Luminous Landscape G10 to Medium Format Comparison

[lungdoc]

Interesting reading. Just recommended a G10 to my niece who's a keen 13 year old photographer and will be her first "serious" camera - this article should make her happy.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

For those not wanting to follow the link he took same shot of a fall foliage shot with G10 and a Hasselblad with digital back 39MP. On 13x9 prints a large group of experts couldn't pick which camera had taken which picture. Obviously all usual caveats apply but fairly impressive for a compact camera.

[bsmotril]

Great read. Thanks for the link !!

[5Dmaniac]

Great- I am expecting my G10 today - can't wait to take it out for a test drive. This should be fun!

[alexpix]

I have had mine about a week and everything said is on the mark. Sure wish Aperture could handle the RAW files.

Enjoy yours,
Steven

[verdantsound]

yeah but was that an easy landscape or a low light action shot. Not that I'm saying a landscape is easy, but there are stuff that the G10 can't do.

[lefturn99]

Easy landscape. It was an interesting experiment under ideal conditions. I don't think we need to read more than that into it, but it makes a good thread starter, huh?

[cdifoto]

You don't even need a G10 to do an easy landscape in ideal conditions...

[olz]

That's such a weird comparison, and I don't really see the point! And those pictures?

[Jethro790]

Originally Posted by olz

That's such a weird comparison, and I don't really see the point! And those pictures?

There was no point- UNTIL he started comparing, and it appears that there ABSOLUTELY is a point! I'm going out to buy a G10 tomorrow, can't wait to throw my Hassy H2 in the river!

[lungdoc]

I think the point is fairly simple: that a modern quality compact camera is capable of extremely good output that even experts cannot distinguish (at a reasonably large print size) from the best equipment money can buy. Granted this is in bright conditions without handling issues, cropping etc. but the mere fact of the comparison is still fairly amazing - and I'd say unimaginable a few years ago or in the film era.

[olz]

I know - perhaps I'm just surprised that he's surprised, and perhaps he's just better at judging and reviewing images (and equipment) than taking them.

And Jethro - just throw that Hassy my way instead.

[roli_bark]

13 x 9 prints, if printed at 300 DPI, are 3900 x 2700 pixels [10.5MP]. The G10 is a near 15MP pixel camera. So , at this pixel print resolution [3900 x 2700 ] all depends on the quality of the external Printing SW, i.e. - its interpolation process quality. Not on camera's.

All-in-all - nothing surprises me here. IMHO - Medium size camera are still superior at larger print size.

[roli_bark]

At a 2nd look at Michael Reichman site, it looks that the prints size used were 13 * 19.

[roli_bark]

Originally Posted by lungdoc

.... On 13x9 prints a large group of experts couldn't pick which camera had taken which picture. Obviously all usual caveats apply but fairly impressive for a compact camera.

Wrong ! - the print size used for the comparison were 13 * 19 !!!

[lungdoc]

Sorry - my bad. I suspect relatively few of us make prints larger than that very often.