Sorry G3 but no cigar

eagle240 · Dec 5, 2002

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Phil Askey · Dec 5, 2002

You want sharper? Just turn up the sharpening setting in-camera. If you had READ my comments below the comparison you would see that the G3 is managing to resolve at least as much detail but with less artifacts.

eagle240 said:
Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

KRDV · Dec 5, 2002

Thanks for the input, Phil. Great job. All should read the review and draw their own conclusion rather than rely on a conclusion from a post.

picnic · Dec 5, 2002

Phil Askey said:
eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

Phil some will see what they want having had a G2 then a Minolta 7i and last week a G3 . The G3 is better than the two of them and being able to shot RAW aand not have to wait 30 second to a minute between shots( as i had to on the 7i) is a god send and worth the lost of the lovely manual zoom.
Phil keep it up you are the best

We are not worthy of your time and effort....Hope your life out side of this shotting gallery is ok

Member said:
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

cluna · Dec 5, 2002

Phil Askey said:
You want sharper? Just turn up the sharpening setting in-camera.
If you had READ my comments below the comparison you would see that
the G3 is managing to resolve at least as much detail but with less
artifacts.

It is the box stock setting and the fact people really don't have a clue to sharpening purpose, they won't entertain the idea of the realistic workflow one uses: Shoot, download, alter and USM, print. Likewise they look at a 75/96DPI screen to determine sharpness rather that print out the examples. All that matters is what they see on screen in print.

Also Look at the noise figures of the individual color channels, to many techo dweebs specs are all that matters, not reality. reality is that the noise is a cleaner looking noise that the competition. Am I the only one seeing that?

Regardless, I think you image samples speak very well. Much better that the once I've seen hence in reviews.

good job

Braco · Dec 5, 2002

Yes, less artifacts and more CA. I still can see jaggies that you talked about so much with G2. Jaggies are still there, noise on 200 and 400 is still there, we get more "visible CA" (what is the difference between CA and "visible CA" anyway??). Color accuracy is pretty the same as with G2. I think that you really have to be a nighthawk to see any difference in image quality between G2 and G3.

The same way as you say Phil - If you want less artifacts in G2, just turn down the sharpening setting in-camera.

I still think that image quality is the most important "feature" of them all. That hasn't been improved with G3 no matter what people say. We only need to look at your comparison pictures and it is perfectly clear that image quality hasn't been better with G3.

So what are we paying for when buying G3 - new lens (4x), ND filter, some other minor features and that's all. That will cost you 200, maybe 300 dollars.

And most of the people here on this forum will remain as bad photographers as they were before. That's shame.

Regards

Phil Askey said:
eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Marc-O · Dec 5, 2002

sigh I give up.

Braco said:
Regards

Phil Askey said:

eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

glowluzid · Dec 5, 2002

Braco said:
And most of the people here on this forum will remain as bad
photographers as they were before. That's shame.

Hmmm. You say image quality is most important to you, and see no improvement. And then you conclude that most everyone here will remain bad photographers.

What kind of novice are you that makes you claim that a 13% image quality improvement (the most a 5mp gains over 4mp) will make our photos so much better?

Here's a clue, at this level of equipment, it isn't the camera that makes the photographer. It's the skill.

Braco said:
So what are we paying for when buying G3 - new lens (4x), ND
filter, some other minor features and that's all. That will cost
you 200, maybe 300 dollars.

More like $150 at most.

A G2 at reputable online dealers sells for at best $580 + shipping. I bought my G3 from Ritz for $720+$23shipped.

Rodger Carter · Dec 5, 2002

An already excellent digicam made better - not only received Phil's coveted "Highly Recommend" rating, but also the highest numerical ratings I can recall for a non-SLR digicam. Not chopped liver for an annual evolutionary upgrade. Few non-pro photographers will be able to fully utilize its capabilites.

Rodger

camquest · Dec 5, 2002

eagle240 said:
Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

You and Braco are morons. Actually READ the review like Phil said instead of just looking at pictures. And yes, the G3 has lots of improvments that warrant additional cost for those looking for their first digicam or even some G2 owners that want to upgrade. Stop spewing mindless BS because you have an inferior camera and want to deny it.

I'd like to slap people like you for absolutely stupid statements like "The G2 is way sharper."

eagle240 · Dec 5, 2002

I'm 6'2, 240 lbs. and not really very easy to "slap." Love photography and especially Canon equipment and enjoy the exchange of opinions and ideas on this forum. I respect your imput but be careful who you slap.

best regards said:
eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

You and Braco are morons. Actually READ the review like Phil said
instead of just looking at pictures. And yes, the G3 has lots of
improvments that warrant additional cost for those looking for
their first digicam or even some G2 owners that want to upgrade.
Stop spewing mindless BS because you have an inferior camera and
want to deny it.

