Anyone using a Canon G16 ?

[peter t]

I have the opportunity of purchasing a Canon G16 to replace the Fuji 100 I keep in my pocket and would be interested to hearing any comments.

 

Is the G16 a 'Alamy' camera, I could not find it one the list ?

 

Thanks everyone

 

Peter t

[Doc]

I am sure the G16 will be accepted by Alamy - it's predecessors were. I think it's too new to have made it to the list yet. I believe this weeks Amateur Photographer has a review of it.

 

Kumar

[Ed Rooney]

No no, Kumar . . . Alamy has never had any of the Canon G cameras on their preferred list.  http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp

[TABan]

Images from the Canon Gs from the 9 up have been accepted by Alamy although the cameras have never made the suitable list except for the large sensor G1X. They've not made the unsuitable list either, so it's okay to submit images from them. Shoot raw, process carefully and you can get some nice results.

[David Kilpatrick]

Got one here. You might be quite surprised. The sensor is very capable even at 3200, not sure the lens is wonderful. At low ISOs, tiny trace of noise but almost zero. Generally a capable camera and about 1/2 stop better than the G15 for higher ISOs.

[Ashish Agarwal]

With regard to the Canon G series, I had images from the Canon G10 and had asked MS about this. This was the reply from a few months back:

 

"We do not recommend Canon Powershot G10, but in the past we have accepted images from it. This is the reason why this camera is not listed on our recommended camera list."

 

I just double check the images from this camera before submitting.

[M.Chapman]

I've used both the Canon G10 and more recently the Canon G15. However, I'm thinking of ditching the G15 for Alamy work, I'm finding it's just too much effort to get a decent balance between noise and detail even at ISO80. I find it's OK for architectural shots in good light, but it seems to struggle with fine textures in landscapes (e.g. distant trees, lawn grass etc.) even in good light. Maybe I set my standards higher than needed (I'm used to a DSLR) but I've recently rejected quite a few shots from the G15 for fear of SoLD. 

 

If anyone's prepared to share their LR4 Detail (sharpening and NR) settings when converting RAW images from the Canon G15 I'd be interested. There are so many possible combinations, it's quite possible I haven't found an optimal combination. 

[David Kilpatrick]

ISO 80-200 = Sharpening 25, radius 0.5, detail 25, masking nowt; Luminance NR 15, detail 25, colour NR 25, detail 50 (sliders move automatically when you set the first parameters).

[peter t]

ISO 80-200 = Sharpening 25, radius 0.5, detail 25, masking nowt; Luminance NR 15, detail 25, colour NR 25, detail 50 (sliders move automatically when you set the first parameters).

 

Thanks to all of you who responded. And after some considerable thought I think I will update the Fuji 100.

 

I am in the USA at present and the G16 is on sale around £100 cheaper than the UK here.

 

peter t

[M.Chapman]

ISO 80-200 = Sharpening 25, radius 0.5, detail 25, masking nowt; Luminance NR 15, detail 25, colour NR 25, detail 50 (sliders move automatically when you set the first parameters).

David, thanks for sharing that. The settings you supplied give a "softer" result than I usually aim for. I supsect that's where my problems coming from. I'm trying for something sharper which tends to bring up the noise from the tiny pixels. If I then increase the NR it turns into a "watercolour effect". I've setup a LR preset with your name on it, and I'll see how I get on!

 

I've had over 150 submissions since my last fail, and I don't want to mess up my record. However, based on your suggested settings, it looks like I may be able to get away with something slightly softer without getting "SoLD"

 

PS. You didn't mention the Luminance NR contrast setting. I've no idea what that does, I leave it at 0.

 

Thanks again.

[David Kilpatrick]

Well if you go sharper than 25 you are really aiming for the dPreview forums "that isn't sharp" web viewer crowd. Digital images are supposed to have detail but not sharpened detail. I often turn sharpness down to zero - you are meant to get the sharpness from your lens, not from the processing. My settings are just a good default (and the Luminance Contrast at zero is normal). I find they work well for most cameras and speeds from 100 to 1600 now, I might zap the colour NR up to 50 and luminance up to 35 for ISO 3200 files, and turn down sharpness to 15.

 

Alamy's official line is - turn the sharpness down to zero. That's possible with some (no-AA-filter) cameras but Adobe's conversion is quite soft to start with so a value in the 10-30 range seems to be needed to look like 'no sharpening' in some other converters.

[M.Chapman]

Alamy's official line is - turn the sharpness down to zero. That's possible with some (no-AA-filter) cameras but Adobe's conversion is quite soft to start with so a value in the 10-30 range seems to be needed to look like 'no sharpening' in some other converters.

I agree. My objective was to just overcome the blurring introduced by the AA filter. But, since I don't have a non-AA camera to compare with, it's been pretty subjective. Typically I've relied on the LR4 defaults, but with my Canon G15 the results just looked a bit soft relative to what I see from my Canon 550D or Lumix G5 (also using LR4 defaults). So I'd been increasing the sharpening a little but then noticing the noise. I'll try running with your suggested settings and see how I get on.

 

Thanks again.