Canon G16 improves on already great G15

Henry Richardson wrote:

When I created this Canon G16 review I mistakenly made it a regular forum post rather than selecting the option to make it a user review. I contacted the dpreview staff and asked them if it was possible for them to change its classification to review, but Jeff Keller replied and said they did not have that capability. He suggested I create a review thread so that is what I have done. I will just link to my earlier post and thread. It is not ideal, but it will do. As a review it is easier to find. Be sure to read my follow-on posts in the thread for more information.

G16 replaced my G15: some thoughts

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54568251

I will make new posts in this thread rather than the long review thread above.

I charged the battery for my G16 last week and have taken it out a few times. Checking my photos in Lightroom I see that the last photo I took with it was 3 years ago. That is when I took the battery out and put the camera in a drawer. I started using other cameras, but I still liked the G16 so much I didn't want to sell it.

With the coronavirus right now there really isn't anyplace to go so I just go on walks every day and I have been carrying the G16 with me instead of one of my other more usual cameras (Olympus PEN-F, Olympus E-M10II, Panasonic GX7II (GX85), Panasonic TX1 (ZS100), or Sony RX100). I am enjoying using the G16 again although in many ways the other cameras beat it -- although the lack of a viewfinder on the RX100 means I rarely use it except when I want something quite small. But the G16 is special and I get pleasure from holding it and using it.   And the results are usually excellent.

Here is how I have my camera set:

C1: raw, P mode

C2: jpeg, P mode, Custom Color (contrast -2, sharpness -2, saturation -1), High ISO NR Low

With this camera and the way I use it I usually have it set to C2. I chose C2 for my most used setting because it is only 2 clicks away on the mode dial to get to HDR. The G16 with its faster Digic processor does hand-held HDR (G15 HDR needs a tripod) and I use it sometimes if the scene is very contrasty and I know the regular mode will have trouble handling it. With a small sensor you need all the help you can get sometimes in this area.

C1 is just 1 click away from C2 so I can very quickly shoot a raw shot when I want.

So, those are the 3 settings I use the most. I can also switch to PASM modes that I have the default My Colors setting instead of Custom Color. Also, the green AUTO mode is quick to get to. Useful if I want to hand the camera to someone to take a photo. Actually, the AUTO mode seems to work very well so I probably should just use it. You get the default contrast, etc. though.

I reduce the contrast for my jpegs to the minimum because, I assume, there is a slightly smaller chance of blowing some highlights and also the shadows will have slightly more detail. I have never tested it though. I import all my photos into Lightroom so I can tweak them easily to add contrast, etc. so I don't care much about getting a ready to use out-of-camera jpeg.

Henry Richardson wrote:

So, those are the 3 settings I use the most. I can also switch to PASM modes that I have the default My Colors setting instead of Custom Color. Also, the green AUTO mode is quick to get to. Useful if I want to hand the camera to someone to take a photo. Actually, the AUTO mode seems to work very well so I probably should just use it. You get the default contrast, etc. though.

I was playing with the green AUTO mode and was reminded that you cannot use exposure compensation with it so, of course, for me that is a no go.  I will continue as I have since I first got the G15 and then later with the G16 and not use AUTO because I use EC a lot.  It is especially important for cameras with a small sensor, but I use it a lot with my 1", m4/3, and APS-C cameras too.  If I wanted big/heavy FF gear then I would use it with that too.

Naturally, it makes perfect sense that the AUTO mode ignores the exposure compensation setting.  The whole point of the green full AUTO mode is to allow the camera to control everything.  You can imagine a novice user having it set to AUTO and not notice that the EC dial is at +3 or -3 and the camera giving horrible results.  AUTO means AUTO.

I haven't used my G16 for a long time, but I charged the battery and have been using it some this week. Still such a nice camera.

Just for grins I decided to do a quick and dirty, non-scientific check of the IS. I never even checked before and never checked my G15 either. I took a few shots at the 28mm-efl and 140mm-efl settings and it seems while holding it out and looking at the back screen I can get about 2.5 stops and if holding it close using the OVF I can get about 3 stops. I didn't take a bunch of shots and choose the best. I just took one shot each while standing and being reasonably steady, but not trying very hard to be as steady as possible. In other words, about how I would normally shoot.

