Pro90 vs G1 - Image Quality?

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

John,

Look at the pic of the Tiffany Lamp Joe just posted and that should answer your question. The Pro 90 is there.

Regards,

Gavin McKinlay

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Read Phil's review of the Pro90 on this site. He directly compares the two. They are pretty close.

Brian

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

John,

One has the high resolution, the other the 10 X zoom. One has a homely, but solid design, the other a cool plastic body. One cost almost $ 400 less than the other.

Either choice will be a good choice.

I own the G1

Hanvi

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

I've had both and I think the quality is very close to being equal. I like the extra focal length. I posted this picture yesterday taken at 370mm, hand held with the Pro90. My second day with the camera. The image quality is much better than if I had shot it at 102 mm and cropped, IMHO.

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Fido, I agree totally, The difference is too minimal to be concerned about. But back to your photo, shame, is that a piece of fishing line stuck to his toe? Looks like it.

fido said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It is a piece of fishing line and the bird won't let anyone close enough to remove it. Very sad!

William said:

fido said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:

It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Chris ™ said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I've had the G1 since last November, and absolutley love it. HAving said that I have just ordered the Pro90IS because its features fit my needs more at the moment. I will be reluctantly parting with my G1 when the 90 comes in, but should have them both for at least a couple of days. Image quality was a concern of mine, so if time permits I will try some side by side shots of the same subject, at the same focal length. If I am not happy with the Pro90 after playing with them both for a few days, then it is back to the G1 for me.

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Jimmy Drew20683 said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Besides the image quality, there are some very noticeable differences. I own both Pro 90 and G1 as well and I do wish I would have waited until a newer version of the 10X zoom camera from canon comes out next year. I am thoroughly convinced that Pro 90 is a far inferior design with only the zoom advantage over G1. Here is why I regret my purchase:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want to go for a week vacation in a country or location where electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with 10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

RobertG said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks for your viewpoint! I am nervous, but thankfully have a good 4-5 days with both cameras, and will test the the 90 and then make up my mind. Simply stated, if the additional zoom (a HUGE plus for me) is overshadowed by enough little minuses, then back it goes. If it is a keeper, then I will at least know what compromises I am making.

I have yet to use the continuous mode on my G1, so won't miss it if it is gone, as for the other items, I will find out

regards,

RobertG

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Dentite said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

these pictures look pretty good to my eye....

http://www.achatzi.kreativ-foto.com/90IS500D.html

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Dentite said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dear gc:

The pictures look pretty good to my eye as well. I did not want to make any Pro90 owners defensive. It is a great camera for its money. I am merely posting my opinions about pros and cons between the two cameras because I own both and to me the zoom advantage is simply not worth spending another $1200. Therefore I will use old SLR 35mm film long range lenses if I want to shoot wildlife until a newer digicam with from canon comes out with significant improvements over Pro90.

Please note I did not state that Pro90 does not take good sharp pictures. I was merely comparing it side by side to G1 quality as I see it in my printouts and blowups. Its all in the perspective.. what I see you may not. Please consider all my comments as strictly my opinions and not as any truth cut in stone.

Just to give you a secondary opinion, I would like to refer you to Phil's review of Pro 90 and even he noticed the quality differences in pictures compared between the two cameras. He had very similar things to mention and confirmed my decision to return Pro90 and keep G1. I am glad you are taking great pictures with Pro90 and I wish you many many wonderful shots with it.

Quotes:

"Despite its lower resolution the Pro90 performs well against the 990, bearing in mind that a compact long zoom lens like that found in the Pro90 normally has an adverse effect on overall image quality these comparisons show that Canon have managed to strike a good balance between long zoom and image quality."

"Lens quality seems to be pretty good (though I'd have to be honest and say not as sharp as the G1), at full tele we see chromatic aberrations creeping in to the contrast between light and dark objects, again, this is something we've seen before in these big zoom digital camera lenses and is no more than I'd expected to see."

regards

Dentite.

gc said:

http://www.achatzi.kreativ-foto.com/90IS500D.html

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

gc38782 said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dentite hi

Seems like you are experiencing the pro 90 to be much wors than Phil does in his review. I am still undecided about it and would like to find out more. I am concern about the WA possibilities of the pro 90 when your starting point is at 38mm obviously the 0.8 WA lens will get you around 29-30mm where the g1 with 0.8 WA lens will get you to 27-28 mm. However, what do you do with the g1 to get decent tele (over 170mm) -If you have any solution without vignetting it will help me decide for the g1 otherwise maybe the Nikon 990 may be my answer...

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Dentite said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I must not know anything about photography because I keep reading a bunch of negative stuff about the Pro90 on this forum and I don't see the same problems as others see. Check out the picture of the bird I took in this thread, hand held at 370mm and tell me the quality would be better on the G1 with 102mm lens. It wouldn't be! The bird would have been a very small object in the frame, cropping would have been required and the image would not have been as sharp. Period! 102mmm is a very short tele - too short for many subjects.

I had a G1 too and there is no noticeable difference in picture quality. Sure - there may be "test differences" but you won't see any differences in 99.9% of your shots.

The Pro90 takes great pictures, IMHO.

Maybe I should post some shots I took with my G1 and some with the Pro90 and see if the photographers with the super eyes can pick which picture came from which camera! That would be very interesting!

RuvyA said:

Seems like you are experiencing the pro 90 to be much wors than
Phil does in his review. I am still undecided about it and would
like to find out more. I am concern about the WA possibilities of
the pro 90 when your starting point is at 38mm obviously the 0.8 WA
lens will get you around 29-30mm where the g1 with 0.8 WA lens will
get you to 27-28 mm. However, what do you do with the g1 to get
decent tele (over 170mm) -If you have any solution without
vignetting it will help me decide for the g1 otherwise maybe the
Nikon 990 may be my answer...

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Ruvy said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Fido,

.... Still, when you read the users' opinions on Phil's reviews, and reports of pro90 owners on this forum, troublesome delays, important CA and vignetting, limited resolution due a disminished CCD ...etc.

They seem to be a bit less exited with their 'toy" and a bit more critical of the pro90's results versus the available competion, (even versus the G1).

What is one to think ? Should the negative comments be dismissed ? Could 10 X zoom digicam with a complete 3.4 megapixel, (or more), CCD around the corner ?

I, for one, will wait a while and see what gives before I turn in my G1. In my case the 10 X zoom would really be a "toy" and the lesser resolution would be a setback to my kind of photography.

Hanvi

ps: YOU do great photographs with the pro90 and IT IS the coolest digicam after the Fuji 6 X zoom models.

fido said:

I had a G1 too and there is no noticeable difference in picture
quality. Sure - there may be "test differences" but you won't see
any differences in 99.9% of your shots.

The Pro90 takes great pictures, IMHO.

Maybe I should post some shots I took with my G1 and some with the
Pro90 and see if the photographers with the super eyes can pick
which picture came from which camera! That would be very
interesting!

RuvyA said:

Seems like you are experiencing the pro 90 to be much wors than
Phil does in his review. I am still undecided about it and would
like to find out more. I am concern about the WA possibilities of
the pro 90 when your starting point is at 38mm obviously the 0.8 WA
lens will get you around 29-30mm where the g1 with 0.8 WA lens will
get you to 27-28 mm. However, what do you do with the g1 to get
decent tele (over 170mm) -If you have any solution without
vignetting it will help me decide for the g1 otherwise maybe the
Nikon 990 may be my answer...

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

david hickey said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hanvi,

I also own a G1 and think it does very well in the quality department. With my eyes aging abit I find the 1.8" LCD too small to use comfortably. I prefer looking through the EVF. With all due respect, I thing my new C2100, is one of the coolest digicams out there. It is plenty sharp, very easy to handle and nearly no shutter delay. You can also do a burst of 3 or 4 shots in maybe 3 seconds.

Jim

Hanvi said:

.... Still, when you read the users' opinions on Phil's reviews,
and reports of pro90 owners on this forum, troublesome delays,
important CA and vignetting, limited resolution due a disminished
CCD ...etc.

They seem to be a bit less exited with their 'toy" and a bit more
critical of the pro90's results versus the available competion,
(even versus the G1).

What is one to think ? Should the negative comments be dismissed ?
Could 10 X zoom digicam with a complete 3.4 megapixel, (or more),
CCD around the corner ?

I, for one, will wait a while and see what gives before I turn in
my G1. In my case the 10 X zoom would really be a "toy" and the
lesser resolution would be a setback to my kind of photography.

Hanvi

ps: YOU do great photographs with the pro90 and IT IS the coolest
digicam after the Fuji 6 X zoom models.

fido said:

I had a G1 too and there is no noticeable difference in picture
quality. Sure - there may be "test differences" but you won't see
any differences in 99.9% of your shots.

The Pro90 takes great pictures, IMHO.

Maybe I should post some shots I took with my G1 and some with the
Pro90 and see if the photographers with the super eyes can pick
which picture came from which camera! That would be very
interesting!

RuvyA said:

Seems like you are experiencing the pro 90 to be much wors than
Phil does in his review. I am still undecided about it and would
like to find out more. I am concern about the WA possibilities of
the pro 90 when your starting point is at 38mm obviously the 0.8 WA
lens will get you around 29-30mm where the g1 with 0.8 WA lens will
get you to 27-28 mm. However, what do you do with the g1 to get
decent tele (over 170mm) -If you have any solution without
vignetting it will help me decide for the g1 otherwise maybe the
Nikon 990 may be my answer...

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Hanvi40234 said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

on that basis, i'd have to agree -- its not worth another $1000+ if you already have the G1. My purchase decision was a consumer-based thing between the 2: Pro90 or G1 with add-ons. For my purposes it seems pretty good.

gc

The

dentite said:

Please note I did not state that Pro90 does not take good sharp
pictures. I was merely comparing it side by side to G1 quality as
I see it in my printouts and blowups. Its all in the perspective..
what I see you may not. Please consider all my comments as
strictly my opinions and not as any truth cut in stone.

