Reading mode: Light Dark

Pro1 review posted on DCResource

Go to last post
H4ng0ver said:
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
Click to expand...
I think the Pro1 is a pretty good digital so far. I haven't seen any of the vignetting problems experienced by the recent reviewer in other shots or mentioned by other Pro 1 followers. From what I understand, the AF capabilities of the Pro 1 are more ACCURATE than anything previously. Forget about the speed. It's a least in the same league as the G series for Auto focus from what people have written. The difference now is that the Pro1 has a decent shutter lag correction. Much better. Also, the shot times and powerup speeds are better. The f2.4 lens speed is fine as a trade off for the additional massive optical zoom. Better battey time is also a bonus for this kind of camera. As is the incredible Super Macro. So far, image quality is better than the Sony F828 and THAT camera takes some lovely shots.

Judging by the samples I saw comparing the Pro 1 with the new Olympus 8MP, the Pro 1 had more accurate colour and far more detail in the image.

Since the A2 is virtually a DSLR but with a pathetic 8MP CCD chip instead of CMOS, I think it ought to be compared with other large DSLRs, not compacts like the Pro 1. Either way, the Pro 1 images exceed the quality of the A2 in the samples posted thus far. One thing is certain; you can take bad pictures with either camera if you don't know it's limitations.

Can't complain yet.

--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design
 
So wrong,Mike.
He made that test when the G3 came out.
Go check the G3 review.

Now I'm doubting your comments,since you are mixed up in your facts.
Your bitterness has confused you.

The G3 was the camera that used aluminum foil test,the first camera of any brand that Phil tested using foil,to check for CA/purple fringing.

go to http://www.dpreview,and check the G3 review by Phil and you will learn some facts.

better yet,e-mail Phil,and see what he says,since he tested it.

perhaps you will believe him??

something tells me you will deny the truth,for whatever reason.

you need to relax,dude.When your blood pressure goes up,your facts get mixed up.

It's just a camera we are talking about.

ANAYV
Mike Hunt said:
ANAYV said:
Mike Hunt said:
My G3 can run rings around this overpriced and overhyped loser.
Much lower noise, much lower purple fringing, smaller, cheaper,
Click to expand...
Not sure about the G3 having 'much lower PF',than Pro 1.Remember
when the G3 first came out?
PF was pretty bad,so much so,that Phil made a special test,which he
now uses on other camera's.(the foil test).Maybe 'a bit more
PF',the Pro 1 will have,than the G3.
Click to expand...
He came up with that test when the G5 came out, not the G3.
Mike Hunt said:
Canon is in business to make money,selling camera's and lenses.And
that they do very well.
Click to expand...
Well now they'll make just a tiny bit less money, since they've
lost me, and any people I would normally persuade to buy their
products.
Mike Hunt said:
It is a shame,that them(and most every other manufacturer)can't fix
these problems(noise and PF),and make a really excellent
camera....today
Click to expand...
The noise and PF are the least of the problems. The biggest issue
by far is AUTOFOCUS PERFORMANCE. THat is the biggest thing they've
failed to fix. But what ticks me off is that they came up with a
sorry marketing B.S. fix ("hybrid AF"), while removing an essential
feature (the AF assit lamp.) Couple that with the slower lens and
EVF, and they have seriously crippled this camera's usefulness in
low light and for action/candid photos....

...UNCECESSARILY.
Mike Hunt said:
Seems the Sony is worse than the Pro 1,in regards to noise,and PF.
Click to expand...
I care more about autofocus and low light performacne than noise
and PF. You can fix noise and PF in Photoshop. Try fixing a motion
blurred or out of focus image.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps Mike bought the 'black' version of the G3,like the Black G2 Canon released a while back.
Only Mikes G3 has a 'black LCD',instead of a black body.

:> )

ANAYV
KRDV said:
ANAYV said:
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
Mike Hunt said:
ANAYV said:
What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Apparently, some G3s have an "LCD blackness" mode. Darn not mine 8-)
Click to expand...
 
Maybe turning ON the LCD could help ;-P
ANAYV said:
:> )

ANAYV
KRDV said:
ANAYV said:
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
Mike Hunt said:
ANAYV said:
What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Apparently, some G3s have an "LCD blackness" mode. Darn not mine 8-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LOL !!!
stephl said:
ANAYV said:
:> )

ANAYV
KRDV said:
ANAYV said:
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
Mike Hunt said:
ANAYV said:
What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Apparently, some G3s have an "LCD blackness" mode. Darn not mine 8-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Some folk would rather a EVF,that is 100% accurate ,for framing ,than a OVF,that is not even 90% accurate,and no correction for parrelax error
(1-800-HOWS-MY-SPELLING).

:> )

In macro mode,OVF's are very bad.

You see,it depends on what type of shots one takes.

I hardly ever take indoor shots,and very rarely people shots.

My needs will be different than others.