I consider 2.5-3 stops to be pretty good. Sure, some newer cameras can do a bit better, but I am still blown away thinking about how good this camera with the small 1/1.7" 12mp sensor, IS, 28-140mm f1.8-2.8 lens, easily changeable ISO & Auto ISO, AF, great build, etc. is compared to what Magnum and other photographers were shooting with many classic old 35mm film cameras such as Leica, Contax, Zeiss, Nikon, etc. Yes, I have other cameras that are bigger and even more capable, but I still enjoy my G16 too.

Enjoyable to read detail about "classic" Powershots.  Could consider picking up a G16.   In Custom Colors I've generally set Green a notch down, helping with oversaturated foliage.  My old cams didn't come with native RAW, but a nice feature of CHDK is that RAW generation is entirely independent of JPEG generation, where native RAW+JPEG setting usually generate large JPEG AWB thumbnail stripped of any custom settings:  last couple of years I've liked to set JPEG to compose and shoot BW but still get CHDK full color DNGs.

I2K4 wrote:

Could consider picking up a G16.

I would too but the asking prices for used G16s are absurd, considering that a I can a 50D for about $100 and even a 7D for less than a G16. A Canon refurbished M50 is only a little more.

Today in Lightroom I found this photo I took in November 2017 in Tokyo of a mother with her mamachari and 2 children. I have not researched it, but I suspect that mamachari is a combination of the words 'mama' and 'chariot' and then shortened and adjusted in the normal rather charming Japanese way.

Click on original to see a better, sharper image. The photos in a dpreview thread are highly compressed and soft.

Canon G16

Introducing the Mamachari

http://www.tokyobybike.com/2009/06/introducing-mamachari.html

Click on original to see a better, sharper image. The photos in a dpreview thread are highly compressed and soft.

Woman riding mamachari -- lost her kids!

Mitsukoshi department store lion in the time of coronavirus and Christmas

Guillermo Shashte wrote:

I2K4 wrote:

Could consider picking up a G16.

I would too but the asking prices for used G16s are absurd, considering that a I can a 50D for about $100 and even a 7D for less than a G16. A Canon refurbished M50 is only a little more.

I just eBayed a G15 for $95. But that was only because I already have an S100, GX7 Mk II and a brace of EOS M bodies and lenses. The G15 was really superfluous to me. I was eBaying a batch of more expensive superfluous camera equipment and the G15 got thrown in.

If I didn't already have a GX 7 II, I certainly would not have gotten rid of my G15. It is a fine camera.

Wayne

p.s., A few weeks earlier I bought a 40D in good condition on eBay for $90. I didn't really need it, but I just wanted to have it. So long as it was under $100. I paired it with a EF 24-85 USM f/3.5-4.5 I already had for a decent $200ish DSLR rig. Messing around with cheap oldies but goodies is a good way to keep our minds occupied in these, ah,  interesting times.

I upgraded my D60 to a 50D for $75 (on CL) a couple of weeks ago.

Guillermo Shashte wrote:

I upgraded my D60 to a 50D for $75 (on CL) a couple of weeks ago.

Good catch. When I was looking for the best XXD I could get for under $100 on eBay a few weeks ago I found that a lot of XXDs were apparently used hard (wedding photographers?). When I looked for ones that looked "gently used", all the 50Ds that were acceptable to me were closer to $200. I only found two 40Ds that looked acceptable. The first one I attempted to buy had been sold before I finalized the sale. I got the 2nd one and it is fine.

XXDs from the 40D to the 70D have similar dynamic range.

Original chart. The 80D is an improvement but you don't find any 80Ds in the $100 range. The 20D and 30D (not shown on this chart) have noticeably worse dynamic range. 20Ds and 30Ds are often not much cheaper than 40Ds.

As of when I was researching on eBay in early November.

Wayne

My 50D shutter count is 27K. I like that it uses the same battery and CF cards as my D60 and 5D. Also, the last semi-pro body of the line; the 60D and later don't have the same magnesium frame.

Guillermo Shashte wrote:

My 50D shutter count is 27K. I like that it uses the same battery and CF cards as my D60 and 5D. Also, the last semi-pro body of the line; the 60D and later don't have the same magnesium frame.

All the 50D talk is mildly interesting, but there is no need to hijack my G16 review thread going into a long subthread about the 50D.  Please continue in private messages or start a thread on the Canon APS-C DSLR forum.  Thank you.

Fine, I'll post my own.

Henry Richardson wrote:

When I created this Canon G16 review I mistakenly made it a regular forum post rather than selecting the option to make it a user review. I contacted the dpreview staff and asked them if it was possible for them to change its classification to review, but Jeff Keller replied and said they did not have that capability. He suggested I create a review thread so that is what I have done. I will just link to my earlier post and thread. It is not ideal, but it will do. As a review it is easier to find. Be sure to read my follow-on posts in the thread for more information.

