You Got To Be Kidding-Canon G10 vs. Hassy H2 and P45+

[bajasurf]

Luminous Landscape has a very interesting review concerning the Canon G10 whereas the author compares it in the field with his Hassslblad H2 medium format digital camera. Here is the link:

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

 

[Lost Canadian]

Very cool, and uber impressive. I wonder about the landscape comment though. Unless the G10 is light years better than the G9 in terms of dynamic range and tonalities I question how well it would compare in tougher lighting situations. I mean really, could one reproduce these images with a G10?

Still, for the price difference you really have to question the value of a Hassy for anyone other then the working pro with tons of money.

 

[bajasurf]

4x5

Lost, beautiful photos by Elizabeth. But I still believe that an older 4 x5 camera will out perform any digital available be it a Canon G10 or Hasselblad digital. Add the film size of 4x5 and the cost savings of $35,000 plus and the fact many photo magazine cover shots have been taken with a 4x5 speaks volumes. With the dollars saved buying a 4x5 we could buy a very decent off road rig to get us deep into Baja or hire a guide and horses to take us into canyons for photos of cave drawings dating back 1000's of years located in very remote parts of Baja.

 

[bigreen505]

No, digital beats 4x5 film, or at least matches it, but not the way most people shoot. An Arca 6x9 with Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses in front of a P45 or the new P65 will at the very least match 4x5 film when it comes to detail. Tonality is a different and more personal issue.

Now, a system like that will buy a heck of a lot of drum scans (remember that if you really want to compare apples to apples, 4x5 is the cost of film + processing + high-res drum scan).

I have not played with any raw files from a G10, but the images posted online are pretty impressive for a p&s. I definitely will be getting one in the spring, but mostly because my Canonet GIII has finally kicked it.

 

[bajasurf]

Green: May I offer you this link: www.georgeward.com

Mr. Ward has the cover shot for the November, 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine which he shot using a 4x5 camera and which I find quite amusing considering the magazine promotes mostly digital through their articles and advertisements. If you do go to George Ward's site be sure to read his bio and look at his portfolio.

 

[bigreen505]

Green: May I offer you this link: www.georgeward.com

Mr. Ward has the cover shot for the November, 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine which he shot using a 4x5 camera and which I find quite amusing considering the magazine promotes mostly digital through their articles and advertisements. If you do go to George Ward's site be sure to read his bio and look at his portfolio.

Love it! Those are stunning. I have nothing against 4x5, just to be clear. It doesn't really fit my particular style of shooting which is why I have shyed away from it, but it may be my next stop as I start to butt against some MF digital issues that I had not considered. Still, you asked about ultimate image quality and I think a P65 with a technical camera and digital lenses will at least match 4x5 film. Not sure it will match 8x10.

The only camera I have sold that I really miss is a Fuji 6x9. The problem with the camera is the speed and expense of film. First you buy it, then store it, the take it to get processed, then review it, then take it to get scanned at about $150/frame, then post process and print. No instant feedback is a problem for me because I got spoiled shooting Polaroid in the studio and then having that instant feedback in-camera.

Also, I am a control freak. There, I said it, happy? Two of the most important parts of the process are no longer in my control, and that scares me a little.

Film is film, digital is digital. Both are great. Both are capable of outstanding results in the right hands. Both are expensive, though with digital the bulk of the cost in upfront.

 

[sinuhexavier]

I mean really, could one reproduce these images with a G10?

This may not be a question for you, but is the attached pic of the petroglyphs just outside of Bishop, Ca?

It looks familiar, although its been 10 years since I was there...

 

[nwoods]

Unless the G10 is light years better than the G9 in terms of dynamic range and tonalities I question how well it would compare in tougher lighting situations. I mean really, could one reproduce these images with a G10?

Possibly, with the right photographer at the helm. My wife whipped her G10 out of her pocket and snapped this last Saturday. The G10 has a cool mode where it will shoot really wide. At medium image quality, JPEG setting in Wide Mode, this image was shot. It's 4416x2480 pixels, and 11mb in size. No retouching. Parameters were F4, 1/500, ISO 80
I uploaded a 1900px wide version here

 

[DiploStrat]

Ouch!

Blow that puppy up and the chromatic aberrations will start to bite you. That said, the G10 seems an awfully nice camera.

Worth Noting: The Luminous Landscape is a great site, but you have to understand that it has several VERY strong prejudices pro Canon and Adobe. One look at their "non-review" of Apple's Aperture, written by an Adobe consultant and never updated, compared to their love of Lightroom, should give you pause. On the other hand, they have had some very interesting reviews of new Nikon gear lately and a really amazing review of the Sony F-828. The latter is a bit like the cited G10 article, they sent an 828 to Africa and noted how well it compared to pro gear. So this kind of article tends to restore my faith in their objectivity. At the end of the day, you have to do your own testing.

 

[nwoods]

Blow that puppy up and the chromatic aberrations will start to bite you. That said, the G10 seems an awfully nice camera

Well, I had my trusty 20D along with me. Now, the G10 processor and image sensor are several generators newer than the 20D, but I had a decent piece of glass on the 20D (16-35mm F2.8 MkII L), so I cropped down the G10 image posted above and a similar one I shot using the 20D. First crop is down to 100%, then blown up to 200% for comparison.

G10 - 100% crop

G10 - 200% crop

20D dSLR with 16-35mm F2.8 L MkII lens - 100% crop

20D at 200% crop

 

[DiploStrat]

Ouch!

But let us be fair - snow and rock at the corners of an image are all but a CA torture test. Not sure anything would be all that much better.

We are really pixel peeping, but I think the SLR does a nicer job with the tree texture.

However you slice it, the G10 is impressive.

Slightly related issue: See Thom Hogan on the idea that we may have hit a plateau in camera technology at the 10+MP, 35mm sensor, etc. http://www.bythom.com/ Interesting.

 

[shadow images]

4x5 film will blow away any digital. Digital is just not there. Try blowing up to 40x60 and you will see a difference. Comparing images on a computer means nothing. Yes I shot digital as well as 4x5 and 8x10.