G3 final review at dcresource.com

Justme · Nov 11, 2002

Just wondering, how many movie minutes can you fit onto a 128mb MS? What is the quality (how sharp does it look) if you play it back on a monitor? Can you also view it on a TV?

OT. I should've picked up a Sony TRV17 mini-dv while I had the chance. The new Sony camcorders do not have Super LaserLink (Blue-Tooth now) but I have a LaserLink receiver. Grumble. Grumble.

Ulysses said:
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.

Justme said:

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.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

mango · Nov 11, 2002

Marc-O said:
To me this does not qualify as CA, more like if the cam sensor was
picking up odd light wavelengths.

I made the same guess in a thread about this same picture a week or so ago. I think that those are "Metal-Halide" lightbulbs that emit UV light, which is getting picked up by the sensor and registered as blue. If this is the case, it is a bug in the camera, and I'm sure we'll see more about this in the near future. If it turns out to be reproducable, we'll have to name the phenomena...how about the "G3-UV hypersensitivity"?? Sounds almost like a cheer.

Mark Wagar · Nov 11, 2002

John Maling said:
John Maling wrote:

which is pretty much what can be said about 90% of the other digitals on the market

John,
I think that figure is a litttle low, I submit a percentage of more like 98%.
But in spite of this, we still love digital.

Yang · Nov 11, 2002

Ulysses wrote:
...

Member said:
It's rather humorous that some can't seem to accept that the G3 is
not perfect.

if the G3 had 5MP + 6 x zoom, more CA and softness would have been accepted/tolerated, I guess.

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

The F717 sports three different movie modes, differing in quality and length. Note that I'm not sure of the quality of the audio, and that the FPS figure is an estimate as there may be some sort of frame doubling going on here so as to make it look smoother.:

MPEG EX w/audio
160x120
Max. recordable time 1:31:34
16 fps

MPEG EX w/audio
320x240
Max. recordable time 00:23:39
8 fps

MPEG HQX w/audio
320x240
Max. recordable time 00:05:54
8 fps

The HQX mode is the highest quality and can be watched full-screen on a monitor or on a television. How sharp it is depends upon what you're shooting. Some things look sharper depending upon the focus. But to me, the movies almost always look better (subjective, I know) than what I've seen in the Canon cameras. But add to this the hassle of not easily being able to edit the Canon movies, and you've got other things to think about.

Justme said:
Just wondering, how many movie minutes can you fit onto a 128mb MS?
What is the quality (how sharp does it look) if you play it back on
a monitor? Can you also view it on a TV?

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

Too often about the bragging rights and not the way we'll ultimately be using the pictures.

Yang said:
if the G3 had 5MP + 6 x zoom, more CA and softness would have been
accepted/tolerated, I guess.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

jeff@dcresource · Nov 11, 2002

Ulysses said:
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.

SΘL said:

images are not sharp as most cams, red eye and bad CA problems....

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Pete47365 · Nov 11, 2002

thang said:
niel said:

just to let u guys know there's a final review for g3 at...

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g3-review/index.html

Click to expand...

--

Pardon me for butting in. How do you guys sleep at night?. I have followed thread after thread in this forum regarding the G3. Mostly its nit-picking. It boils down to the fact,that if you can afford the G3,you want to hear nice things about it before you buy. The plain fact is the differences between G2 and G3 are sparse. I think I will stick with my slow old G2 for now!.

novice · Nov 11, 2002

paul said:
I'm an amature and looking at either the G3 or the Coolpix 5700,and am confused by all the comments I read......help!!!!!

Marc-O said:
SΘL said:

Marc-O said:

"The Canon PowerShot G3 is one of the finest digital cameras on the
market. It offers robust performance, tons of manual controls,
unmatched system expandability, and excellent photo quality. The
DIGIC processor has made the G3 one of the most responsive cameras
I've used."

That sounds pretty damn nice to me...

John McMurdo said:

niel said:

just to let u guys know there's a final review for g3 at...

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g3-review/index.html

Click to expand...

First - Steve's Digicams gives a completely non commital review of
the G3.
Now - DC Resource has basically done the same thing.

While I have seen some very decent landscapes and portraits taken
with the G3 by participants on this forum - I really have to ask

why are the pro reviewers so reticent about the G3?

--
JohnMc

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dean Baird · Nov 11, 2002

I was under the impression that the F717 did HQX at 16 fps. Am I mistaken?

Dean

Ulysses said:
MPEG EX w/audio
160x120
Max. recordable time 1:31:34
16 fps

MPEG EX w/audio
320x240
Max. recordable time 00:23:39
8 fps

MPEG HQX w/audio
320x240
Max. recordable time 00:05:54
8 fps

The HQX mode is the highest quality and can be watched full-screen
on a monitor or on a television. How sharp it is depends upon what
you're shooting. Some things look sharper depending upon the focus.
But to me, the movies almost always look better (subjective, I
know) than what I've seen in the Canon cameras. But add to this the
hassle of not easily being able to edit the Canon movies, and
you've got other things to think about.

Justme said:

Just wondering, how many movie minutes can you fit onto a 128mb MS?
What is the quality (how sharp does it look) if you play it back on
a monitor? Can you also view it on a TV?

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Easy · Nov 11, 2002

Ulysses said:
This would mean I'd need a second camera for my movie modes. :-(

Ulysses,

It seems to me in earlier posts you were saying you owned a Sony 707 (717?)

Are you also planning on picking up a G3 ?!!!!

sv · Nov 11, 2002

Are there any examples how the noise at ISO400 compares to the G2?

Noise at higher ISO is actually biggest issue I have with my G2 and a potential reason ( at least for me) to upgrade to another camera.

