Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mail@potd.com.au, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Guest

    First some background as to why I ended up with a P&S...... I
    recently purchased a Waverunner for a bit of fun and also for
    transport to get to some new locations that would otherwise be out of
    reach, or simply just be too much coin and mucking around to get there
    for quick photo trips.

    With the Waverunner came the need for a waterproof camera solution.
    It fits all my big kit in it no problems, but that is stowed away in
    waterproof gear sacks and difficult (and risky) to access when
    traveling.... hence the need for a smaller, waterproof option that I
    could use on the fly.

    I will admit that I am a pixel peeper and like to achieve the best
    image quality that I can get from any camera that I use. I looked at
    the waterproof compact cams but the image quality was not up to what I
    was willing to accept (pre-release of Canon's new one) ....so I looked
    at other compacts with the view of adding a waterproof housing.

    After much deliberation, I decided that all compacts were "so-so" and
    that I would just use my back-up 20D on the ski and consider it
    sacrificial. I purchased a Lowepro Top Loader Zoom bag for the 20D
    and 17-40 and set off. Well it kinda gets heavy having around the
    neck after while so the 20D was discounted as a "ski-cam" and I
    purchased a Canon G10 and housing. The housing fits very snugly into
    the clove compartment so I had my waterproof solution.

    At this point I still considered that the G10 image quality was "so-
    so", but at least I could take happy snaps while on the ski and get
    the big kit out when ashore.

    My first action with the G10 was to set about seeing just how much
    image quality I could squeeze out of it's tiny, yet pixel-packed
    sensor (15mp).

    Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    followed some simple rules....

    Rule 1: Shoot at f3.5 The G10's lens f-stop range is 2.8 - 8.0, but
    diffraction plays a huge part with this lens at tiny apertures. I
    guess that with any lens/sensor combo this small an f-stop like f8 is
    going to be very tiny indeed. From tests I determined that the G10's
    lens is sharp from wide-open to 3.5 and closing down any more simply
    makes the image soften.

    Small sensor cams have always provided lots of DOF (to the point that
    it is difficult to control at times), so 3.5 is quite capable of
    providing DOF from close foreground to infinity. Even wide open
    provides good DOF and I have no problem going there when the light is
    low.

    It should be noted that when zoomed the lens's widest aperture is
    f4.5. This adjustment is made automagically as you zoom and
    thankfully 4.5 provides the best IQ at the longer focal lengths, so
    it's basically a "set and forget" when it comes to aperture on the
    G10.

    Rule 2: Shoot at base ISO. ISO80 is the base for this cam and where
    it provides the best IQ. There is some raw sensor noise visible at
    this low ISO (to be expected with 15mp packed in), but Canon's in
    camera processing cleans it well and it's not an issue if shooting
    JPEG. ISOs up to 400 are quite acceptable but beyond that is asking
    too much for a small sensor/high megapixel cam IMO.

    If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion programs
    treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
    with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
    not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
    So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other benefits
    that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
    sharpness etc. To be honest, the noise that the G10 creates is not
    objectional and I liken it more to a fine film grain than "noise" as
    such.

    Rule 3: Shoot RAW + JPEG. Having the JPEG available for the quick
    happy snap and the RAW available for those shots were you you want to
    squeeze the wringer is very handy.

    Rule 4: Spend the $$$$ on DXO to process the G10 RAW files. DXO
    really does take this cam to a new level.

    So now that I have had this cam a month or so.... and now that I have
    tested it considerably.... I have decided that the it's a little
    ripper! and capable of mixing it with the big boys if treated right.
    So much so, I have created a "mini-kit" to take with me everywhere.
    This kit consists of the G10, lens adapter for filters, Lee Graduated
    ND filters, underwater housing, compact tripod and even a single row
    panorama head (home made).

    Does this kit replace my 1Ds2? No, not for my full-on landscape
    stuff, but it does mean that when I am out and about and I find that
    "by chance" shot, I am well equipped to get an image that would
    otherwise be missed..... the fact that it's not lacking too much IQ in
    comparison makes me feel a whole lot better about it too!

    Here are some pix from early tests and some more recent "for real"
    efforts.....

    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0029.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0194.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0343.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DPP_IMG_0287-3.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Basin_pano.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DXO_IMG_0802.jpg
    http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0633.jpg

    Cheers

    Rusty
    , Mar 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > First some background as to why I ended up with a P&S...... I
    > recently purchased a Waverunner for a bit of fun and also for
    > transport to get to some new locations that would otherwise be out of
    > reach, or simply just be too much coin and mucking around to get there
    > for quick photo trips.
    >
    > With the Waverunner came the need for a waterproof camera solution.
    > It fits all my big kit in it no problems, but that is stowed away in
    > waterproof gear sacks and difficult (and risky) to access when
    > traveling.... hence the need for a smaller, waterproof option that I
    > could use on the fly.
    >
    > I will admit that I am a pixel peeper and like to achieve the best
    > image quality that I can get from any camera that I use. I looked at
    > the waterproof compact cams but the image quality was not up to what I
    > was willing to accept (pre-release of Canon's new one) ....so I looked
    > at other compacts with the view of adding a waterproof housing.
    >
    > After much deliberation, I decided that all compacts were "so-so" and
    > that I would just use my back-up 20D on the ski and consider it
    > sacrificial. I purchased a Lowepro Top Loader Zoom bag for the 20D
    > and 17-40 and set off. Well it kinda gets heavy having around the
    > neck after while so the 20D was discounted as a "ski-cam" and I
    > purchased a Canon G10 and housing. The housing fits very snugly into
    > the clove compartment so I had my waterproof solution.
    >
    > At this point I still considered that the G10 image quality was "so-
    > so", but at least I could take happy snaps while on the ski and get
    > the big kit out when ashore.
    >
    > My first action with the G10 was to set about seeing just how much
    > image quality I could squeeze out of it's tiny, yet pixel-packed
    > sensor (15mp).
    >
    > Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    > thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    > testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    > followed some simple rules....
    >
    > Rule 1: Shoot at f3.5 The G10's lens f-stop range is 2.8 - 8.0, but
    > diffraction plays a huge part with this lens at tiny apertures. I
    > guess that with any lens/sensor combo this small an f-stop like f8 is
    > going to be very tiny indeed. From tests I determined that the G10's
    > lens is sharp from wide-open to 3.5 and closing down any more simply
    > makes the image soften.
    >
    > Small sensor cams have always provided lots of DOF (to the point that
    > it is difficult to control at times), so 3.5 is quite capable of
    > providing DOF from close foreground to infinity. Even wide open
    > provides good DOF and I have no problem going there when the light is
    > low.
    >
    > It should be noted that when zoomed the lens's widest aperture is
    > f4.5. This adjustment is made automagically as you zoom and
    > thankfully 4.5 provides the best IQ at the longer focal lengths, so
    > it's basically a "set and forget" when it comes to aperture on the
    > G10.
    >
    > Rule 2: Shoot at base ISO. ISO80 is the base for this cam and where
    > it provides the best IQ. There is some raw sensor noise visible at
    > this low ISO (to be expected with 15mp packed in), but Canon's in
    > camera processing cleans it well and it's not an issue if shooting
    > JPEG. ISOs up to 400 are quite acceptable but beyond that is asking
    > too much for a small sensor/high megapixel cam IMO.
    >
    > If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion programs
    > treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
    > with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
    > not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
    > So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other benefits
    > that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
    > sharpness etc. To be honest, the noise that the G10 creates is not
    > objectional and I liken it more to a fine film grain than "noise" as
    > such.
    >
    > Rule 3: Shoot RAW + JPEG. Having the JPEG available for the quick
    > happy snap and the RAW available for those shots were you you want to
    > squeeze the wringer is very handy.
    >
    > Rule 4: Spend the $$$$ on DXO to process the G10 RAW files. DXO
    > really does take this cam to a new level.
    >
    > So now that I have had this cam a month or so.... and now that I have
    > tested it considerably.... I have decided that the it's a little
    > ripper! and capable of mixing it with the big boys if treated right.
    > So much so, I have created a "mini-kit" to take with me everywhere.
    > This kit consists of the G10, lens adapter for filters, Lee Graduated
    > ND filters, underwater housing, compact tripod and even a single row
    > panorama head (home made).
    >
    > Does this kit replace my 1Ds2? No, not for my full-on landscape
    > stuff, but it does mean that when I am out and about and I find that
    > "by chance" shot, I am well equipped to get an image that would
    > otherwise be missed..... the fact that it's not lacking too much IQ in
    > comparison makes me feel a whole lot better about it too!
    >
    > Here are some pix from early tests and some more recent "for real"
    > efforts.....
    >
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0029.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0194.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0343.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DPP_IMG_0287-3.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Basin_pano.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DXO_IMG_0802.jpg
    > http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0633.jpg


