All of us (apart from a few masochists) would like a camera that was small, easy to carry and use and relatively cheap but took pictures that would (at least technically) be as good as those that you can get from big and expensive cameras (if you can afford them.) Photography has always been very much tied to expense – whether it was the manservant and the photographic van for Roger Fenton in the Crimea or the eye-watering cost of the digital Hasselblad (though they recently announced a price cut.) And through the history of photography there have probably always been people ready to point out that a good big’un will always beat a good little one.
In You’ve Got to be Kidding! No I’m Not, Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape compares a Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back and a Hasselblad 55-110mm lens is compared with the Canon G10, costing somewhere around $39,500 less. The test conditions slightly favoured the Hassleblad as that was firmly on a tripod, whereas the G10 was simply held on top of it.
Of course the ultimate image quality of the Hassleblad combination was higher, and as the article states will clearly show for large prints – greater than 13×9 inches. But at this size he found that photographers and industry pros couldn’t tell the difference between prints from the two cameras. The only significant difference at this size was in the depth of field.
So is it still worth shooting on larger and more expensive cameras? Often of course it is, as the larger sensors will certainly perform better at higher ISO and for when larger prints are needed. You also get advantages such as better viewfinders and greater flexibility at least with DLSRs – including the ability to use lenses like the 10.5mm semi-fisheye I rather like.
But cameras like the Canon G10 do show how good small-sensor cameras can be, at least where the light is good enough to use relatively low ISO and where really large prints are not needed.
Of course, camera choice ends up as a very personal thing. Reichmann in a comparative review of the Canon G10 and the Nikon P6000 (which also refers to the Panasonic LX-3) makes clear some of the differences of approach reflected in these cameras (and the Canon G9.) Users who hoped that the G10 would be a better G9 may well be disappointed, and Dave Allen certainly was. If you’ve not seen his video review yet, don’t miss it. Even if you have no interest at all in the G10 I think you will enjoy it.
Despite this I’m still thinking about buying one!
Hmmmm. Doesn’t seem very robust. Gave up on the G series when they stopped including a swivelling screen. That was its most endearing feature, and tantamount to having a waist level viewfinder, but not annoyingly back-to-front as in a twin-lens Rollieflex. Some of my best photographs on the old Canon G2 were a success mainly as a result of being able to frame a shot unobtrusively using this facility.