12.01.2019

Camera reality check. Go back 10 years and see what a point and shoot camera of that era can do. Even with a CCD sensor.....

The steps to the Topfer Theatre at Zach Theatre campus.

I gave myself a Sunday afternoon challenge....

I've been buying state-of-the-art cameras lately as if my photographic existence depended upon them. Just a few days ago I went over the top (even by my standards) and ordered a second Lumix S1R body. Can you blame me? If you've been shooting with one (along with the Lumix S Pro lenses....) you know just how good that camera can be, and it's that good without having to wait for all the stars to line up correctly. But do you really need to hemorrhage money to get decent photographs? Is it mandatory or just pathological? Yes, I know what the financially prudent among my readers will say.... no mystery there. 

But is it all about the gear?  Naw. While it's fun to buy cool stuff, and to see stuff come out of the camera files onto your computer screen that only a year or two ago would have taken your breath away I started to wonder just how far cameras have really come. Or do we just remember our older cameras in a pessimistic and dismissive way as a adaptation of our new camera rationalizations?

So, here was my Sunday challenge for today: I hunted through the studio to find my oldest and crappiest(?) digital camera still remaining in inventory. I would take that camera out for a walk through part of downtown and see just how many decent shots I could get in one hour. I would use no tripod, no filter, no fancy (first aid) post processing and no attachments of any sort. I would use the camera only in its Jpeg setting but I'd give it a fighting chance to do okay by using the camera's highest quality Jpeg setting. 

The only extra help I gave the camera was to intercede on white balance and to step in an adjust overall exposure with exposure compensation when I disagreed with what I was seeing on the small and primitive rear screen. 

I did not pick a ten year old, full frame DSLR with some esoteric lens. Nor did I pick some (for that time period) state of the art APS-C camera with a cherry-picked optic either. Nope, with the exception of the S1s and the S1Rs, the only other digital camera I have left in the entire office/studio/or house is a Canon G10. It was introduced in 2008. It has a very small, CCD sensor and it coughs up files of about 14.7 megapixels. It did not achieve parity with the most recent VSL acquisition; the Lumix S1R. 

I charged the battery for the G10 about a month ago and was happily surprised to see that the camera still registered a full charge. I outfitted it with a 16 megabyte, class 10 SD card and set the ISO for 80. My experience informed me that going much about 100 ISO would make the camera work that much harder....

I parked at Zach Theatre and headed across the beautiful pedestrian bridge and into downtown proper. If I shot in full sun I changed the WB to the sun icon. If something was in open shade I chose to shoot in "cloudy" and if I was inside in mixed light I just punted and went with AWB. I chose (as I almost always do with every camera...) to use the center focusing point and to use S-AF. 

It's important with these smaller sensor cameras to be a bit sensitive to diffraction effects caused by stopping down too much so I tried to stay as close to wide open as I could with the 28-140mm equivalent lens. When I got back to the studio and looked at my take on the computer monitor I was a bit shocked to see just how nice I thought the files were. The two major fixes I did use in Lightroom's develop panel were the camera profile (which corrects for vignetting and lens distortion) and the check box that fixes chromatic aberrations. 

I shot for one hour, took a break for one of my favorite downtown lunches (grilled Cuban sandwich and Iggy Pop coffee at the Royal Blue Grocery, right across the street from Mellow Johnny's Bike Shop (owned by Lance Armstrong...) and then headed back home the same way I came. 

While the G10 won't compete when it comes to dropping backgrounds out of focus or making huge files or giving me noise free files at high ISOs it certainly does a great job when you use it in the envelope of  opportunity in which it excels. Shoot these small cameras in great light and with good operational technique and you'll be a bit surprised that your newest Sony, Nikon or Panasonic camera isn't really that much better. And then you'll remember that you dropped twelve grand or so on your new system but you bought the G10 from a friend for a couple hundred bucks.... Sobering, no?

Anyway, you'll have your own opinion about the quality of the files but I won't hesitate to bring the G10 out with me if I'm on task with something secondary to photography but not comfortable leaving the home base camera naked. It's always fun to shock oneself with a bit of reality therapy. We'll see how long that lasts...

The one thing I have to admit is that I find it fun to challenge myself by using a very old, low spec, used camera to take images. You really do have to tighten up any sloppy technique if you want the machine to shine. Maybe the extra care and concentration on optimization I apply to the G10 will transfer to my work with the cameras that aren't on the edge.....  Kind of like doing a closed fist drill in swimming and then being amazed when you can go back to swimming with your open hands.....



Click on the images to see them bigger!







The red and green are perfect, color-wise. CCD? 






 A menu simple enough that even I can handle it...













I think the dynamic range is just fine!


































18 comments:

Jeff said...

Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I wonder the same kind of things when I use my ancient D700. This, plus the nagging thought that in a very few years my only camera might well be a cell phone, kept me from buying anything during what feels this year like it might be veering towards a black Friday desperation sale.

Fred said...

Just when I was fantasizing about trading my G85 for a medium format camera you go and do this:-). I particularly liked the black and white photo of the park bench and am always intrigued by pictures of that building that looks like the stories are misaligned.
I will have to try that closed fist drill if the pool is open tomorrow. I doubt I will be much slower. From the looks of things right now tomorrow's workout will probably involve more shoveling than anything else.

Jon Porter said...

A similar then & now exercise, for the 1% of us who print, is to re-edit and print an older file using newer gear. I recently did so with a file taken with a Nikon D1X in 2007 and originally edited with Photoshop CS and printed on an Epson R800. I re-edited the NEF file with Photoshop CS6 and printed it on an Epson P800 (Epson loves to recycle its model numbers). The new print was noticeably better. If I'd used a current state-of-the-art photo editing program and higher-end printer, the re-print might have even been better.

JB said...

Yup, I still love my Lumix LX5 purchased in 2011. I think it and the G10 were contempory competitors. 12mp raw files are terrific at low ISO and respond well to Lightroom adjustments. The depth of field can be a bonus too, even compared with M43.

crsantin said...

I feel the same way about my iPhone 11. It’s quickly becoming my go to camera especially for travel. In good light it’s pretty impressive. I have some large prints coming this week from a portrait I made, shot and processed in phone only. Interesting times.

Roger B. said...

I have a G9. It's about 12mp instead of your G10's 14 odd, and the zoom starts at =35mm. This means I'm being weaned off my dirty little wide angle habit, a good thing. I took it on holiday and worked within its limitations. It was great.

At 400 ISO, it seems to be about as, er, grainy as an old 400 ASA colour neg film. I don't mind that; sometimes I don't want too much detail. The same size as your G10, it sits in a belt pouch. Suits me when I can't or don't want to take a bigger camera with me.

Marriott said...

Man, those old CCD sensors sure do a nice blue sky. My old Panasonic LX3 and G2 did that wonderfully. Thanks for the show. Now you've got me ready to scrounge around Ebay!

Robert Roaldi said...

It's not the size of the weapon, it's the fury of the attack.

Love those silver benches. Ours here are black.

Michael Matthews said...

You’ve proved it again. Just put the camera in the right hands and get out of the way. I came across some flower prints recently, made with my Canon G3 in about year 2000. Stunningly good. 4 megapixels! Still salivating while awaiting the arrival of my G9, nonetheless. The challenge now will be to elevate my skills to anywhere near what the camera can produce.

Michael Matthews said...

Make that a Panasonic G9 in my comment above. These model names / numbers can be confusing.

D Ross said...

I love these. Coincidentally, I've recently been photo'ing with my old Canon S95. Small CCD sensor. I can't figure out why I ever upgraded. It may be that the newest Lightroom pulls more out of a file, but regardless, lovely images; special even, I think -- and I can't tell you "why" exactly. My other (digital) camera is a Pentax K1, and I love her images. Everything in between: not so much, actually. Great time to be a photographer, but high time we stop being consumers rather than artists. 2 cents, maybe less.

dinksdad said...

After all those years no apparent dust on the sensor. Panasonic compact cameras should do so well.

Mark the tog said...

I have had a 4 year long project making photos with a Panasonic GX7 and the kit lens. I take about 20 images a year with it and make 8x10 prints.

Looking at the prints one can imagine I was using the latest and greatest kit but the fact is that subject matter and attention to lighting and exposure make all the difference.

I look longingly at new equipment and can imagine buying some new and exciting gear but even though I can afford it I realize that the new m43 equipment would give me scant advantage over what I have now while a ripping FF camera (several of which I own) would defeat the purpose of a pleasnt walk around tool.

jiannazzone said...

It is surprising to hear that my ametuer collection of cameras exceeds that of an accomplished professional. Perhaps I am trying to spend my way past a lack of talent. Among my inventory are a Canon G11 and a Panasonic LX7. It is only in rare circumstances, such as low light, sports/action, that the images from those cameras are any less usable than those from my "serious" cameras (formerly Nikon D7000, currently Fuji X-T2). I am leaning more and more towards taking the smaller cameras, especially when traveling, unless there is a specific need for a larger format.

Kirk, you have now made it difficult for me to justify even upgrading my compact cameras.

Kristian Wannebo said...

Kirk,
Thoroughly enjoying most of these photos, including many of your architectural compositions!
You must have enjoyed this "shoot"!

( - lots of comments on gear, none on your photos...)

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Thanks Kristian! I thought the round green table with the red and orange chairs were really fun and beautiful. And the purity of colors a scathing denouement of current camera sensor's inability to correctly render accurate colors. The images of the bridge just make me happy. Best, Kirk

Terry Manning said...

I was ready to argue with you that your premise was true only of the higher-end compacts of the day, but when I pulled out my Canon SX100IS, I was pleasantly surprised at how nice the images were. Class leading? No way! Great for big prints? Now how! Awesome video? Ha! (though the specification for DVDs was 720x480 at the time and this camera shoots 640x480). Thanks for the inspiration.

Robert Pollock said...

Kirk,

"You've Got to be Kidding!" is the title of a Michael Reichmann article that appeared in The Luminous Landscape in 2008. He compared photographs taken with a Canon G10 and with a Hasselblad H2 and Phase One P45+ back and the results were intriguing. There is considerable information in the article but, in brief, his photographer friends were unable to distinguish 15x19" prints of the same subjects from the two cameras. Here's the link:luminous-landscape.com/kidding/ By the way, I'd be glad to help with the fence but I'm in Oregon....

Robert Pollock