    What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
    including other names you may have used here.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Mar 23, 1:41 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > First some background as to why I ended up with a P&S......   I
    > > recently purchased a Waverunner for a bit of fun and also for
    > > transport to get to some new locations that would otherwise be out of
    > > reach, or simply just be too much coin and mucking around to get there
    > > for quick photo trips.

    >
    > > With the Waverunner came the need for a waterproof camera solution.
    > > It fits all my big kit in it no problems, but that is stowed away in
    > > waterproof gear sacks and difficult (and risky) to access when
    > > traveling.... hence the need for a smaller, waterproof option that I
    > > could use on the fly.

    >
    > > I will admit that I am a pixel peeper and like to achieve the best
    > > image quality that I can get from any camera that I use.  I looked at
    > > the waterproof compact cams but the image quality was not up to what I
    > > was willing to accept (pre-release of Canon's new one) ....so I looked
    > > at other compacts with the view of adding a waterproof housing.

    >
    > > After much deliberation, I decided that all compacts were "so-so" and
    > > that I would just use my back-up 20D on the ski and consider it
    > > sacrificial.   I purchased a Lowepro Top Loader Zoom bag for the 20D
    > > and 17-40 and set off.  Well it kinda gets heavy having around the
    > > neck after while so the 20D was discounted as a "ski-cam" and I
    > > purchased a Canon G10 and housing. The housing fits very snugly into
    > > the clove compartment so I had my waterproof solution.

    >
    > > At this point I still considered that the G10 image quality was "so-
    > > so", but at least I could take happy snaps while on the ski and get
    > > the big kit out when ashore.

    >
    > > My first action with the G10 was to set about seeing just how much
    > > image quality I could squeeze out of it's tiny, yet pixel-packed
    > > sensor (15mp).

    >
    > > Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    > > thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    > > testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    > > followed some simple rules....

    >
    > > Rule 1: Shoot at f3.5   The G10's lens f-stop range is 2.8 - 8.0, but
    > > diffraction plays a huge part with this lens at tiny apertures.  I
    > > guess that with any lens/sensor combo this small an f-stop like f8 is
    > > going to be very tiny indeed.  From tests I determined that the G10's
    > > lens is sharp from wide-open to 3.5 and closing down any more simply
    > > makes the image soften.

    >
    > > Small sensor cams have always provided lots of DOF (to the point that
    > > it is difficult to control at times), so 3.5 is quite capable of
    > > providing DOF from close foreground to infinity.  Even wide open
    > > provides good DOF and I have no problem going there when the light is
    > > low.

    >
    > > It should be noted that when zoomed the lens's widest aperture is
    > > f4.5.  This adjustment is made automagically as you zoom and
    > > thankfully 4.5 provides the best IQ at the longer focal lengths, so
    > > it's basically a "set and forget" when it comes to aperture on the
    > > G10.

    >
    > > Rule 2: Shoot at base ISO.  ISO80 is the base for this cam and where
    > > it provides the best IQ.  There is some raw sensor noise visible at
    > > this low ISO (to be expected with 15mp packed in), but Canon's in
    > > camera processing cleans it well and it's not an issue if shooting
    > > JPEG. ISOs up to 400 are quite acceptable but beyond that is asking
    > > too much for a small sensor/high megapixel cam IMO.