G16 replaced my G15: some thoughts

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54568251

Please be sure to read my longer review in the link above.

The OVF shows something like 85% of the view and a lot of people get upset that it isn't closer to 100%. This isn't a TTL viewfinder so it isn't possible to have a 100% or close to 100% view. For that you will need a high end DSLR or an EVF. You can use the G16's LCD which does have a 100% view though. The G16's OVF is sufficient for my purposes since it always shows a bit less than you will get rather than more. If they tried for something close to 100% then the parallax alone would cause the view to be a bit wrong much of the time. By the way, with this sort of OVF if it showed even more of the view you would find a bunch of the bottom view is obscured by the lens which is extended. The Fuji XT10 and XT20 had that problem.

I use the OVF for probably 90% of my G16 shots. The battery lasts for such a long time. I recharge about every 7-10 days. With my EVF cameras I recharge pretty much everyday and usually carry an extra battery with me too.

The G16 OVF is very simple with no info. You also only get the center AF spot (and the OVF has no marking for it). For the types of photos I take it has not been a problem. I almost never get a shot that is not focused properly. And at any time I can switch to the rear screen when that is more appropriate.

I have several EVF cameras, but it is nice sometimes to have a camera with just a simple OVF.

Sue Anne Rush wrote:

Wow, these are lovely - thanks for sharing. I like my G16 too.:-)

Thanks for taking a look!

Henry Richardson wrote:

I am reminded of a Magnum photo exhibition I saw in 2013 called:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

I wrote about it here on dpreview in 2013:

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO 400 film was fast.

This 1958 Sears Camera Catalog is very cool. Each page has been scanned on the website:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/albums/72157626944848453/

Lots of other cameras, accessories, film, etc. Very cool to see and here is just a small number of examples:

• Leica M3 + Summicron 50mm f2 for $456 -- adjusted for inflation that is $4106 in 2020 dollars.
• Nikon S-2 + Nikkor 50mm f1.4 for $415.
• Nikon S-2 + Nikkor 50mm f2for $333.
• Rolleiflex for $349.50.
• Speed Graphic Press Camera for $399.50.

The current digital Leica M10-R sells for $8295. The Leica M10-R for $8295 does not include a lens. We can add one though. The Leica Summicron f2 is $2695 so that makes it $10,990 for body and lens. The Leica M3 that cost $456 in 1958 is $4106 in 2020 dollars when adjusted for inflation. A couple of things to note:

1. With the M3 one would have to spend lots of money for film, processing, taxes, etc. over time. With digital there is no incremental cost to taking photos (other than the minuscule amount spent storing them on digital media such as hard disks) so the higher digital camera price is not particularly important, IMO. One does need some sort of computer, but pretty much anyone even reading my post has one of those already. Doesn't even have to be all that powerful a computer if shooting jpegs or doing straightforward raw processing. Lots of software doesn't require very high end hardware to run well. Lightroom and some others do though need pretty good hardware.
2. There are lots of 60+ year old M3 bodies still in use. How many think that an M10-R will still be usable 60+ years from now? Even if it still works properly (pretty unlikely) the chances of memory cards, batteries, etc. still being available then for it is pretty much nil. Also, digital file formats may have changed so much that most or all software can no longer handle the files it produces and old software may not run on whatever people are using in 2080. There is an excellent chance though that lots of M3 cameras will still be working...as long as there is film and processing chemicals still easily available.

It is cool seeing the film pages in the catalog to check out the 1958 film. Of course, the film ratings were pretty slow even compared to what I was using in the 1970s. And they are extremely slow compared to what we are accustomed to with digital cameras. Here are some examples:

• Kodak Tri-X B&W film was ASA/ISO 200. In later years it was increased to ASA/ISO 400.
• Kodak Panatomic-X B&W film was ASA/ISO 25. In later years it was increased to ASA/ISO 32.
• Kodak Plus-X B&W film was ASA/ISO 80. In later years it was increased to ASA/ISO 125.
• Kodachrome color slide film was ASA/ISO 10. In later years there were 3 types of Kodachrome that were ASA/ISO 25, 64, and 200.
• Ektachrome color slide film was ASA/ISO 32 and was rated as High Speed.

In later years there were several types of Ektachrome that were ASA/ISO 64, 100, 160, 200, and 400.