Can we consider G-series cams to be classics?

[Superbaldguy]

Over the past 20 years, I have had the good fortune to own many of Canon's classic 35mm SLR's, both manual and AF models. Now, with the dawn of a new century, we have had a few generations of G-series digital compacts.

Can we consider any of them to be classics? I am making reference to design, handling, image quality, etc.

[lefturn99]

I would.

[Robert_Lay]

Damn straight!

I consider the G5 to be a classic for several reasons -
1) It's black
2) Has 5MP, which in my opinion was/is the REAL threshold value that put digital in the same league with film (for non-professional/non-commercial applications).
3) It was so good that in order to supercede it they had to create the G6, which adds one measly Megapixel (have you ever considered how teensy is the improvement in resolution of square root of 6 over 5) [ 1.09 or 9% increase].

[hansmb]

Damn straight!

I consider the G5 to be a classic for several reasons -
1) It's black
2) Has 5MP, which in my opinion was/is the REAL threshold value that put digital in the same league with film (for non-professional/non-commercial applications).
3) It was so good that in order to supercede it they had to create the G6, which adds one measly Megapixel (have you ever considered how teensy is the improvement in resolution of square root of 6 over 5) [ 1.09 or 9% increase].
I agree with 1 and 2 but the G6 has 7.1 MP,not 6... ;)

[Superbaldguy]

The G6 is certainly a classic, as it was my first compact!

[neil_r]

Can we consider any of them to be classics?

If you really want to, why not?

N

[Robert_Lay]

I agree with 1 and 2 but the G6 has 7.1 MP,not 6... ;)

You're right! So, I will revise my numbers - it was more like 18% improvement in resolution.:lol:

[King Size]

Damn straight!

I consider the G5 to be a classic for several reasons -
1) It's black.

Hardly a reason to consider a camera a classic. In fact I can think of many cameras that aren't black that would be considered classics;)

[Robert_Lay]

Hardly a reason to consider a camera a classic. In fact I can think of many cameras that aren't black that would be considered classics;)

True. For me, the fact that it's black is significant in that about 99% of all digital cameras seemed to be chrome or satin silver color up until a certain point, and then a few black ones emerged. But I think I understand your point. Generally, a "classic" anything is never classified as a "classic" until several years have gone by and it has survived the trials of time and been recognized as unique.

I think the G5 will certainly attain that status some day.

[King Size]

True. For me, the fact that it's black is significant in that about 99% of all digital cameras seemed to be chrome or satin silver color up until a certain point, and then a few black ones emerged. But I think I understand your point. Generally, a "classic" anything is never classified as a "classic" until several years have gone by and it has survived the trials of time and been recognized as unique.

I think the G5 will certainly attain that status some day.

I think of a classic in terms of something that is enduring and has a lasting significance or worth. Within these parameters I think it would be very difficult to consider most digital cameras 'classics' due to the short product cycles we expect and demand (how many times have people on this forum inquired about a G7?). Gone are the days when cameras like Nikon's original F or FE or Canon's A1 had a 10 year lifecycle. Personally I miss those days and think that the black/silver debate is simply a cyclical one. At the moment i love silver cameras, ten years ago I probably wouln't have.:)

Having said that I think the G Series as a whole can be construed as being important enough to be contemporary classics.

[superkully]

A classic also tends to have annoying little things which add "character" - the G5 has these too!

- Lens adapter on = flash blocked at wide.
- Lens adapter on = AF beam partially obscured.
- Vignetting (nothing major, but annoying nonetheless)
- Noise at higher ISOs is disgusting.

But. This was my first digital camera and it has proved to be a sturdy beast that has taken some beautiful pictures and allowed me to experiment and develop my skills which I would have been too frightened of (cost wise) doing with my SLR.

I prefer the G5 over the G6 for pure aesthetic reasons too and looking at the price differences between chromed and black rangefinders or lore, it seems that I am not the only one!

[teekay]

We'll have to wait at least 20 years to see what cameras can be placed in the ranks of genuine classics.

The G1 would make my personal list because it was the first digicam to reach the critical balance of price/features/resolution than convinced me to switch from film.

I have also been fortunate enough to own a couple of other classics way back: An Exacta SLR (the first SLR, I believe) and, way before that, my first camera as a kid, a Coronet Midget.

[Superbaldguy]

I wonder how many (if any) digital compacts will remain "user-classics" long after they are out of production.

[superkully]

I doubt anyone will care about a G{1,2,3,5,6} in 10-20 years time.

These cameras arn't as well built as the film classics from the 60's and 70's.

The thing is my Yashica Electro 35, J Reflex or Pentax ME Super are not obsolete. New film cameras may have more gizmos but the basics of keeping a shutter open in front of film, behind some well made glass is timeless.

In 10 years time technology may have progressed so much that all digital cameras will have full frame CCDs and brilliant processing for the price of a film SLR a couple of years ago. I'll keep my Pentax K & KA lens for that day.

How many people would still buy a digital "rangefinder" style camera from 2000/2001 with a 1/2 Megapixel CCD no matter how good the lens is?

[lefturn99]

Do we consider the Sony Mavica (with the floppy media) a classic?

[teekay]

Do we consider the Sony Mavica (with the floppy media) a classic?

Only in the same class as BETA and 8-track tape players :-)

[kreego]

A classic also tends to have annoying little things which add "character" - the G5 has these too!



Like for example the "loose screw" syndrome which cost me my G5 after only 14 months... Now THAT's annoying ;-) One little rattle, and everything was fried.

I just ordered my G6 yesterday. With a two year international warranty!

Cheers,

K

[morrisman]

I have two Canon AE1s from 1981 that are still working.

I wonder how many of the G-series compacts will still be working after a similar time period.

[lefturn99]

By then, I'll be in my '80s (I hope) and I won't care.

[Superbaldguy]

The Canon A-series were some of the best 35mm SLR's, ever. I had the AE-1 and the A-1.

[Bryan Bedell]

My daughter's babysitter told me a couple days ago that she bought a camera for $2 at a garage sale but then realized it didn't have a lens. She said her son had it, and she couldn't remember what it was, so I suggested she go to Helix, maybe if she was lucky it used a common-but-out-of-use lens, and she could pick one up cheap.

Tonight I asked her if she found a lens and she said Helix told her son that they had a few, one was $60 (used) and one was $120 (new). She said she had the camera, so I asked to see it...

it was a Nikon Pronea 6i. Never heard of it, but it was an SLR with interchangeable lenses, and it was a Nikon, so... SCORE! I told her I'd look it up on the internet tonight and see if i could find a cheap lens on ebay.

So I look it up and it breaks my heart... it cost $800+ new and they're selling on ebay for $20. It's been called the "Best APS camera ever made" and by all accounts it takes great photos and has great features, It's the pre-digital Canon G6 of 1997. And it uses APS film, which is more or less a dead format, so it's nearly useless.

In 10 years, we'll have fond memories of the G6, but Compact Flash will be long gone and we'll all have $800 cameras that have 100 Terrabyte drives built in that shoot 3-D movies and 12 Terrapixel images in 256-bit color. And people will still be using 35mm film and Leicas from the 1940s. : )

[lefturn99]

Not only that, just select the picture, it will projectt a 3D hologram.

[King Size]

In 10 years, we'll have fond memories of the G6, but Compact Flash will be long gone and we'll all have $800 cameras that have 100 Terrabyte drives built in that shoot 3-D movies and 12 Terrapixel images in 256-bit color. And people will still be using 35mm film and Leicas from the 1940s. : )
You make an excellent point about people still using 35mm film and Leicas from the 1940's. My other passion in life is hif-fi and I recently read an article where the author suggested that vinyl would be around long after CD became a defunct carrier of music. Which is quite an achievement considering CD was supposed to be the death of vinyl;) .

[Bryan Bedell]

You make an excellent point about people still using 35mm film and Leicas from the 1940's. My other passion in life is hif-fi and I recently read an article where the author suggested that vinyl would be around long after CD became a defunct carrier of music. Which is quite an achievement considering CD was supposed to be the death of vinyl;) .

I totally agree with that, I would never call myself an audiophile (or a photographer, ha) because I'm all for cheap crap equipment and music recorded on 4-track in a wet basement, but I still listen to vinyl all the time, and there are plenty of people still putting out records. Vinyl's already outlasted cassettes and 8-tracks, and I don't think it's ever going to "come back" full strength, but there will always be people collecting it and listening to it, and dance music, reggae, indie rock and punk will always embrace it.

