Reading mode: Light Dark

G-2 new firmware 1.0.1.0 improvements ONLY

Go to last post
I agree. I am just waiting to get some more feedback on
the results of the upgrade on the G1 before doing the
upgrade myself. I am kind of busy trying to figure out this
different editing software, and at the same time trying to
figure out how the 420 can make the pictures so much
better, and at the same time I find increased noise in the
shadow areas, especially in the edges and transitions. The
s800 is good enough to actually print the noise. And why
the focus in direct flash mode is so unreliable at close ranges.
Introducing any change right now might be a blessing. The
darned thing regularly misses targets as big as my Golden
retreiver at 8 feet in direct flash mode, but hits it dead on most
of the time in bounce mode. Too many variables already to
be doing the firmware upgrade unless i thought it would
cure something serious. I have suffered the dead battery thing,
so if it just cures that it is worth it. I left mine in sleep mode
for a few days. When I went to use it, it acted dead. When
I pulled the battery out and let it sit for an hour or so, it revived
enough to get things going again. It was spooky enough to
make you appreciate a fix for it. Dead camera that will not charge
is not a good thing.
morris said:
Weather the changes I have posted are placebo affect or real; there
is one thing clear. I have taken many fabulous photos with my G1
and will continue to do so. If the camera works better I will be
happy. If I feel it is working better I will be happy.

Morris
Bob Williams said:
Kenn Hwang said:
Andy Goldney said:
I've upgraded my G1 but have yet to do any real tests.

I got to thinking about all the other stuff on this thread.

Either Canon are so ashamed of the bugs/errors/problems before the
upgrades, that they didn't want to have to admit they needed to
make all these wonderful changes.....

Or, they've done the absolute minimum to avoid having to turn
around expensive returns for batteries conking out.

I wonder what you would do in their position?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
My observations before and after the firmware upgrade:

1). Image is sharper for sure
2). Did not notice obvious "faster focus"
3). MF maybe improved a bit, but still hard to use
--'MIB'
 
and it did not fix the bad pixel which has been there since day one :-(
MIB said:
My observations before and after the firmware upgrade:

1). Image is sharper for sure
2). Did not notice obvious "faster focus"
3). MF maybe improved a bit, but still hard to use

--
'MIB'
Click to expand...
--'MIB'
 
I have noticed a few subtle changes since doing the upgrade: The image does seem a tad sharper and the AF was slightly faster. I don't think it's "placebo" but it isn't a radical change either.
HSH said:
I have read so many threads in this forum about this new firmware
but none focused on findings of the likely improvements. I'll
list them below what other users have reported:

1) Battery charging fixed - official statement
2) Focus faster
3) Puts it in ready mode quicker when first switched on
4) One thread claims G2's flash is now more powerful (?)
5) One thread claims it has increased the optical zoom to 5X
without any hardware upgrade (???)

Anything else in
1) color handling
2) sharpness
3) focus in dark settings
4) flash light accuracy
5) Macro
6) handling of WB
7) Anything that you found but not listed
Click to expand...
 
blulegend said:
blulegend said:
One Thousand One is about the most inaccurate way to time something
ever tried. Totally subjective and different for every person who
tries it. Try using a stopwatch. That's why most digital watches
today have that feature. Mine does and I used it and powerup time
is 6 seconds flat.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
yes... but it requires one to first have a stopwatch handy. I wonder... is that how Phil does it?

Anway...
blulegend said:
Yes that technique is relative between different individuals.

BUT

As long as they do it the "same" each time and can't get through
the whole phrase, that definitely tells something.
Click to expand...
You tell'em Blu! :o)

--Willie G.Kulmbach. GermanyCanon G2- my eyeglasses are from Carl Zeiss - http://www.pbase.com/effzee
 
Marc58280 said:
As far as focussing, I could not notice any particular speed
difference during my brief exercise. But I have yet to test it
fully. I simply took the same type of pictures I attempted to take
before the update and did not notice any difference in the
"feeling" of the speed of focus. I found it difficult to actually
time the focus so I didn't try and instead just tried to carefully
observe if it felt faster. It could be, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I'm starting to wonder if, as someone else said, we aren't experiencing diferent effects of the upgrade. Maybe your camera was faster than mine to begin with and now we're on the same level. My camera was annoyingly slow before, and now it's impressively fast (I visited a Nikon-loving friend of mine last night and he was saddened and chagrined by the AF speed of my camera. He's used my camera before and said no doubt it's faster than it was). The difference is very clear to me. But maybe my camera was a bit of a dud to begin with... could be (?)

--Willie G.Kulmbach. GermanyCanon G2- my eyeglasses are from Carl Zeiss - http://www.pbase.com/effzee
 
Did anyone here have contacted Canon and asked them whether are there anymore improvements?
 
I believe evaluating an image quality llike "softness" can't be done on the (drastically) re-sized "large" versions. Well, it can be done, but it's pointless, imo. I wouldn't even compare the color using the smaller versions. I'm using the bandwidth to d/l the originals... might take a while, lol.

The numbers Binky posted suggest the after pic has lost shadow detail through a higher contrast (less Dynamic Range). I hope that's just an anomoly and has nothing to do with the firmware...

Ok, I got them loaded (the flourescents)...

I loaded them into separate layers in a Photosop document. The first thing I noticed ia that Bink's camera moved slightly at some time between the shots, so with light entering the lens at a different angle, the cause for the differences can't be said 100%.

Sharpening is the same in both shots, no doubt about it.

Blue has been bumped up in the second shot. Actually, yellow has been reduced. I took samples of the open package of paper in the background and the after shot has 3% less yellow than the before, which is pretty substantial (in case you're wondering, I made selections from each layer and made new layers from the selections, then blurred the new sample layers at 5% with gaussian blur. This gives a good average of the colors in the area and is better than trying to sample a 5x5 pixel area with teh eyedropper)

Hmmm... got bad news. Look at the top photo in the picture frame on the far left. Do you see what I see? The mesh thing in the after shot has been turned blue. Here:

Before:



After:



That has nothing to do with the slight movement of the camera... uh oh.

Willie
Norman said:
With all due respect to you, I've gone back and forth on these
images and invited a couple friends to compare. They both
immediately spotted the softness in the after shot. Being a G2
owner, I have no self interest in trying to make the G2 look bad.
Like I said, I hope that the softness that I see is due to resizing
and not with the upgraded firmware. I am using a 19" Optiquest V95
monitor with a Viper V550 video adapter and I assure you, I see the
softness in the 2000 on the blue round sticker. No over analyzing
here.

Norman
Martin Eager said:
Norman said:
While I perceive the 'after' shots to be a slight bit brighter, in
both of these before and after comparisons, the lettering on the
Norton box is softer on the after shots. Take a close look at the
round blue 2000 sticker on the box. That sticker is definitely
softer on the after picture. I hope this really isn't the case and
is a result of reducing the size of the original. I just updated
to the new firmware and would hate to think that it made a poor
decision. -Norm
Click to expand...
I don't see the same thing you do in those shots, the stickers look
identical at 100% and one certainly isn't "definitely" softer than
the other. I fear we're all at risk of over-analysing things here.

Martin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Willie G.Kulmbach. GermanyCanon G2- my eyeglasses have Carl Zeiss lenses - http://www.pbase.com/effzee
 
Willie,

I followed your cue and downloaded and compared the before and after original files. You are right. I could not see a difference in the sharpness between the two originals. I also see the color difference that you point out - the grid turning from a brownish to blue color. I also noticed after upgrading firmware, that my portraits are much redder. I use a 420EX with my G2 and don't know if the additional redness is due to changes to the WB or the way the G2 now handles reds. -Norm
effzee said:
The numbers Binky posted suggest the after pic has lost shadow
detail through a higher contrast (less Dynamic Range). I hope
that's just an anomoly and has nothing to do with the firmware...

Ok, I got them loaded (the flourescents)...

I loaded them into separate layers in a Photosop document. The
first thing I noticed ia that Bink's camera moved slightly at some
time between the shots, so with light entering the lens at a
different angle, the cause for the differences can't be said 100%.

Sharpening is the same in both shots, no doubt about it.

Blue has been bumped up in the second shot. Actually, yellow has
been reduced. I took samples of the open package of paper in the
background and the after shot has 3% less yellow than the before,
which is pretty substantial (in case you're wondering, I made
selections from each layer and made new layers from the selections,
then blurred the new sample layers at 5% with gaussian blur. This
gives a good average of the colors in the area and is better than
trying to sample a 5x5 pixel area with teh eyedropper)

Hmmm... got bad news. Look at the top photo in the picture frame on
the far left. Do you see what I see? The mesh thing in the after
shot has been turned blue. Here:

Before:



After:



That has nothing to do with the slight movement of the camera... uh
oh.

Willie
Norman said:
With all due respect to you, I've gone back and forth on these
images and invited a couple friends to compare. They both
immediately spotted the softness in the after shot. Being a G2
owner, I have no self interest in trying to make the G2 look bad.
Like I said, I hope that the softness that I see is due to resizing
and not with the upgraded firmware. I am using a 19" Optiquest V95
monitor with a Viper V550 video adapter and I assure you, I see the
softness in the 2000 on the blue round sticker. No over analyzing
here.

Norman
Martin Eager said:
Norman said:
While I perceive the 'after' shots to be a slight bit brighter, in
both of these before and after comparisons, the lettering on the
Norton box is softer on the after shots. Take a close look at the
round blue 2000 sticker on the box. That sticker is definitely
softer on the after picture. I hope this really isn't the case and
is a result of reducing the size of the original. I just updated
to the new firmware and would hate to think that it made a poor
decision. -Norm
Click to expand...
I don't see the same thing you do in those shots, the stickers look
identical at 100% and one certainly isn't "definitely" softer than
the other. I fear we're all at risk of over-analysing things here.

Martin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Willie G.
Kulmbach. Germany
Canon G2
  • my eyeglasses have Carl Zeiss lenses -
http://www.pbase.com/effzee
Click to expand...
 
Norman said:
Willie,
I followed your cue and downloaded and compared the before and
after original files. You are right. I could not see a difference
in the sharpness between the two originals. I also see the color
difference that you point out - the grid turning from a brownish to
blue color. I also noticed after upgrading firmware, that my
portraits are much redder. I use a 420EX with my G2 and don't know
if the additional redness is due to changes to the WB or the way
the G2 now handles reds. -Norm
Click to expand...
well,this one I have to agree. After taking some pictures of my wife and daughter yesterday I found the pictures more red then usual. And this is bad news as the pictures was to red even with the old firmware. Blond people tend to be become redheads. I tried all WB and only tungsten was close to the real thing.
nboyer said:
effzee said:
The numbers Binky posted suggest the after pic has lost shadow
detail through a higher contrast (less Dynamic Range). I hope
that's just an anomoly and has nothing to do with the firmware...

Ok, I got them loaded (the flourescents)...

I loaded them into separate layers in a Photosop document. The
first thing I noticed ia that Bink's camera moved slightly at some
time between the shots, so with light entering the lens at a
different angle, the cause for the differences can't be said 100%.

Sharpening is the same in both shots, no doubt about it.

Blue has been bumped up in the second shot. Actually, yellow has
been reduced. I took samples of the open package of paper in the
background and the after shot has 3% less yellow than the before,
which is pretty substantial (in case you're wondering, I made
selections from each layer and made new layers from the selections,
then blurred the new sample layers at 5% with gaussian blur. This
gives a good average of the colors in the area and is better than
trying to sample a 5x5 pixel area with teh eyedropper)

Hmmm... got bad news. Look at the top photo in the picture frame on
the far left. Do you see what I see? The mesh thing in the after
shot has been turned blue. Here:

Before:



After:



That has nothing to do with the slight movement of the camera... uh
oh.

Willie
Norman said:
With all due respect to you, I've gone back and forth on these
images and invited a couple friends to compare. They both
immediately spotted the softness in the after shot. Being a G2
owner, I have no self interest in trying to make the G2 look bad.
Like I said, I hope that the softness that I see is due to resizing
and not with the upgraded firmware. I am using a 19" Optiquest V95
monitor with a Viper V550 video adapter and I assure you, I see the
softness in the 2000 on the blue round sticker. No over analyzing
here.

Norman
Martin Eager said:
Norman said:
While I perceive the 'after' shots to be a slight bit brighter, in
both of these before and after comparisons, the lettering on the
Norton box is softer on the after shots. Take a close look at the
round blue 2000 sticker on the box. That sticker is definitely
softer on the after picture. I hope this really isn't the case and
is a result of reducing the size of the original. I just updated
to the new firmware and would hate to think that it made a poor
decision. -Norm
Click to expand...
I don't see the same thing you do in those shots, the stickers look
identical at 100% and one certainly isn't "definitely" softer than
the other. I fear we're all at risk of over-analysing things here.

Martin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Willie G.
Kulmbach. Germany
Canon G2
  • my eyeglasses have Carl Zeiss lenses -
http://www.pbase.com/effzee
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--M.LorenCanon GOly C-2100UZ
 
While counting in thousands may satisfy you, it means nothing to me and neutralizes the claim of faster focus times and boot up times. At least for me.

I'm sure that Phil uses the one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two method. Just as long as he counts the same each time, I'm sure we'd all count his timings as reliable, eh? That's how chemists time their experiments, as well. As do the great chefs. And don't forget the military, when timing the dropping of the bunker busters. Perhaps that's why they miss from time to time?

The right tool for the job is a stopwatch or wristwatch with that feature. Every watch I've had in the last 15 years has had it.

BTW, my G2 'seems' to focus faster, as well, but since I have no timings to back it up, I'll write it off to the placebo effect and not make any claims about it. That would be un-scientific.
--'Life in Prism' http://people.va.mediaone.net/tbackher
 
M.Loren said:
well,this one I have to agree. After taking some pictures of my
wife and daughter yesterday I found the pictures more red then
usual. And this is bad news as the pictures was to red even with
the old firmware. Blond people tend to be become redheads. I tried
all WB and only tungsten was close to the real thing.
Click to expand...
Well, assuming you took these photos under normal household lights, then it shouldn't be a surprise to find that the tungsten white balance setting is the accurate one. What is perhaps a little frustrating is that the Automatic White Balance doesn't seem able to detect tungsten lighting and set itself accordingly, neither the old firmware or seemingly the new either. I don't have a huge problem with that as I usually shoot RAW or adjust the white balance to tungsten manually, but sometimes it's possible to forget when in a hurry and so it'd be nice if the AWB was able to detect tungsten light better.

Cheers
Martin
 
Where exactly did I or anyone else say that we were measuring tenths of a second by counting this way? I think Binky summed it up accurately so I'll avoid redundancy.

Your "attempt" at sarcasm, which is pretty inept, only demonstrates that you haven't been reading closely.

Case in point:
Ted B.47613 said:
The right tool for the job is a stopwatch or wristwatch with that
feature. Every watch I've had in the last 15 years has had it.
Click to expand...
I said I used the seconds counter on my computer's clock, guess you were too busy thinking up cute analogies to notice. It's a digital sweeping second hand, just like your old trusty Timex, btw, though it is a Microsoft clock, so it's probably not as accurate as your watch.
Ted B.47613 said:
That would be un-scientific.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we sure wouldn't want that. I mean, why do a thing if you're not going to do it right? I'll just pull my head back into my shell now and dream of things that might have been, if I'd only had a stopwatch

W

--Willie G.Kulmbach. GermanyCanon G2- my eyeglasses have Carl Zeiss lenses - http://www.pbase.com/effzee
 
Martin Eager said:
M.Loren said:
well,this one I have to agree. After taking some pictures of my
wife and daughter yesterday I found the pictures more red then
usual. And this is bad news as the pictures was to red even with
the old firmware. Blond people tend to be become redheads. I tried
all WB and only tungsten was close to the real thing.
Click to expand...
Well, assuming you took these photos under normal household lights,
then it shouldn't be a surprise to find that the tungsten white
balance setting is the accurate one. What is perhaps a little
frustrating is that the Automatic White Balance doesn't seem able
to detect tungsten lighting and set itself accordingly, neither the
old firmware or seemingly the new either. I don't have a huge
problem with that as I usually shoot RAW or adjust the white
balance to tungsten manually, but sometimes it's possible to forget
when in a hurry and so it'd be nice if the AWB was able to detect
tungsten light better.

Cheers
Martin
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot to say I am using a 420EX to my indoor pictures.

I have done some more tests tonight and tungsten is still the one to get the colors right.

I dont know to be honest if there is any change to the colors after the new firmware now that I tested it more.
But it still to red in my taste.

I will probably use the RAW mode more often after my new P4 2Ghz has arrived by the end of next month, as it is now I feel my 450Mhz is just to tired to handle them at the speed I like.

Best regards --M.LorenCanon GOly C-2100UZ
 
The images are definitely sharper (especially in low light), and the Manual Foucs screen is much clearer (an thus more useful). Unlike the others I cannot say that the AF is any faster or the start up time is faster and I certainly didn't ge the 5x optical zoom (LOL)!
MIB said:
My observations before and after the firmware upgrade:

1). Image is sharper for sure
2). Did not notice obvious "faster focus"
3). MF maybe improved a bit, but still hard to use

--
'MIB'
Click to expand...
--Cliftonwww.pbase.com/klyphton
 
I don't know if mine was a "dud" before, but it sure seems to be focusing somewhat faster now!! : ) I definitely notice some improvements since doing the upgrade and I was very skeptical about all the hooplah before doing it.
effzee said:
Willie G. said:
As far as focussing, I could not notice any particular speed
difference during my brief exercise. But I have yet to test it
fully. I simply took the same type of pictures I attempted to take
before the update and did not notice any difference in the
"feeling" of the speed of focus. I found it difficult to actually
time the focus so I didn't try and instead just tried to carefully
observe if it felt faster. It could be, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I'm starting to wonder if, as someone else said, we aren't
experiencing diferent effects of the upgrade. Maybe your camera was
faster than mine to begin with and now we're on the same level. My
camera was annoyingly slow before, and now it's impressively fast
(I visited a Nikon-loving friend of mine last night and he was
saddened and chagrined by the AF speed of my camera. He's used my
camera before and said no doubt it's faster than it was). The
difference is very clear to me. But maybe my camera was a bit of a
dud to begin with... could be (?)

--
Willie G.
Kulmbach. Germany
Canon G2
  • my eyeglasses are from Carl Zeiss -
http://www.pbase.com/effzee
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top