better macro. I guess that means you can drop it from a greater height The macro ability isn't as important to me as getting good shots of my family who are frequently indoors in low light and scurrying around like wild animals apparently.

 

[cameras]

Too much purple fringing and jaggies on G5. None of the 3 cameras tested were as impressive as expected in my opinion. Maybe they are having a hard time producing the cams at the new lower retail prices, compared to previous models.

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review.
I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did
NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to
allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the
ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the
2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their
new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

 

[EJE]

At the end of the day, one (Phil or anybody else) needs to come to a rather subjective conlcusion about rather objective test-results. I purchased the G5 last week after much research and analyzing samples posted by many friendly people.

In my personal experience, CA is not nearly as much of a problem as one would think reading test-reviews. I have tried to create it and really have to look for it in my pictures. I also use an UV filter and some claim it surpresses CA to a certain extent. I don't know if that's true but do not find CA to be any problem with my camera.

As far as noise is concerned, I have found ISO50 and ISO100 pictures to be very good and prints to be very clean (prints up to 8x10). I would not use iso200/400 unless I would really have to. Given the fast lens, I think avoiding to use the higher iso's should not be too much of a problem.

But as I said, test-results may be objective but the relative importance of feautures/performance is highly subjective and since no camera scores number one on all features/performances, a decision will still have to be made by you and nobody else.

I am happy with my G5.

that the G5 actually scored higher than the Sony, but only got a
recommended as opposed to the highly recommended that the Sony got.
Hmmmmm. The G5 beat the Sony in features and ease of use, and the
only thing that the Sony beat out the G5 in was price. Yet it
still got the highly recommended and the G5 only got the
recommended. Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Rgds
KR

 

[Homage]

It is all relative: the G5 did not get the "Highly Recommended" status because you can buy a G3 with the same exact features and comparable performance (better in a few areas) for considerably less cash. The G5 is not a bad camera by any means, but it is not head and shoulders above the G3, and therefore cannot justify a "Highly Recommended" consideration for the price tag.

Homage.

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review.
I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did
NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to
allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the
ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the
2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their
new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

 

[EJE]

Homage.

I'm surprised that this is the first post on Phil's new review.
I'm also surprised that this is the first G Series camera that did
NOT get the coveted "Highly Recommended" status!!

I guess Phil is NOT in Canon's pocket, as the Niknoians like to
allege! But this is not good for Canon, especially in light of the
ever-increasing hullabaloo re. the D10's focusing shortcomings.

Of course, it's SOME concilation that the Nikon 5400 also got the
2nd tier "recommended" rating. But Sony seems to have NAILED their
new offering, and despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

What the hell, I'm still thrilled with my G2!!

Dean

 

[Mattison]

And that was before I read Phil's review. I feel I've made the right choice, the purple fringing in G5's magnitude ruins pictures with bright contrasts, IMHO.

However, wasn't feeling so very lucky as I noticed a stuck pixel (bright red one) towards the middle of the pictures. :-(

Well, I hope Canon will fix it. I will be sending the camera back - but not just yet...

Mattison

 

[llam]

And my next upgrade won't be another Gx. It's gonna be a digital SLR such as the 10D.

 

[EJE]

I am sure you will love your G3, it's great! Note however that CA on the G5 is not nearly as bad as you would think. I was very concerned about it too when I purchased the G5, but real life shots have proven me wrong.

And that was before I read Phil's review. I feel I've made the
right choice, the purple fringing in G5's magnitude ruins pictures
with bright contrasts, IMHO.

However, wasn't feeling so very lucky as I noticed a stuck pixel
(bright red one) towards the middle of the pictures. :-(

Well, I hope Canon will fix it. I will be sending the camera back -
but not just yet...

Mattison

 

[Dean Smith]

Well, I hope Canon will fix it. I will be sending the camera back -
but not just yet...

HUH?!?!? "Picked it up today" and "send it back" should not be uttered in the same sentence.

Picking up implies RETAILER. Problem on first day (or within 30 days, as a rule) DEMANDS that the retailer exchanges the camera on the spot.

No repairs. No having the retailer send it in for you.

A NEW CAMERA IMMEDIATIELY!!

Of course, if you mean it ARRIVED today from mail-order, and you mean send it back to that mail house, that's another story.

 

[Mike Hunt]

despite the semi-obsolete claim that Memory
Sticks suck, this looks like a winner!

Semi-obsolete claim?

Considering that CF cards and Microdrives continue to offer higher capacities, andn that Memory Stick Pros cost twice as much as CF cards, I'd say that claim is still quite valid.

 

[Mike Hunt]

It's been said before many times, but I guess it has to be said again. The value of Phil's reviews is in the raw data and sample photos. His summaries, comments, and subjective opinions are of extremely little value to the reader, as they are highly inconsistent and only represent the writer's feelings at the time the review was written.

I suspect that Phil, like myself and many others, is a little peeved that Canon would have the audacity of releasing a G3 with a black paint job and an extra megapixel as if it were a brand new model, especially with the pretentious G5 moniker.

The V1 is no competition for the G3 or G5, and I don't think Phil intended his subjective comments to be used as a basis for comparing them. The V1 has a slow lens, limited battery life, non-articulated LCD, and the Memory Stick tax.

It may kick the butt of the S50 (with which its pricing should be compared) but it's not worthy of comparing to a G-series.

that the G5 actually scored higher than the Sony, but only got a
recommended as opposed to the highly recommended that the Sony got.
Hmmmmm. The G5 beat the Sony in features and ease of use, and the
only thing that the Sony beat out the G5 in was price. Yet it
still got the highly recommended and the G5 only got the
recommended. Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Rgds
KR

 

[NewSushi]

Question for you Mike:

If the V1 wasn't competition for the G3/5...why did Phil review it AND compare it to the others? And why, if it's not even competition, did he give the V1 "Highly Reccomended" OVER the others' "Reccomended"?

Well, in the words of Phil, himself:

"V1 - faster, more responsive, more compact (you're more likely to bring it along), better value for money (cheaper), image quality almost as good, lens better, lower noise"

I don't own any of the cameras...just being objective

-NewSushi

 

[Dave Oddie]

It's been said before many times, but I guess it has to be said
again. The value of Phil's reviews is in the raw data and sample
photos. His summaries, comments, and subjective opinions are of
extremely little value to the reader, as they are highly
inconsistent and only represent the writer's feelings at the time
the review was written.

That is not strictly true as some of the summary comments are factual e.g. the V1 has the fastest autofocus or the 5400 has banished CA.

Where subjectivity comes in is in the final rating. The Sony (he explained) gets the highly recommended tag because it does what it does for a cheaper price then the other two.

The interesting thing, given the increased CA of the G5 over more of the apature range is can you compare these subjective ratings from reviews done at different times in isolation? For example the Oly 5050 has very similar comments about CA and noise as the G5 but is the cheapest camera to buy of any of them so should it get a higher rating?

I don't really care one way or the other but this exampe does illustrate where the subjectivity lies IMO.

I suspect that Phil, like myself and many others, is a little
peeved that Canon would have the audacity of releasing a G3 with a
black paint job and an extra megapixel as if it were a brand new
model, especially with the pretentious G5 moniker.

I don't think he is in that he explained why the G3 was not called the G4 (4 sounding like "die" in asian markets) and since the G5 is a progression from the G3, even a small one, spec-wise what would you have them call it?

The V1 is no competition for the G3 or G5, and I don't think Phil
intended his subjective comments to be used as a basis for
comparing them. The V1 has a slow lens, limited battery life,
non-articulated LCD, and the Memory Stick tax.

Well to quote Phil form another post in another thread when comparing the G5 and V1:

"V1 - faster, more responsive, more compact (you're more likely to bring it along), better value for money (cheaper), image quality almost as good, lens better, lower noise"

So to say it does not compete is IMO wrong.

It may kick the butt of the S50 (with which its pricing should be
compared) but it's not worthy of comparing to a G-series.

Well you are talking nonsense now. If something that is faster, more responsive with a better lens and lower noise is not worthy of comparision, what is?

A swivelling LCD, a one stop faster lens and longer battery life may be more important to some but others may well conclude the areas where the V1 is clearly better than a G5 are the more important factors to them.

In otherwords it is now you who are coming out with the subjective view and presenting it as fact.

Dave