-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
G5 Review=Worse Than G3
- Thread starter Dean Smith
- Start date
Normally I'd say that it was better amongst its peers than the G5 amongst its own. But after re-reading the review, it seems he is giving the V1 a little more credit than it deserves.
To be fair, the V1 falls somewhere between the S50 class and the G5 class. It's neither as compact or economical as the smaller cameras, nor does it have the fast lens, articulated LCD, or battery life of a larger camera.
It's autofocus may be faster, but you can't say the same thing for its prehistoric 3 shot burst mode and lack of a true continuous shooting mode and buffer.
Unfair comparison. As I said before, I don't think the V1 offers anywhere near the versatility of larger cameras like the G-series. As such, size comparisons will be misleading at best.
If you say it's small compared to a G, that's unfair because it doesn't do the same things. And if you say it's large compared to the S50, that is also unfair because it can do a little more.
Overall, though, I'd say its capabilities and limitations are closer to the S50 than the G5.
Again, compared to smaller cameras, it's actually overpriced. And even when unfairly compared to a G5, you must consider the additional $60 cost for an extra battery to attain reasonable battery life, and an additional $50-100 or more for the Memory Stick Pro's additional cost over CF cards.
The G5's faster lens, LCD, and battery life alone are easily worth an extra $100. But after considering the hidden costs I just mentioned, the V1 is actually overpriced even compared to the G5.
Provided the slow lens, poor battery life, poor ergonomics, and limited high speed shooting don't keep you from getting the desired shot.
What? I hardly consider an f2.8 lens better than an f2.0 lens.
You have to be careful because even apparent "facts" may be incomplete or misleading.
That appears to be true in the tests, although it's hard to say under what conditions this will be noticeable. In low light, with larger objects, and within 10 feet, eys, the V1's AF should be better and faster. But with smaller subjects, farther away, or under normal lighting, we have no data for comparison.
After you consider its limitations, and the required added cost of an extra battery and much more expensive Memory Stick Pros, the price difference disappears.
Even if you overlooked this important point, I still think the G5's (or G3's) faster lens, longer battery life, articulated LCD, better ergonomics, and other features are easily worth an extra $100.
And the V1 is not even remotely what I would consider a compact camera. It only seems that way when viewed from the front. Sony routinely designs many of their cameras in a way to make them appear smaller in photos and displats, while their true size is revealed when you look at the thickness.
As I said, that rating is meaningless.
By the way, you're overlooking the G3, which has all the same features without the nmosie or CA problem, and a lower price.
Anything but G5. Call it G3 Plus, or G3 SE special edition, G3e, G3i...
The real new model will be out next fall.
See my responses to that comment.
OK,. I guess I AM going to have top repeat myself...
It's autofocus may be faster, but you can't say the same thing for its prehistoric 3 shot burst mode and lack of a true continuous shooting mode and buffer.
Unfair comparison. As I said before, I don't think the V1 offers anywhere near the versatility of larger cameras like the G-series. As such, size comparisons will be misleading at best.
If you say it's small compared to a G, that's unfair because it doesn't do the same things. And if you say it's large compared to the S50, that is also unfair because it can do a little more.
Overall, though, I'd say its capabilities and limitations are closer to the S50 than the G5.
Again, compared to smaller cameras, it's actually overpriced. And even when unfairly compared to a G5, you must consider the additional $60 cost for an extra battery to attain reasonable battery life, and an additional $50-100 or more for the Memory Stick Pro's additional cost over CF cards.
The G5's faster lens, LCD, and battery life alone are easily worth an extra $100. But after considering the hidden costs I just mentioned, the V1 is actually overpriced even compared to the G5.
Provided the slow lens, poor battery life, poor ergonomics, and limited high speed shooting don't keep you from getting the desired shot.
What? I hardly consider an f2.8 lens better than an f2.0 lens.
The only cool thing I see in the V1 is the autofocus. It is not even remotely compact, and its slow lens and other limitations make it an unacceptable direct alternative to a camera like the G3.
I never said Phil was wrong bto be subjective. I just said to take his subjective comments with a grain of salt because they are not based directly on had data.
I reserve the same right to express my own subjective opinions.
What makes you think I disagreed with his G5 review? I couldn't agree more. I think the G5 is an overhyped camera and an unworthy succesor to the G3. The REAL new model is yet to be seen.
This G5 review merely reinforced what I suspected all along.
I do take issue with his excessive praise for the V1, though.
I am not at all impressed with that camera.
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
--
Seems Phil was, but who's reading?
Greg Gebhardt Nikon D1 & D1x. Sony 717, V1! , Epson 2200 & PS7
Jacksonville, Florida
Peter Gregg
Senior Member
Actually it looks like Phil is handicapping the camera because it did not correct some things that should not have been there in the first place.
The G5 is the superior camera of the bunch but did not get the HR rating. Maybe the CA and the barrel in the finder problem was too much for Phil to accept. Both of those problems should not be there.
Also, instead of the noise getting better, it has gotten worse. Based on these things, in a race it has lost. Even the startup speed, focusing speed, shutter lag, and write speed is better on the 6. Canon could have put in a little effort to keep their camera number, one, and it didn't.
But, picture verses picture, overall the G5 has the best picture. Look at the other reviews of the Sony 6, they didn't fair quite as well as they did over here.
Phil spoke quite accurately when he said the G3 is the best deal of the bunch. But guys being guys, if there is a G5 on the block, the G3 is now old news. That's just the way it is.
Peter Gregg
The G5 is the superior camera of the bunch but did not get the HR rating. Maybe the CA and the barrel in the finder problem was too much for Phil to accept. Both of those problems should not be there.
Also, instead of the noise getting better, it has gotten worse. Based on these things, in a race it has lost. Even the startup speed, focusing speed, shutter lag, and write speed is better on the 6. Canon could have put in a little effort to keep their camera number, one, and it didn't.
But, picture verses picture, overall the G5 has the best picture. Look at the other reviews of the Sony 6, they didn't fair quite as well as they did over here.
Phil spoke quite accurately when he said the G3 is the best deal of the bunch. But guys being guys, if there is a G5 on the block, the G3 is now old news. That's just the way it is.
Peter Gregg
Ummm...yeah...whatever.
Just a question...but do you own a G-series camera? Because you really do seem to sway everything to that side of the fence...
The V1 is in the same league with the other cameras...Phil reviewed and compared them to eachother...and showed which were better in each specific areas.
Do yourself a favor and compare the specs for all three of these cameras in the "side by side comparison" area of this page. I think you'll find that the V1 stacks up pretty well indeed.
But just incase you're too "sure" that the V1 won't even compare, here are the highlights for you:
$100-200 cheaper
Weighs 4 and 7oz less than the others
Drastically smaller dimensions than the others
Same sensor
Faster lens than the Nikon
Faster and more accurate AF than the others
Still has lens threads and hot shoe
Tell me, what is this ENORMOUS lack of versatility in the V1 that voids the portability factor of the V1?
The V1 has the worst battery life of the lot because it packs such power into such a small package. If they made the body bigger, they could fit a bigger battery in it (and come to think of it...they DID do this and they called it the F717, which, BTW, outscored the G5 in Image Quality). As it is though, it still manages fairly close to the life of the Nikon. Do you seriously NOT own a second battery for your camera? Come on.
So you say the faster lens and longer battery life are worth $100 over the V1? Well, the portability factor is worth 10 times that. If you leave your G5 in the car because it's too big and I have my V1 with me and I get the shot....well....I think you see what I mean.
Oh, and I think Phil meant that the Ziess was of superior quality to the Canon...not just its aperture range. The Ziess doesn't show much CA while the G5....hmmmm.....and I quote: "...avoid the extra chromatic aberrations by picking up a G3." Ouch.
Don't think for a sec that I'm bashing the Gseries...They're great cameras though I find them slightly too monstrous for me. Just take 10 deep breaths and realize that no amount of kicking or screaming can make one camera what it isn't...nor can it unmake one camera what it is. The fact is that they were compared together...and that all three had their highlights in their own category. As long as you love your camera...that's really all that matters.
-New Sushi
Just a question...but do you own a G-series camera? Because you really do seem to sway everything to that side of the fence...
The V1 is in the same league with the other cameras...Phil reviewed and compared them to eachother...and showed which were better in each specific areas.
Do yourself a favor and compare the specs for all three of these cameras in the "side by side comparison" area of this page. I think you'll find that the V1 stacks up pretty well indeed.
But just incase you're too "sure" that the V1 won't even compare, here are the highlights for you:
$100-200 cheaper
Weighs 4 and 7oz less than the others
Drastically smaller dimensions than the others
Same sensor
Faster lens than the Nikon
Faster and more accurate AF than the others
Still has lens threads and hot shoe
Tell me, what is this ENORMOUS lack of versatility in the V1 that voids the portability factor of the V1?
The V1 has the worst battery life of the lot because it packs such power into such a small package. If they made the body bigger, they could fit a bigger battery in it (and come to think of it...they DID do this and they called it the F717, which, BTW, outscored the G5 in Image Quality). As it is though, it still manages fairly close to the life of the Nikon. Do you seriously NOT own a second battery for your camera? Come on.
So you say the faster lens and longer battery life are worth $100 over the V1? Well, the portability factor is worth 10 times that. If you leave your G5 in the car because it's too big and I have my V1 with me and I get the shot....well....I think you see what I mean.
Oh, and I think Phil meant that the Ziess was of superior quality to the Canon...not just its aperture range. The Ziess doesn't show much CA while the G5....hmmmm.....and I quote: "...avoid the extra chromatic aberrations by picking up a G3." Ouch.
Don't think for a sec that I'm bashing the Gseries...They're great cameras though I find them slightly too monstrous for me. Just take 10 deep breaths and realize that no amount of kicking or screaming can make one camera what it isn't...nor can it unmake one camera what it is. The fact is that they were compared together...and that all three had their highlights in their own category. As long as you love your camera...that's really all that matters.
-New Sushi
Alexis
Senior Member
Serves Canon right - they should have launched a Pro90 replacement instead and could have nailed the Minolta 7Hi, Coolpix 5700 market.
For the moment happy with my black G2 + microdrive..
alexis
Alexis
Senior Member
10D is a truly fantastic camera. I spent the day with one last week but I would not buy it for the same reason I sold my beautifuil EOS3 plus IS lenses - WEIGHT and BULK. Come on Canon - bring out a match to Minolta's 7Hi!And my next upgrade won't be another Gx. It's gonna be a digital
SLR such as the 10D.
Sharon Johnson
Member
Hi,
I am trying to decide between the G3 or the G5, and the "purple fringe" is making it difficult. My max. size will be 8x10.
I take a lot of outdoor shots in bright light - snow capped mountains w/blue skies on our ski trips, and city scenes on the ferry thru the San Juan Islands. We have beautiful deep blue skies (when it's not raining) and I have been worried about the CA when getting those shots.
As a G5 owner, do you feel the G5 can handle these contrasts, or would the G3 be the better way to go.
thanks so much.
Sharon
EJE wrote:
I am sure you will love your G3, it's great! Note however that CA
on the G5 is not nearly as bad as you would think. I was very
concerned about it too when I purchased the G5, but real life shots
have proven me wrong.
Mattison wrote:
And that was before I read Phil's review. I feel I've made the
right choice, the purple fringing in G5's magnitude ruins pictures
with bright contrasts, IMHO. However, wasn't feeling so very lucky as I noticed a stuck pixel (bright red one) towards the middle of the pictures. :-( Well, I hope Canon will fix it. I will be sending the camera back - but not just yet...
Mattison
I am trying to decide between the G3 or the G5, and the "purple fringe" is making it difficult. My max. size will be 8x10.
I take a lot of outdoor shots in bright light - snow capped mountains w/blue skies on our ski trips, and city scenes on the ferry thru the San Juan Islands. We have beautiful deep blue skies (when it's not raining) and I have been worried about the CA when getting those shots.
As a G5 owner, do you feel the G5 can handle these contrasts, or would the G3 be the better way to go.
thanks so much.
Sharon
EJE wrote:
I am sure you will love your G3, it's great! Note however that CA
on the G5 is not nearly as bad as you would think. I was very
concerned about it too when I purchased the G5, but real life shots
have proven me wrong.
Mattison wrote:
And that was before I read Phil's review. I feel I've made the
right choice, the purple fringing in G5's magnitude ruins pictures
with bright contrasts, IMHO. However, wasn't feeling so very lucky as I noticed a stuck pixel (bright red one) towards the middle of the pictures. :-( Well, I hope Canon will fix it. I will be sending the camera back - but not just yet...
Mattison
I'm not too surprised at the rating, not least the physics of smaller pixels on the same sensor size. Imagine just how much worse it (image quality issues) will get when a year down the road Sony produces a 10-megapixel sensor based on the 1/1.8" size, and when we look back to the G5, we'd all say that it's not as bad.
This only reinforces my personal view that the manufacturers have to start going to larger sensors. I believe that, without some serious software mods and compromises, a direct output from Sony's latest eight-megapixel sensor would look just as bad: lots of CAs, noise, and increased AF problems.
Yes and I rather like it. There are numerous things I'd like to see imprived though.
If you disagree with me, please be more specific as to why.
The V1's slow lens is unacceptable to me, as are its terrible battery life, lack of continuous shooting mode, poor ergonomics, and other flaws and limitations.
I think all these things far outweigh its few advantages.
I don't care about how many "points" each got in the chart. I am looking at the features that I consider to be most important.
The Nikon is junk.
The V1 is interesting, but I don't like it for the reasons already mentioned.
Wrong! Phil himself commented on its reliance on Memory Sticks, which cost twice as much as CF cards, and its limitede battery life, which requires the purchase of a spare. Add these two, and the price difference disappears completely. Compare with the G3, and the V1 is the one that's cheaper.
I don't brag about the G3 being lighter than an SLR because the two cameras are not directly comparable. You should consider the same and realize that the V1's true peers (S50, etc.) are much smaller and lighter.
Nikon sucks. I'm comparing to the Canon, which has a much faster lens.
OK, it has an advantage there.
That won't make the lens any faster.
(continued)
The real reason: read below.
People who buy Sony products don't care as much about ergonomics, battery life, and outstanding features as they do about portability, great pictures, and design (remember, Sony products look far more stylish than, say, Canon). In this sense, Sony hits the spots dead-on.
Phil said that, in the end of the day, image quality is what makes or breaks a camera. Apparently you are not looking at image quality, but more on the feature palettes instead. That is a shame, because 4X F2.0-F3.0 isn't worth as much weight as 5X F2.0-F2.4.
To dismiss the entire Sony camera line just because it uses Memory Stick is a fundamental error on MH's part and ignores a fleet of very good cameras.
This is Mike Hunt's attitude toward ALL Nikon cameras, folks. He dislikes everything that Nikon is doing to the point where he is willing to argue for 24 hours and 18 minutes on the merits of not buying Nikon cameras. (Ok, it won't be that long, but you get the idea.)
Which can be summed in the following points:
- ergonomics
- lens
- features
- Memory Stick
- design
Finally, the media format doesn't matter, even though I prefer CF over anything else. The only requirement is great image quality, and that is what I care about.
Would Sony forego revenue in return of adopting an entrenched industry standard? I hope not. We're talking about BILLIONS of dollars here, not as simple as a format change.
Another difference: Sony li-ion batteries would tell you how much juice in minutes is left, whereas you get a two-bar indicator on Canon cameras. Even cellphones have multiple bars for battery life without any sort of monitoring circuitry.
That's why Sony has a P10 for that purpose. That camera is geared toward ultra-compact and competes with S50. The V1 competes with CP5400 and G3+. Finally, the F-7x7 series competes against the big-zoom 5MP cameras.
You're mixing things up, my friend.
Get the hint, folks?
You don't need a faster lens to make good pictures. If the AF sucks, forget about taking good pictures, and Canon sure has bad AF.
How does that have to do with the lens?
In sum, you hate just about everybody whose company name does not start with Canon, right? [ quote]
Where is that? LOL
EJE
Leading Member
The hype about the CA on the G5 almost makes it sound like the G3, or any other camera for that matter, don't suffer any CA at all, which clearly is not the case.
If you shoot wide open f2-f2.8 you have a bigger chance on CA however, this does not mean you will get CA. I have shot over 100 pictures in the past few days and have not one picture in which CA an issue, not one. That does not mean that none of these shots have any CA. If I study carefully, some pictures have some CA in corners where contrast is very high AND aperture is large. However, this is hardly noticeable in prints up to 8x10, only when viewed on screen at 100%.
If you shoot wide open f2-f2.8 you have a bigger chance on CA however, this does not mean you will get CA. I have shot over 100 pictures in the past few days and have not one picture in which CA an issue, not one. That does not mean that none of these shots have any CA. If I study carefully, some pictures have some CA in corners where contrast is very high AND aperture is large. However, this is hardly noticeable in prints up to 8x10, only when viewed on screen at 100%.
TJOsX
Well-known member
In what sense? Certainly not in terms of image quality. Imaging Resource's comparometer, while not a perfect test, shows that the images have more detail with better color in the S50. Same goes for the sample images on dcresource.
Ted
OK, so you're saying the Sony appeals to a less serious, less technicallyb capable photographer. It's more of a casual accessory than a serious photographic tool. If that's the case, I think an S400 would be a much smaller, lighter, cheaper, more stylish, and easier to use option.
I could care less what Phil said. I don't make $700 purchase decisions based on subjective sound bites. I base them on specs and logical analysis.
I have a G3, which has all of the G5's features without the noise or CA.
What??? What are you talking about (4x/5x)?
A faster lens is better than a slower one. There's nothing to debate there.
Where have I dismissed the entire Sony line on account of this? I merely consider this as one of many factors that matter, since it will cost me twice as much for memory. If a Sony camera were perfect for me except for the Memory Stick issue, and I could afford the price difference, then I would not hesitate to buy it.
No argument there. I'll argue that long and even longer. B ut at the end of it all, read back through all the posts and see who made the best arguments.
Just because I'm biased and passionate about my dislike for Nikon doesn't make me wrong. If you disagree, argue your side on its merits and not through caracter assasination.
Isn't that pretty much EVERYTHING?
It matters to me, and it should matter to everyone to varying degrees. At the same time, it's not the single most important issue, as evidenced by the fact that Nikon has better body ergonomics yet I still consider their cameras terrible.
I repeat. NIKON SUCKS! And the slow lens is just one of many reasons why. We're not talking about Nikon.
The V1's slow lens limits its usefulness and versatility.
At 640X480???? You sound like a real pro.
What about ND filter, remote control, swivel LCD, battery life, etc.?
Considering MS costs twice as much as CF, I'd say it matters a lot.
Leave it to a newbie to think that "image quality" is something that is only measured under ideal and controlled lighting conditions... LOL!
Try to capture a scene under challenging conditions and the "image quality" is going to hinge on the skills of the photographer and the tools the camera provides him.
CF was around LOOOONG before the MemoryStick. They are trying to ram their overpriced, limited capacity format on everyone. If you wanna be a sucker and pay twice as much for no good reason, be my guest.
Bottom line though is that you have to add this to the cost of the camera when comparing price.
That's true. But it's little consolation when your battery dies halfway through the day while mine lasts all weekend.
Hardly!
With a slow lens, the best autofocus in the world won't save you from motion blur.
Nikon's AF sucks. Canon's AF does NOT suck. It may not be quite as fast as Sony's but it's still pretty good. And indoors, in low light, I can program my G3 to use zone focusing for instant shutter response. Can the V1 do that?
Ironic, your so-called arguments are very incomplete, biased, and misleading.
There is also no comparable data from the G5 and CP5400.
Then ask yourself whether the Canon Powershot S30/40/45/50 is worth the money since it definitely needs 2+ extra batteries (considering the power consumption of this camera series) and CF cards.
Like, duh.
But the V1 is never meant to fight a true G5 in terms of feature specs. Sure, it uses Memory Sticks, its battery life is awful, it has no swiveling LCD, its lens is rather slow, and its ergonomics suck, but that is all beside the point, which is great pictures. Do people who buy Sony care about editing their pics and interpolating to 20"x30"? Nope; most people that buy Sony stuff don't have the kind of money that others have right in front of them.
And certainly not in front of a cashier counter.
I saw the camera, and it IS a compact. Maybe you have been drinking too much Irish Cream lately?
Then why all the rap against the other, non-Canon cameras?
Like it would. I don't expect any G-series updates for the remainder of 2003.
Which is like saying "I will not buy a (insert manufacturer name here) because their cameras suck". Ad nauseum.
In MH's view, the P10 could be compared only to the S400, which is totally inappropriate.
But how much buffer memory would it need to get 9 5MP pictures in best JPEG quality in quick succession? IMO it does not seem economically feasible to increase the buffer memory; not many consumers care about this technical mumbo-jumbo, if at all.
I can tell you, the size of the G series makes me very uncomfortable. It's not just the bulk of it that makes it awkward to lug around, it's the weight: at more than half a kilogram with batteries and CF card, it is a displeasure to have something that weighs more than a wallet with 200 25-cent rolls and is a piece of solid plastic-metal composite.
Unfair comparison. Apparently you have neglected the existence of the P10.
Would you see a Canon G5 on Wal-Mart's brick-and-mortar stores? P10 I have seen, S50 certainly not, and never a G2.
Do those things matter? Only if this is a DSLR. Otherwise, fudge it.
You're jealous of the fact that Canon has better feature specs than Sony, aren't you? I can see it right through your windy words.
Then your subjective comments must be taken with a grain of salt because you have no real hard data to back it up. All you have is a bunch of illiteral nonsense that border on hysterical and biblical proportions.
I wasn't referring to image quality but to autofocus performance, and capacity to take external flash and lenses.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum