GL2's photo power
 

I know a lot of you like to slam the GL2's photo feature saying it's a lowly consumer feature that need not be on such a camera...Well, I've had great success with the GL2 as a video camera, but also as a photographic camera. While it doesn't creat huge prints, it does take INCREDIBLE pictures.

Proof:

http://woffester.deviantart.com/

I wouldn´t know about prints.. I haven´t printed anything. Actually most of the pics I´ve taken with 35mm end up being scanned and watched through a Monitor.

But I agree with you. The Xm2 (in my case) takes great pictures. For me, it even takes better pictures than "bigger" Mpixel cameras (Rimax and Ricoh are the case I´ve been able to compare to).

Maybe they won´t make it to a poster or a magazine cover... but they sure look very nice on Monitors.. where it´s the place I show and watch pics.

Here are some samples... they have been more or less retouched with photoshop. And are exported at 50% jpg for space reasons.

http://www.def3ct.com/federico/harley.htm
http://www.def3ct.com/federico/sagradafamilia.htm
http://www.def3ct.com/federico/animales.htm

Corey,


I dont dought the GL2 takes "ok" proof sized ameture prints, but the lack of interchangable lenses, and the lower megapixel rating makes it just that, an ameture camera. I compaired TIFF files from my D100, which is rated at 6.1 mega pixels, to files from the 11 mega pixel canon, the 14 mega pixel kodak SLRn(which still has fringing and noise issues), and a 22 mega pixel medium format back(with true RGB). Even on smaller prints, the difference is like night and day. For art photography, I would only recommend using a high quality medium/large format scan, or a high res digital camera file using adobie 1998 color space.


John

I would bet money that I could take 500X500 sized pictures with my GL2 comprable to a much more "Professional" camera that is used primarily for still photography. I didn't even take most of those shots on my deviant art page with a tripod.

It's not the size of the boat; it's the motion in the ocean. In other words, the print output size of the GL2 may be limited to 8x10 at best, but it's the flourite glass and the color accuracy that's producing the nice shots. That, and the eye behind the camera of course!

Chris is right, it is the color of the GL2 and the composition of the photographer that makes the pictures from the GL2 uniqe and dramatic, but, a GL2 still at 8x10 would for sure show pixelation( I have to use fractal software on my D100, which is rated at 6.1 mega pixels for a decent 8x10). All files online are low res, unless downloadable. Its the print that shows the quality of the camera.


John

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/proSLR/sampleImages.jhtml?id=0.1.18.18.3.16.14&lc=en



The link is to some downloadable high res(TIFF) files on kodaks web site for the DCS SLRn rated at 14 mega pixels. Download them and take them into photoshop, and compair them to a GL2 still.



John

Chris hit the true nail when he said, "...and the eye behind the camera, of course.". Yes, any camera device has strengths and deficits. But good photographs evoke some degree of emotion and convey some information. Those properties have little to do with the camera used to capture them.

Good for you, Corey, in trying to use the GL2's photo facility to its best advantage!

I still admit to the fact that the GL2 doesn't make huge prints, but like Chris said...Just check out this new picture I took today:

http://www.deviantart.com/view/7888738/

I have some very nice photos from my GL2. In fact they look better than a lot of my wifes D300 photos (she thinks "not"). The photos may not be a 6mp, but they look good for wall paper on a monitor. I don't know how to post a photo or I would share some of my photos.

I did not buy the camera for the photo option but I have found out that it is nice to have.
Steve

John, what's the point of comparing a 14 MP camera to stills from a video camera? My car doesn't hold as much as a 53' truck, but it works fine for hauling supplies from the hardware store. Steve, Corey and Frederico aren't saying that the GL-2 is a serious competitor to still cameras that cost thousands of dollars, but they've shown some nice examples of web photos that it seems well suited for.

I believe the point, Boyd, was that Corey was trying to say that it was not a 'consumer' feature. John was saying that indeed it was. If I try to sell you a 1.7 megapixel digital camera and hype it as a professional or even pro-sumer level camera, would you buy that? Even if it had Carl-Zeiss/L-series glass I don't think so.
Still, Henri Cartier Bresson could do much more with a disposable camera than I could with my Canon 10D. So Chris is definitely right about who is taking the picture. The technical specs are just one factor in a great picture.
Either way, it's a feature I appreciate anyway. It's useful to have when you need it. I just hope it wasn't put there at the expense of some other more useful feature.

I think it is a consumer feature, but that does not mean it doesn't take professional photographs. If professional is classified as being a certain resolution, yeah, maybe it isn't that great. But I believe if you treat it right and frame it correctly, It will take outstanding, professional 1.7 megapixel photographs.

Boyd-

***Corey and Frederico aren't saying that the GL-2 is a serious competitor to still cameras that cost thousands of dollars***


***"I would bet money that I could take 500X500 sized pictures with my GL2 comprable to a much more "Professional" camera that is used primarily for still photography"***

Actually he did. But there would be no way a 500x500 file could look as good as a 4500 x 3000 from the kodak, even at a smaller size. I was simply pointing that out. Its not only the high res, but the interchangable lenses and pro options on high end photography cameras that allow the photographer to take his art to a higher level. Ameture features on a camera hold a talented photographer back.

I was never knocking coreys photos, I dont even know how the subject got confused with his photos, it was suposed to be about the GL2 for photography in general. I like his photos alot to be honest with you, but for art photography, a GL2 still would only make a decent proof sized print. On the web, all files are low res, unless downloadable.

John

John, I just took the wedding picture from that Kodak website, sized it down to a comprable size with one of my cute frogs...And I find the clarity, detail and color totally comprable. Of course, the SLR has a shallower DOF, which makes it easier to shoot large subjects, and yeah it is definitely a more professional photograph. But what do you expect? The fact that they are even comprable at smaller sizes tells you something... Another factor, too, is that the kodak photos were professionally lit, and professionally taken...Unlike my run n' gun photographs with my GL2.