Michael,

Thanks for the G11 review, it looks like I will keep my G10 a bit longer (or at least my wife will). The S90 might actually be more interesting indeed.

Is the G11/S90 sensor still a Sony part? As far as I know it is still not using Sony's new backlit sensor technology, right?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not sure about the sensor.

As for the S90, I am starting to think that it'll be a preferable choice for many.

Michael

The G11 and S90 probably use the Sony ICX685CQZ CCD; see http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news..._icx685cqz.html
Likely the Ricoh GR digital III uses the same one.

This is a good old Sony HAD CCD technology, so not the new backlit Exmor CMOS technology.

I purchased a G11 and sold it for the GF1. There are features I really liked about the G11 including its size, and the position and specific control buttons and dials. I think Canon did a great job with this parameter. However, I agree that the coarse focus is really a disappointment. Unlike the current review, not too many have mentioned this. I think the image quality of the GF1 is quite remarkable and especially impressed at the higher isos as mentioned. However it is really not a truly portable camera. I purchased a lowepro Apex 100 --- the camera 14-45mm lens attached with the hood forward or reversed fits. I can carry on my belt but it is noticeable and unlike the G11 or Panasonic LX-3 not something I can probably keep at my side throughout the day. I have not found a smaller bag at this point. So I am not sure if i will keep my LX-3 as a portable camera or just stick with the GF1. Clearly on my next work trip-- I am going with the GF1--- 14-45 and 7-14mm to be delivered soon instead of my canon 5DII, which I started using in place of my MF gear for short trips.

I did not appreciate the G10 vs G11 comparisons since i never owned the former. This review was quite informative for me.

Michael

Thanks for the review. I use my G10 as a take anywhere camera, when my 5D stays home. I'm happy with the low ISO performance and the resolution of the lens. I'd hoped that your review would shed some light on dynamic range (which I find disappointing in the G10). Your test conditions were ideal for this, but it appears that the G11 images all received more exposure than those of the G10 and so it is difficult to compare shadow detail/noise. Was this because the cameras expose differently under similar conditions?

Thanks

Yes, they did expose slightly differently.

But don't expect anything startling in terms of DR. Still pretty poor compared to larger sensors.

Michael

Though I am a big fan of the new "big sensor in a small body" trend, it might be nice to see one other sort of low light comparison:
wide open at equal shutter speed on both the G11 and GF-1+14-45.
That would let the G11 take advantage of its brighter [lower minimum f-stop] zoom, by getting the speed needed at a lower ISO speed, and it would bring into play one factor in favor of smaller formats: when lenses are limited by size, weight and cost, the shorter focal length lenses of a smaller format can often be brighter and so allow the use of lower ISO speeds.

Of course with the 20/1.7 wide open, the GF-1 should knock the stuffing out of any small sensor compact in low light!


[Added: ] P. S. Thanks for one thing: correctly saying that the G11 and such have smaller apertures than for example the GF-1 with 14-45 f/3.5-5.6, even though the G11 lens has a lower minimum aperture ratio, sometimes mistaken as being "faster".
For low light speed, there is no substitute for mm! (of aperture diameter)

What I like about the G "family" is it's macro capability - for me that alone is worth the price of admission. In that context the articulating screen is what enticed me to go from the G10 t G11 - sometimes it's fun to shoot the underside of flowers etc. and the articulated screen makes that possible. Plus the generally wider dof helps in macro.

I re-read the article and I couldn't find any text where the correct definition was used (aperture=diameter). All I saw was the far more common colloquialism (aperture=f-number). Was the following text the part that you were referring to?



If so, I think after reading it again you'll see that Michael is using the common colloquial definition (aperture=f-number).

I was thinking of the words you quote:
"... the G11 ... offering small-built-in zooms, though at the cost of smaller maximum apertures."
I read this as saying the smallness comes with the disadvantage ("at the cost") of smaller aperture diameters ... why would the smallness of the lenses be tied to smaller minimum f-stops (which increases lens size), and why would smaller minimum f-stops be reported as a disadvantage? Also the word maximum: which makes more sense here, "maximum f-stop" or "maximum aperture size"?

Maybe I'm being thick, but I fail to see why the misunderstanding.

An aperture of f/4 is smaller than an aperture of f/2. I'm referring to the smallest maximum aperture, not the smallest minimum aperture of course.

Why is this confusing?

Michael

I can see why you would think that, but I think what Michael is saying is that larger sensors tend to have fast fixed-focal length lenses (e.g. f/1.7), whereas the smaller cameras (like the G11) tend to offer slow zooms (f/2.8). (Only referring to the f-number in both cases, not the diameter.)

Is that right, Michael?

Maybe that is what Michael meant after all. But if so, it is rather confusing to compare zoom lenses with one camera to (fast) primes on another ... especially in a review when all cameras were used with zoom lenses! The more natural comparison is surely between the zoom lenses of the high end small sensor models (G11 F/2.8-4.5, S90 f/2-4.9, LX3 f/2-2.8) to the zoom lenses in a comparable GF-1 kit, like the Panasonic f/3.5-5.6 used in this article. In Michael's words "This lens [the 14-45/3.5-5.6] rather than the 20mm f/1.7, is a closer match to the G11's 28-140mm equivalent zoom"

Then the small sensor compacts have lower minimum f-stops, or "bigger apertures" in the common but incorrect description. The small sensor compacts still have smaller aperture sizes, which gather light more slowly from the subject.

I see two main areas where little cameras like this have a substantial performance edge...

* macro work is very good on a G-series digicam
* underwater work is within reach of casual divers and snorkelers


For that matter, I think the S90 is likely to eclipse the G11 as a pocket-able camera for pros. It has the benefit of a smaller size and many of the great features from the G-series.

Good point on underwater use - why are Canon good at producing u/w housings for their compacts and Panasonic are not - pity I can't take my LX3 diving