Comparison shot of G10 & 40D today

[RobertZ]

I know this is an unscientific comparison but I took this pic with a G10 and the other with a 40D and 24-70L. Gotta love the G10!

40D:1/20 f/20 ISO 400
G10:1/20 f/8 ISO 80 - - - ->don't bother questioning why I didn't go with ISO 400 :lol:

Both shot in RAW and processed with DPP

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9712/waterfallq.jpg



http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3986/waterfall40d.jpg

[denncald]

Nice images. Did you use a tripod with the G10? I've taken lots of shots with my G9 at 1/20 sec, but a tripod can add a little more sharpness due to my normal movements. Just curious.

Dennis

[RobertZ]

I was holding the camera still on a wood fence to minimize, but not eliminate, shake. Handholding would have been tough with either at 1/20. Today was also an overcast day here so light was not optimal. I was just comparing these to state that I really like the G cameras even with their flaws. My biggest gripe is the handling of moderately high ISO and poor video (compared to competitors). With standard size prints (smaller than 8x10) I can't really see a difference in any of my cameras as long as there is adequate light.

[denncald]

I still like my G9, but there are times I wish it too could do better at high ISO, dynamic range, etc. But, I'm trying to avoid going to a DSLR and all the heavy lifting and major costs. I'm retired and want to stay with something small and convenient. Unfortunately, I've also added the Canon wide and tele converters, the EX430 II flash, filters, and off-camera cord. Now I use a DSLR bag to carry it all, when I want it all. Otherwise, I just use a belt bag for the camera.

I'm being tempted now by the new EP-1 and GF-1 cameras. Who knows if I will finally give in to a "larger" image sensor???

Dennis

[gofer]

Nice comparison Robert and very nice shot but I see I'm not the only one who has problems with the G10 'blowing' the whites. Although I wouldn't be without my G10 I have never been totally happy with the effort I have to put in trying to get it to preserve detail in any white areas. With reference to your pictures, look at the area where the water from the falls hit the pond - especially with the waterfall on the right of the picture. Also look at the areas at the head of the waterfalls. Detail in 'whites' of both these areas has been very much compromised in comparison to the shot taken with the 40D. Personally, I think you've gotta love the 40D! ;)

[gcogger]

Nice comparison Robert and very nice shot but I see I'm not the only one who has problems with the G10 'blowing' the whites. Although I wouldn't be without my G10 I have never been totally happy with the effort I have to put in trying to get it to preserve detail in any white areas. With reference to your pictures, look at the area where the water from the falls hit the pond - especially with the waterfall on the right of the picture. Also look at the areas at the head of the waterfalls. Detail in 'whites' of both these areas has been very much compromised in comparison to the shot taken with the 40D. Personally, I think you've gotta love the 40D! ;)

It looks like the default processing of the G10 has much more contrast than the 40D, and that's the sort of thing that can easily blow highlights. That makes it a little hard to compare (although I'd expect the 40D to have more leeway for highlight recovery if shot RAW).

To the OP: you'll probably find you get sharper shots if you shoot the G10 around f/2.8-4. At f/8 images from a G10 are quite badly softened by diffraction, although it's not obvious on a reduced size image such as the one posted. A wider aperture would still give plenty of DOF, and allow a higher shutter speed as well. (Even the 40D is diffraction limited at f/20 - try keeping that to f/11 or wider for the absolute sharpest shots). There are plenty of discussions on the forum about diffraction, so may be worth a search if you are interested.

[blu82]

It looks to me like the first shot had brighter natural light than the second.
I think the blown out white areas could be somewhat due to this. If you look at the darker part of the water in each there appears to be brighter sunny patches in the first shot.

[CJinAustin]

Looks like the G10 has about a stop less dynamic range than the 40d at iso 400.
Of course the 40D will have an even broader DR at iso 100 because you lose dynamic range as you raise iso.... nice comparison though.

[Bernoulli]

I'm going to offer a comparison I posted some months ago in another forum. It's a 50D vs. a SD990 point-and-shoot which, I'm told, has the same sensor as a G10. I was trying to see how bad the added noise was from the smaller camera.

[CJinAustin]

iso-200 holds up pretty well against the 50d...

[RobertZ]

BTW, if anyone does not know, the first shot was G10 and second the 40D. I forgot to label the pics but G cam owners will recognize the blown out whites that reveal which is the G10.

[Bernoulli]

I have both a 50D and a G10 and, if you shoot outside at ISO 200 using RAW on the G10, you really can't tell much difference. It's that good a camera. For outdoors vacations, I leave the 50 at home and pack the G10, especially for overseas trips.

You can blow highlights with any camera, and most tend to overexpose a little for my tastes. I shoot with the G10 on program and dial back the exposure either 2/3 or a full stop and shoot my 50 outside on Av and dial back maybe a little less.

[cmdisme]

Very nice comparison and what I was looking for. I've been pondering G10 vs Rebel +Sigma 18-125 lately. I know one will have higher IQ but the other is more likely to be carried. I'm just casual shooter with little interest (and no funds) for multiple lenses. Post more if you have them!

[stathunter]

I had the G10 -- great camera but I sent it back -- I was not happy with the low light performance and for me was a bit awkward to hold - if the it worked better for iso 400 or higher I would have kept it -- but for me too much noise moving to even medium light.

[CJinAustin]

This type of comparison can be a little misleading. Dynamic range decreases as you increase iso... both cameras should be set to the same iso if we are going to compare dynamic range. I realize the DSLR has more DR in this comparison, but I suspect it has even more of a lead if it were set at iso 100.

[denncald]

Why not head over to the Comparometer (http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM)and see for yourself, at any ISO you want?

Denins

[Tee Why]

Just a caveat hand held shot (with the camera resting on a fence) at 1/20 with a 24-70mm lens at f20 would probably induce diffraction and camera shake.

Consider faster shutter speeds or a tripod, equal ISOs, a more midrange apertures that won't have as much diffraction.

Also a larger section of the image would tell more of the story as the images are not at a good "pixel peeping" level. 100% crop is the usual standard among pixel peepers.

[gcogger]

This type of comparison can be a little misleading. Dynamic range decreases as you increase iso... both cameras should be set to the same iso if we are going to compare dynamic range. I realize the DSLR has more DR in this comparison, but I suspect it has even more of a lead if it were set at iso 100.

dpreview have done some measurements of the 40Ds dynamic range at different ISOs - see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS40D/page20.asp

The 40D seems to hold up well at higher ISO settings, losing only 0.2EV between ISO100 and ISO1600.

[CJinAustin]

dpreview have done some measurements of the 40Ds dynamic range at different ISOs - see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS40D/page20.asp

The 40D seems to hold up well at higher ISO settings, losing only 0.2EV between ISO100 and ISO1600.

Is that the same thing as Dynamic Range?

[gcogger]

Is that the same thing as Dynamic Range?

I'm not sure what you mean ???

I'm referring to the section titled "ISO sensitivity and dynamic range" where they show dynamic range figures and state "The EOS 40D produced a fairly consistent nine stops (around 9 EV) of dynamic range from ISO 100 to 1600".

[2mnycars]

I still like my G9, but there are times I wish it too could do better at high ISO, dynamic range, etc. But, I'm trying to avoid going to a DSLR and all the heavy lifting and major costs. I'm retired and want to stay with something small and convenient. Unfortunately, I've also added the Canon wide and tele converters, the EX430 II flash, filters, and off-camera cord. Now I use a DSLR bag to carry it all, when I want it all. Otherwise, I just use a belt bag for the camera.

I'm being tempted now by the new EP-1 and GF-1 cameras. Who knows if I will finally give in to a "larger" image sensor???

Dennis

Dennis, Thom Hogan has written a review of the EP-1. Similar sentiments at Luminous Landscape. Sorry, no links.
DaveL
Toronto

[2mnycars]

I truly appreciate you posting these images. It's great to see that the P&S is capable of in your hands.

I have a g9 and feel it is a very capable camera. I enjoy it almost as much as my favourite all time camera, my M3.

Regards,
DaveL

[CJinAustin]

I'm not sure what you mean ???

I'm referring to the section titled "ISO sensitivity and dynamic range" where they show dynamic range figures and state "The EOS 40D produced a fairly consistent nine stops (around 9 EV) of dynamic range from ISO 100 to 1600".

Sorry, I see what you were saying now.

It's kind of odd... this site gives the 40D a much wider range. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

[gcogger]

It's kind of odd... this site gives the 40D a much wider range. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

Odd - different ways of measuring it, I guess? In the dpreview article, he mentions that using Highlight tone priority gains another 0.9 EV at the top, which puts it close to the dxomark results. I've done a bit of digging into what HTP does, and I still don't know if it will help with overall dynamic range, though, and whether dxomark have it switched on for the test!