Ah, it is you who missed the point entirely. It is tiring to hear someone pipe in in this section of the forum and say 'get a dSLR for serious photography' as you did. The dSLR is a very versatile camera, with its many lenses and such, and that is its strength, and everyone acknowledges that. The G-series cameras are quite capable in themselves, and there are photographers here who use them as such, not just for holiday snaps.
The race car photo that you showed is irrelevant - taking such a picture would be difficult with the G cameras. But then again, I couldn't take the same picture with my Leica rangefinder, and neither can Ansel Adams' view camera do the subject justice. Would you lump them in the 'un-serious' camera category as well?
Anyway the original thread poster wanted to know more about the G6's ISO ratings, and I suspect that he was looking at the camera's capabilities rather than buy an entirely new camera.
This is obviously a sensitive issue for you and I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. I was actually trying to stick up for the G series cameras in my initial post, but you took it the wrong way. Go back and read it again and you might see what I was saying. The ISO performance of my G2 is one of its weaknesses, period. If I use it for low light shooting, it has to be with a tripod to get good results. It's not that unreasonable to suggest that a serious photographer should consider investing in a DSLR is it? Particularly if they want to use higher ISO settings.
By the way, your post showing a load of G3 landscapes and saying they're better than my Red Panda pic is a bit pointless don't you think?
And why are you rambling on about Leica rangefinders? Hardly the same as a G series are they?
