Pro1 review posted on DCResource

[Karen 5]

I was really suprised by the compact size of the camera.

me too! it's a beautifully designed cam physically.

I don't see the benefit of these new 8MP cams yet. Give me a
cleaner 5MP image than I have now and I'll be happier.

same here. image quality in the 4-5 mp range is superior (to my lowly eyes). but it's a lotta fun to watch how all this is developing..

"Olympus C5050, Panasonic FZ1, FZ10K"

interesting group of cameras. what type shots do you use the C5050 for?

Karen

 

[Stefan V]

Problem is: we're a bit spoiled since we saw the pictures of the 300D. The end of the megapixel-race in "compacts" has ended. A bigger sensor will not fit because then you need bigger lenses as well and you get a huge camera.

I was really suprised by the compact size of the camera. I'm not
hot on the idea of spending $900+ with the noise levels shown.

I don't see the benefit of these new 8MP cams yet. Give me a
cleaner 5MP image than I have now and I'll be happier.

 

[Bill Palumbo]

Jeff just posted Pro1 final review:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_pro1-review/index.shtml

--
Greetings, Aleksandar

Hmmm. Three more MP and no more AF assist lamp?? Why did they get rid of the AF assist lamp - that is one of the best features of the G5 that should have migrated into the design of the Pro1. Bummer.

 

[Mike Hunt]

I will use only the iso 50 maybe 100. In iso 50 the noise is not
that bad IMHO. Why would i use iso 400 for, the nightshot in iso 50
is good enough for me

Higher ISO speeds are not for long exposure night shots, but for getting higher shutter speeds in handheld low light situations.

The high noise levels makes the higher ISO settings unusable, while the slower lens, dim EVF, and the now gone AF assist light make this an utterly inferior camera to the G3 for any sort of candid or low light shooting.

I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.

 

[Mike Hunt]

I just forgot to say, the the third way to go might be buying G5 as
an interim solution - it has G3 internals, so more accurate
focusing, ND filter etc. ....

Don't get the G5. The G3 is identical except it has slightly less resolution, along with a lower price, and far less noise and purplr fringing.

 

[Mike Hunt]

An A2? If you can accept something that bulky, why not get a DSLR instead?

 

[Steve110587]

Go to photo.net ....etc..etc... 95% of all pics are not taken in low light.. low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD in those situations.. while the lcd is useless in bright light ... it is great in low lite situations... i agree about the noise, but unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise problem. i use iso 50 or 100 in my s45 and is not a problem in most of my pics.

I will use only the iso 50 maybe 100. In iso 50 the noise is not
that bad IMHO. Why would i use iso 400 for, the nightshot in iso 50
is good enough for me

Higher ISO speeds are not for long exposure night shots, but for
getting higher shutter speeds in handheld low light situations.

The high noise levels makes the higher ISO settings unusable, while
the slower lens, dim EVF, and the now gone AF assist light make
this an utterly inferior camera to the G3 for any sort of candid or
low light shooting.

I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they
deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.

 

[mlk]

So that's the famous "L" lens quality. Like I said numerous times
before but apparently nobody wanted to believe me: the "L"-blabla
on the Pro1 was an excellent sample about how a good marketing team
can mislead everybody. Come on.. vignetting on a fixed lens... go
back to the drawing board Canon!

The vignetting, the poor low-light-focussing, the poor EVF
visibility in low-light (so manual focussing is also not possible),
no live histogram, ancient movie-mode, zoom by wire are things that
don't make me very happy.

I hope the Minolta A2 will be better, if not then I'll just skip
this batch of 8MP's and wait for half a year or so. But I doubt it
will be worse then the Pro1. It has way more features like the
Anti-Shake, a descent movie-mode, mechanical zoom, live histogram,
focus tracking, ....
And the body is proven (on the A1), the AS system is proven (on the
A1), the lens is proven (on the D7* and A1)... and image quality
will not be far apart from one of the other 8MP's.

if so, then maybe go for A1 - you'll get enough Mpix (IMO), much less noise and PF (the same size of CCD, but less Mpix), very similar features to A2

Regards,
Marcin
G3

 

[Mike Hunt]

Go to photo.net ....etc..etc... 95% of all pics are not taken in
low light..

That's because all these lousy cameras perform so poorly in low light. I take a lot of photos in low light - which does not mean total darkness, but virtually any indoor environment. In that sort of lighting, even f2.0 is marginal. And when shooting at night, with flash, an AF assist lamp is absolutely necessary.

My G3 can run rings around this overpriced and overhyped loser. Much lower noise, much lower purple fringing, smaller, cheaper, lighter, and immensely more usable in low light and for tracking moving subjects. This misleadingly named Pro1 is nothign but a crippled point and shoot camera pretendiong to be a compact SLR alternative.

This camera is worthless unless you're willing to limit yourself to bright, outdoor conditions, and refrain from shooting any moving subjects, especially while using zoom.

Canon continues their decline into marketing BS opver engineering excellence. They've entirely lost my confidence and loyalty.

low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD

in those situations.. while the lcd is useless in bright light ...
it is great in low lite situations... i agree about the noise, but
unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise
problem. i use iso 50 or 100 in my s45 and is not a problem in
most of my pics.

