Reading mode: Light Dark

G3 - Phil's review - will it make you buy it ?

Go to last post
B

BeanCounter

Senior Member
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none, and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to, and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
 
I can't agree with you more. And I do suggest he add "focus accurate" test. It can be done like this:

1 Set the DC in autofocus mode.
2 Measure distance use a ruler
3 Take photos in different optical condition (zoom, aperture, EV ...)

4 Give out the measured subject distance, compare it with the ruler measured distance.
5 Change the subject and repeat from 1 3 times.

Maybe I should make a test myself with my S30 to test how accurate it is.

Tony (S30)
 
if phil gives a production model version of the g3 a favorable review, there is no doubt whatsoever that i will be buying one.
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
--
Jim
[email protected]
 
Logopro said:
I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?
Click to expand...
That is not true. Have you looked at the 717 preview where he highlights the oversaturated reds? Or may other cameras where crops and expands the CA issues.

Perhaps Phil did not experience the same focus issues other have reported. There are many reports of other owners that do not seems to have focus trouble.

Additionally he points out low light focus issues with the Nikon 5700. So is already testing and reporting results.

The balance to Phil's reviews is the "layman's" experiences in this forum.

Greg

PS. In answer to your question, no I do not need Phils review to decide and will not base my decision soley on his comments. Although it would be informative for sure.
 
Phil and other reviewers can greatly enhance the usefulness of their reviews, IMO, if they explicitly address common issues/concerns that have been brought up by the users. For example, I believe that the focus issue has been sufficiently brought up in forums such as this, that Phil should explicitly address whether he experienced any focus accuracy issue with the G3, when reviewed, and maybe even make some post-mortem comments on the G2 on this issue. And frankly, with the high number of threads that were devoted to (possible) focus accuracy problems in the G2, I would be very disappointed if Phil does not explicitly address this issue in the G3. All IMHO, of course.
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
 
He probably never uses AF. He probably loves to setup each shot.

I think AF testing is a tricky area and not easily tested. How big or far away should the object be? How fast should it be moving toward you, away, side to side, up and down or down and up? I am not sure what it would take to make one good cover all test or even a few tests for it.

Maybe if we could come up with the minimum amount of tests he would be willing to include it.

Hal
Philly said:
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The point would be what is the camera capable of in the "average" user's hands, not just n the expert user's hands. Think of motorcycles. When some mags review a cycle, they have 4 or 5 different people of different backgrounds review the bike. The racer says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, no wiggles in the corner, incredible power but all he knows in the track. The touring guy says it's the most uncomfortable, unforgiving machine he's ever ridden. No power at all unless you ride it at 10,000 rpms. Of course the racer never mentioned comfort because comfort is not an issue to him but it sure is to the regular touring rider. This may not be the best metaphor but it's all I could think of.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
Klyphton said:
What point would soft focus, blury or poorly composed amateur
images serve? ALL cameras are capable of taking these types of bad
shots. By giving us the best possible samples, Phil is showing us
just what that camera is capable of delivering.

--
Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=2838wHAT
Click to expand...
 
First of all let me say I've been so impressed with this web site that I visit every day. I've been interested in photography for 35 years, and am overall thrilled with my G2 digital experience.

That said, I have to agree that I was dismayed to find AF issues that were not addressed when I thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly researched all the sites on this cam. (now if somebody wants to point out where I missed it - I will apologize).

And I do think that the reviewers should structure their reviews for the pros to the novices.

Now that the AF issue has been well documented, it should be thoroughly tested and reported.

In the vast majority of situations, you shouldn't have to be a pro to point the camera and have it focus properly.

Vito
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
 
Eric Haglund said:
The point would be what is the camera capable of in the "average"
user's hands, not just n the expert user's hands. Think of
motorcycles. When some mags review a cycle, they have 4 or 5
different people of different backgrounds review the bike. The
racer says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, no wiggles
in the corner, incredible power but all he knows in the track. The
touring guy says it's the most uncomfortable, unforgiving machine
he's ever ridden. No power at all unless you ride it at 10,000
rpms. Of course the racer never mentioned comfort because comfort
is not an issue to him but it sure is to the regular touring rider.
This may not be the best metaphor but it's all I could think of.
Click to expand...
In other words: how the camera performs in the hands of an everyday person matters more than how it performs in the hands of a geek.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2
 
Neither camp is more important than the other in this niche. Both camps are equally important, IMHO. I suggest a review for each camp would be very beneficial.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
PB said:
Eric Haglund said:
The point would be what is the camera capable of in the "average"
user's hands, not just n the expert user's hands. Think of
motorcycles. When some mags review a cycle, they have 4 or 5
different people of different backgrounds review the bike. The
racer says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, no wiggles
in the corner, incredible power but all he knows in the track. The
touring guy says it's the most uncomfortable, unforgiving machine
he's ever ridden. No power at all unless you ride it at 10,000
rpms. Of course the racer never mentioned comfort because comfort
is not an issue to him but it sure is to the regular touring rider.
This may not be the best metaphor but it's all I could think of.
Click to expand...
In other words: how the camera performs in the hands of an everyday
person matters more than how it performs in the hands of a geek.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2
Click to expand...
 
The G2 has exactely the same focus problem as the G1 what was intensively discussed on this forum before the first G2 announcment. Phil hinself also jointed this discussion. Many many former G1 users shared their experience and tricks here in order to have a better chance getting in-focus-shots, e.g. by using some object with patterns for focusing before shooting etc. The problenm was well known and was never solved. The G3 seems to have the same AF method (contrast detection, doesn't know where the subject is). Therefore, focus bracket.

I guess that's why Phil didn't specially addressed this point in his in-depth-review.
Yang
Vito said:
That said, I have to agree that I was dismayed to find AF issues
that were not addressed when I thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly
researched all the sites on this cam. (now if somebody wants to
point out where I missed it - I will apologize).

And I do think that the reviewers should structure their reviews
for the pros to the novices.

Now that the AF issue has been well documented, it should be
thoroughly tested and reported.

In the vast majority of situations, you shouldn't have to be a pro
to point the camera and have it focus properly.

Vito
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I see your anology that, different users find different things in the same product. But once again I have to ask the same question, how does anyone benefit from poor pictures that ANY camera is capable of doing? I can spend $7.00 on a disposable camera and take a whole bunch of blury shots and I can spend $700.00 on a G2 and take blur shots as well. But what would I be proving?
Eric Haglund said:
--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
Klyphton said:
What point would soft focus, blury or poorly composed amateur
images serve? ALL cameras are capable of taking these types of bad
shots. By giving us the best possible samples, Phil is showing us
just what that camera is capable of delivering.

--
Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=2838wHAT
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=2838
 
Maybe I misunderstood the original poster. I agree, posting scads of bad pics proves nothing and is of no benefit. But I think exposing the camera to different usage, then perhaps posting examples of typical bad pics (if any) and analyzing the associated issue(s) would be beneficial. Are we on the same page now? I apologize if I scewed the original topic.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
Klyphton said:
Eric Haglund said:
--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
Klyphton said:
What point would soft focus, blury or poorly composed amateur
images serve? ALL cameras are capable of taking these types of bad
shots. By giving us the best possible samples, Phil is showing us
just what that camera is capable of delivering.

--
Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=2838wHAT
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=2838
Click to expand...
 
I look at my own experience with dpreview. I searched the 'Net for digicam review sites. I read the reviews. I didn't visit the forums because there was so much to read via reviews and the reviews for the G2 were so positive that I thought enough already. The only negative thing I can remember reading was in one of the mags that the G2 had difficulty in capturing moving subjects (sports, etc).

After i bought my G2 I went looking for more info and started visiting this forum. - I think most visitors (newbies) will focus on the reviews rather than the forums. Therefore I think it is incumbent on the reviewer to discuss all (possible) known issues. If the G1 had similiar AF issues it should have been extensively tested and reported with the G2 - and now again with the G3.

Vito
Yang said:
Vito said:
That said, I have to agree that I was dismayed to find AF issues
that were not addressed when I thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly
researched all the sites on this cam. (now if somebody wants to
point out where I missed it - I will apologize).

And I do think that the reviewers should structure their reviews
for the pros to the novices.

Now that the AF issue has been well documented, it should be
thoroughly tested and reported.

In the vast majority of situations, you shouldn't have to be a pro
to point the camera and have it focus properly.

Vito
Logopro said:
When Phil brings out his review,

How many of you will buy the G3, if he gives it a good review ?

By the way, - I never saw any issues about soft focus on his
G2 review

I guess it's all a figment of "our" imagination, if Phil didn't
find this in
any image he took with the G2.

I also note something else, - Phil never posts any image that is not
pretty well "perfect".......... you won't see a single out of focus
image,
nor a "soft" focused image ....
he only picks the best of the best, - what's the reason for that ?

If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.

Post everyday shots, even if they came out blurry, or have a soft
focus to them, - this to me makes the experience just more
realistic.

Don't get me wrong, Phil's reviews on cameras are second to none,
and there's nobody else out there that even comes close, but please
shoot some "amateur" shots that we, the viewers here can relate to,
and post those also in your review :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi all,

What I basically wanted I guess, with Phil's review is this.

1. Continue to post the same format of excellent images.

But......

In addition, do this:

2.

Take the camera out, - and shoot say 20 image, at random,
out the backyard, the street, a bird, a house across the street a boat,
etc. - No fancy tripod, no setting up of the shot, etc.

