Pro 1 vs. G6

hey guys, im in the market for a new camera and the top candidates of choice is the Powershot Pro 1 and the G6. now i know these are both top of the line non dSLR Canon cameras but can anyone with experience with the two give me some insight. which one is better despite the 1 megapixel difference. oh and i also stopped by a camera store to get a hands on feel and the Pro 1 felt nice but the zoom function was funky. the electronic zoom doesnt really cut it for me.

I've had a G3 for a while, and the G series just seems to make more sense, easier to handle and such. I havent messed too much with the Pro1, but ya the zoom was kind of weird for me as well. Also the G6 is newer, its not as high an optical zoom but it seems to be better in my opinion. Just a same the Pro1 had to be priced at around thousand when it came out, the DRebel made it a hard camera to buy when you could have a Drebel for the same price.

I don't have any experience with the Pro1, but I really like my G6. That coming from a guy who has never owned a DSLR. I have owned many other Powershot cams (s110,s200,s230,s400,A​80,s45,G3 & G5) and the G6 is the best so far. The portability is what keeps me from buying a DSLR, although I would still love to own one.

The Pro1 has been getting rave reviews from its owners since the firmware update (to fix focussing issues). They say its like getting a new camera.

Im curious why you would want a Pro1 instead of a D rebel? Is it better for you for a particular purpose?

If the pro1's zoom doesn't cut it for you, then why would a g6's zoom be any better? One is a lever, one is a twist ring. Neither are mechanical zooms.

I have nothing bad to say about the G6. It's a great camera for what it does. The question is whether the G6 is "enough" for you? 35-140mm covers a decent, industry-standard range. But if your thinking about getting wide angle and tele converters with the G6, you'd essentially inflated the size to a pro1, and probably exceeded the cost as well.

Before the firmware, the pro1 was a tough camera for many to like. Excellent photo quality hampered by the less-than-stunning AF speed that people expect from shelling out the clams for. But after the firmware, it truly is like a completely different camera (as some of us joke, a pro1.1).

Here's a note from someone who has owned/compared the two cameras. Maybe reading this can help you determine whether one or the other is better for you.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1010&messag​e=11775845

well, i just wanted something to upgrade from my G2 and i guess im leaning towards the G6 just because the layout will be familiar to me.

yea, thats what i meant about the zoom control. i just dont like the pro 1's twist ring + electronic control feel.

and im not too fond of the SLRs, i just dont feel like messing with it all the time although maybe sometime in the future ill change my mind. besides, i can just borrow daddy's 10D

can you guys explain to me about this firmware for the Pro 1?

I have neither of these cameras, but 2 things are important to me (they might be insignificant to you):

+ larger sensor of the Pro1 should allow for (marginally) better DOF control

- I find the electric view finder rather strange ... I'd go with the optical viewfinder of the G6 any time.

Best regards,
Andy

Firmware increased AF performance by decreasing the AF-lag (note, not shutter lag) by 25-50% depending on shooting conditions. AF-lag used to be roughly 0.6s-0.8s even under the best lighting conditions. Now, AF-lag can be as quick as 0.3s (although at optimal lighting, it seems even faster than that), and no... I am not trying to blow smoke up anyone's skirt. This is why the improvement from the f/w seems to be night-n-day.

Another problem that was fixed via the f/w was that before, you couldn't pan a moving object when trying to focus on it. You'd half-press the shutter button and the EVF/LCD would freeze until it achieves a focus lock. This is fine and dandy if you're taking photos of a rock. But moving kids were often out of frame and the focus would be locked on the background instead. This problem was completely fixed in "continuous AF-mode", but still remains in "single AF-mode."

And the last improvement is that zoom ring was made more sensitive as well. Overall, making the camera much better than when it first hit the shelves.

The EVF is something to get used to. If you're used to shooting with LCD, then it's the same thing. The disadvantages to the EVF is that the resolution (although very good), definitely has room for improvement. Also when you're in near complete darkness, it will be more difficult to see any detail. The advantages are:

** WYSIWYG feel. Half-press the shutter and you get an idea of how the final photo will be, exposure/focus/DOF.
** Full framing so you're able to compose your shot the way you want it (especially when objects get closer to the lens). Offset OVF's gives you like 80% accuracy.

Certainly at this stage of the game, I would choose a SLR/dSLR TTL OVF over an EVF. But I prefer a TTL EVF over an offset OVF. It's definitely a matter of subjectivity.

Simple: it´s a complete package with a good zoom lens, you´re almost complete with one cam ... to cover the same zoom range at that quality with a dslr, you´d need to spend much more money ... so better bang for the buck ...

jwcdds.
Can you explain?

Also just a observation from my G6, but when in low light and in TV mode, half pressing the shutter doesnt display what the typical image look will be. Wondering if there has been away to do this or if it is an issue canon can look at?

Not exactly sure what you'd like me to explain... the difference in OVF?

If you look through the OVF of an SLR/dSLR, in essence, you're seeing most (if not all) of what the sensor will see. This is in reference to the framing, overall field of view. The same is true, actually better, with EVF's. This is because the image on the EVF/LCD comes directly from the same sensor that will capture the photo.

This is also the case when you compose/shoot with the LCD live view turned on on any p&s/prosumer camera because the image comes directly from the sensor. The downside is that in bright daylight, it is much harder to see the LCD clearly. But with cameras that have a built-in OVF (but not TTL, or through-the-lens), there will always be some discrepancy to what you see through the OVF and the final image. The difference is greatly reduced when objects are far away, but much more pronounced when objects are close to the lens.

For example, hold your thumb a foot away from your nose. Imagine your right eye being the lens, and your left eye being the offset OVF. Now cover your right eye (lens) and look at your thumb with your left eye. Then cover your left eye (offset OVF) and look at your thumb with your right eye. You'll notice that the two images are not the same.

The advantage of the offset OVF is that it doesn't require a constant power drain, and that in very low-light, you can still see through it and discern objects fairly well (although this doesn't guarantee accurate focus as focus is still determined by the sensor).

Personally, I like EVF's. You can already see many manufacturers ditching the offset OVF altogether with their smaller compact cameras already. Offset OVF are slowly being phased out (IMO).

I've had both the G3 and Pro1 since shortly after their release.

The Pro1 gives me the closest approximation to having an SLR with a range of lenses that I could possibly achieve while still having a small and light setup. I take it on wilderness hiking and canoeing trips and cram my cameras in a small Pelican box that is easy to carry and bulletproof.

The optical viewfinder has advantages. I've just recently updated my Pro1 firmware and it seems to be a big improvement. Make sure any demo you play with in the store has the latest firmware.

The G3 is smaller, more Leica like, and fits easier into a pocket for walking around. The electronic zooms of both are less than satisfactory to someone used to mechanical, but not a major drawback IMHO.

They are wonderful cameras that allow a photographer a tremendous amount of control and require some attention. If I had a magic wand they would both have sensors that allowed access to higher ISO's without the noise. That's the major reason I lust after one of the SLR's.

The Pro1 is the 1st Canon I've ever owned... & it's a great camera that's just short of a DSLR. I've owned a couple of other digital point & shoots (Sonys, 3.2MPs), but they're not near the level that this camera is on... & with the firmware update, it's only gotten better. I bought this camera as a stepping stone before jumping into a DSLR... which I'm actually doing now, I'm getting a 10D (used). I'm learning that if I want to get an L series lens as my 1st lens for 10D, I really have be ready to plunk down some serious $$$, something like near $1800 (incl used 10D body & 28-70mm f2.8L). So I would say that the Pro1 is a pretty good package for the price.

My two cents worth.

I love SLR's, and I love rangefinders. The EVF of the Pro1, and the other cameras with a EVF, make me queasy. Everyone says that you get used to them, but I seem unable to. I love the compactness of the G6, I can handhold a G6 at 1/8 of a second with good results. These days I'm lucky if I can handhold a SLR at 1/30! I think you'd be happy with either choice, I like the G6 because it feels like and can be worked like a rangefinder.