Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: tgphoto on November 08, 2006, 09:17:44 am
-
I found the PostScript to Michael's Canon G7 Review enlightening. Here is a photographer who is continually at the forefront of digital technology, a clear advocate of digital large format, who has become smitten with a tool incapable of capturing a RAW image.
Michael clearly states his reasoning behind his purchase, and gives the reader insight as to how he intends to use it. But he also states by purchasing it, "this will mean lower ultimate image quality in some situations than if it had raw mode".
I wonder then, how essential is RAW mode given the purpose of the camera -- to take vacation photos. There are likely some readers who will read this statement and hold off on the purchase. But for those who do purchase it, and do so with the intention of using it for their next vacation, is lack of RAW support really an issue?
Yes, yes, I know. RAW is better, gives you more control over the final image, produces optimum images, etc. However, my guess is, on average, vacation photos are rarely if ever printed larger than 8x10 (maybe 16x20). These type of shots usually end up on a Flickr or Smugmug page, emailed to grandma and a few co-workers, or sent to a local drugstore or photo lab for printing. Under these circumstances, isn't JPEG more than adequate?
-
There are lots of "adequate" cameras out there. Why should we be forced to settle for "adequate" in what is ostensibly Canon's flagship small non-DSLR camera ... a camera that instead of just being "adequate" comes so close to being excellent?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
There are two main reasons I disagree with settling for JPEG: exposure errors and white balance errors. Both have a lot more latitude for correction in post processing with RAW than JPEG and both happen more often whenever we rush, which is common on vacation.
I'm still going to hang on to my Canon S70 for really lightweight, casual use. Enough resolution at 7 megapixels, RAW capture, and a zoom out to 28mm equivalent does it for me. ISO above 100 or 200 is noisy and no external flash, though. They can still be bought new through Amazon.com, but for about $800 now instead of about $450 when they were common. The prices keep going up: a month ago they were about $700. Someone has figured out that they have a lucrative niche product.
If I want better than that I'm prepared to go to a Rebel XT or XTi with the 17-85 IS zoom.
-
Here's a thought for Canon: Issue a G7 SE (special edition) with RAW and appropriate buffer memory at a premium price just below the Rebel and see if a niche market develops. I can dream - in the meantime I'll hold onto my S70 as well.
-
As I recently discussed in more detail in another recent thread, RAW gives you a couple of stops more dynamic range. For outdoor vacation-type shots, you'll get a lot fewer ugly blown-out skies (without making the rest of the image overly dark or overly noisy) with a properly tweaked RAW than with jpg.
Lisa
-
I found the PostScript to Michael's Canon G7 Review enlightening. Here is a photographer who is continually at the forefront of digital technology, a clear advocate of digital large format, who has become smitten with a tool incapable of capturing a RAW image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We all watch Hollywod movies, don't we?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personally, I'm quite disappointed. It appears that Michael has settled for "pixel counting" over "critical features". I realize the G7 is good in so many ways, but it still is lacking in a couple critical areas--ones that might come back to haunt him.
I suspect that after this vacation, he'll have dumped the G7 faster than the LONG LINE of cameras he's gone through. Although a nice shooter, it offers little for him as a professional photographer.
As a nice pocketable "family camera" it's fine--probably quite excellent. But in reality, for this application, is it any better than the half-dozen other P&S cameras he's owned over the past three or four years? I dare say that one of the finer cameras he's had, the KM A2, he dispensed with before he could even maximize what it was capable of.
Other than pixel count and a possible cleaner high-iso (severely manipulated by the internal processing engine which is why RAW wasn't possible in the first place) WHY bother with this camera? It's just another digital disposable aimed at people who count pixels and features.
Or am I being a little rough?
-
Like others, I, too, am disappointed that Canon has pulled RAW mode from its upper-end p&s camera models. I had no idea that I was "acquiring" a collectors' item when I bought a Powershot S70 two years ago! (BTW, Pictureline grabbed unsold stocks of S70's and still sells them (http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=368).)
I've liked the S70 for brighter scenes and I like its wide lens (even with its slight edge fringing). I also like its compactness and optical viewfinder. Alas, however, the S70 is noisier than a day care center at ISO 200 and 400. RAW or cooked, low-light is not pretty with the S70.
I don't shoot many cooked (JPG) frames at all. But the availability of Lightroom's RAW-like Develop module controls for JPGs gives me greater confidence with JPGs than I've ever had. So this, combined with Michael's remarks, sold me on trying this little fellow. Honestly, I probably would not have paid it any attention otherwise. (NewEgg.com has them for $539.) Will report back when I've had a chance to take it for a spin.
Hey, I really like the idea of a "G7 SE" model! Calling it the "G7 Pro", however, would give it greater snob appeal, perhaps with the body insignia in gold.
-
I understand and enjoy and take advantage of how RAW files can be tweaked for better exposure, but I know photographers to have gotten quite lazy when shooting by using the excuse of "well, I'm shooting in RAW, I can fix it later".
There are some of us who, raw or jpg, try to get it as right as we can the first time.
-
I understand and enjoy and take advantage of how RAW files can be tweaked for better exposure, but I know photographers to have gotten quite lazy when shooting by using the excuse of "well, I'm shooting in RAW, I can fix it later".
There are some of us who, raw or jpg, try to get it as right as we can the first time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And even at least one film user.
-
I understand and enjoy and take advantage of how RAW files can be tweaked for better exposure, but I know photographers to have gotten quite lazy when shooting by using the excuse of "well, I'm shooting in RAW, I can fix it later".
There are some of us who, raw or jpg, try to get it as right as we can the first time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
if you want to learn how to take great pictures, a jpg-only option is akin to a fixed 50mm lens. besides, the RAW lattitude and white balance error corrections are extremely exaggerated if you read some of the discussions.
I personally believe the RAW capability of the G7 was left off because it allows them to obscure the relatively bad picture quality of these type of sensors, doesn't have any relation to sales cannibalisation.
As for the postscript: it does seem a bit of a shortcut to burn a camera's RAW capability because it takes 6 seconds to write, and comparing a camera's "feel" based on a few hours on the internet seems a bit far fetched if you'd ask me. I'm not denying that the G7 is the better choice for the situation, I just don't believe the postscriptum is very helpful in revealing the decisive factor.
-
Oscar,
If that six seconds means you can't take another shot, then it can be an eternity. Simply unacceptable to anyone doing more than taking snapshots.
"comparing a camera's "feel" based on a few hours on the internet..."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I borrowed an e900 from a friendly dealer and shot with it for a half day. That's what my judgement was based on. My comment about browsing the web had to do with a search for alternatives not an evaluation of any particular camera. I thought that my writing was pretty clear in that regard.
I also just spent 5 days at Photokina looking at almost every new offering in the business, so my judgement is based on a somewhat wider perspective than what you imply.
"I personally believe the RAW capability of the G7 was left off because it allows them to obscure the relatively bad picture quality of these type of sensors..."
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. How can a camera produce better JPGs than its raw files? The JPGs are derived from the raw data. N'est pas? And, as I noted in my review,. the G7's image quality is very good indeed.
Why not wander down to a local dealer and take some frames with a G7 and see for yourself?
Michael
-
Essentially what you get is a "film" camera with better resolution, better high ISO and the other advantages of digital, without the ability of being able to change the negative after the fact, right? I lived with film for fifty years, I could probably struggle by a couple more with a good high-res, high ISO .jpg.
Although I wish it had RAW.
JC
-
I personally believe the RAW capability of the G7 was left off because it allows them to obscure the relatively bad picture quality of these type of sensors, doesn't have any relation to sales cannibalisation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or, to turn this around, so images straight from the camera can be seen in the best light.
If you look at the trend in the digital camera industry, from low to very high-end, it's to add increasingly more smarts in the camera to correct image quality. You're now seeing lens designs appearing that are totally dependent on firmware/software correction even to look acceptable. Even the M8's offset microlenses are optimal only for a single focal length, hence the lens coding to correct for others.
Personally, I see RAW as merely a transitional stage in camera implementation. In future cases where it's going to be exposed, it will only be after heavy in-camera preprocessing. Also, if you look at the typical camera purchaser, even of DSLRs, most don't want RAW ... no matter how much you explain the benefits. At some point the chip in the camera will give better results than *most* users can achieve with external processing and this is when we'll see a decline in its use. It doesn't surprise me in the least that it's being dropped from P&S cameras. The proportion of the market that want RAW from a G7 is likely minimal and probably not worth Canon bothering about.
-
The proportion of the market [that] want RAW from a G7 is likely minimal and probably not worth Canon bothering about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen. I think that is it on a platter.
I would even be so bold as to drop the "likely and "probably."
The proportion of the market [that] wants RAW from a G7 is minimal and not worth Canon bothering about.
-
Amen. I think that is it on a platter.
I would even be so bold as to drop the "likely and "probably."
The proportion of the market [that] wants RAW from a G7 is minimal and not worth Canon bothering about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Except ... that Canon are in a competitive market, and here's another "check box" that they can tick ... or not. Particularly since there is little loyalty to brands in the digicam market, someone sometime will decide that this is their "edge" to offer if Canon persist in restricting raw mode to their DSLRs. I hope.
Giles
-
"I personally believe the RAW capability of the G7 was left off because it allows them to obscure the relatively bad picture quality of these type of sensors..."
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. How can a camera produce better JPGs than its raw files? The JPGs are derived from the raw data. N'est pas? And, as I noted in my review,. the G7's image quality is very good indeed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
This is of course just guessing and Canon has probably left RAW out for a mix of reasons, but the comment above might not be as stupid as it looks:
1. The jpg of the Nikon D50 at high ISO are clearly better than the RAW produced by Nikon capture on the same file. I know it is surprising, but Thom Hogan says the same thing and a look at his site will convince you that he isn't crazy.
2. Doing all the processing in camera with the right parameters does indeed hide the latent noise problem of the sensor that some users might not tolerate otherwise, especially if they are not using Canon's RAW conversion software, which is most likely for people shooting RAW. This is back on the open/closed system topic, Canon might have decided to close their system (in camera jpeg processing is a form of closure) to control the conversion,
3. Doing all the processing in body does also make it a lot harder to reverse engineer the noise reduction alogs developped by Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Except ... that Canon are in a competitive market, and here's another "check box" that they can tick ... or not. Particularly since there is little loyalty to brands in the digicam market, someone sometime will decide that this is their "edge" to offer if Canon persist in restricting raw mode to their DSLRs. I hope.
Giles
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Competitive markets and no customer loyality are signs you are not in a niche market. This type of market requires lower margins (you gotta start giving some stuff away to survive).
I think of Ferarri as a niche market. Customers usually don't sho for features and price. They want and buy a Ferarri.
-
At last, the discussion on this camera regarding RAW is starting to swing around from "well that's ruined it" to something more pragmatic -- by which I don't mean compromised.
It is obvious from the LL review 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 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 difficult situations. The absence of RAW does demand more precision and technical knowledge to capture a satisfactory exposure, but I am quite sure that it does not consign an excellent camera to the non-serious-photographer, or holiday-only, cupboard.
I am going to take the opposite approach to those who dismiss it from a distance: I will buy one and use it as much as I can, as widely as I can, and as intelligently as I can, for at *least* six months, then decide if I simply have to get something better, or whether I am delighted with its capabilities in the hand and on the wall. And the decision will be based on examination of actual prints without a loupe and at proper viewing distance, certainly not on pixel peeping. This will be my first digital. My reference standards are based on my current (albeit ancient) film cameras, a Canon T90 with 4 prime lenses and a Minox GT, digitised with Coolpix V film scanner and normally printed at A4 or A3+ on my Canon i9950; so now you know my standards are only 35mm and not that great by Luminous Landscape standards. So, I genuinely expect to be delighted with my forthcoming G7 christmas present, and I think a positive mindset helps.
Michael's review was most helpful and cast my purchase decision in stone, and that was *before* the postscript.
Arg
-
Competitive markets and no customer loyality are signs you are not in a niche market. This type of market requires lower margins (you gotta start giving some stuff away to survive).
I think of Ferarri as a niche market. Customers usually don't sho for features and price. They want and buy a Ferarri.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right. So if you're one of 20,000 digicam manufacturers and you're finding Canon's volume hard to compete with, paint a model Ferrari red, add raw mode, and add some margin back! Find a niche and hope to prosper.
On the other side of the fence: if you're Canon and wanting to keep a large share of the market, don't leave obvious niches uncovered if you can help it.
Cheers,
Giles
-
Nargs, go for it, you win a nice shiny medal for being so bad ass.
This is not the type of camera that most folks buy to get all photo geeked on with the histogramming and the white point and the expose to the far west...they buy it for what it is, To point, compose and shoot. Raw is clearly the file type that is most suited for photography like this. If the jpeg'ers and their photos of their Grannies dont want to use it (raw), they dont have to.
I think the actual deal here is that this camera has always represented the best or one big fav of the point and shoot Canons amongst its loyal scads, no? The s-70 and 60 were also pretty popular with the more serious of the pointers and shooters. what happened there?...same thing, jpeg city...what did people do? They started buying back into the s-70...Canon sort of came out of the blue and yanked RAW from the dessert menu. Should people be surprised, wondering, pissed, pissed again? Sure, why not? A camera that has a name, a reputation as being cool...and list of defining features..raw being one of them..people expect that camera to maintain it's basic identity. Most loyal customers tend to move right up the ladder with improvements model after model. That, imo, is good business sense.
I don't care about what it is, as it is, right now. I've been hunting and hunting for a camera like this, with raw (and hopefully a 28mm)...This was a hopeful, temporary endpoint. Blink, Canon decides it's time to start working the demographics.
How much more work and expense would putting in a decent RAW option actually be? pretty much zero i think. Canon has raw systems out the wazoo..laying around the office like cubicle divider lint...Canon is the king of this thing right now...this was a suit oriented decision and I hate it when the suits jump in and start with bean strategies, divide and conquer and what not.
It sucks, mainly because Im tired as hell of bouncing around the damn internet looking at reviews that come up short. I don't think it would have made a big difference in their bottom line anywhere at all. That's the way the beaners think though, tooooo much, sometimes. So, Michael..enjoy the camera, im sure that you have to mind your politics carefully here, i respect that to a point. the postscript did not pull any punches. It is clear that you are disappointed with Canon's decision making process here, i am too.
Narg, dont stay off the methylphenedate for too long...go for it and have fun with your histocrackers.
-
Right. So if you're one of 20,000 digicam manufacturers and you're finding Canon's volume hard to compete with, paint a model Ferrari red, add raw mode, and add some margin back! Find a niche and hope to prosper.
On the other side of the fence: if you're Canon and wanting to keep a large share of the market, don't leave obvious niches uncovered if you can help it.
Cheers,
Giles
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Adding RAW to the G7 might increase sales by a few. But it might decrease sales a lot by having to increase the price to cover cost to the point many consumers wouldn't buy it. Canon is a mass production camera maker, not a niche camera maker.
Now when Canon was selling the 300/2.8, early on it was the only kid on the block. Sports photogs bought them because it was just the best and all the best had them. Canon could sell bodies because a 300/2.8 fit on the front. Well, they lost the niche to competition. Problem with niche markets, they may not last long, so a company with a niche has to grap all the profit they can fast before they start getting competition.
I think Ferarri isn't such a good example of a niche. It may be just "snob appeal," look at me, I have arrived. A niche usually fills a particular need very well with no real competition.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I borrowed an e900 from a friendly dealer and shot with it for a half day. That's what my judgement was based on. My comment about browsing the web had to do with a search for alternatives not an evaluation of any particular camera. I thought that my writing was pretty clear in that regard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In a brief moment of weakness I must have misread the text then, my apologies.
-
Or, to turn this around, so images straight from the camera can be seen in the best light.
... At some point the chip in the camera will give better results than *most* users can achieve with external processing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, and additionally most of those same users (and this would include many advanced users and pros I'm afraid) will not understand what they see when confronted with the original RAW data. Processing that same RAW data in a DPP version that could mimmic DIGIC 3 would probably take an eternity given Canon's trackrecord. The other mainstream solution used for RAW processing simply isn't equiped to deal with this kind of data.
Perhaps it's similar to ColorManagement. Knowing half the story is more dangerous than ignorance.
-
2. Doing all the processing in camera with the right parameters does indeed hide the latent noise problem of the sensor that some users might not tolerate otherwise, especially if they are not using Canon's RAW conversion software, which is most likely for people shooting RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, and the chip will do it a lot quicker as well. "tolerate", great choice of words...
-
If you look at the trend in the digital camera industry, from low to very high-end, it's to add increasingly more smarts in the camera to correct image quality. You're now seeing lens designs appearing that are totally dependent on firmware/software correction even to look acceptable. Even the M8's offset microlenses are optimal only for a single focal length, hence the lens coding to correct for others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The jpg of the Nikon D50 at high ISO are clearly better than the RAW produced by Nikon capture on the same file. I know it is surprising, but Thom Hogan says the same thing and a look at his site will convince you that he isn't crazy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The above passages are very illuminating. Thanks guys.
Arg
-
I am going to take the opposite approach to those who dismiss it from a distance: I will buy one and use it as much as I can, as widely as I can, and as intelligently as I can, for at *least* six months, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
6 months ???? It'll be totally obsolete by then!
-
Follow-Up to My Previous Post
Well I have picked up a G7 and spent some time with it yesterday afternoon. My reaction, in a single phrase, is it's a superb camera that performs beyond its class.
I'll not spend time reciting the camera's details, as Michael's already provided the salient information is his commentary. But I will note some attributes that stood out to me in my first few hours with the G7.
- The camera has a very sturdy feeling and nice heft. It does not feel like a circuit board wrapped in sheet metal.
- The G7's size enables it to be carried easily in a jacket pocket.
- The supplied neck strap is not useful. I replaced it with the nice, cinch-able wrist strap from my S70.
- Shutter lag and focus time were not significant issues. There was also no lag in writing images to a SanDisk Extreme III SD card. The camera was ready to shoot again immediately.
- The G7's lens is, indeed, extremely sharp. Further, I was unable to induce any noticeable color fringing at thee edges of its widest setting.
- The lcd screen seem clearer and brighter than that of my 5D.
- The optical viewfinder is nice to have but, as it displays no information, it's of limited use.
- The image stabilizer is very effective. It is, however, a bit of an extra drain on the battery. I recommend setting its activation to "On Shoot", rather than the default "Continuous", to save power.
The G7 is the finest digital camera of its class that I've ever owned or used. Its performance is at least 2x that of my S70. The absence of a RAW recording mode, something I lamented in Canon's new upper-end p&s cameras, is just not going to be an issue for me. Again, Lightroom's fine Develop module greatly mitigates this deficit for this camera.
I have posted a handful of images I shot near my home during my first few hours with the G7. These images are presented with absolutely no post-processing. They came into Lightroom and were directly exported at an appropriate size for posting. These low-res images don't really do justice to the images. Guffaw of the day: I had not even unpacked the camera's manual before I shot these images. Hence I did not realize that I had not even been using the camera's highest resolution.
Honestly, this G7 is making me wonder if I really need a Purple People Eater (M8) even after Leica fixes the early bugs. It's at least taken the hunger pangs away.
The sample images are here. (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/canon_g7_test)
-
I bought a Minolta A2 over a year ago based mostly on MR's review of it. He did not lead me wrong. It is a great camera. Not only does it duplicate most DSLR functions but it shoots RAW files. (I convert them to Adobe DNG, but that's another story.
It was a sad day when the makers of this fine camera left the camera business.
Michael, reach deep into your camera bag and grab that A2. You won't be disdapointed.
-
The A2 is still a fine camera. My son now has it and uses it extensively.
I just coulnd't find happyness with an electronic viewfinder.
Michael
-
Follow-Up to My Previous Post
Well I have picked up a G7 and spent some time with it yesterday afternoon. My reaction, in a single phrase, is it's a superb camera that performs beyond its class.
I'll not spend time reciting the camera's details, as Michael's already provided the salient information is his commentary. But I will note some attributes that stood out to me in my first few hours with the G7.
- The camera has a very sturdy feeling and nice heft. It does not feel like a circuit board wrapped in sheet metal.
- The G7's size enables it to be carried easily in a jacket pocket.
- The supplied neck strap is not useful. I replaced it with the nice, cinch-able wrist strap from my S70.
- Shutter lag and focus time were not significant issues. There was also no lag in writing images to a SanDisk Extreme III SD card. The camera was ready to shoot again immediately.
- The G7's lens is, indeed, extremely sharp. Further, I was unable to induce any noticeable color fringing at thee edges of its widest setting.
- The lcd screen seem clearer and brighter than that of my 5D.
- The optical viewfinder is nice to have but, as it displays no information, it's of limited use.
- The image stabilizer is very effective. It is, however, a bit of an extra drain on the battery. I recommend setting its activation to "On Shoot", rather than the default "Continuous", to save power.
The G7 is the finest digital camera of its class that I've ever owned or used. Its performance is at least 2x that of my S70. The absence of a RAW recording mode, something I lamented in Canon's new upper-end p&s cameras, is just not going to be an issue for me. Again, Lightroom's fine Develop module greatly mitigates this deficit for this camera.
I have posted a handful of images I shot near my home during my first few hours with the G7. These images are presented with absolutely no post-processing. They came into Lightroom and were directly exported at an appropriate size for posting. These low-res images don't really do justice to the images. Guffaw of the day: I had not even unpacked the camera's manual before I shot these images. Hence I did not realize that I had not even been using the camera's highest resolution.
Honestly, this G7 is making me wonder if I really need a Purple People Eater (M8) even after Leica fixes the early bugs. It's at least taken the hunger pangs away.
The sample images are here. (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/canon_g7_test)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Impressive samples, Ken. Much better and with much less noise than carefully processed raw images from my S60. Maybe I could live without raw after all.
Eric
-
I appreciated that owner's review, Ken. (I think you are an owner, although that was not completely clear from your post). I doubt if any camera in the history of the digital image has attracted such animosity and negativity, all the more amazing considering what a superb tool it appears to be in reality. And all because of two things; 1) it has no RAW, and there is a lot of snobbish perfectionistic narrow-mindedness about the JPEG image; and 2) it doesn't continue with every feature of the G6, which is completely unacceptable to a certain crowd who never wanted a new-approach G7, they wanted a G6+1!
Michael referred to a 2-boatload market for the G7: the first boatload who buy it and reap the rewards of that decision in the form of new-benchmark compact performance and images very difficult to distinguish from those produced by an M8; and the second boatload who won't buy it on principle until Canon adds RAW so they can spend 90% of their photography hobby on a PC and 10% with a camera in hand.
Welcome to boatload 1, Ken. Chuck out the lifebuoy, I'm a swimmin' your way.
Arg (who was accused of being rude and narrow-minded after his first ever post on LL: a record?)
-
I am, indeed, a proud G7 owner.
I think my reluctance to buy any digital camera lacking RAW support has been due not to any sense of snobbery but rather to insecurity. RAW images provide so much post-capture flexibility and smoothness (i.e. free of compression artifacts) that it's hard to relinquish. And I certainly would never do so with my larger digital cameras.
But Lightroom's ready availability of powerful RAW-like adjustment tools for JPGs greatly relieves the post work normally required with JPG files. You can adjust white balance, white point, black levels, etc. in Lightroom on a JPG just as easily as on a RAW (albeit with slightly less leeway). To illustrate this I have processed three of these G7 images with Lightroom, and stepped out to CS2 with two of them to perform noise reduction with Noise Ninja. (LR's n.r. facilities are still no match for N.N..) I recorded the total amount of wall clock time it took for each. You can find them in the gallery (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/canon_g7_test). Here are direct links for the impatient :
Original: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969533 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969533)
Processed: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70038579 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70038579)
Original: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969535 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969535)
Processed: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70003606 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70003606)
Original: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969538 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/69969538)
Processed: http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70038227 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/70038227)
The G7 is not the equivalent of a Leica M8 (although at the moment it might actually be a bit better). Leica will fix the M8's initial troubles soon, producing the wonderful digital rangefinder that everyone expects. But at little more than 10% of an M8's price the G7 really knocks my socks off. And it fits in a pocket!
BTW, while the G7 will fit into a jacket pocket it will be a bit large for those who live in jacket-free climates. If you don't want to face questions such as, "Is that a G7 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" I recommend the Tamrac 5691 case. It's nicely padded, easily secures onto your belt (via Velcro and a snap) and fits the G7 like a glove. Cost: approximately US$15 at most camera stores.
-
I just coulnd't find happyness with an electronic viewfinder.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah,yes, the electronic viewfinder. Even the A2 with its 1meg finder still leaves something to be desired, though it is leagues ahead of the 256K finders found in some cameras.
I am beginning to think that with the entry level DSLRs such as the D50 ( and the soon to be D40), as well as the new Rebel coming so far down in price that fancy non DSLRs such as the G7 may have their days numbers. Think about it. In the days when film was KING, most people bought P&S film cameras to get their small size and simplicity of operation. If you wanted more, you bought an SLR. Even the cheapest Rebel or N50 was small, light, and with the stock 28-85mm lens capable of delivering excelling results with modern films. I still have my N70 and I marvel at how much good stuff Nikon packed into a $150 body.
Why should the digital world be different?
You want a relatively inexpensive, light weight, flexible camera that shoots RAW photos and can run with the big dogs (albeit near the back of the pack), then buy the Rebel.
Maybe that is Canon's way of thinking. That's my 2 cents.
One last point, the photo taken with the small, light weight camera you have with you is infinitely better than the one you never took because you left the big, heavy pro DSLR at home. The right tool, at the right time for the right job. That's what it's about.
-
One last point, the photo taken with the small, light weight camera you have with you is infinitely better than the one you never took because you left the big, heavy pro DSLR at home. The right tool, at the right time for the right job. That's what it's about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen MrPaul. Amen! You can't take any picture if you ain't got no camera. And you won't have no camera if you don't want to carry it.
-
From my perspective Canon’s lack of Raw support on its range of compacts is a big mistake. They lost my “compact” business even though I am a satisfied and committed user of their DSLRs. As Michael pointed out there is a huge gap in the market for a compact camera which is responsive, gives full manual control and delivers high quality results including offering Raw format.
Actually there is such a camera available – the Panasonic LX1 / LX2 and its Leica clone. It doesn’t meet Michael’s criteria of having an optical viewfinder but in every other respect it ticks the boxes. It was even tested here on LL and got a very favourable review so I can’t see why Michael dropped it in favour of the G7 unless the lack of an optical viewfinder was a major problem.
Earlier in the year I decided to buy a compact for when I didn’t want to carry around my Canon DSLR. Facing the same gap in the market there were minimal choices available and it came down to two options: – a Canon without Raw or the Panasonic LX1 with Raw. I chose the Panasonic and, with six months experience of the Panasonic behind me, am very pleased with its results and would make the same decision again. Sure, LX1 images can be affected by noise but with careful raw processing it’s not a major concern. We all make mistakes when taking pictures and time after time the flexibility of raw format has allowed me to produce a decent result where a Jpeg would have been produced sub-standard results due to blown highlights or posterisation. I’m not saying that a Jpeg won’t produce good results (some of the time). What I’m saying is that use of Raw format will allow you to produce good results more consistently than Jpeg.
I think Canon have made a big mistake with regard to “Reviewers Acclaim” by dropping Raw format. With regard to sales the majority of camera buyers are not serious photographers and never use Raw. So Canon are probably not losing many sales by dropping Raw. But they are definitely losing sales.
There must be a profitable niche market for an enthusiasts compact camera that meets Michaels criteria because such a camera will sell for a premium price. I don’t understand why Canon doesn’t even try to compete in this space. For me the Panasonic LX1 / LX2 is the winner of this market sector at the moment.
Kim.
“No Raw, no Sale”.
-
Here's my user report on the G7.
Camera: excellent
User manuals: Bad. Look at the flow chart on P.9 of the Basic manual, and try to figure out what it means. They need to hire the guy who writes the Mac manuals.
Software options: ridiculous.
One of the problems with the G7 is the same problem that BMW created when it came up with its intelligent drive system -- the system was more intelligent than the users, who often found it incomprehensible. Just because you *can* put something in software, doesn't mean that you should. Does the G7 need both a regular clock and a world clock? Did you know that if you hold the camera horizontally, it displays the time, but if you hold it vertically, it displays both the time and date? Why would someone do that?
The advance manual is so full of symbols and arrows and charts, that it's like a visual garbage dump, and just learning the basic functions of the camera becomes a struggle. And frankly, if you can put in a world clock that includes an option for looking up your time zone on a world map, or getting different readings depending on the attitude of the camara, then you could have put in RAW.
Operationally, if you can ignore all the crap, it's by far the best pocket camera I've had so far.
JX
-
I'm in the market for something similar and spotted the LEICA D-LUX 3 which also sports a 10MP sensor. It does have RAW for those interested :-) but lacks an optical view finder. Seems like no one company can deliver the killer blow!
BTW, I'd love to see a head to head of these two cameras in real world shooting situations.
-
Here's my user report on the G7.
. Does the G7 need both a regular clock and a world clock? Did you know that if you hold the camera horizontally, it displays the time, but if you hold it vertically, it displays both the time and date? Why would someone do that?
JX
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This just really amused me. Why indeed??!!?? LOL.
Diane
-
The clock functions probably do not represent the memory and firmware equivalents of raw recording functions. But the "movie" recording mode, audio-only recording mode, and "slide-show" playback functions certainly do. Do people really shoot movies with this thing?
<shrug>
I've been shooting almost exclusively with the camera in manual (exposure) mode. I was using the camera at, and just past, twilight again today. Its clarity, relative smoothness of low-light imaging, images stabilizer, and actually quite good ergonomics and control instrumentation continue to impress me more and more.
-
JPEG Work Flow? I've never worked with JPEG, just RAW so I"m not up on the work flow. After import do I need to convert all JPEGS to TIFFS before I process in Lightroom so I don't degrade the files? Look forward to having some fun with my new G7.
-
JPEG Work Flow? I've never worked with JPEG, just RAW so I"m not up on the work flow. After import do I need to convert all JPEGS to TIFFS before I process in Lightroom so I don't degrade the files? Look forward to having some fun with my new G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question Max. Indeed I, too, have spent so much time working with images that start in RAW format that it took me a bit of time to orient myself.
But basically I handle the G7 image files the same as RAW image files. After copying from SD cards and renaming each file I import them into the Lightroom data base and assign keywords. From that point the images just merge into the library. Lightroom's Develop module handles them identically to RAW images, although 8-bit JPGs do not afford the generous adjustability that RAWs do. Lightroom creates an intermediate TIF when you need to step out to CS2 (and choose the option to edit a copy of the file). Saving your CS2 edits saves to the TIF (by default) which appears separately in the library.
Dealing with JPGs is really not much a detour at all in Lightroom.
-
Good question Max. Indeed I, too, have spent so much time working with images that start in RAW format that it took me a bit of time to orient myself.
But basically I handle the G7 image files the same as RAW image files. After copying from SD cards and renaming each file I import them into the Lightroom data base and assign keywords. From that point the images just merge into the library. Lightroom's Develop module handles them identically to RAW images, although 8-bit JPGs do not afford the generous adjustability that RAWs do. Lightroom creates an intermediate TIF when you need to step out to CS2 (and choose the option to edit a copy of the file). Saving your CS2 edits saves to the TIF (by default) which appears separately in the library.
Dealing with JPGs is really not much a detour at all in Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/qu
Hi Ken, Yes I've discovered that CS2 converts the JPEGS to TIFFS in the edit in Photoshop option, but I've been doing it immediatley after importing from the card, and using the tiffs to do any PP. I remember reading years ago that every time you do something to a JPEG you degrade the file?? What's your feeling on this? Do you know of any other way to convert from JPEG to TIFF in Lightroom other then the " edit in Photoshop " route?
-
I'm in the market for something similar and spotted the LEICA D-LUX 3 which also sports a 10MP sensor. It does have RAW for those interested :-) but lacks an optical view finder. Seems like no one company can deliver the killer blow!
BTW, I'd love to see a head to head of these two cameras in real world shooting situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting that there hasn't been much discussion about this camera since it was released at Photokina. Any reason why I wonder?
Julie
-
I wonder what Canon's reaction is about our complaint that the G7 doesn't have rrrrRAW output?
Sometimes you simply want to travel light or want a low profile camera, just like not everyone is happy with these white Canon L series bazooka's.
-
Hi Ken, Yes I've discovered that CS2 converts the JPEGS to TIFFS in the edit in Photoshop option, but I've been doing it immediatley after importing from the card, and using the tiffs to do any PP. I remember reading years ago that every time you do something to a JPEG you degrade the file?? What's your feeling on this? Do you know of any other way to convert from JPEG to TIFF in Lightroom other then the " edit in Photoshop " route?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you select "Edit Original" CS2 will open the JPG in 8-bit mode. If you select "Edit Copy" LightRoom will first create a TIF file in the library and CS2 will open this TIF in 16-bit mode. (Not that you can recapture 16-bits of tonal depth from the 8-bit JPG.)
If you take the "Edit Copy" route (which I recommend) stick with the TIF in your Library from that point forward. The big issue with editing compressed JPGs is re-compressing them, which produces ever more compression "artifacts".
-
I wonder what Canon's reaction is about our complaint that the G7 doesn't have rrrrRAW output?
Sometimes you simply want to travel light or want a low profile camera, just like not everyone is happy with these white Canon L series bazooka's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I asked a Canon rep and off the record he said.."Why would you buy a 400D if the G7 had RAW?"
Julie
-
Did you know that if you hold the camera horizontally, it displays the time, but if you hold it vertically, it displays both the time and date? Why would someone do that?
To proof to Jan that camera sw really is more shoddy than airplane sw! :-)
Goodevening, ladies and gentleman. We're cruizin' along at about 30.000feet and expect to arrive at our destination in half an hour. Please fasten your seatbelt as we will have to make a sharp left so our GPS can sample the date...!?
-
To Ken and others:
How much of the time do you actually use the viewfinder, and how useful is it?
-
I asked a Canon rep and off the record he said.."Why would you buy a 400D if the G7 had RAW?"
Ask the same Canon rep, then:
"If that's the difference, why does the 400D offer an EF-S/EF mount?"
To proof to Jan that camera sw really is more shoddy than airplane sw! :-)
Goodevening, ladies and gentleman. We're cruizin' along at about 30.000feet and expect to arrive at our destination in half an hour. Please fasten your seatbelt as we will have to make a sharp left so our GPS can sample the date...!?
Okay, you win!
-
To Ken and others:
How much of the time do you actually use the viewfinder, and how useful is it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've only used it once or twice. With only 80% scene coverage (versus 100% for the lcd) and with no information or annunciation (beyond focus lock and slow shutter) it's not a particularly useful feature.
-
I've only used it once or twice. With only 80% scene coverage (versus 100% for the lcd) and with no information or annunciation (beyond focus lock and slow shutter) it's not a particularly useful feature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which begs the question of why bother with the optical viewfinder? If it has a barely usable 80% coverage and questionable alignment, it kind of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.
At least electronic viewfinders are 100% accurate in coverage.
It's all part of the continual dumbing down of the product line. Imagine having a rangefinder camera in the '60s with an 80% viewfinder of such poor quality. How about an SLR in the '80s with as poor of a focus screen as we have in our DSLRs today?
-
I would like to find a means to convert JPEGS to Tiffs in Lightrom without having them open in CS2. Anybody know how?
-
Ask the same Canon rep, then:
"If that's the difference, why does the 400D offer an EF-S/EF mount?"
Precisely the next question I asked. He said that he thought Canon wanted an affordable entry level digital SLR to then tempt the upgrades to better models and lenses. If there was a 'point and shoot' with fabulous quality AND RAW, consumers may not delve into the digital SLR market. He did clarify that it was only his opinion and not a policy outlined in particular by anyone else in Canon.
Julie