Comments on: Canon G10 vs Canon G11 http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/canon-g10-vs-canon-g11.html Digital photography guide, news and discussion Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:08:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Canon G10 vs. Canon G11 | Canon G Series http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/canon-g10-vs-canon-g11.html/comment-page-1#comment-1793 Canon G10 vs. Canon G11 | Canon G Series Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:46:32 +0000 http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=2243#comment-1793 [...] Radiantlite: Canon G10 is suitable for photographer that shoot in base ISO (100-200) most of the time and care about fine details. Therefore, G10 is great for photographer who works in studio. [...] [...] Radiantlite: Canon G10 is suitable for photographer that shoot in base ISO (100-200) most of the time and care about fine details. Therefore, G10 is great for photographer who works in studio. [...]

]]> By: mike n http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/canon-g10-vs-canon-g11.html/comment-page-1#comment-1467 mike n Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:30:58 +0000 http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=2243#comment-1467 The choice for me is easily the G10. 40% extra pixels = a heck of a lot more 'noise reduction' than can be achieved with a lower resolving (albeit less noisy sensor). At 'normal' viewing sizes, the g10 blows the g11 away from about 800 ISO on down. Both cameras are pretty much useless beyond 800. The G11 looks better than the G10 from about 400 ISO upwards, but only when viewed at 100% resolution - which isn't really how we look at, print, or frame photos. I don't think either camera is an out of the box option for low light photography (with flash). The built in flash is pretty poor. The choice for me is easily the G10. 40% extra pixels = a heck of a lot more ‘noise reduction’ than can be achieved with a lower resolving (albeit less noisy sensor). At ‘normal’ viewing sizes, the g10 blows the g11 away from about 800 ISO on down. Both cameras are pretty much useless beyond 800. The G11 looks better than the G10 from about 400 ISO upwards, but only when viewed at 100% resolution – which isn’t really how we look at, print, or frame photos.

I don’t think either camera is an out of the box option for low light photography (with flash). The built in flash is pretty poor.

]]> By: Long D. Nguyen http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/canon-g10-vs-canon-g11.html/comment-page-1#comment-1399 Long D. Nguyen Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:36:39 +0000 http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=2243#comment-1399 The choice for me is easy too. I went for the G11 without hesitation. I use it for family (BD parties) and social events which happen to be indoor/low light most of the time. Other time, my pictures are to be taken just before sunrise and/or just prior to sunset and I do not use flash ... so I need every high ISO Canon thows at me and appreciate evey single number of ISO I got. 10MP is more than enough for people like me. Higher MP than that just make me using up my storage unecessarily. Raw format would give me "superfine JPG" as well and many things else. Finally, we simply do not accept any level of noises in our photos, period ... sorry but no excuses ! (12/21/2009) The choice for me is easy too. I went for the G11 without hesitation. I use it for family (BD parties) and social events which happen to be indoor/low light most of the time. Other time, my pictures are to be taken just before sunrise and/or just prior to sunset and I do not use flash … so I need every high ISO Canon thows at me and appreciate evey single number of ISO I got. 10MP is more than enough for people like me. Higher MP than that just make me using up my storage unecessarily. Raw format would give me “superfine JPG” as well and many things else. Finally, we simply do not accept any level of noises in our photos, period … sorry but no excuses ! (12/21/2009)

]]> By: Giovanni Abrate http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/canon-g10-vs-canon-g11.html/comment-page-1#comment-1386 Giovanni Abrate Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:50:02 +0000 http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=2243#comment-1386 To me the choice is easy: I went for the G10. It’s like choosing between Kodachrome 25 (the G10) and high speed Ektachrome (the G11). I have always gone for resolution over speed and I’ll be using my G10 at 80-200 ASA most of the time and the resulting images are stunning. The G10 also has the Super Fine JPG mode, which is missing from the G11. To me, the additional resolution is worth the added noise at high ASA settings. To me the choice is easy: I went for the G10. It’s like choosing between Kodachrome 25 (the G10) and high speed Ektachrome (the G11). I have always gone for resolution over speed and I’ll be using my G10 at 80-200 ASA most of the time and the resulting images are stunning. The G10 also has the Super Fine JPG mode, which is missing from the G11. To me, the additional resolution is worth the added noise at high ASA settings.

]]>