Just do a section in the review, like " Amateur shootout "
and then post the images, - so that we can see for ourselves how
the camera would operate if we shot the same images.

That's all :-)

By the way, if you ever have been to Pekka's site ( spelling ? ) the gentleman that did all those beautiful G1 shots, - you wonder if the guy is from another planet, - the images look like they were shot with a 10,000 SLR camera. I have never been able to reproduce anything as clear and colourful as the shots he has done with his G1. - The guy only posts the best of the best, and had said that some of those shots have taken him a LONG time to setup.

Yes, it's important to see Phil in his element and showing the G2, G3, or whatever it is at it's best, but 99% of us here don't have the talent he has, and I for one would just love to see images that an everyday joe would have shot.

To be totally unbiased, he could always ask a person not related to him, such as a viewer to be have their 15 minutes of fame and shoot 20 images for example, and then post those. - Now there's an idea.

He could take a member of our audience and do it that way ?
why not, - wouldn't that be great. :-)

Mark.
 
And a low-light test, more rigorous than just his night-shot.

I would certainly be more inclined to buy the G3 if Phil gave it a 'highly recommended', but my experiences with the S40 have taught me to wait for a couple of months, to see the reviews from actual owners.
Tony6838 said:
I can't agree with you more. And I do suggest he add "focus
accurate" test. It can be done like this:

1 Set the DC in autofocus mode.
2 Measure distance use a ruler
3 Take photos in different optical condition (zoom, aperture, EV ...)
4 Give out the measured subject distance, compare it with the ruler
measured distance.
5 Change the subject and repeat from 1 3 times.

Maybe I should make a test myself with my S30 to test how accurate
it is.

Tony (S30)
Click to expand...
--

The only thing to do with good advice is pass it on; it is never of any use to oneself. - Oscar Wilde
http://www.ScottOwen.org
 
Actually, for the common person, the best way to voice your complant to a manufactor is by buying the camera, returning it if it has a problem (like poor AF) getting a new one then if it has a problem calling and complaining then returning it and changing to a different model. They get that message loud and clear.

Hal
BeanCounter said:
Hi all,

What I basically wanted I guess, with Phil's review is this.

1. Continue to post the same format of excellent images.

But......

In addition, do this:

2.

Take the camera out, - and shoot say 20 image, at random,
out the backyard, the street, a bird, a house across the street a
boat,
etc. - No fancy tripod, no setting up of the shot, etc.

Just do a section in the review, like " Amateur shootout "
and then post the images, - so that we can see for ourselves how
the camera would operate if we shot the same images.

That's all :-)

By the way, if you ever have been to Pekka's site ( spelling ? )
the gentleman that did all those beautiful G1 shots, - you wonder
if the guy is from another planet, - the images look like they were
shot with a 10,000 SLR camera. I have never been able to reproduce
anything as clear and colourful as the shots he has done with his
G1. - The guy only posts the best of the best, and had said that
some of those shots have taken him a LONG time to setup.

Yes, it's important to see Phil in his element and showing the G2,
G3, or whatever it is at it's best, but 99% of us here don't have
the talent he has, and I for one would just love to see images that
an everyday joe would have shot.

To be totally unbiased, he could always ask a person not related to
him, such as a viewer to be have their 15 minutes of fame and shoot
20 images for example, and then post those. - Now there's an idea.

He could take a member of our audience and do it that way ?
why not, - wouldn't that be great. :-)

Mark.
Click to expand...
 
BeanCounter said:
If you are going to give a camera a real review, then please post
images that normal everyday people like us would take.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree with this. I'm very interested in the BEST the camera is able to produce in the hands of a skilled professional.

I'm quite aware how to botch a photograph, and it gives a watermark on what I can do to achieve this kind of quality.

Someone mentioned Pekka, an outstanding photographer. One of the reasons his photographs look so good is that they are post-processed for display. Yet another "skill" the average user may lack.

When I read about a car, I don't demand the test driver to drive it around at around 50mph all over the city and then say, "Yeah, and it seems to drive at 50mph city traffic just like every other car."

Average photographs can come from any camera that is average or better.

Stellar photographs that push the technical limits of a camera can only come from superiour hardware.

That's what I want to know. The photographer drags down the camera... no camera will make a complete amateur into Ansel Adams.

If you take the finest paints and the finest linen canvas in the world and hand it to a 3 year old, it'll look pretty much like a three year old got a hold of some paint and some canvas.

Put it in the hands of Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh, and it becomes art.

We all start out at three years old, and we all strive to be Monet. I, for one, want to never be limited by my paint and canvas. Show me what it CAN do, so I always know that I can improve.

I already know I can take a bad photograph :)

--
L. Kraven
 
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