If I'm not mistaken, Neal is a longtime troll on this forum (and perhaps others).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Serious G1 Deficiency Overlooked by Product Reviews
- Thread starter Donald b Terrana
- Start date
BryanS
Senior Member
Diane, you're not mistaken. That's the Neal we've seen before (although he has used other names). In fact, I do believe that the last time he showed his face, he claimed to be a Canon Engineer working on testing the G2.
Bryan
The G-2 was scrapped due to the cardiac condition it accidentally caused all G-1 users.
The G-3 will correct that deficiciency by being made by Sony and simply badged the G-3. A canon spokesperson was quoted saying, "hey, if you can't beat 'em, join em."
Memory stick prices will be falling again with production rollout. G-1's will be accepted for recycling for a nominal fee.
Hope this helps.
The G-3 will correct that deficiciency by being made by Sony and simply badged the G-3. A canon spokesperson was quoted saying, "hey, if you can't beat 'em, join em."
Memory stick prices will be falling again with production rollout. G-1's will be accepted for recycling for a nominal fee.
Hope this helps.
Steve D50919
Well-known member
I've read about PIM, but wonder how usefull it will be for those of us who extensively modify their Photos in.... GULP.. Paint Shop Pro, or some lesser alternative .. like photoshop.. LOL..
What happens to PIM if the Photo no longer carries the many of the original characteristics of a PIM Camera?.. e.g. color changed.. contrast changed.. etc. Also do you think that canon will just sit there and allow all other brands to take away market share due to PIM? Seems unlikely, but i do understand the crack they are in with their Canon printers..I dont think it would be viable for them to come up with a proprietary equivelent that works ONLY on canon printers. That would be marketign suicide.
Steve D
What happens to PIM if the Photo no longer carries the many of the original characteristics of a PIM Camera?.. e.g. color changed.. contrast changed.. etc. Also do you think that canon will just sit there and allow all other brands to take away market share due to PIM? Seems unlikely, but i do understand the crack they are in with their Canon printers..I dont think it would be viable for them to come up with a proprietary equivelent that works ONLY on canon printers. That would be marketign suicide.
Steve D
And if I remember correctly the article said the results were
better than what they got with calibration.
How in the world did we get by without PIM for so long? Gee, what
a struggle it's been.
I know you enjoy the attention, but don't you need some sort of license to be an idiot?
BryanS
Senior Member
Exactly! This "new technology" sounds suspiciously like Plug and Pray to me. Frankly, I resent technology that is designed for the clueless and ends up punishing those who know what they're doing.
How many here print pictures without modifying them at all? I know I rarely do... usually some sharpening, contrast/bightness, or saturation adjustment happens first, not to mention proper cropping.
Bryan
BryanS
Senior Member
B
Bob Williams
Guest
PIM will be useful only to those that print without editing for
some time. Somehow, I don't think many G-1 or Pro90 cameras
belong to that group, and if they do, well, PIM would not
help. In over 700 8x10's from the Casio, I can think of three or
four that I printed without editing at all. There also seems to
be a problem when a memory card containing PIM enabled
images is inserted into a non-PIM printer. The card does not
get recognized in some cases. In others, the image files are
not recognized. PIM has not proved to be a useful system for
anyone yet. Why should Canon, or for that matter, any camera
system pay royalties to Epson to include what is to date at
best a questionable system that has not proven itself that I
know of. How many people here print without editing, even if
it is just autolevels or instant fix in PD?
some time. Somehow, I don't think many G-1 or Pro90 cameras
belong to that group, and if they do, well, PIM would not
help. In over 700 8x10's from the Casio, I can think of three or
four that I printed without editing at all. There also seems to
be a problem when a memory card containing PIM enabled
images is inserted into a non-PIM printer. The card does not
get recognized in some cases. In others, the image files are
not recognized. PIM has not proved to be a useful system for
anyone yet. Why should Canon, or for that matter, any camera
system pay royalties to Epson to include what is to date at
best a questionable system that has not proven itself that I
know of. How many people here print without editing, even if
it is just autolevels or instant fix in PD?
So, you all seem to be searching very hard to find a way to justify why a camera/printer combination is better if it doesn't do an excellent job on its own and requires your intervention/modification. Canon has a serious long term problem...The PIM standard has been adopted by Epson, Casio, Konica, Kyocera, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Ricoh, Sony and Toshiba. That puts Canon on a lonely isolated track. See Digital Photographer August 2001 page 10. Canon is caught in a bind. Pay to have its printers and cameras have PIM ability or find itself behind the other major digital camera companies.
BryanS
Senior Member
No, you're missing our point. PIM is another lame "standard" proposed by Epson designed to sell its line of printers. It's just like that stupid font technology "standard" proposed for the LQ dot matrix line, that was the hope to keep the dot matrix printers selling. Didn't work then, either.
It's a bit much to expect Canon to add PIM to cameras that were out before it existed, isn't it? Maybe Canon will adopt it, maybe not. If it becomes a major point that steers folks to other cameras, you can bet you'll see it. Right now, the masses couldn't care less.
Bryan
Christopher B. Huffman
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know why all of you are questioning the results. I, like Peter have had exactly the same results from testing in my hotel room. If you you the macro button at the appropriate time + have reasonable contrast in your target you WILL get focus properly. I use the macro button when focus is under about 36" and turn it off when over 36" so far no problems. Also, I do have the downloaded firmware from Canon which I'm not sure if that helps.
Regards
Regards
Maybe I am confused. I thought Peter was trying to demonstrate that unless the higher contrast item was in the center of the frame, the autofocus would miss. This has not been my experience, though I have not performed any specific tests. Perhaps, when I have a day off, I will investigate this.
Steve D50919
Well-known member
Jim may have the beginnings of a point here. A large part of the future market for digital cameras is in LOW END.. 1 megapixel.
If we assume that most of these people know nothing about editing software and could care less.. then they just might want a printer that has.. as the new Epson does.. a CF slot which will be used to print pictures directly from the printer. In these cases.. PIM offers some advantage. To us.. and the many who really are into digital photography and digital photo editing.. PIM is marginal if not useless. BUT.. where will the market go.. that is the question.
By the way.. In my view.. Epson makes great printers... so, they could easily set the market and Canon will have to respond somehow.
If we assume that most of these people know nothing about editing software and could care less.. then they just might want a printer that has.. as the new Epson does.. a CF slot which will be used to print pictures directly from the printer. In these cases.. PIM offers some advantage. To us.. and the many who really are into digital photography and digital photo editing.. PIM is marginal if not useless. BUT.. where will the market go.. that is the question.
By the way.. In my view.. Epson makes great printers... so, they could easily set the market and Canon will have to respond somehow.
Steve D50919
Well-known member
While walking into my club I saw a flower and decided to grab my G1 and take a macro. I'm not really into macros, but after reading all the postings on here, I wanted to see what would happen. i just gripped it and ripped it as they say in golf. No special setting. except to use the on board flash as a fill in. "P" mode. Nothing special in editing, except to resize pic to 640 x 480 for ease of uploading. Which presented another problem. I didnt have any way to post a pic on this forum. Did some quick research and decided that my own website was the only viable way (did not like all the photo posting services). i jumped into Lycos tripod and here it is.. crude but what can i expect for 20 minutes work.
Anyway.. what I realized about macros is that it is all in the eye and expectation of the beholder (isnt that true of all photography?). When i showed the flower on the home page to my wife and friends.. they said wow.. that is great.. what camera did you use. I'm sure however if Bob W or some other flower enthusiast sees this.. they might say.. what a piece of garbage.. lousy clarity.. lousy color.. etc. BUT why not give me your opinion. also.. i need to know if this Tripod website works worth a damn..lol
http://goin480.tripod.com/stevesphotos/
Steve D
Anyway.. what I realized about macros is that it is all in the eye and expectation of the beholder (isnt that true of all photography?). When i showed the flower on the home page to my wife and friends.. they said wow.. that is great.. what camera did you use. I'm sure however if Bob W or some other flower enthusiast sees this.. they might say.. what a piece of garbage.. lousy clarity.. lousy color.. etc. BUT why not give me your opinion. also.. i need to know if this Tripod website works worth a damn..lol
http://goin480.tripod.com/stevesphotos/
Steve D
Kevin Bjorke32030
Leading Member
Okay, now it's getting more confused to me.
