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