G3 macro: a simple "bench mark test"

[Yang]

Hi, Canon folk,

I'm interested in G3's macro ability which is supposed to be improved according to the its technical data: Focal length = 140mm, minimal subject distance = 15mm, aperture F3.0

In order to get a feel of G3's macro ability compared to the G1/G2 (regarding the sharpness and DOF), I have just thought an idee to do the following simple "bench mark test". To show how it works, I have just done it on my old G1 (which has been sold on eBay and will be sent out tomorrow). My settings: Focal length = 104mm, subject distance = 20mm (e.g. by using the manual focus to get the minimal subject distance), F2.5, shot by using bounce flash in 640x480 pixel + jpg super fine, applied Auto Level in PS, but without using Unsharp Mask. I tried to get the focus on "H" (80% successfully ), and one can see the DOF of the G1 very clearly this way. Since the distance was not very short, such a DOF effect is not good enough for demanding macro shootings.

I hope some G3 users would volunteer for doing this test on their G3. The settings should be: Focal length = 140mm, subject distance = 15mm (e.g. by using the manual focus to get the minimal subject distance), F3.0, shot in 640x480 pixel + jpg super fine format. Please try to get the focus on "H" in the middle of the picture. Finally, such a test shot may help all of us to get a feel of G3's macro ability for the application in future (while shooting some real and more interesting macro motives), right? I'm expecting a (also only "slightly"?) better DOF effect on the G3.
Thank you in advance.

Yang (still waiting for the pre-ordered G3 in Germany)

http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B

 

[Ulysses]

This is a good idea. One potential problem, however, to consistent results will be the angle at which the camera is aimed. A minor point.

I have just done it on my old G1 (which has been sold on eBay and
will be sent out tomorrow).

Congratulations! I'm sure it will be with mixed feelings that you send it off to live in a new home. It was the same for me when I ebayed my F707.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[yboT]

Ulysses made a good point about the angle. But here's my attempt:



640x480 Superfine, 140mm f/3.0, manual focus @ 15 cm, focus on the 'H' (or at least tried to )... just like what you asked ;-).
aperture priority, direct built-in flash, hand held. untouched jpg.

Keep in mind that I'm just an amateur, so if you're not satisfied with the quality, it's probably partly my fault :-D (and I've actually dropped my G3 once on to hard ground, I'm just hoping that doesn't affect quality.. :- ).

 

[Yang]

Ulysses made a good point about the angle. But here's my attempt:

640x480 Superfine, 140mm f/3.0, manual focus @ 15 cm, focus on the
'H' (or at least tried to )... just like what you asked ;-).
aperture priority, direct built-in flash, hand held. untouched jpg.

thank you so much for taking time to do this test. Yes, the shooting angle still makes some different. However, we can clearly see in this comparison that G3' macro ability, regarding the enlargement factor and DOF (to blurr the forground and background), is really much improved. With this result, I see no need to buy/use/carry a macro adapter any more.

On the other hand, it is confirmed in this comparison (both without PS sharpening) the well-known fact again: G3 shots are comparatively soft (G2 shots are known as slightly softer than G1 shots). This can be (slightly) improved by using Unsharp mask in PS though.

Yang

 

[Ulysses]

Hi there, Yang. I'd like to point out one other encouraging thing, and pose a question on another point.

thank you so much for taking time to do this test. Yes, the
shooting angle still makes some different. However, we can clearly
see in this comparison that G3' macro ability, regarding the
enlargement factor and DOF (to blurr the forground and background),
is really much improved. With this result, I see no need to
buy/use/carry a macro adapter any more.

Yes, the less accessories we "need" to carry, the better. Although I'll bet that many will still want to get that macro lens anyway.

I notice that your angle of attack to the keyboard was a bit more shallow than the angle used by yboT. So this actually gives the G3 even more advantage in having a shallow DOF than it appears. You ought to get some very nice blurring of the background if you are well focused on the subject. This is good news, if it is correct.

On the other hand, it is confirmed in this comparison (both without
PS sharpening) the well-known fact again: G3 shots are
comparatively soft (G2 shots are known as slightly softer than G1
shots). This can be (slightly) improved by using Unsharp mask in PS
though.

Here, I will pose a question or supposition:

I'm wondering if the G3 is actually softer than the G2 (although it is not too bad... it is manageable as you point out), OR perhaps did yboT simply move just a bit after he had focused. With such a shallow DOF, it would be easy for hand shake or even breathing to knock off the exact point of focus.