First, I noticed that the shutter speed was 1 second, wide open, Surely the focus light was engaged! At such a close range, it would have a highly focused spread. Maybe a little off-center.
Second, Image 1 focusing is listed as 0.80(m), while image 2 is listed as 0.40(m). But looking at the pictures, image 1 is clearly focused CLOSER than image 2! So are the EXIFs mixed up, or is the second shot not really focused on anything, but merely "lost" and focusing at the far limits, which with macro engaged just happens to be in the neighborhood of the sofa?
Finally, in both images it's possible that the focus is not on the "subject" -- the writing on the paper -- at all (A human eye natural looks to the writing -- but the CCD doesn't read letters, only pixels). In the near-focus image 1, there is a strong contrast of the paper against the dark can -- the can is not present in image 2. In image 2, the focus plane corresponds to a dark area cause by a gap in the skirting of the sofa -- which is not present in image 1. In fact these items are the strongest contrasts in each of their respective frames (barring the possible involvement of the focus lamp).
kb
PS: I do often cover the doggoned focus lamp in bright contexts -- it's annoying in portraiture and it often causes (or seems to cause) subject blinks.
Thinking on this does suggest (to me) that the focus light might be canon's way of providing "centralized autofocus" since the electronics didn't provide one. It might make all the more sense when combined with the "autofocus crosshairs" in the OPTICAL finder -- because in the optical finder, you can see the focus light! In the EVF, it stutters while focusing.
kb
First, I noticed that the shutter speed was 1 second, wide open, Surely the focus light was engaged! At such a close range, it would have a highly focused spread. Maybe a little off-center.
Second, Image 1 focusing is listed as 0.80(m), while image 2 is listed as 0.40(m). But looking at the pictures, image 1 is clearly focused CLOSER than image 2! So are the EXIFs mixed up, or is the second shot not really focused on anything, but merely "lost" and focusing at the far limits, which with macro engaged just happens to be in the neighborhood of the sofa?
Finally, in both images it's possible that the focus is not on the "subject" -- the writing on the paper -- at all (A human eye natural looks to the writing -- but the CCD doesn't read letters, only pixels). In the near-focus image 1, there is a strong contrast of the paper against the dark can -- the can is not present in image 2. In image 2, the focus plane corresponds to a dark area cause by a gap in the skirting of the sofa -- which is not present in image 1. In fact these items are the strongest contrasts in each of their respective frames (barring the possible involvement of the focus lamp).
kb
PS: I do often cover the doggoned focus lamp in bright contexts -- it's annoying in portraiture and it often causes (or seems to cause) subject blinks.
Thinking on this does suggest (to me) that the focus light might be canon's way of providing "centralized autofocus" since the electronics didn't provide one. It might make all the more sense when combined with the "autofocus crosshairs" in the OPTICAL finder -- because in the optical finder, you can see the focus light! In the EVF, it stutters while focusing.
kb
B
Bob Williams
Guest
Not bad Steve. I don't know the true color, so i can't comment
that part of it. The red blooming you see in the center of your
shot is exactly what happens with red roses. In your shot, I am
assuming it happened in the center because of less light and
because the color is deeper in the center. On red roses it happens
on the top curved part of the petals.
This first one is what the G-1 does with other color roses.
It is not bad, and this is also a hard capture for digicams.
The G-1 does this just fine.
The problem is definately color related.
This second one is an example of the focus problem. In this case
it missed by farther than the camera was from the rose. This
is a mini red rose that I was trying to get a shot of. Notice the
center position. Notice where the focus is. This was shot in
the evening, trying to work around the blown highlights. Camera
was about 8 inches away, and the focus it 17 inches behind the
target.
Now, if that isn't a missed focus, then I need someone to
explain some things to me. This is the behavior the camera
does not do according to what has been written here in the
last few days. This is not the best example. It is just one I
missed when I was deleting bad shots one night.
that part of it. The red blooming you see in the center of your
shot is exactly what happens with red roses. In your shot, I am
assuming it happened in the center because of less light and
because the color is deeper in the center. On red roses it happens
on the top curved part of the petals.
This first one is what the G-1 does with other color roses.
It is not bad, and this is also a hard capture for digicams.
The G-1 does this just fine.
The problem is definately color related.
This second one is an example of the focus problem. In this case
it missed by farther than the camera was from the rose. This
is a mini red rose that I was trying to get a shot of. Notice the
center position. Notice where the focus is. This was shot in
the evening, trying to work around the blown highlights. Camera
was about 8 inches away, and the focus it 17 inches behind the
target.
Now, if that isn't a missed focus, then I need someone to
explain some things to me. This is the behavior the camera
does not do according to what has been written here in the
last few days. This is not the best example. It is just one I
missed when I was deleting bad shots one night.
B
Bob Williams
Guest
I would have been more interested in the contents of the
missing EXIF line Kevin. It might answer all of your other
questions.
missing EXIF line Kevin. It might answer all of your other
questions.
I strongly suggest looking at page 50 in the August issue of PC magazine (and the August issue of Digital Photographer) and reading about what a differnce PIM can make before purchasing any new digital camera. Add to the two (Olympus and Epson) cameras mentioned in the article, the Sony DSC S75, DSC S85, DSC P50 and DSC P30, Kyocera's S3 and Nikon's Coolpix 995 as cameras currently available PIM enabled cameras. The l-o-n-g list of manufacturers that have commited to PIM demonstrates that PIM is where they are going. As I said, virtually all top manufacturers of digital cameras (not just Epson) are included with the only notable absence of Canon.
B
Bob Williams
Guest
Yes, for the low end of the market. If you edit the image, crop
it, or do anything else to it, PIM is gone. It is a dead issue with
digital camera hobbiests, as we edit our images. Now, when PIM
becomes ICC enabled, where we can edit our images, and then
use PIM to output them to the printer, it might become a little
more interesting. Actually, I have a perfectly good ICC file that
handles the output to my printer just fine. Making it simple so
that some people don't feel the need to edit will not make
those that do stop, unless it can sharpen, color correct, read
my mind and crop for me, knowing which objects in the image
are the targets, and has the ability to frame them the way I want.
Lets face it. Until I can talk to my camera and tell it what I want,
I will edit. PIM is a no starter here, even if I don't mention that
the difference in cost between using a PIM enabled Epson and the
Epson I am now using is about 300 percent the wrong way.
it, or do anything else to it, PIM is gone. It is a dead issue with
digital camera hobbiests, as we edit our images. Now, when PIM
becomes ICC enabled, where we can edit our images, and then
use PIM to output them to the printer, it might become a little
more interesting. Actually, I have a perfectly good ICC file that
handles the output to my printer just fine. Making it simple so
that some people don't feel the need to edit will not make
those that do stop, unless it can sharpen, color correct, read
my mind and crop for me, knowing which objects in the image
are the targets, and has the ability to frame them the way I want.
Lets face it. Until I can talk to my camera and tell it what I want,
I will edit. PIM is a no starter here, even if I don't mention that
the difference in cost between using a PIM enabled Epson and the
Epson I am now using is about 300 percent the wrong way.
Totally agree Bob. My new Epson printer (bought as a 'real' deal BTW) will read my CF card, but I would never think of using it. Its a totally unwanted option for me. Now, my brother might use it--he even posts his photos right out of his digicam onto his Yahoo photo site without even rotating them-- LOL. For folks like him where the photos are simply recording something and of little interest beyond that--well, they may be candidates for PIM--and I would suspect the lower priced cameras. Still--some think they will get better point & shoot pics by buying a more expensive camera--and STILL do nothing to the final images. Beyond me!!!
Diane
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum