A lot of the bad press about the Pro 1 related to its introductory pricing. When it came out, it was more expensive than the 300D and twice the street price of the G5. That is a lot of money for what is the guts of a typical G series camera + 28-200 mm lens. In the company it was keeping, whilst it may have been a good camera by G standards, it was seen as poor value and its sensor was compared to DSLR 6 and 8 meg offerings rather than other compact cams. People still talk about the small physical size of its sensor and compared to a DSLR it is much smaller but its still bigger than G5 and G6.
Also, many reviewers early on commented favourably on Pro 1 image quality compared to its 8 meg cousins but none seemed to really like the camera. I think one was the price issue, two was the motor driven zoom compared to the manual ones and third, I think it was size - the impression I got was that most of the reviewers were DSLR tragics, the more the camera felt like a fixed lens DSLR, the more excited they were. They loved the Minolta A2 even though picture quality was usually assessed at the bottom of the group. Personally, one of the reasons I chose the Pro 1 over a DSLR was its compactness - my preference. As for the dreaded zoom, compared to manual, even with the firmware update, its nowhere as nice. BUT it is FAR BETTER than the buttons or levers on other cameras - this is the comparison you never hear, IMHO. Also, it is probably more compact than a manual zoom could have been made.
All G series tests have mentioned chromatic aberation, slowness of operation, excess noise at high ISO etc (I also have a G2 and noise at ISO 400 is certainly worse). Its just that you don't expect that at DSLR prices.
G6 and Pro 1 are both very nice cameras. Both their strengths and weaknesses are similar. He should decide on the feature set for his needs. At current street prices, the Pro 1 is an absolute bargain compared to when it was first reviewed and I would suggest compared to G6 if you want a lens without wide and tele adaptors. As for build quality mentioned in the earlier post, this is the first time ever that I have heard such a general put down. I have not read one review, as opposed to the opinion of a G6 owner or someone that wants to justify their own decsions, rate G6 build qality over a Pro 1. Build quality even at its initial inflated price was always considered very good, even in comparison to its 8 meg cousins with full magnesium chassis. There was a well documented problem with dust in the front lens element but this seems to have been fixed in later cameras and Canon seem to have always honoured warranty claims for this. Rather than a quality issue, it seems to have been a design blunder. Unlike most cameras, the front element was made removable for ease of replacement if it got damaged - remember, this is an "L" lens with some expensive elements inside, not something you would want to throw away. The gap people talk about is miniscule but the effect is probably the same as screwing down a cylinder head on an engine without using a gasket or "o" ring. Can't see the gap but we all know what happens.
You can wait for a new model because you know evetually there will allways be one. In this case I agree with the comment about the G6 and Pro 1 not being much of an improvement on the G5 - wise words. The only argument I can see is if he wants to go wider or longer with the lens without using attachments. The problem with Canon attachments is that they are not much good a little further down the track and they are expensive. I always found mine too inconvenient to use.
Good luck.