Just to give you a secondary opinion, I would like to refer you to
Phil's review of Pro 90 and even he noticed the quality differences
in pictures compared between the two cameras. He had very similar
things to mention and confirmed my decision to return Pro90 and
keep G1. I am glad you are taking great pictures with Pro90 and I
wish you many many wonderful shots with it.

Quotes:

"Despite its lower resolution the Pro90 performs well against the
990, bearing in mind that a compact long zoom lens like that found
in the Pro90 normally has an adverse effect on overall image
quality these comparisons show that Canon have managed to strike a
good balance between long zoom and image quality."

"Lens quality seems to be pretty good (though I'd have to be honest
and say not as sharp as the G1), at full tele we see chromatic
aberrations creeping in to the contrast between light and dark
objects, again, this is something we've seen before in these big
zoom digital camera lenses and is no more than I'd expected to see."

regards

Dentite.

gc said:

http://www.achatzi.kreativ-foto.com/90IS500D.html

dentite said:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Robert Ganz said:

But I am optimistic about the 90. The shots shown here and
elsewhere point to a nice camera.

Cheers,

Robert

JImmy Drew said:

Chris said:

Hi John,

I owned the G1, because of the higher resolution, it's lower price
and it's smaller body.

But I think there's another difference:
It seems to me that the Pro90 has much more trouble with
chromatographic aberrations than the G1. I saw it in every testshot
of the Pro90 I saw.

Look at the bird-pic posted in this thread.

Greetings from Germany

Chris

Chris, I agree; I truly would love too have lense on the PRo90 but I will not give up the picture quality on the G1. Yes, I also feel the build quality is better on the G1. I love the solid feel. I know, has nothing to do with taking pictures, just a personal preference. If the '90 were to take as good a picture as the G1 I would trade in a second......waiting to hear more on the new Kodak to make my next move.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Drew

Dentite said:

John said:

I'm thinking of getting a Pro90 because I want a camera that will
take great pics and the Pro90 adds the 10X zoom as a plus. The BIG
question is, how does the picture quality compare to the G1? Can
it provide the same quality pictures as the G1, or better?

All thoughts... opinions appreciated and considered.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hello dentite

Thanks for your opinions.
For you, the G1 might be better.
But for most people, the Pro90 will be much better.

dentite said:

I am thoroughly convinced that Pro 90 is a far inferior design with only > the zoom advantage over G1.

Click to expand...

ONLY ? For most people the zoom advantage will make all the difference.
I think most people need more than 3x.
If you don't, good for you.

Dentite said:

Here is why I regret my purchase:

1. Yes Pro 90 has the 10X advantage. However, its fly by wire and
not mechanical. There is a very annoying 1/2 second delay when you
turn the ring till you see your results. If I for example turn the
ring too far and then try to correct my mistake by turning the ring
back a notch, the delays add up to 1.2 seconds.

Click to expand...

You do get used to this and it is not a problem.

Dentite said:

2. There is NO continuous shooting mode on Pro 90 like it is on
G1. I always have to wait for the camera to process its image which
takes twice to three times longer than G1.

Click to expand...

Right

Dentite said:

3. Pro 90 is not a great vacation/hiking/field camera. If I want
to go for a week vacation in a country or location where
electricity is not available..I can get three to four additional
batteries for G1, Use the viewfinder exclusively, and get away with
a week of shooting filling up three microdrives. Pro 90 on the
other hand consumes three-four times more juice than G1 because of
its viewfinder, Image stabilization and Noise Reduction which is
always turned on (Hello Canon... what in the world were you
thinking? Why do I need Noise reduction at 1/500 Tv?)

Click to expand...

Wrong! For the money it is a great vacation/hiking/field camera.
Most people won't use it like you.

Dentite said:

4. The Pro 90's viewfinder can not be used for instant feedback of
images like the LCD can. Therefore, I almost never use the
viewfinder because I like that instant feedback.

Click to expand...

Dentite said:

5. Pro 90's lens is not as sharp as G1 (see Phil's review). I saw
this when I tried to take Macro shots. Pro 90 in no way can compare
to G1 in sharpness and detail. Moreover, I agree with the
statement that there is significantly more Purple Fringing than G1.

6. Pro 90 does vignette. I have been able to see that in over
half of my images.

Click to expand...

There is some truth to statements 5 and 6, but for most people the zoom will overcome those grudges easily.

Dentite said:

I therefore will sell this camera now while I can get my money back
and wait for a better design with the 5 MP CCD or CMOS design with
10X zoom with Mechanical zoom ring, better buffer, superior optics
with less chromatic abr. and a better TTL viewfinder.

Click to expand...

I'll get that camera too when it comes out.
But for now I'm very pleased with the Pro90.

Have fun with your G1, but don't mislead people into thinking they are better of with a G1, they are not.

You forgot to mention Phil's Pro90 conclusion:
"Highly Recommended"

Marcus