I will use only the iso 50 maybe 100. In iso 50 the noise is not
that bad IMHO. Why would i use iso 400 for, the nightshot in iso 50
is good enough for me

Higher ISO speeds are not for long exposure night shots, but for
getting higher shutter speeds in handheld low light situations.

The high noise levels makes the higher ISO settings unusable, while
the slower lens, dim EVF, and the now gone AF assist light make
this an utterly inferior camera to the G3 for any sort of candid or
low light shooting.

I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they
deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.

 

[pekr]

I just forgot to say, the the third way to go might be buying G5 as
an interim solution - it has G3 internals, so more accurate
focusing, ND filter etc. ....

Don't get the G5. The G3 is identical except it has slightly less
resolution, along with a lower price, and far less noise and purplr
fringing.

OK, I can understand it, but I can't find NEW G3 anywhere in the stores around, only G5 ...

-pekr-

 

[Phredd]

Compared to the 10D with 28-135 lens, the A2 is miniscule. I was ready to send back my A2, but I'm now thinking it might be better than the Pro 1. For me the only hope for the Pro 1 was better image quality. Feature-wise, the A2 has the Pro 1 beat hands down. With Jeff's review, it's clear that image quality will not carry the Pro 1. But, if we just pass on the 8's, what's next? It's hard to imagine they'd ever reduce MP's. Just hope for better sensor technology next year?

Fred

An A2? If you can accept something that bulky, why not get a DSLR
instead?

 

[Mike Hunt]

low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD
in those situations..

The LCD is already useless in those situations. Too dim and way too slow. This is the only reason I ever used my G3's OVF, which is wy I never complained about the elns obsctruction issue.

while the lcd is useless in bright light ...
it is great in low lite situations...

No it's not. Any LCD is terible in low light. My eyes can see far better in low light than any LCD, other than Sony's night vision system.

i agree about the noise, but
unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise
problem.

My G3 has far less noise, and the faster lens means I don't need to rely on higher ISO speeds nearly as muich as wit h the Pro1.

 

[Mike Hunt]

Compared to the 10D with 28-135 lens, the A2 is miniscule.

But the 10d (or digityal rebel) can become quite compact with a normal or wide angle fixed focal length lens. No such option wit the A2. And any SLR will run rings around any non-SLR in low light performance, response times, and autofocus performance.

Also, the new Olympus 4/3 DSLR system is quite compact.

The only reason I don't use an SLR is size. I would never consider a non-SLR that's as bulky as an SLR. I don't personally need a powerful zoom lens that often.

I was
ready to send back my A2, but I'm now thinking it might be better
than the Pro 1. For me the only hope for the Pro 1 was better
image quality. Feature-wise, the A2 has the Pro 1 beat hands down.
With Jeff's review, it's clear that image quality will not carry
the Pro 1. But, if we just pass on the 8's, what's next? It's
hard to imagine they'd ever reduce MP's. Just hope for better
sensor technology next year?

All I know is that I now have zero interest in Canon. They lost me as a customer. Let them profit from the masses of newbie consumers who buy on specs and not real-life performance.

My strategy will probably shift to a combination of 2 cameras - one cvompact and one full featured. For compacts, Sony's AF system is king.

 

[AMomcil]

An A2? If you can accept something that bulky, why not get a DSLR
instead?

Buky? Jeff states:
Canon PowerShot Pro1 4.6 x 2.8 x 3.5 in. 45.1 cu. in. 545 g
Minolta DiMAGE A2 4.5 x 3.4 x 4.5 in. 68.9 cu. in. 565 g

So, A2 is an inch thicker (but I think lens does not protrude so much when zooming) and half an inch heigher. Is that so much? To my eyes A2 has more place for the left hand on the lens too.

I do have a DSLR (Canon D30), but A2 looks really promising to me. I haven't seen much of a difference between 8MP cameras so far, so it goes down to usability, for me at least.

Mechanical zoom, finally a good EVF, AS, good lens with great coverage (28-200mm), lots of external commands, fast AF..

I would used it more than my D30 and with more joy, I think..

So, I would vote for A2 too (waiting to see pictures, too), but would I put my money on it, we shal see..

--
Greetings, Aleksandar

 

[Mike Hunt]

Also, A1 (and A2?) still lack an AF assist lamp and have relatively slow f2.8/f3.5 lens.

 

[Steve110587]

in your case, you are probably right. i just posted a question.. if you would choose 4 mp. setting.. would you get less noise than the 8 mp ? .. or is it a funtion of the sensor itself.

i have an s45, but the pro1 looks like a nice step up... i am looking at the d70 as well.. but the weight with a 200mm lens !. and it is more expensive... can't sleep at night over this one.

Go to photo.net ....etc..etc... 95% of all pics are not taken in
low light..

That's because all these lousy cameras perform so poorly in low
light. I take a lot of photos in low light - which does not mean
total darkness, but virtually any indoor environment. In that sort
of lighting, even f2.0 is marginal. And when shooting at night,
with flash, an AF assist lamp is absolutely necessary.