    >
    > > If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion programs
    > > treat the noise differently.  IMO Canon has the done the best here
    > > with their DPP handling the noise well.  Having said that, DPP does
    > > not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
    > > So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other benefits
    > > that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
    > > sharpness etc.   To be honest, the noise that the G10 creates is not
    > > objectional  and I liken it more to a fine film grain than "noise" as
    > > such.

    >
    > > Rule 3: Shoot RAW + JPEG.   Having the JPEG available for the quick
    > > happy snap and the RAW available for those shots were you you want to
    > > squeeze the wringer is very handy.

    >
    > > Rule 4: Spend the $$$$ on DXO to process the G10 RAW files.  DXO
    > > really does take this cam to a new level.

    >
    > > So now that I have had this cam a month or so.... and now that I have
    > > tested it considerably.... I have decided that the it's a little
    > > ripper! and capable of mixing it with the big boys if treated right.
    > > So much so, I have created a "mini-kit" to take with me everywhere.
    > > This kit consists of the G10, lens adapter for filters, Lee Graduated
    > > ND filters, underwater housing, compact tripod and even a single row
    > > panorama head (home made).

    >
    > > Does this kit replace my 1Ds2?  No, not for my full-on landscape
    > > stuff, but it does mean that when I am out and about and I find that
    > > "by chance" shot, I am well equipped to get an image that would
    > > otherwise be missed..... the fact that it's not lacking too much IQ in
    > > comparison makes me feel a whole lot better about it too!

    >
    > > Here are some pix from early tests and some more recent "for real"
    > > efforts.....

    >
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0029.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/G10_IMG_0194.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0343.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DPP_IMG_0287-3.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Basin_pano.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DXO_IMG_0802.jpg
    > >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/IMG_0633.jpg

    >
    > What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
    > including other names you may have used here.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams


    As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10.... so
    I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
    for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.

    I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
    account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes. :-( I
    will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.

    Rusty
    , Mar 23, 2009
    #3
  4. PixelPix Guest

    On Mar 23, 1:55 pm, Troy Piggins <> wrote:
    > * John McWilliams wrote :
    >
    > >* wrote:

    >
    > <snip />
    > > What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,

    >
    > I found it instructional and informational.  Were there parts you
    > didn't understand?
    >
    > Why does he have to give you a reason?
    >
    > > including other names you may have used here.

    >
    > Why does he have to do that?
    >
    > FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it.  He
    > signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell.  But
    > considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
    > whole post.
    >
    > I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
    > Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
    >
    > --
    > Troy Piggins


    Thank you Troy, you are most kind.

    For the record: I have signed back in under my PixelPix handle and
    shall endeavor to make sure that Google does not sign me in under the
    old, "OLD" account again. My original posting under
    was indeed accidental.

    Cheers

    Rusty
    PixelPix, Mar 23, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >* PixelPix wrote :
    >> On Mar 23, 1:55 pm, Troy Piggins <> wrote:
    >>> * John McWilliams wrote :
    >>> >* wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snip />
    >>> > What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,
    >>>
    >>> I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
    >>> didn't understand?
    >>>
    >>> Why does he have to give you a reason?
    >>>
    >>> > including other names you may have used here.
    >>>
    >>> Why does he have to do that?
    >>>
    >>> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
    >>> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
    >>> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
    >>> whole post.
    >>>
    >>> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
    >>> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.

    >>
    >> Thank you Troy, you are most kind.
    >>
    >> For the record: I have signed back in under my PixelPix handle and
    >> shall endeavor to make sure that Google does not sign me in under the
    >> old, "OLD" account again. My original posting under
    >> was indeed accidental.

    >
    > No worries, mate.
    >
    > You shouldn't have to justify yourself for posting stuff like
    > that. Got up my nose a little that someone gets challenged for
    > posting what I took as an informative and neutral review.
    > Shouldn't matter /what/ account you do it from.
    >
    > --
    > Troy Piggins


    I kind of enjoyed it as well...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 23, 2009
    #5
  6. Troy Piggins wrote:
    > * John McWilliams wrote :
    >> * wrote:
    >>

    > <snip />
    >> What is the purpose of this post? Instruct? Feedback? Please tell,

    >
    > I found it instructional and informational. Were there parts you
    > didn't understand?


    No.

    > Why does he have to give you a reason?


    He doesn't.

    >> including other names you may have used here.

    >
    > Why does he have to do that?


    He doesn't.


    > FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
    > signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
    > considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
    > whole post.


    I'm aware of diminutives, and I'm not only a client of the genius club,
    I'm the President.*
    >
    > I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
    > Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.


    Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.

    I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
    number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?

    --
    John McWilliams
    * Play off a N. American advert, not meant as any dig to any antipodean
    entity.....
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #6
  7. Mark Thomas Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Troy Piggins wrote:
    >> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
    >> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
    >> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
    >> whole post.
    >> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
    >> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.

    >
    > Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.
    >
    > I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
    > number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?
    >


    Yep, c'mon, fair suck of the sauce bottle, Johnno!! - Rusty's as
    true-blue dinky-di Aussie as they come, cobber. And he can take pichas,
    too.

    Yer lookin' a bit like a drongo, and flappin ya mouth like a dunny-door
    in a high wind, mate - direct ya policin' towards that Thong idiot (who
    wouldn't know what a real thong was even if it was slapped in her face,
    by crikey) and them other wankers who *wanna* be dinkum, but wouldn't
    know a goanna from a wombat even if it ran up their daks...

    Coo-ee!
    Mark Thomas, Mar 23, 2009
    #7
  8. PixelPix Guest

    On Mar 23, 4:20 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >  Exchange it for an entry-level DSLR.


    Nah... still way too big when waterproofed. I did consider that
    though.

    Cheers

    Rusty
    PixelPix, Mar 23, 2009
    #8
  9. PixelPix Guest

    Re: DXO was: Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ

    On Mar 23, 11:41 pm, Stephen Henning <> wrote:
    > In article wrote:
    >
    > > As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10....  so
    > > I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
    > > for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.

    >
    > > I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
    > > account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes.  :-(   I
    > > will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.

    >
    > > Rusty

    >
    > It would make more sense if he mentioned what a Waverunner is and what
    > DXO is.
    >
    > The Waverunner is something that requires a water tight camera and
    > apparently a jet ski,


    I figured that would be a given for most.

    > but DXO was a big question mark.


    Considering that I said the following....

    "If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion
    programs
    treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
    with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
    not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
    So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other
    benefits
    that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
    sharpness etc."

    .....I would have thought it obvious that it was a RAW conversion
    application?
    PixelPix, Mar 23, 2009
    #9
  10. Atheist Chaplain wrote:
    > "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    > news:gq769k$qp2$...
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> Troy Piggins wrote:
    >>>> FWIW it doesn't take a genius to figure out who posted it. He
    >>>> signed off with "Rusty", common abbreviation for Russell. But
    >>>> considering your questions above, perhaps you didn't read his
    >>>> whole post.
    >>>> I can tell you he's a very helpful and knowledgable contributor.
    >>>> Definitely not a troll if that's what you're digging for.
    >>>
    >>> Crikey! Troy, you've gotten up cranky today.
    >>>
    >>> I appreciate the straightforward and polite reply by Rusty, where a
    >>> number of blokes would've tried to rip me a new one. Proxy?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yep, c'mon, fair suck of the sauce bottle, Johnno!! - Rusty's as
    >> true-blue dinky-di Aussie as they come, cobber. And he can take
    >> pichas, too.
    >>
    >> Yer lookin' a bit like a drongo, and flappin ya mouth like a
    >> dunny-door in a high wind, mate - direct ya policin' towards that
    >> Thong idiot (who wouldn't know what a real thong was even if it was
    >> slapped in her face, by crikey) and them other wankers who *wanna* be
    >> dinkum, but wouldn't know a goanna from a wombat even if it ran up
    >> their daks...
    >>
    >> Coo-ee!