I'd like to slap people like you for absolutely stupid statements
like "The G2 is way sharper."

Teski · Dec 5, 2002

Hey glowluzid -

How'd you get the G3 from Ritz for $720+shipping? Their site says $799 and the cheapest I've seen from respectable sites is $749.

Just curious.

Teski

glowluzid said:
Braco said:

And most of the people here on this forum will remain as bad
photographers as they were before. That's shame.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You say image quality is most important to you, and see no
improvement. And then you conclude that most everyone here will
remain bad photographers.

What kind of novice are you that makes you claim that a 13% image
quality improvement (the most a 5mp gains over 4mp) will make our
photos so much better?

Here's a clue, at this level of equipment, it isn't the camera that
makes the photographer. It's the skill.

glowluzid said:

So what are we paying for when buying G3 - new lens (4x), ND
filter, some other minor features and that's all. That will cost
you 200, maybe 300 dollars.

Click to expand...

More like $150 at most.

A G2 at reputable online dealers sells for at best $580 + shipping.
I bought my G3 from Ritz for $720+$23shipped.

Juha Halvari · Dec 5, 2002

Didnt you know that size doesnt matter if youre not king kong size? Size only make you to fall higher, not more ;-)

-
Juzu

eagle240 said:
best regards said:

eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

You and Braco are morons. Actually READ the review like Phil said
instead of just looking at pictures. And yes, the G3 has lots of
improvments that warrant additional cost for those looking for
their first digicam or even some G2 owners that want to upgrade.
Stop spewing mindless BS because you have an inferior camera and
want to deny it.

I'd like to slap people like you for absolutely stupid statements
like "The G2 is way sharper."

Click to expand...

Paulo Abreu · Dec 5, 2002

Hi,

Canon did a good job fiting a new 4x zoom, maintaining sharpness, color and aperture at equivalent focal distance - that is by itself a great improvement! If you zoom from 3x to 4x and snap you will get +25% resolution for the picture you were just aiming to - is that very few ?

G3 is quickier and that can save you some unrecoverable shots - it has all the gadgets one could expect on the latest DC - has a better flash system - has a very handy ND filter and ... has all the image quality attributes that G2 already had!! IMHO, a clear winner.
Regards,
(old G2 owner

eagle240 said:
Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

--
Paulo Abreu
FujiFilm S2Pro - Nikkor AF 18-35 F3.5-4.5 ED
http://www.pbase.com/psergio

glowluzid · Dec 5, 2002

They had a sale a couple weeks back. Try calling Ritz and asking them to do the "dpreview" pricematch for $743+change shipped.

teski said:
How'd you get the G3 from Ritz for $720+shipping? Their site says
$799 and the cheapest I've seen from respectable sites is $749.

lck0925 · Dec 5, 2002

eagle240 said:
Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Braco · Dec 5, 2002

glowluzid said:
What kind of novice are you that makes you claim that a 13% image
quality improvement (the most a 5mp gains over 4mp) will make our
photos so much better?

Novice ok.. If you call 20 year of experiance novice. I never said that

13% of pixels will make the photos better. But I say that little bit more real photographing instead of nit picking will make many of people her better photographers. G3 is a great camera but so is the G2. G2 will cost you 150 dollars less. For the money you can buy an ND filter, lensmate, UV filter, a good case and some extra flash memory. I prefer these accessories to G3's features.

glowluzid said:
Here's a clue, at this level of equipment, it isn't the camera that
makes the photographer. It's the skill.

Correct. So go out find a motif and make some real shots instead of comparing image quality of two virtually equal cameras.

Walter001 · Dec 6, 2002

eagle240 said:
Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

It is generally considered safer for the camera to apply less sharpening thereby preserving detail and allowing you to tweak as desired in Photoshop. Canon probably just reduced default levels a bit, and you can probably just turn them back up manually.

Phil?

HuNan · Dec 6, 2002

Way to go Phil with that "If you had READ my comments " line, but alas, they only read what they want to read, just like they only hear what they want to hear.

As a G2 owner I am happy about how well the G2 stacks up against the new G3. I do see however that Canon has kicked it up a notch with many new and useful features.

Still for those who desire a quality digicam at a now very reasonable price grab a G2, you will not be sorry.

Phil Askey said:
eagle240 said:

Just read Phil's review. Paid special attention to the side by
side comparisons of G2 and G3. The G2 is way sharper. Canon had a
chance to bring out a greatly improved version of the G2 and blew
it. I am still a Canon fan but will wait for the next G whether
it be A G4 or G5. I fully expect that it will have much more to
offer.

Sorry G3 but no cigar.

eagle240

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

--
Pbase Supporter

Sorry G3 but no cigar

Member

Phil Askey

Guest

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts