Review: The New Canon G16

Canon has just announced its G16 compact camera, the latest in a long line of G-series machines. It looks very interesting.

DPR calls it a "minor update" to the G15. Whatever.

As some of you know, I am looking for a "compact" camera to use for much of my work. Our workhorse for serious photography is our Canon EOCC 40D, often bearing the EF-S 18-200 IS.

But that rig is big and heavy, and I don't always care to tote it to social events and such.

Our second camera is a Canon SX-150, a very nice compact. But its noise performance, especially at even moderate ISO sensitivities, is not very good.

It also has no eyepiece viewfinder, and thus (especially in bright sun) it is hard to effectively aim and compose.

The G16 sensor is 7.44 x 5.58 mm in size, and has a 4000 x 3000 sensel layout (1.86 um pitch). I would like somewhat larger sensor, and I have looked slightly into the G1X. But its range of focal lengths is more restricted, and there are some other problems with it (as reviewed) for me as well.

And today much of our work ends up in fairly-low resolution output (largely on forums and blogs), so we have greater opportunity to deal with the resolution impact of nose reduction (such as what is likely practiced inside the G16.

So who know what we might do.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

I know you are used to the zoom advantage and I love that too. However, given the extreme portability, accurate focus of the Ricoh GXR, I'm finding that electronic zoom is generally sufficient for me using an adult size APS-C CMOS sensor. In fact, since I acquired this little thing, I've hardly used the Canon 5DII, save for reaching out across the San Francisco Harbor to frame the America Cup boats, or when the single battery I own for the Ricoh is exhausted.

Yesterday, I did a shoot continuously all around the Big Island of Hawaii with a model paid by the hour, and the Canon with the 50 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8L IS was just used in the 5th hour when the GR wouldn't switch on anymore.

Asher

Doug,

I know you are used to the zoom advantage and I love that too. However, given the extreme portability, accurate focus of the Ricoh GXR, with it 50 mm large sensor, the Canon gear started to stay home. However, focus was slow! Still, as the APS-C sensor is so adequate and the macro function so beautiful, it became my constant companion!

Now with the latest Ricoh, the GR I'm finding that is all I need most of the time. I thought, at first, that the 28mm focal length "equivalent" would be too wide for a street camera and for social events.

Well, to my surpass, with its great capture of fine detail, zoom is hardly needed when taking the picture. In fact, this camera is perfect, except for birding and portrait effects of long reach lenses, of course). The advantages of an adult size APS-C CMOS sensor with its fixed, silent, razor-sharp 28mm lens trumps most other considerations. In fact, since I acquired this little thing, I've hardly used the Canon 5DII, save last week for reaching out across the San Francisco Harbor to frame the America Cup boats, or yesterday, when the single battery I own for the Ricoh was utterly exhausted!

Yesterday, I shot continuously all around the Big Island of Hawaii, and the Canon, the 50 1.2L and the 70-200 2.8L IS were only used in the 5th hour when the GR wouldn't switch on anymore.

Asher

Disclosure: I'm an Ambassador for Pentax Ricoh and received my camera without charge. However, my time is more valuable than money and I'd not waste my allotment on anything that couldn't deliver the quality I strive for. Besides, the pictures I'm posting will provide substantiation to anyone but the most stubborn of cynics!

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Doug,

I know you are used to the zoom advantage and I love that too. However, given the extreme portability, accurate focus of the Ricoh GXR, with it 50 mm large sensor . . .

Click to expand...

What size is its sensor?

. . . the Canon gear started to stay home. However, focus was slow! The APS-C sensor is so adequate and the macro function so beautiful, that it became my constant companion!

Now with the latest Ricoh, the GR I'm finding that is all I need most of the time. With its great capture of fine detail, zoom is hardly needed when taking the picture. In fact, this camera is perfect, except for birding and portrait effects of long reach lenses, of course). The advantages of an adult size APS-C CMOS sensor with its fixed, silent, razor-sharp 28mm lens trumps most other considerations. In fact, since I acquired this little thing, I've hardly used the Canon 5DII, save last week for reaching out across the San Francisco Harbor to frame the America Cup boats, or yesterday, when the single battery I own for the Ricoh was utterly exhausted!

Click to expand...

What is your viewfinder situation?

I guess I need to review the GR.

I was impressed that one of our most powerful photographers,. used to operating with some of the most powerful available photographic equipment, has chosen to host a series on the GR!

Thanks for pointing me in this direction.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Asher,



What size is its sensor?

Click to expand...

The GXR 50mm Macro lens module is self contained with its own APS-C sized sensor, the same as the Canon Rebel line, the D70 and the 7D. Each module slides into one GXR skeleton body with its beautifully brilliant layout of commands on its LCD. There's also an APS-C module which is a zoom. In addition, there are other modules for the GXR which use smaller sensors and are delightful in their own way. I own them but hardly use them. Fixed focal length with larger pixels seems to be more practical for me.

The Ricoh GR is a separate fixed 28mm camera and has quickly replaced the GXR for all except the most demanding Macro shots.

Doug Kerr said:

What is your viewfinder situation?

Click to expand...

Both the GXR and the GR share the same electronic viewfinder which too my delight, has a diopter correction wheel. Perfect for me. One can easily switch from electronic viewfinder to Menu view or to the main LCD. So the ergonomics are fluid.

Doug Kerr said:

I guess I need to review the various GR modules.

Click to expand...

There are, as mentioned above, a great line of GXR modules, each with its own sensor matched to its lens. To Leica mount photographers, there's an APS-C camera module with exactly that needed Leica mount. So for a reasonable price one has Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander finest quality in a working man's price range!

Doug Kerr said:

I was impressed that one of our most powerful photographers,. used to operating with some of the most powerful available photographic equipment, has chosen to host a forum on the GR!

Click to expand...

Yes, Nicolas is one of the founders of OPF and my dependable friend!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Both the GXR and the GR share the same electronic viewfinder which too my delight, has a diopter correction wheel. Perfect for me.

Click to expand...

The DPR review of the Ricoh GR says:


They must have missed something!

Thanks for the scoop.

[Thanks for fixing the thread title!]

Best regards,

Doug

Well, Doug, they may be correct. I'll check it out later. I've not tried to add the viewfinder but there's a similar cap for an accessory. Perhaps it's just for flash - checked in other reviews and there's no hook up! Unfortunate! but one can use the optical viewfinder, as $230 accessory.

I use the GXR with the LCD viewfinder routinely. Never had tried to put it on the GR, even though I have two of them, I'm so used to composing with the screen on the back.

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Asher,



The DPR review of the Ricoh GR says:

There's no accessory port on the back so, unlike the GXR module, you can't fit an electronic viewfinder.​

They must have missed something!

Thanks for the scoop.

[Thanks for fixing the thread title!]

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Hi, Asher,

Well, after considerable (but only quasi-scientific) pondering, I have pre-ordered a Canon Powershot G16 (and a second battery - you know how we telephone guys are).

At this point, I feel that it represents the best balance among my various never-fully-compatible criteria.

I am concerned about the small sensor (a bit smaller than "2/3" ", the size of the sensor from which we see about a million frames every day).

But as I mentioned, most of our work today ends up viewed in small size, and I am hopeful that the vaunted new Canon HS system in the G16 will make the appropriate balance between noise reduction and resolution degradation.

I really like the zoom feature, and the 5:1 focal length ratio often seems to be a good compromise between a big ratio and reasonable optical performance.

It will be nice to be able to use my Speedlite 270EX flash unit on it.

High burst speed is not often important but this claims 12+ fr/sec for the first five or so and a little shy of 10 from then on forever.

What I have no way of judging is shutter lag. (An EVF can in theory mitigate that problem, but doesn't often seem to in real life).

So we will see. I have not yet seen anything authoritative on projected availability date.

Best regards,

Doug

The Canon PowerShot G16 has an overall physical setup, and layout of most of the controls, essentially identical to those of the G15. The sensor dimensions and sensel layout are identical to those of the G15, which has led some commenters to say that the G16 uses the same sensor as the G15.

Not so. For one thing, the G16 sensor is "back illuminated", meaning than the back of the substrate, which is transparent, faces the lens. This approach is used in various of the newer Canon cameras, and is thought to lead to better sensor performance.

It would have been thrilling if the G16 utilized the "split pixel" sensor concept, such that bona fide phase detection for AF could be done on the image sensor. But I have seen no announcement to that effect, and we might have thought that if were the case, Canon would certainly have mentioned it in their initial description of the G16 features.

Best regards,

Doug

It is interesting to note that apparently all sample images from the G16 so far (as of 2013.08.
23, 1730Z) released by Canon are at ISO 80.

This is one that is especially fetching (this is a "thumbnail"):



Here it is at at full camera resolution, hard to appreciate, but easy to "pixel-peep"



It seems that there may be no "preproduction prototypes" of the machine yet in the wild, so meaningful reviews may be a way off.

Best regards,

Doug

One matter that is of great concern to me is shutter lag (let's say assuming pre-focusing, pre-metering via half press).

Good information on that is always hard to come by, even in "thorough" reviews.

Given that the G16 is said to be able to shoot continuously at a rate of 9.3 frames per second, we would hope that its shutter release lag will be "good". (I consider 25 ms or less "good".)

Best regards,

Doug

AF and shutter release times

An article on CPN (Canon Professional Network) says of the G16 that a typical AF time is 0.100 sec and the corresponding shutter release time is 0.130 sec.

This might or might not mean that the shutter release time from prefocus could be on the order of 0.030 sec. That would be "pretty good".

We will of course not know for certain until it is in hand here. (The G16 has a remote release interface so we can test it on a rigorous basis with our release time test clock, which has a contact closure to trip the camera.)

************

Zoomage

The CPN piece says that the G16 has:

Optical zoom: 5x

Zoom Plus: 10x

Digital zoom: approx 4x

Combined zoom: approx 20x

A review of the Powershot S110 says about Zoom Plus:

This is apparently a less-crummy kind of "2x digital zoom".

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

Did you also consider other manufacturers or is it sticking to a well-known user interface?

There are many decent compact cameras...

Best regards,
Michael

PS: I would have preferred a link to the full-size image instead of posting it directly.

Hi, Michael,

Michael Nagel said:

Did you also consider other manufacturers

Click to expand...

I have.

or is it sticking to a well-known user interface?

Click to expand...

That is a consideration, as is a flash interface compatible with flash units i have.

But those are not "overriding" considerations.

Do have any machines from other manufacturers you would commend to my attention?

Thanks.

There are many decent compact cameras...

PS: I would have preferred a link to the full-size image instead of posting it directly.

Click to expand...

Yes, I probably should have done that.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

here is a list with a few links.

Same sensor size as G16:

Panasonic LX7 dpreview company page

Olympus XZ-2 dpreview company page

Nikon P7700 dpreview company page


2/3" sensor:

Fujifilm X20 dpreview company page


1" sensor:

Sony RX100 dpreview Luminous Landscape company page


APS-C sensor:

Nikon Coolpix A dpreview company page

Ricoh GR as mentioned previously

Sorry if this might have complicated your choice, but IMHO all of these are worth a look.

Best regards,
Michael

Hi, Michael,

Michael Nagel said:

here is a list with a few links.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much.

Same sensor size as G16:

Panasonic LX7 dpreview company page

Olympus XZ-2 dpreview company page

Nikon P7700 dpreview company page


2/3" sensor:

Fujifilm X20 dpreview company page


1" sensor:

Sony RX100 dpreview Luminous Landscape company page


APS-C sensor:

Nikon Coolpix A dpreview company page

Ricoh GR as mentioned previously

Sorry if this might have complicated your choice, . . .

Click to expand...

Not at all.

. . . but IMHO all of these are worth a look.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much - that was a lot of work, and should be very helpful.

Best regards,

Doug

Michael was kind enough to compile a list of high-performance "compact" cameras, with links to reviews and/or company pages. I will take advantage of that list to guide a whirlwind "scan" of these machines, and I will report here on a couple of properties that are important to me. I make no effect here to report "performance" findings.

When I make comparisons. they will generally be with the Canon PowerShot G16, a machine that is currently centered in my crosshairs.

************
Same sensor size as G16:
************

Panasonic LX7 dpreview company page

Compared to the G16, the ff35mm equivalent focal length at the long end is a bit less (90 mm vs. 140 mm).

There is no built-in eyepiece viewfinder, but an EVF can be fitted.

************

Olympus XZ-2 dpreview company page

Compared to the G16, the ff35mm equivalent focal length at the long end is a bit less (112 mm vs. 140 mm).

There is no built-in eyepiece viewfinder, but an EVF can be fitted.

************

Nikon P7700 dpreview company page

Compared to the G16, the ff35mm equivalent focal length at the long end is a bit greater (200 mm vs. 140 mm).

There is no eyepiece viewfinder.

************
2/3" sensor:
************

Fujifilm X20 dpreview company page

Compared to the G16, the ff35mm equivalent focal length at the long end is a bit less (112 mm vs. 140 mm).

There is an optical viewfinder.

************
1" sensor:
************

Sony RX100 dpreview Luminous Landscape company page

Compared to the G16, the ff35mm equivalent focal length at the long end is a bit less (100 mm vs. 140 mm). The aperture at the long end is rather smaller (f/4.9 vs. f/2.8).

There is no eyepiece viewfinder.

************
APS-C sensor:
************

Nikon Coolpix A dpreview company page

The lens is fixed-focal length (ff35 mm equivalent 28 mm.)

There is no built-in eyepiece viewfinder, but an optical viewfinder can be fitted.

************

Ricoh GR

The lens is fixed-focal length (ff35 mm equivalent 28 mm.)

There is no built-in eyepiece viewfinder, but an optical viewfinder can be fitted.

************

It is a very interesting repertoire.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

so the long end of the zoom range and an optical viewfinder (or EVF) are important features for you.
I would not consider small differences (as 112mm equivalent to 140mm equivalent) as important - the difference is minimal and the resolution of the individual lenses at the long end plays a larger role in this case.
Short: a 112mm equivalent lens can outperform a 140mm equivalent lens with approx. same sensor resolutions.

Best regards,
Michael

Dug,

I'm glad you are looking through Michael's list of prospects. Your POV might help those of us less engineering-minded to appreciate just what might be required to meet our imagined detail capturing needs.

One aspect I'd like you to consider from both the engineering and math standpoint as far as reach and ability to capture detail is the presence of more usable detail with the APS-C sized sensor cameras. So even in the 28mm fixed GR, one can do as well as some cameras that capture detail from a distance with a longer lens.

With a zoom lens camera that is slightly less at the longer end, surely, one can zoom within the capture pixels for all the detail you might need at the far end. So looking at just 35mm long reach equivalent understates the value of camera with larger sensors than the Canon G16.

Also, the better quality lenses of some of the other cameras need to be considered too.

Obviously I'm leaving out the concept of DOF compression with different focal lengths, but Id put this into esthetic considerations that each photographer might or might not have preferences. Here I'm only asking you to address the ability to capture the useful detail you might want.

Asher

Asher,

you might not have noticed, but there are probably more engineers in this forum than you can shake your camera at

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Asher,

you might not have noticed, but there are probably more engineers in this forum than you can shake your camera at

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

You can shake your camera at me any time Michael,.

Cem (yet another engineer)

@Doug: I realize that it is not entirely compact but the Sony Nex is also a great camera. I've used both the Nex 5 & 7, truly recommended. Also, why didn't the canon M make your shortlist? You can use all your lenses on it.

Hi, Michael,

Michael Nagel said:

so the long end of the zoom range . . .

Click to expand...

Yes, but of course subject to the considerations below.

. . .and an optical viewfinder (or EVF) are important features for you.

Click to expand...

Yes, often I cannot shoot outdoors composing in the rear monitor panel, and don't really like working with the camera held 24" out in front of me.

I would not consider small differences (as 112mm equivalent to 140mm equivalent) as important - the difference is minimal and the resolution of the individual lenses at the long end plays a larger role in this case.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Short: a 112mm equivalent lens can outperform a 140mm equivalent lens with approx. same sensor resolutions.

Click to expand...

An important metric is "reach", which can be thought of as the angular resolution of the camera with the lens at its greatest focal length.

In fact, I should probably state the "reach" of each of those cameras (I usually use 1/2P, where P is the pixel pitch, as an approximation of the linear resolution (in cycles per whatever unit).

Indeed what we seek when we zoom to a larger focal length is greater "reach".

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

I'm glad you are looking through Michael's list of prospects. Your POV might help those of us less engineering-minded to appreciate just what might be required to meet our imagined detail capturing needs.

One aspect I'd like you to consider from both the engineering and math standpoint as far as reach and ability to capture detail is the presence of more usable detail with the APS-C sized sensor cameras. So even in the 28mm fixed GR, one can do as well as some cameras that capture detail from a distance with a longer lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I need to do comparisons of the "reach" of the various cameras (where reach is the angular resolution at the maximum available focal length).

With a zoom lens camera that is slightly less at the longer end, surely, one can zoom within the capture pixels for all the detail you might need at the far end. So looking at just 35mm long reach equivalent understates the value of camera with larger sensors than the Canon G16.

Click to expand...

Yes, and let me do some reach "estimates" to give us all some insight into how that might play.

Also, the better quality lenses of some of the other cameras need to be considered too.

Click to expand...

Yes, and of course this figures into what image quality we can attain.

Obviously I'm leaving out the concept of DOF compression with different focal lengths, but Id put this into esthetic considerations that each photographer might or might not have preferences. Here I'm only asking you to address the ability to capture the useful detail you might want.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and I have in fact ignored depth of field and out-of-focus-blur (bokeh) considerations at this point.

It's all a complicated and interesting matter!

Thanks for your inputs.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

You can shake your camera at me any time Michael,.

Cem (yet another engineer)

@Doug: I realize that it is not entirely compact but the Sony Nex is also a great camera. I've used both the Nex 5 & 7, truly recommended. Also, why didn't the canon M make your shortlist? You can use all your lenses on it.

Click to expand...

Well, I haven't published a shortlist (which implies a screening of candidates). I have only listed some properties of the cameras Michael happened to mention, plus the G16.

As to the EOS M, I haven't really looked a lot into its properties.

It has no eyepiece viewfinder.

Indigenous lenses available for it so far include a 22, 11-22, and 18-55, I think none of which give me the reach I seek.

With an adapter, I could put my very mediocre 18-200 on it, but then it will hardly fit in my pocket (and I probably didn't mention that this is really a criterion).

I almost added the Sony Nex 7 to my list. I fear with any lens I would want to put on it, it would be too big to fit in my pocket.

Thanks for your thoughts on all this.

Best regards,

Doug

The Canon PowerShot G16 affords a smallest aperture setting of f/8 at any focal length.

The PowerShot G15 incorporates an internal 3-stop (8:1) neutral density filter which can be put in place by the user. Information on the Canon site indicates that the G16 also includes a neutral density filter (although its attenuation is not indicated).

One way to look at the ND filter is that, with it in place, ISO sensitivities of as low as ISO 10 are available.

We assume that, as has been so for all Canon cameras for some while, the ISO sensitivity is stated in terms of ISO REI (Recommended Exposure Index), and probably turns out to correspond well to the ISO SOS (Standard Output Sensitivity) metric. (In the specifications for the G15, the ISO sensitivity is said to be "SOS/REI")

Those not familiar with these sensitivity "ratings" may wish to read this article:

http://dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles/SOS_REI.pdf


Best regards,

Doug

This is further to the issue of my desire for a fairly large "telephoto-end" focal length (in ff35 equivalent terms) in my new compact camera.

It was suggested that in a camera with a larger sensor size (and a nice high pixel count), but perhaps a fixed-focus lens of only "normal" ff35 equivalent focal length, I could enjoy the same image sharpness.

I discussed elsewhere the issue of "reach", which is central to that matter.

Here are some simplistic examples of what I mean.

The artificial objective here was to capture part of the front of the house across the street, including the three-dimensional house numbers. The two test shots were taken from the same vantage point.

There was no external processing done (other than cropping and resizing, as I will mention).

In each case a crop was taken of the intended subject area. The images here have then both been upsized to 500 px wide to facilitate viewing and comparison.

The first shot was taken with a compact camera with a small sensor (Canon PowerShot SX-150), at a focal focal length whose ff35 equivalent was about 140 mm. The subject region was covered by 452 × 340 camera pixels.


The second shot was taken with a Canon EOS 40D with a so-called "APS-C" size sensor, at a focal length of 28 mm (ff35e focal length 44.8 mm). The subject region was covered by 161 × 121 camera pixels.



Res ipsa loquitur.

No, I do not make any claims about such matters as noise, color rendition, geometric distortion, dynamic range, depth of field, out-of-focus blur performance, shutter lag, processing speed, or size, weight, or color of the camera housing. These are not involved in the point of this demonstration.

By the way, this was taken with the compact at its greatest focal length (336 mm ff35e); the subject area was covered by 948 × 716 pixels:


Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

you can do this with several different sensor sizes and focal lengths. Depending on the choice you make the results differs. Winston summarized it in a different way.

From a practical point of view - do you have more static subjects or do you need faster shutter speeds?
You need to find the balance here as well..

Best regards,
Michael

Hi, Michael,

Michael Nagel said:

you can do this with several different sensor sizes and focal lengths.

Click to expand...

Yes, one could.

Depending on the choice you make the results differs.

Click to expand...

Curiously enough.

Winston summarized it in a different way.

Click to expand...

Very succinctly.

From a practical point of view - do you have more static subjects or do you need faster shutter speeds?

Click to expand...

It certainly varies with the task.

I do not often need shutter speeds shorter than 1/125 sec.

You need to find the balance here as well.

Click to expand...

Well, yes.

Best regards,

Doug

dpr has just put up a set of 38 shots taken with a Canon PowerShot G16, most (or maybe all) by Barney Britton.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...1?inalbum=canon-powershot-g16-samples-gallery

I would describe then as uniformly unremarkable.

This is in distinction with the typical dpr sample shots which, even for relatively unremarkable cameras, turn out to be stunning.

Best regards,

Doug

Now here is another possibility:


The EVF is rather coarse (77 kpx). But the coverage is good (100%).

It has a viewfinder magnification of about 1.00x at a focal length of 12.7 mm (72 mm ff35 equivalent).

There is vision correction, with nice adjustment, and the eyecup is very comfy.

The pocketablilty is not so good.

Best regards,

Doug