My G3 can run rings around this overpriced and overhyped loser.
Much lower noise, much lower purple fringing, smaller, cheaper,
lighter, and immensely more usable in low light and for tracking
moving subjects. This misleadingly named Pro1 is nothign but a
crippled point and shoot camera pretendiong to be a compact SLR
alternative.

This camera is worthless unless you're willing to limit yourself to
bright, outdoor conditions, and refrain from shooting any moving
subjects, especially while using zoom.

Canon continues their decline into marketing BS opver engineering
excellence. They've entirely lost my confidence and loyalty.

low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD

in those situations.. while the lcd is useless in bright light ...
it is great in low lite situations... i agree about the noise, but
unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise
problem. i use iso 50 or 100 in my s45 and is not a problem in
most of my pics.

I will use only the iso 50 maybe 100. In iso 50 the noise is not
that bad IMHO. Why would i use iso 400 for, the nightshot in iso 50
is good enough for me

Higher ISO speeds are not for long exposure night shots, but for
getting higher shutter speeds in handheld low light situations.

The high noise levels makes the higher ISO settings unusable, while
the slower lens, dim EVF, and the now gone AF assist light make
this an utterly inferior camera to the G3 for any sort of candid or
low light shooting.

I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they
deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.

 

[Steve110587]

let's define low light.. i'm refering to general indoor with ambiant room lighting. i never had a problem there.. i suppose if taking pictures in a church or museum.. yes ... it's guesswork. my s45's assist lamp has worked well though.. the pro1 without the assist.. that worries me...

low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD
in those situations..

The LCD is already useless in those situations. Too dim and way too
slow. This is the only reason I ever used my G3's OVF, which is wy
I never complained about the elns obsctruction issue.

while the lcd is useless in bright light ...
it is great in low lite situations...

No it's not. Any LCD is terible in low light. My eyes can see far
better in low light than any LCD, other than Sony's night vision
system.

i agree about the noise, but
unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise
problem.

My G3 has far less noise, and the faster lens means I don't need to
rely on higher ISO speeds nearly as muich as wit h the Pro1.

 

[Mike Hunt]

Buky? Jeff states:
Canon PowerShot Pro1 4.6 x 2.8 x 3.5 in. 45.1 cu. in. 545 g
Minolta DiMAGE A2 4.5 x 3.4 x 4.5 in. 68.9 cu. in. 565 g

So, A2 is an inch thicker (but I think lens does not protrude so
much when zooming) and half an inch heigher. Is that so much?

For me it is. I'm looking for the smallest possible full featured camera - something I feel confortable taking anywhere. Also, the A2 has an even slower lens and still no AF assist lamp.

With the 8mp sensor, I expect to see high noise and pf as well.

I do have a DSLR (Canon D30), but A2 looks really promising to me.
I haven't seen much of a difference between 8MP cameras so far, so
it goes down to usability, for me at least.

Only if you "must" have 8mp. I see no need for it whatsoever. Higher resolution was nowhere on my wish list.

finally a good EVF

Without AF assist and without nightshot capability, any EVF is useless in low light. An OVF is essential.

good lens

Way too slow for my needs.

 

[Ramblin]

C5050 does well in indoor low light shots - F1.8 lens, focus assist. It also does well for landscape shots with more resolution than the FZ10.

I'm still considering an Minolta A1 - 28mm for wide angle, good low light shooting, nice EFV, 7x anti-shake. Just not yet willing to pull the trigger for $600.

interesting group of cameras. what type shots do you use the
C5050 for?

Karen

--
Olympus C5050, Panasonic FZ1, FZ10K, Oly Tcon 1.7
http://www.pbase.com/ramblin_mo/galleries

 

[AMomcil]

My G3 can run rings around this overpriced and overhyped loser.
Much lower noise, much lower purple fringing, smaller, cheaper,
lighter, and immensely more usable in low light and for tracking
moving subjects. This misleadingly named Pro1 is nothign but a
crippled point and shoot camera pretendiong to be a compact SLR
alternative.

This camera is worthless unless you're willing to limit yourself to
bright, outdoor conditions, and refrain from shooting any moving
subjects, especially while using zoom.

Well, Mike, we know that you are not going to buy Pro1, but I think that you are overreacting now, insulting maybe the future Pro1 owners. As things stands right now, I like A2 more than Pro1, but I'd certainly prefer to have Pro1 than G3.

If you downscale from 8MP -> 4MP I think that you will have at least as good picture as on G3. And with ISO50 probably markedly better.

I'd prefer to have hybrid focus system then AF lamp, G3 focuses very, very slow and focus speed is much more important to me then being able to AF in very low light scenario. I'd use MF in those (rare) cases. Well, C8080 solved that with having both, like F828, but I still like hybrid focus a lot.

Pro1 has a great lens range and I really hate zooming with buttons. OK, focusing ring "by-wire" is not as good as real thing on F828 & A2 but is much better than using buttons, like on Ixus cameras.

Don't get me wrong, G3 is an excellent camera (I was using it too), but Pro1 looks much better, to me at least.

--
Greetings, Aleksandar