In theory, digital ANYTHING is a sacrifice. The quality of digital photography and digital recording rivals (to the eyes or ears) analog these days, but it will never be better, just because it's alway a sample of the total. There will always be people interested in analog.

(I know, in practice that's not entirely true because of film grain and tape noise and such, but you know what I mean)

Bb.

[Ballen Photo]

Can we consider any of them to be classics? I am making reference to design, handling, image quality, etc.Well, I consider them as having classic rangefinder styling.
-Bruce

[cjm]

Hardly a reason to consider a camera a classic. In fact I can think of many cameras that aren't black that would be considered classics;) BIG difference with classic cameras being silver. They're silver because they are made out of metal. Silver plastic and alloy simply isn't the same as the stainless steel used in older camera constrution.

Black has been standard for at least 20 years now. Black in my opinion is superior to silver. Then again the only reason cameras are silver right now is because EVERYTHING is silver! I like black TVs, DVD players, VCRs, Stereos, Speakers, etc but its a trick for me to replace anything electronic I have right now because its all silver.

Thankfully black comes back and will be back soon enough. But I think for the money of a G series and the advanced features of the camera they should all be black. If nothing else to stand a part from other P&S cameras.

[King Size]

BIG difference with classic cameras being silver. They're silver because they are made out of metal. Silver plastic and alloy simply isn't the same as the stainless steel used in older camera constrution.

Black has been standard for at least 20 years now. Black in my opinion is superior to silver. Then again the only reason cameras are silver right now is because EVERYTHING is silver! I like black TVs, DVD players, VCRs, Stereos, Speakers, etc but its a trick for me to replace anything electronic I have right now because its all silver.

Thankfully black comes back and will be back soon enough. But I think for the money of a G series and the advanced features of the camera they should all be black. If nothing else to stand a part from other P&S cameras.

While silver plastic and alloy simply isn't the same as stainless steel, neither is black plastic and alloy compared to the black metal cameras of yore.

I would beg to differ that black is superior to silver. It scratches and shows marks easier. It normally comes hand in hand with white symbols and text desiginations for the buttons. IMHO these can spoil the look of the camera. Silver gets black symbols and text - looks much smarter. ;)

But as we both point out tastes are cyclical (and personal). Having said that i'm not sure that everything is silver these days. If you look at the current G6 competitors the majority of them (Sony V2, Olympus 7070 etc.) are black. So I guess in that respect the G6 does stand apart from its competitors. :)

15 years ago I was in camera sales. At that time just about all cameras were black with the exception of the Pentax K1000 and the Olympus OM-4Ti, which was the Olympus Pro camera of the time. This had a Titanium body which was very similar in look and feel to the current G6. It was absolutely stunning! I feel the same about the G6

[superkully]

Just because a camera is black doesn't mean it is not made from metal (and the same goes for "silver" not meaning it is made from metal automatically).

I don't understand why black versions of cameras go for more, they are coated with paint which isn't as tough as the chrome coating of "silver" cameras (I'm talking the 60s and 70s here, not the plastic wonders of the 80s on). Indeed, the black versions would have been sold for less as it's cheaper to spray paint onto a body than plate it in Chrome...

All down to personal taste then, but I doubt my Pentax J Reflex would still be in its almost pristine condition if it were painted rather than plated in copious amounts of chrome.

[Donny1]

Damn straight!

I consider the G5 to be a classic for several reasons -
1) It's black
2) Has 5MP, which in my opinion was/is the REAL threshold value that put digital in the same league with film (for non-professional/non-commercial applications).
3) It was so good that in order to supercede it they had to create the G6, which adds one measly Megapixel (have you ever considered how teensy is the improvement in resolution of square root of 6 over 5) [ 1.09 or 9% increase].
Great camera,
- my viewfinder's screws fell out allowing back cover to come off.
- the mode dial is frequently accidentally moving off the Auto position. So when I go to shoot its in the wrong mode.
I use Imagebrowser to file photo's but maybe other software better?
- Macro mode can be hard to focus.
- Optical zoom too low
+ Always excellent battery life, persuaded a friend to buy at Auckland Airport for A$800 July05,
+ No other camera in Prosumer segment gives same value for money
+ Canon Market leader (Sony in financial difficulty, Nikon playing catchup, Pentax well.......!!)

