G10 review on dpreview

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canong10/

[Q]
Conclusion - Cons

* Rather slow lens (in terms of aperture) by traditional G series standards
* No articulated LCD (another traditional G series feature)
* Price is very high considering other cameras in its class and low end DSLRs
* Some noise visible even at ISO 80, Noise Reduction effects start to creep in and smear detail from about ISO 200
* ISO 800 and 1600, though improved from the G9, are still so noisy (and soft) they're almost pointless, ISO 3200 very low resolution and complete waste of time
* Focus sometimes hunts in low light at longer focal lengths and in macro mode
* Continuous mode slightly slower than the G9
* Highlight clipping and metering issues in bright conditions (though to some degree fixable in RAW)
* Some chromatic aberration visible at wide end of zoom in all shots
* Focus speeds and shutter lag (when using LCD) could be better
[/Q]

Those are some pretty bad cons at this price range. They rated it noticeably lower than the LX3 in terms of ISO and lens performance.

So I guess the only thing the G10 really gives you is a longer zoom range, and makes a lot of compromises to get there compared to the LX3 (larger size, slower lens, higher price, worse ISO performance, worse movie recording ability, worse wide angle coverage, etc).

Excellent review. I love DPReview for saying it as it is, especially slamming it for not having traditional G-features such as a fast lens. Enthusiasts groan about these things and many reviewers tend to turn a blind eye to them - predominantly focusing on the pros.

They've also now degraded the rating for both recent Canon reviews for pushing the MP count too high (this and the 50D), which is fantastic. Hopefully some of these relatively negative reviews lately will kick Canon into action for the near future. We know it's not the engineers at fault for all these high-MP sensors, but rather their out-of-touch marketing posse. Here's to hoping for a 10-12MP G11 and an EOS 500D which is NOT 15.1MP.

Yeah.... it was a fairly lousy review for a camera that was so highly touted... but it seems like the crew at Luminious Landscape loves the G10 and finds it an exceptional tool for fine art work. I guess you either trust the critics or the people who actually use the tool to produce an end product. If you ask me, or look at what the LL guys have been able to do with the G10... I think the G10, while not perfect, is right at the top of the heap.

The DPR team still doesn't understand to compare noise at the same level of detail, thus giving inaccurate perceptions about noise.

As for the final rating, that's simply subjective, and, for the most part, meaningless. But people go to war over it. The DPR team wouldn't "Highly Recommend" the G10, but they would "Recommend" it. That's their prerogative, no?

joe mama wrote in post #6761648
The DPR team still doesn't understand to compare noise at the same level of detail, thus giving inaccurate perceptions about noise.
?

The valid point is that as the ISO rises the detail is lost in the G10 while the LX3 retains detail to the point where fewer megapixels have better resolution.
Resizing a G10 image to match a competitor won't give back what you've lost.

Even at ISO 80 I can tell you that my DLux 4 resolves landscapes ( jpegs ) almost as well as my 14 megapixel DSLR and Zeiss lens ; the fact is that P&S has moved on and Canon and Nikon haven't.
Cramming megapixels on a small sensor is not the way to quality.

There's nothing surprising about the review.
Look back at threads when the G10 specs were revealed and many of us predicted these results.
Clearly the G10 is a very good camera you just have to read the pro column to see that but times have changed and we have a right to expect more for what is a large sum of money.

I think I'll keep my G9 now!

Its my understanding that DPreview failed to do any RAW testing?

tinfire wrote in post #6761925
The valid point is that as the ISO rises the detail is lost in the G10 while the LX3 retains detail to the point where fewer megapixels have better resolution.
Resizing a G10 image to match a competitor won't give back what you've lost.

For sure, as the ISO rises, the resolution advantage wanes, but I've seen no evidence that the G10 ever has less resolution.

Have you seen Reichmann's article on that matter? Here's the link:

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

But there is no disadvantage. It's just that as the ISOs climb, the advantage lessens and eventually vanishes. So, more pixels are better, since at lower ISOs they give you more detail, but do not yield less detail at higher ISOs. And when noise is compared at the same level of detail, they are virtually identical (the LX3 "should" be a *little* better due to the larger sensor, however).

In any case, it makes no sense at all to me to decide between these digicams on the basis of IQ, as the differences are trivial. Far more important considerations are the lens range, camera size, lens cap, etc.,etc.

joe mama wrote in post #6763386
In any case, it makes no sense at all to me to decide between these digicams on the basis of IQ, as the differences are trivial. Far more important considerations are the lens range, camera size, lens cap, etc.,etc..

Agreed. I was a bit disappointed when I saw that review. I think they did a good job for the most part but did not agree with their conclusion. Also, some of the pictures were mediocre at best and I’m sure the camera can take better images than some of those posted.