GoranS
Active member
You are right, totally disappointing review, it's more like upgraded preview.
--
Best Regards,
Goran S.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
G3 final review at dcresource.com
- Thread starter niel
- Start date
--
Best Regards,
Goran S.
SOL #82371
Leading Member
are you talking about whole review or just the conclusion... I didn't read the review, but the conclusion dissapointed me a lot... CA is the most important issue for me, and of course sharpness
Have a look at the Olympus C-5050z or the Casio QV-5700
I think both look very good - in specs atleast.
Keeping my fingers crossed for good reviews - don't wanna be disappointed like G3.
I think both look very good - in specs atleast.
Keeping my fingers crossed for good reviews - don't wanna be disappointed like G3.
majorkimba
Well-known member
Could the unsharp example that he uses be due to the relatively shallow depth-of-field? It appears that he focused on the house, and he is saying that the trees and the grass are unsharp (they are in front of the house.)
I seem to recall from somewhere that the focusing mechanism on the G3 has even more steps than the G2.
I would have to concur that it is not the most incisive review I've ever read about a digicam.
I seem to recall from somewhere that the focusing mechanism on the G3 has even more steps than the G2.
I would have to concur that it is not the most incisive review I've ever read about a digicam.
SOL #82371
Leading Member
I saw images of Olympus C5050 they were disappointing, and it's not coming from me there was a lot of talk about it... and as far as I know Casio never made good cams...
Keen
Member
People, is that blue halo really CA??
The overall picture quality is excellent, one of the best you can find, sharpness is not everything. Red eyes ? Who cares, if I want quality flash pictures i'll use an external flash, built in flash sucks no matter what, and my G3 is not intended for "point and shoot use". Bad CA ? Weird CA in some exceptional cases, if you read well. There are plenty of more expensive cams with worse CA, and in all circumstances, not just exceptional ones. Funny how people can focus on a couple bad things and blow them out of proportions, when the G3 is one of the very bestest in this market niche.
GoranS
Active member
To me this does not qualify as CA, more like if the cam sensor was picking up odd light wavelengths. If that's the case I wonder what's causing it, a filter, the optics' coating, the sensor (althought it's supposed to be the same one as the G2's, i believe). If it's any of these it could be corrected with a simple filter. It could also be the DIGIC chip processing given wavelenghts weirdly... In that case I guess even a firmware update could correct the problem. I'm curious to know where the hell these weird halos came from. Then again, it was a church, maybe it's more mystical... 
John Maling
Well-known member
It would seem the G3 is not the Holy Grail, but neither is it a steaming pile of manure. On the whole it appears to be a reasonable camera at a reasonable price with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.... which is pretty much what can be said about 90% of the other digitals on the market. Still like to read a review by Phil though, just so that I can delite in all the controversy it will unleash in the forum...whatever he says...
Sol, can you send me the link to where you saw C-5050 sample images. As far as I know the camera is not yet released, and I am very intested in it now that the verdict is out on the G3.
And the Casio QV-4000 is one of the best 4MP cams out there. Read Phil's review. And there is no reason to expect that the QV-5700 will be any worse.
And the Casio QV-4000 is one of the best 4MP cams out there. Read Phil's review. And there is no reason to expect that the QV-5700 will be any worse.
Canon Talk Forum,
I also question if the blue halo present in the church photo (Image 28) of DCResource's Final G3 review is really chromatic abberation. I mean if it was a design flaw of the lense, shouldn't it be a problem that is more consistent with the other details in the photo. In addition to the blue halo around the interior lights, I would specifically point out the light shining through the stain glass windows, the candles behind the altar, and the backlight from the shrine behind the cross: These other details don't share the same characteristics as the blue haloed lights.
I think this is more an exposure problem in which the camera metered a dark interior room and correctly exposured for that; but, the lights being too bright exceeded the exposure lattitude of the sensor. This is common in night photography and the same blooming effects are seen when using film. (Check out the night shot of San Francisco in the same review.) I also have a feeling that the lights in question are much brighter than a normal 60W light blub, perhaps halogen, which is adding to the magnitude and intensity of the halo.
If there was an inherent flaw in the lense, shouldn't the characteristic of this problem be present uniformly in all the highlights of this photo and shouldn't it be more apparent in other types of photos? This photo just might be a spurious incident. I wouldn't call it a problem unless, a significant amount of night and natural light shots also causes this halo effect. And I do make a distinction between this blue halo effect and the natural blooming of highlights caused by the exposure lattitude of the media, CCD or film.
I will also state that I don't own a digital camera so that you can consider my opinions appropriately.
Lord Jim
I also question if the blue halo present in the church photo (Image 28) of DCResource's Final G3 review is really chromatic abberation. I mean if it was a design flaw of the lense, shouldn't it be a problem that is more consistent with the other details in the photo. In addition to the blue halo around the interior lights, I would specifically point out the light shining through the stain glass windows, the candles behind the altar, and the backlight from the shrine behind the cross: These other details don't share the same characteristics as the blue haloed lights.
I think this is more an exposure problem in which the camera metered a dark interior room and correctly exposured for that; but, the lights being too bright exceeded the exposure lattitude of the sensor. This is common in night photography and the same blooming effects are seen when using film. (Check out the night shot of San Francisco in the same review.) I also have a feeling that the lights in question are much brighter than a normal 60W light blub, perhaps halogen, which is adding to the magnitude and intensity of the halo.
If there was an inherent flaw in the lense, shouldn't the characteristic of this problem be present uniformly in all the highlights of this photo and shouldn't it be more apparent in other types of photos? This photo just might be a spurious incident. I wouldn't call it a problem unless, a significant amount of night and natural light shots also causes this halo effect. And I do make a distinction between this blue halo effect and the natural blooming of highlights caused by the exposure lattitude of the media, CCD or film.
I will also state that I don't own a digital camera so that you can consider my opinions appropriately.
Lord Jim
Moody
Forum Enthusiast
The Sony F717 review on dcresource.com wasn't very positive either..
Phil was also more positive about the Sony F717.
I think we better can wait for Phil's review, it will be much better.
G3...come to daddy!!!
- Missing a lot of manual controls found on other cameras at this price
- Reds are "too red" (and not a lot you can do about it)
- Loss of sharpness in image corners
- Shutter speed limited to (no slower than) 1/30 sec in programmed/fully auto modes
- No true continuous shooting mode
- A RAW mode would be nice
- Proprietary Memory Stick format
Phil was also more positive about the Sony F717.
I think we better can wait for Phil's review, it will be much better.
--
G3...come to daddy!!!
Justme
Forum Pro
Interesting review. So, the G3 has the best movie mode. That's good to know. For most video work I use a camcorder but there are some people uncomfortable in front of a camcorder but have no problem with a camera. Hmmmm. That purple CA can't be good. Especially when it's so noticeable as in those sample pics. In the review he mentions it as being rare, how many such indoor shots did he take?
Justme
Forum Pro
If Phil also finds this (which I think he most likely will) CA problem (as mentioned in the DCResource review) and the diagonal jaggies are still present, I expect the Image rating to stay at 8.5 or maybe even drop to 8. Most likely it'll stay at 8.5.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/the_dome
--
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/the_dome
U
Ulysses
Guest
You are interpreting what he says and inserting your own judgement, which is fine. Just don't expect everyone or even every reviewer to agree. 
While all reviewers sum up their thoughts, it is the BODY of their review that gives you what they're full thoughts are. Regarding the CA, for example, Jeff says:
"I had another night shot that I took (a more zoomed-in version of the shot above, not available online) that exhibited more of this phenomenon than the one posted here. These were the only times that I noticed this problem. In other photos, chromatic aberrations weren't really an issue. I have no idea what caused this -- I can't say that I've seen this before.
"Aside from that, though, I found the G3's photo quality to be excellent, in terms of color and exposure. I don't think the G3 is the best in terms of resolution, compared to other cameras. Have a look at the palm tree and grass in this shot for an example -- it's not as sharp as one would hope. Still, the G3's photo quality is some of the best out there... just not groundbreaking, knock-your-socks-off amazing. Please -- check out the photo gallery and judge the photo quality for yourself."
Notice, the CA is rare. The images are excellent. Of COURSE it doesn't have the best resolution, as there are 5MP cameras out there. Sorry, that's just the way it is. But is 4MP good enough for many photographers? Sure it is.
We also know that the G-series all produce slightly soft pictures. It's always been that way. Nothing that a little USM can't help in most instances.
Are the images ground-breaking? No. That's not what the G3 is about. It's about improvement in usability and functionality, with added speed for the user's workflow. Images are still high-quality. But they're nothing new in and of themselves.
As for the red eye, I only have two words: 420EX, 550EX. Heheheheh... I don't use onboard flash except for rarely anyway. Why would I be bothered by redeye when every camera out there will produce redeye when I'm shooting indoors in low light when everybody's pupils are opened wide?
It's rather humorous that some can't seem to accept that the G3 is not perfect. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to suit the purposes to which the camera is used.
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
While all reviewers sum up their thoughts, it is the BODY of their review that gives you what they're full thoughts are. Regarding the CA, for example, Jeff says:
"I had another night shot that I took (a more zoomed-in version of the shot above, not available online) that exhibited more of this phenomenon than the one posted here. These were the only times that I noticed this problem. In other photos, chromatic aberrations weren't really an issue. I have no idea what caused this -- I can't say that I've seen this before.
"Aside from that, though, I found the G3's photo quality to be excellent, in terms of color and exposure. I don't think the G3 is the best in terms of resolution, compared to other cameras. Have a look at the palm tree and grass in this shot for an example -- it's not as sharp as one would hope. Still, the G3's photo quality is some of the best out there... just not groundbreaking, knock-your-socks-off amazing. Please -- check out the photo gallery and judge the photo quality for yourself."
Notice, the CA is rare. The images are excellent. Of COURSE it doesn't have the best resolution, as there are 5MP cameras out there. Sorry, that's just the way it is. But is 4MP good enough for many photographers? Sure it is.
We also know that the G-series all produce slightly soft pictures. It's always been that way. Nothing that a little USM can't help in most instances.
Are the images ground-breaking? No. That's not what the G3 is about. It's about improvement in usability and functionality, with added speed for the user's workflow. Images are still high-quality. But they're nothing new in and of themselves.
As for the red eye, I only have two words: 420EX, 550EX. Heheheheh... I don't use onboard flash except for rarely anyway. Why would I be bothered by redeye when every camera out there will produce redeye when I'm shooting indoors in low light when everybody's pupils are opened wide?
It's rather humorous that some can't seem to accept that the G3 is not perfect. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to suit the purposes to which the camera is used.
--
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
U
Ulysses
Guest
He doesn't say it has the best movie mode, does he? He says that it has an "impressive movie mode". This is only as compared to the older G-series cameras. I personally am not interested in the G3 for its movie mode.
I much prefer the movie mode of the Sony cameras, where you can record at a higher frame rate than the G3, and you can record continuously up to the full size of the memory card.
Still, I guess having a movie mode like this is better than nothing. I just wish that they weren't using Motion JPEG and stuck with standard MPEG or QuickTime instead. Not all programs will read or edit these Canon movies.
This would mean I'd need a second camera for my movie modes. :-(
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
I much prefer the movie mode of the Sony cameras, where you can record at a higher frame rate than the G3, and you can record continuously up to the full size of the memory card.
Still, I guess having a movie mode like this is better than nothing. I just wish that they weren't using Motion JPEG and stuck with standard MPEG or QuickTime instead. Not all programs will read or edit these Canon movies.
This would mean I'd need a second camera for my movie modes. :-(
--
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
Justme
Forum Pro
Groggy. Caffeine. I need my caffeine. Here's what he wrote:
"The playback and movie modes are some of the best out there, as well". I'll take your word that the movie mode on your Sony camera is better. I seldom if ever use this mode on the G2.
"The playback and movie modes are some of the best out there, as well". I'll take your word that the movie mode on your Sony camera is better. I seldom if ever use this mode on the G2.
I much prefer the movie mode of the Sony cameras, where you can
record at a higher frame rate than the G3, and you can record
continuously up to the full size of the memory card.
Still, I guess having a movie mode like this is better than
nothing. I just wish that they weren't using Motion JPEG and stuck
with standard MPEG or QuickTime instead. Not all programs will read
or edit these Canon movies.
This would mean I'd need a second camera for my movie modes. :-(
--
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
U
Ulysses
Guest
Thanks for searching for that.
I use movie mode A LOT. And for me, the G3 movie would not cut it either in quality or in length. It doesn't lower my interest in the camera as a photographic tool, however. But it does mean that I'd need some other camera for movie mode. That part isn't good.
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
I use movie mode A LOT. And for me, the G3 movie would not cut it either in quality or in length. It doesn't lower my interest in the camera as a photographic tool, however. But it does mean that I'd need some other camera for movie mode. That part isn't good.
--
Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101
I'm an uncle!!!
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum