Extensive CP5000 vs. G2 comparison posted.

grablife · Feb 2, 2002

Well said. 4-5 megapixels is plenty. I'd rather have a camera with a wide aperture range (f/1.2 to f/16) and wide shutter range (30 min-1/8000s) with fast and accurate multipoint focus.

There is, however, a place for in camera processing. You'll be surprised at how many people just shoot it and send it off to be printed. With the introduction of printers with CF card readers, you're going to see that even more.

Arvin Chang said:
It is an advantage to have lots of adjustments available such that
the camera suits the user's personal preference. However, in most
cases, these adjustments don't reall affect the overall quality of
the image.

Contrast, White Balance, Sharpening, Saturation as nice tweaks, but
they all can be done/redone in post-processing. This is just my
opinion, but digital darkroom is where tweaks to the photo should
be made, not in-camera. Here, you can apply adjustments on a
photo-by-photo basis with many more possible adjustments and
settings than any camera could possible have. That's not to say
that in-camera tweaks aren't nice, but they will always be
subordinate to digital darkroom work, which any photo enthusiast
will do anyway.

Personally, I care more about ranges of exposure settings
(apeture/shutter time) and ranges in focal length (wide/zoom angle)
and a good metering system (avoiding under/overexposure). Since
these are harder to redo in photoshop.

It's only a small point... but I dislike the somewhat limited
number of apeture/shutter settings the CP5k has. For instance, the
CP5k only has 5 apeture settings at full telephoto (widest at 4.8)
and and only 15 shutter selections total. This limits my ability to
select my depth of field and avoid "motion blur" also with more
controls on the shutter speed, I would be able manually "tweak" the
overall exposure more easily.

--arvin

John Chan · Feb 2, 2002

I spent more than 3 hours on your CP5K and G2 comparison.
Greate job done! Thank you.

Somehow, even the text keep giving G2 a better grade, the underlining sentiment was still "I like my 5000, it gives better pictures". Don't you?

Grablife said:
There is, however, a place for in camera processing. You'll be
surprised at how many people just shoot it and send it off to be
printed. With the introduction of printers with CF card readers,
you're going to see that even more.

Arvin Chang said:

It is an advantage to have lots of adjustments available such that
the camera suits the user's personal preference. However, in most
cases, these adjustments don't reall affect the overall quality of
the image.

Contrast, White Balance, Sharpening, Saturation as nice tweaks, but
they all can be done/redone in post-processing. This is just my
opinion, but digital darkroom is where tweaks to the photo should
be made, not in-camera. Here, you can apply adjustments on a
photo-by-photo basis with many more possible adjustments and
settings than any camera could possible have. That's not to say
that in-camera tweaks aren't nice, but they will always be
subordinate to digital darkroom work, which any photo enthusiast
will do anyway.

Personally, I care more about ranges of exposure settings
(apeture/shutter time) and ranges in focal length (wide/zoom angle)
and a good metering system (avoiding under/overexposure). Since
these are harder to redo in photoshop.

It's only a small point... but I dislike the somewhat limited
number of apeture/shutter settings the CP5k has. For instance, the
CP5k only has 5 apeture settings at full telephoto (widest at 4.8)
and and only 15 shutter selections total. This limits my ability to
select my depth of field and avoid "motion blur" also with more
controls on the shutter speed, I would be able manually "tweak" the
overall exposure more easily.

--arvin

Click to expand...

grablife · Feb 2, 2002

I called it as I saw it. I did not start off with any preconceived impressions. As to which one produces better pictures. Let's just say the best picture the Nikon can produce is better than the best picture the Canon can produce. The real question is how often you can get that best picture with either camera. I'll let those who read the comparison make up their own minds.

Here's the web site:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto

John Chan said:
Somehow, even the text keep giving G2 a better grade, the
underlining sentiment was still "I like my 5000, it gives better
pictures". Don't you?

Sean Keegan · Feb 3, 2002

Hi everyone,

I was just going over the excellent comparison between the CP 5000 and the G2 that Grablife did and I have some comments that I think are important here. I know that Grablife decided the CP 5000 the hands down winner in resolution, but I want people to notice some things in these shots. I know some of you will remember my resolution chart comparison I put together between the G2, Sony 707, and CP 5000. Forget about absolute resolution for a minute (even though the CP 5000 can resolve finer lines than the G2 anyway), one of the things I noticed a lot in this comparison was how "stairstepped" the diagonal lines were for the G2 and the 707 compared to the smooth lines of the CP 5000. There were some comments that resolution charts were not real world examples and pretty meaningless. Well thanks to Grablife, you can see how the very poor performance of the G2 with regards to resolution and aliasing affect real world photos.

Please, if you will, take a look at the images on this page:

http://members.telocity.com/~grablife/shootout/cp5kvg2/daylightisocompare.htm

The images you should look at in particular are the boat scene with the blow up of the "Tranquility Base", and the blow up of the Golden gate bridge. Also, but to a lesser degree, the blow up images at the top of the page of the front of a boat in back of a art sculpture.

Take a look at the ladder leaning on the boat over the lettering. Notice anything on the G2 image? Very bad aliasing. So bad that the sides of the ladder dissapear at times!! Look at the CP 5000 versions and you will see a smooth ladder they way it is meant to be. Also notice how much nicer the lettering looks in the CP 5000 images.

On the Golden Gate image a bit farther down the page look at the edge of the suspension support cable. Notice anything on the G2 images? Yes, bad aliasing again!

And again on the front of the boat image near the top of the page the G2 displays aliasing problems, but to a lesser degree, it is there though. This happens a lot more often that you would imagine with the G2. I see evidence of it all the time, but Grablife posted some images that show the differences and they are undisputable.

Why do I bring this up? Well the G2 is a great camera, but not in the same league to me as the CP 5000 (my opinion). The vast options the CP 5000 afford the user is a huge plus, the image quality is much better than the G2, the color accuracy is great. And the small problems the camera does have can easily be compensated for by a good photographer (one example being the blown highlights, set a different exposure and problem solved). But the aliasing problem is such that not even the most skilled photographer can get the G2 to output a smooth ladder! That to me is the big win for the Nikon. Which looks more like film to you? The smooth ladder, or the ladder with sections MISSING?!?! Thanks to Grablife for a great comparison. To ME it just confirmed that the CP 5000 is the better of the two. What do you guys think about this aliasing?

Regards,
Sean

Magne Nilsen · Feb 4, 2002

Not sure that's just aliasing. I think Canon - (deliberately? or not?) have a 45 degrees lineseeking algorithm in their de-bayering stuff. Sometimes it works very well, other times it fails, like on the ladder. Actually it often fails on subjects where lines are close to 45 degrees.
--Magne

grablife · Feb 4, 2002

The issue with the G2's jagged edges are discussed in detail in Phil's review of the camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong2/page17.asp

I do not disbute that the CP5K can resolve more pixels. Afterall, it has a 1 megapixel advantage. The real question is if this will show up in the images you plan to use. I don't agree with the last statement that this one issue confirms that the CP 5000 is the better camera. One feature does not make or break a camera. I would caution against anyone making a decision on a camera based on one item of comparison. Afterall, if megapixel is the only consideration, shouldn't the CP5000 be considered superior to the Nikon D1H (2.74 mp) ?

If you're going to make posters of outdoor shots, the CP5K is the better camera. If you're going to shoot 4x6 images at 10 feet away using telephoto in a dark nightclub using the internal flash, you're probably not going to be happy with the CP5K. That's why I did not make a camera recomendation in the end. The reader has to choose which items are important to them.

Sean Keegan said:
To ME it just confirmed that the CP 5000 is the better
of the two. What do you guys think about this aliasing?

Jorgen Bergfors · Feb 4, 2002

Grablife said:
If you're going to shoot 4x6 images at 10 feet away
using telephoto in a dark nightclub using the internal flash,
you're probably not going to be happy with the CP5K.

