Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on November 05, 2006, 09:11:07 pm

Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Kenneth Sky on November 05, 2006, 09:11:07 pm
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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Bill in WV on November 06, 2006, 12:34:14 am
First, I want to thank Michael for his review of the G7, it was pretty much what I expected when a competent reviewer finally got around to it. The loose comparison to the Leica's image quality caught me by surprise, not that I didn't think it would be capable, I just didn't think any reviewer would have the courage to voice such an opinion.

I will probably be ordering a G7 very soon. I'd kind of like to wait until it drops below $500 US. Like many others, I am concerned about the direction Canon and other manufacturers are taking. I guess I don't understand why certain things seem so simple to achieve yet the manufacturers continue to tell us what we want.

I actually had a G6 in my hands that had been returned to the store. It had been checked and came with a guarantee at least from the store. It could have been mine for something just over $450 but I wanted it to be a bit faster and the price for this one to be $400. I don't haggle very well. That was the last nearly new G6 I saw. So I set my sights on the next one, the G7 it turns out.

Well the speed I was looking for appears to be there. I could have lived with less zoom capability if I could have 24 to 28mm on the short end. F2 vs F2.8 doesn't bother me nearly as much, but I did think the G6 had some pretty fine optics. I do like the articulating LCD but it remains a novelty I can live without, and I have a G2 so I think I know of what I speak. I could have lived with fewer pixels if the sensitivity climbed to where it is. I do like at least repairable images snapped at ISO 800, they also appear to be there on the G7, but 7mp would have been plenty for me.

The hot shoe is still there and essential to me. There are now what, two digicams not in the SLR catagory with a hotshoe? This can't be that difficult, but I figure it has a lot more to do with stresses and body construction materials than anything else.

That pretty much takes me to the optical viewfinder. I rarely use the LCD to compose my shots, and I have two digicams that I could use to do it, but I prefer to look through my camera at my subject rather than look at my camera and then the subject. Stupid way to hold a camera anyway!

How difficult is it, and I ask this quite seriously as my D60 and 30D share the same problem, to design and build a truly usable opical finder that shows the entire imaging area? I have been around cameras for a long time, the first 35mm my dad let me use was his Contax I with the front winder and the first 35mm to have a 1/1000th of sec shutter! Only my Nikon F2s have had a 100% imaging area view. Why is this so difficult? I know other Nikons have had 100% and of course the Leica exceeds 100% but why is it so difficult?

Ok, now I have to jump in on the RAW question. I want it too, but I do know working pros around here who are published regularly and have a few books between them. They still seem reluctant to shoot in RAW, so I guess it can be done. However, I've learned to like shooting in RAW and like so many others, I want it! My question is this, isn't the RAW image there anyway, before the camera processes it to the JPEG?? Why can't we have it? I have seen suggestions that this might be available later as a firmware fix, I don't know, but is that even possible? Seems a reasonable solution. But then again, that would mean Canon would have to give up some control over what we want. Sure seems like a waste of pixels to me.

All that having been said, Michael's appraisal of the image quality of the G7 is still enough to excite me about a new carry anywhere camera and a perfect instrument for street photography and candids anywhere. So I will probably have one when the price drops just a bit more. It's worth what they're asking now, I'm just tight with my money. Ok, too cheap to part with it while I have other good cameras to use.

Bill in WV
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Pete JF on November 06, 2006, 12:47:55 am
That comment about asking some experienced associates to differentiate between the g7 and m8 prints, imo is, perhaps, a strong comment on the mortalityof the M8. If im spending 5 g's on a camera body and the results from a sub 1k camera and fixed lens are very close..something is wrong. Forget about speed, lack of raw option and vs. the pleasure of shooting with a leica and getting "close" results...it needs to be a little more out of balance than that based on sheer dollars spent.

Think about it...you have 7, 000 dollars worth of camera and lens in the Leica vs a g7 point and shoot with a fixed lens and the prints are hard to tell apart? Something's way wrong there and I think Canon is the one getting it way-er right.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2006, 01:27:21 am
Quote
However, I've learned to like shooting in RAW and like so many others, I want it! My question is this, isn't the RAW image there anyway, before the camera processes it to the JPEG?? Why can't we have it? I have seen suggestions that this might be available later as a firmware fix, I don't know, but is that even possible? Seems a reasonable solution. But then again, that would mean Canon would have to give up some control over what we want. Sure seems like a waste of pixels to me.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bill,

The problem is the amount of data to handle (transfer to the card...).

It would probably be possible to add RAW support through a firmware fix, but the camera would be awfully slow if RAW hasn't been taken into account from the beginning when designing the camera.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Kenneth Sky on November 06, 2006, 08:09:14 am
Bernard
What you are saying is number of pixels sells more cameras than size of buffer.
Ken
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on November 06, 2006, 08:57:41 am
Quote
Think about it...you have 7, 000 dollars worth of camera and lens in the Leica vs a g7 point and shoot with a fixed lens and the prints are hard to tell apart? Something's way wrong there and I think Canon is the one getting it way-er right.
This is an old argument, used against lens-interchangeable SLRs, too.

The price of the Leica is over the top for me personally, but it offers a top-quality (or so we hope, for Leica's sake) lens-interchangeable system, with good wide angle capability and exellent options for capturing motion in low-light conditions.

The G7's wide angle capability is supported by a 0.75x wide angle converter, and the lens is f/2.8.

There is no competition in that part of the digital market right now, Leica owns it. (Well, Epson might be competing with their R-D1, if the price comes down ...)

Personally, I'd love to have something like a Tri-Elmarit lens on a compact digital camera, but I'm not getting it without paying an arm and a leg. Tough.

So is it worth it, to pay 10 times the price for a more flexible system?

I think that question was best answered by those who were paying 8,000 dollars for a 1Ds MkII.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: macgyver on November 06, 2006, 10:07:53 am
I was pleasently suprised by the good noise performance.  That gives me hope: the better digicam sensors become, the more viable they become for a variety of situations.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 61Dynamic on November 06, 2006, 10:54:46 am
Quote
That comment about asking some experienced associates to differentiate between the g7 and m8 prints, imo is, perhaps, a strong comment on the mortalityof the M8. If im spending 5 g's on a camera body and the results from a sub 1k camera and fixed lens are very close..something is wrong. Forget about speed, lack of raw option and vs. the pleasure of shooting with a leica and getting "close" results...it needs to be a little more out of balance than that based on sheer dollars spent.

Think about it...you have 7, 000 dollars worth of camera and lens in the Leica vs a g7 point and shoot with a fixed lens and the prints are hard to tell apart? Something's way wrong there and I think Canon is the one getting it way-er right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps the skill of the photographer has a greater impact on image quality than the equipment?. Naw! :)

I think you are reading too much into that statement. It makes perfect sense to me that what Michael said would be possible if prints weren't large.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: John Camp on November 06, 2006, 05:49:31 pm
One thing that camera companies haven't picked up on yet -- I don't know why, it seems obvious enough -- is that sophisticated photographers want different cameras for different purposes. So a pro may want a Hassy with a 39mp back, a Canon 1DsII, a Leica M8, and finally, a camera that he can put in a briefcase, and still get photos that you can work with in Photoshop. I think all pros would probably want the latter, even if they don't use MF or 35 or a Leica; they're just handy things to have around. So while Canon and Nikon and all the others are spewing out dozens of camera models for every conceivable niche, here is one niche that needs help. The G7 could have been great; the first of the genuinely fine digital pocket cameras, with 8x10 output that would hold its own with DSLRs. Now, it's just another expensive P&S.

JC
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2006, 07:04:28 pm
Quote
Think about it...you have 7, 000 dollars worth of camera and lens in the Leica vs a g7 point and shoot with a fixed lens and the prints are hard to tell apart? Something's way wrong there and I think Canon is the one getting it way-er right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since Michael is describing the M8 as being the sharpest 35 mm camera currently availalbe (meaning sharper than a 1ds2 for that matter), and also saying that the prints between a G7 and M8 are difficult to tell apart, he could also have said that the prints between a G7 and a 1ds2 are difficult to tell apart.

He just didn't do the comparison but there is little reason to believe that the conclusion would have been different.

That's now a comparison between a compact digital and a 9000 US$ system.

The comparison isn't fair though since we all know that the 1ds2 and M8 have an enveloppe of usage that is much wider. What Michael is saying is that in a limited area of usage, the G7 can deliver great results.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2006, 07:08:41 pm
Quote
The G7 could have been great; the first of the genuinely fine digital pocket cameras, with 8x10 output that would hold its own with DSLRs. Now, it's just another expensive P&S.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on November 07, 2006, 08:53:13 am
I cannot believe the hypocrisy at LL regarding RAW. Several of the LL articles on the site carry on about pixel peeping and about "digital bridge cameras and cognitive dissonance", and other sites (see Amazon's user reviews of the G7 at http://tinyurl.com/yjz4gm (http://tinyurl.com/yjz4gm), especially review titled "RAW vs JPEG"), all point to the fact that good modern digicams take superb photos in JPEG, and that many very serious photographers shoot in JPEG with dSLR and medium format cameras.

No doubt the G7 vs Leica M8 photos that were hard to tell apart were JPEG vs RAW also, in addition to $600 vs $6,000 tools. Several other examinations of the topic on other sites reveal that in actual practice with actual prints JPEG has nothing to apologise for.

There's an LL article that carries on most persuasively about how much more important the handling and shooting performance of a camera is than the finest tonal perfection of the ten millionth pixel. If I remember the article canes the Olympus C8080 on this basis, and I agree with that author: if the camera doesn't perform in hand and on site, that is more of a problem than fine nuances per pixel. So tell me Mr G7 reviewer: when you are shooting in RAW with a 10MP compact digicam, how does its on-site performance compare to the G7 shooting in JPEG?

I suggest all the feature freaks who are freaking over this RAW feature that coulda, shoulda, but aint, get over it and stop beating the G7 to death and refusing to recommend it, and instead admit out loud that this camera's lack of RAW is only a stopper for pixel-peeping feature freaks who care more about theory than practice.

That comment also applies to the LL reviewer of the G7 who needs to conclude that the G7 takes great photos without RAW that compete miles above its price point, and that with a little sensible use of the live histogram (shame on you Michael R, what were you (not) thinking: too much time on dSLR's that lack this *essential* feature that you neglected to use for that shot with the burnt-out forehead, or too much loving care taking emotional exposures with the M8 followed by a quick offhand P&S with the G7??), and *maybe* a little use of manual white balance, would very very rarely need post-camera corrections that are problematic without RAW. The G7 even has exposure bracketing for careless shooters like Michael R, which I suggest he leave turned on permanently.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: David Mantripp on November 07, 2006, 09:29:49 am
Not a bad first post, Mr Nargs.  Flame Of The Month, perhaps ?

I'm certainly no apologist for anybody who buys expensive cameras just for the sake of it, and, as matter of fact, I don't believe that Michael Reichman is in any way whatsoever guilty of that.

The basic analogy of RAW v JPEG is (film) print v (film) negative. Most people, in The Old Days, just took their 2 or 3 rolls of Kodacolor to the local 1 Hour film processor, and that was the end of it. These people are the audience for in-camera JPG, by and large, particularly in digicams (I'm not arguing that professionals never use JPG, but when they do, it is because they have good reasons for making that choice - and it is generally a choice, not a forced decision).  More advanced photographers worked on their negatives, or slides, in the darkroom, or digitally.

A heavily compressed (in more than one sense), processed 8bit JPG has almost no latitude for post processing - and the average casual photographer has no need for this latitude. But a more dedicated photographer can use it to their advantage.

I suggest you check out DPReview - just in case you're not already well acquainted with it - you'd like it over there.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: howiesmith on November 07, 2006, 09:46:50 am
Quote
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]

To answer your question, that is the way the word is defined.

