Canon G10 why? when will this end?

[dwl017]

I really don't understand this age old pixel war using the same old small senors :confused: 14+ mega pixels with the same old small senor what a joke!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp

Its money wasted!

[shfreelance]

Hmmm, it looks like it will be much better to grip then my G9. But I will stick with the G9, I don't see much more benefits. I plain on purchasing a Canon 50D, so this will be my heavy lifting camera. While the G9 will be an everyday, social camera. That being said, I don't see any benefits.

[CrackedButter]

I really don't understand this age old pixel war using the same old small senors :confused: 14+ mega pixels with the same old small senor what a joke!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp

Its money wasted!

It's a good job you're not buying one then isn't it?

[dwl017]

Hmmm, it looks like it will be much better to grip then my G9. But I will stick with the G9, I don't see much more benefits. I plain on purchasing a Canon 50D, so this will be my heavy lifting camera. While the G9 will be an everyday, social camera. That being said, I don't see any benefits.

Looking at the specs I also don't see any significant performance jump to rush out and get the G10 I guess its that time of year again holiday shopping season right around the corner so..... :rolleyes:

[Westside guy]

Wow, 14+ megapixels... it's a better camera than my D700!! :D:eek::rolleyes::p

Yes, I'm kidding.

Yes, I agree - this is just ludicrous.

[troyhark]

My S70 finally died a couple of weeks back. Seeing as there is very little choice when it comes to compact RAW cameras with WA lenses I ended up with a Ricoh GX200. 12MP and the image quality at 64ISO is way inferior to my old canon at 200ISO. Really do not like the results. Very noisy + I like grain. The previous version with less MP was much better IQ, shame it was too slow to be of any use.
I hope the Canon is not the same colour speckly mess.

[Phrasikleia]

This is nuts, unless Canon pulled some miracle sensor out of a hat. I think the question "when will it stop" is a good one. At some point the majority of people purchasing new cameras have to realize that their image quality is getting worse, not better (as troyhark just did). I suppose it will take a special feature on 60 Minutes, an expose that cries foul at the camera industry: "The Shocking Truth about Megapixels: Less is More!" or some such thing. Eh...that probably won't work either.

[jessica.]

My S70 finally died a couple of weeks back. Seeing as there is very little choice when it comes to compact RAW cameras with WA lenses I ended up with a Ricoh GX200. 12MP and the image quality at 64ISO is way inferior to my old canon at 200ISO. Really do not like the results. Very noisy + I like grain. The previous version with less MP was much better IQ, shame it was too slow to be of any use.
I hope the Canon is not the same colour speckly mess.

There are countless reviews that support your claims. When looking for a compact P&S I considered a few. Ricoh by far had the worst noise out of three I considered. My choices were also limited because I insisted on being able to shoot RAW.

Onto the G10. First, anyone crying that the whole industry should be exposed and people should be informed that more MP doesn't equal quality needs to get out more. This is an argument that I can safely say has been voiced for well over 5 years industry wide. That said, you'd have to be a complete goon to think that somehow a 14 MP P&S is going to produce images with acceptable noise without some in-camera post processing. In the end you will see sharpness degrade as the noise filter will undoubtedly have to pass through a couple of times to reduce noise. The G9 actually has done well with noise, as well as I expect it to. The only thing the G10 gives me that I would like to have is the 28mm lens and the grip. For under $20.00 I have a grip for my G9 and for less than the price of the G10 I can have a 26-28mm wide angle. Yes, it's heavy and it's an attachment, but it's still easier and cheaper than buying a whole new camera and having to deal with 14MP on a small sensor. :)

The question of "when will this end" is a fantastic one. The answer is probably never. I think technology will wow us and we'll see some way of reducing noise in-camera without losing too much detail, but in the end, I think the higher MP need to be left to the full frame DSLRs.

[miloblithe]

It's a matter of marketing.

Eventually someone will figure out how to market higher image quality successfully to consumers, not just enthusiasts and pros. It's a lot like the megahertz myth of years ago. Of course, I guess now we're running the danger of experiencing some kind of multi-core myth eventually, but people have come to understand that megahertz isn't everything.

[shfreelance]

There are countless reviews that support your claims. When looking for a compact P&S I considered a few. Ricoh by far had the worst noise out of three I considered. My choices were also limited because I insisted on being able to shoot RAW.

Onto the G10. First, anyone crying that the whole industry should be exposed and people should be informed that more MP doesn't equal quality needs to get out more. This is an argument that I can safely say has been voiced for well over 5 years industry wide. That said, you'd have to be a complete goon to think that somehow a 14 MP P&S is going to produce images with acceptable noise without some in-camera post processing. In the end you will see sharpness degrade as the noise filter will undoubtedly have to pass through a couple of times to reduce noise. The G9 actually has done well with noise, as well as I expect it to. The only thing the G10 gives me that I would like to have is the 28mm lens and the grip. For under $20.00 I have a grip for my G9 and for less than the price of the G10 I can have a 26-28mm wide angle. Yes, it's heavy and it's an attachment, but it's still easier and cheaper than buying a whole new camera and having to deal with 14MP on a small sensor. :)

The question of "when will this end" is a fantastic one. The answer is probably never. I think technology will wow us and we'll see some way of reducing noise in-camera without losing too much detail, but in the end, I think the higher MP need to be left to the full frame DSLRs.

I forgot to mention... The grip and the lens are the only true upgrades. Also the dedicated AE compensation dial, is more of an luxury then an upgrade (Nice, I may add). But still not worth be selling my G9 and smacking a few more dollars down. Unless DIGIC 4 is really that much better over DIGIC 3?

Of course, I guess now we're running the danger of experiencing some kind of multi-core myth eventually, but people have come to understand that megahertz isn't everything.

I feel that is already happening, all my friends brag about cores. More then they do the other qualifications of the processor.

[Phrasikleia]

First, anyone crying that the whole industry should be exposed and people should be informed that more MP doesn't equal quality needs to get out more. This is an argument that I can safely say has been voiced for well over 5 years industry wide. That said, you'd have to be a complete goon to think that somehow a 14 MP P&S is going to produce images with acceptable noise without some in-camera post processing.

You can't be serious. Yes, those of us who would post on an internet photography forum have known for years about the reality of mexapixels, but your average consumer clearly does not, which is why the marketing scheme works and is perpetuating the problem. It was just over a year ago that the New York Times published an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html) about it, clearly venturing into the realm of controversy.

If you haven't heard anyone use megapixels "as a handy one-digit comparison score" (to borrow a phrase from the NYT), then perhaps it is you who needs to get out more.

[valiar]

On another note, now is the time to buy a G9 if you don't have one yet.
I am definitely going to pricegrabber.com in the next couple of weeks to try and score a nice deal on the "obsolete" G9.

[shfreelance]

On another note, now is the time to buy a G9 if you don't have one yet.
I am definitely going to pricegrabber.com in the next couple of weeks to try and score a nice deal on the "obsolete" G9.

Very well worth the money, perfect P&S camera. Also if you are use to carrying a DSLR, the G9 will feel tiny in your hands.

[troyhark]

You can't be serious. Yes, those of us who would post on an internet photography forum have known for years about the reality of mexapixels, but your average consumer clearly does not, which is why the marketing scheme works and is perpetuating the problem. It was just over a year ago that the New York Times published an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html) about it, clearly venturing into the realm of controversy.Shame it was such a poor test, as it completely ignored the problem that we are commenting on here, that increasing the resolution on smaller chips makes the image noticably worse. All the pictures were produced on good cameras and either cropped to size or down-resed.
So although it tried to tackle issue, it did so in a completely meaningless way.

[Phrasikleia]

Shame it was such a poor test, as it completely ignored the problem that we are commenting on here, that increasing the resolution on smaller chips makes the image noticably worse. All the pictures were produced on good cameras and either cropped to size or down-resed.
So although it tried to tackle issue, it did so in a completely meaningless way.

Yup, which really goes to prove the point: people by and large are not informed about the quality issues regarding megapixels.

[volvoben]

The megapixel myth has started filtering down past the best informed camera buyers....but slooooowly.

at least 90% of consumers looking for a camera will let pixel count into their top one or two factors...but some folks are starting to look at other things. I get a lot of 'what camera should i buy for...' questions, and a few people have recently impressed me with their understanding of megapixels being largely marketing-driven...

I'll admit I enjoy telling people that if you don't crop your photos and don't print past 4x6" they'll never see a difference above 2 megapixels.

I then have to explain that I print 20x30" regularly and therefore do have some use for higher pixel counts.

baby steps...baby steps.

EDIT: I'll also note that the G10 would be a better camera with a sharp 6 megapixel sensor with decent ISO800 noise, but it does seem to be an improvement due to the 28mm wide end and nicer grip...it's very hard to get a wide end on a compact camera these days...the Nikon 14-24mm is just a smiiiiiidge tough to carry around when hiking and such...

[Col127]

yeah, it's the MP race... aside from that, the g10 looks like it's got some great features :)

I really don't understand this age old pixel war using the same old small senors :confused: 14+ mega pixels with the same old small senor what a joke!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp

Its money wasted!

[MBX]

So anybody know if the G10 will be worth the money?

I don't want to make the same mistake as with my Lumix DMC-FX150 (14.7MP) that i just returned today. It was totally noisy and ****** raw quality.

Could the G10 spot better sensors that is better in quality with this higher MP-count?

[shfreelance]

So anybody know if the G10 will be worth the money?

I don't want to make the same mistake as with my Lumix DMC-FX150 (14.7MP) that i just returned today. It was totally noisy and ****** raw quality.

Could the G10 spot better sensors that is better in quality with this higher MP-count?

I still say stand with the G9...

[tinfai]

EDIT: I'll also note that the G10 would be a better camera with a sharp 6 megapixel sensor with decent ISO800 noise...


Agreed. Some of my favorite images came from a 5.0 MP camera (Digilux 2).

[tony-in-japan]

The question of "when will this end" is a fantastic one. The answer is probably never.

I disagree. Although mps will always increase to some level each year, I think there can be an end to companies focusing on increasing mps to market their products. I just cannot see it continuing in the longterm.

There has to be a ‘critical-mass’ if adding more mps onto the same size-sensor really does degrade the image. Those seasonal compact consumers will enventually click by being able to compare their photos to previous models to get to their own truths through experience.

A big question is: will you switch to support those companies that have already ended the focus on ‘just increasing megapixels’? If you want the change to happen quicker, you should stop funding those companies that are still stuck in the old paradigm (and that includes buying a cheap G9). Look at the Panasonic Lumix LX3 instead. This camera has stuck with 10mp rather than matching the 13-15mp of the Nikons and Canons. What P&S user needs 15mp anyway? I use a DSLR and I don’t even need 15mp!

[atort13]

And why would the new Canon G10 be a waste of money and "ludicrous"?? Why, because you do not understand how people would benefit from such a camera so therefore it must be no good? That makes a ton of sense. The G9 is indeed the PRO point and shoot that working professionals carry around with them and even Annie Leibowitz carries with one wherever she goes and am sure she would agree that the new G10 is a big improvement with a wider angle lens, higher MP count regardless of people not understanding why photographers would want that, and an overall better camera. Many pros do print larger prints even from their G9's and now G10's and many submit to big stock agencies such as Getty and Corbis and they have very high standards in regards to files and file quality. People should stop for a second and think outside their little box and understand that just because you cannot find a reason to justify buying it MANY do and will. The norm of people I know shooting all shoot anywhere from 21MP to 39MP cameras and backs and that is the norm in the circle of photographers I am around so 15MP is really still nowhere near a big deal and NOT ludicrous at all and not a joke! The larger MP cameras and backs are not for bragging rights, but for having the best possible file to work with when retouching, printing, and delivering to big clients knowing they get the biggest bang for their buck.

[Westside guy]

And why would the new Canon G10 be a waste of money and "ludicrous"?? Why, because you do not understand how people would benefit from such a camera so therefore it must be no good? That makes a ton of sense. The G9 is indeed the PRO point and shoot that working professionals carry around with them and even Annie Leibowitz carries with one wherever she goes and am sure she would agree that the new G10 is a big improvement with a wider angle lens, higher MP count regardless of people not understanding why photographers would want that, and an overall better camera. Many pros do print larger prints even from their G9's and now G10's and many submit to big stock agencies such as Getty and Corbis and they have very high standards in regards to files and file quality. People should stop for a second and think outside their little box and understand that just because you cannot find a reason to justify buying it MANY do and will. The norm of people I know shooting all shoot anywhere from 21MP to 39MP cameras and backs and that is the norm in the circle of photographers I am around so 15MP is really still nowhere near a big deal and NOT ludicrous at all and not a joke! The larger MP cameras and backs are not for bragging rights, but for having the best possible file to work with when retouching, printing, and delivering to big clients knowing they get the biggest bang for their buck.

You've pretty obviously missed the whole point of this discussion. You might find it worthwhile to go do some reading on diffraction and how it applies to sensor/photosite size.

[legacyb4]

Get Richard Franiec's custom grip for the G9:

http://kleptography.com/rf/

http://www.kleptography.com/dl/g9/grip-angle.jpg

It's inexpensive and literally makes your camera feel like it should have from day one.

Hmmm, it looks like it will be much better to grip then my G9. But I will stick with the G9, I don't see much more benefits. I plain on purchasing a Canon 50D, so this will be my heavy lifting camera. While the G9 will be an everyday, social camera. That being said, I don't see any benefits.

[Phil A.]

On another note, now is the time to buy a G9 if you don't have one yet.
I am definitely going to pricegrabber.com in the next couple of weeks to try and score a nice deal on the "obsolete" G9.

Completely agree - I picked up a G9 for £300 (G10 will be £440) and it is a superb P+S camera to use when my D200 would be too big to carry around.

[tinfai]

You've pretty obviously missed the whole point of this discussion. You might find it worthwhile to go do some reading on diffraction and how it applies to sensor/photosite size.

Interested to hear about your time with the D700. Seems to be a real winner from Nikon.

[wheelhot]

G11, 20 megapixel!!!!

Haha, last time when I don't care about photography much, I thought that more megapixel is better but now I realize that megapixel is not that much of a deal because a D40 will blow away an image taken by a Oly FE-320.
D40 - 5 megapixel (I used my fren DSLR)
FE-320 - 8 megapixel

Somehow I regret playing with DSLR because its soo much fun compared to PnS. :eek:

[troyhark]

And why would the new Canon G10 be a waste of money and "ludicrous"?? Why, because you do not understand how people would ......................<Snip>.............The larger MP cameras and backs are not for bragging rights, but for having the best possible file to work with when retouching, printing, and delivering to big clients knowing they get the biggest bang for their buck.Swallowed the marketing BS hook , line and sinker, it would seem. Having the best possible file means using a camera with a bigger sensor, not cramming even more pixels onto a stupidly small sensor.
I have a compact which is double the MP of a previous compact and yet the picture quality is no better and is also pretty useless above 100 ISO, despite going to 1600 ISO.

[Phrasikleia]

The larger MP cameras and backs are not for bragging rights, but for having the best possible file to work with when retouching, printing, and delivering to big clients knowing they get the biggest bang for their buck.

Yeah, as others have said, you're missing the point about sensor size and MP. Cramming that many MP on a tiny sensor increases noise greatly. It will NOT produce "the best file possible", quite the opposite. For your reference:

(Click to enlarge)

http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/DSLRsensors.png

The tiny boxes at the bottom are Point-and-Shoot sensors.

[wheelhot]

Wow, that's interesting, PnS sensor is soo puny, that explains why the photo I took with my PnS today even with 5 megapixel looks very bad when zoomed in.

[shfreelance]

Get Richard Franiec's custom grip for the G9:

http://kleptography.com/rf/

http://www.kleptography.com/dl/g9/grip-angle.jpg

It's inexpensive and literally makes your camera feel like it should have from day one.

Thanks, I will order that and maybe an extra lens.

Also for others, the only reason I have ordered a G9. Is at concerts/shows that don't allow DSLR's and lenses. But they allow P&S, I could easily get this prograde P&S through security. They are really great at events like this and from day to day use.

[wheelhot]

I have a compact which is double the MP of a previous compact and yet the picture quality is no better and is also pretty useless above 100 ISO, despite going to 1600 ISO.

Yeah I realize that, a PnS using higher ISO then 100 will get super grainy pictures.

Beside correct me if im wrong but in beginners DSLR, I see that most DSLRs produce average photo quality at ISO 1600 and considerable poor quality at ISO 3200, some entry level DSLRs max its ISO at 1600 (XSi if Im not mistaken and some others), so I guess for beginner a ISO 3200 is not a must have ISO considering the poor quality it produces?

[seattle]

I was able to get a Canon G9 a couple months ago through the Canon Loyalty program for $250 and I am very happy with it. I exchanged my old broken SD550 for it. The pictures are very good but nowhere near my DSLRs.

[Stratification]

Another issue that no-one has really brought up here is storing these larger images. With no real discernible advantage in image quality storing images is eating up hard-drive space that much faster. Yes you can get external drives for fairly cheap, but losing space faster for no benefit is certainly another downside.

[TheReef]

Another issue that no-one has really brought up here is storing these larger images. With no real discernible advantage in image quality storing images is eating up hard-drive space that much faster. Yes you can get external drives for fairly cheap, but losing space faster for no benefit is certainly another downside.

My Pentax K10D offers 10 MP, I only shoot at 6 MP, I don't notice the difference.

I only wish selecting 6 MP would magically decrease my pixel density.

[wheelhot]

Another issue that no-one has really brought up here is storing these larger images. With no real discernible advantage in image quality storing images is eating up hard-drive space that much faster. Yes you can get external drives for fairly cheap, but losing space faster for no benefit is certainly another downside.

Yup, that's why I use external hard drives because MP3s, pictures and videos is eating my my hard disk!!!