Pro1 Sample images

Giordano Biondani · Feb 9, 2004

I don't remember exactly, but I think they came down in price after a few weeks. The G3 in Italy was well over €1000 when it was released, so I guess the Pro1 is more expensive, but not so much as to make it a completely different segment.

Then again, I may be wrong. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

KRDV said:
KRDV said:

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Click to expand...

$799 MSRP I think, not the $999 I have seen for the Pro1. If the
Pro1 is $799 then I am definitely interested.

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

JohnNYC · Feb 9, 2004

with a CCD sensor.........??? If they put the CMOS sensor in there, then it would've been a different story.........

Ro1

Hej said:
WP said:

From Canon's site, don't shoot the messenger! Looks good to me!

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/sample.html
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
'Say what again?'

Click to expand...

--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

--
'Say CHEESE'

Man-Fai Wong · Feb 9, 2004

Ron Parr said:
WP said:

If there was ever an image that should show purple fringing it is
this image. Bright white with lots of angles and detail against a
bright sky.

Click to expand...

It was shot at f/8. You shouldn't expect much PF here.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Man-Fai Wong · Feb 9, 2004

Apparently, Canon's non-SLR digicams have been very conservatively rated for a while now. Check out some reviews and you'll see. It's certainly one good thing about their cams that you actually get more than just ISO50 when using ISO50.

Man

Chris Butler said:
That bridge shot was ISO 50, f8 at 1/320. I've usually found a
slight variation of the "daylight rule" to be reliable: f11.5 at
1/ISO. That suggests Canon's ISO 50 is closer to ISO 100 in film
parlance, which is good news.

Cheers,

Chris Butler
http://www.AcmeEnterprises.com

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

David McGaughey · Feb 9, 2004

Are you saying that L glass is worthless with the CCD based 1D DSLR?

I don't understand what you are talking about.

JohnNYC said:
Ro1

Hej said:

WP said:

From Canon's site, don't shoot the messenger! Looks good to me!

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/sample.html
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
'Say what again?'

Click to expand...

--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

Click to expand...

--
'Say CHEESE'

--
http://www.amherst.edu/~dmmcgaughey/Main/DMPhotography.html

Giordano Biondani · Feb 9, 2004

Interesting? As in "they're trying to hide something"?

I don't see your point. Why SHOULDN'T they shoot at f/8? It's a panoramic shot, there is a lot of light, what did you want them to shoot at, f/2?

Man-Fai Wong said:
Ron Parr said:

WP said:

If there was ever an image that should show purple fringing it is
this image. Bright white with lots of angles and detail against a
bright sky.

Click to expand...

It was shot at f/8. You shouldn't expect much PF here.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog
resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Man-Fai Wong · Feb 9, 2004

Max Fun said:
Most important thing is that I just might be able to squeeze that
in my trouser pockets (I do that with my V1 quite comfortably),
while I can't imagine doing that with any of the older or newer
image stabilised ultrazooms.

Trouser pockets? Don't you have problems w/ dust/lint? I wouldn't want to put any expensive digicam in my pants pockets.

Man

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Ron Parr · Feb 9, 2004

JohnNYC said:
with a CCD sensor.........??? If they put the CMOS sensor in
there, then it would've been a different story.........

A 2/3" 8MP CMOS sensor would be a mess.

If they used a larger sensor, the glass would be unaffordable.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Ron Parr · Feb 9, 2004

Giordano Biondani said:
Interesting? As in "they're trying to hide something"?

I don't see your point. Why SHOULDN'T they shoot at f/8? It's a
panoramic shot, there is a lot of light, what did you want them to
shoot at, f/2?

I don't think it's anything sinister, but it is true that at f/8 they're sacrificing some detail to diffraction. What they're gaining is reduced CA. Draw your own conclusions.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

l.x. · Feb 9, 2004

I noticed that one too!
The one picture where they show some CA/PF, and they aptly name it 828.jpg!

Bahahahaha! (c)

LX+R

Sjoweb said:
Look at the number of the image of the bridge...coincidence or not
(haha)?

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/sample.html

--
LX+R

Man-Fai Wong · Feb 9, 2004

They could've shot f5.6 for one thing and still be well w/in the camera's shutter speed limit. Also, the cam does have a built-in ND filter according to the press release. That's what the ND filter's good for.

Shooting at such a small aperture on these digicams is not exactly ideal.

Ok, maybe I should've said "odd", instead of "interesting".

Man

Giordano Biondani said:
I don't see your point. Why SHOULDN'T they shoot at f/8? It's a
panoramic shot, there is a lot of light, what did you want them to
shoot at, f/2?

Man-Fai Wong said:

Ron Parr said:

WP said:

If there was ever an image that should show purple fringing it is
this image. Bright white with lots of angles and detail against a
bright sky.

Click to expand...