Hegemony (pronounced he'jem.ə.ni or hə'dʒɛ.mə.ni) (Greek: ηγεμονία hēgemonía) is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. The cultural control that hegemony asserts affects commonplace patterns of thought: hegemony controls the way new ideas are rejected or become naturalized in a process that subtly alters notions of common sense in a given society.

Hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others. Hegemony influences the perspective of mainstream history, as history is written by the victors for a congruent readership. The official history of Communism, re-writing history, erasing people's names and images from official state photos, provides a richly-exampled arena of cultural hegemony.

****

On further review, I don't think that answers your question.  I don't know the answer, not being a socialogist.  But my observation about this site is:

The site is operated by an individual with authority (he can control who posts here).  He has credibility.

Then members are allowed to express their opinions.  When opposition comes up, some members simply shout the interloper(s) down.

Because they are allowed to get away with this in the face of authority and credibility, they assume approval and may even start thinking the behavior and their opinion are correct.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on November 07, 2006, 11:02:46 am
Quote
I suggest all the feature freaks who are freaking over this RAW feature that coulda, shoulda, but aint, get over it and stop beating the G7 to death and refusing to recommend it, and instead admit out loud that this camera's lack of RAW is only a stopper for pixel-peeping feature freaks who care more about theory than practice.
http://folk.uio.no/jani/hobbies/photo/test/high+shadow/ (http://folk.uio.no/jani/hobbies/photo/test/high+shadow/)
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Fred Ragland on November 07, 2006, 11:04:00 am
Quote
Hegemony (pronounced he'jem.?.ni or h?'d??.m?.ni) (Greek: ???????? h?gemonía) is the dominance of one group over other groups...Hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been a RAW shooter for years.  But in addition to landscape and architecture, I feel a need to explore street shooting.  Its a new twist to an old love that may or may not work out.  So I'm uneasy about getting an M8 when it isn't the best tool to capture my other lifelong interests.

Enter the G7.  Its a good starter camera for a professional photographer wanting to explore street shooting while continuing his long term commitments.  

It just doesn't shoot RAW.  So I'll learn to shoot spot-on JPEGs again which is a discipline I need to exercise anyway.  I've spent $800 for a G7, two Sandisk 2gb Extreme III sd cards, and an extra battery...far less than what an M8 with lenses cost.  It should arrive tormorrow.

In this computer oriented age, I need to shoot more and this is a way to do it.  I'm not going to let RAW dominate my values or practices.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on November 07, 2006, 01:30:12 pm
I've tried a digicam without RAW (Fujifilm F30), and the loss of dynamic range is really crippling.  The first time I tried it outdoors, even with a great deal of bracketing, over 90% of the shots were useless because of the lack of dynamic range.  When the shots were sufficiently underexposed to avoid blowing out the sky, the rest of the image was so dark that noise was a major problem.  If I had been using a camera with RAW, that extra couple of stops of dynamic range you can get out of a good RAW converter would probably have saved many, perhaps even most, of them.  Just because *you* don't think you need that extra dynamic range, tnargs, doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.

(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
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: giles on November 07, 2006, 11:26:57 pm
A usable raw mode is helpful for more than white balance and exposure: my current digicam doesn't offer raw, and will sometimes add halos to its JPG files even when sharpening is set to minimum.  Arrggh!

Add me to the list of people wanting a pocketable digicam with 28mm or so at the wide end, an optical finder, low shutter lag, and a responsive raw mode.

Giles
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Pete JF on November 07, 2006, 11:50:21 pm
That Canon G6 is looking mighty tempting right now except for lack of a 28mm end.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on November 08, 2006, 12:49:42 am
Quote
Not a bad first post, Mr Nargs.  Flame Of The Month, perhaps ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry. I am a bit cheesed off...  
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on November 08, 2006, 01:06:26 am
Quote
(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!  
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on November 08, 2006, 02:40:59 am
Quote
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
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 32BT on November 08, 2006, 06:27:26 am
Quote
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...
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on November 08, 2006, 06:55:22 am
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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on November 08, 2006, 08:12:03 am
Quote
OK, so how about this for the ultimate camera:

- Sony's SR,
What is that, anyway?

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

Quote
- 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.

Quote
- stepped zoom
As in the tri-elmarit lenses?

Quote
- mechanical focus ring (not fly-by-wire)
Who is using fly-by-wire?

Quote
- CFII
Why? Is there a reason to have thicker compact flash cards than CF I? What are the inherent advantages?
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Nill Toulme on November 08, 2006, 10:21:00 am
Quote
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=84092\")
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]
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 32BT on November 08, 2006, 10:43:19 am
Quote
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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on November 08, 2006, 12:16:35 pm
Quote
Sensor Shake Reduction. Probably called different by Sony (Super Steady Shot?).
Yes.

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

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

Quote
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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: howiesmith on November 08, 2006, 01:58:58 pm
Quote
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 (http://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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Ken Tanaka on November 08, 2006, 02:04:55 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Nill Toulme on November 08, 2006, 02:58:13 pm
Quote
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
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 32BT on November 08, 2006, 03:03:36 pm
Quote
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...
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 24Peter on November 17, 2006, 11:25:29 am
Quote
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?
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Ken Tanaka on November 17, 2006, 11:38:10 am
Quote
Where is the review of the G7?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85804\")

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml]Here[/url]
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: 24Peter on November 17, 2006, 11:39:47 am
Quote
Here (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Found it a few minutes ago. Thanks.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Ken Tanaka on November 17, 2006, 01:36:57 pm
Quote
Found it a few minutes ago. Thanks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85808\")

Coincidentally, [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG7/]DPreview has posted the full review[/url] just today.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: DarkPenguin on November 17, 2006, 04:57:17 pm
Quote
Coincidentally, DPreview has posted the full review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG7/) just today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And they're savaging Simon over it, too.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Stephen Best on November 20, 2006, 05:46:55 pm
"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 (http://news.com.com/2102-1041_3-6136875.html)
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on November 20, 2006, 06:06:13 pm
Quote
"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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Dale_Cotton on November 20, 2006, 06:17:22 pm
Quote
"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.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Quentin on November 21, 2006, 07:59:15 pm
Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As a former Fuji F10 owner (my wife has it now), and now a G7 owner, I'm a bit depressed at how much worse the G7 noise is at anything above base ISO compared to the Fuji - and not even the latest Fuji at that. Then again, there is no raw mode with the Fuji.  No one has really filled the gap in the market for a pocket sized pro portable camera.  Why is that?   The G7 is great in many respects but I want lower noise and a raw mode, and I want it NOW!

Am I really asking for too much?

Quentin
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Dale_Cotton on November 22, 2006, 06:44:29 am
Quentin wrote:
Quote
The G7 is great in many respects but I want lower noise and a raw mode, and I want it NOW!
Fine. I'm right there with you. And hopefully you are also willing to take a hit in megapixels to get those things. Fuji seems to be the only mfg with enough smarts to stop at 6 mp. (Of course, given their double photo-site technology, the detail is more like 7 or 8 mp.) The reality is that thumbnail sensors can be divided into 2 or 3 nice clean megapixels or 4 to 6 medium-noise mp or 7+ nasty, yucky mp.

From the mfg's point-of-view failing to up the mp count every generation is a recipe for disaster. You know better; I know better; the engineers who design these things know better. It's Joe Public who buys these things in quantities sufficient to support the industry that makes his buying decision based on more mps = better camera. Or at least, so the mfgs believe.

But it seems to me that Fuji's success at selling 6 mp cameras in the same market that Canon and others are flooding with up to 10 mp cameras gives the lie to the theory that Joe Public only knows from megapixels.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: grabshot on November 22, 2006, 11:05:56 am
Quote
Hmmm... I wonder how many of us would have bought a camera that would only shoot slides and wouldn't take negative film?

I'm not sure that any of my film cameras have ever had a roll of colour negative film in them. I know that colour neg can have its advantages but I've always treated colour transparency as the only serious film type of choice.

