Macworld Forums: Canon PowerShot G12 - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Canon PowerShot G12 here

Macworld, on 03 February 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

The feature I most love on my G10, which is retained on this G12, is the ergonomically convenient thumbwheel to fine tune the exposure compensation while monitoring results on the bright, sharp LCD. This technique gave me authentically white but not burned out ice surrounded by dark ocean while shooting the incredibly weird shaped Antarctic icebergs.

Note that the LCD's dpi is nearly as good as the iPhone4's. And you still have a decent optical viewfinder which is the way you should be lining up most of your shots.

This post has been edited by Martian: 03 February 2011 - 05:23 AM

I have a G11 and use it quite a bit in shooting performances where my DSLR's shutter would be too loud. It's terrific. I'm not so sure a maximum aperture of 2.8 can be positioned as a disadvantage when a number of high end lenses in my DSLR arsenal (Nikons, all) work quite well with that as a constant aperture, in all kinds of situations. At this point, I'd be more interested in ISO range.

Tim, just curious about the drawback of a "narrow maximum aperture of F2.8". What aperture would you like to see on the camera?

Lens design is a series of compromises between size & weight, cost, a handful of image quality factors (including auto-focus accuracy), minimum focus distance (misnamed "macro"), focal length extremes & overall zoom range, and maximum aperture. Improvements in image stabilization, usable high ISOs, and multiple shot technologies are taking some of the low light burden away from the need for a "fast" lens. Likewise, at point and shoot sensor sizes, no aperture is going to give you a decent selective focus tool anyway.

So it is only natural that the compact camera trend should be toward extending focal length range at each end at the expense of large apertures, when all other factors are held equal. I would take issue with not going down to 24mm equivalent before worrying about the maximum aperture.

One more point, the marketing people (always the villains in product design) crow over the half-truth of maximum aperture but don't give details of max apertures at various focal lengths. Frankly, I care most about the max aperture at the tele range—you don't really need a large aperture at wide angle.

This post has been edited by Martian: 03 February 2011 - 09:45 AM

DanThePhotoMan, on 03 February 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

I'm not Tim... but i agree with his comment. I would want at least f2.0, if not f1.8 or f1.4. Yes, i realize that the cost of the lens increases dramatically with aperture, but one is unable to get certain short depth of field shots (especially in portraiture) without it, and I am increasingly finding myself taking those kinds of shots. Not to mention low light shooting (evening parties, kid's performances, fast action sports events), but the high ISO available now (with image stabilization) goes a long way to mitigating that issue. Because of slow shutter response, I just can't use the Powershots any more.

So, get an SLR, you might say. Well, though it is a bit off-topic, this argument also goes to the lenses available for the Canon SLRs, especially the non-fullframe sensor versions. Aside from the 50mm lens family, there is not enough selection in large aperture lenses for my taste, even in the short focal lengths (e.g. 30 mm) where an f1.8 is not physically large. The zooms all seem to start at f3.5...why aren't there more pro (L quality) lenses for the APS-C format?

This recent series of camera reviews targets the makes and models I had to choose from when making my recent purchase. I don't want the bulk of the DSLR but want high quality photographs and lots of control. The four-thirds format cameras are tempting but expensive and I don't really want to carry around a bag of lenses. I didn't buy the G12 because I wanted a faster aperture. I chose the Samsung TL500 and am thrilled with it. But any of these high-end point-and-shoot cameras are terrific. I read an article interviewing several professional photographers about what camera they take on personal vacations and the Canon G10 and G11 was the mentioned most often. They want something less obtrusive and easier to travel with than their D-SLRs.

DanThePhotoMan, on 03 February 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

Hi Dan,

Good question. This camera was reviewed as part of a roundup of higher-end fixed-lens cameras, most of which featured maximum apertures of F2.0 (the PowerShot S95 and Lumix LX5), and one of which had a maximum aperture of F1.8 (the Samsung TL500). You can find the full roundup here: http://www.pcworld.c...tandshoots.html

It's not a knock on the camera at all, just a narrower maximum aperture than the majority of cameras in its class. In terms of performance, it's moot for low-light shots, as the G12 performs very well in low-light settings. However, the camera does have a slower burst mode than competitors, and I'm wondering if the extra f-stop would have improved the camera's continuous shooting capabilities.

pkay, on 03 February 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

Just read a long review of the Panasonic ƒ1.7 20mm lens for 4/3 micro. It is interesting to think about large aperture lenses when you realize the level of distortion and the difference in brightness as you move towards the edges of an image. Most of the reviews of this lens compliment it for its incredible sharpness and lack of distortion - - once you get up to about ƒ4 or so . . . the performance at full aperture has to be compensated for by (incredible) software built into the bodies of Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras.

The point of this discussion is that large aperture lenses, especially on cameras with short focal lengths, are not without their problems. I am sure that others more knowledgeable about the physics of lenses can contribute more to this discussion than I can with my scanty second-hand info, but I've read enough to know that there is no free lunch, and that it is no trivial matter to produce low-f-stop lenses on these cameras. So the comments that point to other variables such as high-ISO performance are on the right track. I personally would love something like an ƒ1.2 or ƒ1/4 lens, but not if edge distortion and light fall-off renders the results either unusable or simply mediocre.

I gave up my G10 for an S95. I'm getting a lot more use from the S95 and enjoying it more because it is very compact, has a faster lens, and retains most of the features of the G10. I originally purchased the G10 because I wanted a compact, high-performance camera, with a viewfinder. But I soon discovered that the G series viewfinder is next to useless. As long as I wasn't getting usable viewfinder functionality with the G10 it made sense to move to the much more compact S95. I don't regret it for a minute.

Jimtowner, on 04 February 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

I have a theory that most people who shun eye level viewfinders, optical or electronic, had little or no experience with cameras before back panel LCDs were available. In other words, this may be a generation gap. It would be nice to hear comments on my theory (even though they won't be from a statistically valid sample size).

Personally, I only use the panel to compose a shot when I need perfect in-camera framing, or I need realtime feedback on a shot where I can't trust the camera to automatically focus or expose properly.

Martian,
From my scientific sample of one (me) and with all due respect, I think your theory is wrong. Here's why . . .

I am 67 and have been taking photos since I was eight with more cameras than I can to remember, starting when rear pannel LCDs were beyond science fiction. I started out with box brownies but n graduate school for my PhD in Physics at Yale I stepped up to SLRs, mostly Nikon.

In about 1996 I purchased one of the first consumer digital cameras, an early Kodak (don't recall the model) with optical viewfinder and a tiny LCD screen which only showed the photo after it was taken. I've had about eight other digital cameras of variouus types since then, six with optical viewfinders. I kept upgrading as the state of the art of digital photography advanced. I currently have an S95 and a Panasonic G1 which I appreciate for it's excellent electronic viewfinder when I want to do more exacting work.

For me, the Canon G10 viewfinder was a big dissapoinment. I'm sure it works for some people but not for me. The framing was far to imprecise to be of use to me so I sold it. That said, I think Canon makes excellent Cameras and I ceratinly enjoy S95 in many situations.

Jimtowner, on 04 February 2011 - 10:28 PM, said:

For me, the G10 viewfinder wasn't a disappointment only because my expectations were already low (though I am still very glad the G10 has any viewfinder). But I still gather from your response that if the g10's viewfinder were better, you would use it whereas I assume younger people would tend to ignore it regardless.

I hope that as display technology advances, we will see tiny, super high res, full frame electronic viewfinders (EVFs) on compacts and even ultra-compacts. But it may not happen if younger people have no interest.

BTW, you specifically mentioned Nikon SLRs--I believe that for years, Nikon viewfinders featured fuller frame coverage (still not full 100%) than did any of their competition.