Sony 707 or Canon G2 ? Which 1 should I buy?..............

[steve brewster]

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

 

[Tarpon6]

I would honestly say G2 for your purpose. If you really needed a big zoom I might take a look at the 707.

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

 

[photo-op]

I sold my G2 to get a F707 and now I have sold my F707 bto buy another G2 . Check out why!!
http://www.pbase.com/kidro

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

--Tom A. Brink

 

[BryanS]

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

I'm in the same boat you are. I've tried both, and although I liked the longer zoom and the EVF, the rest of the comparison wasn't even close. If you'd like to see my comparison, have a look:

http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/faceoff

Still, for family shots (particularly if you plan on using flash), there really is no comparison. Please feel free to check out my family gallery at http://www.siverly.net .

Bryan

 

[TNRandy]

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

--
Tom A. Brink

Tom, with you trying both cameras could you tell us a few things you like and dislike about each the G2 and 707 and what was the main few reasons for choosing the G2 in the end? Just by what i read and have seen, i like the weight of the G2, the G2 colors, the storage, and Sony the zoom, the faster autofocus and something else i think i would like is the remote feature on the G2. I think the B-300 or TC-DC58 would be very nice with the G2 also.
Randy

 

[Tan Yiew Sun]

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster.

I am in the same boat as Steve. Trying to decide on the G2 or 707.

I like the long zoom on the 707 but are worried about the BFS and oversaturated reds.

I am also confused that some users have praised the images they were able to get out of the G2 while some gripe about the focus problem. What gives?

 

[gary ng]

Bryan,

thanks very much for the comparison. My interest is in people thus pay more attention to the portrait shots. There is no comparision. The Sony shots have just too many 'digital' feels(look in the hair) whereas G2 is silky smooth. This seems to be true for the G1, G2 and D30. May be it is the sharpening mode ? If that is the case, I am wondering if other camera can perform better in this regard ?

gary

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

I'm in the same boat you are. I've tried both, and although I
liked the longer zoom and the EVF, the rest of the comparison
wasn't even close. If you'd like to see my comparison, have a look:

http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/faceoff

Still, for family shots (particularly if you plan on using flash),
there really is no comparison. Please feel free to check out my
family gallery at http://www.siverly.net .

Bryan

 

[bdbx18]

I thought hard about returning my 707 for a G2 after experiencing the amazing shots from my old G1. My primary reason is the camera size and weight. I quickly woke up after considering the major points:

• almost twice as fast startup
• almost twice as fast focus, shutter, shot to shot e.g.
• superior AF/hologram assist light/low-light performance
• evf - what you see is what you get
• 5x zoom
• imo, better color
• at the lowest cost $750 and AMX price-matching, represents the best value

Good luck ...R

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster.

I am in the same boat as Steve. Trying to decide on the G2 or 707.

I like the long zoom on the 707 but are worried about the BFS and
oversaturated reds.

I am also confused that some users have praised the images they
were able to get out of the G2 while some gripe about the focus
problem. What gives?

 

[photo-op]

Randy,

It really was not my thinking that the Sony was any less capable of a camera. They are both as different as black and white.

I just could never find the zoom control on the F707 and it definitely would not fit in any pocket I have. They both produced stunning pictures but neither was able to take decent images of my daughtters basketball game.

I rely on my D1 SLR for sports and was really needing a sharp pocketable carry around for every day shooting and the G2 is best for me!

Tom A. Brink

Tom, with you trying both cameras could you tell us a few things
you like and dislike about each the G2 and 707 and what was the
main few reasons for choosing the G2 in the end? Just by what i
read and have seen, i like the weight of the G2, the G2 colors, the
storage, and Sony the zoom, the faster autofocus and something else
i think i would like is the remote feature on the G2. I think the
B-300 or TC-DC58 would be very nice with the G2 also.
Randy

--Tom A. Brink

 

[BryanS]

The Sony shots have just too many 'digital' feels(look in the hair)
whereas G2 is silky smooth.