G6
G5
G2
heavy stuff

[Donny1]

I had a loose bottle top which cost me my Nikon F3!! (Leaked in luggage) I was a naive boy. Now that was a Classic Camera with magnificent optics.

[twl845]

:shock: Are you kiding? The G5 is just a copy of the G3 with more pixels. The G3 is the prototype for the G5 and G6 and it's truly a classic.

[lefturn99]

Classic? To me a classic is something that will stand the test of time. We are talking about something that came down an assembly line - Ker-Klomp Ker-klomp Ker-Klomp.

I love my G6. It takes wonderful pictures and I learned a lot about photography with it. But a Classic? nah........

The pace of the advance of technology and the short life span of digital cameras will make it difficlut to classify any of them as a classic. The Digital Rebel was certainly a breakthrough in design and in impact on the industry, much more so than my beloved G6 but is it a classic? Let's meet back here October 12, 2015 and discuss it.

[John from PA]

I for one do not consider it a classic, nor ever capable of being one. Having said that I think my G2 is a great camera because it performs exceptionally well for its intended purpose.

I happen to have a Kodak Retina IIIC ("large C") 35mm format and accesory lenses (all German optics) that was built in 1958. It is one of many "classics" from that era. Among other things they were a very limited production as it is the last year that the "folder" line was produced by Kodak. A few years back I had it stripped down and overhauled by a former Kodak repairman, now unfortunately deceased. Today it can take a 35 mm picture that can be blown up to 11 x 14 and still be stunning. I frequent auto racing events and horse shows - its is amazing how many people (admittedly of the older generation) come up to me and ask "Is that a Retina". Things like that define a classic.

[lefturn99]

Let me put this in the gentlest way possible. People come up to a friend of mine and ask "is that a Pacer?".

Just kidding. Sounds like you have a nice piece. Classic? I don't know enough about film to have any idea.

[dkord]

Damn straight!

I consider the G5 to be a classic for several reasons -
1) It's black
2) Has 5MP, which in my opinion was/is the REAL threshold value that put digital in the same league with film (for non-professional/non-commercial applications).
3) It was so good that in order to supercede it they had to create the G6, which adds one measly Megapixel (have you ever considered how teensy is the improvement in resolution of square root of 6 over 5) [ 1.09 or 9% increase].

lol I think that 2nd statement funny. So you telling me that the DSLRs like the Nikon D2hs at 4 mp is not good enough for Pro/semi pro aps? Or there's a huge difference between the Canon G3(4mp) and the G5(5mp)?
I bet comparing between the G3 and the g5 the only difference you'll see is more noise in the shadow ara of the G5. Otherwise the crop factor is very small. According to Canon the difference is 11x14 on the G3 and 11x17 on the G5.
Now the G6 has better optics that does a better job of control Purple fringing. If they could only maintain 7-8 mp (aps size sensor ala Sony's coming R1) with the same G-6 optics and the G series speed, use Mag Alloy construction and not block the optical VF with the lens: that model might be consider a classic!

[jlm]

Hello,

I am not sure about the status of classic for GX cameras... I had a G1 and then the G5, I'm very pleased with it, and no other digital camera in the market is better for me... I would like to continue using it for 40+ years... but what worry me is the lifecycle of the sensor... in my previous G1 after two years, a few dead spots appeared ... I haven't seen any of them in the G5 (so far)... but how long will it take to start appering??

Kind regards,

[Captain Blammo]

I think that in the digital age, single cameras are cyled through production and expire too quickly to ever reach classic staus, but *series* of cameras could be considered classic, and in my opion the Gx series definitely goes into the hall of fame.

[Belmondo]

I think the G1 & G2 will always have a special place in the early history of digital photography. They were head and shoulders above anything else in their day. Subsequent models in the G-series weren't quite as innovative, but were/are still very good cameras.

I think the early ones are classics, and will be regarded as such when the early history of digital photography is written.