Canon G10

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sheila, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.

    It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.


    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    BÔwser wrote:
    >
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >>
    >> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>
    >> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    > I have one. I really like it! Keep in mind that it will never replace
    > your D300, and simply cannot match the speed and handling of any SLR.
    > But, I bought mine for walk-around and travel (to replace my stolen G9)
    > and it's simply excellent for that. Image quality is excellent at lower
    > ISOs, very good/excellent at ISO 200, good at ISO 400, acceptable at ISO
    > 800, but beyond 800 it gets ugly. Zoom range is very useful (28-140 35mm
    > eq) response times are adequate and very good for a P&S, and it's got a
    > very nice feature set. And it saves files in RAW format. Build quality
    > is excellent, but it is somewhat bulky and is not a pocket cam, unless
    > you wear something with big baggy pockets.
    >
    > Go for it...



    Thanks for your response, it sounds like you are as happy if not happier
    with it as you were with your Canon G9. I realize that it is not a
    pocket camera, but one that I could carry around easily. That's hard to
    do when you're going out, not on a photography journey, but just out for
    the day and you see something that you want a photo of. It happens to
    me all the time.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > The D300 is a walking around camera. The G10 is a toy.
    >
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was thinking
    >> that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>
    >> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Sheila
    >> http://swdalton.com

    >
    >



    I guess it's just relative, but it's a burden for me to carry my D300
    everywhere I go.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Sheila wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> The D300 is a walking around camera. The G10 is a toy.
    >>>
    >>> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >>>> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >>>> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >>
    >> I guess it's just relative, but it's a burden for me to carry my D300
    >> everywhere I go.

    >
    >
    > You've heard from the anti-Canon, anti compact camera guy; you'd do well
    > to completely disregard his views on either subject.
    >


    Yea, I guessed that and have ignored it.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >
    >> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>
    >> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    >
    > Have a read here:
    > http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm


    Thanks, I'm going to read it right now.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #5
  6. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:_aQNk.53464$...
    >
    >>>> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >>>> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    >
    >>> Have a read here:
    >>> http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm

    >
    >
    >> Thanks, I'm going to read it right now.

    >
    >
    > No probs. Read it with an open mind. If you haven't heard of him
    > before, some of the things he comes out with can be a bit controversial,
    > but he's not stupid.
    >
    > Speaking of controversial, Luminous Landscapes recently compared the G10
    > to a Hasselblad H2. But I would take it with a pinch of salt personally.
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
    >
    >



    It's interesting that Ken Rockwell keeps comparing the Canon G10 to the
    Nikon D40. I'm going to look at the D40 now and see just how big and
    how heavy it is. I know it gets good reviews because I've read them, I
    just have to read them again now.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Sheila wrote:
    []
    > Thanks for your response, it sounds like you are as happy if not
    > happier with it as you were with your Canon G9. I realize that it is
    > not a pocket camera, but one that I could carry around easily. That's
    > hard to do when you're going out, not on a photography
    > journey, but just out for the day and you see something that you want
    > a photo of. It happens to me all the time.


    Sheila,

    I went for a lighter, more compact and capable camera (10:1 28-280mm
    zoom), but the image quality may not be quite as good (if reports are to
    be believed). Panasonic TZ3, and there is a TZ4 and TZ5 now available:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz5/

    It can also take excellent short movies, which complement the stills from
    my DSLR very well. I take it for stills when carrying the DSLR isn't
    appropriate.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Paul wrote:
    []
    >>> Have a read here:
    >>> http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm

    []
    > No probs. Read it with an open mind. If you haven't heard of him
    > before, some of the things he comes out with can be a bit
    > controversial, but he's not stupid.


    ... and some things plain wrong - like claiming in the article you cite:

    "world's first point-and-shoot with Image Stabilization, the Canon
    SD700."

    Nonsense - Panasonic were offering compact cameras with IS long before
    that!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Sheila

    PDM Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sheila wrote:
    >>
    >> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>
    >> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    > It depends how much you're prepared to play off
    > size against quality.
    >
    > To my mind, the G10 is quite a big compact camera (!!)
    > and is of rather high quality.
    >
    > I don't think it's different *enough* from
    > the D300 to warrent having as a separate camera.
    >
    > I would suggest looking at smaller cameras, if you're looking
    > for an "always in my pocket" type of usage.
    >
    > BugBear
    >
    >


    Agree with you 100%

    Since getting a Nikon DSLR and a compact to carry with me all the time
    (sorry RichA, its a Canon) I very rarely use my Canon G3. The size is too
    similar to the SLR so doesn't get used much. So I'd go for a more compact
    camera than the G10.

    PDM
     
    PDM, Oct 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Sheila

    Dave Cohen Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Sheila wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> The D300 is a walking around camera. The G10 is a toy.
    >>>
    >>> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >>>> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >>>> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >>
    >> I guess it's just relative, but it's a burden for me to carry my D300
    >> everywhere I go.

    >
    >
    > You've heard from the anti-Canon, anti compact camera guy; you'd do well
    > to completely disregard his views on either subject.
    >


    Slight correction. Change that 'either' to 'any'.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Oct 29, 2008
    #10
  11. Sheila

    whisky-dave Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sheila wrote:
    >>



    > I would suggest looking at smaller cameras, if you're looking
    > for an "always in my pocket" type of usage.


    Any suggestions, I was considering the G9 or one of the panasonic ones,
    but have taken so long deciding the G10 is out.
    It's to replace my canon S70 which has been my pocket camera
    for the last 3 years but it's starting to 'feel old' annoying things are
    video limited to 3min @ 320X240, 400ASA and small LCD.
    Mainly as a carry anywhere camera, photographing & doing movies of friends
    bands.
    Can you the G10 do 'fake' HDR (then using photoshop), on my S70 it you
    could
    take 3 consecutive pictures one mormal, one at +2EV and one at -2EV.

    Also been deciding on a proper SLR to replace my very old canon A1 which
    still works.
    canon D50 seems a likely choice but I won't be ready for that until
    May/June,
    although I was hoping for a midrange 45D.


    Anyone know of a digital camera with a B setting I'd really like to try
    the 'sky at night' with exposures in the 1- 60 minute range.
     
    whisky-dave, Oct 29, 2008
    #11
  12. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Paul wrote:
    > []
    >>>> Have a read here:
    >>>> http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm

    > []
    >> No probs. Read it with an open mind. If you haven't heard of him
    >> before, some of the things he comes out with can be a bit
    >> controversial, but he's not stupid.

    >
    > .. and some things plain wrong - like claiming in the article you cite:
    >
    > "world's first point-and-shoot with Image Stabilization, the Canon SD700."
    >
    > Nonsense - Panasonic were offering compact cameras with IS long before
    > that!
    >
    > David



    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:_aQNk.53464$...
    >
    >>>> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >>>> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    >
    >>> Have a read here:
    >>> http://kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm

    >
    >
    >> Thanks, I'm going to read it right now.

    >
    >
    > No probs. Read it with an open mind. If you haven't heard of him
    > before, some of the things he comes out with can be a bit controversial,
    > but he's not stupid.
    >
    > Speaking of controversial, Luminous Landscapes recently compared the G10
    > to a Hasselblad H2. But I would take it with a pinch of salt personally.
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
    >
    >


    It seems that he really likes the Nikon D40 over the Canon G10. Now I
    need to go to the store and handle both of them to see how each would
    feel carrying around.


    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #13
  14. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    Sheila wrote:
    >
    > Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    > thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >
    > It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.
    >
    >



    Thanks for all the comments.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 29, 2008
    #14
  15. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > If you need to put it in your pocket, you have no choice but to go with a
    > P&S, until Olympus u4/3rds cameras hit the street that is. However, a Nikon
    > D60 or Olympus E-420 are not bulky cameras.
    >
    > "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZaPNk.53439$...
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> The D300 is a walking around camera. The G10 is a toy.
    >>>
    >>> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:J1LNk.81033$...
    >>>> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >>>> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Sheila
    >>>> http://swdalton.com
    >>>

    >>
    >> I guess it's just relative, but it's a burden for me to carry my D300
    >> everywhere I go.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Sheila
    >> http://swdalton.com

    >
    >



    No, I don't have to put it in my pocket, but be able to carry it around
    all day, when not really on a photo shoot. I don't like to leave a
    digital camera in the car when it hot because I've been told that it can
    hurt the sensor.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 30, 2008
    #15
  16. On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:24:45 -0400, "RichA" <> wrote:

    >Said someone who'd spend $500 on a toy instead of a DSLR.
    >

    1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
    existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)

    2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
    DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
    full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
    than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)

    3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
    sensor cameras E.g. 1/2.5" has 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. APS-C's 7.0-8.0EV
    Dynamic Range, one quick example:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg )

    4. P&S cameras are silent. Will not endanger your life when photographing
    potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence.

    5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing
    you to capture fast subject motion in nature (E.g. insect and hummingbird wings)
    WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light
    alone.

    6. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
    of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_&_Flash-Sync

    7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
    Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
    distortions, E.g.
    http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
    ), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter
    curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

    8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
    allows for lightning-fast motion detection so that you may capture more elusive
    animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all
    might prevent their appearance, without the need of carrying a laptop along or
    any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance,
    and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
    unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may
    capture those more elusive subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's
    propagation and reproduction, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine,
    10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware

    9. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
    environments you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get
    that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud or lake while you do,
    and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
    gotten crud on the sensor.

    10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
    required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
    destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
    planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
    be done with nearly any P&S camera.

    11. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
    recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
    still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
    the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice.

    12. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
    image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
    trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
    overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
    other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
    you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
    do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
    external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
    shot when it happens.

    13. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
    settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders that can be
    increased in gain as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images
    (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. No other
    multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal
    wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal
    animals without disturbing their natural behavior from 90 ft. away with a 549mm
    f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself.

    14. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
    silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
    nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. You are recording
    nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
    reality and nature.

    15. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
    degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
    inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
    EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
    electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras will capture your moving
    subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
    biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

    16. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
    popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
    slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.

    16b (addendum). An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can
    accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100%
    accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
    seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp
    sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately
    depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a
    P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what
    shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically
    accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When
    testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of
    a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the
    viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp
    detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly
    true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids
    and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will
    never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane
    shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

    17. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the
    resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times
    over. I just thought it might be fun to put a few of them all in one place to
    make JT Keeper's glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and stupidity of
    all the other DSLR-trolls just like him) even more glaringly obvious to the
    world.
     
    Havey Atkinson, Oct 30, 2008
    #16
  17. Sheila

    Eric Miller Guest

    Havey Atkinson wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:24:45 -0400, "RichA" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > 5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing
    > you to capture fast subject motion in nature (E.g. insect and hummingbird wings)
    > WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light
    > alone.
    >


    .. . . and with the trade-off of poor image quality. Here is an example
    of "image destroying flash" that I'd love to see you duplicate with your
    hacked P&S camera and natural light:

    <http://www.dyesscreek.com/birds/index.php?display=hummingbirds%2F_MG_3242.jpg&non_lr=1>

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Oct 30, 2008
    #17
  18. Sheila

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Havey Atkinson <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:24:45 -0400, "RichA" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Said someone who'd spend $500 on a toy instead of a DSLR.
    >>

    >1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
    >existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)


    When somebody says that soem outrageous claim has been "proved in
    another thread" they're usually lying.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 30, 2008
    #18
  19. Sheila

    SMS Guest

    Sheila wrote:
    >
    > Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    > thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >
    > It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.


    It's the best P&S on the market right now in terms of image quality,
    though the zoom range is small. It's not a camera you would use for
    action shots, or anywhere where shutter lag us unacceptable.

    You give up so much with a P&S that it would seem that a
    "walking-around" camera would at least be something sub-compact, rather
    than something that isn't all that smaller than a D-SLR.

    Canon G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm
    Nikon D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

    Maybe you should get an Olympus E420 with the 14-42mm f.3.5-5.6 lens as
    a "walking around" camera. 130 x 91 x 53 mm plus the lens. It's a bit
    less expensive than the Canon G10. I'm no fan of 4:3, but at least you
    don't get all the negatives of a P&S.
     
    SMS, Oct 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Sheila

    Sheila Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > Sheila wrote:
    >>
    >> Has anyone tried this new camera. I have a Nikon D300, but I was
    >> thinking that the Canon G10 might be a good 'walking around camera'.
    >>
    >> It doesn't look like it has had any reviews yet.

    >
    > It's the best P&S on the market right now in terms of image quality,
    > though the zoom range is small. It's not a camera you would use for
    > action shots, or anywhere where shutter lag us unacceptable.
    >
    > You give up so much with a P&S that it would seem that a
    > "walking-around" camera would at least be something sub-compact, rather
    > than something that isn't all that smaller than a D-SLR.
    >
    > Canon G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm
    > Nikon D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm
    >
    > Maybe you should get an Olympus E420 with the 14-42mm f.3.5-5.6 lens as
    > a "walking around" camera. 130 x 91 x 53 mm plus the lens. It's a bit
    > less expensive than the Canon G10. I'm no fan of 4:3, but at least you
    > don't get all the negatives of a P&S.



    Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

    --
    Sheila
    http://swdalton.com
     
    Sheila, Oct 30, 2008
    #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:
    2,818
    Dudley Hanks
    Oct 23, 2008
  2. Ian

    Canon Powershot G10

    Ian, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,145
  3. Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ

    , Mar 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,040
    Robert Coe
    Mar 28, 2009
  4. HL

    Canon G10

    HL, May 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    400
  5. Rich

    P&S's still have rotten quality (Canon G10)

    Rich, Nov 11, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,001
    John Turco
    Dec 30, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page