Canon G5 versus Olympus c4000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Laddy, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. Laddy

    Laddy Guest

    Hello,
    If you had to choose which would you go for?

    I would like a camera which is good in poorly lit areas.

    Thanks

    Laddy
     
    Laddy, Nov 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Laddy

    Azzz1588 Guest


    Than you just answered your own question, the OLY C 4040, or 5050
    would be the best.......................
















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Nov 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Laddy

    bn Guest

    Hello,
    Rather than either of those two, you should consider the Canon G3.
    With the G3, you will never need to use the flash.
     
    bn, Nov 2, 2003
    #3
  4. Laddy

    bn Guest

    I would like a camera which is good in poorly lit areas.
    Bullshit box. The G3/G5 will never ever need to use a flash, it is that good in
    low light.
     
    bn, Nov 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Laddy

    Azzz1588 Guest

    Than the 4040, 5050 series will just do better.
    The faster lens really does make a difference.

    My friend has a G 3, and the 4040Z definately does better, and
    needs flash less often in low light than the G 3 does. We already
    did a side by side comparison, and it's a fact.....














    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Nov 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Laddy

    gr Guest

    A better comparison (from a price-point and megapixels) would be the G5 vs.
    Olympus C-5050. In that case, the C-5050 in a much better camera, especially
    for your use in poorly lit areas. It's got a ton of features for artistic
    control, too.

    If you're comparing against the G3, then the C-4040 is probably the correct
    comparison. Again, the Olympus wins with the bright lens.

    It's a close match between the G3/G5 and the C-4000, but the G3 or G5
    probably wins out unless you don't like the Canon proprietary battery
    format. (The Olympus takes AA batteries.)
     
    gr, Nov 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Somebody should tell you that neither of these cameras are very good in
    the dark unless you can take long exposures. All of the P&S digicams
    have small sensors that have relatively low effective ISO speeds (50 or
    100). If you set them to a higher ISO, they just amplify the signal
    more and that introduces noise.

    If you really want the best performance in poor light, you want one of
    the DSLR cameras that have much larger (and more light-sensitive)
    sensors, and which you can use with a fast lens.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 2, 2003
    #7
  8. Laddy

    Rick Guest

    Or consider the Sony F717 which has nightshot/nightframing
    modes, it can focus in low light or even complete darkness.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Nov 2, 2003
    #8
  9. Laddy

    gr Guest

    Sure, at three times the cost. Plus, you lose some good features on a dSLR,
    such as histogram preview and rotating LCD preview (for macro), and movies
    (if you don't like lugging around a digital camcorder as well as a camera).
     
    gr, Nov 2, 2003
    #9
  10. That's a different option again. The Sony night modes use the camera's
    unusual IR sensitivity (obtained by removing the IR-blocking filter from
    the light path temporarily). Doesn't the camera have its own IR
    illuminator LEDs too?

    In any case, these are *different* low-light shots than you get from
    long exposures using available visible light. Better for some purposes,
    not useful for others.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 2, 2003
    #10
  11. It's not 3 times the cost. Compare a Canon 300D body plus 50 mm f/1.8
    lens (particularly a used lens) with the G5 or comparable Olympus. It's
    not that much more.

    As for the other features, sure. But the only thing he mentioned
    wanting was good low-light performance, not preview and movies. So
    someone ought to tell him how to *get* the best low-light performance,
    and let him judge for himself whether he cares about the other things.

    Personally, I never shoot movies, and I'd give up LCD preview in an
    instant for several extra stops of low-light sensitivity, if that's what
    I really needed.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Laddy

    gr Guest

    I was thinking more along the lines of a 10D, since the 300D is
    intentionally crippled by Canon so it doesn't compete with the 10D. But even
    a 300D with *new* lenses is twice the price of something like an Oly C-5050.
    (Buying just a 50mm lens for the 300D makes the camera rather useless, IMO.
    Although, if one only wants to shoot indoor museum portraits, it may
    suffice.)
    One should presume he's looking at a price point around the G5 or C4000,
    though. That takes dSLRs off the list of affordable options.
    "Several" extra stops? You might get a couple extra stops over a C-5050, at
    a comparible noise level.
     
    gr, Nov 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Again, it depends on what he wants to do, which he didn't say. But the
    300D is $900 body only, $1000 with the kit zoom (B&H Photo.). The G5
    price listed at B&H is $700, though a lower price is available by email.
    Looks like 50% more money, not twice.

    And the 300D, "intentionally crippled" or not, is a considerably more
    sensitive and flexible camera than either of the two P&S cameras; why
    does it matter how it compares to the 10D?
    The noise level of the G5 at ISO 200 is about the same as the 300D at
    ISO 1600. That's three stops extra speed at the same aperture. But you
    can also use a f/1.4 lens on the 300D, which is one additional stop.
    Sounds like a significant advantage to me. The 5050 is perhaps a half
    stop faster than the G5 at the same noise level, still far behind the
    300D.

    Even if you use the f/3.5 kit lens on the 300D, which is 1.5 stops
    slower than the G5 lens and almost 2 stops slower than the 5050 lens,
    the 300D *still* better for low-light work, though using a f/3.5 lens
    for this purpose would be silly.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 3, 2003
    #13
  14. Laddy

    gr Guest

    What are you using to determine the noise level of the 300D and G5? I sure
    hope it isn't dpreview, because they seriously lack any form of control
    testing when doing their noise profile pictures. All they do is use the
    camera's built-in default sharpening and contrast settings. That may sound
    okay in theory, but in reality the firmware uses vastly different amounts of
    sharpening... "default" is very different across camera models, and even
    across firmware versions of the very same model!

    dSLRs often use less default sharpening than P&S cameras, because they're
    aimed at a consumer base that is more likely to post-process the image.
    Lower sharpening leads to lower noise profiles in tests, even though it has
    no bearing on the real noise the sensors experience.

    I'd like to see a noise profile test using the RAW image format, with no
    sharpening (or contrast) applied. Then, we'd have a better idea how "noisy"
    the G5 (or C-5050) is compared to the 300D. As I said before, I expect it's
    about 2-stops or less difference. That's about the same brightness
    difference of the C-5050's f1.8 zoom lens compared to the slow zoom the 300D
    package contains.
     
    gr, Nov 3, 2003
    #14
  15. The G3/G5 will never ever need to use a flash, it is that good in
    No, the lens does not let in as much light as the G3 lens.
    LIES.
     
    ckxch ooo toughy!, Nov 3, 2003
    #15
  16. Laddy

    gr Guest

    The G3 has a f2.0 lens, the C4040/C5050 has a f1.8 lens. You do the math.
    (Yeah, okay, you're too stupid to do the math, so you'll just have to trust
    me... the Olympus has a brighter lens.)
     
    gr, Nov 3, 2003
    #16
  17. I was using dpreview. The 300D has two different parameter sets that
    have different sharpening settings, and I was using a value somewhere
    between them. So there may well be some error.
    So you're saying that the 300D with kit lens gives images that are just
    as noisy at the same shutter speed as the C-5050. You may be right.
    But you're stuck using the lens you get with the 5050, nothing else.
    On the 300D, you can easily get 2 stops of additional sensitivity by
    simply switching lenses from the slow zoom to a cheap moderately fast
    normal lens. Two stops is a huge difference, particularly if you're
    trying to shoot without a tripod.

    It seems we are in agreement, within one stop, about the sensitivity
    difference between the various cameras. Our major disagreement is that
    you think someone will use all the cameras with the zoom that comes with
    it, while I assume someone with a 300D would immediately switch to a
    faster lens if they were doing low-light work. Only the 300D, or some
    other SLR, gives this option.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 4, 2003
    #17
  18. Laddy

    bj286 Guest

    I agree. I think APS digital has about 1 stop higher sensitivity than
    ISO 100-800 compact Nikon, clean ISO 400 vs 200. And APS digital is
    about 2 stops higher than ISO 50-400 Canon, ISO 400 vs 100.

    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#senshi
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#senslo
     
    bj286, Nov 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Laddy

    Fred Kruse Guest

    Go read some back issues from reviews and comparisons of these two cameras from
    every digital camera magazine (must be over a dozen different digital camera
    magazines) and the G3 always came out the winner. Many provided CDs with the
    mags where you could compare actual photos from several cameras and the G3 blew
    away the Olympus. The G3 was always the best true natural color and
    sharpness too. Too bad the G5 turned out to be such a lemon.
     
    Fred Kruse, Nov 4, 2003
    #19
  20. Laddy

    gr Guest

    We're talking about the lens brightness, here. Get a clue. The facts don't
    lie: F1.8 vs. F2.0.
    Odd, everything I've read indicates the Olympus colour is very accurate. Oh,
    and just what is the "best true natural sharpness"? You're not making any
    sense. If you're talking about image resolution, again the Olympus comes out
    ahead in all tests I've seen. (I'm referring to the C-5050; I haven't
    bothered checking out tests for the C-4040.)
     
    gr, Nov 4, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.