Full Version: Why didn't Michael buy the G6 instead?
It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...
QUOTE (Joe Bloggs @ Nov 8 2006, 12:28 PM)
It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...
A better camera in every way except zoom and megapixels?
- smaller dimmer screen
- slower startup
- slower shooting lag
- MORE noise
- much bulkier camera, non-pocketable
- 40% heavier
- slower focus
- no lens stabilisation !!
- lens cap
- more plastic body panels
- slower access to menus
- no ISO dial
- lesser movie mode and audio
- ISO400 max
- no live view histogram
- limited image parameter controls
- USB 1.1
QUOTE (Joe Bloggs @ Nov 8 2006, 12:58 PM)
It had buffered RAW. It even had a full tilt & swivel screen. It was a better camera in every way except for zoom and megapixels. It can probably be had much cheaper now than the G7. It probably even had less noise...
The same thought occured to me as I read Michael's review. I had the same criteria when shopping recently for a digital camera for street photography. I bought the Canon G6 and it does the job well.
A handicap is the six seconds it takes to write a RAW file. I'm prepared to put up with this to avoid the disadvantages of slr's.
The G6 is a good field camera, able to operate for long periods away from AC power, thanks to its optical viewfinder and non-essential screen. Parallax at close shooting distances can be a problem if you forget about it.
Seven megapixels suit my needs quite well. Canon's put a lot of thought into this model. If you need a quality camera that's also discreet, you'd go a long way to find one better.
Robert
TNARGS said it all.
Michael
Michael
QUOTE (rcrigan @ Nov 9 2006, 09:19 PM)
I bought the Canon G6 and it does the job well.
A handicap is the six seconds it takes to write a RAW file. I'm prepared to put up with this to avoid the disadvantages of slr's.
A handicap is the six seconds it takes to write a RAW file. I'm prepared to put up with this to avoid the disadvantages of slr's.
Actually it's not a 6-second delay after taking a RAW photo. Like the Pro1 (and the S60/S70/etc) you only get a hang-up of a couple of seconds. Sure, if you don't touch anything the camera may take 6 seconds to go back to normal preview mode, but if you do half-press the shutter the camera becomes responsive much sooner, and continues to write the file in the background.
These cameras _do_ have a buffer, but it's after the initial RAW/JPEG processing pipeline and isn't the same as the 2-stage buffers provided on DSLRs/etc. They're not perfect, but they're not horrible in this regard either...
A while back I bought a Minolta A2 based mostly on MR's great review of it. I have been very happy with this camera. Besides duplicating most DSLR functions except for the ability to change lenses, it also shoots RAW files.
It is a well thought out camera, and it makes me sad to think that the company that designed it is no longer making cameras.
It is a well thought out camera, and it makes me sad to think that the company that designed it is no longer making cameras.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.