That was my impression in general... those on the Sony Forum disagreed almost in unison, however. The 5X zoom did help me get shots I couldn't get with the G2, but I couldn't get past the noise and the wacky colors of the 707. The bug with the 707 flash (which still isn't fixed IMO) was an issue, but the camera had already lost on other counts in my book.

Best bet is to look at the samples in the other forums. If you like them, then buy the camera. Frankly, if I had waited to look at the 707 samples by those who have one, there's very little chance that I would have bought the camera in the first place. I considered the Nikon CP5000, too, but the samples I've seen caused me to not even think of changing... wow, what a let-down that one is!

This seems to be true for the G1, G2
and D30. May be it is the sharpening mode ? If that is the case, I
am wondering if other camera can perform better in this regard ?

I've found the G2 to do less in-camera sharpening that even my G1 did. That's good for me, because if I want a sharper picture, I can do it better myself. And I, like you, tend to prefer the less "digital-looking" shot.

Bryan

 

[=JT=]

Brian,

I went back and looked at your comparison between the G2 and the 707. i agree that the colors are off on the 707, but i think you have to admit that the 707 is a much better camera for taking sharp extremely detailed portraits, say of your kids for example. your "portraits" page shows that to be true.

I also have owned both the G2 and the 707. for portraits i think the 707 wins if you like detail (which i do). If you like a soft picture/portrait, then for you the G2 wins.

also, the 707 is really good for macro shots, wouldnt you agree? the 707 just snaps right into focus on really close shots. I do not recall the G2 performing as well as the 707 on macros.

I like both cameras, but i have been more impressed with the 707.

The Sony shots have just too many 'digital' feels(look in the hair)
whereas G2 is silky smooth.

That was my impression in general... those on the Sony Forum
disagreed almost in unison, however. The 5X zoom did help me get
shots I couldn't get with the G2, but I couldn't get past the noise
and the wacky colors of the 707. The bug with the 707 flash (which
still isn't fixed IMO) was an issue, but the camera had already
lost on other counts in my book.

Best bet is to look at the samples in the other forums. If you
like them, then buy the camera. Frankly, if I had waited to look
at the 707 samples by those who have one, there's very little
chance that I would have bought the camera in the first place. I
considered the Nikon CP5000, too, but the samples I've seen caused
me to not even think of changing... wow, what a let-down that one
is!

This seems to be true for the G1, G2
and D30. May be it is the sharpening mode ? If that is the case, I
am wondering if other camera can perform better in this regard ?

I've found the G2 to do less in-camera sharpening that even my G1
did. That's good for me, because if I want a sharper picture, I
can do it better myself. And I, like you, tend to prefer the less
"digital-looking" shot.

Bryan

 

[BryanS]

I went back and looked at your comparison between the G2 and the
707. i agree that the colors are off on the 707, but i think you
have to admit that the 707 is a much better camera for taking sharp
extremely detailed portraits, say of your kids for example. your
"portraits" page shows that to be true.

Yes, and I believe I said that in the review... for careful portraits outdoors, the F707 will consistently capture a more detailed image. However, I was always strongly put off by the colors that were not easily repaired... and there was an overall coldness, not only the weird colors. And I think that the F707 uses more sharpening to get that effect most of the time.

The longer lens does help, though. And you can't get that back with the G2 and I miss it. Everything has it's give-and-takes, and the G2 gave me more than I missed by taking back the F707. I get little time for careful outdoor photos, and have to be fast. And lots of indoors stuff, too... the G2 outperformed the Sony by leaps and bounds there.

I also have owned both the G2 and the 707. for portraits i think
the 707 wins if you like detail (which i do). If you like a soft
picture/portrait, then for you the G2 wins.

You didn't find that a subtle Unsharp Mask got the detail crisper for you? As we get long in years, my wife prefers that I don't bring out every pore and wrinkle, anyway.

also, the 707 is really good for macro shots, wouldnt you agree?
the 707 just snaps right into focus on really close shots. I do
not recall the G2 performing as well as the 707 on macros.

I found the two to be somewhat similar in macro performance. Never have complained about the G2 in that regard.

I like both cameras, but i have been more impressed with the 707.

I did enjoy the 707 at times, but it kept gnawing at me... the thing felt flawed in several ways. Don't think I could have lived with that.

Bryan

 

[MClark]

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

Steve--I find it difficult to compose pics of my kids because they move around while the LCD image freezes up during the AF and AE (pressing the shutter button half-way). When I get the real-time image back, it's changed because the kids move around. Not sure of an alternative, but it's annoying to have to re-compose after the AF and AE are done.......Mark

 

[=JT=]

I went back and looked at your comparison between the G2 and the
707. i agree that the colors are off on the 707, but i think you
have to admit that the 707 is a much better camera for taking sharp
extremely detailed portraits, say of your kids for example. your
"portraits" page shows that to be true.

Yes, and I believe I said that in the review... for careful
portraits outdoors, the F707 will consistently capture a more
detailed image. However, I was always strongly put off by the
colors that were not easily repaired... and there was an overall
coldness, not only the weird colors. And I think that the F707
uses more sharpening to get that effect most of the time.

I find that the 707 captures more detailed portraits indoors and out. I don't know what you mean by coldness; i don't see that. I find the color problem to be only a problem with red and sometimes bright yellows and bright greens - the 707 will make them brighter, but in the end it is fine. skin tones always seem good. The G2 did have colors right on. but the poor autofocus and softness is more inexcusable in my mind than vivid reds. after all, what good is an out of focus picture?

The longer lens does help, though. And you can't get that back
with the G2 and I miss it. Everything has it's give-and-takes, and
the G2 gave me more than I missed by taking back the F707. I get
little time for careful outdoor photos, and have to be fast. And
lots of indoors stuff, too... the G2 outperformed the Sony by leaps
and bounds there.

I don't see where the G2 outperforms the 707 in any area other than capturing the true color of a shot. what do you mean by leaps and bounds? my indoor shots with the 707 are always focused and detailed.

I also have owned both the G2 and the 707. for portraits i think
the 707 wins if you like detail (which i do). If you like a soft
picture/portrait, then for you the G2 wins.

You didn't find that a subtle Unsharp Mask got the detail crisper
for you? As we get long in years, my wife prefers that I don't
bring out every pore and wrinkle, anyway.

I found an unsharp mask would bring things out a bit on any picture, but I don't think that an unsharp mask can ever bring a G2 shot to the 707 level of detail. at least not with the G2 shots that i took. To me it seems better to start with more detail and tone it down, than to start with less and try to fabricate detail through software.

also, the 707 is really good for macro shots, wouldnt you agree?
the 707 just snaps right into focus on really close shots. I do
not recall the G2 performing as well as the 707 on macros.

I found the two to be somewhat similar in macro performance. Never
have complained about the G2 in that regard.

I like both cameras, but i have been more impressed with the 707.

I did enjoy the 707 at times, but it kept gnawing at me... the
thing felt flawed in several ways. Don't think I could have lived
with that.

Bryan

Just curious, Do you ever have focusing problems with your G2 Brian? i had some serious focusing problems with the few G2s (3) that i tried. a large percentage of the shots of my kids were out of focus, and not becuase they were moving about or low light. you never noticed this with your G2? The 707 is an autofocus champion compared to it.

Peace,

JT

 

[BryanS]

I find that the 707 captures more detailed portraits indoors and
out. I don't know what you mean by coldness; i don't see that.

If you don't see it, there's not much chance you ever will, but I see it in nearly every shot. I even see it in shots that Sony advocates are bragging about. There's a thread in the STF about F707 satisfaction, and the following gallery was posted, and I see horrible blue tones in nearly every shot... some more than others, some dramatic in that respect. In fact, in that entire thread, those posting photos to demonstrate their absolute love affair with the camera are showing pictures that send me the other direction. Here's that sample gallery from the thread:

http://www.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?UV=328783932717_85501019203&US=0&collid=65151019203

I find the color problem to be only a problem with red and sometimes
bright yellows and bright greens - the 707 will make them brighter,
but in the end it is fine. skin tones always seem good.

I'm seeing something far different from you. Skin is terrible, and greens and reds are very difficult to correct, when they're in the same shot (which for me is most of the time). Take this example from a fixed F707, by coincidence, I have nearly the identical shot from my G2:





I'll leave it for you to figure which is the F707 and which is the G2, but I think the conclusion is pretty obvious. One is overexposed, lacking in detail, the red/orange and green interpreted in an unreal manner, the edges go pink, and the yellow of the center is a strange bluish yellow to my eyes. I might be able to fix this in Photoshop, but would I want to even try?

The G2
did have colors right on. but the poor autofocus and softness is
more inexcusable in my mind than vivid reds. after all, what good
is an out of focus picture?

I don't know what problems you were having with the autofocus, but I'm glad I'm not experiencing it. Have you looked at my photos? Oh sure, sometimes I'll get a focus on the background, but it's usually my fault, and my F707 missed focus just as often. It was a non-issue for me, but then again, I owned the G1 and probably got used to a difficult focus system.

I don't see where the G2 outperforms the 707 in any area other than
capturing the true color of a shot. what do you mean by leaps and
bounds? my indoor shots with the 707 are always focused and
detailed.

I'm talking flash indoors, which makes up probably 70% of my photography. You've got to admit that's a failing of the Sony, even in its present "fixed" state. The G2 with the 420EX has no peer in this price range. Also, I noticed that indoor shots with existing light with the F707 produced the most dramatic blue tones and coldness.

I found an unsharp mask would bring things out a bit on any
picture, but I don't think that an unsharp mask can ever bring a G2
shot to the 707 level of detail. at least not with the G2 shots
that i took.

To me, it was close enough, but I'll admit that the closeup portraits with the F707 fairly soundly beat the G2... no doubt about that.

Just curious, Do you ever have focusing problems with your G2
Brian? i had some serious focusing problems with the few G2s (3)
that i tried. a large percentage of the shots of my kids were out
of focus, and not becuase they were moving about or low light.

Have you looked at my shots at http://www.siverly.net? Perhaps you could tell me if you were getting similar performance? I've missed some shots because of focus, but do feel that I missed just as many with the F707 I had. When the kids are moving, it's extremely difficult, and I have noticed that the G2 gives a smaller margin for error for some reason at exactly the same f-stop. With the F707, I could focus on a shirt and the face/eyes would be in focus, not so with the G2.

For that reason, I've learned to pick a higher smaller aperture, particularly with the flash... something impossible with the F707, which was another mark against it for me, since it couldn't do it without going to manual mode (and the viewfinder would be dark and unusable).

Peace,

Really enjoy having a civil conversation, J.T. So many in the STF got so shrill and nasty that it wasn't even possible to have dialog. These cameras are so open to different interpretation and skill-sets, opinions and tastes. There is no right or wrong, and I still can't understand why people take it personally when someone doesn't like what I like or vice-versa.

Heck, I don't get hate-mail from people when we disagree on food or movies or baseball teams. Then again, I am a Cubfan, so I probably have little to brag about.

Bryan

 

[Connie Chang]

Bryan --

thanks for the link to your pictures. I was wondering about the photos in your other galleries (particularly the Soccer game and the halloween party). Were these taken with the G2 or the Sony 707? The reason why i ask is that i'm having some trouble with taking pictures with my G2 where there's any movement on the part of the subjects (or me!).

Thanks.
Connie

thanks very much for the comparison. My interest is in people thus
pay more attention to the portrait shots. There is no comparision.
The Sony shots have just too many 'digital' feels(look in the hair)
whereas G2 is silky smooth. This seems to be true for the G1, G2
and D30. May be it is the sharpening mode ? If that is the case, I
am wondering if other camera can perform better in this regard ?

gary

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster

I'm in the same boat you are. I've tried both, and although I
liked the longer zoom and the EVF, the rest of the comparison
wasn't even close. If you'd like to see my comparison, have a look:

http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/faceoff

Still, for family shots (particularly if you plan on using flash),
there really is no comparison. Please feel free to check out my
family gallery at http://www.siverly.net .

Bryan

 

[BryanS]

thanks for the link to your pictures. I was wondering about the
photos in your other galleries (particularly the Soccer game and
the halloween party). Were these taken with the G2 or the Sony
707?

These were taken with the G2.

The reason why i ask is that i'm having some trouble with
taking pictures with my G2 where there's any movement on the part
of the subjects (or me!).

Believe me, the F707 had just as much trouble with moving subjects, and I've used both.

You really need to prefocus with these kinds of cameras. In the soccer pictures, I picked a patch of grass and focused on it as I saw the kids running toward it (pressing shutter half-way and holding). When they reached the spot, I picked the good moment and fired the shot the rest of the way... with little delay that way.

If you prefer not to hold down the shutter, you can switch to manual focus once you've locked it in, and that will hold it.

I've also done this for bowling shots, by locking focus on the foul line, for example. Baseball is relatively easy, because the motion stops between plays, and you can focus on the pitcher before he pitches, the batter before he bats, etc. Football is easier, too, for similar reasons. The hardest are soccer and other sports that seldom stop.

The problem is that the autofocus on these cameras is not nearly fast enough to catch fast moving subjects, but even the best SLR cams have trouble unless you learn the fine art of prefocus or manual focus. It's not really that hard.

Bryan

 

[Connie Chang]

Hi bryan --

thanks for the fast reply. So the source of the problem I've been having is lack of focus? I was assuming it was because I was using ISO 50. i know that in my point and shoot 35 mm, i put in ISO 400 film if I know I'm going to be taking action shots.

This is good to know because it was quite frustrating for me... out of curiosity, what setting (shutter speed, iSO, etc.) did you use for these pictures? They are wonderful by the way...

I'm a photo newbie, but really excited about learning!
Connie

thanks for the link to your pictures. I was wondering about the
photos in your other galleries (particularly the Soccer game and
the halloween party). Were these taken with the G2 or the Sony
707?

These were taken with the G2.

The reason why i ask is that i'm having some trouble with
taking pictures with my G2 where there's any movement on the part
of the subjects (or me!).

Believe me, the F707 had just as much trouble with moving subjects,
and I've used both.

You really need to prefocus with these kinds of cameras. In the
soccer pictures, I picked a patch of grass and focused on it as I
saw the kids running toward it (pressing shutter half-way and
holding). When they reached the spot, I picked the good moment and
fired the shot the rest of the way... with little delay that way.

If you prefer not to hold down the shutter, you can switch to
manual focus once you've locked it in, and that will hold it.

I've also done this for bowling shots, by locking focus on the foul
line, for example. Baseball is relatively easy, because the motion
stops between plays, and you can focus on the pitcher before he
pitches, the batter before he bats, etc. Football is easier, too,
for similar reasons. The hardest are soccer and other sports that
seldom stop.

The problem is that the autofocus on these cameras is not nearly
fast enough to catch fast moving subjects, but even the best SLR
cams have trouble unless you learn the fine art of prefocus or
manual focus. It's not really that hard.

Bryan

 

[Stuart Zimmerman]

Having owned (and sold the 707) and now having a G2, I can say that although the zoom is nice on the 707, the oversaturated reds are annoying, and the bottom line is that the larger the CCD, generally the more light it needs to take the shot cleanly. When I printed a 8x10 from the 707 and compared it to my old Canon 210 (2.1MP), there was not a noticable difference in sharpness.

I have my own issues with the G2 as well- particularly the focusing, but the 707 had problems with that as well.

Good luck with either

I mainly take family pictures. Which one is the best in your
opinion? Thanks, steve brewster.

I am in the same boat as Steve. Trying to decide on the G2 or 707.

I like the long zoom on the 707 but are worried about the BFS and
oversaturated reds.

I am also confused that some users have praised the images they
were able to get out of the G2 while some gripe about the focus
problem. What gives?