GF1 vs Canon G11

[mark1958]

I have not seen any real image comparisons between the GF1 and Canon G11.

I am most interested in shutter lag, high iso performance, image quality. I do not care about the jpgs.. only the final RAW output. So for focal range comparisons-- the 14-45 would be the most appropriate. I realize the 20/1.7 would really be superior.... but i am looking for none DSLR with best image quality yet compact for a carry around. M

[Rawfa]

Why not GF1 vs Canon S90? The S90 has the same sensor as the G11 but the lens is faster (it starts at f2.0).

[Rawfa]

Check out this high iso comparison Amin has just posted on http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/...h1-g1-and.html
The GF1 is supposed to perform more or less like the GH1.

[nostatic]

Small sensor vs. u4/3. Bigger is better (depending on what you like of course). I love my DLux4 but when I put the hi iso files side by side with the E-P1 it was no contest.

[mark1958]

Rafa
I have the G11 and that is why i asked about this comparison.

[Rawfa]

Oh, ok. That explains it
I don't have the G11 (nor the S90 for that matter), but I did have the E-P1 and the LX3 and I'm afraid that no matter how good the LX3 is for a compact when it comes to dynamic range and high iso, it's just no match for the micro 4/3 system. I've posted here some samples of iso 4000 from the E-P1 that are just perfect (for me). With the LX3 I've managed to come up with some usable iso 1600, but you really have to struggle, whereas with the E-P1 iso 1600 was very usable.

[Rawfa]

BTW, post some G11 pictures, my friend!

[pellicle]

Hi

a cunning method is to do side by side pages and examine the images.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page17.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/page26.asp

I prefer this to someone telling me what I should be thinking

[mark1958]

I actually read this review. There are no comparisons of what I was most interested in. The G11 (or even G10) and the GF1 RAW conversion. I know there are some human variables when RAW images are converted etc etc.. but i just want to get an idea. Moreover, the comparison on the dpreview utilizes the 50mm macro lens and not the 14-45 zoom.

[mark1958]

Nostic and Rafa thanks for the notes. I have used the LX3 and have compared it to the G11. The higher iso images (RAW) are better from the G11. However, i started playing with NIK software to try to reduce the noise a bit and see how much detail i can preserve in the LX 3. I see a bit more detail in the LX3 images (non scientific-- handheld etc shots), but if i get the noise levels approx equal, i loose more in he LX 3 shots. Anyway, the controls on the LX 3 really bug me and the G11 is much better in this regard. Albeit, the LX 3 was the best P/s I have ever used. So i think the EP-1 is fairly close to the GF-1 in terms of IQ. Have you used the 14-45mm lens? I am not sure if i should post the G11 images here or in the Canon section. It is not really a 4/3 camera.

Originally Posted by Rawfa

Oh, ok. That explains it
I don't have the G11 (nor the S90 for that matter), but I did have the E-P1 and the LX3 and I'm afraid that no matter how good the LX3 is for a compact when it comes to dynamic range and high iso, it's just no match for the micro 4/3 system. I've posted here some samples of iso 4000 from the E-P1 that are just perfect (for me). With the LX3 I've managed to come up with some usable iso 1600, but you really have to struggle, whereas with the E-P1 iso 1600 was very usable.

[Rawfa]

My spider sense tells me you should post on the "small sensor" section.
I'm actually very interested on an LX3 vs S90 comparison. If you say the G11 has better iso performance than the LX3 I would assume the S90 will be even better, considering it has an f2.0 lens.

[pellicle]

Originally Posted by mark1958

Rafa
I have the G11 and that is why i asked about this comparison.

I could send you some G1 raw files for you to play with ... I could shoot some things which you could then match and compare with directly

[mark1958]

THat would be great.. Markay at stanford dot edu is my email. If you have a large file transfer system account please send. otherwise i will set one up tomorrow

Originally Posted by pellicle

I could send you some G1 raw files for you to play with ... I could shoot some things which you could then match and compare with directly

[pellicle]

Mark (I assume)

images are on their way to server now ... via mailbigfile (for your antispam software)

I've sent some from my blog page image examination here and here of course you won't be able to relate that to anything you have there but ... none the less. You'll get some blown hilight in the white trunks of the birch shot in the blue channel but the greens just made it in. This will allow you to test hilight recovery and differing RAW strategies.

I use dcraw or batch operations in Photomatix and apply a curve that I like these days. I like that flow which while not visual gets me to where I want to be faster on the machines I use.

Originally Posted by mark1958

THat would be great.. Markay at stanford dot edu is my email. If you have a large file transfer system account please send. otherwise i will set one up tomorrow

please let me know if you'd like a same image ISO change sequence stepping you through the ISO of the same scene

[pellicle]

perhaps someone will get annoyed at this ... however the 2 raw files can be downloaded for about 48 hours from this link.

[nostatic]

You need to be careful comparing web images - lots of variables. The reality is that physics are physics, and while technology does march on, often the man behind the curtain is doing things that you might not want (ie NR).

My hunch is that S90/G11 vs LX3 would be interesting and there wouldn't be a night/day difference. If the Canon files are "cleaner" I would attribute that to maybe some electronic tweaks along with a big dollop of software (ie NR).

To my eyes shooting DLux4 and E-P1 back to back, there is a leap in file quality at higher iso between the two. You don't have to pixel peep very hard to see it. I would predict the same for G11 and S90. If someone wants to send me an S90 I'll do the comparison

[pellicle]

Originally Posted by nostatic

You need to be careful comparing web images

which is why I sent him the camera raw files

[jerryk]

Originally Posted by mark1958

I have not seen any real image comparisons between the GF1 and Canon G11.

I am most interested in shutter lag, high iso performance, image quality. I do not care about the jpgs.. only the final RAW output. So for focal range comparisons-- the 14-45 would be the most appropriate. I realize the 20/1.7 would really be superior.... but i am looking for none DSLR with best image quality yet compact for a carry around. M

I am assuming the G11 is faster than my g9, but the AF performance of the GF1 is so much faster than the G9 I am sure it will be faster than the G11. Th time from image focused to shutter release also seems quicker on the GF1.

[henningw]

Originally Posted by Rawfa

Why not GF1 vs Canon S90? The S90 has the same sensor as the G11 but the lens is faster (it starts at f2.0).

The S90 seems to have gawdawful barrel distortion at the wide end. 5% or more.

I don't have one but images that have been posted killed this camera for me.

[pellicle]

then there is of course the obvious issue of interchangeable lenses While the Canon has the screw on adaptor lenses they are both expensive and system specific.

With a GF-1 with a pancake I can carry it in a daypack side pocket and put a lens in my pack. So if I see something in the wildlife way I can still use it like I do on my G1



but seriously even a snuggle little FD200mm f4 or even more compact OM 100f2.8 is great.

I took this with a OM 100f2.8 hand held ... can't imagine doing that with a G10 or 11

[Rawfa]

Also have in mind that the GF1+20mm = $900, while the S90 = $430

[ZoranC]

Of course compact can not have low light sensitivity of full frame sensor and of course compact will not be choice for birds in flight etc etc _but_ each tool has it's own place.

So, while I have no side-by-sides to show below is 100% crop from shot I took with G11 after little bit of playing with RAW. More than good enough for certain things, if you ask me.

[gjhzyy]

Originally Posted by mark1958

I actually read this review. There are no comparisons of what I was most interested in. The G11 (or even G10) and the GF1 RAW conversion. I know there are some human variables when RAW images are converted etc etc.. but i just want to get an idea. Moreover, the comparison on the dpreview utilizes the 50mm macro lens and not the 14-45 zoom.

I agree with it.

[Rawfa]

You should check this out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eras/g11.shtml

[pellicle]

Rawfa .. nice comparison link

some interesting viewpoints of the reviewer when comparing to the GF-1:

It's all about trade-offs, isn't it? The G11 (or G10 for that matter) is appealing to serious photographers looking for a always-along camera because of its few manual controls, optical viewfinder, and decent image quality.

ok ... few issues with that ... like the GF-1 has esentially all of that except the optical view finder.

Which brings us to an IQ comparison. At ISO 100 the differences are visible, but it takes some pixel peeping to see them.

well, that or making a A4 print and wondering why there is multi coloured stuff sprinkled through white walls and objects.

but he was surprised when he mad the test ..

I'm not sure what's going on with the G11's white balance, because both cameras were set on Auto WB, and then in Lightroom 3 Beta the white table-top was used as a balance point. The Canon's WB is simply weird. The floor tiles are definitely not orange!

But that aside, the difference in both noise and resolution between the two cameras whacks you upside the head. The GF1 frame looks like it was taken with a DSLR, while the G11 images looks like, well, that it was taken with a pocket camera.

[emphasis mine]

yep ... that's what I'd expect

[Rawfa]

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised by a similar comparision I've made these days. I've shot similars shots with the LX3 and the E-P1 at base ISO and I was surprised at how little difference there was.