G7 as your only digital camera?

[gardengirl13]

A friend is looking to get a digital camera. He does landscapes, some macro, and candid people/kids/pets mostly (a lot of which may be in low light.) He has problems with the weight of the DSLRs and the lenses due to health reasons, but wants quality prints. I know it's asking for a lot here! He doesn't like the "digital" look some of the lower end p&s cameras give prints (namely with leaves on trees and things just looking noisey with nature shots)

The two we're looking at right now are the A640 and the G7. Which of these would be better for someone who is not a pro, but is fairly knowledgable about photography. The main thing would be getting good shots, and great prints.

[coreypolis]

the g7 by far

[coreypolis]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml

this review is from an amazing Landscape photographer with as much money invested in gear as his house.

[Billginthekeys]

the G7 seems to be a very capable camera. and for someone who doesnt care about flip screens and RAW (which i dont think it sounds like he would) i think it would be a great camera.

[rpolitsr]

Go for the G7 with no doubt.

[Croasdail]

yeah... but the Leica does have RAW and that wonderfull glass. And does ISO 1600. For the same money. It is the likely one I will pickup for my trip to Asia this coming summer.

[Billginthekeys]

yeah... but the Leica does have RAW and that wonderfull glass. And does ISO 1600. For the same money. It is the likely one I will pickup for my trip to Asia this coming summer.
what are you talking about? the M8.... yea.. its $5000, it better be nice!

ohh wait you are talking about that panasonic with the leica sticker on it! other than RAW i dont see what it has over the G7? im pretty sure its the same lens as the panasonic, just once again with leica branding on it. the G7 does ISO 1600, and im sure its proabably better than the leica's. im sure either are nice P&Ss though.

[Croasdail]

No...this one

http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_3/

10 mpx, IS, RAW shooting, ISO 100-1600..... take a look and let me know what you think.

at B&H it's $599

[Billginthekeys]

No...this one

http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_3/

10 mpx, IS, RAW shooting, ISO 100-1600..... take a look and let me know what you think.

at B&H it's $599
yea, like i mentioned its a rebadged panasonic. looks nice enough, although the noise on the canon (which has ISO 80-1600) is probably much better. also, im not really grasping or liking the whole 16:9 apect ratio the thing takes pictures in. so if you shoot in a more traditional aspect wouldnt you be loosing some of the 10MP??? and wouldnt that change the apparent lens MM? idk, mabye its just me but i dont take pictures purely to put on my TV. im sure its a fine camera though.

[JaGWiRE]

yea, like i mentioned its a rebadged panasonic. looks nice enough, although the noise on the canon (which has ISO 80-1600) is probably much better. also, im not really grasping or liking the whole 16:9 apect ratio the thing takes pictures in. so if you shoot in a more traditional aspect wouldnt you be loosing some of the 10MP??? and wouldnt that change the apparent lens MM? idk, mabye its just me but i dont take pictures purely to put on my TV. im sure its a fine camera though.
Yeah, the noise on the panasonic looks horrible from the review on dpreview, although I haven't checked the g7 noise photos out side by side to the panasonic, but I remember them being pretty decent.
I think the 16:9 thing can be changed to 4:3 or one other aspect ratio. 16:9 is sort of nice if you are taking photos to use as your desktop I guess though (if you have a widescreen, although they are all 16:10 unless it's a tv, so 16:9 might not be that great.)

[Billginthekeys]

Yeah, the noise on the panasonic looks horrible from the review on dpreview, although I haven't checked the g7 noise photos out side by side to the panasonic, but I remember them being pretty decent.
I think the 16:9 thing can be changed to 4:3 or one other aspect ratio. 16:9 is sort of nice if you are taking photos to use as your desktop I guess though (if you have a widescreen, although they are all 16:10 unless it's a tv, so 16:9 might not be that great.)
yes the aspect swtich appears to be right on the lens. but my question is can it retain all 10MP of the sensor at the different aspect ratios. which is the native ratio of the sensor. is it a 16:9 ratio sensor? in which case using a smaller ratio would loose data and cause MP loss, and you might as well just crop. or is it a 4:3 ratio sensor. in which case using the 16:9 ratio would just be auto cropping all the shots, and once again you are loosing data to do that. seems like a loose loose situation to me. i mean yea sure you can deal with all the cropping yourself but its a point and shoot. i want to do as little work as possible if im shooting with a point and shoot.

[prime80]

From Steve's Digicam review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (The Leica's Twin):

When selecting different ratios, the maximum resolution will change: 4:3 = 7.5- megapixels, 3:2 = 8.5-megapixels and 16:9=10-megapixels

[Billginthekeys]

From Steve's Digicam review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (The Leica's Twin):

When selecting different ratios, the maximum resolution will change: 4:3 = 7.5- megapixels, 3:2 = 8.5-megapixels and 16:9=10-megapixels
and there it would seem is the achilles heel of the camera. so if you want any normal sized shots you end up loosing MP.

[Croasdail]

I haven't read the dbreview yet on the Leica, so I need to do that. But the aspect ratio really doesn't bother me in the least. It matches all new and future formats I would own. And as a travel camera, extra wide for landscape shots I don't view as a bad thing. Having a cropped image that is still 8mp is hardly a real issue either. I don't see too many people complaining their 1D mark IIs have too few pixels to create standard art work with... so to me that is a real moot issue. If you really are shooting for larger the 16x9 prints I really doubt either this or the G7 would be your tool of choice. I will have to look at the noise performance though. Thanks for the responses and opinions. I do think being able to shoot raw and treat the file will help some with this, how much is yet to be determined.

[Croasdail]

Just read the review of the Panazonic/Leica and not sure how I feel. the noise is an issue if you let the camera deal with it. If you shoot RAW, it becames a moot point. But not sure I want to shoot raw all the time. On the other hand, they really liked have a 28mm plus ultra wide aspect ratio. Their quote is that the camera is a perfect walk around camera for an DSLR user, but if your a point and shoot person and want everything automatic is may not be the best. I look forward to them doing a review of the G7. It is a hard trade off... G7 with no control of the noise - but likely natively lower noise, or the panasonic whose in camera noise reduction is horrible but whose RAW conversion capabilities are rock solid. Hmmmmmm - never an easy answer.

[BNF]

There's a $230 price difference.

In all honesty, being the same sized 1/1.8" sensor, the differnce in megapixels means almost nothing.

For $230 more you get a 6x lens vs a 4x and Image Stabilization. There are a few other gimmicks, but I don't see any that will ultimately make real world differences to anyone that has half an idea of what they are doing.

I've had the A620 since the summer (and a G5) and I can't see any reason (any more, after real consideration) to "upgrade" to the G7. Once you have a tilt screen, it's very hard to give up and none of these cameras are really tele-range specialists anyway.

Go for the A640, or if you think you need the extra tele range and IS, get the A710. The hardest thing about cutting through much of the opinions (here and elsewhere), is getting away from the "I bought it because it looks good, feels good, built well, "fondling" crowd." I don't mean to be harsh, but it's sometimes hard to read about "men's jewelery". ;)

[Billginthekeys]

I haven't read the dbreview yet on the Leica, so I need to do that. But the aspect ratio really doesn't bother me in the least. It matches all new and future formats I would own. And as a travel camera, extra wide for landscape shots I don't view as a bad thing. Having a cropped image that is still 8mp is hardly a real issue either. I don't see too many people complaining their 1D mark IIs have too few pixels to create standard art work with... so to me that is a real moot issue. If you really are shooting for larger the 16x9 prints I really doubt either this or the G7 would be your tool of choice. I will have to look at the noise performance though. Thanks for the responses and opinions. I do think being able to shoot raw and treat the file will help some with this, how much is yet to be determined.
my point is 16:9 isnt a normal aspect ratio. you say its the same format as the other gear you are going to buy? WTH is that? no dslr shoots 16:9 that would just waste information. by using the 16:9 they simulate a wider angle lens cropped on the top and bottom. when actually if the sensor filled the whole lens area they would have a higher MP count and you could crop if you wanted 16:9. but no NORMAL print dimensions match up to 16:9. so in order to print them you are either going to need to crop on the sides, or print it and cut off the top and bottom. the G7 has a 16:9 mode aswell i think, but it uses a traditionally shapped sensor so that when you are shooting standard photos you get the most MP out of the camera.

[Billginthekeys]

There's a $230 price difference.

In all honesty, being the same sized 1/1.8" sensor, the differnce in megapixels means almost nothing.

For $230 more you get a 6x lens vs a 4x and Image Stabilization. There are a few other gimmicks, but I don't see any that will ultimately make real world differences to anyone that has half an idea of what they are doing.

actually they are different sensors. the canon has IS aswell, also has lower noise levels. if you are going to call something a gimmick the panosonics "16:9" ratio is a gimmick.


The hardest thing about cutting through much of the opinions (here and elsewhere), is getting away from the "I bought it because it looks good, feels good, built well, "fondling" crowd." I don't mean to be harsh, but it's sometimes hard to read about "men's jewelery". ;)
thats nice for you, how about for people that already have DSLRs for serious photography and just want something thats built well and can be taken places when we dont want all our gear with us. forgive me for "camera fondling" but thats like saying a pro should just stick with a drebel because obivously their 1D's being built better is just for show :rolleyes:. you are an idiot if you think build quality isnt an important part of a camera :lol:. sorry to be so harsh, but i dont appreciate your crappy opinon.

[Croasdail]

my point is 16:9 isnt a normal aspect ratio. you say its the same format as the other gear you are going to buy? WTH is that? no dslr shoots 16:9 that would just waste information. by using the 16:9 they simulate a wider angle lens cropped on the top and bottom. when actually if the sensor filled the whole lens area they would have a higher MP count and you could crop if you wanted 16:9. but no NORMAL print dimensions match up to 16:9. so in order to print them you are either going to need to crop on the sides, or print it and cut off the top and bottom. the G7 has a 16:9 mode aswell i think, but it uses a traditionally shapped sensor so that when you are shooting standard photos you get the most MP out of the camera.

To get a standard 8x10, 11x14,11x17, 13-19 etc.. I have to crop off information too. Been doing it for years. Nothing changing there. What it is compatible with is the new standard form factor of new electronic displays. 16x9 is everywhere... just walk in to your local electronics store. Both of my plasma's are that size and so is my DLP 1080i projector. A lot of people will be shooting to show their images on these devices - this is only the first of what I expect to see a lot of capture devices in this form factor. If I crop down to 2:3 format, I am still at 8+ megapixels. Hardly an issue for my 20D or 1D mk II.

thats nice for you, how about for people that already have DSLRs for serious photography and just want something thats built well and can be taken places when we dont want all our gear with us. forgive me for "camera fondling" but thats like saying a pro should just stick with a drebel because obivously their 1D's being built better is just for show . you are an idiot if you think build quality isnt an important part of a camera . sorry to be so harsh, but i dont appreciate your crappy opinon.

That was not called for..... and you can add dpreview to that "crappy opinion" as well.... They actually say the camera is a better fit for people as a second camera who own a dslr...

"If you like shooting wide, don't feel the need to shoot at higher ISO settings (I personally wish Panasonic had included an ISO 50 option), and relish the idea of a pocket camera that offers real photographic control, the LX2 stands pretty much in a class of its own. It's ideal for landscape photographers and I for one really, really enjoyed using it as a walkaround alternative to a digital SLR on bright days. A good camera, but still - thanks to the limitations of the sensor - not a great one. Like the LX1 before it, the long list of 'pros' saved this camera from an Above Average rating, plus the fact that at ISO 100 the output is excellent.

Perfect for: advanced users (particularly landscape photographers) prepared to do raw processing, who rarely if ever need to go over ISO 200"

dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page17.asp

sorry to be so harsh, but i dont appreciate your crappy opinon.

No camera is perfect - not even the G7 - nor the Panasonic - nor the 1D (the ones I own have broken plenty of times....). The last thing we need is the "opinion" police here. For some reason being civil in the equipment forums seems to be optional.

[Billginthekeys]

To get a standard 8x10, 11x14,11x17, 13-19 etc.. I have to crop off information too. Been doing it for years. Nothing changing there. What it is compatible with is the new standard form factor of new electronic displays. 16x9 is everywhere... just walk in to your local electronics store. Both of my plasma's are that size and so is my DLP 1080i projector. A lot of people will be shooting to show their images on these devices - this is only the first of what I expect to see a lot of capture devices in this form factor. If I crop down to 2:3 format, I am still at 8+ megapixels. Hardly an issue for my 20D or 1D mk II.

im just saying you can do the same thing by using a standard sizes sensor and cropping. if it works for you great, i just dont see how its a plus.


That was not called for..... and you can add dpreview to that "crappy opinion" as well.... They actually say the camera is a better fit for people as a second camera who own a dslr...

"If you like shooting wide, don't feel the need to shoot at higher ISO settings (I personally wish Panasonic had included an ISO 50 option), and relish the idea of a pocket camera that offers real photographic control, the LX2 stands pretty much in a class of its own. It's ideal for landscape photographers and I for one really, really enjoyed using it as a walkaround alternative to a digital SLR on bright days. A good camera, but still - thanks to the limitations of the sensor - not a great one. Like the LX1 before it, the long list of 'pros' saved this camera from an Above Average rating, plus the fact that at ISO 100 the output is excellent.

Perfect for: advanced users (particularly landscape photographers) prepared to do raw processing, who rarely if ever need to go over ISO 200"

dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page17.asp

you obviously missed the entire point of that comment.


No camera is perfect - not even the G7 - nor the Panasonic - nor the 1D (the ones I own have broken plenty of times....). The last thing we need is the "opinion" police here. For some reason being civil in the equipment forums seems to be optional.
of course not. im not trying to say it is. im was just trying to get a question answered and everyone starts barking at me. whatever, im done with this thread.

[Croasdail]

i mean yea sure you can deal with all the cropping yourself but its a point and shoot. i want to do as little work as possible if im shooting with a point and shoot.

Sorry your done with the thread. And I do understand your point, you want a camera to do snap shots with - for which the G7 may be overkill - or may not be. I am looking for a travel camera that has minimal compromises from my normal equipment. I want want

1) is the equivilant to the old film viewfinder cameras that while you lost interchangable lenses, the optics on it were super.... (???? don't know yet - Panasonic/Leica have good optics)
2) I want compact size so I can take it anywhere - museum, churches, day treks, etc (Panosonic/Lieca wins this)
3) I want a level of control that will allow me to be creative as well (about the same)
4) I want it to be able to perform well in dim lite areas - I failed miserably in Prague last time because my equipmet wouldn't do what I needed it to do. (G7 is a ?, Pano needs to be shot RAW) Would I rather have a 12bit image with noise or an 8 bit jpeg with no shadow detail.... Both have IS. Tie in this aspect.
5) I would have prefered it used the same recharging system that my 20D uses - my other travel camera (g6 did this well)
6) I would like to have the ability to use a real flash with it (panasonic/lieca falls down in this area - point for Canon)
7) It has to be rock solid - I will be visiting Honduras, Chile, Argintina, China, Thialand, Tibet, and Vietnam this coming year... it has to last. I like to travel not looking like a camera poster child. No white lenses, no big cameras when mingling with the locals.

So I don't know which is better. I really do see the advantage of the wider aspect ratio. In scenerio's like scenics - city skylines - etc.... I can see the huge benifits of it. I would also like a weather sealed body, and I want good ISO performance to ISO 1600... though I will take a raelly clean 400/800 if I can get the other items. Thats what they make minipods for. I would like a remote release though then.

So thats my wish list. I eagerly await the G7 reviews to come in. I just don't need any Canon Marketing spew - I can get that from their website.

And I wish those still in school would give the benifit of the doubt to those that have been doing this longer then they have been alive. We can all learn a lot from each other... your more then welcome to disagree with me, just be nice about it. I am not stupid... just hard headed at times.

[Billginthekeys]

Sorry your done with the thread. And I do understand your point, you want a camera to do snap shots with - for which the G7 may be overkill - or may not be. I am looking for a travel camera that has minimal compromises from my normal equipment. I want want

1) is the equivilant to the old film viewfinder cameras that while you lost interchangable lenses, the optics on it were super.... (???? don't know yet - Panasonic/Leica have good optics)
2) I want compact size so I can take it anywhere - museum, churches, day treks, etc (Panosonic/Lieca wins this)
3) I want a level of control that will allow me to be creative as well (about the same)
4) I want it to be able to perform well in dim lite areas - I failed miserably in Prague last time because my equipmet wouldn't do what I needed it to do. (G7 is a ?, Pano needs to be shot RAW) Would I rather have a 12bit image with noise or an 8 bit jpeg with no shadow detail.... Both have IS. Tie in this aspect.
5) I would have prefered it used the same recharging system that my 20D uses - my other travel camera (g6 did this well)
6) I would like to have the ability to use a real flash with it (panasonic/lieca falls down in this area - point for Canon)
7) It has to be rock solid - I will be visiting Honduras, Chile, Argintina, China, Thialand, Tibet, and Vietnam this coming year... it has to last. I like to travel not looking like a camera poster child. No white lenses, no big cameras when mingling with the locals.

So I don't know which is better. I really do see the advantage of the wider aspect ratio. In scenerio's like scenics - city skylines - etc.... I can see the huge benifits of it. I would also like a weather sealed body, and I want good ISO performance to ISO 1600... though I will take a raelly clean 400/800 if I can get the other items. Thats what they make minipods for. I would like a remote release though then.

So thats my wish list. I eagerly await the G7 reviews to come in. I just don't need any Canon Marketing spew - I can get that from their website.

And I wish those still in school would give the benifit of the doubt to those that have been doing this longer then they have been alive. We can all learn a lot from each other... your more then welcome to disagree with me, just be nice about it. I am not stupid... just hard headed at times.
yea sorry about that. im in the middle of a big test week :mad:, and ive been getting really stressed out and probably was a bit more excessive in my comments than i normally am. i personally think either camera seems really nice. heres my personal pros and cons

G7 pros:
good solid classic build
optical viewfinder
hot shoe
probably the best high ISO out of a P&S yet
compact size, pocketable if needbe
wide range of focal lengths

G7 cons:
unfortunatly everything that made the pro1 and g6 sound great:
no more CF card
no more 20D battery
the tilt screen is kind of a moot point for me, i never used it on my parents G3 i used to shoot with, so it doesnt bother me.
RAW. even though 99% of the time on a P&S i wouldnt need it, i certainly dont see why canon doesnt just put it in. mabye a firmware update will set them strait.

Panasonic/Leica pros:
also great build and design
should have a great quality lens
RAW

Panasonic/Leica cons:
no optical viewfinder
no hot shoe
nothing in common with my canon gear.
since the lens doesnt retract into the camera its not as compact
mabye its just me but that screen seems a bit too big :mad: id be afraid to scratch it (of course this is also true for the canon or any P&S these days without a rotating screen).

Both of these cameras are pretty new off the lines and ive still yet to see a difinitive review on either. Most the Leica ones talk about why you should just go with the panasonic. and most the canon ones ramble on about how the G6 was better. id like to see them in real life.

[BNF]

1/1.8" is 1/1.8". There's no information anywhere I've seen to suggest that the sensor is different. Please give me a link and I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong saying they are the same.

(Good not to scale illustration of sensor sizes. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp)

But, I still believe that ultimately, there is little practical difference between an A series and the G7. At the rate that things change and evolve, I think many people are better served by spending less and getting out to shoot.

If the build and performance differences were as great as a Pro series DSLR and an entry level DSLR, but the price difference ration was the same as the A to G7, then clearly the G would be the one to get. They are not that different. For me and many, not different enough to justify the 45% price difference.

If you really do intend to travel rough, to rough places, then I definitely would go with the A series, maybe even two. The AA battery power reason alone would make my choice easy. Also, the rotating screens are very useful for more covert photography, especially in dicey areas.

[JaGWiRE]

actually they are different sensors. the canon has IS aswell, also has lower noise levels. if you are going to call something a gimmick the panosonics "16:9" ratio is a gimmick.


thats nice for you, how about for people that already have DSLRs for serious photography and just want something thats built well and can be taken places when we dont want all our gear with us. forgive me for "camera fondling" but thats like saying a pro should just stick with a drebel because obivously their 1D's being built better is just for show :rolleyes:. you are an idiot if you think build quality isnt an important part of a camera :lol:. sorry to be so harsh, but i dont appreciate your crappy opinon.


Hah, build quality was the MOST important thing to me when I bought my camera, hence why I have the 30D and not Rebel.

[JaGWiRE]

yea sorry about that. im in the middle of a big test week :mad:, and ive been getting really stressed out and probably was a bit more excessive in my comments than i normally am. i personally think either camera seems really nice. heres my personal pros and cons

G7 pros:
good solid classic build
optical viewfinder
hot shoe
probably the best high ISO out of a P&S yet
compact size, pocketable if needbe
wide range of focal lengths

G7 cons:
unfortunatly everything that made the pro1 and g6 sound great:
no more CF card
no more 20D battery
the tilt screen is kind of a moot point for me, i never used it on my parents G3 i used to shoot with, so it doesnt bother me.
RAW. even though 99% of the time on a P&S i wouldnt need it, i certainly dont see why canon doesnt just put it in. mabye a firmware update will set them strait.

Panasonic/Leica pros:
also great build and design
should have a great quality lens
RAW

Panasonic/Leica cons:
no optical viewfinder
no hot shoe
nothing in common with my canon gear.
since the lens doesnt retract into the camera its not as compact
mabye its just me but that screen seems a bit too big :mad: id be afraid to scratch it (of course this is also true for the canon or any P&S these days without a rotating screen).

Both of these cameras are pretty new off the lines and ive still yet to see a difinitive review on either. Most the Leica ones talk about why you should just go with the panasonic. and most the canon ones ramble on about how the G6 was better. id like to see them in real life.

Very nice list, exactly what I was thinking.
Is the screens on these like the Canon DSLR ones where there is a protector on already that you can get a replacement for?
BTW, this optical viewfinder, what's the deal with it? I love using viewfinder for my shots (why I own an SLR partially.) Does this mean it won't be crummy like the other P&S viewfinders I've used?

Damn I want raw too :(.

[Billginthekeys]

Very nice list, exactly what I was thinking.
Is the screens on these like the Canon DSLR ones where there is a protector on already that you can get a replacement for?
BTW, this optical viewfinder, what's the deal with it? I love using viewfinder for my shots (why I own an SLR partially.) Does this mean it won't be crummy like the other P&S viewfinders I've used?

Damn I want raw too :(.
it doesnt show exposure info in it. and it is a p&s viewfiner, so it wont be the greatest, but sometimes i like it better than the LCD all the time.

[Croasdail]

looking at this... http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g7-review/index.shtml

noise is looking kinda heavy at ISO 1600... but this is just one source too.

also... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml looks iffy too.

but who knows how these compare to the others that have added iso 1600

[Billginthekeys]

looking at this... http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g7-review/index.shtml

noise is looking kinda heavy at ISO 1600... but this is just one source too.

also... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml looks iffy too.

but who knows how these compare to the others that have added iso 1600
yea i mean its nothing i would print more than like a 4x6 off of. actually i would only use 1600 in desperation. Pretty sure it doesnt look any better than that on any other P&Ss. looks better than ISO400 on my old P&S though. 800 is not that darn bad. and 400 and under are pretty much clean.

[Croasdail]

Agreed.. . my A85 I have had for sometime is horrid in anything but ISO 100. Again, since I wouldn't be shooting sports or anything with this camera, good ISO 400 would be a bonus, semi clean ISO 800 would be a miracle.

[JaGWiRE]

it doesnt show exposure info in it. and it is a p&s viewfiner, so it wont be the greatest, but sometimes i like it better than the LCD all the time.
Definitley something to consider, but lacking exposure info = I won't be using it too often.

I was at the camera store today. From what I remember (picked up a 430ex and was rushing out of there to go get me dinner for my bday), the Panasonic was much smaller then the G7.

Bill, seems like noise is awful on all the P&S above 400 or so. I am beginning to question myself if the Canon is worth considering if I do not care about the noise performance, mega-pixels, and the hot shoe (I got my 430ex today, and it's large, I am pretty doubtful I'd ever use it with such a small P&S, i'd feel awkward and I'de look stupid.)

[Croasdail]

Go for the A640, or if you think you need the extra tele range and IS, get the A710. The hardest thing about cutting through much of the opinions (here and elsewhere), is getting away from the "I bought it because it looks good, feels good, built well, "fondling" crowd." I don't mean to be harsh, but it's sometimes hard to read about "men's jewelery".

Well, it seems that dpreview just ended up agreeing with ya... not about the "men's" jewelery part - but that the performance is about the same between the two cameras. hmmmmm - the saga goes on.

[BNF]

From the DPReview review:

The G7 uses, we presume, the same 10MP 1/1.8-inch sensor as the other cameras on the market...

Unsurprisingly the G7 offers roughly the same resolution as the other high quality 10MP cameras we've tested,... ...

Interestingly the output from the G7 and it's far less pricey stable mate, the A640, is pretty much identical (in fact if anything the A640 actually manages a fractionally higher resolution).

While this is only one reviewers opinion, I think that his is a valuable one. (And I certainly would hope that he would have the camera for a month before thinking he could write a review!)

For some reason, I think some G enthusiasts want the more expenseive G7 to be so much more than the A640 or A710. It just isn't. I wanted it to be, more than many of you here. But, I'd still suggest, in the case of this traveller, to get one or two of the A's for the reasons I stated above AND now have a professional reviewer or two also saying a similar thing.

[JaGWiRE]

From the DPReview review:

The G7 uses, we presume, the same 10MP 1/1.8-inch sensor as the other cameras on the market...

Unsurprisingly the G7 offers roughly the same resolution as the other high quality 10MP cameras we've tested,... ...

Interestingly the output from the G7 and it's far less pricey stable mate, the A640, is pretty much identical (in fact if anything the A640 actually manages a fractionally higher resolution).

While this is only one reviewers opinion, I think that his is a valuable one. (And I certainly would hope that he would have the camera for a month before thinking he could write a review!)

For some reason, I think some G enthusiasts want the more expenseive G7 to be so much more than the A640 or A710. It just isn't. I wanted it to be, more than many of you here. But, I'd still suggest, in the case of this traveller, to get one or two of the A's for the reasons I stated above AND now have a professional reviewer or two also saying a similar thing.

I want raw, then I'll shut up.

[BNF]

I want raw, then I'll shut up.

If the G7 had RAW, even with everything else that has been written being equal, then I could see it as a viable pocket tool. (And I'd pay a bit more for the ability, but I still don't know if a 40% premium over the A's would do it, hotshow and metal body aside.

[twalker294]

If you are looking for a fantastic landscape camera check out the Sony R1. I have one and the resolution is better than my 10D with L lenses. It's a fantastic camera as long as you have enough light. In low light the focus is terribly slow but if you are looking for a great camera for landscapes, it's hard to beat. The 24mm wide end helps too...