Try shooting at night away from lights (as I've done in outdoor concerts for example) and while your eyes can see perfectly, the LCD shows nothing but blackness.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Pro1 review posted on DCResource
- Thread starter AMomcil
- Start date
Steve110587
Senior Member
i think mike is overexaggerating. he is making out these canon point and shoots look like barbie digital cameras.... i have taken pics in a dim museum with my s45. NEVER had a problem seeing the artifacts in my s45.
I doubt it would take forever to get a good shot with the pro1. my s45 is my no means a super serious camera.. but i can get good shots with little hassle. in fact.. you do have to work harder with an slr to get a good pic. there are hundreds of posts giving newbies sh*t because they expect an slr to work as easily as a point and shoot. They are consistantly told that you need a good understanding of photography basics to really understand picture taking on an slr... with a point and shoot, depth of field is not an issue...etc...
in any case, i STILL might buy a pro1 depending on other reviews... (to me size is important. i remember not taking my film SLR everywhere with me because of the size of it.. hanging a pro1 around my neck sounds nice... (i cant hang my s45 around my neck properly).....
with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on trashing the camera... but then again .. .he MAY be entirely right in his speculations and observations... we'll see.....
I doubt it would take forever to get a good shot with the pro1. my s45 is my no means a super serious camera.. but i can get good shots with little hassle. in fact.. you do have to work harder with an slr to get a good pic. there are hundreds of posts giving newbies sh*t because they expect an slr to work as easily as a point and shoot. They are consistantly told that you need a good understanding of photography basics to really understand picture taking on an slr... with a point and shoot, depth of field is not an issue...etc...
in any case, i STILL might buy a pro1 depending on other reviews... (to me size is important. i remember not taking my film SLR everywhere with me because of the size of it.. hanging a pro1 around my neck sounds nice... (i cant hang my s45 around my neck properly).....
with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on trashing the camera... but then again .. .he MAY be entirely right in his speculations and observations... we'll see.....
I wanted improvement over the G3. Canon delivered teh opposite.
I am less concerned about the noise than I am about the degraded autofocus , slower lens, and missing OVF and AF assit lamp. Never mind the sensor.
Because that one review has confirmed what I already expected and feared after reading the camera's specs...
Giordano Biondani
Leading Member
I could ask you the same thing, to provide pictures proving YOUR point (there aren't any).
On the other hand, there are pictures that prove my point: take a look at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7829656
Giordano
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997
On the other hand, there are pictures that prove my point: take a look at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7829656
Giordano
--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997
Talking about the guy who claimed his G3 would run ring around the new Pro1....what a moron!!!!
LOL
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
LOL
--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
I am no Canon hater. In fact, if they had released a G3 with this new body and no other improvements (or faults) I likely would have bought it just for the body.
But they have actually robbed the camera of performance and versatility.
If the Pro1 had been even remotely acceptable, I could have offered you my G3. But now I'm hanging on to it for lack of anything better (or even remotely as good.)
Hmm, didn't know that. Everybody is realizing the importance of this feature... except for Canon.
I'd have to see it in action. Soundfs interesting for framing a shot, but I'm not convinced that it can compensate for a sower lens when the final photo is taken.
What if I want to shoot in near darkness with flash? I need AF assit to focus and to help me frame the shot, which would otherwise be invisible. Only Sony's OVF with NightFrame offers a viable solution.
I'd have to see it in action. But it's still too bulky for me. For that size, I'd get an SLR. I can't see myself taking that thing to parties, concerts, etc.
LeifShutter
Senior Member
I can focus in near total darkness. It's very sensitive.
Beauty is in the eye of the Bee-holder...
--
Beauty is in the eye of the Bee-holder...
Nikon cameras have the momst infuriatingly designed controls and menus. THat alone rules them out for me.
The standard bluish-white beam on most high-end Canon's just will not do much good with such a long zoom. Light physics dictate that its power must be much higher in order to attain an equivalent performance as it does on the other small-zoom cameras.
In effect, what you're asking for is a 3-LED white beams to counteract the lack of power by just one beam alone. None of these beats a standard-issue LED flashlight mounted on the camera via Velcro.
Either way, I cannot see how useful an AF-assist light would be for an ultra-zoom camera.
--
swatchhustler from the S.P.F.
Marco Nero
Veteran Member
The Pro 1 is simply a higher resolution powershot G camera, which is exactly what it's meant to be. Since the Pro 1 has more options than the G3, why would you say that the Pro 1 has been robbed of it's performance?
From what I can see here, the Pro 1 takes no less as good a picture than the G3. Just much higher levels of detail and a more versatile system for focus etc. Improvements in electronics as well as optics make the Pro 1 more desirable. If you crop an image in the Pro 1 at higher ISO like 400, you seem to get a better picture than the same corresponding ISO 400 image from a G3. The reviewer simply summed it up at the end by stating that he felt the Pro1 would have a bit of competition along side the DSLRs.
Cheers,
--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design
I don't think the image quality or noise that he've been whirning about, he whines about "dog slow" AF performance comparing to his G3, and much slower lens...LOL
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
Omega139971
Forum Enthusiast
Sure Mike...they already did in the G5 and you went ballistic because all they did was change the color and add a megapixel.
I've taken shots of the New Your skyline,and though it's not pitch black out,the LCD shows me the image i'm about to shoot.
I'm not saying i can clearly check for focus/sharpness,but my LCD is definitely not black.I do set the brightness to high,on the LCD(in the menu).
Once at a play,I wanted to record some video with my S30,and the LCD was so bright,people told me to turn it off,as it was distracting them.
ANAYV
I'm not saying i can clearly check for focus/sharpness,but my LCD is definitely not black.I do set the brightness to high,on the LCD(in the menu).
Once at a play,I wanted to record some video with my S30,and the LCD was so bright,people told me to turn it off,as it was distracting them.
ANAYV
KRDV
Leading Member
Apparently, some G3s have an "LCD blackness" mode. Darn not mine
Only if Sony and Olympus change it first,as they both have released DC's that had bad cases of PF ,in the past.
ANAYV
ANAYV
LOL.
Funny...Guenter!
Canon is not alone in this,nor are they the first.
CA has been around way before digital camera's were ever invented.
It's just a shame,that smaller pixels,increase this problem,while giving us more resolution,in a small package.Even a 2/3" CCD is very small,compared to the same area used with 35mm film.
If size was not such an issue,PF would not be such a problem,IMHO.
i myself want a camera I take anywhere,anytime.
this comes at a price
(about $379 for my S50)
ANAYV
Funny...Guenter!
Canon is not alone in this,nor are they the first.
CA has been around way before digital camera's were ever invented.
It's just a shame,that smaller pixels,increase this problem,while giving us more resolution,in a small package.Even a 2/3" CCD is very small,compared to the same area used with 35mm film.
If size was not such an issue,PF would not be such a problem,IMHO.
i myself want a camera I take anywhere,anytime.
this comes at a price
(about $379 for my S50)
ANAYV
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum