G11 disappoints - some examples

[sorinx]

Most significantly though - I suspect that the G11's 'AUTO' mode has automatically applied a degree of 'i-contrast' which has lifted the shadows quite significantly, and helped to separate otherwise dark tones - however, it might be slightly overdone and has flattened the contrast perhaps a little too much for some's taste.

The higher ISO1250 of the G11 has enabled a faster shutter speed of 1/20 sec, so there is less motion blur from some of the subjects, and the cameras 'IS' eliminates camera shake - the G3 is probably limiting at ISO400 or below, allowing only 1/8 sec and there is some motion blur/camera shake.

However, ISO1250 deploys quite a bit of 'noise reduction' which does contribute to a softer image (along with the 'AUTO's i-contrast') - I've no doubt that the same G11 shot, taken at the same ISO400 as the G3 shot, would be better (less soft, and a bit more colour saturation).

I doubt that. G3 is at F2, so you need ISO800 on G11. BUT, ISO400 on G3 is ISO640 on G11.
My guess is that first shot with G3 is at ISO100

 

[RAL131504]

Flash is about as close to being a necessity as anything else I can think of if you want consistently great shots indoors especially. And that is one great thing about the G11, it has a hot shoe so you can use a proper flash and take great shots. If you don't have a good auxiliary flash unit, you are missing a large part of the quality available to you with the G11 (or any other camera for that matter). Get a good flash, learn to use it and then see if you still don't like the G11.

 

[smarter]

My opinion is that when you are considering going into external flash territory to complement the (quite large) G11 you might ass well buy a compact DSLR right away and start buying a system with lenses you can keep for the future. When you consider a flash unit, the idea of a compact pocket camera is gone anyway.

The problem with expensive, very advanced prosumer compact cameras is that you throw away a great lens every few years because you only want to replace the body. For example: the mint condition G3 I bought last year because I regretted selling my first one cost me € 50,- ($67). The one I bought new in 2003 was € 799,- ($ 1.100).

I bought a new Pentax K100D Super DSLR 2 years ago with the kit lens for € 450,- (= approx. $ 600).

The last 2 years I invested in a great Pentax AF360FGZ flash unit and some very nice older Pentax AF Prime- and zoom lenses on ebay.

3 months ago I sold my K100D body for € 250,- (= approx. $ 340) and bought a new Pentax K-x body for € 450,-. So for an extra € 200,- I had a brand new camera with much faster AF and sensational high iso capabilities and I still can use all of my great ebay lenses and my flash unit.

As a small size DSLR companion the G11 is too big anyway, A Canon S90 or Panny LX3 seems more convenient.

 

[Mark H]

The higher ISO1250 of the G11 has enabled a faster shutter speed of 1/20 sec,... the G3 is probably limiting at ISO400 or below, allowing only 1/8 sec...

...I've no doubt that the same G11 shot, taken at the same ISO400 as the G3 shot, would be better (less soft, and a bit more colour saturation).

I doubt that. G3 is at F2, so you need ISO800 on G11. BUT, ISO400 on G3 is ISO640 on G11.
My guess is that first shot with G3 is at ISO100

Oops - yes I had not taken account of the different aperture values.

After taking the different aperture values into account...

If the 'image exposures' (image lightness) was the same, my calculations would put the G3's sensitivity at ISO250.

However the G3 image is clearly darker than the G11 image, so I'll estimate that the G3's sensitivity (relative to the G11's) is probably about 'half a stop' (-0.5 EV) lower which is about ISO180.

Despite this, my last observation is still valid...

I.e. Since the G11 doesn't have F2.0, the G11 could only shoot at F2.8 and would have to compensate by shooting with an ISO twice as high as the G3 (for an equal shutter speed).

So if the G3's ISO was about ISO180, the 'next best comparable' G11 exposure would be at ISO360 - which is near enough ISO400.

...and the G11's shot would have looked much better if it had been set at ISO400, rather than ISO1250.

But of course, the camera would have to be operated with the ISO400 set manually - in a 'non AUTO' mode.

 

[pablolie]

But it kind of makes the point about auto mode that the doubters make - why do the auto modes in many cameras pick stupidly high ISO values? The algorithm should always go for the lowest possible ISO mode, unless flash has been turned off. that ought to be easy.

 

[Mark H]

My opinion is that when you are considering going into external flash territory to complement the (quite large) G11 you might ass well buy a compact DSLR right away and start buying a system with lenses you can keep for the future. When you consider a flash unit, the idea of a compact pocket camera is gone anyway.

I disagree...

The Canon 270EX flash is a very good/perfect match to the 'G' series sized cameras (and also works well on a DSLR).

270EX is only about half the size/weight (or less) of most flash guns - is relatively uncomplicated, and most importantly has 'bounce' capability (albeit limited to vertical bounce, in landscape camera orientation).

It's quite affordable too at £100, in the U.K. - considering the G11 itself is about £400+.

 

[pablolie]

The Canon 270EX flash is a very good/perfect match to the 'G' series sized cameras (and also works well on a DSLR).

I also think the Canon 270 is a great investment for the G series owner. It turns the G into a stellar indoor event performer. These days people ask me to be assigned event photographer very often, and it's due to the G series + 270 combo. (Note - I also own a 430 but I'd only use that on a DSLR, or when I further pimp up the G with a wide angle for event shots, and that combo is simply outstanding. Turn it to P and shoot away indoors.

It is a stiff investment, though, and I understand those who claim the money is better spent on a DSLR combo. It is a matter of preference and choice. As I typically tell people around me in high tech - there very often are no wrongs, only a lot of flawed compromises to chose from. Pick the one that suits you best!

 

[rbull44]

Very nice photos. I like the moods created in them.
--
Bob

 

[Mark H]

But it kind of makes the point about auto mode that the doubters make - why do the auto modes in many cameras pick stupidly high ISO values? The algorithm should always go for the lowest possible ISO mode, unless flash has been turned off. that ought to be easy.

Well - in this case the flash is off - so the high ISO value selected is enabling the 1/20 sec shutter speed, which is still pretty slow/low for most 'AUTO' users.

Maybe 'practiced photographers' can shoot at lower shutter speeds - but 'AUTO' is designed to accomodate the less able, less knowledgable, users who are far less likely to realise the limitations/outcome of shooting at very low shutter speeds.

 

[Tony Hall]

If you seriously prefer the look you get from the G3, then stick with it and sell your G11.

Secondly, your G3 is probably more contrasty with more depth of field and more over-sharpening due to (I'm guessing) a smaller sensor, less pixels and less noise reduction.

Third, don't shoot in full auto unless you have to. Because if you do the dynamic range filter will kick in and try to brighten shadows for you when it detects a scene with a wide dynamic range. Unfortunately there's no way to turn this off and it ruins skin tones.

I'm sure you "accidentally" get some better looking shots with the G3 when you're comparing them, but why not do a side by side comparison of the same subject under the same lighting and see which you prefer.

I love the G11. I even started favoring it over my DSLR.
--

Tony

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Indoor lighting is always from above, casts nasty shadows below the eyes, and is always not enough, causing either low shutter speeds (causing blur) or high ISO (causing noise).

Outdoor lighting is always from above (again casting nasty shadows below the eyes) or behind (causing underexposure of the subjects / overexposure of the background). If for once the light comes from in front of your subjects, they squint / can't even open their eyes.

I use flash almost all the time. I also adjust the exposure (usually using shutter priority) so that enough ambient light is taken in to light the scene and the flash only fills in on those parts shaded from ambient light (eg under the eyes).

Don't any of you hate flash? It makes pictures "frontal", flattens the subject, changes the colour temperature of the actual scene, casts a very nasty shadow, and simply alters the dynamic of what prompted you to take the picture on the first place. You can't have flash and depth. And if you're shooting in a large space, flash isolates the subject in a sea of black. Horrid!

 

[Janie123]

I just got the camera myself and did a few test shots. I found the photos I shot in RAW mode and processed with the default settings in Adobe Photoshop CS4 had gorgeous vibrant colors and nice contrast but the jpegs straight out of the camera didn't have that pop I like. I'm sure I can adjust the jpeg settings to get something similar but I probably will just go ahead and shoot RAW.
--
JAlex

 

[tsinvest]

I agree with you, but I think what the poster has shown is a good enough comparison to illustrate that the auto feature of the G3 produces more pleasing shots than the G11. Can the G11 be set up in P or Man to do a better job...absolutely! Best of luck to you.

--
My best, Tom
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/2073841824_6afcda
cc32_t.jpg

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

I can't believe that Canon got the auto mode so right with the G3 and then forgot what they did so many years later with all the advanced modern AI at their disposal.

I can almost believe that Canon deliberately crippled Auto mode so that those taking manual control of the G11 can take pride in the superiority of their results over someboy who grabs their camera and shoots it on auto.

BTW, I expressed this opinion in a previous post, which has mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps it was censored? Perhaps that's because I also threw my weight behind those crapping on the G11's auto mode and then revealed that I only own the S90 and haven't even used the auto mode on that all that much? I must admit I don't know if auto mode on the G11 is really as awful as some people here are making it out to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

@Dona2:

Off course the the G11 will blow away the G3 when you know what you are doing.

What I mean is that I recognize the almost Insane high IQ of the G3's auto mode. Almost all of the pictures I posted are taken in auto or P mode. I don't know any camera that takes this pictures in a casual snap like that.

I have to do a lot of work nowadays to produce the same results the G3 did in a hartbeat. Fortunately I learned how to do this

Off course you also noticed that I posted no pictures of fast moving objects or people. This is where modern cameras with faster operation and a lot less shutter lag really shine.

So off course I wouldn't trade my current DSLR for a G3 as my only camera.

Unfortuately for some photographers there is no such thing anymore as the G3 was in it's days: A great all round camera which you could really grow into as your photographic skills increased.

Nowadays you have to choose between 2 types of cameras:

1.) All automatic, point and shoots for easy almost always sharp snapshots, that's all.

2.) Real photographic tools (with a sometimes pretty steep learning curve) like the G11.

Bottom line: Why Isn't the auto mode of the G11 capable of taking nice ,saturated and sharp pictures at almost every time like the G3 did? There are dozens of other modes for the enthusiast photographer to adjust everything to their own preferences.

I understand the problem of the topic starter. I'm glad that I have the skills now to go around the auto mode, but where is the learning curve nowadays? -> Start in auto mode,enjoy the pics and explore the camera from that point.

 

[Gamestheory]

Interesting. Thanks, sorinx.

 

[Gamestheory]

But that takes the conversation into the realm of to flash or not to flash, and that would apply whichever camera we were talking about. I don't think using flash is going to allay my reservations about G11. (We could just as well talk about whether or why I should use flash with my beloved G3.)

 

[Gamestheory]

Don't you always object when you see an outdoor scene in a movie, and it's obvious that just out of shot of the camera, there's a gaffer bouncing a huge arc light against an umbrella? You see it time and tme again. It's obvious how sunlight is modelling the rest of the landscape, but just on the faces of the actors in shot there's this flat warm glow. Horrible - and as bad as actors wearing blanks in their spectacles. You can do both, and they might help the shot, but they don't look convincing, and there's a distinct loss of authenticity. (It's not like I'm with Dogma, but I think authenticity matters.)

 

[Gamestheory]

dona2 - You say that you're sure "smarter" would agree that the G11 could have done that, but I think "smarter" isn't saying any such thing. I don't think you can force him to say what you want him to say! You must give him the freedom only to be saying what he's saying. He's saying the G3's a great camera. C'est tout!

 

[Gamestheory]

Thanks for your comment. Well, I do already tend to Photoshop everything, so it wouldn't be unfamiliar to do a bit of post-shoot tweaking. And, yes, you're right, I suppose that if I'm going to keep the G11, I'm going to have to start making a few more manual decisions. And your own experience here is certainly comforting. Is it possible for you to illustrate your remark by uploading a pic that you think you could only have got out of the G10 and not the G3?

 

[Gamestheory]

If you seriously prefer the look you get from the G3, then stick with it and sell your G11.

Secondly, your G3 is probably more contrasty with more depth of field and more over-sharpening due to (I'm guessing) a smaller sensor, less pixels and less noise reduction.

Well - that's good then. (And makes G3 shots smaller and easier to upload and email.)

Third, don't shoot in full auto unless you have to. Because if you do the dynamic range filter will kick in and try to brighten shadows for you when it detects a scene with a wide dynamic range. Unfortunately there's no way to turn this off and it ruins skin tones.

Ah-ha! You've now explained for me what the problem is with skin tones on the G11. I've been amazed that time and again, especially in close-up shots, subjects I'm taking look like they're covered in plastic and not skin.

I'm sure you "accidentally" get some better looking shots with the G3 when you're comparing them, but why not do a side by side comparison of the same subject under the same lighting and see which you prefer.

I have done. Go back to the top of this thread and you'll see my comparisons.