Disappointed with G10

[Liz]

I just took my G10 out for the first time this past weekend. Having owned the G9 and loved it, I didn't have too much of a learning curve.

The problem is that I could not get one good image. When I do a first try-out with a new camera I usually do quite a few shots in "P" mode and play with a few settings and take it from there after I get a bit used to the camera. I also like to see what "auto" can do as the G10 would be my carry-around-all-the-time camera and often want to "grab" a shot quickly so I keep it in auto since I don't know what the lighting might be. My G9 was almost always right on with exposure - or close. It never let me down.

With the G10 the exposure was off on just about every shot. Obviously I played with EC and other settings, but nothing gave me a good shot. I also had quite a few soft images which surprised me.

I went back and looked at the first shots I took with my G9 in "P" and auto down at the Jersey shore. There is no comparison in the IQ - at least with what I've done so far. I really never had a "bad" camera day with the G9.

I don't want to have to struggle to get a good shot every time I use a p&s. I do play around with settings, but many times I do snapshots especially when I'm with my friends or come across something while I'm driving.

So, my question is - should I try another copy? Look for another G9 or other p&s? Or am I giving up too soon?

Thanks for any advice, input - whatever! I always feel better getting someone else's perspective - helps me not be discouraged. I had big hopes for the G10.

I can't post any of the G10 shots as I just got a new computer and don't have the software to upload it.

These are my first G9 shots - straight out of camera - the ones I'm comparing the G10 shots too. Nothing wrong with the IQ on the G9 - posted somewhere in the archives.

Jersey Shore - new G9 camera

Liz

[Loupey]

Liz, sounds strange indeed. I don't have any suggestions for you.

So, my question is - should I try another copy? Look for another G9 or other p&s? Or am I giving up too soon?

Maybe, possibly, probably.

I'd play with the settings for another day or two before returning it. As for trying another G10 or going back to the G9, I don't know - I have no idea what the G10 improves on the G9.

Keep us updated. Good luck.

[Liz]

I'd play with the settings for another day or two before returning it

Loupey,

Thanks for the comments. This is what I'm going to do.

Liz

[photophorous]

Since you had good luck with a G9, it seems unlikely that this is a user error problem. I'd go back to the store and exchange it. If the second one is the same, I'd shop around for something different.

Good luck.

Paul

[hollis]

somewhere in the menu, there should be a "Reset All Settings"
I'd try that 1st & then chunk it back to the store

[Liz]

Thanks Paul and Hollis - I'm returning the G10. I've been looking at a few other cameras as I'm not 100% happy with the images I've seen from the G10 - some user reviews have also complained of softness in corners, and others have complained about exposure problems.

I'm going with the Panasonic LX3 - for the 24mm wide angle, although the zoom only goes to 60mm. However, since I'm selling my Tokina 11-16 because it's too heavy for me, this will at least give me the equivilent of the 16mm on a p&s.

The deal breaker is the fact that it's on sale for $399 no tax or shipping from J&R in NY. Most other places it's about $499 - some places have it for less, but $399 is really a good price.

Liz

[Photo-John]

I hope you like the LX3 better. I have been very curious about how the LX3 and the G10 match up. I confess I'm rooting for the LX3. I like Panasonic's image quality strategy better. I think a larger sensor at 10 megapixels will be better for most purposes than a 14-megapixel sensor with smaller pixels. And I've already seen one report by a person who has both that says the LX3 has better JPEG image quality. Personaly, I'm curious about RAW performance - particularly speed. The LX2 was way too slow in the RAW mode so I hardly ever shot anything besides JPEGs. But with the same resolution as the LX2 and a two generation processor improvement, I have high hopes for the LX3 having really usable RAW.

Can't wait for you to get the new camera and give us your comparison!

[mjs1973]

I heard Scott Bourne talking about his new LX3 on the latest This Week In Photography podcast and it sounds like a pretty good camera. He did mention that he wished it had a little bit longer zoom, but that was about the only negative thing he said. Good luck with your new purchase Liz. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

[Liz]

I hope you like the LX3 better. I have been very curious about how the LX3 and the G10 match up. I confess I'm rooting for the LX3. I like Panasonic's image quality strategy better. I think a larger sensor at 10 megapixels will be better for most purposes than a 14-megapixel sensor with smaller pixels. And I've already seen one report by a person who has both that says the LX3 has better JPEG image quality. Personaly, I'm curious about RAW performance - particularly speed. The LX2 was way too slow in the RAW mode so I hardly ever shot anything besides JPEGs. But with the same resolution as the LX2 and a two generation processor improvement, I have high hopes for the LX3 having really usable RAW.

Can't wait for you to get the new camera and give us your comparison!

John,

How did you find the color rendition on the LX2? I did read somewhere along the way that you have to "work" for accurate color rendition on the LX3.

Also - I had another interesting phenomena with the G10. When I looked at the images on my monitor, if I zoomed in even slight for a crop, the images looked "pixelated" (not sure if this is the correct term). I zoomed in to similar images done with the A720 - even zoomed much closer, and there was no sign of this. What would cause this? I've seen this before when I've zoomed into images - but only to the extreme. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Liz

[Liz]

I found a short review of the LX3 (not in-depth) if anyone is interested.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eras/lx3.shtml

Liz

[SmartWombat]

Talked to Canon today about the G10 symptoms you described, they asked if I was a CPS member, and to get it in to Canon to be fixed.
They said the same about my G9 when I showed the the hairs inside the camera lens and how they showed up in small aperture macro images.

I'm considering not buying any more barrel zoom pocket cameras, it seems to a weak point where they can't seal the barrel because of the air volume change, and dust and pocket lint gets pulled in by the lower air pressure as the barrel extends.

I have the same problem on a old Panasonic LZ5 and a 9 month old G9, but the Canon got dirty inside far quicker.

The only reason I won't buy more is that Micro 4/3 is coming, and having held a G1 it's definitely right for me I just need to wait and see if the Olympus is better, and whether the price comes down to affordable.

[Liz]

Talked to Canon today about the G10 symptoms you described, they asked if I was a CPS member, and to get it in to Canon to be fixed.

Paul,

Since I described two different sympoms in 2 different posts, which symptoms are you referring to? 1) under-exposed shots? and soft images? or this one:

I had another interesting phenomena with the G10. When I looked at the images on my monitor, if I zoomed in even slight for a crop, the images looked "pixelated" (not sure if this is the correct term). I zoomed in to similar images done with the A720 - even zoomed much closer, and there was no sign of this. What would cause this? I've seen this before when I've zoomed into images - but only to the extreme. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

I appreciate you're doing this. I wonder what the problem(s) are at any rate with the G10.

Liz

[SmartWombat]

I asked about the softness and over exposure.

The images on your monitor, I wasn't sure it was a camera problem.
Sounds odd, were you shooting in raw or jpeg?
I suspect it is a new raw format and it wasn't supported by the software (the G9 isn't supported by Windows RAW image viewer and only in the latest Thumbs+ update) because most programs will initially use the embedded low resolution jpeg (as does the camera) and then load and interpret the raw image in the background.
Or despite you setting high resolution jpeg the camera didn't do what you told it through some mis-reading of the controls perhaps.

[Anbesol]

Liz, if I understand correctly, your only contention thus far with the G10 is with its auto metering programs? Have you experimented with the manual modes?

[mjs1973]

Hey Liz,

Scott Bourne has written a short review of his new LX3. You can find it here.

http://twipphoto.com/archives/1426

[Liz]

I asked about the softness and over exposure.

The images on your monitor, I wasn't sure it was a camera problem.
Sounds odd, were you shooting in raw or jpeg?
I suspect it is a new raw format and it wasn't supported by the software (the G9 isn't supported by Windows RAW image viewer and only in the latest Thumbs+ update) because most programs will initially use the embedded low resolution jpeg (as does the camera) and then load and interpret the raw image in the background.
Or despite you setting high resolution jpeg the camera didn't do what you told it through some mis-reading of the controls perhaps.

Paul,

Thanks again! I appreciate all the help you've given me here - and with the computer.

I was shooting jpeg. It could have been a few things. I haven't installed PSElements6 yet so just used the software in the new HP computer which I never used before - plus I haven't calibrated the monitor.

At any rate the camera will go back Monday since it is still within their return policy.

Liz

[Liz]

Liz, if I understand correctly, your only contention thus far with the G10 is with its auto metering programs? Have you experimented with the manual modes?

Yes, I tried different settings. Since I'm familiar with the G9 there was really no learning curve, but the bottom line is that no matter what I did, the G10 IQ doesn't compare with the G9 - or at least this copy doesn't. I've seen a lot of samples from the G10 on other websites and have seen very few images that would make me believe I'd be happy in the long run.

I should have waited before I took the leap, but I just assumed it would be as good as - and probably better - than the G9. I don't think it is, but that's just my opinion.

Liz

[Liz]

Hey Liz,

Scott Bourne has written a short review of his new LX3. You can find it here.

http://twipphoto.com/archives/1426

Mike,
Thanks! That's a very good review - to be continued when he tries RAW. Since IQ is the most important consideration when I'm purchasing a camera, I was encouraged by his comment:

The main reason I selected this camera as a keeper is it’s superior image quality. While I have always enjoyed the image quality I got out of the G9, I was blown away by the image quality of the Panasonic.

I've seen some really beautiful images from the LX3 - and some stunning macros. At some places the price is $100 less than the G10. I paid $399 at J&R - no tax or shipping. I'm going to try it out tomorrow.

Liz

[SmartWombat]

I've seen significant chromatic aberration in the corners on some LX3 shots, but that's probably someone shooting wide open. It does look good, and in the dpreview Canon G series forums it seems the main camera people are comparing to the G9/10 so it seems you're not alone.

[SmartWombat]

I'm really looking forward to the micro 4/3 system.
Because with its dust reduction system I should end up with a pocket sized system that doesn't end up like this after 9 months.
When stopped down to f/8 the pocket lint is revealed in all its glory.

I've seen elsewhere on the web that Canon have replaced the lens/af assembly on affected cameras. Which matches the advice from Canon at a recent show; "you're a CPS member? send the G9 in for cleaning with your two 1Ds".

But it makes me wonder if the G10 has better seals, or if any other extending barrel P&S zoom has better dust resistance.

[Liz]

Just an update. I went out for just a little while yesterday to try out the LX3. I have to say that I am immensely impressed with this camera. It is small, but solid and feels really great in my hands.

I didn't change too many settings because I didn't have time to figure out how. However, straight out of camera, no post processing the images were sharp and the color was fine (this is coming from an avid Canon person - always bragging about those Canon colors)! The 24mm is awesome! It has some barrel distortion - just about as much as I got with the Tokina 11-16 at 16mm - actually converting to 35mm the 16 on the Tokina is the same width as the 24 on the LX3. And personally a little distortion doesn't bother me on a wide angle. However, I believe that can be fixed with PTLens - not sure.

As soon as I get my photo software downloaded I will post some of the snaps I took yesterday. Just wanted to say that I really like this camera.

Liz

[mjs1973]

Good to hear Liz. How do you like not having an optical view finder on the LX3?

[Liz]

Good to hear Liz. How do you like not having an optical view finder on the LX3?

Yes I miss the optical viewfinder. I found myself trying to look through it yesterday, and remembered it wasn't there. That and the short zoom are the compromise; however, the IQ is great IMO.

Liz

[mjs1973]

Thanks for the feedback Liz. From what I hear, there is an accessory optical VF you can get for that camera, but it's $$$.

[rigel]

I hope you like the LX3 better. I have been very curious about how the LX3 and the G10 match up.

Can't wait for you to get the new camera and give us your comparison!

Imaging Resource have put up test shots of both the G10 and LX3 for comparison in their Comparometer. Be sure to check it out.

From my untrained eye, it seems the LX3 images are better than the G10's. But that probably doesn't mean much