Comments on: Huh? Canon's $500 G10 matches a $40,000 Hasselblad?

Side-by-side comparisons of 13x19-inch prints showed Canon's enthusiast compact model matching a professional medium-format camera. Wow.

[carguy622]

Interesting results. Just demonstrates that as consumer level cameras continue to pile on the megapixels the prints will look good, but the viewing at pixel level will always give it away. So it seems most people will be happy with the prints their 14 megapixel compacts produce, but for pixel peepers like myself, we'll be disappointed. It's too bad Fuji can't jump off the megapixel bandwagon for just one more model and produce another F30. Panasonic, though, has a pretty good contender in the LX3, a camera I am saving feverishly to buy.

[Galaxy5]

Most amateur photographers don't know what to look for in a print. You see this in the wild oversharpening, destructive workflows, and insane saturation most amateur turn out. Don't make this more than it is, Stephen.

[pretenderkc]

great images are created by the photographer not the camera!! the tool just makes life a bit easier....that's it.

[alegr]

39 Mpixels printed on 13"x19" will correspond to pixel size about 0.1 mm, that is about 250 ppi. It's not something easily seen.

In any case, those differences will further disappear when mass printed with 72 dpi screen.

[rawhead909]

There would probably be not that big of a difference if you shoot two shots with identical configurations -- f-stop, focal length, ISO (low), depth of field, etc., etc. Basically, if you boil the differentiating factor down to purely the quality of the optics and the sensors, it's going to be very difficult to tell them apart.

With that said, that's not even half of what a real comparison should be. Even at 640*480, it's VERY easy to tell apart a picture I shoot with my Pentax K200D and an Pentax FA 31mm F1.8 Limited lens and a picture I shoot with any Powershot or Lumix or pretty much any high end compact camera. It's not just the optics, but aperture, and DOF that is impossible with compact cameras, shutter speeds, the bokeh.... all the things that are simply impossible to emulate with a compact camera are what separate the two classes of digital cameras.

So this comparison is like saying "It's difficult for most people to tell apart a professional pianist playing Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do from an amateur playing the same 7 notes". Well, yeah, sure. But just have those two play Chopin's Polonaise and see if you can't tell them apart ;-)

[miahz]

Uhh, generally you would link to the article you're referencing. Not just to one of your own reviews.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

When the whole lure of your post hinges on his opinions and you quote his article for over half of your post, that's just laziness. I don't even know if i'd call it reporting. Come on, Mr. Shankland, this is a blog on the web, not a newspaper ? you know the rules.

Bad form.

[Shankland]

Yes, you're right, it is bad form to omit the link, but I inadvertently let it slip this time. It was an error of omission, though, not etiquette or laziness. (Check any of my blog posts and you'll generally see them well populated with links.)

Haste makes waste, as they say. I updated the post with the link, and in the meantime, thanks for supplying it.

[miahz]

Thanks for clearing that up. Guess i was too harsh right off the bat there.

[f0r0ne]

Was this magazine quality printing? Lower quality print/paper would neutralize digital image differences significantly.

[paazel]

ummm this is the dumbest test ever. this is the type of article that wired magazine would put on their website just to generate traffic for ads.

there's no reason to be shooting 39 megapixels for 13x9. 8 megapixels would be fine with a tripod and that canon g10.

what a terrible waste of time.

[William Crow]

Around the year 2000 I decided to stay with film. I have the same camera and lens I had then - Contax and Zeiss. And though I am not as active as some, I haven't had to buy one new lens or camera body during this entire digital period. I've likely saved $10,000 to $20,000 in just camera body purchases and even more with additional lenses and computer requirements that would be necessary with the new bodies - just to keep up, which seems so important. Still have my Hasselblad with the film backs, too.
And I'm a pro.

[djwanson]

As a pro, how much would have been spent on film & processing in the last 8 years?

I accept your point about keeping pace with technology but i don't think the money argument stands as there are too many variables. It's whatever works i guess, so each to their own and try and not get sucked along by the Mhz, Ghz, Mpx or whatever the latest battle for our money is.

[TheLostLondoner]

I have just looked at the article comparing the photos. No i have noticed a big flaw (and confusion) with what i have seen.

The side by side shot shows the hassleblad photo on the left and the Canon g10 on the right.

He then goes on comparing actual pixel side by side images.

This is where a discrepancy occurs.

no from what he explains in the MONITOR, the smaller 15megapixel image is on the left and the 39megapixel image is on the right.

If this is the case he has labelled the images wrong. as if you look closer. the 39megapixel image on the right MONITOR corresponds to what is meant to be the image taken with the G10. this is shown by looking at the first tree from the left, tracking down a third of the picture and noticing where the red leaf is placed (revealing a gap of the tree trunk not shown in the other image).

I took a cloder look as i know the G10 does not have the depth of fiel which is portrayed in the image. The image on the left is obviously a flatter image. My question, is he taking the Michael?