    >
    > how many colloquialisms can you fit in one paragraph ??
    > LOL


    Absofreakin'lutely! That was brilliant, but he left out billabong and
    prang, and .........

    Above all, I didn't want this to turn into a them vs. us deal.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #10
  11. Dave Cohen Guest

    PixelPix wrote:
    > On Mar 23, 4:20 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >> Exchange it for an entry-level DSLR.

    >
    > Nah... still way too big when waterproofed. I did consider that
    > though.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Rusty


    And even if you had, would the results you posted have been any better.
    It's a little tiring to be continually bombarded by individual
    prejudices, there are pros and cons for each type and we've heard all
    the arguments. I liked your pics.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Mar 23, 2009
    #11
  12. On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    [snip]
    >Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    >thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    >testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    >followed some simple rules....


    Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
    complement my SLR.

    I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
    own) should do the job perfectly.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 23, 2009
    #12
  13. Wally Guest

    Re: DXO was: Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ

    On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT), PixelPix
    <> wrote:

    >On Mar 23, 11:41 pm, Stephen Henning <> wrote:
    >> In article wrote:
    >>
    >> > As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10....  so
    >> > I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
    >> > for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.

    >>
    >> > I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
    >> > account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes.  :-(   I
    >> > will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.

    >>
    >> > Rusty

    >>
    >> It would make more sense if he mentioned what a Waverunner is and what
    >> DXO is.
    >>
    >> The Waverunner is something that requires a water tight camera and
    >> apparently a jet ski,

    >
    >I figured that would be a given for most.
    >
    >> but DXO was a big question mark.

    >
    >Considering that I said the following....
    >
    >"If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion
    >programs
    >treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
    >with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
    >not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
    >So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other
    >benefits
    >that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
    >sharpness etc."
    >
    >....I would have thought it obvious that it was a RAW conversion
    >application?


    It wasn't obvious to me? And there is no need for the question mark?

    Wally?

    Wally
    Wally, Mar 23, 2009
    #13
  14. Colin.D Guest

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >> Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    >> thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    >> testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    >> followed some simple rules....

    >
    > Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
    > complement my SLR.
    >
    > I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
    > own) should do the job perfectly.


    The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
    you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to find the
    lens and camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that
    combo. There are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you
    download the ones relevant to your gear.

    You can set levels of highlight recovery, and numerous other parameters,
    or you can just use the defaults. It even does noise reduction based on
    the exact characteristics of the sensor in your camera.

    The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it
    to start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
    intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory,
    it processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images
    at once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I
    have done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.

    I can vouch for the results. I have used DxO for years and would not be
    without it. It can make mediocre consumer lenses look like L class
    lenses by correcting barrel/pincushioning, chromatic aberration, lens
    softness and other failings.

    PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual
    operation. I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but
    then it is not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.

    HTH

    Colin D.
    Colin.D, Mar 23, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Colin.D" <> wrote in message
    news:gq92cs$fu3$...
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
    >>
    >> [snip]
    >>> Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
    >>> thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
    >>> testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
    >>> followed some simple rules....

    >>
    >> Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
    >> complement my SLR.
    >>
    >> I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
    >> own) should do the job perfectly.

    >
    > The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once you
    > have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to find the lens and
    > camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that combo. There
    > are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you download the ones
    > relevant to your gear.
    >
    > You can set levels of highlight recovery, and numerous other parameters,
    > or you can just use the defaults. It even does noise reduction based on
    > the exact characteristics of the sensor in your camera.
    >
    > The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it to
    > start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
    > intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory, it
    > processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images at
    > once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I have
    > done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.
    >
    > I can vouch for the results. I have used DxO for years and would not be
    > without it. It can make mediocre consumer lenses look like L class lenses
    > by correcting barrel/pincushioning, chromatic aberration, lens softness
    > and other failings.
    >
    > PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual operation.
    > I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but then it is
    > not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > Colin D.


    I want this program...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 23, 2009
    #15
  16. Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, in rec.photo.digital "Colin.D"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
    >you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to find the
    >lens and camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that
    >combo. There are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you
    >download the ones relevant to your gear.


    So they finally gave up on the pricing scheme where you had to purchase a
    different lens module for each lens you used?
    , Mar 23, 2009
    #16
  17. PixelPix Guest

    On Mar 24, 9:46 am, wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, in rec.photo.digital "Colin.D"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
    > >you have set it up how you want.  It reads the exif file to find the
    > >lens and camera body type, then applies corrections tailored to that
    > >combo.  There are dozens of lens and body 'profiles' available, you
    > >download the ones relevant to your gear.

    >
    > So they finally gave up on the pricing scheme where you had to purchase a
    > different lens module for each lens you used?


    Yes. There are just two levels now, the first covers consumer cams
    while the second adds the pro levels cams. They have a list on their
    website that covers what cam is in what.

    Cheers

    Rusty
    PixelPix, Mar 24, 2009
    #17
  18. DRS Guest

    "PixelPix" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > On Mar 24, 9:46 am, wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, in rec.photo.digital "Colin.D"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic
    >>> once you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to
    >>> find the lens and camera body type, then applies corrections
    >>> tailored to that combo. There are dozens of lens and body
    >>> 'profiles' available, you download the ones relevant to your gear.

    >>
    >> So they finally gave up on the pricing scheme where you had to
    >> purchase a different lens module for each lens you used?

    >
    > Yes. There are just two levels now, the first covers consumer cams
    > while the second adds the pro levels cams. They have a list on their
    > website that covers what cam is in what.


    What happens when their list doesn't include your lens(es)?
    DRS, Mar 24, 2009
    #18
  19. PixelPix Guest

    On Mar 24, 12:16 pm, "DRS" <> wrote:
    > "PixelPix" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 24, 9:46 am, wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, in rec.photo.digital "Colin.D"
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic
    > >>> once you have set it up how you want. It reads the exif file to
    > >>> find the lens and camera body type, then applies corrections
    > >>> tailored to that combo. There are dozens of lens and body
    > >>> 'profiles' available, you download the ones relevant to your gear.

    >
    > >> So they finally gave up on the pricing scheme where you had to
    > >> purchase a different lens module for each lens you used?

    >
    > > Yes. There are just two levels now, the first covers consumer cams
    > > while the second adds the pro levels cams.   They have a list on their
    > > website that covers what cam is in what.

    >
    > What happens when their list doesn't include your lens(es)?


    Then you are stuffed unfortunately. :-( I use a number of Olympus
    OM lenses on my 1Ds2 and it would be great if they did the math on
    that combination, but sadly that will never happen.

    Cheers

    Rusty
    PixelPix, Mar 24, 2009
    #19
  20. On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, "Colin.D" <>
    wrote:

    >Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    [snip]
    >> I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
    >> own) should do the job perfectly.

    >
    >The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once

    [snip]
    >The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it
    >to start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
    >intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory,
    >it processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images
    >at once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I
    >have done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.

    [snip]
    >PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual
    >operation. I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but
    >then it is not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.


    Sorry, I meant Photoshop CS4, not PS4! DxO sounds good...I don't
    batch many photos, preferring to work on each individual photo.
    Running PTLens is no big step as a Photoshop filter as part of my
    workflow.I've got something that works for me now, and I don't feel
    the need to update at the present time. Perhaps in the future! Do DxO
    have a trial version? Definitely worth a look.

    Thanks.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 24, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Canon G10, SX10 IS and SX1 IS

    , Oct 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,813
    Dudley Hanks
    Oct 23, 2008
  2. Sheila

    Canon G10

    Sheila, Oct 28, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    3,957
    Sheila
    Nov 18, 2008
  3. Ian

    Canon Powershot G10

    Ian, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,138
  4. HL

    Canon G10

    HL, May 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    393
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    290
    John Turco
    Mar 31, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page