Canon G10 compared to M8

Thanks for the tip... interesting comparison. The G10 pictures look mighty good for a camera that's 1/10th cost of the M8. BUT... this review points out the key problem with smaller-than-full frame digital cameras, for me at least. Its the inability to control depth of field. I can overlook most everything else, but that's the deal breaker for me.
 
The guy obviously knows nothing about exposing and processing M8 photos properly. I've never seen such ghastly photos come out of my M8. Maybe I should try hard. Harder.
 
These pictures are crappy, boring and pointless...what's the point.
O wait, it's not about the pictures.
Huh...maybe that's the problem.
 
the M8 pics didnt look good the G10 did at iso of 80 but dof was too much compared. Im sure others M8s take better pics or at least I hope so for the price.
 
There is too much fuss about noise and sharpness. For me the most important aspect of picture quality is colour rendition (tonal range for B&W) and depth of field. That is why I will never get a G10.
The G10 perform well against the Hassy but the guy is quick to point out that for studio work with skin tones the comparison falls apart.
 
I never understand these comparisons of other cameras to the M8. It simply invites a long thread of posts pointing out that the M8 is clearly better.
 
Fred Burton said:
I never understand these comparisons of other cameras to the M8. It simply invites a long thread of posts pointing out that the M8 is clearly better.
Click to expand...

IIRC Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscape) started all this 2 years ago when trying out the then new M8 and the then new G7 and finding the results more similar than expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom