Canon G7 review

[tnargs]

(BTW, your post is rude and foolishly narrow-minded, and doesn't fit with the civilized tone the rest of us here attempt to maintain. drm is right, you *would* prefer it over at DPReview.)
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry again. I'll take that one on the chin. I'm Australian and used to giving and receiving straight talk. When I'm excited the civilised tone of sophistication gives way to the TRUTH!  HAHAHAHAHA!  

[tnargs]

The basic analogy of RAW v JPEG is (film) print v (film) negative.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Another analogy is negative film (RAW) v positive film (JPEG). The positive film has less latitude, and less scope for manipulation after the shot (especially if viewing via a slide projector, which is the usual case). It demands more precision and technical knowledge to capture a satisfactory exposure. It will not tolerate sloppy work on-site. However, for some strange reason, that did not become a reason for all serious photographers to abandon positive film. Yet that is precisely the (dare I use the term narrow-minded, since it was applied to me after my first ever post) attitude that has taken hold regarding JPEG.

Arg

[opgr]

The G7 seems to be a very nice camera, but it is IMHO not the best contender in the market in terms of image quality, especially high ISO image quality. I have found that Fuji compacts like the F30 are ahead in absolute image quality terms from ISO 800 and on, even with 4 MP less.

At lower ISO, many other contenders are in the same ball park.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, so how about this for the ultimate camera:

- Sony's SR,
- Canon's CMOS technology
- APS-C, 10mpx
- Zeiss or Leica lens (18 - 108, or 28 - 170 in 35mm, 2.8 - 4.0)
- stepped zoom
- mechanical focus ring (not fly-by-wire)
- stepped dials
- CFII
- price 1K ~1.5K

While I'm at it, I really wouldn't be surprised if we'd see something like this somewhere down the line. Sony already puts an APS-C in a fixed lens camera. They had a brilliant DSC-V3 feature wise. If you're listening Sony: pick up the same design, stuff in the latest gadgets SR, RAW. Wouldn't even need the APS-C sensor, but would obviously help, and there you have it...

[tnargs]

I notice Michael R has added a postscript to his G7 review, stating he has bought one for his personal use. He writes "This will mean lower ultimate image quality in some situations than if it had raw mode, but if I want something with the features that it has to offer I have no other alternative." To me that says its failings are outweighed by its desirability. And that it is unique in what it provides. WITH no raw.

Exactly my point.

[jani]

OK, so how about this for the ultimate camera:

- Sony's SR,

What is that, anyway?

- APS-C, 10mpx

I hope not, 10 MPx in APS-C needs to improve a lot first.

- Zeiss or Leica lens (18 - 108, or 28 - 170 in 35mm, 2.8 - 4.0)

Disaster! Unless you want a monster that weighs 5 kg.

- stepped zoom

As in the tri-elmarit lenses?

- mechanical focus ring (not fly-by-wire)

Who is using fly-by-wire?

- CFII

Why? Is there a reason to have thicker compact flash cards than CF I? What are the inherent advantages?

[Nill Toulme]

Another analogy is negative film (RAW) v positive film (JPEG). The positive film has less latitude, and less scope for manipulation after the shot (especially if viewing via a slide projector, which is the usual case). It demands more precision and technical knowledge to capture a satisfactory exposure. It will not tolerate sloppy work on-site. However, for some strange reason, that did not become a reason for all serious photographers to abandon positive film. Yet that is precisely the (dare I use the term narrow-minded, since it was applied to me after my first ever post) attitude that has taken hold regarding JPEG.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm... I wonder how many of us would have bought a camera that would only shoot slides and wouldn't take negative film?

Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]

[opgr]

What is that, anyway?
I hope not, 10 MPx in APS-C needs to improve a lot first.
Disaster! Unless you want a monster that weighs 5 kg.
As in the tri-elmarit lenses?
Who is using fly-by-wire?
Why? Is there a reason to have thicker compact flash cards than CF I? What are the inherent advantages?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sensor Shake Reduction. Probably called different by Sony (Super Steady Shot?).

10mpx APS-C should improve over a 1/1.8? Or just in general?

f4.0 on the tele side may be pushing it, but it can be dedicated to APS-C, doesn't need IS in the lens, and can be retrofocus or whatever the heck they prefer, because the lens never leaves the camera (if designed properly of course), so there is more lattitude than one would think.

Stepped zoom as in fly-by-wire zoom but using a stepper ring. (Or dial if the design requires it). This allows both speedy and accurate zoom, ergonomically preferable over push-button design.

CF 1or2, just as long as it is not limited to MemorySticks in a Sony case (V3 did support CF), and certainly shouldn't be any of the poststamp stuff.

[jani]

Sensor Shake Reduction. Probably called different by Sony (Super Steady Shot?).

Yes.

Also known as "in-camera anti-shake", "in-camera image stabilizer", etc.

10mpx APS-C should improve over a 1/1.8? Or just in general?

In general.

f4.0 on the tele side may be pushing it, but it can be dedicated to APS-C, doesn't need IS in the lens, and can be retrofocus or whatever the heck they prefer, because the lens never leaves the camera (if designed properly of course), so there is more lattitude than one would think.

Okay, make that about 1 kg for the system.

The el cheapo Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC weighs 385 g, and you probably want far better optical quality while increasing maximum aperture with two thirds of a stop in the wide end and one stop at the tele end.

Also, it won't be particularly compact or discreet.

[howiesmith]

Hmmm... I wonder how many of us would have bought a camera that would only shoot slides and wouldn't take negative film?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least one.

I have purchsed several cameras made by Fuji and Kodak that used only color negative film.  The cameras worked fine, and served their intended purpose.  I seem to recall I paid about $9 each for the camera with a roll of film.  When I had the negatives processed, they kept the camera.  And no battery.

[Ken Tanaka]

At least one.

I have purchsed several cameras made by Fuji and Kodak that used only color negative film.  The cameras worked fine, and served their intended purpose.  I seem to recall I paid about $9 each for the camera with a roll of film.  When I had the negatives processed, they kept the camera.  And no battery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And these are probably among the ultimate in inconspicuous "street cameras" these days, along with camera phones and silver-one-hander-mommy-cams.  Nobody flinches from a disposable.

[Nill Toulme]

At least one.

I have purchsed several cameras made by Fuji and Kodak that used only color negative film.  The cameras worked fine, and served their intended purpose.  I seem to recall I paid about $9 each for the camera with a roll of film.  When I had the negatives processed, they kept the camera.  And no battery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's the flip side of the coin.  I've never seen a disposable slide camera, and never hope to see one.  ;-)

And personally I'd be a lot more likely to buy a "serious" camera that only shoots RAW than one that only shoots jpg.  But that's just me...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[opgr]

The el cheapo Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC weighs 385 g, and you probably want far better optical quality while increasing maximum aperture with two thirds of a stop in the wide end and one stop at the tele end.

Also, it won't be particularly compact or discreet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice try, but this ain't an slr, no mirror box to begin with. Perhaps even old-school. Look at Pentax's upcoming pancake designs... The Sony R1 features a 6x zoom for less than 1000g. I only opted for a 5x, and for my cup of tea it might as well be 4x. (20 - 80 ish).

As for conspicuous: the folks on this forum believe an M8 is very inconspicuous...

[24Peter]

What is it about a hegemony that makes it impossible to understand its  constituency? Arrogance or ignorance? Too bad, I like so many of on this forum are looking for a camera like this but are not prepared to buy an M8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where is the review of the G7?

[Ken Tanaka]

Where is the review of the G7?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml]Here[/url]

[24Peter]

Here
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Found it a few minutes ago. Thanks.

[Ken Tanaka]

Found it a few minutes ago. Thanks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Coincidentally, [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG7/]DPreview has posted the full review[/url] just today.

[DarkPenguin]

Coincidentally, DPreview has posted the full review just today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And they're savaging Simon over it, too.

[Stephen Best]

"The net result is that even if the G7 offered raw image capture...there would be no discernible improvement in image quality compared to...Superfine JPEG mode," Westfall [Canon's director of media and customer relations] said.

http://news.com.com/2102-1041_3-6136875.html

[jani]

"The net result is that even if the G7 offered raw image capture...there would be no discernible improvement in image quality compared to...Superfine JPEG mode," Westfall [Canon's director of media and customer relations] said.

Spoken by someone who's obviously unwilling to admit -- at least publicly -- that there's more to image quality than image detail.

[Dale_Cotton]

"The net result is that even if the G7 offered raw image capture...there would be no discernible improvement in image quality compared to...Superfine JPEG mode," Westfall [Canon's director of media and customer relations] said.

Just as I said in a previous thread, Canon does not want you to see how much noise is in the raw data. A few second's thought reveals that Westfall's argument is, of course, nonsense, since it only applies to the detail/noise property of an image, and does not address the other advantages of raw, such as control over WB, contrast curve, etc.

What they should do is generate the "raw" file from the post-NR stage of their signal processor's output. That would save their face while giving the serious photographer all the other advantages of the raw file format. But let them steer their present path: it just leaves the door open for some other company to get it right and walk all over them in the small camera market. If Panasonic, for example, ever gets the signal/noise ratio of their sensors down even to Sony levels and puts that in an LX model camera, that would do the trick.