First, this is an image that I took last week up in Maine with a new Canon G12. I bought the darn thing for 2 reasons: first, I wanted something that I could use as a backup to the 5D MK II (when carrying a large camera is not a great idea), and second, I needed something to replace the now defunct Canon G7 (which died very unceremoniously last October out west). My wife uses the old G10 now, so I also had an opportunity to compare those 2 cameras side by side. The G10, of course, has more megapixels than the G12 (15 versus 10), but also tends to generate more noise. Small sensors are, after all, small sensors. Neither camera, in my opinion, comes even remotely close to the 5D MK II with respect to visible resolution. There just isn’t any contest. The question, though, for me, was whether or not the G12 is better than the G10.
At this point, I’d have to say “yes, it is”. There’s still visible noise in the shadows (even at low ISO’s), but it’s not as bad as what I’ve seen in the G10. If you look at this picture at 100% (in the shadow areas), you can see it. But the noise is even more pronounced in a similar G10 image. On a computer monitor, anyway. If you print both versions, however, the noise becomes essentially invisible.
So all in all, not a bad little camera. And I definitely like the movable LCD screen.
In my last post, I mentioned the Casey Anthony verdict (or more correctly, the verdicts). I indicated that I was surprised by these verdicts, mostly because it was fairly clear to me that she was at least heavily involved in the death of her daughter, if not completely responsible. As I said then, she sure looked guilty to me.
Which got me a few interesting comments. My friend Earl for example stated that the prosecution failed to “prove” the case beyond a shadow of a doubt and so the jury system worked just fine. The jury was not, as Earl says, “swayed by opinion”.
My son Chris agreed with Earl, saying that “you cannot convict a person on emotion and rumors”. But then he adds, “but of course I think she did it”.
And that puts my son with about 2/3 of the rest of the country (including me). We ALL think she “did it”.
But she got off. Why? Not, in my opinion, because the evidence was at fault (or nonexistent). Once you see everything that happened across that space of time, it’s impossible to conclude much of anything else. She knows what happened to her daughter. If she wasn’t personally responsible herself, she knows who was responsible and she was complicit. How else can one explain those 31 days of time? And I mean “rationally” explain them.
In my opinion, the jury was simply inclined to acquit by the time they were asked to deliberate. The initial vote was supposedly 10 to 2 to acquit. I find that just a bit strange. Somebody on the prosecution team pissed a few people off somewhere along the line.
I don’t think, though, that she should have been found guilty of premeditated murder. That would have been unwarranted. Virtually all of the evidence was circumstantial. But how about the “aggravated child abuse” charge? How could anyone not find her at least guilty of that? A guilty verdict on that one could have cost her 15 years in prison. Instead of the week she’s getting now.
Having said all of that, I also have to say that I’ve always believed that it’s better to let the guilty go free than to send the innocent to jail (or worse, to the death chamber). But 15 years for this person? Who could possibly have argued with that? In this case, the system failed.