Who, in their right mind, would shoot telephoto at a nightclub using the internal flash with any camera?

Jorgen

Sean Keegan · Feb 4, 2002

I did mention that you did say in your comparison that the CP 5000 has the better resolution. And I never did say that just the bad aliasing of the G2 made the CP 5000 the better camera, there are plenty of other things that all add up to make it the better camera for ME. Yes I agree, some people will disagree with me, and they might be right for them. But for me the aliasing is BAD! Try printing out a resonable size image of the ladder scene, you will see the problem in the PRINT! That to me is unnaceptable.

The CP 990 had only 3 MP and it could resolve diagonal lines almost perfectly. So you are right it is not always about megapixels. But the fact that a 3 MP camera can resolve diagonal lines with no jaggies is proof there is something wrong with the G2. Take a look at the resolution charts of the 990 to see what I mean. If you remember the comparision I put together you will remember that the 990 beat the G2. G2 came in dead last. The Sony won on resolution alone, but the CP 5000 won on smoothness of diagonals and no moire patterns and color accuracy and many other levels which let me to give it the number 1 position Sony 2nd. the 990 was third, and the G2 last.

Many people have commented how prints from the G2 look like they came from a digital camera because of all the stairstepping (and in lots of areas of the print, not just perfectly diagonal lines). Jaggies are a sure giveaway that you used a digital camera. They comment on how film-like the CP 5000 is. Prints are what matter to me. My friend had a G2 and we compared extensively, and the G2 prints were inferior to the CP 5000 prints at any size. The CP 5000 has its share of faults that drive me nuts sometimes. But usually there is a workaround that works wonders... many have been pointed out by people on this forum. That said, it always comes down to the photographer. A good photographer will learn his camera and take great images regardless of the limitations. A good photographer will almost never use Auto mode. The CP 5000 just has so much customization, once you learn how to use it the images it produces are second to none! In my opinion, of course. Another friend of mine had the Sony 707, we compared and the CP 5000 was the better camera in that case too (for me), but that is another story. Both friends bought CP 5000s. They both still own their Sony and G2s though.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring this problem the G2 has to everyone's attention because like you said, you should not discount a camera based on a few bad shots or problems (like the blowing out of whites). The CP 5000 is a GREAT camera and I am sure Grablife would agree.

Regards,
Sean

Grablife said:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong2/page17.asp

I do not disbute that the CP5K can resolve more pixels. Afterall,
it has a 1 megapixel advantage. The real question is if this will
show up in the images you plan to use. I don't agree with the last
statement that this one issue confirms that the CP 5000 is the
better camera. One feature does not make or break a camera. I would
caution against anyone making a decision on a camera based on one
item of comparison. Afterall, if megapixel is the only
consideration, shouldn't the CP5000 be considered superior to the
Nikon D1H (2.74 mp) ?

If you're going to make posters of outdoor shots, the CP5K is the
better camera. If you're going to shoot 4x6 images at 10 feet away
using telephoto in a dark nightclub using the internal flash,
you're probably not going to be happy with the CP5K. That's why I
did not make a camera recomendation in the end. The reader has to
choose which items are important to them.

grablife said:

To ME it just confirmed that the CP 5000 is the better
of the two. What do you guys think about this aliasing?

Click to expand...

Zoltan Csuka · Feb 7, 2002

I spent about one hour trying to compare imaging resources resulution charts of the G2, cp5k, f707, E20. I have to agree with you: none of the competition can get even close to the smooth transitions of the cp5000, artifect-free, almost film-like lines! The reviewer even comments on it that the cp5000 is great at high contrast resolution etc. Just one thing to mention though: I might have missed something, but I couldnt find the g2's raw-format resolution chart, that might improve on its scores somewhat.

Sean Keegan said:
Hi everyone,

I was just going over the excellent comparison between the CP 5000
and the G2 that Grablife did and I have some comments that I think
are important here. I know that Grablife decided the CP 5000 the
hands down winner in resolution, but I want people to notice some
things in these shots. I know some of you will remember my
resolution chart comparison I put together between the G2, Sony
707, and CP 5000. Forget about absolute resolution for a minute
(even though the CP 5000 can resolve finer lines than the G2
anyway), one of the things I noticed a lot in this comparison was
how "stairstepped" the diagonal lines were for the G2 and the 707
compared to the smooth lines of the CP 5000. There were some
comments that resolution charts were not real world examples and
pretty meaningless. Well thanks to Grablife, you can see how the
very poor performance of the G2 with regards to resolution and
aliasing affect real world photos.

Please, if you will, take a look at the images on this page:

http://members.telocity.com/~grablife/shootout/cp5kvg2/daylightisocompare.htm

The images you should look at in particular are the boat scene with
the blow up of the "Tranquility Base", and the blow up of the
Golden gate bridge. Also, but to a lesser degree, the blow up
images at the top of the page of the front of a boat in back of a
art sculpture.

Take a look at the ladder leaning on the boat over the lettering.
Notice anything on the G2 image? Very bad aliasing. So bad that the
sides of the ladder dissapear at times!! Look at the CP 5000
versions and you will see a smooth ladder they way it is meant to
be. Also notice how much nicer the lettering looks in the CP 5000
images.

On the Golden Gate image a bit farther down the page look at the
edge of the suspension support cable. Notice anything on the G2
images? Yes, bad aliasing again!

And again on the front of the boat image near the top of the page
the G2 displays aliasing problems, but to a lesser degree, it is
there though. This happens a lot more often that you would imagine
with the G2. I see evidence of it all the time, but Grablife posted
some images that show the differences and they are undisputable.

Why do I bring this up? Well the G2 is a great camera, but not in
the same league to me as the CP 5000 (my opinion). The vast options
the CP 5000 afford the user is a huge plus, the image quality is
much better than the G2, the color accuracy is great. And the small
problems the camera does have can easily be compensated for by a
good photographer (one example being the blown highlights, set a
different exposure and problem solved). But the aliasing problem is
such that not even the most skilled photographer can get the G2 to
output a smooth ladder! That to me is the big win for the Nikon.
Which looks more like film to you? The smooth ladder, or the ladder
with sections MISSING?!?! Thanks to Grablife for a great
comparison. To ME it just confirmed that the CP 5000 is the better
of the two. What do you guys think about this aliasing?

Regards,
Sean

grablife · Feb 7, 2002

I posted 60 crops from some real world examples. After looking over hundreds of images taken with the G2, I can confidently report that the image of the ladder is probably the best example of jagged diagonals I have in the over 1000 shots. I can find no other images or areas within an image that has jagged diagonals this pronounced. Note that this effect is not caused by JPEG compression as it exists to some degree in RAW file formats as well. I can only conclude that jagged diagonals from the G2 are no more prevalent than chromatic aberration is in the Nikon CP5000. It's doubtful these artifacts will be visible in prints, which have not been overly enlarged. This effect can be minimize by shooting in -1 sharpness and resharpening in PS using unsharp mask. You can take a look at the samples in section 13 of the web site.

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto

I would caution any viewers from making too much of one image showing jagged diagonals; just as I would caution anyone from making too much of the CA in this one CP5000 sample image.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikoncp5000_samples/ (#7)

There was also a very informative discussion in the Canon forum regarding this issue.

