Canon Fodder
Canon have a bunch of new digital cameras coming out at the end of this quarter, like the Powershot S1, which is a 3.2 megapixel model with 10x optical zoom and image stabilisation. This will compete directly with cameras like the Minolta Z1 and the Olympus and Fuji ultra zoom models. Knowing Canon, it will feel better in the hand than the Minolta.
Canon use CMOS image sensors, which tend to produce less sharp images than standard CCDs. But CMOS is a cheaper technology, so the sensors can be made larger, meaning that the camera lens has to work less hard. I'd say a characteristic of the Canon G5 (which is the flagship compact digital model) is that the images have a softer look, but one which is more flattering.
On the other hand, the Fuji hexagonal CCD technology also produces a soft image, but one which to my eyes looks less flattering - just un-sharp. Fuji models continue to be popular (because they look like good value for money) and get extremely good reviews in the photography magazines. For the life of me, I have no idea why this is. All it shows, for me, is that you can't trust magazine reviews. You have to suspect that the journalists are falling victim to freebies.
I've noticed that in camera magazines, there's no such thing as a bad review. Or rather, everybody is scoring above 70%, which is either an indication of high quality across the board or backhanders ahoy. I'm tending to interpret anything in the 80-90% range as good, while anything above 90% is supposed to be exceptional. Except you find a lot of Fujis scoring 90+%, and honestly, I wouldn't use one even it if it was free. So you have to read between the lines, and know what you want and like. I know I don't like the pictures produced by Fujis, whereas I find the CMOS-Canon images quite acceptable, probably because the Canons capture light in a better way, producing a luminous image.
I did notice, too, that the images produced by the Minolta Z1 were soft/flattering, in a Canon-like way, which is possibly an indication of using less in-camera sharpening (which can produce artifacts).
I'm hoping to get my hands on a couple of these Canons really soon. You know how keen I am on the ultra zoom. There's also the forthcoming, 8 megapixel PowerShot Pro1, which looks like it'll be pretty nice, too.
All of this is said whilst still yearning for that Leica Digilux 2.
Canon use CMOS image sensors, which tend to produce less sharp images than standard CCDs. But CMOS is a cheaper technology, so the sensors can be made larger, meaning that the camera lens has to work less hard. I'd say a characteristic of the Canon G5 (which is the flagship compact digital model) is that the images have a softer look, but one which is more flattering.
On the other hand, the Fuji hexagonal CCD technology also produces a soft image, but one which to my eyes looks less flattering - just un-sharp. Fuji models continue to be popular (because they look like good value for money) and get extremely good reviews in the photography magazines. For the life of me, I have no idea why this is. All it shows, for me, is that you can't trust magazine reviews. You have to suspect that the journalists are falling victim to freebies.
I've noticed that in camera magazines, there's no such thing as a bad review. Or rather, everybody is scoring above 70%, which is either an indication of high quality across the board or backhanders ahoy. I'm tending to interpret anything in the 80-90% range as good, while anything above 90% is supposed to be exceptional. Except you find a lot of Fujis scoring 90+%, and honestly, I wouldn't use one even it if it was free. So you have to read between the lines, and know what you want and like. I know I don't like the pictures produced by Fujis, whereas I find the CMOS-Canon images quite acceptable, probably because the Canons capture light in a better way, producing a luminous image.
I did notice, too, that the images produced by the Minolta Z1 were soft/flattering, in a Canon-like way, which is possibly an indication of using less in-camera sharpening (which can produce artifacts).
I'm hoping to get my hands on a couple of these Canons really soon. You know how keen I am on the ultra zoom. There's also the forthcoming, 8 megapixel PowerShot Pro1, which looks like it'll be pretty nice, too.
All of this is said whilst still yearning for that Leica Digilux 2.
posted by Anonymous at
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home