ANAYV
Mike Hunt said:
alexeig said:
Mike Hunt said:
I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they
deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.
Click to expand...
Too bad for you. The question is whether you are interested in all
in one camera or want to go DSLR. If you are interested in DSLR
this is perfectly reasonable choice. If you are interested in all
in one than Pro1 is equally reasonable choice.
Click to expand...
I wanted improvement over the G3. Canon delivered teh opposite.
Mike Hunt said:
What I do not understand is why wine over the known issues of small
sensors. It is like expecting performance of Mercedes car from a
cheap Ford model. Kind of lame.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
I go on this web page

http://pcweb.mycom.co.jp/articles/2004/03/01/pro1/003.html

And I download the sample at iso 200 and 400 of the Tiger

When look on screen at 100% they look really ugly... too many noise

BUT I print them at 5"x7" with NO modification in photoshop

The printout look really great, and I only use my inkjet printer

I look at the picture (ISO 400) at 20 inch I see near no noise
I look at the picture (ISO 200) at 20 inch I see NO noise

When you show picture to people, they want to look to small detail or they want too look the subject of the picture....

I can't understand the people who find that the Pro1 is so bad, this camera is not perfect, but NOTHING is perfect

I just think about that... I look at some of my picture I take with my old 35mm camera with ISO400 film... guess what... there is noise there

If you want noise free picture at ISO 1600 stop looking and reading about camera who is not DSLR. People like me whant the best camera they can get BUT with good zoom and the more feature I can get in a SMALL camera... NO DSLR achive that.
 
its curious tha while Nikon added the assit lamp to the 8700, Canon that already has it in the G5 (and G3, a80,a70) removed it from the design of thr Pro1, then I might think Pro1 dies not need the assist lamp, but i learned from the dcresorce that does not perfom as good in low light as the A1/A2 .
 
I just print the Peacock (ISO 400) at 5"x7"

and WOW

I notice the noise only in the area out of focus when I look to see it.

If the price is good when I see it in store, 100% chance I buy it :)
 
Marco Nero said:
Since the A2 is virtually a DSLR but with a pathetic 8MP CCD chip
instead of CMOS, I think it ought to be compared with other large
DSLRs, not compacts like the Pro 1.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHA you are getting funnier by the minute.

Why on earth should the A2 be compared to a DSLR ?????? Well what must the F828 be compared to then? A Hubble telescope?

It seems you are becoming really afraid that the A2 will be superiour to the Pro1. The A2 is just a tiny bit larger then the Pro1, neither of both will fit in a pants-pocket.

It is clear that you love Canon, but why are you constantly bashing the A2. Why is it a DSLR? Because it has a fixed lens? Why does the A2 have a "pathetic 8MP CCD ship" and would you never use the same words if you talk about the Pro1.

Wake up, don't be a thief of your own money: you get WAY more camera with the A2 then a Pro1.
 
Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:
But it has AS, which follows the slower lens and raises for a stop
or two.
Click to expand...
I'd have to see it in action. Sounds interesting for framing a
shot, but I'm not convinced that it can compensate for a sower lens
when the final photo is taken.
Click to expand...
Read every review of the A1 concerning AS before you start to draw wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of the AS system
Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:
Without AF assist and without nightshot capability, any EVF is
useless in low light. An OVF is essential.
Click to expand...
Well, A1 users reported very good AF in low-light and a good AF
speed. Phil did that too and measured -1.2 EV:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Agree, the Sony is far superiour then any other 8MP focussing-wise. The A2 however increases the light it picks up in the EVF so you get a way better night-framing capability then any other compact (F828 is better because it uses IR)
Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:
Despite not having an AF assist lamp the DiMAGE A1 manages to focus
in extremely low light situations thanks to its high gain B&W live
view mode which also appears to enhance auto focus
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Boy... are you a hobbit or really small? Look at the pics here:
Pro1: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canonpro1/page3.asp
A1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1/page3.asp

If you consider the Pro1 a "compact" and the A1/A2 a "bulky" near DSLR kind of camera you have an eye-problem.
 
...forums like this will still be filled with apologists ready to claim they don't see a problem with this new green/purple stereo thing. Anyone daring to say otherwise will be labeled a "nitpicker" or "troll."
fiebl said:
fiebl wrote:
If we extrapolate to 2010 we may expect digicams with 100 million
pixels and CA resulting in the left half of a picture being green
and the right half being purple.
Marketing could sell this effect as being a new form of stereo and
include appropriately coloured glasse as an accessory.
Click to expand...
 
Most of the lameness and whining I've read here is coming from the apologists who can't stand to hear any criticism of the camera.

Why is it so hard for some to understand how disappointing it is to watch a company with so much potential make design decisions that result in poor image quality when it doesn't have to be that way. In 2 years time, you'd think that technological advances would be able to give us MUCH BETTER image quality, not similar or worse. The fact is that companies (Canon is not alone in this) are choosing numbers (more pixels) over improving performance and image quality. They do this because the majority of consumers falsely see pixel count as the main indicator of camera quality.

