Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon Powershot G2 or Olympus C-4000?

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon Powershot G2 or Olympus C-4000?

 
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
I'm considering a higher-grade 4 megapixel camera to supplement my 2
megapixel Nikon Coolpix 775. (Yes, I know--I also posted earlier asking
about a very point & shoot-ish Casio QV-R40; I'm all over the map a bit.)
The 2 models listed catch my eye. And yes, I know about the Powershot G3,
but the G2 seems to be a cheaper yet viable alternative. Ditto the C-4000
from Olympus.

(I like Nikon the best, and thus would consider the 5000 or 5400--or maybe
the 4500, but the Canon & Olympus are lower-priced and seem to be apt
performers also.)

But checking around, apparently the C-4000 doesn't have a RAW option which
the G2 does. That would seem to basically derail the C-4000 as a "serious"
camera (vs point & shoot-type) despite its extensive manual overrides.

Thing is, though, I am nowhere near a professional and don't know how much
RAW would help someone who doesn't do much post-processing beyond red-eye
removal. Still, having it as a choice if I develop the "eye" for doing it
would seem to be a good enough reason to go for the G2 rather than the 4000.

Tips?

LRH


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Weaver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsTSkb.101006
>
> Thing is, though, I am nowhere near a professional and don't know how much
> RAW would help someone who doesn't do much post-processing beyond red-eye
> removal. Still, having it as a choice if I develop the "eye" for doing it
> would seem to be a good enough reason to go for the G2 rather than the

4000.
>
> Tips?
>


RAW mode doesn't really have much of anything to do with the ability to
post-process your images, per se. All it has to do with is whether or not
you insist on a non-JPG storage option. My camera does have a RAW mode, but
I never use it--the highest quality JPG setting produces images with JPG
artifacts that are not noticeable to my naked eye, so I value the storage
space on my memory card more.

It is true that when editing an image, you definitely *don't* want to go
through multiple generations of JPG compression, so all intermediate files
that you're editing should be converted to and saved in a non-lossy format.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Guenter Fieblinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
Larry,

after fooling around with post processing digital shots in the early times of 1
MP cameras I actually dropped digital photography for some years and used a film
based camera instead. The reason for this was that post processing takes a lot
of time and it was actually necessary for the digital pictures I managed at this
early period, eg. removing the bluish tint that every picture had and the like.
Of course picture manipulation for special effects is a different story but I
never tried it in earnest.

I returned to digital photography recently by acquiring a Canon G2 before my
holiday because I was convinced that by now post processing is not neccessary at
all except of course for willful manipulation of images which, however, I do not
intend to do except for some experimental fun effects.
My experience has proven to me that the G2 is indeed providing shots of
outstanding quality that only need 'one step' post processing occasionally, eg.
when brightening darker zones of a picture to study some details.

With all this said I think that the real advantage of digital photography during
the last 5 years has been that pictures turn out so stunningly good that any but
the lightest post processing isn't neccessary at all if post processing is meant
to correct for inadequate shots.

In a nutshell: drop RAW ability from your wish list and get a G2 or the
equivalent Olympus.
If multi-step manipulations are still on your mind convert the jpg-file to tif
and then on the final step back to jpg.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
"Mark Weaver" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>RAW mode doesn't really have much of anything to do with the ability to
>post-process your images, per se. All it has to do with is whether or not
>you insist on a non-JPG storage option. My camera does have a RAW mode, but
>I never use it--the highest quality JPG setting produces images with JPG
>artifacts that are not noticeable to my naked eye, so I value the storage
>space on my memory card more.


I think most people who actually use RAW would disagree with you on
that. As you describe it, RAW is no different from having a TIFF
output: you can avoid JPEG compression losses. But, in fact, there is
lots of processing that happens in-camera for either TIFF or JPEG:
gamma correction, contrast and colour saturation and white balance
adjustments, and sharpening. The camera also decides how much of the
input scene brightness range will map to the 0-255 range of the output
file. All of this is bypassed for RAW.

These operations get done, instead, when you convert RAW to some other
format, or read it into your image editor. You set a bunch of controls
that control the conversion. If you set the converter controls the same
way that the camera controls were set for a JPEG or TIFF image, you
should get about the same result. However, if you don't *like* what you
got, you have the ability to go back to the original data and redo the
conversion with different settings. You can repeat the operation as
many times as you want.

With JPEG or TIFF output, you get just one chance of getting the best
settings. By the time you see the preview image on the screen, the
original sensor data is gone, and you have to reshoot to fix anything.

With RAW, you can concentrate on framing and exposure. Decisions about
white balance and tonal scale and the rest can wait till later.

>It is true that when editing an image, you definitely *don't* want to go
>through multiple generations of JPG compression, so all intermediate files
>that you're editing should be converted to and saved in a non-lossy format.


True. But you also want to avoid adjusting contrast or saturation or
white balance more than once, if you can avoid it.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Azzz1588
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2003
In article <pTSkb.101006$gv5.80026@fed1read05>, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Thing is, though, I am nowhere near a professional and don't know how much
>RAW would help someone who doesn't do much post-processing beyond red-eye
>removal.


If you get serious, than RAW is the way to truely go.

But what you will also find, is that there are times (most of the time)
where you will just want a pic to capture what you are seeing at the moment.
And it's far easier to shoot in TIFF, or JPG right off, and worry more about
editing, and retouching later. Just like you will find that you will shoot
at max resoloution (of your camera) not as often as you might
think. I have pleanty of 1 mb + JPG's shot with my C 4040Z that
I've printed out to 8 x 10 and they look nice. Not every pic taken
can be perfect, nor even worth anything........

I personally went with the Oly C 4040Z for the f/1.8 lens.
I shoot indoors a lot, and it really helps out for this.
That and it was one of the very few that had noise reduction, and pixel
mapping at the time. Also then 4 mb was the max...
I shoot the night sky a lot too, and the planets through a C 11 telescope.
Noise resuction helps out here. (16 sec max exposure time is a drag tho...)

The real key, is to try and shoot the best possible pic's at the time,
and learn to get better.
The better your initial shot is, the less youll have to work on it
later..........

































"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Proffesor Kleinschmidt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2003
G3.

 
Reply With Quote
 
bj286@scn.org
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2003
"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<pTSkb.101006$gv5.80026@fed1read05>...
> I'm considering a higher-grade 4 megapixel camera to supplement my 2
> megapixel Nikon Coolpix 775. (Yes, I know--I also posted earlier asking
> about a very point & shoot-ish Casio QV-R40; I'm all over the map a bit.)
> The 2 models listed catch my eye. And yes, I know about the Powershot G3,
> but the G2 seems to be a cheaper yet viable alternative. Ditto the C-4000
> from Olympus.


http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#aperture

> (I like Nikon the best, and thus would consider the 5000 or 5400


http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#wide

> --or maybe the 4500


http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#macro
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon PowerShot S1 IS vs. Canon PowerShot S2 IS Bill Lukic Duke Digital Photography 8 07-13-2005 04:46 PM
CANON POWERSHOT A80 or CANON POWERSHOT S1 IS ? John F Digital Photography 11 10-29-2004 01:58 PM
Re: Canon Powershot A60 vs. Canon Powershot A70 Andrys Basten Digital Photography 3 10-15-2003 04:26 PM
help with Canon Powershot a300 Vs Canon Powershot a60 KOS Digital Photography 3 09-25-2003 03:33 AM
Re: Canon Powershot A60 vs. Canon Powershot A70 Sexy Susan Digital Photography 2 09-22-2003 07:39 PM



Advertisments