Canon G7 - Need your opinion

[trigeek]

Hello All,
I recently bought a Canon G7, and I like it quite a bit for the features that it has. One thing I need to level set on is the image quality. I am used to shooting with a Canon 5D w/ 24-105 lens )   I took some shots with the G7 and first impression is that the image quality is not up to snuff. However, need to remind myself that the G7 is 1/2 price of just the lens on my 5D. So... I have posted an image from the G7 that I am having issue with. Would like some G7 owner opinions regarding the IQ of this image... As you would expect from using your own cameras? Particular emphasis on bridge structure and main cables. Photo was iso 100, 1/1000 sec f4.0 (P mode).

Also any opinion on how you have your camera set up to get the best out of it would be most welcome.

Thanks for your comments!

[trigeek]

Here is the photo

[RonBoyd]

I am used to shooting with a Canon 5D w/ 24-105 lens )   I took some shots with the G7 and first impression is that the image quality is not up to snuff. However, need to remind myself that the G7 is 1/2 price of just the lens on my 5D. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Trigeek,

I am unsure how to respond to your post. You seem to have cropped a section of a distant landmark and expanded it 400%(?). I believe a fairer comparison would be if you do that to the rocks in the foreground. But even then... what are we comparing it to?

In any event, I don't have any experience with the G7 and do not (will not?) have THE answer for you. However, I have to point out that I am a very "happy camper" with my G6 (basically the same camera as the G7). If it helps any, the shots taken in RAW with the G6 are equal to the RAW images from my 20D. On the other hand, the highest quality jpeg images from the G6 (whatever that setting is -- I forget) is as you imply "very disappointing" when compared to the same images taken by the 20D. (I suspect it is that the in-camera "developing" doesn't come up to my standards but that is most certainly wishful thinking.)

This same principle, by the way, holds when I have the 20D take both jpeg and RAW images at the same time and compare the two. Have you compared jpeg (8 bit) images from the 5D with the same image from the G7?

Ron

[trigeek]

Thanks Ron,
The blown up section is 100% mag, not 400%. Rocks in the foreground would have been just as soft. And the answer to your question regarding comparing a raw & JPEG from my 5D is no, but would be a good exercise to level set myself.
Guess what I am looking for is a "yep, looks about right for a P&S jpeg... or... boy, looks a bit soft. My first impression is the later. Maybe a better exercise is to shoot the 5D in RAW & Jpeg and then shoot same subject, same FOV w/ the G7. Then do a compare. I will also print these shots to see what the actual printed output looks like.
Thanks

[PeterLange]

... or... boy, looks a bit soft.

From the histogram, the image seems to be a bit under-exposed.
Hence it misses contrast.

After some Photoshop wizardry – such as 16 bit based mild noise reduction, tonal adjustments, local contrast enhancement, adding more saturation and some further sharpening - things look tolerably right to me.

Peter

--

[trigeek]

Thanks Peter,
One thing I played around with this morning was the AF setting. I have been shooting using the center AF point for my exposures. When I switched to the AiAF (or 9 point AF) the images looked much better. Need to explore this with more images.
I did a similar thing to what you did last night... brought the image into PS, converted to LAB and played around with steepening the lightness curve... better. However. I want to reset myself now that the 9 pt AF appears to improve things.  As you suggest, I will pay more attention to the exposure.
Thanks again

[islandboy]

Thanks Peter,
One thing I played around with this morning was the AF setting. I have been shooting using the center AF point for my exposures. When I switched to the AiAF (or 9 point AF) the images looked much better. Need to explore this with more images.
I did a similar thing to what you did last night... brought the image into PS, converted to LAB and played around with steepening the lightness curve... better. However. I want to reset myself now that the 9 pt AF appears to improve things.  As you suggest, I will pay more attention to the exposure.
Thanks again
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I shoot with both a G5 and a 20D and the G5, although a good and versatile camera, can't compare in sharpness to the 20D with a quality lens. I don't care if you compare jpeg to jpeg or raw to raw, the 20D wins hands down. I wouldn't be disappointed, I would just accept that the G7 just isn't an SLR. Also, and this is what has made me so frustrated with the newer p+s cameras, they try to squeeze too many megapixels out of a small sensor and the photos are noisy even at low ISO as you can see in the 100% crop you posted. The SLRs with their bigger sensors are super smooth. In my opinion, the Gs are the best of the relatively compact p+s but no match for an SLR with a decent lens.

[pixelpro]

You may want to go onto  Gordonsbuck MyCanonG7 website. I found this website on Luminous Landscape Forum > Equipment & Techniques > Digital Cameras, Backs and Shooting Techniques.

I have browsed the MyCanonG7 website and found it interesting. Good Luck with your G7

[Deep]

I have the very similar Sony V3.  One thing I have noticed is that the Zeiss lens on this compact can outresolve its pixels.  Of course there is noise but at 100ASA it rarely shows up.  If I make 18x12 prints (from processed RAW files) it is impossible to tell they are from a compact.  In fact, they are crisper than prints from any 8-10Mp DSLR with kit lens that I have tried and equal to something like a 30D with a 24-70L attached.   As I write, I have a lightly cropped 18x12 V3 print of a fern leaf in front of me.  Beside it is a similar, uncropped print taken with an Olympus E300 with the 14-54 lens (a reasonable zoom).  Everyone thinks the Sony print came from a more expensive, fancier camera.

I see no reason why a Canon G6/7 can't achieve this and if it doesn't, it could well be faulty.  I would suggest you do some careful tests using a tripod and detailed test subjects, shooting in RAW.  If the difference is still as great as you say, maybe you should get the G7 checked out?

Don.

[RonBoyd]

I see no reason why a Canon G6/7 can't achieve this and if it doesn't, it could well be faulty.  I would suggest you do some careful tests using a tripod and detailed test subjects, shooting in RAW.  If the difference is still as great as you say, maybe you should get the G7 checked out?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don,

Ah, there's the rub. If only RAW was an option in the G7. I, then, would have been first in line to purchase one. Alas, it was not to be. (Everything you say does appy to the G6, however, of which I am very happy with.)

Ron

[islandboy]

I have the very similar Sony V3.  One thing I have noticed is that the Zeiss lens on this compact can outresolve its pixels.  Of course there is noise but at 100ASA it rarely shows up.  If I make 18x12 prints (from processed RAW files) it is impossible to tell they are from a compact.  In fact, they are crisper than prints from any 8-10Mp DSLR with kit lens that I have tried and equal to something like a 30D with a 24-70L attached.   As I write, I have a lightly cropped 18x12 V3 print of a fern leaf in front of me.  Beside it is a similar, uncropped print taken with an Olympus E300 with the 14-54 lens (a reasonable zoom).  Everyone thinks the Sony print came from a more expensive, fancier camera.

I see no reason why a Canon G6/7 can't achieve this and if it doesn't, it could well be faulty.  I would suggest you do some careful tests using a tripod and detailed test subjects, shooting in RAW.  If the difference is still as great as you say, maybe you should get the G7 checked out?

Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally, I think the G6 takes a better picture than the G7. The Sony v3 is only a 7 mp camera so noise will be much less of an issue than the G7 which has the same size sensor but 3 mp more resolution. Also the E300 has one of the smallest sensor sizes of the SLR cameras and so I wouldn't find it hard to believe the V3 or G6 could give it a run for it's money especially at smaller print sizes. I really like the idea of the IS, and better zoom on the G7 but I really wish they had either increased the sensor size or kept it as a 7 mp camera. Also, the lens is slower than the G6. I do like the G series since it makes a great portable camera but it still isn't an SLR.

[Deep]

Personally, I think the G6 takes a better picture than the G7. The Sony v3 is only a 7 mp camera so noise will be much less of an issue than the G7 which has the same size sensor but 3 mp more resolution. Also the E300 has one of the smallest sensor sizes of the SLR cameras and so I wouldn't find it hard to believe the V3 or G6 could give it a run for it's money especially at smaller print sizes. I really like the idea of the IS, and better zoom on the G7 but I really wish they had either increased the sensor size or kept it as a 7 mp camera. Also, the lens is slower than the G6. I do like the G series since it makes a great portable camera but it still isn't an SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, the E300 sensor is vastly bigger than the V3/G6-7 and  only a little smaller than a 20D sensor.  It leaps away from the V3 at 200ASA or higher, it's just that, at it's best, the V3 belies its small sensor (as does the G6).  The print sizes I was comparing are A3+, not that small at all.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that the V3 and G6 and even the G5 could put out such good files from that sensor size, whereas every example I have see to date from a small 10Mp sensor is very poor.  I am betting that the G7 doesn't have a RAW option because if it did you would see how much the software is covering up!

Don.

[wcwest]

Although I don't own the G7, I just finished putting together a 100 picture 8x10 portfolio from trips to Italy and California/Oregon coast for my sister. Fifteen of these were printed at 16x10 for display and another five were printed at 20x16 on an Epson 3800. They were processed in Lightroom with very little adjustment other than contrast and vibrancy. They were then opened in PSCS3 where they were resized with Genuine Fractals 5 and output sharpened with PhotoKit Sharpener. The prints looked fantastic and are on display in NYC. I was truly impressed with the quality of the JPEG images which were all taken in manual mode. I'm about to pick one up rather than a second body although I would prefer RAW files. However, the JPEG's were easily manipulated in Lightroom.

[trigeek]

Thanks for all of the comments. I have been taking a number of shots with my G7, and am quite happy to say that after basically resorting to the default settings... P mode, 100 ISO, 9 point focus that the images are quite superb. Also I have been sighting the shot with the optical viewfinder rather than the digital screen. Previously I had been on single point focus, Av mode. While I am not sure what actually caused the improved IQ, I suspect part of it may be the sighting thru the optical viewfinder. I may have been shaking the camera too much when I pressed the shutter at arm's length... even more than the stabilization could handle. Holding to the eye gave an added bit of stability during the shot. Any way... VERY happy now.

[islandboy]

Thanks for all of the comments. I have been taking a number of shots with my G7, and am quite happy to say that after basically resorting to the default settings... P mode, 100 ISO, 9 point focus that the images are quite superb. Also I have been sighting the shot with the optical viewfinder rather than the digital screen. Previously I had been on single point focus, Av mode. While I am not sure what actually caused the improved IQ, I suspect part of it may be the sighting thru the optical viewfinder. I may have been shaking the camera too much when I pressed the shutter at arm's length... even more than the stabilization could handle. Holding to the eye gave an added bit of stability during the shot. Any way... VERY happy now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am glad you got the settings tweeked. How do you feel the new prints are at the new settings compared to the 5D with your 24-105? Also, what made you decide to get the G7 if you already have a great set-up with the 24-105. Is it portability? I'm curious, because I went the other direction and I am looking into buying the 24-105 lens now. I had used the G as my travel camera but became disappointed primarily with the sharpness just as you mentioned. I tweeked my settings repeatedly and although it still took great pictures, they were never as sharp as my 20D.

[trigeek]

I am glad you got the settings tweeked. How do you feel the new prints are at the new settings compared to the 5D with your 24-105? Also, what made you decide to get the G7 if you already have a great set-up with the 24-105. Is it portability? I'm curious, because I went the other direction and I am looking into buying the 24-105 lens now. I had used the G as my travel camera but became disappointed primarily with the sharpness just as you mentioned. I tweeked my settings repeatedly and although it still took great pictures, they were never as sharp as my 20D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Islandboy,
I bought the G7 to have a camera I could have with me when the 5D is impractical. Easy to put in a jacket pocket and walk around.
Regarding comparing to the 24-105... The G7 is not a 5D w/24-105. But I never expected it to be. I am finding that once I learned to use it, the G7 is capable of some very good images. Just stay within the limits of the camera (i.e. low ISO, avoid heavy cropping, etc)... and don't pixel peep )
Regards,
Jim