A 5mp camera with great AF and noiseless images at high ISOs would have been something worth getting excited about. Instead, it seems we've waited 2 years for....... slightly bigger image dimensions and a little more detail. A big disappointment.

It wouldn't be so bad if this were just one of two very different high-end compacts. Sure, make the pro1 for pixel chasers and others who are willing to overlook everything else, but dammit, make a compact for those of us who care most about image quality. With 20 new models, surely there's room for one like that.
alexeig said:
Too bad for you. The question is whether you are interested in all
in one camera or want to go DSLR. If you are interested in DSLR
this is perfectly reasonable choice. If you are interested in all
in one than Pro1 is equally reasonable choice.

What I do not understand is why wine over the known issues of small
sensors. It is like expecting performance of Mercedes car from a
cheap Ford model. Kind of lame.
Click to expand...
 
Is this something God told Moses and now we have to follow it or else?

It's like someone in 1994 saying "computers will never run faster than 100mhz." Please. With advances in sensor technology, images should be cleaner as time goes on. The problem is that they're making deliberate decisions to jam more pixels into small spaces. Believe it or not, lower pixel density in a compact IS possible. They just have to choose to do it.
JohnNYC said:
First and foremost, prosumer CCD will always have noise at ISO 200
this is an obvious fact.
Click to expand...
 
Ugh. They said the EVF and/or LCD locks up during the autofocus action. Ughh!! This was barely acceptable, in the G series, where at least you had an optical viewfinder. But with only EVF or LCD to focus/frame/compose and shoot with, having them lockup for the .5-1 second during AF is not acceptable.

This means you will have to turn on the (hopefully still present) continuous focus mode, which continuously updates the displays during focus, but slows focus down by a huge factor.

Ugh, Ugh, Ugh. This is canon's weakest point. I have a G2, and wanted a G5, but the focus has gotten much SLOWER in the G5, than the G2 or G3.

I sure hope the A2 holds up. Nice mechanical zoom, and a fast AF are all I want. Hopefully without the horrible PF in so many 828 shots.

Don

--
Don Erway
http://www.pbase.com/derway/kona_underwater_g2
 
notpc said:
A 5mp camera with great AF and noiseless images at high ISOs would
have been something worth getting excited about. Instead, it seems
we've waited 2 years for....... slightly bigger image dimensions
and a little more detail. A big disappointment.
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... no noiseless 5mp images at high ISOs from compact cameras after an eternity of two years of waiting ...

Here is even more outrageous thing: no perpetuum mobile yet after a few thousand years of waiting.

The reasons in both cases are quite similar: the laws of physics. Admittedly, in the case of high ISO noiseless images there is a bit more hope, but not much more. The current CCD technology is about 25 years old and it is reaching its limits. Further improvements may make, say, that ISO400 images of tomorrow will look like ISO200 images of today, but thats it.

A revolutionsry breakthrough in sensor technology is needed, some different principle. Such breakthroughs do not happen that often. My optimistic estimate is that we are at least 10 years from noiseless 5mp images from compact cameras

Cheers

alexeig
 
Yes, it could be 10 years with the current priorites. It's those priorities I'm objecting to. If you've seen the ISO800 images that come from the 300D you know that Canon has been able to do quite well with the noise issue. My suggestion would be using a similar but slightly smaller CMOS sensor with 5mp (or even 4 if necessary) in a compact to achieve similar noise performance. It CAN be done. They've simply chosen not to. It's valid to object to that choice. I think there would be a significant demand for such a camera.
alexeig said:
Hmmm ... no noiseless 5mp images at high ISOs from compact cameras
after an eternity of two years of waiting ...

Here is even more outrageous thing: no perpetuum mobile yet after a
few thousand years of waiting.

The reasons in both cases are quite similar: the laws of physics.
Admittedly, in the case of high ISO noiseless images there is a bit
more hope, but not much more. The current CCD technology is about
25 years old and it is reaching its limits. Further improvements
may make, say, that ISO400 images of tomorrow will look like ISO200
images of today, but thats it.

A revolutionsry breakthrough in sensor technology is needed, some
different principle. Such breakthroughs do not happen that often.
My optimistic estimate is that we are at least 10 years from
noiseless 5mp images from compact cameras
Click to expand...
 
That's what I would think also although the 3 shots w/ vignetting are actually tele shots. Still, it looks like it's caused by the near-wide-open aperture of f4 (vs f3.5 max).

I didn't spot any wideangle shots w/ near-wide-open aperture, so can't tell if it'd be a problem there.

Man
Old Ed said:
KRDV said:
AMomcil said:
Jeff just posted Pro1 final review:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_pro1-review/index.shtml

--
Greetings, Aleksandar
Click to expand...
Vignetting - I understand the concept (and see it in those
specified pics) but why is it occurring in some and not all? Is it
only at max wideangle or at certain f-stops? I want to figure out
if this would occur in most of the shots I might take, or just on
isolated ones. Thanks.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top