Thanks for posting that link Chris, it makes a really interesting read. Okay 13x9" prints isn't A3, but I wonder how the G10 would compare to full frame or AP sized sensors (smaller than medium format). It seems logical that print sizes would have to go even larger before the results become distinguishable from one another. If so maybe the G10 could be capable of competing with DSLRs in terms of the print quality.
It's interesting that the author feels this is possible because advances that occurr at the lower end of the market (compacts) reap a bigger reward than those occurring at the top (medium format). As I've said I only have one digital camera so my practical experience is limited, but I subscribe to both Outdoor Photographer and Amateur Photographer magazines, so I've picked up a fair bit in this rapidly changing area. I've always regarded technology for compacts as being seperate to that for DSLRs, and in many ways more challenging, and so advances here are indeed cutting edge. The problems that the industry has to overcome in each field are different. Eg. with full frame sensors the challenge is to get the light to fall as evenly as possible over that wide area (as it has to hit a sensor head on rather than at an acute angle - didn't matter with film). With the small sensors of compacts this isn't a problem, but here the problem of amplifying the tiny signals each photosite produces is a problem, because the by-product is noise. From what I've read I've been assuming that the desire to pack more and more pixels onto the sensor has been driven by the love of the headline it produces (which translates into more sales) rather than looking to increase picture quality for the photographer. I wonder what it is in the G10 that has brought about this seemingly significant change?
John - have you looked at the link? There's a shot at the end taken at 1/13th sec handheld using IS. These are certainly possible to take without camera shake, and probaby a couple of stops lower using the technique you suggest, but many of my shots taken in low light may be up to 30 seconds long, and wouldn't be possible unless looking for a Turner prize perhaps, as I'm sure you know. We're all different, and I guess that the answer would be to try it at different shutter speeds. For me I'd rather take a small tripod. I think repeating the same shot many times would take some of the joy out of it.
