[Leica] G10

[s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)]

Yep, couldn't agree with you more on this.
I'm still of two minds about the D-lux 4, but only because of its  
extra width, with f2 no less.
So far, two of my clients are buying the G10, because of the results  
they see from mine.
By the way, the first sensor cleaning is free.
Next time, maybe I will try the shop vac first, before doing the  
chicken little thing!
S.d.


On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Philip Clarke wrote:

>
> There is two sides to every story (I'm talking about image quality). I
> have a friend, he's a sport's photographer (international) and he  
> spends
> about ?16,000 a year on equipment (this was more before the British
> pound collapsed). His theory which has been borne out by the awards he
> received, was that he needed to best equipment *always* because if the
> pictures passed over a pcture editor's desk and one was slightly
> sharper, slightly more pleasing colour rendition, then that would  
> be the
> published one. Now we know that picture editors are well versed in  
> image
> quality even if they don't always make the correct decision on  
> cropping
> or chose our preferred image.
>
> The flipside to this is that the shuttle challenger disaster, was  
> screen
> grabbed from a TV screen about 640x480 resolution and made full front
> page everywhere, the Pulitzer Prize winning Oklahoma bombing  
> picture is
> cropped to 2/3 of the image size
>
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=Charles+Porter+oklahoma 
> +&btnG=Search+Images
>
> and it's negative film. The 7/7 bombings and the execution of  
> Carlos de
> Menezes were documented on CCTV and people's mobile phones.
>
>
> The managing director of the newspapers I was working for, came  
> into the
>   photographer's area and said "we're going digital" every  
> photographer
> argued that at the time the resolution was poor the camera's were  
> heavy
> and expensive. He said he really didn't care, with the "splat  
> factor" on
> the paper the images were not detailed, and then stated the Challenger
> as an example.
>
>
> I have the D-lux 4, I do think it's overpriced especially if one is
> shooting RAW, it has the apertures and focal lengths I like and at all
> speeds and apertures it is better than any DSLR up to 2001  
> including the
> Nikon D1x, it has shutter lag, it's high speed autofocus is not,  
> but it
> still works. The lens suits my style, if the G10 had an f2 lens I'd  
> hae
> got that. We forget that image stabilisation gives better quality  
> images
> now at lower speeds without the need to resorting to flash. My opinion
> is that if the G10 has the desired lens to suit one's style, Vacuum  
> it,
> work out where the dust gets in and stick a bit of tape over it (if  
> it's
> the lens barrel retracting then that's a bit unfortunate). The Sigma
> DP-1 is a great camera but it's slow/ noisy in use hasn't got a lower
> speed than 800. One thing not mentioned (I think) is the dpreview for
> "enthusiast" compacts
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/ **SPOLIER at  
> end of
> EMAIL **
>
> One could also mention that in an emergency, there are now 8 million
> pixel telephones available. In a one off, a picture editor would  
> choose
> the best image even if it were a bit noisy. Most sudden news events
> reported by amateurs do not tend to be covered by pros carrying  
> ?16k of
> equipment and even then it my be possible to get a better shot.
>
> Just my 2p.
>
> Philip.
>
>
> Ken Carney wrote:
>
>> IMO, the G10 is OK for ISO 80 or maybe even 200.  ACR seems better  
>> for the
>> raw conversions than the Canon software.  Not an available light  
>> camera.  I
>> keep mine (in a dustproof case) in my glove compartment for the  
>> times when
>> you need any camera (like the PETA demonstration here the other  
>> day where
>> the almost naked gal, a stone fox btw, had all the meat cuts drawn  
>> out in
>> magic marker all over her bod...)
>>
>> Here is one, where I could just grab the camera.  Something vaguely
>> unsettling about it..
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/kcarney/IMG_0143.jpg.html
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-
>>> bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Slobodan  
>>> Dimitrov
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:28 AM
>>> To: Leica Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] G10
>>>
>>> I flash fill when necessary, and I rarely take images
>>> surreptitiously, so the low light function is not a concern.
>>> The P/S needs to at least marginally match an APS-C made image in
>>> reproduction.
>>> I don't think we're there yet with the products that are out now.
>>> For now, I'll wait for the next generation of P/S.
>>> S.d.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>>>
>>>> The DMC G1 certainly provides better image quality than the G10
>>>> under any conditions, and the Fuji F200EX also does better....
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> [SPOILER], either the G10 or LX3 won
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information