Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ
ma...@potd.com.au
recently purchased a Waverunner for a bit of fun and also for
transport to get to some new locations that would otherwise be out of
reach, or simply just be too much coin and mucking around to get there
for quick photo trips.
With the Waverunner came the need for a waterproof camera solution.
It fits all my big kit in it no problems, but that is stowed away in
waterproof gear sacks and difficult (and risky) to access when
traveling.... hence the need for a smaller, waterproof option that I
could use on the fly.
I will admit that I am a pixel peeper and like to achieve the best
image quality that I can get from any camera that I use. I looked at
the waterproof compact cams but the image quality was not up to what I
was willing to accept (pre-release of Canon's new one) ....so I looked
at other compacts with the view of adding a waterproof housing.
After much deliberation, I decided that all compacts were "so-so" and
that I would just use my back-up 20D on the ski and consider it
sacrificial. I purchased a Lowepro Top Loader Zoom bag for the 20D
and 17-40 and set off. Well it kinda gets heavy having around the
neck after while so the 20D was discounted as a "ski-cam" and I
purchased a Canon G10 and housing. The housing fits very snugly into
the clove compartment so I had my waterproof solution.
At this point I still considered that the G10 image quality was "so-
so", but at least I could take happy snaps while on the ski and get
the big kit out when ashore.
My first action with the G10 was to set about seeing just how much
image quality I could squeeze out of it's tiny, yet pixel-packed
sensor (15mp).
Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
followed some simple rules....
Rule 1: Shoot at f3.5 The G10's lens f-stop range is 2.8 - 8.0, but
diffraction plays a huge part with this lens at tiny apertures. I
guess that with any lens/sensor combo this small an f-stop like f8 is
going to be very tiny indeed. From tests I determined that the G10's
lens is sharp from wide-open to 3.5 and closing down any more simply
makes the image soften.
Small sensor cams have always provided lots of DOF (to the point that
it is difficult to control at times), so 3.5 is quite capable of
providing DOF from close foreground to infinity. Even wide open
provides good DOF and I have no problem going there when the light is
low.
It should be noted that when zoomed the lens's widest aperture is
f4.5. This adjustment is made automagically as you zoom and
thankfully 4.5 provides the best IQ at the longer focal lengths, so
it's basically a "set and forget" when it comes to aperture on the
G10.
Rule 2: Shoot at base ISO. ISO80 is the base for this cam and where
it provides the best IQ. There is some raw sensor noise visible at
this low ISO (to be expected with 15mp packed in), but Canon's in
camera processing cleans it well and it's not an issue if shooting
JPEG. ISOs up to 400 are quite acceptable but beyond that is asking
too much for a small sensor/high megapixel cam IMO.
If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion programs
treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other benefits
that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
sharpness etc. To be honest, the noise that the G10 creates is not
objectional and I liken it more to a fine film grain than "noise" as
such.
Rule 3: Shoot RAW + JPEG. Having the JPEG available for the quick
happy snap and the RAW available for those shots were you you want to
squeeze the wringer is very handy.
Rule 4: Spend the $$$$ on DXO to process the G10 RAW files. DXO
really does take this cam to a new level.
So now that I have had this cam a month or so.... and now that I have
tested it considerably.... I have decided that the it's a little
ripper! and capable of mixing it with the big boys if treated right.
So much so, I have created a "mini-kit" to take with me everywhere.
This kit consists of the G10, lens adapter for filters, Lee Graduated
ND filters, underwater housing, compact tripod and even a single row
panorama head (home made).
Does this kit replace my 1Ds2? No, not for my full-on landscape
stuff, but it does mean that when I am out and about and I find that
"by chance" shot, I am well equipped to get an image that would
otherwise be missed..... the fact that it's not lacking too much IQ in
comparison makes me feel a whole lot better about it too!
Here are some pix from early tests and some more recent "for real"
efforts.....
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0029.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0194.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0343.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DPP_IMG_0287-3.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Basin_pano.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DXO_IMG_0802.jpg
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0633.jpg
Cheers
Rusty
John McWilliams
What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
including other names you may have used here.
--
John McWilliams
ma...@potd.com.au
As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10.... so
I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.
I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes. :-( I
will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.
Rusty
Troy Piggins
>* ma...@potd.com.au wrote:
>
<snip />
> What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
didn't understand?
Why does he have to give you a reason?
> including other names you may have used here.
Why does he have to do that?
FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
whole post.
I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
--
Troy Piggins
PixelPix
Thank you Troy, you are most kind.
For the record: I have signed back in under my PixelPix handle and
shall endeavor to make sure that Google does not sign me in under the
old, "OLD" account again. My original posting under ma...@potd.com.au
was indeed accidental.
Cheers
Rusty
Troy Piggins
> On Mar 23, 1:55 pm, Troy Piggins <usenet-0...@piggo.com> wrote:
>> * John McWilliams wrote :
>> >* m...@potd.com.au wrote:
>>
>> <snip />
>> > What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
>>
>> I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
>> didn't understand?
>>
>> Why does he have to give you a reason?
>>
>> > including other names you may have used here.
>>
>> Why does he have to do that?
>>
>> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
>> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
>> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
>> whole post.
>>
>> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
>> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
>
>
> For the record: I have signed back in under my PixelPix handle and
> shall endeavor to make sure that Google does not sign me in under the
> old, "OLD" account again. My original posting under ma...@potd.com.au
> was indeed accidental.
No worries, mate.
You shouldn't have to justify yourself for posting stuff like
that. Got up my nose a little that someone gets challenged for
posting what I took as an informative and neutral review.
Shouldn't matter /what/ account you do it from.
--
Troy Piggins
Dudley Hanks
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:2009032...@usenet.piggo.com...
I kind of enjoyed it as well...
Take Care,
Dudley
John McWilliams
> * John McWilliams wrote :
>> * ma...@potd.com.au wrote:
>>
> <snip />
>> What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
>
> I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
> didn't understand?
No.
> Why does he have to give you a reason?
He doesn't.
>> including other names you may have used here.
>
> Why does he have to do that?
He doesn't.
> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
> whole post.
I'm aware of diminutives, and I'm not only a client of the genius club,
I'm the President.*
>
> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.
I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?
--
John McWilliams
* Play off a N. American advert, not meant as any dig to any antipodean
entity.....
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * John McWilliams wrote :
>>> * ma...@potd.com.au wrote:
>>>
>> <snip />
>>> What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
>>
>> I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
>> didn't understand?
>
> No.
>
>> Why does he have to give you a reason?
>
> He doesn't.
>
>>> including other names you may have used here.
>>
>> Why does he have to do that?
>
> He doesn't.
>
>> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
>> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
>> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
>> whole post.
>
> I'm aware of diminutives, and I'm not only a client of the genius club,
> I'm the President.*
>
>> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
>> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
>
> Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.
Not really. Just took a bit of an exception to the demands of
your post.
> I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
> number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?
I did too. I meant to compliment him on the politeness of his
reply. He handled it far better than I did, and I'm usually
pretty level-headed if I do say so myself. :)
--
Troy Piggins
Mark Thomas
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
>> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
>> whole post.
>> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
>
> Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.
>
> I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
> number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?
>
Yep, c'mon, fair suck of the sauce bottle, Johnno!! - Rusty's as
true-blue dinky-di Aussie as they come, cobber. And he can take pichas,
too.
Yer lookin' a bit like a drongo, and flappin ya mouth like a dunny-door
in a high wind, mate - direct ya policin' towards that Thong idiot (who
wouldn't know what a real thong was even if it was slapped in her face,
by crikey) and them other wankers who *wanna* be dinkum, but wouldn't
know a goanna from a wombat even if it ran up their daks...
Coo-ee!
Atheist Chaplain
news:gq769k$qp2$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
how many colloquialisms can you fit in one paragraph ??
LOL
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Rich
PixelPix
> Exchange it for an entry-level DSLR.
Nah... still way too big when waterproofed. I did consider that
though.
Cheers
Rusty
Stephen Henning
>
> As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10.... so
> I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
> for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.
>
> I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
> account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes. :-( I
> will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.
>
> Rusty
It would make more sense if he mentioned what a Waverunner is and what
DXO is.
The Waverunner is something that requires a water tight camera and
apparently a jet ski, but DXO was a big question mark.
I went to their website (dxo.com) and:
DxO Optics Pro is an award winning automatic image enhancement software
for professional and enthusiastic amateur photographers, capable of
handling JPEG as well as RAW files.
World renowned for its unique automated optical correction features, it
addresses the entire spectrum of image quality issues.
Whether you want to let the software enhance hundreds of pictures
automatically, or wish to manually define the settings for each image,
DxO Optics Pro will meet your needs for outstanding image quality and
productivity.
It has modules that are camera specific.
It has Windows and Mac versions. It is French. Pricing starts at 124
Euros or US$169.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
PixelPix
> In article m...@potd.com.au wrote:
>
> > As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10.... so
> > I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
> > for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.
>
> > I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
> > account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes. :-( I
> > will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.
>
> > Rusty
>
> It would make more sense if he mentioned what a Waverunner is and what
> DXO is.
>
> The Waverunner is something that requires a water tight camera and
> apparently a jet ski,
I figured that would be a given for most.
> but DXO was a big question mark.
Considering that I said the following....
"If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion
programs
treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other
benefits
that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
sharpness etc."
....I would have thought it obvious that it was a RAW conversion
application?
John McWilliams
Absofreakin'lutely! That was brilliant, but he left out billabong and
prang, and .........
Above all, I didn't want this to turn into a them vs. us deal.
--
john mcwilliams
Dave Cohen
And even if you had, would the results you posted have been any better.
It's a little tiring to be continually bombarded by individual
prejudices, there are pros and cons for each type and we've heard all
the arguments. I liked your pics.
Dave Cohen
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
[snip]
>Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
>thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
>testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
>followed some simple rules....
Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
complement my SLR.
I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
own) should do the job perfectly.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
Wally
It wasn't obvious to me? And there is no need for the question mark?
Wally?
Wally
Colin.D
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), ma...@potd.com.au wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
>> thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
>> testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
>> followed some simple rules....
>
> Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
> complement my SLR.
>
> I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
> own) should do the job perfectly.
The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to find the
lens and camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that
combo. There are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you
download the ones relevant to your gear.
You can set levels of highlight recovery, and numerous other parameters,
or you can just use the defaults. It even does noise reduction based on
the exact characteristics of the sensor in your camera.
The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it
to start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory,
it processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images
at once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I
have done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.
I can vouch for the results. I have used DxO for years and would not be
without it. It can make mediocre consumer lenses look like L class
lenses by correcting barrel/pincushioning, chromatic aberration, lens
softness and other failings.
PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual
operation. I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but
then it is not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.
HTH
Colin D.
Dudley Hanks
"Colin.D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:gq92cs$fu3$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I want this program...
Take Care,
Dudley
PixelPix
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, in rec.photo.digital "Colin.D"
>
> <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
> >you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to find the
> >lens and camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that
> >combo. There are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you
> >download the ones relevant to your gear.
>
> different lens module for each lens you used?
Yes. There are just two levels now, the first covers consumer cams
while the second adds the pro levels cams. They have a list on their
website that covers what cam is in what.
Cheers
Rusty
DRS
news:c7b26f63-d038-4677...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com
What happens when their list doesn't include your lens(es)?
PixelPix
> "PixelPix" <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message
Then you are stuffed unfortunately. :-( I use a number of Olympus
OM lenses on my 1Ds2 and it would be great if they did the math on
that combination, but sadly that will never happen.
Cheers
Rusty
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:
>Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), ma...@potd.com.au wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
>> own) should do the job perfectly.
>
>The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
[snip]
>The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it
>to start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
>intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory,
>it processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images
>at once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I
>have done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.
[snip]
>PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual
>operation. I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but
>then it is not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.
Sorry, I meant Photoshop CS4, not PS4! DxO sounds good...I don't
batch many photos, preferring to work on each individual photo.
Running PTLens is no big step as a Photoshop filter as part of my
workflow.I've got something that works for me now, and I don't feel
the need to update at the present time. Perhaps in the future! Do DxO
have a trial version? Definitely worth a look.
Thanks.
PixelPix
in-...@lineone.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, "Colin.D" <nos...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
Yes DXO has a trial version... it can even be extended once it runs
out. It's cool if you have a workflow that you are happy with, but
the problem for me with Photoshop for RAW conversions, is that the
image quality it produces has always been sub-par with other
applications such as DXO or Capture One..... just my experience.
Chers
Rusty
Noons
>
> What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
> including other names you may have used here.
>
It's about photography equipment and its use.
Something fuckwits like you know nothing about, so stay out of it.
George Kerby
On 3/25/09 5:34 AM, in article gqd0um$t1$1...@news.motzarella.org, "Noons"
<wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Nice. Real nice. Thanks for the informative and thoughtful post.
Annika1980
> I went to their website (dxo.com) and:
>
> DxO Optics Pro is an award winning automatic image enhancement software
> for professional and enthusiastic amateur photographers, capable of
> handling JPEG as well as RAW files.
>
> World renowned for its unique automated optical correction features, it
> addresses the entire spectrum of image quality issues.
>
> Whether you want to let the software enhance hundreds of pictures
> automatically, or wish to manually define the settings for each image,
> DxO Optics Pro will meet your needs for outstanding image quality and
> productivity.
>
> It has modules that are camera specific.
>
> It has Windows and Mac versions. It is French. Pricing starts at 124
> Euros or US$169.
They could have shortened all that to "DxO is a piece of crap
software!"
Robert Coe
: Exchange it for an entry-level DSLR.
You didn't actually read Rusty's article, did you? You just read the title.
Bob
Robert Coe
I'd never heard of it, but I'm intrigued by Rusty's assertion that it's better
than DPP. I use DPP on RAW files produced by my 50D and 400D and have been
impressed with its performance and ease of use. Does anyone else have an
opinion on the relative merits of the two programs? Bret pronounced DXO a
piece of crap, but didn't elaborate.
Bob