G7 Steve's Digicam Review

[John Trogdon]

Steve has finally reviewed the G7.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/g7.html

[Toogy]

Wow, he doesn't even mention the lack of RAW at all!!! Well at least in his conclusions.

[John from PA]

He also doesn't mention the lack of the pivoting LCD display. I guess many of us have higher priorities in the way of features.

John

[wmpwi]

"Bottom line - I was very pleased with this latest addition to Canon's legendary "G" series line. While we miss the Vari-Angle LCD. . . "




He also doesn't mention the lack of the pivoting LCD display. I guess many of us have higher priorities in the way of features.

John

[psk4363]

IMHO a good, balanced review.

Barry

[kanehi]

I like it when someone evaluates a camera for what it is and not berate it because it lacks certain features from other cameras. The G7 is what it is. RAW users stop complaining and that includes the swivel screen enthusiast!

[ATucker]

I like it when someone evaluates a camera for what it is and not berate it because it lacks certain features from other cameras. The G7 is what it is. RAW users stop complaining and that includes the swivel screen enthusiast!

No, no, no, no.... The features the G7 lacks are the features the G-series cameras before it actually had: RAW and Swivel Screen. Fair evaluations include valid comparisons of the camera's predecessors, including all the other G's with RAW and with swivel screen.

The Canon team must have relocated to Kansas because the G-series is no longer evolving.

[lostdoggy]

I like it when someone evaluates a camera for what it is and not berate it because it lacks certain features from other cameras. The G7 is what it is. RAW users stop complaining and that includes the swivel screen enthusiast!

evaluation of a product requires it to be compared if comparison is available. Otherwise the reader would be lost as to the strength and weakness of such product. As someone have already mention those feature were available on the previous model and to some a very useful feature. I would've been very interested it in the RAW feature and now for me the G7 as great as it might be its just another P&S.

[rowdyred94]

Swivel screen enthusiasts unite! We will NOT STAND DOWN!

LOL.

[Collin85]

Steve's was probably the first site I really respected (way before I got a dSLR). But as time went by, experience and knowledge increased, and the realisation that Steve tends to be a little biased at times. Or should I say, less critical than some. I found that Phil Askey's reviews on DPReview are much more suitable for my tastes. Steve isn't critical enough for me, and the lack of RAW and swivel are big deals for me personally - I prefer reviews which are more critical that would shed more harsh light on those issues, for example.

With that said, the G7 is still a great camera.

[chris clements]

Or should I say, less critical than some.

Compared to UK reviewers, I find that US reviews in general tend to pull their punches much more. Even absolute lemons are let off the hook.
One eye on their advertising revenue, perhaps?

[chris clements]

The G7 is what it is.

And what exactly is it?
Why, the successor to the G6, G5, G4...
So all these criticisms are completely justified.

Your tirade would only be valid if Canon had called it something new like the "H1".

[antispam007]

And what exactly is it?
Why, the successor to the G6, G5, G4...
So all these criticisms are completely justified.

Your tirade would only be valid if Canon had called it something new like the "H1".

Ah, I read this discussion many many times.
This is my first G serie, and come on, why do you insist that G(N+1) must be G(N) + 1Mp + some iso level and nothing more?

If you guys are saying that you bought a lot of equipment and they force you to throw everything away in an update, then I'll understand.

But consider the following
- how do designers introduce new features?
- if the new feature is in conflict with old stuff?
- how do designers remove old stuff?

May be in this case designers made a mistake, or may be not. I like the camera and I brought it. If tomorrow when I need to update the cam, and G(7+n) is not what I expect, I'll just look for another line or manufacture and end of story.

Designs are driven by the market, if you don't like this line anymore, as a consumer you can do your part, stop buying. And buy others that has what you want.


I brought this G7 because:
- it is compact (are you going to complain because the size changed?)
- many parameter
- possibility to add lens
- lens cap on camera (did you noticed that it is also a change respect to G6?)

And one of the first thing I did, is to disable digital zoom (and surely raw if it ever appear; for exactly the same reason why I don't use .wav and use .mp3 instead when recording audio)

[chris clements]

why do you insist that G(N+1) must be G(N) + 1Mp

Quite the reverse - the key criticisms of the G7's output stem from the pixel count being too HIGH, not too low.

Canon invite the comparisons and expectations by giving it the family name. To pick one statistic ; the 7 has a lens that has HALF the light-gathering power of the 6. I wonder how DSLR users would react if Canon produced a EF 85mm f/2.8 and called it an 'L' ?

IMO there are two different questions to be answered about the G7 - is it a good camera for its price and its times ("maybe", verging on "yes"), and how does it stack up against previous G's ("poorly").

[Collin85]

I think Chris has some good points. On it's own, I feel the G7 is a very decent camera. But as a member of the G-series lineup, the lack of RAW, fast lens, swivel screen and whatever else a serious enthusiast might have expected on the new G7 (as a successor in the high-end P&S G-series) is dissappointing.

I also think that the whole megapixel race is bloody annoying. If only it wasn't for the countless less-educated consumers out there who believe that more megapixels always equal better (or under the worst circumstances, better quality). The R&D seems to result in cameras which exhibit similar noise levels at higher and higher megapixels. So instead, let's imagine a G7 with lower MPs. 8, 7.. or even 6. Give the camera a high ISO performance which REALLY stands out. Bring back in the RAW, fast lens and swivel screen.. I WOULD BUY ONE RIGHT NOW.

[chris clements]

.. I WOULD BUY ONE RIGHT NOW.
...I'm right behind you in the queue :)

[antispam007]

Quite the reverse - the key criticisms of the G7's output stem from the pixel count being too HIGH, not too low.

Canon invite the comparisons and expectations by giving it the family name. To pick one statistic ; the 7 has a lens that has HALF the light-gathering power of the 6. I wonder how DSLR users would react if Canon produced a EF 85mm f/2.8 and called it an 'L' ?



I agree with you. But I belive that the Mp race with continue on...
Some years ago, people are happy to have a camera without considering printing photos, later they wanted to print them at home, and later they wanted to print bigger images (big Mp enters). Somewhere along the time line, displaying pics on screen became a plus, and screen resolutions are growing each year. Can you see that the Mp race will go on?

Let's hope that tech will impove the quality of high Mp cameras with time.

[chris clements]

Let's hope that tech will impove the quality of high Mp cameras with time.

I share that hope, but I'm also cynical enough to believe the manufacturers will only make these improvements if we purchasers stop blindly chasing pixels. In the last couple of years I have read so many reviews praising various cameras for their handling, build or price, with the model's dubious image quality warranting only a footnote. Surely the end product should be our prime concern?

Makers should only increase the pixel count when they can also introduce commensurate improvements in the other links in the picture-making chain:- lens, processing, noise control. In the G series, Canon have now made this (calculated?) error twice, in the 5 and the 7. As a footnote, I'd love to know how the G5's overall sales compared to the numbers for the G3 and the G6. If it sold equally as well (proving overall image quality doesn't top peoples' shopping lists), that may be why Canon sunk everything into the G7''s build and handling rather than its performance.
There again, perhaps there was only so much Canon could do with the chip Sony gave them (the Pro1 story repeating itself).

[sharky]

If it sold equally as well (proving overall image quality doesn't top peoples' shopping lists), that may be why Canon sunk everything into the G7''s build and handling rather than its performance.

When I was trying to decide on which compact to get I literally spent days searching the web for examples from a range of cameras (earlier Gs included), and what I found was that the G7 was anything but lacking in performance. Since buying one I've been happy to find that its performance was even better than I expected, and it's now regularly producing shots that rival my 10D and L lenses. In fact, part of me is horrified about how close the outputs actually are, making me feel a little silly about spending thousands of dollars chasing "the ultimate sharpness/color/contrast/bokeh" or whatever.
I guess it comes down to how you define "performance", but if final image quality is the primary criteria then I can't really be too critical about the performance of the G7

[sadowsky]

I've been using my G7 for 2 months now and I am very pleased. My only 2 gripes are the parallax issues with the optical viewfinder (already discussed) and the lack of a battery indicator except for a "low battery" indicator. It would be nice if the camera had a battery indicator that constantly monitored the battery level. It is essential to carry a second battery.

But for a camera that I can wear around my neck all day or fit in a coat pocket, I am very pleased with the G7 in this regard as compared to my DSLR. And it takes much better photos than my real pocket camera (Sony DSC-T50).

Roger