Zoltan Csuka said:
I spent about one hour trying to compare imaging resources
resulution charts of the G2, cp5k, f707, E20. I have to agree with
you: none of the competition can get even close to the smooth
transitions of the cp5000, artifect-free, almost film-like lines!
The reviewer even comments on it that the cp5000 is great at high
contrast resolution etc. Just one thing to mention though: I might
have missed something, but I couldnt find the g2's raw-format
resolution chart, that might improve on its scores somewhat.

eL47288 · Feb 7, 2002

Impressive and knowledgable display of information. The comparison proves the manufacturers are not putting in as much overtime as the rest of us.(eL)

Grablife said:
I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

--eL

grablife · Feb 7, 2002

As any movie or food critic knows, it's much easier to critique than to create. The real challenge is for them to listen...to their customers.

eL said:
Impressive and knowledgable display of information. The comparison
proves the manufacturers are not putting in as much overtime as the
rest of us.(eL)

Ruffian · Mar 22, 2002

Sean Keegan said:
Try
printing out a resonable size image of the ladder scene, you will
see the problem in the PRINT! That to me is unnaceptable.

How big a print did you make out of the G2? It ought to show up at 8x10, no doubt, and more markedly on bigger prints than that, but it wouldn't make much of a difference: your friends aren't likely to be too concerned with jaggies like that.

Sean Keegan said:
If you
remember the comparision I put together you will remember that the
990 beat the G2. G2 came in dead last. The Sony won on resolution
alone, but the CP 5000 won on smoothness of diagonals and no moire
patterns and color accuracy and many other levels which let me to
give it the number 1 position Sony 2nd. the 990 was third, and the
G2 last.

Where are the Olympuses on this scale? To put G2 last here is, umm, "yeah right".

Sean Keegan said:
Many people have commented how prints from the G2 look like they
came from a digital camera because of all the stairstepping (and in
lots of areas of the print, not just perfectly diagonal lines).

Well, there's a thread back in the Canon Talk about sales antics. A poster (who worked as sales in a camera store) encountered a customer who said digital cameras can't make good prints. He showed her a stunning 8x10 using the G2 as the source, and she's so confused, she left the store.--Underbid the competitors and then, after the customer is committed, say, 'Oops, you really need to buy more stuff to make this work. Did I forget to mention that?' -- Scott Adams =[ The Dilbert Future ]=Goto http://www.printerboyweb.net/G2 for my own little gallery. =)

Mahmoud · Apr 2, 2002

Tyler Monson wrote:

The problem is that the designers have included a rudimentary automatic configuration for these cameras, so as to appeal to the widest-possible market. However, the advanced user really doesn't care about the movie mode and is frustrated by the anemic built-in flash and the defaults, while the snapshooter is dumbfounded by all the controls.

This policy actually conforms to a key Usability Heuristic:

"The given product or system should contain modes for novice as well as expert users".

The CP5000 does that. The trouble is, learning the expert mode causes a violation of another key heuristic:

"The product or process should be easy to learn and at best, be "intuitive" to create the least amount of cognitive friction for the user". The CP5000 fails in this respect.

BTW, I'ma pro shooter and thoroughly enjoy all the CP5000's features, including the Movie Mode (I also own a Canon XL1 DV) and the flash, which is anything but anemic given it's diminutive size.

The CP5000 is not a perfect product, but I'll take Its Art Deco Looks over the "Brick shaped" G2 any day.--M.El-Darwish Director Imago Studio

Etienne Brès · Oct 12, 2002

Great test Grablife!

I just have a question. On your lens sharpness test the G2 seems to be a little superior to the Nikon. THis can be especially observed on the 300X image of the window. Could you confirm?

tieno

Grablife said:
I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

--
tieno

Michael Oersigh · Oct 12, 2002

Etienne Brès said:
I just have a question. On your lens sharpness test the G2 seems to
be a little superior to the Nikon. THis can be especially observed
on the 300X image of the window. Could you confirm?

tieno

Grablife said:

I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

Click to expand...

--

Actually the 5000 lens is superior, it has 3 aspheric elements, the forthcoming G3 will have 2. The Nikon lens is therefore designed for greater sharpness and smoothness and more natural colour satuartion. However the contrast is a little low compared to the G2 lens and some shots, fully stretched have a somewhat print quality to them. Don't forget the Nikon lens is designed to give 28mm quality and much wider, so there are some compromises compared to the bog standard 35-105 type lens.

Another thing to note is the exposures on the two cameras are not the same on his site. It is a good comparison, well interesting but no more than that, the 5000 is unique and when paired with the MB5000 is incomparable.

Michael

Etienne Brès · Oct 13, 2002

Hi Michael

This point is relatively important since a lot a reviews indicate that the G2 lens is superior to the nikon 5000 lens. I quote DPreview

"While the G2 may have less pixels available it is clear that it is making 'more of them' thanks to a sharper lens and better image processing. The 'megapixel advantage' which the Coolpix 5000 carries doesn't appear to be producing very much visible (or usable) detail here."

To what I know from my optics, the number of lenses is note necesseraly correlated to the quality of the lens. Other aspects also hae to be taken into account such as desing and th quality of the construction of the lens itself. The best would be to compare the two cameras at identical conditions: contrast, focal length...
Do you think it is possible to carry this test out?

Thanks again fo the test

tieno

Michael Oersigh said:
Etienne Brès said:

I just have a question. On your lens sharpness test the G2 seems to
be a little superior to the Nikon. THis can be especially observed
on the 300X image of the window. Could you confirm?

tieno

Grablife said:

I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Actually the 5000 lens is superior, it has 3 aspheric elements, the
forthcoming G3 will have 2. The Nikon lens is therefore designed
for greater sharpness and smoothness and more natural colour
satuartion. However the contrast is a little low compared to the G2
lens and some shots, fully stretched have a somewhat print quality
to them. Don't forget the Nikon lens is designed to give 28mm
quality and much wider, so there are some compromises compared to
the bog standard 35-105 type lens.

Another thing to note is the exposures on the two cameras are not
the same on his site. It is a good comparison, well interesting but
no more than that, the 5000 is unique and when paired with the
MB5000 is incomparable.

Michael

--

--
tieno

Ken. · Oct 13, 2002

I too found fault with Grabfiles comparisions. I saw shots that were blownout in the comparision, but when looking at the bracketed shots on deeper pages there were some that were not blownout. Why the ones were chosed for the comparisions I don't know. I do know that the exposures were not the same, so one cannot state that it was even.

As far as G2 vs 5000. They are both fine camera's in my opinion. I have the 5000 and I love it. I have seen many outstanding g2 shots. There is no right or wrong camera when it comes to these.

I like the overall picture quality of the 5000 more than the g2. I think that grabfile liked the overall quality of the 5000 too. Just go to the user comments for both cameras and do a search for grabfile. He rated the 5000 higher for quality and the g2 higher for ease of use.

Ken.

Etienne Brès said:
This point is relatively important since a lot a reviews indicate
that the G2 lens is superior to the nikon 5000 lens. I quote
DPreview
"While the G2 may have less pixels available it is clear that it is
making 'more of them' thanks to a sharper lens and better image
processing. The 'megapixel advantage' which the Coolpix 5000
carries doesn't appear to be producing very much visible (or
usable) detail here."
To what I know from my optics, the number of lenses is note
necesseraly correlated to the quality of the lens. Other aspects
also hae to be taken into account such as desing and th quality of
the construction of the lens itself. The best would be to compare
the two cameras at identical conditions: contrast, focal length...
Do you think it is possible to carry this test out?

Thanks again fo the test

tieno

Michael Oersigh said:

Etienne Brès said:

I just have a question. On your lens sharpness test the G2 seems to
be a little superior to the Nikon. THis can be especially observed
on the 300X image of the window. Could you confirm?

tieno

Grablife said:

I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Actually the 5000 lens is superior, it has 3 aspheric elements, the
forthcoming G3 will have 2. The Nikon lens is therefore designed
for greater sharpness and smoothness and more natural colour
satuartion. However the contrast is a little low compared to the G2
lens and some shots, fully stretched have a somewhat print quality
to them. Don't forget the Nikon lens is designed to give 28mm
quality and much wider, so there are some compromises compared to
the bog standard 35-105 type lens.

Another thing to note is the exposures on the two cameras are not
the same on his site. It is a good comparison, well interesting but
no more than that, the 5000 is unique and when paired with the
MB5000 is incomparable.

Michael

--

Click to expand...

--
tieno

--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

Etienne Brès · Oct 15, 2002

That's for sure! It's difficult to go wrong go wrong as they are both fine cameras. However I've had to make a choice and this choice was based on the different reviews I have manage to read.

Considering the high mag images that I was talking about, it is true that the better images of the made by the G2 might be due to a higher dynamical range. The resolution tests performed by dpreview show a higher resolution for the nikon (1350 1500 horizontal and 1200 1500 vertical) and for the canon (1250 1450 horizontal and 1200 1500 vertical). If proven the higher dynamical range of the G2 might affect the other tests such as noise reduction i. e. the larger amount of signal would induced a larger noise. It would be good to compare the G2 and the 5000 for both highlights and lowlights.

Finally, the 5000 is indeed well constructed especially its magnesium body is great but I like to be able to hold my camera with both of my hands. After all is was told that ot get good pictures one had to hold the camera with both hands, put the elbow on the chest, open the legs and stop breathing.

Tieno

Ken. said:
As far as G2 vs 5000. They are both fine camera's in my opinion. I
have the 5000 and I love it. I have seen many outstanding g2 shots.
There is no right or wrong camera when it comes to these.

I like the overall picture quality of the 5000 more than the g2. I
think that grabfile liked the overall quality of the 5000 too. Just
go to the user comments for both cameras and do a search for
grabfile. He rated the 5000 higher for quality and the g2 higher
for ease of use.

Ken.

Etienne Brès said:

This point is relatively important since a lot a reviews indicate
that the G2 lens is superior to the nikon 5000 lens. I quote
DPreview
"While the G2 may have less pixels available it is clear that it is
making 'more of them' thanks to a sharper lens and better image
processing. The 'megapixel advantage' which the Coolpix 5000
carries doesn't appear to be producing very much visible (or
usable) detail here."
To what I know from my optics, the number of lenses is note
necesseraly correlated to the quality of the lens. Other aspects
also hae to be taken into account such as desing and th quality of
the construction of the lens itself. The best would be to compare
the two cameras at identical conditions: contrast, focal length...
Do you think it is possible to carry this test out?

Thanks again fo the test

tieno

Michael Oersigh said:

Etienne Brès said:

I just have a question. On your lens sharpness test the G2 seems to
be a little superior to the Nikon. THis can be especially observed
on the 300X image of the window. Could you confirm?

tieno

Grablife said:

I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Actually the 5000 lens is superior, it has 3 aspheric elements, the
forthcoming G3 will have 2. The Nikon lens is therefore designed
for greater sharpness and smoothness and more natural colour
satuartion. However the contrast is a little low compared to the G2
lens and some shots, fully stretched have a somewhat print quality
to them. Don't forget the Nikon lens is designed to give 28mm
quality and much wider, so there are some compromises compared to
the bog standard 35-105 type lens.

Another thing to note is the exposures on the two cameras are not
the same on his site. It is a good comparison, well interesting but
no more than that, the 5000 is unique and when paired with the
MB5000 is incomparable.

Michael

--

Click to expand...

--
tieno

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

--
tieno

Etienne Brès · Oct 17, 2002

Zoltan Csuka said:
Grablife said:

I just completed an extensive comparison between the G2 and CP5000.
Includes many side by side comparisons and galleries for both
cameras. The link can be found here:

http://www.igrablife.com/digitalphoto/

Click to expand...

--

The problem with underexposing is that you loose details in the other end of the characteristic curve i. e. in the shadows. There is a very nice review on dynamic range on http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
But this is old.
Has anyone done a serious comparison of the cp5000 and the g2 dynamic range?

tieno

Extensive CP5000 vs. G2 comparison posted.

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Michael Oersigh

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts