G2 and F707 sample images (comparison)

[Ron Parr]

In general, I agree. However, I stand by my conclusion that the 707 demonstrated more dynamic range in this photo and that it doesn't have anything to do with the exposure settings. I agree that it could have something to do with other settings such as brightness, sharpening, etc.

Ron Parr

I sense this discussion is going 'round and 'round with no
resolution in sight. Perhaps I can add a different angle:
We would all like to see cameras compared uner the conditions we
expect to use them. If we are a P&S shooter, then the relevant
conditions are full auto everything all the time. For the
photography enthusiast, we would like to see the camera used under
the "optimum" conditions since we would like to all llike to shoot
under optimal conditions. This takes considerable experience in
understanding the performance of each camera to know what "optimum"
looks like for each camera.
I think tha Phil, as does most professional reviewers, tries to
strike a balance between full auto and optimum. After all, how
many cameras does he review a year, maybe 30? He uses a mix of
laboratory set shots and images from wandering about London.
Softtower had less than one week with two new cameras, so he had to
make some choices and compromises. I thought he did quite well for
a first time attempt. Similar comparisons on this forum in the
past, like S75 vs G1, were done under full auto conditions, where
performance was clearly limited to the default parameters (like
sharpeing). Again, this is quite relevant to those who use full
auto all the time.
I beleive Martin's point is that evaluative metering would be much
closer to optimum utilization of the G-2s dynamic range. My
personal view is that anything less than RAW converted to TIFF is
not optimum for the G-2, but that is a much more involved
comparison. Afterall, if I had a G-2 that's how I would use it, so
those conditions are very relevant to my view of "optimum". I
think Ron's point is that absolute dynamic range is set by the
hardware and invariant of camera adjustments (how well one exposes
the shot). Of course what is seen in the comparison photos is
dependent upon quite a number of variables, including exposure.
Just to broaden the example base, here is a recent thread about
Pro90 settings where one user much preferred a lower contrast
setting. He felt it provided more tonal range: it is a wonderful
shot
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&page=1&message=1625992
This is one of the reasons why I feel RAW is a useful feature, as
one can adjust these camera parameters after the fact to get closer
to the "optimum" usage.

The real point here is that these camera comparisons will never be
useful to everyone, as there are so many shooting styles, so many
versions of "optimum". There is no absolute best camera, its
always relative to the photographer using it.
Regards, Mike K

 

[Robert Holloway]

Yikes

I've just spent 30 minutes looking at these shots side by side on my 21" monitor.

Great job, must have taken hours. Many thanks

It's hard to be decisive about color fidelity when you were not there. How can you comment about an orange shirt on the video guys that you have not seen?

However, there are two things I do know.

The bottle of Louis Jadot wine - I've actually visited their place in Beaune and the cup of Starbucks coffee being drunk by the girl.

The Canon is more accurate on both.

I have never seen the Starbucks green look like the 707 picture. The only time I've seen greens like that are before destaturation has taken place on shots from my 85.

On detail, the Sony wins hands down.

But sorry guys, on things that I know, despite wanting to say the Sony wins, my vote goes to the G2.

Damn it. this is a hard call.

Finally - a little perspective. they are both fine cameras. it's not like we are talking about a dog.

All the best
Robert

 

[Robert Holloway]

Ron

We agree again.

The wine picture is very interesting. The sony does a great job on the louis jadot front label and a rotten job on the red top. i know this wine too well

Check out the Starbucks cup on another picture

Rob

Thanks very much for this really interesting comparison.

In the majority of cases, I tended to prefer the Canon colors, but
it wasn't a slam dunk for Canon. I was surprised by the number of
shots where I thought the 707 did a better job.

I like the way the G2 handles shadow noise in those outdoor shots.
I think that this is the greatest strength of the G2.

The extra detail that the 707 squeezes out of its 5MP sensor and CZ
optics is very impressive. One such example is the detail visible
on the front label of the wine bottle. The 707 gets the striped
pattern, but the G2 largely misses it, introducing some artifacting
and moire.

Ron Parr

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

I am going to try what you did and play around with that same
picture and when you work with that picture do you always get the
original or could you try it on the 800 X 600?

I did use the full res versions because broadband made downloading them quite painless and because I was also interested in fine detail. But as long as you're looking in no more detail than the overall colour balance, and maybe the colour of known objects, it will make no difference at all if you use the 800 x 600 ones. In fact I cropped and resampled some images to make the subject areas match more closely when I was interested just in the colour.

Caveat: As Ulysses and Ed have quite rightly suggested, nobody should be expecting point-and-shoot images from any camera -- digital or film -- to yield correct colour, every time, for every part of every subject. I haven't been looking for "correct" colour of anything straight off the stick -- just the confidence that the camera will have captured the info I need as a starting point. The digital darkroom will always get a lot of use, and it's much cleaner fun (pun intended) than its chemical ancestor.

Mike

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

There are a couple of people who have mentioned a cyan cast, but
honestly, I haven't come across it in but a couple of shots.

Me neither. Certainly not the overall cyan wash over neutral areas that was so evident in some of the preproduction shots. Consequently I hadn't toyed specifically with cyan levels in production samples until very recently, and I've been quite surprised to find how much contribution they've been making to other questionable colour renditions.

As for the reds, I'm finding them manageable when shooting
under circumstances that would present problemed tones. The detail
is there; proper exposure helps a bit; manual w.b. definitely helps
further. But we've got to face it honestly... the camera leans red
during difficult shoots.

I fully agree.

say one thing stands out with Pekka Saarinen's images, derived from
RAW for the G1, and that's how rich his colours are while staying
short of the classic electronic oversaturated look that we see from
the 707 and about half one's friends' TV receivers (doesn't it make
your fingers itch to fix it! ;-)).

I'm going to respectfully disagree with your impressions here.
Pekka is a total package of a great photographer's eye, artistic
skill, artistic license, and image editing. Whether or not the Dark
Angel's look is "electronic", is something I'll leave to the
individual.

Play fair, now you're asking me to explain my own mind! ). It's hard to define in words, but by "electronic" oversaturation I'm guess I'm thinking about the sort of colour that the general public had never seen prior to the advent of colour television, with all the possibilities of its additive colour system. Mind you, the offset brigade is having a good crack at psychedelic nirvana of late, even in well respected nature mags, with the wide gamut process inks now available, ;-). How Pekka produces his superb work is beside the point, while it stands as a challenge for us all. The important thing for me was to see how much underlying data was obviously there for him to work with -- some things you just can't synthesise without a prohibitive amount of effort, if at all. That's ultimately all I expect of a camera. As an aside, Pekka's work with the G1 (and I note that he also owns a D30), could stand as a marvellous leveller in the haughty debates that surface occasionally, intent on the putting down of "consumer" grade equipment. A brief look at a few of his images might reduce much of the yabbadabbadoo to awkward silence in some of the participants, and polite mirth in the onlookers ;-).

exercise has left me feeling very optimistic about the 707's
underlying capabilities (while cursing it for not offering RAW :-(

If you really, really want RAW and find yourself kicking yourself
for not having it, then there really is no option as far as the DA
is concerned.

Only "cursing" it at the same level of intent that we talk about cheerfully strangling a respected acquaintance. RAW might just have allowed less of a wrestle on some occasions, and I wouldn't mind that at all...

Mike

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

Funny the little things that stick in one's mind. A short ramble by a long forgotten author appeared in Reader's Digest many years ago, titled "Sounds of Summer":

"Thwish thwash thwish..."

--- Generally heard after midnight, this sound is made by the man who has discovered he forgot to turn off the lawn sprinkler.

"Thwish thwash thwish ... eeeoooooppp!!"

--- Made by the man who also forgot to take up the croquet wickets.

But the Grand Master was surely "Mad" magazine's Don Martin. Consider a collapsing pyramid of food cans on display in a supermarket -- presumably with semi-liquid contents. The Martin accompaniment:
"Glikle klik klak glakkle"

Music to the eyes. A true professional...

Mike

You've got it all wrong. It's...

"Pocketa-pocketa-queep! Pocketa-queep! As Walter Mitty stared off
into the mists and the rising sun..."

-Ed

"clippety clappety, clippety clappety"

... on whose bridge? ;-)))

No, no, no...
That's "trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap". That's not the same thing
at all.

Of course ... I was allowing that maybe you'd "got rhythm"

 

[Ed (;¬ >)]

Don Martin, or as I used to mis-read in my youth—Martian, one of my all-time favorites.

-Ed

"Thwish thwash thwish..."

--- Generally heard after midnight, this sound is made by the man
who has discovered he forgot to turn off the lawn sprinkler.

"Thwish thwash thwish ... eeeoooooppp!!"

--- Made by the man who also forgot to take up the croquet wickets.

But the Grand Master was surely "Mad" magazine's Don Martin.
Consider a collapsing pyramid of food cans on display in a
supermarket -- presumably with semi-liquid contents. The Martin
accompaniment:
"Glikle klik klak glakkle"

Music to the eyes. A true professional...

Mike

You've got it all wrong. It's...

"Pocketa-pocketa-queep! Pocketa-queep! As Walter Mitty stared off
into the mists and the rising sun..."

-Ed

"clippety clappety, clippety clappety"

... on whose bridge? ;-)))

No, no, no...
That's "trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap". That's not the same thing
at all.

Of course ... I was allowing that maybe you'd "got rhythm"

 

[Martin Eager56124]

I beleive Martin's point is that evaluative metering would be much
closer to optimum utilization of the G-2s dynamic range.

Now why couldn't I have summarised it in one sentence like that Yes, this is precisely what I meant. I agree every camera has a given dynamic range set by hardware limitations. But evaluative metering would get the best out of the G2 - I have observed this in my own shots, and it is pointed out in reviews. I understand Bryan Siverly now has a F707 and a G2, so I would hope that some comparison shots can use evaluative metering on the G2 so we can all compare further.

Cheers
Martin