Any pointers to ISO400 examples would be greatly appreaciated

best regards,
Sebastian

--
http://www.pbase.com/sv/expo

Wulfespirit · Nov 11, 2002

Don't be too hard on him. He just bought an S45 and is working hard to convince himself that he's not suffering from G3 envy.

Based on the two major reviews I've seen so far, it would seem that the G3 is a pretty nice machine.

Marc-O said:
SΘL said:

Marc-O said:

"The Canon PowerShot G3 is one of the finest digital cameras on the
market. It offers robust performance, tons of manual controls,
unmatched system expandability, and excellent photo quality. The
DIGIC processor has made the G3 one of the most responsive cameras
I've used."

That sounds pretty damn nice to me...

John McMurdo said:

niel said:

just to let u guys know there's a final review for g3 at...

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g3-review/index.html

Click to expand...

First - Steve's Digicams gives a completely non commital review of
the G3.
Now - DC Resource has basically done the same thing.

While I have seen some very decent landscapes and portraits taken
with the G3 by participants on this forum - I really have to ask

why are the pro reviewers so reticent about the G3?

--
JohnMc

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.canadawestoutdoors.com/photos.html
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=25643

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

Whoops!!!

Switch that 160x120 mode FPS with the HQX mode FPS. You're right.

MPEG HQX = 16 FPS higher quality and frame rate, full screen playback
MPEG EX (160x120) = 8 FPS, tiny, tiny, very compressed, e-mailable.

Dean Baird said:
I was under the impression that the F717 did HQX at 16 fps. Am I
mistaken?

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Marc-O · Nov 11, 2002

It sure does

I hope the issue is going to get adressed soon, I'm curious

mango said:
Marc-O said:

To me this does not qualify as CA, more like if the cam sensor was
picking up odd light wavelengths.

Click to expand...

I made the same guess in a thread about this same picture a week or
so ago. I think that those are "Metal-Halide" lightbulbs that emit
UV light, which is getting picked up by the sensor and registered
as blue. If this is the case, it is a bug in the camera, and I'm
sure we'll see more about this in the near future. If it turns out
to be reproducable, we'll have to name the phenomena...how about
the "G3-UV hypersensitivity"?? Sounds almost like a cheer.

John McMurdo · Nov 11, 2002

In his review Jeff states:

"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. "

You state:

Member said:
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.

I didn't expect the camera to be perfect - and maybe I'm expecting too much from current technology but..... lets see .....Canon expects me to be happy with a $1300 CDN camera that does not produce uniformly sharp hi res images (4 megapixels or not). Yes, the camera has many other great features but I think they could have done more to improve the basic image.

Also,you seem to imply that this basic, very significant, imaging problem is OK because of the "purposes to which the camera is used". Is lack of sharpness and resolution acceptable in a camera supposedly designed for serious amateurs, and semi pro photographers? Don't think so!

Sorry, don't mean to offend G3 owners. I had high expectations for the G3 and the sharpness issue is an important one for me personally. Still waiting for Phil's review and hoping that he can convince me that unsharp is OK or at least easily correctible (unfortunately USM didn't do the trick for me on many of the G3 images I downloaded and printed)!
Cheers!
--
JohnMc

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

John McMurdo said:
I didn't expect the camera to be perfect - and maybe I'm expecting
too much from current technology but..... lets see .....Canon
expects me to be happy with a $1300 CDN camera

Ouch!! Canadian prices. Sony users in Canada have the same issues, and it does color the way they perceive their cameras, understandably so. They're paying more than a lot of us are.

John McMurdo said:
Also,you seem to imply that this basic, very significant, imaging
problem is OK because of the "purposes to which the camera is
used".

That's not at all what I'm implying. No one is saying to settle.

What I AM saying is that we've seen some very slightly soft images (I'd call this far from significant), and we've seen some very, very sharp images from other users. What is the reason for the difference? Is it the photographer? Maybe. Is it the camera being softer than its predecessor? Even if the images are somewhat soft, can they be taken care of in the normal manner; even users of DSLR cameras need that. They're paying a lot more.

But seriously, I'm not trying to convince you to get the G3. I'm not even convinced myself.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

Well, I'm not hanging around here just because of the beautiful faces I see.

No, seriously... hahahahahahah... I'm thinking about it, considering the options available.

Very good image quality
Very good value
Very good accessories available
Considering for pro/semi-pro and hobby usage

It is a strong contender. I haven't seen anything so far that would make me afraid of getting a G3.

Easy said:
It seems to me in earlier posts you were saying you owned a Sony
707 (717?)

Are you also planning on picking up a G3 ?!!!!

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Ulysses · Nov 11, 2002

See Steve's G3 samples with ISO variations at:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/g3_samples.html

Of course, not taken at the same time or in the exact conditions, the G2:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/g2_samples.html

sv said:
Are there any examples how the noise at ISO400 compares to the G2?
Noise at higher ISO is actually biggest issue I have with my G2
and a potential reason ( at least for me) to upgrade to another
camera.

Any pointers to ISO400 examples would be greatly appreaciated

best regards,
Sebastian

--
http://www.pbase.com/sv/expo

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Robert Hoffman · Nov 11, 2002

Lord Jim said:
I also question if the blue halo present in the church photo (Image
28) of DCResource's Final G3 review is really chromatic abberation.

Call it what you will, but it will show up every time there's a bright
light source in the photo. Someone recently posted a standardized
comparison between the G2, G3, and Coolpix 4300. The shot was a
night scene, with a bright street lamp. The G2 had some blooming
and/or fringing, the G3 had very strong fringing, and the 4300 had
practically zero fringing.

RH

G3 final review at dcresource.com

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Yang

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Active member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Ulysses

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts