Canon G11

[Patrick]

Has anyone read about the new Canon G11 that replaces the G10?
Its now got a swivel viewfinder which will please many (not me in particular I think they are rather venerable to damage)
The real shock is the new sensor in the camera is 10 million pix, thats 5million less than the G10 and 2million less than the G9.
Suddenly Canon have not only held back on the pixel race but gone backwards.

Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: Canon G11

Has anyone read about the new Canon G11 that replaces the G10?
Its now got a swivel viewfinder which will please many (not me in particular I think they are rather venerable to damage)
The real shock is the new sensor in the camera is 10 million pix, thats 5million less than the G10 and 2million less than the G9.
Suddenly Canon have not only held back on the pixel race but gone backwards.

Patrick

Having still got a Canon G2 & G3, I always considered them to be great cameras, not least because of their tilt and Swivel screens. The hinge was extremely robust, though its fair to say that the screen on the new G11 is much bigger. I suspect though that Canon has listened to the public who wanted a return to a swivel screen and who also didn't need the huge amount of megapixels that were in the G9 &10. I suspect that in order to supply the improved dynamic range that is a new feature of the camera, they will have had to reduce the resolution in order to have bigger pixels and therefore larger light gathering photosites. It certainly looks a great camera and I'll be keeping a close watch on the reviews when they come.

[Patrick]

Re: Canon G11

Having still got a Canon G2 & G3, I always considered them to be great cameras, not least because of their tilt and Swivel screens. The hinge was extremely robust, though its fair to say that the screen on the new G11 is much bigger. I suspect though that Canon has listened to the public who wanted a return to a swivel screen and who also didn't need the huge amount of megapixels that were in the G9 &10. I suspect that in order to supply the improved dynamic range that is a new feature of the camera, they will have had to reduce the resolution in order to have bigger pixels and therefore larger light gathering photosites. It certainly looks a great camera and I'll be keeping a close watch on the reviews when they come.

Hi Stephen

Its probably true that the majority of people buying the Camera will not need 14milion pix, 10 or 12 is more than enough for this type of camera. The 14 million nearly put me off buying the G10 on paper much too many for such a small sensor, however Canon controlled them well.

Patrick

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon G11

My second digital camera was a G3 and I got hooked on the swivel screen.

Canon's return to their roots is encouragable--can we now begin to see some of their DSLRs with swivel?

[Patrick]

Re: Canon G11

My second digital camera was a G3 and I got hooked on the swivel screen.

Canon's return to their roots is encouragable--can we now begin to see some of their DSLRs with swivel?

Swinging viewfinders have never got me exited I had one camera with it and frankly never used it. If I want to get down low I prefer to use my right angle finder. So from my point of view I hope Canon don't go down that road with DSLR's. Because the screen on the G11 is a swing variety they have reduced it in size from 3" to 2.5"

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Canon G11

Swinging viewfinders have never got me exited I had one camera with it and frankly never used it. If I want to get down low I prefer to use my right angle finder. So from my point of view I hope Canon don't go down that road with DSLR's. Because the screen on the G11 is a swing variety they have reduced it in size from 3" to 2.5"

Patrick

It's a 2.8 inch LCD, not 2.5 inches.

Patrick, I think it's a bit mean to wish that Canon won't go for an articulating screen in future simply because you personally don't like them

Almost everyone I know who has bought a camera with an articulating screen has seen the light and found it genuinely useful, so I honestly think you are in a minority. Even if you don't want to use such a screen, if a camera has one, you don't need to use it. And they aren't really overly susceptible to damage as long as you care for the camera - which I'm sure you would - and already do. Fully articulating screens can be reversed, so the face of the screen is turned inwards and so is protected, without the need for an extra protective cover.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Canon G11

It's a 2.8 inch LCD, not 2.5 inches.

Patrick, I think it's a bit mean to wish that Canon won't go for an articulating screen in future simply because you personally don't like them

Almost everyone I know who has bought a camera with an articulating screen has seen the light and found it genuinely useful, so I honestly think you are in a minority. Even if you don't want to use such a screen, if a camera has one, you don't need to use it. And they aren't really overly susceptible to damage as long as you care for the camera - which I'm sure you would - and already do. Fully articulating screens can be reversed, so the face of the screen is turned inwards and so is protected, without the need for an extra protective cover.

Ian

[devilgas]

Re: Canon G11

[Ian]

Re: Canon G11

Let's face it, these days cameras are multi-function devices with a huge array of features. In normal use I would only use a fraction of the options a camera offers. But who is to say which features should or not be included? It would be commercial suicide for a camera manufacturer to strip features to streamline the camera. I would argue that such a camera would be more expensive because fewer would be sold. Compare the price of a Lotus 7 with a family saloon - the latter is more comfortable, capacious, and probably more economical, while the Lotus may be more of driving sensation, it has less space, is more uncomfortable, more difficult (if ultimately more rewarding) to drive.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Canon G11

Let's face it, these days cameras are multi-function devices with a huge array of features. In normal use I would only use a fraction of the options a camera offers. But who is to say which features should or not be included? It would be commercial suicide for a camera manufacturer to strip features to streamline the camera. I would argue that such a camera would be more expensive because fewer would be sold. Compare the price of a Lotus 7 with a family saloon - the latter is more comfortable, capacious, and probably more economical, while the Lotus may be more of driving sensation, it has less space, is more uncomfortable, more difficult (if ultimately more rewarding) to drive.

Ian

Hi both Dave & Ian

You both use cars as an example of compromise, it is not appropriate.

Dave cars are offered in different versions from base model to sport or luxury. Plus optional extras.
Ian I would not buy a Lotus (my dream is a Bentley Continental, which will never happen) I couldn't even get in a Lotus.

I take the point that camera manufacturers have to keep adding feature's to make future sales, but it will not necessarily mean that the features are always wanted by all and sundry they are added to make the previous model out of date. Some features may very well be very useful, some useful to some. A lot useful until the novelty wears off.
My preference is for development to concentrate on quality output and anything that improves that quality. Ian a few posts ago I talked about a feature appearing on cameras enabling the user to adjust the back focus for individual lenses, you dismissed it as dangerous despite the fact the created profiles can be switched on/off. This to me is a excellent notion getting the very best out of our lenses, but not shouted about by the manufacturers as a positive feature, to use modern speak not sexy enough. This feature is what makes me want to upgrade to the Canon 50D, why because its about image quality not gimmicks.

Patrick

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon G11

thankfully the marketing people have finally figured out that megapixels isn't necessarily where it's at, but video is here to stay.

And so is the swivel!

[Ian]

Re: Canon G11

Hi both Dave & Ian

You both use cars as an example of compromise, it is not appropriate.

Dave cars are offered in different versions from base model to sport or luxury. Plus optional extras.
Ian I would not buy a Lotus (my dream is a Bentley Continental, which will never happen) I couldn't even get in a Lotus.

I take the point that camera manufacturers have to keep adding feature's to make future sales, but it will not necessarily mean that the features are always wanted by all and sundry they are added to make the previous model out of date. Some features may very well be very useful, some useful to some. A lot useful until the novelty wears off.
My preference is for development to concentrate on quality output and anything that improves that quality. Ian a few posts ago I talked about a feature appearing on cameras enabling the user to adjust the back focus for individual lenses, you dismissed it as dangerous despite the fact the created profiles can be switched on/off. This to me is a excellent notion getting the very best out of our lenses, but not shouted about by the manufacturers as a positive feature, to use modern speak not sexy enough. This feature is what makes me want to upgrade to the Canon 50D, why because its about image quality not gimmicks.

Patrick

OK, but let me just clarify a couple of things. The lens AF calibration feature you mentioned - I certainly don't dismiss this at all. I merely said that camera manufacturers don't shout about this because it only addresses the needs of a very small number of users. I did suggest that another reason for not highlighting it is that it's not a feature that everyone should use as it's not a trivial procedure and, if mis-used, could detramentally affect the focus accuracy, and possibly cause a big rise in the number of customer support calls.

I will go back to a car analogy - anyone can service their own car if they really want to, but most of us don't!

Moving on to such enhancements as an articulating screen and video modes; neither of these compromise the rest of the design of the camera, and many people do find them useful (I certainly do). Image quality is certainly not compromised and does not prevent the manufacturer from improving imaging quality either. And what about all the modes and options in the 40D or thr 50D that you don't use? Does this bother you?

In the end, we would start complaining if camera manufacturers stopped innovating and adding features, whether we used any or only some of them.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Canon G11

OK, but let me just clarify a couple of things. The lens AF calibration feature you mentioned - I certainly don't dismiss this at all. I merely said that camera manufacturers don't shout about this because it only addresses the needs of a very small number of users. I did suggest that another reason for not highlighting it is that it's not a feature that everyone should use as it's not a trivial procedure and, if mis-used, could detramentally affect the focus accuracy, and possibly cause a big rise in the number of customer support calls.

I will go back to a car analogy - anyone can service their own car if they really want to, but most of us don't!

Moving on to such enhancements as an articulating screen and video modes; neither of these compromise the rest of the design of the camera, and many people do find them useful (I certainly do). Image quality is certainly not compromised and does not prevent the manufacturer from improving imaging quality either. And what about all the modes and options in the 40D or thr 50D that you don't use? Does this bother you?

In the end, we would start complaining if camera manufacturers stopped innovating and adding features, whether we used any or only some of them.

Ian

First since the back focus feature is put in the camera it as there for the user to use, so its not like servicing your own car more like adjusting the time on the clock (I always used to service my car but age now plays it part and I don't any more).
As I said earlier I don't feel as strongly about articulated screens as the Video, its a different medium. We have in our 80 members mostly Nikon or Canon users, the odd Pentax/Samsung and Sony/Minolta users, none show any interest in changing Camera for the Video modes offered. Interestingly 3 members are Video enthusiasts and one likes the idea of a Video camera that he can capture stills. The other way round to this discussion. This also demonstrates that buyers are not so overwhelmingly interested in Video mode, 1 out of 80 not a scientific analysis granted but revealing all the same, bearing in mind they are mostly enthusiasts rather than average users. I think the main difference is I am possibly more outspoken on the subject than most.
I agree the inclusion of Video does not hinder quality but neither does it add quality, It uses resources within the camera which I believe could be better used for what a DSLR is designed for Still Pictures. OK there will be people that want it, but this should not mean that every new model should automatically have it as a feature. The new Nikon D300 is a good example Europes top selling camera in its class without video and still selling well, out selling against the competition that has video. So why is it necessary to bring it out with video?
I maintain there should always be alternatives without the video option.

You know already some options I never use (we have discussed it before) and for the level of camera can see no justification, namely scene modes. I can see why on a compact, I can see why on a bridge camera, I can see why on a entry level DSLR, but I cannot for the life of me see why on a cameras aimed firmly at the experienced amateur or a back up camera for a professional. They know what its about and how to get what they want which is in all likelihood not the same way as a white coated technician in Japan.
We had a similar discussion on live view about 18 months to 2 years ago, after buying the 40D I conceded its usefulness at the time, I use it not very often and usually tethered.
Do I want manufacturers to continue to develop technology of course I do, I just feel that some things are for the sake of it rather than being useful.

The term feature packed has become more important to some reviewers than picture taking ability.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Canon G11

Actually, I do have a bugbear about video modes on DSLRs and that is badly implemented video modes. If a DSLR manufacturer is going to include a video mode, they should do it properly. Mono sound, with no option for an external stereo microphone is, to me, hugely compromising, and yet there are several DSLRs with HD video options that are like this.

The new Nikon D300s at least has an external stereo microphone port, but the D5000 does not. 24p (24 frames per second)is not ideal either. 30fps is ideal for YouTube compatibility, and 25 or 50fps would be better for European TV compatibility.

DSLRs can't autofocus properly (or at all!) during video recording. A pro film maker will say that's not a limitation, but it is for ordinary users just wanting to use a DSLR for home movies.

So from that point of view, I am also sceptical of video on (most) DSLRs

But there are some excellent implementations, and the Panasonic GH1 (which is not actually a DSLR, but for want of a better home is categorised as such) is a good example, when used with the right lens.

Ian

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon G11

I think the camera as we know it is in transition--just like the wordprocessors of the 80s. Today, wordprocessors are nothing to what they were in the early days.

I agree with Ian that if the manufacturer is just grafting video capabilities to a camera, it cries loudly as another "me too."

Consumer video cams have been around a long time, and for those consumers wanting to move up to a DSLR, video would be a natural feature to include.