Point of ISO?

I don't disagree at all with the fact that a flash is great and useful, and maybe nearly essential, but it's not the only option, and in most of our cases, and especially mknabster's (no offense, but he seems pretty unclear on the concept of why noise happens and how the photographic process works) a little practice and research is more helpful than just hearing people tell you to spend $200+ on a flash, over and over again.

For instance, someone just posted that she(?) was having problems downloading photos from her S2IS. Not owning a PC or card reader, my suggestion to her would be "Buy a Mac G5 and Aperture" and that would fix the problem, but it's expensive, not the only (or even best) option, and doesn't solve her immediate problem, and she won't learn anything from it. That's all I'm saying. I just like to get the most out of what I have.

Bryan

I think the 420EX suggestion is quite acceptable because it is a good accessory to have. I have one (2 in fact) but to tell you the truth I rarely use it except in events (parties, get togethers) when I don't have much time to stabilize my camera for long exposures. I hate frontal flash and the flat, deer in the headlights effect it does so I bounce the light or diffuse it somehow with tissues ( I've lost 2 Stofen diffusers already).

That said, I am amused by dSLR users that offer the advice "upgrade to a dSLR your G camera is a toy". Particularly those who have not owned a G-series camera themselves, and base their opinion on having a lesser but still capable Canon P and S camera. I think it is just silly to make comments about a camera that they probably haven't even touched, much less learned. For the record, and I have mentioned this before, I do own own a dSLR and a quiver of lenses for it, but I still find that I prefer my G6 for certain situations, such as when I need a compact camera, I need stealth (it's great for street photography), and I need to hoist it up for unusual angles (pole photography). I can strap it onto my bike's handlebar, turn the intervalometer on and take interesting pictures, the list goes on.

Unfortunately the G6 is not too good in low light. Let me rephrase that - it is not too good when pushed to ISO 400, as it develops the aforementioned noise. What I can recommend is, to use a lower ISO (100 if you can, 200 in a pinch) and stabilize your camera by using a tripod or bracing it against something. Use the wider range to maximize handholdability. Switch to Manual or use Exposure Compensation to deliberately underexpose your pictures around 1 stop (up to 2 in a pinch) and shoot in RAW. The reason is that digital is forgiving up to +/- 2 EV and you cen use post processing to extract a good image. I would prefer underexposure because the details are preserved and will come out when exposure is compensated in post processing.

One more thing, interesting effects can be had when 'dragging the shutter'. This simply means firing the flash while taking a picture with a slow (around 1/30 or 1/60) shutter speed. This way your main subject will be properly illuminated, and due to the longish exposure time the background will be (hopefully) as well.

not sure what has got you in a tiff here but the day that you can say that a g6 is as capable in high iso situations, then i will agree that you can use the g6 for those pictures. but the truth is, the better sensors on the dslrs can handle noise much better tahn the p and s cameras. not a flame, just teh truth. why else would i spend more money? i was perfectly fine with all of the extra money in my bank account when i owned my p and s. and i wasnt lurking on your forum, i saw this post on teh main page and figured id give my advice. sorry wont happen again.

well it IS the right answer. the g6 is not as capable of handling noise as well as a larger sensor dslr. not sure why that sounds like im saying they are no good , just no good for low light situations. i was totally ahppy with my p and s, taht was before i got the dslr and realized what a difference there was.

Lol. I think this thread is getting hilarious. Looks like we all have to ditch our G-series cameras and get a dSLR then. Smittymike, if you want to extract the best performance from your dSLR, I would recommend getting the 17-40L, the 24-70L, and the 70-200L to maximize your camera's capabilities. I have all three and they work great. The kit lenses are good, and the 50/1.8 is great, I agree, but since speding money seems to be nothing for you, this is the way to go.

For the others, I apologize for getting off track. I'm just this way when someone who hasn't even handled a G-series camera makes dSLR recommendations.

here is the original post. i am speaking from experience when i say that i too was frustrated by high noise from the inferior sensor. sorry i know inferior is not a nice word, but it is what it is. if mknabster wants better performance in high iso situations, he will need to move to a dslr. its not insulting the very capable in good light g6, its just the facts.

And here is your reply, which implies that if one is serious about 'nice shots' one should ditch the G-series camera. I can point out serious pictures taken by G-cameras to you (Don's and Sdominn's come to mind) but I will leave it up to you to search.

4nR makes some pretty nice pictures with a G-series, too, I believe.

like i said i didnt realize i was posting in the g series forum else i would have been more careful of my wording. what is hould have siad was ' if you want some good lowlight shots, get a dslr"

i am one who believes taht it is not necessary to spend alot to get alot in all cases. what i do think is taht it is prolly easier to get good pics from a dslr as it is a better camera. however, a smart person and a g6 can beat a dumb person with a dslr.

sorry if i offended, but my genuine intention was to give real world advice, as i have been on both sides of the fence.

as far as your comments on the lenses, if i posted on a forum and said i was getting blurry shots and someone said you need to get a better lens (which i do) i wouldnt take it personally. its the truth, each piece of equipment has its limits and capabilities, its just a fact. we are talking equipment here not any thing personal.

To get back on topic of noise levels of "pixels jammed on a chip" P & S cameras, take a look at a "field report" at Luminous Landscape.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​cameras/lx1.shtml

Michael Reichmann looks at the Panasonic LX1 wide angle camera. He concedes that it has terrible noise but with noise removable software such as Noise Ninja he thinks the noise is livable.

I've got both a G2 and a DSLR as I'm sure many other people have too. The G2 is much worse in low light conditions as you would expect. I can get great shots with the G2 if the conditions are favourable, but the DSLR can cope with many more situations. The one thing the G2 has going for it is size and convenience and it's my weapon of choice for holiday snaps If you are serious about photography, you should really invest in a DSLR and keep the P&S for more casual shooting. They compliment each other very well

Oh well. Take a look at this: http://www.pbase.com/s​dommin/dixie04 (I hope sdominn doesn't mind). Looks like pretty serious stuff to me, beats shots of a red panda any day.

BottomBracket wrote:
Oh well. Take a look at this: http://www.pbase.com/s​dommin/dixie04 (I hope sdominn doesn't mind). Looks like pretty serious stuff to me, beats shots of a red panda any day.

I think you kind of missed my point. I use my G2 for those kind of shots pretty regularly and it's an excellent camera. The Red Panda was shot in poor light with a 300 mm IS. If I'd used my G2 it would have been a spec in the distance. Show me some sharp action shots with your G3 and I'll be more impressed.

See below. The top one was taken with a 20D in low light at ISO 800 @1/1000 sec with a 300 mm lens. Not possible with my G2 and certainly not with this little noise. The lower shot was taken with a G2 using a tree stump as a tripod. It would have looked pretty much the same with a DSLR. The 2 pictures are hardly comparable and neither are the cameras. If I wasn't interested in action or wildlife photography, maybe I could do without a DSLR, but as it is I really need both.

20D

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Ah, it is you who missed the point entirely. It is tiring to hear someone pipe in in this section of the forum and say 'get a dSLR for serious photography' as you did. The dSLR is a very versatile camera, with its many lenses and such, and that is its strength, and everyone acknowledges that. The G-series cameras are quite capable in themselves, and there are photographers here who use them as such, not just for holiday snaps.

The race car photo that you showed is irrelevant - taking such a picture would be difficult with the G cameras. But then again, I couldn't take the same picture with my Leica rangefinder, and neither can Ansel Adams' view camera do the subject justice. Would you lump them in the 'un-serious' camera category as well?

Anyway the original thread poster wanted to know more about the G6's ISO ratings, and I suspect that he was looking at the camera's capabilities rather than buy an entirely new camera.