__hh
Well-known
The 3:2 "thing" for the G10 is only a guide on the screen (see p66 of your manual) - it greys out the perimeter so that you can estimate the photo in 3:2 ratio. The image is still recorded as 4:3.
Pablito
coco frío
Thanks, hunghang, for the clarification. I have no manual, I have no G10. I'm trying to figure out whether to buy one and this issue is very important to me. This is really too bad.
gabrioladude
Member
If you are interested in looking at the manual you can download it from this page:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=144&modelid=17624#DownloadDetailAct
I believe every Canon manual is available online
and in case it is relevant I don't have a G10 but have been thinking of getting one. Gave my G7 to my son. I enjoyed using that camera...
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=144&modelid=17624#DownloadDetailAct
I believe every Canon manual is available online
and in case it is relevant I don't have a G10 but have been thinking of getting one. Gave my G7 to my son. I enjoyed using that camera...
Dogman
Veteran
Pablito--I doubt you'll find the format/finder issue to be a real problem in practice. I bought the G10 with the intention of using the built-in viewfinder or Leica auxillary finders or even an old Russian turret finder. Once I had the camera in hand and started using it, I found all these to be too fiddly and they slowed me down too much. It was quite surprising to me that I would be using the LCD and liking it better than an optical finder.
If you can get your hands on a G10, give it a try and see if it will work for you. It certainly has its shortcomings but it works very well within those limitations.
If you can get your hands on a G10, give it a try and see if it will work for you. It certainly has its shortcomings but it works very well within those limitations.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Great discussion, as I was thinking of getting a G10.
Looking at the Canon produce update history, the G series has been updated annually for the past few years. So maybe we will see a G11 this fall.
Pablito
coco frío
Thanks, Dogman. I actually got the Panasonic LX3 and liked it so much I bought a second one for back up. Can't beat the 24mm f2 lens and high ISO performace (for this type of camera). It may be hard for anyone to understand this since one can crop very easily but I wanted a small camera like this that can record in 3:2 because I use it in addition to the DSLRs. I almost never crop, and when I do crop I maintain the 3:2 proportion. Not only does the LX3 record in 3:2, but you set the aspect ratio with a physical switch, not a menu which is a big plus for me. Also the LX3 is a lot smaller than the G10. When traveling on assignment with two DSLRs and big lenses, that makes a difference. I have played around with the g10 and like it very much. I love being able to change the ISO with a dial, not a menu. It's just a matter of how many cameras you can own AND haul around.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Well, the G10 looks to be quite good to me - note: I did not handle or shoot it yet!
But the let offs are shutter lag and the 4:3 ratio of the format. It surely might be an addition to a film rangefinder.
But the let offs are shutter lag and the 4:3 ratio of the format. It surely might be an addition to a film rangefinder.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I'm starting to put some miles on a DP2. Too early to say anything intelligent. But, on the hasty, ignorant side, something like the G10 has it beaten in every department except the bright-line, optical finder and image quality. As seeing what your doing is important, hooray for the DP2 accessory finder. As to the battle for image quality, even more important, but a lot more shooting before we can say anything intelligent. Right now, they're both good cameras.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
G10 wish list
G10 wish list
I expressed my G10 views in this forum before. At this point I have made thousands of G10 exposures under a wide variety of situations. It has never failed to bring home the image that I was trying to capture. Is it the perfect camera? No, but what is? The G10 is damn close, IMHO.
I've put aside the Contax G-1 and G-2; the Leica CL and CLE; and all the quality compact point & shoot 35mm cameras, such as the Yashica T4Super, Olympus Epic, Minox 35, Rollei 35, etc.
Here's what I wish for in the next G camera: please, Canon, make the VF larger; improve the high ISO performance above 200, and give us an articulated LCD screen, so I can turn it completely inward. Oh, I would pay more for an f/2.0 aperture, too.
G10 wish list
I expressed my G10 views in this forum before. At this point I have made thousands of G10 exposures under a wide variety of situations. It has never failed to bring home the image that I was trying to capture. Is it the perfect camera? No, but what is? The G10 is damn close, IMHO.
I've put aside the Contax G-1 and G-2; the Leica CL and CLE; and all the quality compact point & shoot 35mm cameras, such as the Yashica T4Super, Olympus Epic, Minox 35, Rollei 35, etc.
Here's what I wish for in the next G camera: please, Canon, make the VF larger; improve the high ISO performance above 200, and give us an articulated LCD screen, so I can turn it completely inward. Oh, I would pay more for an f/2.0 aperture, too.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
kkdanamatt, those are the very reasons I decided against the G10. Too much money for all these inadequacies for me. Until it gets better, I will stick with my clunky Powershots S3 and A62.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
But the G10 is not that expensive...
But the G10 is not that expensive...
...because you can pick up lightly used or demo models for about $400, which is about the same price as a decent wide angle RF lens. G10's have a high resale value, also. So owning one is very cheap, especially considering that it's a digital point-and-shoot.
The build quality is excellent and even after thousands of exposures, mine looks almost new. BTW, I've also owned a Canon PowerShot 620, which has the articulated LCD, but the images it produced can't compare to the output of the G10.
But the G10 is not that expensive...
...because you can pick up lightly used or demo models for about $400, which is about the same price as a decent wide angle RF lens. G10's have a high resale value, also. So owning one is very cheap, especially considering that it's a digital point-and-shoot.
The build quality is excellent and even after thousands of exposures, mine looks almost new. BTW, I've also owned a Canon PowerShot 620, which has the articulated LCD, but the images it produced can't compare to the output of the G10.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Do you have some specifics about the comparison between the A620 and G10 that would explain what is so much better? A few example shots, maybe? I guess I'm back on the fence and need to decide if it's the camera for me or not when I'm not toting film. If I can get one for under $400, it might be do-able.
Thanks in advance for any comparison info/shots. Anyone is free to reply of course!
Dogman
Veteran
In my opinion, the biggest advantage of the G10 over most other P&S cameras is the ability to shoot RAW. It just gives more control of the final images.
Another advantage, again in my opinion, is that it feels like you're using a camera instead of a credit card with buttons, lens and LCD.
Another advantage, again in my opinion, is that it feels like you're using a camera instead of a credit card with buttons, lens and LCD.
aad
Not so new now.
So, why is the G9 more eexpensive on Amazon than the G10?
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Because it is out of production, maybe.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Hm, I'd like to know from the users of the G10 if the shutter lag is really feelable or not.
I also wonder how the marketing making photojournalists put their photos into the press in consideration of the size of the photos. Because if you look at let's say Time or Newsweek, their format is not that big at all. Most photos in there are smaller than 8x10 actually.
I also wonder how the marketing making photojournalists put their photos into the press in consideration of the size of the photos. Because if you look at let's say Time or Newsweek, their format is not that big at all. Most photos in there are smaller than 8x10 actually.
literiter
Well-known
The shutter lag is definitely there but I do not find it objectionable.
I've always wondered about this. Think about the press photographers in the '50s using 4x5 Speed Graphics then being published as a 2 inch column width photo.
Dogman
Veteran
Shutter lag can be mitigated a bit by prefocusing, as Bill mentioned earlier. But, yeah, there is some shutter lag involved. Not as much as I've had with some P&S 35mm cameras I've used in the past but it's not Leica-class either.
Most PJs I used to know in the 35mm days wanted equipment that was built to take constant use and abuse--people wanted a hockey puck camera. Today it's the full frame digitals that are built to take the abuse. I'm sure smaller format digitals would be used more often if they were built to take the daily abuse given by PJs. Quality-wise, there's no real reason to shoot larger formats when the reproduction is only two to four columns wide.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
When I think of lag, I think of the camera mechanisms that do not allow you to time your shots so that wysiwyg. It's mostly the AF that slows down dp&s. If you use manual focus/pre-set focus the lag is damn-near nonexistent.
I was able to time the shot below by shooting in manual mode. It's nothing great (I don't care for the tilt), but this is an example of a very quickly made shot (see the shot coming together, quickly frame, and push the shutter release, wysiwyg).
/