Canon Powershot G2 or Olympus C-4000?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. 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
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message news:pTSkb.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
     
    Mark Weaver, Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Guenter Fieblinger, Oct 20, 2003
    #3
  4. "Mark Weaver" <> 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <pTSkb.101006$gv5.80026@fed1read05>, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
    <> 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..."
     
    Azzz1588, Oct 21, 2003
    #5
  6. G3.
     
    Proffesor Kleinschmidt, Oct 23, 2003
    #6
  7. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> 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
     
    , Oct 28, 2003
    #7
    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. Sexy Susan

    Re: Canon Powershot A60 vs. Canon Powershot A70

    Sexy Susan, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    587
    Browntimdc
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. KOS
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    707
    Darius Alexander
    Sep 25, 2003
  3. Andrys Basten

    Re: Canon Powershot A60 vs. Canon Powershot A70

    Andrys Basten, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    536
    Timothy Lange
    Oct 15, 2003
  4. John F

    CANON POWERSHOT A80 or CANON POWERSHOT S1 IS ?

    John F, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    562
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Oct 29, 2004
  5. nobody

    To Epson 4000 or not to Epson 4000?

    nobody, Mar 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,029
Loading...

Share This Page