Why didn't Michael buy the G6 instead?

[Joseph Yeung]

It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...

[tnargs]

It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A better camera in every way except zoom and megapixels?
- smaller dimmer screen
- slower startup
- slower shooting lag
- MORE noise
- much bulkier camera, non-pocketable
- 40% heavier
- slower focus
- no lens stabilisation !!
- lens cap
- more plastic body panels
- slower access to menus
- no ISO dial
- lesser movie mode and audio
- ISO400 max
- no live view histogram
- limited image parameter controls
- USB 1.1

 

[rcrigan]

It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The same thought occured to me as I read Michael's review. I had the same criteria when shopping recently for a digital camera for street photography. I bought the Canon G6 and it does the job well.
A handicap is the six seconds it takes to write a RAW file. I'm prepared to put up with this to avoid the disadvantages of slr's.
The G6 is a good field camera, able to operate for long periods away from AC power, thanks to its optical viewfinder and non-essential screen. Parallax at close shooting distances can be a problem if you forget about it.
Seven megapixels suit my needs quite well. Canon's put a lot of thought into this model. If you need a quality camera that's also discreet, you'd go a long way to find one better.
Robert

[michael]

TNARGS said it all.

Michael

[DavidB]

I bought the Canon G6 and it does the job well.
A handicap is the six seconds it takes to write a RAW file. I'm prepared to put up with this to avoid the disadvantages of slr's.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually it's not a 6-second delay after taking a RAW photo.  Like the Pro1 (and the S60/S70/etc) you only get a hang-up of a couple of seconds.  Sure, if you don't touch anything the camera may take 6 seconds to go back to normal preview mode, but if you do half-press the shutter the camera becomes responsive much sooner, and continues to write the file in the background.

These cameras _do_ have a buffer, but it's after the initial RAW/JPEG processing pipeline and isn't the same as the 2-stage buffers provided on DSLRs/etc.  They're not perfect, but they're not horrible in this regard either...

[MrIconoclast]

A while back I bought a Minolta A2 based mostly on MR's great review of it.  I have been  very happy with this camera. Besides duplicating most DSLR functions except for the ability to change lenses, it also shoots RAW files.

It is a well thought out camera, and it makes me sad to think that the company that designed it is no longer making cameras.