It was shot at f/8. You shouldn't expect much PF here.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog
resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

TomFid · Feb 9, 2004

Member said:
For screen, there's no advantage to capturing in Adobe RGB. For
print, depending upon the output device, there may be a slight
advantage if you can hit some greens that are outside of sRGB, but
within CMYK and aRGB.

Right. For landscape work, I'm finding that the advantage is more than slight (using Epson PIM to import into Epson RGB with an 828). But then, I'm in the northwest where everything that stands still more than a few minutes gets green and fuzzy.

BJL · Feb 9, 2004

Giordano Biondani said:
Interesting? As in "they're trying to hide something"?

I don't see your point. Why SHOULDN'T they shoot at f/8? It's a
panoramic shot, there is a lot of light, what did you want them to
shoot at, f/2?

Not just the bridge but all samples are at ISO50 and at close to the camera's smallest apertures, which means that all samples are in the easy case of abundant light. Given the much discussed problems of the Sony 828 (using the same sensor) at larger apertures and higher sensitivities, this does at least raise the question of whether there will be significant color fringing issues at larger apertures, and significant noise problems in lower light. Especially since the f/8 bridge shot already shows a little bit of colour fringing.

I will postpone judgement untll I see some samples at ISO100 and ISO200, and larger apertures.

Man-Fai Wong · Feb 9, 2004

Does anyone think they should've kept that where the G3/G5 had it -- and apparently the new S1 also?

I'm not trying to knock the Pro1, but the new position does look a bit awkward to me.

Man

WP said:
From Canon's site, don't shoot the messenger! Looks good to me!

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/sample.html
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
'Say what again?'

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

graham W. · Feb 9, 2004

Adam-T said:
the G5 NEVER fringes on blue skies like that, only bright white
skies - I can't wait to see backlit tree branches against a white
sky ;-) ..

Anyway, these are only preliminary shots and the camera will cost
DOUBLE that of the G5 at least (UK)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Just printed it on my epson 2100 looks good to me, also looks good at screen size in windows print viewer.

I find it easy to forget that you would need a screen 4 feet across to fit the whole picture in !
Most of my high res 35mm scans look pretty naf at pixel resolution

Graham

TomFid · Feb 9, 2004

bauerman said:
WP said:

If there was ever an image that should show purple fringing it is
this image. Bright white with lots of angles and detail against a
bright sky.
Looks like it is under control to me! Too bad all shots are ISO 50.

Click to expand...

If experience with the Sony 828 is at all applicable, I wouldn't expect to see much PF here. First, the lens was stopped down to f5.6 or 8, which takes care of fringing from lens aberrations. Second, there are bright highlights but according to the histogram none are completely overexposed, so you wouldn't expect much sensor-induced fringing either. The tiny amount of fringing visible around the edges of the bridge is no less than what I'd expect from a high contrast scene on my 828, so I think we don't know much yet.

At least Canon had the brains not to post something like Sony's infamous duck!

Max Fun · Feb 9, 2004

But just a bit and not much on the lens, so it doesn't really affect the photo quality.

I really don't want to have a back up camera that's going to take up more room in my camera bag, when I can use it for an extra lens!

Man-Fai Wong said:
Max Fun said:

Most important thing is that I just might be able to squeeze that
in my trouser pockets (I do that with my V1 quite comfortably),
while I can't imagine doing that with any of the older or newer
image stabilised ultrazooms.

Click to expand...

Trouser pockets? Don't you have problems w/ dust/lint? I wouldn't
want to put any expensive digicam in my pants pockets.

Man

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog
resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman

Ulysses · Feb 9, 2004

I don't see it so much in the bridge shot. You can, however, find miniscule amounts in the shots of the shoes, which is interesting. Again, it's so small as to be a non-issue. Then again, I find that studio shots even with the F828 are not really bad in this way. We need to see more Pro1 outdoor shots to make sure.

Overall, I'm encouraged.

--

Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 9, 2004

Adam-T, can you point out exactly what you're seeing, perhaps with cropped image samples?

Which fringing are you referring to?

For example, I see a bit of CA in that there are orange/red areas that show up against the contrasty white of the bridge edges. However, thankfully, there is little corresponding green/cyan fringing on the side opposite.

As for fringing (of the purple type), I'm not yet seeing much of that at all. Extremely low in that department. And as for the CA, I'm not at all surprised to see this, even though it's fairly little in intensity. After all, this L lens would come under the classification of a super-zoom.

Adam-T said:
the G5 NEVER fringes on blue skies like that, only bright white
skies - I can't wait to see backlit tree branches against a white
sky ;-) ..

Anyway, these are only preliminary shots and the camera will cost
DOUBLE that of the G5 at least (UK)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

--

Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 9, 2004

It would seem that just as with the G3 and G3, the wireless remote is included.

Ron Parr said:
Member said:

No Wireless remote.

Click to expand...

It's an option.

--

Ulysses

Pro1 Sample images

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Ron Parr

Guest

Ron Parr

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts