Pro1 review posted on DCResource

[Mike Hunt]

What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???

Try shooting at night away from lights (as I've done in outdoor concerts for example) and while your eyes can see perfectly, the LCD shows nothing but blackness.

 

[Steve110587]

i think mike is overexaggerating. he is making out these canon point and shoots look like barbie digital cameras.... i have taken pics in a dim museum with my s45. NEVER had a problem seeing the artifacts in my s45.

I doubt it would take forever to get a good shot with the pro1. my s45 is my no means a super serious camera.. but i can get good shots with little hassle. in fact.. you do have to work harder with an slr to get a good pic. there are hundreds of posts giving newbies sh*t because they expect an slr to work as easily as a point and shoot. They are consistantly told that you need a good understanding of photography basics to really understand picture taking on an slr... with a point and shoot, depth of field is not an issue...etc...

in any case, i STILL might buy a pro1 depending on other reviews... (to me size is important. i remember not taking my film SLR everywhere with me because of the size of it.. hanging a pro1 around my neck sounds nice... (i cant hang my s45 around my neck properly).....

with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on trashing the camera... but then again .. .he MAY be entirely right in his speculations and observations... we'll see.....

low lite evf problems are minor.. anyway... use the LCD
in those situations..

The LCD is already useless in those situations. Too dim and way too
slow. This is the only reason I ever used my G3's OVF, which is wy
I never complained about the elns obsctruction issue.

while the lcd is useless in bright light ...
it is great in low lite situations...

No it's not. Any LCD is terible in low light. My eyes can see far
better in low light than any LCD, other than Sony's night vision
system.

What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???
Granted,it's better to see ANYTHING in daytime,than nighttime,but
the LCD is totally usable,as most here would agree.you exaggerate
with your wording,making things seem worse than they are.

ANAYV

i agree about the noise, but
unless you go for an SLR ... you wont find a camera without a noise
problem.

My G3 has far less noise, and the faster lens means I don't need to
rely on higher ISO speeds nearly as muich as wit h the Pro1.

 

[Mike Hunt]

I'll pass. And considering Canon's last G5, I don't think they
deserve a chance at a third strike. They're out in my book.

Too bad for you. The question is whether you are interested in all
in one camera or want to go DSLR. If you are interested in DSLR
this is perfectly reasonable choice. If you are interested in all
in one than Pro1 is equally reasonable choice.

I wanted improvement over the G3. Canon delivered teh opposite.

What I do not understand is why wine over the known issues of small
sensors. It is like expecting performance of Mercedes car from a
cheap Ford model. Kind of lame.

I am less concerned about the noise than I am about the degraded autofocus , slower lens, and missing OVF and AF assit lamp. Never mind the sensor.

 

[Mike Hunt]

with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on
trashing the camera...

Because that one review has confirmed what I already expected and feared after reading the camera's specs...

 

[Giordano Biondani]

I could ask you the same thing, to provide pictures proving YOUR point (there aren't any).
On the other hand, there are pictures that prove my point: take a look at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7829656

Giordano

However, what you are saying is not accurate. I also have a G3, and
from the test shots that I have seen so far it seems clear that the
Pro1 has less PF and the same amount of noise as the G3, not much
more like you say.

Show me IDENTICAL photos taken with both cameras to illustrate your
point.

There aren't any, right?

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

 

[H4ng0ver]

Talking about the guy who claimed his G3 would run ring around the new Pro1....what a moron!!!!
LOL

I suspect that if anyone doubts that Mike Hunt is the oracle of
digital cams, all one has to do is ask him. His strident criticism
of the Pro 1 and Canon in general is, in my humble opinion, over
the top. His talent would be better utilized in the Howard Dean
camp. It has been said by others in this forum that no one camera
will be the perfect camera for all concerned. I concur. Mike, in
your case silence is golden.

--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net

 

[Mike Hunt]

with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on
trashing the camera...

Because that one review has confirmed what I already expected and
feared after reading the camera's specs...

I am no Canon hater. In fact, if they had released a G3 with this new body and no other improvements (or faults) I likely would have bought it just for the body.

But they have actually robbed the camera of performance and versatility.

 

[Mike Hunt]

Well its of course a review! But...

I think it's a shame my G 3 has been stolen! It has flaws, yes!!!
But it had the right capture for the Mp concerned!

Not the case for the G 5 and now the pro
1! Good!!! I am not considering it no more!!!
At the sizes I print, 4 MP is enough and I don't want extra noise
or purple frimming!

The S 45 I bought on e-bay is nice too, but I miss the lens of the
G 3!!

Thinking of buying another one, if I do find one!!!l

If the Pro1 had been even remotely acceptable, I could have offered you my G3. But now I'm hanging on to it for lack of anything better (or even remotely as good.)

 

[Mike Hunt]

The A2 DOES have a AF Assist.(nt)

Hmm, didn't know that. Everybody is realizing the importance of this feature... except for Canon.

 

[Mike Hunt]

For me it is. I'm looking for the smallest possible full featured
camera - something I feel confortable taking anywhere. Also, the A2
has an even slower lens and still no AF assist lamp.

But it has AS, which follows the slower lens and raises for a stop
or two.

I'd have to see it in action. Soundfs interesting for framing a shot, but I'm not convinced that it can compensate for a sower lens when the final photo is taken.

Without AF assist and without nightshot capability, any EVF is
useless in low light. An OVF is essential.

Well, A1 users reported very good AF in low-light and a good AF
speed. Phil did that too and measured -1.2 EV:

What if I want to shoot in near darkness with flash? I need AF assit to focus and to help me frame the shot, which would otherwise be invisible. Only Sony's OVF with NightFrame offers a viable solution.

Despite not having an AF assist lamp the DiMAGE A1 manages to focus
in extremely low light situations thanks to its high gain B&W live
view mode which also appears to enhance auto focus

I'd have to see it in action. But it's still too bulky for me. For that size, I'd get an SLR. I can't see myself taking that thing to parties, concerts, etc.

 

[LeifShutter]

I can focus in near total darkness. It's very sensitive.

it focus pretty well in low lights situations

--



Beauty is in the eye of the Bee-holder...

 

[Mike Hunt]

Why is everyone discounting the Nikon 8700. He said it was better
than the Sony?

That's easy: no 28mm zoom.

That rules it right out for me.

Nikon cameras have the momst infuriatingly designed controls and menus. THat alone rules them out for me.

 

[AdamW]

I am less concerned about the noise than I am about the degraded
autofocus , slower lens, and missing OVF and AF assit lamp. Never
mind the sensor.

The standard bluish-white beam on most high-end Canon's just will not do much good with such a long zoom. Light physics dictate that its power must be much higher in order to attain an equivalent performance as it does on the other small-zoom cameras.

In effect, what you're asking for is a 3-LED white beams to counteract the lack of power by just one beam alone. None of these beats a standard-issue LED flashlight mounted on the camera via Velcro.

Either way, I cannot see how useful an AF-assist light would be for an ultra-zoom camera.
--
swatchhustler from the S.P.F.

 

[Marco Nero]

Mike Hunt wrote:
I am no Canon hater. In fact, if they had released a G3 with this
new body and no other improvements (or faults) I likely would have
bought it just for the body.
But they have actually robbed the camera of performance and
versatility.

The Pro 1 is simply a higher resolution powershot G camera, which is exactly what it's meant to be. Since the Pro 1 has more options than the G3, why would you say that the Pro 1 has been robbed of it's performance?

From what I can see here, the Pro 1 takes no less as good a picture than the G3. Just much higher levels of detail and a more versatile system for focus etc. Improvements in electronics as well as optics make the Pro 1 more desirable. If you crop an image in the Pro 1 at higher ISO like 400, you seem to get a better picture than the same corresponding ISO 400 image from a G3. The reviewer simply summed it up at the end by stating that he felt the Pro1 would have a bit of competition along side the DSLRs.

Cheers,

--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design

 

[H4ng0ver]

I don't think the image quality or noise that he've been whirning about, he whines about "dog slow" AF performance comparing to his G3, and much slower lens...LOL

Mike Hunt wrote:
I am no Canon hater. In fact, if they had released a G3 with this
new body and no other improvements (or faults) I likely would have
bought it just for the body.
But they have actually robbed the camera of performance and
versatility.

The Pro 1 is simply a higher resolution powershot G camera, which
is exactly what it's meant to be. Since the Pro 1 has more options
than the G3, why would you say that the Pro 1 has been robbed of
it's performance?
From what I can see here, the Pro 1 takes no less as good a picture
than the G3. Just much higher levels of detail and a more
versatile system for focus etc. Improvements in electronics as
well as optics make the Pro 1 more desirable. If you crop an image
in the Pro 1 at higher ISO like 400, you seem to get a better
picture than the same corresponding ISO 400 image from a G3. The
reviewer simply summed it up at the end by stating that he felt the
Pro1 would have a bit of competition along side the DSLRs.

Cheers,

--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design

--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net

 

[Omega139971]

Sure Mike...they already did in the G5 and you went ballistic because all they did was change the color and add a megapixel.

with only 1 reveiw.... i don't know why Mike is so gung ho on
trashing the camera...

Because that one review has confirmed what I already expected and
feared after reading the camera's specs...

I am no Canon hater. In fact, if they had released a G3 with this
new body and no other improvements (or faults) I likely would have
bought it just for the body.

But they have actually robbed the camera of performance and
versatility.

 

[ANAYV]

I've taken shots of the New Your skyline,and though it's not pitch black out,the LCD shows me the image i'm about to shoot.

I'm not saying i can clearly check for focus/sharpness,but my LCD is definitely not black.I do set the brightness to high,on the LCD(in the menu).

Once at a play,I wanted to record some video with my S30,and the LCD was so bright,people told me to turn it off,as it was distracting them.

ANAYV

What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???

Try shooting at night away from lights (as I've done in outdoor
concerts for example) and while your eyes can see perfectly, the
LCD shows nothing but blackness.

 

[KRDV]

I'm not saying i can clearly check for focus/sharpness,but my LCD
is definitely not black.I do set the brightness to high,on the
LCD(in the menu).

Once at a play,I wanted to record some video with my S30,and the
LCD was so bright,people told me to turn it off,as it was
distracting them.

ANAYV

What?
Your kidding,right???
'Terrible in low light' ????

Why is my S30,and now S50 LCD just fine,taking shots at 12PM at
night???

Try shooting at night away from lights (as I've done in outdoor
concerts for example) and while your eyes can see perfectly, the
LCD shows nothing but blackness.

Apparently, some G3s have an "LCD blackness" mode. Darn not mine

 

[ANAYV]

Only if Sony and Olympus change it first,as they both have released DC's that had bad cases of PF ,in the past.

ANAYV

It is a shame,that them(and most every other manufacturer)can't fix
these problems(noise and PF),and make a really excellent
camera....today

Once Canon can find a solution to eliminate PF or CA, they will
change their name from Canon to "non-CA".
--
getg3
http://www.pbase.com/getg3/

 

[ANAYV]

LOL.
Funny...Guenter!

Canon is not alone in this,nor are they the first.

CA has been around way before digital camera's were ever invented.

It's just a shame,that smaller pixels,increase this problem,while giving us more resolution,in a small package.Even a 2/3" CCD is very small,compared to the same area used with 35mm film.

If size was not such an issue,PF would not be such a problem,IMHO.

i myself want a camera I take anywhere,anytime.

this comes at a price
(about $379 for my S50)

ANAYV

....SNIP
Not sure about the G3 having 'much lower PF',than Pro 1.Remember
when the G3 first came out?
PF was pretty bad,so much so,that Phil made a special test,which he
now uses on other camera's.(the foil test).Maybe 'a bit more
PF',the Pro 1 will have,than the G3.
SNIP....

ANAYV,
good of you to bring this G3 test to attention. Phil Asley actually
compared the G3 with the G2 and noted that the G2 was doing better.
Now three digicam generations later people may ask themselves if
this is a trend of unlimited growth.
If we extrapolate to 2010 we may expect digicams with 100 million
pixels and CA resulting in the left half of a picture being green
and the right half being purple.
Marketing could sell this effect as being a new form of stereo and
include appropriately coloured glasse as an accessory.
Regards,
Guenter