Black & white film is a different matter altogether (though being a colour shooter, I don't use any of that stuff either).
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Quentin on November 22, 2006, 03:15:01 pm
Quote
Quentin wrote:

Fine. I'm right there with you. And hopefully you are also willing to take a hit in megapixels to get those things. Fuji seems to be the only mfg with enough smarts to stop at 6 mp. (Of course, given their double photo-site technology, the detail is more like 7 or 8 mp.) The reality is that thumbnail sensors can be divided into 2 or 3 nice clean megapixels or 4 to 6 medium-noise mp or 7+ nasty, yucky mp.

From the mfg's point-of-view failing to up the mp count every generation is a recipe for disaster. You know better; I know better; the engineers who design these things know better. It's Joe Public who buys these things in quantities sufficient to support the industry that makes his buying decision based on more mps = better camera. Or at least, so the mfgs believe.

But it seems to me that Fuji's success at selling 6 mp cameras in the same market that Canon and others are flooding with up to 10 mp cameras gives the lie to the theory that Joe Public only knows from megapixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, and Fuji are to be commended on going for quality over quantity.  That old F10 still rocks.  However, there is no reason why the sensor in compacts has to be so small.  A scaled-down Leica without the price tag would do me fine, with a sensor size big enough to handle 10mp comfortably.  There were plenty of 35mm film cameras as compact as the G7.  

Quentin
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: DarkPenguin on November 22, 2006, 03:25:00 pm
Quote
I agree, and Fuji are to be commended on going for quality over quantity.  That old F10 still rocks.  However, there is no reason why the sensor in compacts has to be so small.  A scaled-down Leica without the price tag would do me fine, with a sensor size big enough to handle 10mp comfortably.  There were plenty of 35mm film cameras as compact as the G7. 

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Off Topic: My f10 bit it on the 366th day of ownership.  i just know they set a death clock in the firmware.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: tnargs on December 23, 2006, 06:59:40 am
Quote
As a former Fuji F10 owner (my wife has it now), and now a G7 owner, I'm a bit depressed at how much worse the G7 noise is at anything above base ISO compared to the Fuji
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
try the G7 at 6MP and ISO400
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2006, 08:13:01 am
Quote
try the G7 at 6MP and ISO400
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What! Have we got some sort of 'binning' capability here. I didn't know that.

The principle of binning is that you can get a higher dynamic range and lower noise but at the expense of lower resolution.

I beleive this principle could be very useful in providing high quality video in DSLRs.

I don't understand why this video feature has not already been provided.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: jani on December 23, 2006, 08:46:16 am
Quote
What! Have we got some sort of 'binning' capability here. I didn't know that.

The principle of binning is that you can get a higher dynamic range and lower noise but at the expense of lower resolution.
Yes, and Fuji uses this principle in their 6 Mpx cameras (e.g. the F10/F11/F30/F31fd), since they have 12 million photosites, whereof half are there for increased dynamic range in the highlights.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2006, 08:56:47 am
Quote
Yes, and Fuji uses this principle in their 6 Mpx cameras (e.g. the F10/F11/F30/F31fd), since they have 12 million photosites, whereof half are there for increased dynamic range in the highlights.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jani,
But having 2 photosites under the one microlens seems to present additional problems for smooth integration of RAW data. The consumer may lament the lack of RAW capability, but I see no-one on this site has accused Fuji of arrogance.

Are you listening, Jonathan   .
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: John Sheehy on December 23, 2006, 10:49:29 am
Quote
But having 2 photosites under the one microlens seems to present additional problems for smooth integration of RAW data. The consumer may lament the lack of RAW capability, but I see no-one on this site has accused Fuji of arrogance.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The two photosites are supposed to have the same center, so it is absolutely essential for them to sample areas with the same center.  The microlenses probably are like a funnel with one opening at the top, but with two different sizes of outlets on the bottom.
Title: Canon G7 review
Post by: John Sheehy on December 24, 2006, 12:05:11 am
Quote
The two photosites are supposed to have the same center, so it is absolutely essential for them to sample areas with the same center.  The microlenses probably are like a funnel with one opening at the top, but with two different sizes of outlets on the bottom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I should have wrote, "the effect is like", as the microlens itself probably has the equivalent of one outlet.