Maybe not... I'm just presenting an alternative thought as we try to figure this out.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Franklin]

Maybe g3 does not use as much sharpening as g2 in in-camera-processing. Also, the sharpness appearance also has something to do with the lighting. I suspect yang used bounced flash while the other poster used onboard flash. Check out my comparison between g2 and g3. I didn't softnew in g3 compare to g2. Of course the is only one set of comparison and they were taken 6 weeks apart.

http://www.pbase.com/franklin/g3_photos

Here, I will pose a question or supposition:
I'm wondering if the G3 is actually softer than the G2 (although it
is not too bad... it is manageable as you point out), OR perhaps
did yboT simply move just a bit after he had focused. With such a
shallow DOF, it would be easy for hand shake or even breathing to
knock off the exact point of focus.

Maybe not... I'm just presenting an alternative thought as we try
to figure this out.

 

[Yang]

I notice that your angle of attack to the keyboard was a bit more
shallow than the angle used by yboT. So this actually gives the G3
even more advantage in having a shallow DOF than it appears.

I guess you wanted to say: So this actually would have given the G3

even more advantage in having a shallow DOF than it appears in the current execution, right?
Yes, I noticed this point, too.

You
ought to get some very nice blurring of the background if you are
well focused on the subject.

no idea what you meant.

OR perhaps
did yboT simply move just a bit after he had focused.

impossible if the subject was only lighted by the flash which corresponds a shutter speed as fast as 1/3000s.

 

[Yang]

I suspect yang used bounced
flash while the other poster used onboard flash.

Usualy, the shots of direct flash appera sharper than shots of bounced flash, am I right?

 

[Ulysses]

So this actually would have given the G3
even more advantage in having a shallow DOF than it appears in the
current execution, right?
Yes, I noticed this point, too.

I must have been really rushing to get out the door when I posted.

Yes, you understood perfectly what I was trying to say.

impossible if the subject was only lighted by the flash which
corresponds a shutter speed as fast as 1/3000s.

Not at all impossible. I'm not talking about handshake vibrating the camera. No, that would not matter. But instead, what I'm referring to is that he may simply have inadvertently moved the camera forward or backward very slightly by the time he fully depressed the shutter.

Either way, it's probably not very significant, at least for this shot demonstration.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Yang]

impossible if the subject was only lighted by the flash which
corresponds a shutter speed as fast as 1/3000s.

Not at all impossible. I'm not talking about handshake vibrating
the camera. No, that would not matter. But instead, what I'm
referring to is that he may simply have inadvertently moved the
camera forward or backward very slightly by the time he fully
depressed the shutter.

why the moving direction would make the difference when any moving will be FROZEN in the short time of the flash of 1/3000s?

 

[Ulysses]

why the moving direction would make the difference when any moving
will be FROZEN in the short time of the flash of 1/3000s?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. We are each talking about two different things. I'm sorry for not clarifying.

I'm saying that perhaps he focused but then just shifted position slightly by the time the shutter was pressed. This would give the impression of the image being "softened", when all that has happened is that it is just slightly misfocused to the photographer having moved by a tiny bit.

Hope that helps.

But who knows. Maybe the G3 really is simply softer. I'm willing to agree to that.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Yang]

I'm saying that perhaps he focused but then just shifted position
slightly by the time the shutter was pressed. This would give the
impression of the image being "softened", when all that has
happened is that it is just slightly misfocused to the photographer
having moved by a tiny bit.

Dear Ulysses,

I suspected you might have seen so, but didn't really believe it, because the test I suggested was designed the way that no "misfocused" could happen:

While using manual focus to set the minimal subject distance of 15mm, there is always a focus point (more accurately a focus plain) in this picture, during my instruction “Please try to get the focus on "H" in the middle of the picture” serves only as an aid for the correct framing – the focus zone should be near the centre of the picture.

Such a test picture allows you follow the play of focusing easily: From the blurred foreground, over the clear focus zone where the focus plain is, to the blurred background. With “soft” I didn’t mean only “H” was soft, but the whole focus zone was soft. What we see in these two test shots is, no key or EDGE of keys in G3 shot was as sharp as G1 shot. Hope I express myself more clearly this time.

“But who knows. Maybe the G3 really is simply softer. I'm willing to agree to that. ”

I think we all must have got a FEEL of G3 shots after seeing so many sample shots (incl. the very first sample shots of Canon’s web site), right?

Regards,
Yang

 

[Ulysses]

Yang -

Thanks for taking the time with this one. I honestly did not mean to belabor the point.

It is not so much a matter of "belief", but that the test is not really fool-proof. Still, it is a good general test. And that is all that matters for our usage here.

You are correct that we have a good feel for the G3 now. What will be most revealing will be Phil's final resolution tests here. If there is some marginal softness, it definitely should not be surprising at all (I agree with your other post here... too much panic in some users), and it may not be a deal-breaker for many

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!