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.

Corey,

If you notice, the wedding pic is taken handheld, and with daylight. What size are you making them in photoshop?


John

My fault...I made the wedding pic 1000X1500 and the Frog 1488X1128...Like I said, it is clear, that the 6 megapixel sized down is a knotch and a half sharper than my frog or dog pictures...But one must consider the difference in cameras when comparing the two. I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website.

Another thing to consider is that my sharpness was less than halfway when I shot the photos.

***I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website***

That I completely agree with, and im sure its just fine for pics online. I completely misunderstood what you where trying to do with it. I like the frog photo alot, the subject is composed in one of the three quaters of the frame(not dead center), and there is a nice rim light on the frog. My only advice would have been to fill the frame alittle more, but it really doesnt matter, the photo is great. Try some b/w stills on the GL2 aswell, I had some good ones myself.



John

I am really impressed with the frog shot, although my few attempts to take pics with my GL2 were not as impressive to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/bhardy3/PhotoAlbum8.html

There is a pic of a duck on the water and one of two children in the host of video frame shots here. These were taken a few years ago.

I wonder if they have improved the photo quality of the GL2 since then. Or perhaps the grain in my pics comes from too much light. There were reports of folks being disappointed with the photo quality of the GL2 years ago also. I simply decided to use my 2 MP digital cam for pics, but perhaps I will check out my second GL2 I bought a month ago to see if there is an improvement over my old GL2.

I'll do that John...I'm not much of a fan of B/W for nature though...I really love color! Thanks for the advice on the frog picture...I agree it has a bit of empty space, but another minus is that the GL2 doesn't have Macro...Also, check out my moth pictures, those turned out well too I think.

http://woffester.deviantart.com/gallery/

John...I actually happened to try it out and I got very pleasing results...

No to hijack this thread but, if you can get shallow DOF like that on the GL2 photo (Corey's frog picture), why can't you get that shallow DOF in video? Is it a different CCD?

If you dont already know, play around with the shadows and highlights in photoshop CS. Take them right to the point where they start to burn out for a richer look. Great pics btw.

John

Its the F stop michael.



John

I know the GL2 can get F1.6. That's pretty wide-open there and so the DOF should be nice and shallow. But it's not... for video at least. Is there a reason why you can get smaller DOF using the photo function than the video? It's the same camera and lens. Am I missing something?

Read the article on DOF (http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php) in our DV Info library.

Michael, for those pictures I was at 2.0, and 720 shutterspeed...It took quite a bit of playing around before I got that shallow DOF, and I usually have to wait till dusk so it's light enough to light my subject, but dark enough to the point that I can keep the iris as wide open as it'll let me...

The photo mode is actually less prone to a shallow DOF because the iris will only go down to 2.0, even at 1/60th, and the shutter speed up to 720, so the lighting has to be just right...That DOF is totally possible in the video mode (with possibly even better results)...But at that zoomed level, its hard to control the camera, especially in run n' gun style film making.

For the photos I have on my deviant art page, I only did one thing in photoshop, and that was change the gamma curve to an S shape...In some pictures, I did this process twice, or three times...One on top of the other. This really makes the pictures a bit more breathtaking and filmic. You can replicate this process easily in After Effects...Just make sure you have good source footage.

Finally, thanks for the compliments, John.