# Canon G11 announced



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

At this price point - and with the hefty bulk of the G11 - I reckon the new Lumix Micro Four Thirds compact (or even the Olympus) look a better deal,  but here's the details on the new Canon flagship compact:









> The G11 replaces the G10's 14.7MP sensor with what it describes as a high sensitivity 10 MP CCD though it still uses the same 28-140mm equivalent stabilized lens. The camera also gains a tilt and swivel LCD, though the size drops to 2.8 inches. Flash sync speed increases to 1/2000th of a second and HDMI output is also added. Other features include Dual Anti-Noise System (more sensitive sensor an Digic 4 offering a claimed 2-stop improvement over the G10), RAW shooting and P/A/S/M shooting modes.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081908canong11.asp


----------



## wordie (Aug 19, 2009)

.... and yes, I did just buy a G10!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

Very interesting decision to knock it back to 10 Mpx from 14.7 on the G10.

e2a: and DP Review seem to be right that the new S90 is designed to go head to head with the LX-3 if the size of the G11 is your concern. Looks like they share the same sensor (and RAW output).


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

cybertect said:


> Very interesting decision to knock it back to 10 Mpx from 14.7 on the G10.


They're following the lead of people like Ricoh who oped out of the daft megapixel race a while ago.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

Yep, but when Canon do it, it really is a sign that the megapixel wars are over (thank goodness).

10 seems a reasonable level to me. Unless your lens (and noise control) is absolutely top notch, 15 seemed largely a waste.


----------



## fubert (Aug 19, 2009)

Sorry, but didn't the G10 come out about two weeks ago ?


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

A little under a year ago - mid September '08.

e2a: Fits a pattern - the G9 was announced mid-August 07, the G7 mid-Sept 06 (there was no G8)


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

fubert said:


> Sorry, but didn't the G10 come out about two weeks ago ?


No. It came out last year.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

It's a nice looking camera though and looks tougher than my LX3: http://www.engadget.com/photos/canon-g11-hands-on/


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2009)

editor said:


> They're following the lead of people like Ricoh who oped out of the daft megapixel race a while ago.



Not so daft really. 10MP is fine for A4 and most peoples expectations and requirements. Allows for larger receptors also, so better quality/less noise in theory. Personally, I want more pixels. Somewhere around 66MP in a compact would suit me  Never going to happen mind. One reason why film will always remain an option.

I've been looking at decent digi compacts recently. Everything looks overpriced. For the difference in quality of results and quality of build, I see little point in spending more than €150 on a compact.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Not so daft really. 10MP is fine for A4 and most peoples expectations and requirements. Allows for larger receptors also, so better quality/less noise in theory.


It's certainly daft when you're talking about the tiny sensors in digital compacts. 

There's huge compromises involved as the megapixel count rises, and most manufacturers have cottoned on to the fact that the technology simply isn't there yet to produce consistent high  quality results from such a small sensor. 

If you want high quality pictures from a compact, you should be looking at the new Olympus or Lumix Micro Four Thirds cameras.

Oh, and there's a world of difference between a cheap digicam and something like a LX3.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2009)

editor said:


> ...
> 
> Oh, and there's a world of difference between a cheap digicam and something like a LX3.



Depends what you call a cheap digicam. Personally, I don't see a world of difference. A difference, but nowhere near the difference in price.

I wouldn't waste my cash.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

G11 high ISO sample crops at Canon USA

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...categoryid=144&modelid=19209#ModelFeaturesAct


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2009)

cybertect said:


> G11 high ISO sample crops at Canon USA
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...categoryid=144&modelid=19209#ModelFeaturesAct



Blimey.

Don't go buying a conventional camera. They look pretty shit.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

I just noticed the wedding pic is a low ISO comparison. I can't think of many cameras with output that bad at ISO 100 since the 1990s (i.e my first HP 2 Mpx digicam).



[awaits proper high-ISO samples/comparisons]


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, and there's a world of difference between a cheap digicam and something like a LX3.



Marketing people would like you to think that. A significant design fault for a high end compact camera is a lack of a built in optical viewfinder or even a simple low quality evf. This appears to be often overlooked and is far more important a feature than a fancy menu system and lcd display.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 19, 2009)

An email from Park Cameras reveals they're listing it at £569.

OK, it will probably come down in price over the next 12 months, but... Ouch!

e2a: apparently, that's the same as the RRP for the G10.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> A significant design fault for a high end compact camera is a lack of a built in optical viewfinder or even a simple low quality evf.


Most high end high end compacts let you easily add an optical viewfinder. In fact, all of my last compacts have had this feature: Ricoh GRD, GX100, GX 200 and LX3.


----------



## fubert (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> No. It came out last year.



Sorry. I was being a bit sarcastic, I know that the G10 has been around for a little while.

My point being that camera manufacturers seem to have a very aggressive release schedule these days


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Most high end high end compacts let you easily add an optical viewfinder. In fact, all of my last compacts have had this feature: Ricoh GRD, GX100, GX 200 and LX3.



Still a significant oversight at the design stage, or is it just a case of manufacturers taking advantage of the buyer - no they would not do that would they!!!  These add on optical viewfinders can cost as much as another camera that actually has a built optical finder or evf. Considering that we are talking high end compacts these features should be be incorporated as standard. I would guess it has more to do with slick marketing to get the maximum possible return.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

The add-on viewfinders are a rip, but if they included a full size optical viewfinder the camera would have to be a lot bigger. The squinty little plastic viewfinders that come with some digicams are just about useless. The Ricoh GX200 came with an add on EVF, btw. but I still preferred to use the LCD for most shooting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Most high end high end compacts let you easily add an optical viewfinder. In fact, all of my last compacts have had this feature: Ricoh GRD, GX100, GX 200 and LX3.



Don't you find it a bit of a pisser that you have to bung a viewfinder on the hot-shoe, though?
I have to say, it's one of the reasons I've been put off buying a good digital compact. I know that excluding a viewfinder helps to lower the profile of the camera, and that yes, you can use the screen to assess your shot, but even so...


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't you find it a bit of a pisser that you have to bung a viewfinder on the hot-shoe, though?
> I have to say, it's one of the reasons I've been put off buying a good digital compact. I know that excluding a viewfinder helps to lower the profile of the camera, and that yes, you can use the screen to assess your shot, but even so...


Oh, it's a pain in the arse, but I'd rather have that then a chunkier compact or try and peer through a teensy weensy built in affair.

Digicam's are all about compromise. The LX3 has judged it just about right, IMO, while the G11's size looks too much of a compromise when you look at the new breed of Micro Four Thirds cameras coming though.


----------



## fubert (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, it's a pain in the arse, but I'd rather have that then a chunkier compact or try and peer through a teensy weensy built in affair.
> 
> Digicam's are all about compromise. The LX3 has judged it just about right, IMO, while the G11's size looks too much of a compromise when you look at the new breed of Micro Four Thirds cameras coming though.



Looking at the G11 I'd rather carry around my D40. 

Don't know enough about Micro Four Thirds in order to decide there though.


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, it's a pain in the arse, but I'd rather have that then a chunkier compact or try and peer through a teensy weensy built in affair.
> 
> Digicam's are all about compromise. The LX3 has judged it just about right, IMO, while the G11's size looks too much of a compromise when you look at the new breed of Micro Four Thirds cameras coming though.



But even a teensy weensy built in affair is better than any lcd or even an evf. I cannot see why it cannot pop up out of the top of the camera when required. It only has to be a basic aid with frame lines for the selected zoom level. When it is in use the camera lcd could display in high contrast big digits the zoom level.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm considering getting a different compact, and have been looking at these Canons, but I'll have a look at the comparable Lumix and Olympus models as well.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2009)

My next compact is almost certainly going to be the new Lumix GF1 - it's about the same size as the G11 and offers a whole load more.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2009)

I went to Best Buy today. They don't have the G11 in yet. I looked at the G10, and frankly, I thought it was a bit on the large side, for an alleged compact camera.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2009)

If you're looking for a true, pocketable compact, the G10/G11's are certainly on the hefty side. If you're after a small camera that fits in your pocket, the Lumix range is worth looking at.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 12, 2009)

You must  be on commission!!!

I look forward to the day when FF compacts become a reality...

Basically an EOS 1V but digital and very small


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2009)

editor said:


> If you're looking for a true, pocketable compact, the G10/G11's are certainly on the hefty side. If you're after a small camera that fits in your pocket, the Lumix range is worth looking at.



They didn't have them apparently at the store I was in. I'll probably look at them today or tomorrow. There were a couple of nice Olympus cameras there as well.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2009)

edit


----------



## cybertect (Sep 19, 2009)

DP Review just posted some samples shot with Canon's S90.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canons90_preview/

I'm pretty impressed with how well it handles ISO 800 and 1600. Bodes well for the G11.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

Why haven't I heard about this Canon S90 before? (Rhetorical question).  I will be looking for a replacement for my ageing Ricoh R5 in the near future.  The Panasonic LX3 was at the top of my list, but this Canon looks to be a direct competitor.  I wonder how many pennies it will cost.  It is the low-light available light capability that I am interested in with its claimed low-noise.  I will miss the long zoom of the Ricoh though.  However if the image quality is as good as dpreview suggests then cropping is an option.

(Sits on edge of chair with anticipation)


----------



## cybertect (Sep 19, 2009)

It was announced the same day as the G11 and got a bit overshadowed. 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081907canons90.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081906canons90handson.asp


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

I see it costs £450. That is a lot of hours on my paper round.  The Panasonic LX3 is about £100 less but not very obtainable.  I had better sit tight and wait to see a real Canon S90.  There is also an Olympus mju that is targetted at the Ricoh long zoom market the Mju 9000.  However Ken Rockwell says that the Canon S90 is the 'best compact camera' based on his hands-on preview of a pre-production model.

If I could get a pancake wide angle lens for my Olympus E420 dSLR I wouldn't need a compact camera at all but they don't make one and if they did it would probably cost as much as a compact camera.


----------



## starfish2000 (Sep 20, 2009)

Ken Rockwell tends to divide people, he also contradicts himself a lot if you really read those Camera reviews in depth.

Mind you he doesn't have a Panasonic bias!


----------



## cybertect (Sep 20, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> Ken Rockwell tends to divide people
> 
> ...
> 
> Mind you he doesn't have a Panasonic bias!



He certainly seems to have issues with Nikon 




			
				Ken Rockwell said:
			
		

> As an historical note, Leica has been making 35mm cameras and lenses since the 1920s.
> 
> Nikon never made cameras until the late 1940s, or after after World War II. Prior to and during WWII, Nikon instead specialized in making instruments for mass destruction: long-range rangefinders for artillery, military binoculars, especially large ones used on ships, and aircraft bombsights. Nikon's instruments were instrumental in Japan's terrorist attacks against America at Pearl Harbor (there was no declaration of war, and the Japanese invented suicide bombing using airplanes: kamikazes).
> 
> Nikon's warmongering divisions were disbanded after WWII, and the few guys left at Nikon sat around and wondered what to do next


----------

