G1 and G3 Shaper than G2

[drisley]

Hi,
I am considering buying either a G2 or G3.
I have seen side by side comparisons of the G2 and G3, and the G3 images always look sharper and more detailed.

I have also seen a few G1 galleries, and the images are incredibly sharp too.

Is the G2 just not as sharp as these two cameras?

[WSD223]

The G3 is supposed to have better signal processing than the G2, so the G3 should be sharper, everything else being equal. But the G2 is also supposed to have better processing than the G1, so the G2 should be sharper than the G1. The problem is in "everything else being equal". Focus, lighting, flash, etc. will all combine to affect sharpness. You will have to ask if any post processing was done, as in the sharpness filter in Photoshop or other PC programs.

[rrosener]

I agree with the former post that "sharpness" is a pretty subjective quality, particularly in digital photography. Images shot on a tripod, at ISO 50 in the RAW mode will be sharper than images not. JPEG format WILL add artifacts no matter what the compression is set to.
AND last but not least, the program used to sharpen the image will make a difference too. Photoshop's Unsharp Mask is the way to go.
The bottom line is that the G3 should be a bit sharper than the G2, but not that much more. Maybe by 25-40%. if you can find a good deal on the G3, go for it! But the G2 is likely to be alot cheaper now and nearly as good. Bottom line is that they're both 4 megapixel cameras. I get the feeling that the G3 is an interim model, and by late next summer Canon will have a 5-6 megapixel camera out for the same price....
It all depends on what you can afford. Either G2 or G3 will be more than enough camera for the serious photographer.

[HWStone]

From what I've seen on the forums there is very little difference between the G2 and G3 as they both use the same CCD. If anything, the G3 is apparently not as sharp as the G2 straight out of the camera because many users prefer to sharpen last after post processing. I have a G2 and yesterday took a shot of some daffodils in my garden after it had rained. I used ISO 50 and a tripod. If you can show me a sharper shot straight from the camera I'd be surprised; I was truly amazed by the definition. I bought a Canon because for the price I felt the photos were the sharpest, I certainly have nothing but praise for the results I'm getting with the G2. The only area I've heard that the G1 improves on the others is at IR photography. The very fact that it has an older 3.0 Megapixel sensor suggests that image quality will be inferior.

[kfoda]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with everybody but hwstone. The G3 by default produces softer images out of the camera compared to the G2. Quite a lot of people on various forums have complained about this fact. Debate was occuring as to whether this was a lens issue or not. ie. was the G3 lens not as good as the G2 lens.

Phil Askey of www.dpreview.com wrote "Immediately you can see a difference between the G2 and G3. Initial reaction is that the G3 is less sharp, but when examining the images for detail it's clear that the G3 is capable of resolving at least as much as the G2. The difference appears to be in the sharpening algorithms which do seem to be tuned to a slightly less aggressive level. This has also taken care of some of the 'white spot' sharpening artifacts observed by some G2 owners."

Of course anyone who does their own postprocessing probably is shooting in RAW format, converting with lowest sharpening anyway. Sharpening should always be done last in your digital workflow.

[rrosener]

I certainly agree with that asessment. Viewing digital Photos on a monitor is so subjective. It's curious how few people evaluate actual prints, or better yet, enlargements from digital images. And once again, there is the printer's interpolation to be taken into account. I have had a G2 since October, and I find the image quality outstanding. I was tempted to wait for the G3, but I got a fairly good deal on the G2. It's quite possible that the G3 lens is just not quite as sharp. Since it has a longer zoom range (which IS nice) there are more air/glass elements to diffuse the image. However, all the Canon cameras really outstrip the competition in color fidelity. Skin tones are particularly great. I was at a camera store Friday with my daughter. The lady next to us had a newborn baby (of course my 4 year-old had to make her aquaintance!) and was buying a digital camera. I asked her which one? "The Canon S45 of course, it has the best and most natural color." So even though we may split hairs about shrapness, the average viewer is not going to see it, but they WILL notice if the color is bad. Canon excels at this.