Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon G10 - RAW?? & 1/1400s max?

Go to last post
F

ferrum

Well-known member
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
Location
CH
Well despite the sad fact that they had to up it to silly 15MPx.... the camera overall ist still rather interesting (at least to me)...

as some know I'm looking for something more compact than my DSLR Setup to take along when the DSLR is too big... but I still want full manual controls.

I'm in no hurry... that means - somewhere until the end of this year... maybe early 2009... but not today ;)

So I was quite happy to read the short G10 intro here on DP.... however the text states that the camera supports RAW (albeit saying: "For the ultimate in post-processing control, the PowerShot G10 includes a RAW shooting mode – plus support for Canon Digital Photo Professional software, for integration into professional photographers’ workflows.")

and yet in the specs table provided at the end of the intro there is no RAW format listed under "file format" - instead DPOF 1.0 is mentioned (Direct Print of File??)

That makes me wonder, does the G10 have a real RAW format or did they "loose" it like nikon and have something very odd like WIC-Standardized "RAW"??

EDIT:

Also - do you think it's true that canon has decided to limit the max. shutter speed to 1/1400s ?? Ok, 1/4000 has been used by me (with my DSLR) only on very rare occasions, with very bright lenses)... 1/2000 however has been used a bit...

I somehow think that 1/1400s is a bit of a serious limitation on a camera like the G10...

I mean ok, it's enough to freeze-frame most action.... and maybe with slight underexposing or the addition of a ND-Filter the issue is "no issue at all"...

but still, it makes me wonder why to lower the max speed, when previously the G9 offered 1/2000 and so do most of it's direct competitors...
any inputs?
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
 
The shutter speed typo has been corrected on DPreview.

The spec elsewhere (Imaging Resource) says RAW CR2, making it (as promised) compatible with DPP.
--
ferrum said:
To Err is Human, To really foul things up you need a computer.
Click to expand...
 
I love the exposure compensation dial and ISO dial. I am also happy to see the 28mm wide lens. The command wheel on the back panel should make it easier to use than the directional buttons found on the Panasonic LX3. The built-in optical viewfinder is another nice touch. I can use the OVF while a flash is attached to the hotshoe. This is not possible with the LX3 when the OVF is attached to the hotshoe.

Overall, everything looks great except for one thing, which is the sensor. I can't say that it is bad until I see some sample pictures. In my opinion, 8MP is more than enough for such camera.
 
I'm more disturbed by the aperture limit which looks like it only goes up to F4.5 This is going to seriously reduce the DOF in macro photography!!!
 
mrHeritage,

It does not work this way ;)

f/2.8-4.5 is the "maximum" aperture... maximum in reference to the maximal opening diameter of the aperture itself...
the smaller the f-number the "larger" the aperture. ("wide open")
the larger the f-number the "smaller" the aperture ("stopped down", "Closed")

the notation of 2.8-4.5 refers to the fact that the lens due to it's construction is not able to keep the maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom-range..

thus f/2.8 is only available at the widest setting of the zoom (28mm) and then progressivly gets more stopped down (darker) towards the 140mm where the lens has a maximum opened aperture of f/4.5 (which unfortunatly is not very bright in association with a small sensor... but it's better than naught).

with a small f-number you'll get in more light... but also loose DOF (this can be indeed very welcome depending on the situation)...

I suspect the minimal aperture (maximally stopped down, closed) to be somewehere around f/8.0 or so...

keep in mind that this is a tiny lens on a tiny sensor compared to any SLR Type camera...

so the aperture has not exactly the same "effect".

for example if you want a very limited DOF with nice Bokeh, such as you would most likely get from a f/1.4 lens on a SLR (ok, bokeh depends a lot on the shape of the aperture-blades ... so not every f/1.4 lens will get you there)....

even a good f/2.8 constant aperture lens on a SLR will give you nice shallow DOF whereas on a compact camera with a tiny sensor it will not blur the background as much - not even close...

the same thing on the other hand happens on the stopped down side of the thing...

f/8.0 on a SLR Lens and DSLR will not yield a lot DOF... but on a compact camera f/8.0 is quite enough to really get everything on a macro sharp.

Technical differences....

However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera, any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.

the G10 allows you to go up to
mrHeritage said:
I'm more disturbed by the aperture limit which looks like it only
goes up to F4.5 This is going to seriously reduce the DOF in macro
photography!!!
Click to expand...
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
 
ferrum said:
However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera,
any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather
difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get
only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
You can't "get" bokeh. You can get out-of-focus (OOF) areas in an image. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the appearance of OOF areas. It it often different for near (in front of subject) and far (behind) OOF areas. So you can say "I think this lens produces good bokeh", but it's incorrect to say "you can't get bokeh".

Your garden is beautiful.

It's impossible to get beautiful.

Which of the above makes sense?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
now we're talking about semantics...

oh my...

Bokeh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) - defined as being the appearance of the out of focus area in a photographic image...

so yes - any lens will produce an out of focus area... but usually (at least in my last years photographing) the term has been more practically used to describe the strongly/distinctively "shaped" out of focus areas - and not just generally "out of focus"....

so usually a photo with just a slight blurry background is rarely referred to as for having "bokeh" - on the other extreme those photos which do show strong "circular deformations" within the out of focus area are taken as "examples " for bokeh.

And Shape of aperture, size, optics,... have a very strong influence on the appearance of bokeh... there are lenses which will never produce the typical effects most commonly defined as bokeh - whilst other lenses are optimal for that.

To this very day I yet have to see one single compact digital camera being able to produce that specific "look" in photos...

On the other hand, there are many compacts which will give you stunning dof without much work...

Depending on what the photographer wants, it can be seen as advantage or clear "failing".
nickleback said:
ferrum said:
However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera,
any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather
difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get
only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
You can't "get" bokeh. You can get out-of-focus (OOF) areas in an
image. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the appearance of OOF
areas. It it often different for near (in front of subject) and far
(behind) OOF areas. So you can say "I think this lens produces good
bokeh", but it's incorrect to say "you can't get bokeh".

Your garden is beautiful.

It's impossible to get beautiful.

Which of the above makes sense?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Click to expand...
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
 
It's not really semantics, it's more usage. Or even grammar, if anyone cares about such things...
ferrum said:
oh my...

Bokeh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) - defined as being the
appearance of the out of focus area in a photographic image...

so yes - any lens will produce an out of focus area... but usually
(at least in my last years photographing) the term has been more
practically used to describe the strongly/distinctively "shaped" out
of focus areas - and not just generally "out of focus"....
so usually a photo with just a slight blurry background is rarely
referred to as for having "bokeh" - on the other extreme those photos
which do show strong "circular deformations" within the out of focus
area are taken as "examples " for bokeh.

And Shape of aperture, size, optics,... have a very strong influence
on the appearance of bokeh... there are lenses which will never
produce the typical effects most commonly defined as bokeh - whilst
other lenses are optimal for that.

To this very day I yet have to see one single compact digital camera
being able to produce that specific "look" in photos...
On the other hand, there are many compacts which will give you
stunning dof without much work...
Depending on what the photographer wants, it can be seen as advantage
or clear "failing".
nickleback said:
ferrum said:
However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera,
any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather
difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get
only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
You can't "get" bokeh. You can get out-of-focus (OOF) areas in an
image. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the appearance of OOF
areas. It it often different for near (in front of subject) and far
(behind) OOF areas. So you can say "I think this lens produces good
bokeh", but it's incorrect to say "you can't get bokeh".

Your garden is beautiful.

It's impossible to get beautiful.

Which of the above makes sense?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Click to expand...
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
ferrum said:
Bokeh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) - defined as being the
appearance of the out of focus area in a photographic image...
Click to expand...
Correct. The appearance, as in how they look.
ferrum said:
so usually a photo with just a slight blurry background is rarely
referred to as for having "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Probably because you can't "have" bokeh.
ferrum said:
on the other extreme those photos
which do show strong "circular deformations" within the out of focus
area are taken as "examples " for bokeh.
Click to expand...
Examples of good or bad, soft or hard, neutral or bright-rimmed, etc bokeh.
ferrum said:
To this very day I yet have to see one single compact digital camera
being able to produce that specific "look" in photos...
Click to expand...
Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example:

http://flickr.com/photos/59068872@N00/1786201885

Because you have deeper DOF at the same aperture on a smaller sensor, to see something strongly OOF you need to have a larger relative distance between the subject and the OOF areas.
ferrum said:
On the other hand, there are many compacts which will give you
stunning dof without much work...
Click to expand...
As will any larger sensor camera. Just stop down.
ferrum said:
Depending on what the photographer wants, it can be seen as advantage
or clear "failing".
Click to expand...
That's not an advantage, as any camera can do it. Cameras with larger sensors typically have a wider range of DOF available. Any camera can do deep DOF. The larger the sensor, the shorter the DOF is available for you to use.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
ferrum said:
Well despite the sad fact that they had to up it to silly 15MPx....
the camera overall ist still rather interesting (at least to me)...

as some know I'm looking for something more compact than my DSLR
Setup to take along when the DSLR is too big... but I still want
full manual controls.

I'm in no hurry... that means - somewhere until the end of this
year... maybe early 2009... but not today ;)

So I was quite happy to read the short G10 intro here on DP....
however the text states that the camera supports RAW (albeit saying:
"For the ultimate in post-processing control, the PowerShot G10
includes a RAW shooting mode – plus support for Canon Digital Photo
Professional software, for integration into professional
photographers’ workflows.")
and yet in the specs table provided at the end of the intro there is
no RAW format listed under "file format" - instead DPOF 1.0 is
mentioned (Direct Print of File??)
Click to expand...
Hi ferrum. Maybe the specs were in error when you looked 4 days ago and have since been corrected, but http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp
in the specs table for file formats says:
• JPEG (Exif v2.2)
• RAW
• AVI (Motion JPEG + WAVE)

I tried to find DPOF on that page using my browser find function, but it wasn't there.

In the DPR camera database for Canon > Canon Powershot G10, the specs table includes uncompressed format - RAW.

I think it's safe to say that the G10 provides RAW output.
ferrum said:
That makes me wonder, does the G10 have a real RAW format or did they
"loose" it like nikon and have something very odd like
WIC-Standardized "RAW"??

EDIT:
Also - do you think it's true that canon has decided to limit the
max. shutter speed to 1/1400s ??
Click to expand...
As you saw in your subsequent post, you misread 1/4000 as 1/1400.
ferrum said:
Ok, 1/4000 has been used by me
(with my DSLR) only on very rare occasions, with very bright
lenses)... 1/2000 however has been used a bit...
I somehow think that 1/1400s is a bit of a serious limitation on a
camera like the G10...
I mean ok, it's enough to freeze-frame most action.... and maybe
with slight underexposing or the addition of a ND-Filter the issue is
"no issue at all"...
but still, it makes me wonder why to lower the max speed, when
previously the G9 offered 1/2000 and so do most of it's direct
competitors...
any inputs?
Click to expand...
--

Cheers John - Adelaide Australia - http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto - Canon 40D - Fuji F100fd
 
R Butler said:
MisterBG said:
The spec elsewhere (Imaging Resource) says RAW CR2, making it (as
promised) compatible with DPP.
--
Richard Butler said:
To Err is Human, To really foul things up you need a computer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We've corrected both errors in the news story.

Richard - DPReview
Click to expand...
I just read this about typos on the RAW and max shutter speed specs after replying below.

It's interesting to see that both were typos and have been corrected. I'd been waiting to see what the G10 spec would look like and didn't get a chance until after the corrections were made, so I didn't get the chance to be disappointed by either of those issues. :^)

--

Cheers John - Adelaide Australia - http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto - Canon 40D - Fuji F100fd
 
ferrum said:
now we're talking about semantics...
Click to expand...
Hi ferrum. The meaning of bokeh is not semantics. Perhaps you're used to thinking that bokeh has a certain meaning based on the way some people misuse the term, as you are also doing, perpetuating the mistake. Bokeh is not about how OOF something is. It's about the quality of the OOF areas of an image, eg how smooth or choppy they are. Those OOF areas have bokeh, but the quality of that bokeh varies between images. You don't have more or less bokeh, just different quality like smoothness.

I often see people referring to areas of an image that are more OOF as having more bokeh, which is incorrect. Those areas can be more OOF and be nowhere near as smooth in those areas as less OOF areas in a different image. One doesn't have more and one less bokeh, just different quality of OOF rendering, ie the bokeh differs, not some notional 'amount' of bokeh.
ferrum said:
oh my...

Bokeh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) - defined as being the
appearance of the out of focus area in a photographic image...

so yes - any lens will produce an out of focus area... but usually
(at least in my last years photographing) the term has been more
practically used to describe the strongly/distinctively "shaped" out
of focus areas - and not just generally "out of focus"....
so usually a photo with just a slight blurry background is rarely
referred to as for having "bokeh" - on the other extreme those photos
which do show strong "circular deformations" within the out of focus
area are taken as "examples " for bokeh.
Click to expand...
That's not what bokeh means and that usage is incorrect, perpetuated by people who don't understand the meaning of bokeh.
ferrum said:
And Shape of aperture, size, optics,... have a very strong influence
on the appearance of bokeh... there are lenses which will never
produce the typical effects most commonly defined as bokeh - whilst
other lenses are optimal for that.

To this very day I yet have to see one single compact digital camera
being able to produce that specific "look" in photos...
On the other hand, there are many compacts which will give you
stunning dof without much work...
Depending on what the photographer wants, it can be seen as advantage
or clear "failing".
nickleback said:
ferrum said:
However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera,
any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather
difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get
only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
You can't "get" bokeh. You can get out-of-focus (OOF) areas in an
image. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the appearance of OOF
areas. It it often different for near (in front of subject) and far
(behind) OOF areas. So you can say "I think this lens produces good
bokeh", but it's incorrect to say "you can't get bokeh".

Your garden is beautiful.

It's impossible to get beautiful.

Which of the above makes sense?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Click to expand...
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
Click to expand...
--

Cheers John - Adelaide Australia - http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto - Canon 40D - Fuji F100fd
 
A typical example of bokeh differences is the rendition of out of focus specular highlights. Various factors, including as the shape and number of blades in the iris come into play.

Some lenses will render the point as a smooth circle, some as a blurred doughnut with concentric rings of dark and light halos around the central point, some as wildly irregular shapes.

When there are lots of these points in an area of the image, it can lead to an impression of smoothness or harshness/choppiness in the OOF areas.

As you say, bokeh refers to the characteristics/quality/look of the OOF areas not the amount...
John down under said:
ferrum said:
now we're talking about semantics...
Click to expand...
Hi ferrum. The meaning of bokeh is not semantics. Perhaps you're
used to thinking that bokeh has a certain meaning based on the way
some people misuse the term, as you are also doing, perpetuating the
mistake. Bokeh is not about how OOF something is. It's about the
quality of the OOF areas of an image, eg how smooth or choppy they
are. Those OOF areas have bokeh, but the quality of that bokeh
varies between images. You don't have more or less bokeh, just
different quality like smoothness.

I often see people referring to areas of an image that are more OOF
as having more bokeh, which is incorrect. Those areas can be more
OOF and be nowhere near as smooth in those areas as less OOF areas in
a different image. One doesn't have more and one less bokeh, just
different quality of OOF rendering, ie the bokeh differs, not some
notional 'amount' of bokeh.
John down under said:
oh my...

Bokeh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) - defined as being the
appearance of the out of focus area in a photographic image...

so yes - any lens will produce an out of focus area... but usually
(at least in my last years photographing) the term has been more
practically used to describe the strongly/distinctively "shaped" out
of focus areas - and not just generally "out of focus"....
so usually a photo with just a slight blurry background is rarely
referred to as for having "bokeh" - on the other extreme those photos
which do show strong "circular deformations" within the out of focus
area are taken as "examples " for bokeh.
Click to expand...
That's not what bokeh means and that usage is incorrect, perpetuated
by people who don't understand the meaning of bokeh.
John down under said:
And Shape of aperture, size, optics,... have a very strong influence
on the appearance of bokeh... there are lenses which will never
produce the typical effects most commonly defined as bokeh - whilst
other lenses are optimal for that.

To this very day I yet have to see one single compact digital camera
being able to produce that specific "look" in photos...
On the other hand, there are many compacts which will give you
stunning dof without much work...
Depending on what the photographer wants, it can be seen as advantage
or clear "failing".
nickleback said:
ferrum said:
However it's basically correct if I say that with a compact camera,
any compact camera, it is easy to get a LOT of DOF but rather
difficult if not totally impossible wihtout Postprocessing, to get
only very little DOF and most likely impossible to get bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
You can't "get" bokeh. You can get out-of-focus (OOF) areas in an
image. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the appearance of OOF
areas. It it often different for near (in front of subject) and far
(behind) OOF areas. So you can say "I think this lens produces good
bokeh", but it's incorrect to say "you can't get bokeh".

Your garden is beautiful.

It's impossible to get beautiful.

Which of the above makes sense?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Click to expand...
--
_
My photography stuff: http://www.dgentile.com
Click to expand...
--
Cheers John - Adelaide Australia - http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto - Canon 40D
  • Fuji F100fd
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
I have not seen specs on the focusing speed of the G10 using RAW. Is this new model any faster at finding a moving subject than the G9? 0.7 fps seems good for this type of camera but how fast will it achieve focus? I.E., is the diver already in the pool when you try to get the shot coming off the board?

Stu
 
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