Canon G7 review

[Kenneth Sky]

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.

[Bill in WV]

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

[Pete JF]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Kenneth Sky]

Bernard
What you are saying is number of pixels sells more cameras than size of buffer.
Ken

[jani]

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.

[macgyver]

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.

[61Dynamic]

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.

[John Camp]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[tnargs]

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, 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.

[David Mantripp]

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.

[howiesmith]

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.

[jani]

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/

[Fred Ragland]

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.

[Lisa Nikodym]

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

[giles]

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

[Pete JF]

That Canon G6 is looking mighty tempting right now except for lack of a 28mm end.

[tnargs]

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...