G2 AF - a joke?

[Agostino]

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2 autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all, it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera, for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

Of course your Nikon SLR focuses better. So does my Canon DSLR. However, if my DSLR is off by 6 inches at 100 feet the shot is almost ruined, so it has to be better. If the G2 is off by 20 feet at 100 it will still be very sharp.

The G2 focus works fine for me (I gave it a 4.5) but in the hands of many others (like at a party) the same camera produces many OOF shots, so YMMV.

Jason

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

 

[Erik Stiegler]

Other cameras are much better. Neither of my Olympus digital cameras gives me anything close to the trouble that my G2 does. Neither of them require the constant attention to every shot. They may fail to lock focus more, but they don't lie about it. Even my old Maxxum 9000 had better AF than the G2.

The whole point of autofocus is to let the camera do it so the photographer can concentrate of composition & exposure. One thing that's clear from the survey, even many photographers who gave the G2 a 4 or 5 have to spend a disproportionate amount of time concentrating on focus.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

 

[bac522]

I must have the only super G2 ever built because I have no problems using it and the AF works great. IMHO, I think if you come from the film world you will find issues. I was never much into taking photos because I hated waiting for development, but when I got my first digital camera many years ago that changed.

I've learned to take pictures based on how digital cameras operate. It is much like driving a car or a motorcycle, the end result is the same, but operating them is vastly different.

 

[Blue60407]

My sentiments exactly! My G1 is just not fun to use because of the SLOW AF. I use my slr (N65) almost exclusively now. I usually get double prints (for the price of single) and scan my negatives for any digital pict I might want. I found out early-on that the G1 just did not focus quickly or dependably. BTW, I learned a lot about PS which has been invaluble. So the digital experience was not a total loss.

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

--
Blue
http://www.pbase.com/image/1582173

 

[Mentok]

Sorry, what is called autofocus on the G2?

Does it mean the singe mode (push the trigger half) too. Or does autofocus mean continous mode (always zooming)? Because i bought my G2 one week ago, i use singe mode.. and had never problems with unsharp pictures.. and i am a newbe.. and very strong what quality expectations!! I sold my cp995 for this reason!

Thank u

Mentok

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

--
Blue
http://www.pbase.com/image/1582173

 

[Kristian Salo101843]

I agree... My friend got his Nikon CP5700 yesteraday and I shot over 100 pics with it... I did not try to take good pictures - I just snapped away. When I got home that evening, to my disbelief there were very few pictures out of focus.

If I had used my G2 and snapped photos is a sloppy way, like I did with the Nikon, nearly all of my pictures would have been out of focus.

Kristian

ps. IMHO G2 still produces better looking pictures... it just takes alot of work to get in focus pictures.

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

--
---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

 

[pandu badam]

Agostino, I gave 5 i.e.

(5)- I have no problem with it or so few problems that I don’t even think about it. It would certainly not stop me from buying the camera again.

Its just my rating and its not a joke, I just take pictures for fun mostly my kids pictures, I always use autofocus and most of the time Auto mode, I am happy with the results.

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

--
panbad

 

[Borami]

Hey Blue,

Could you tell me how satisfied you are with the scanned images of negatives in compare to G1's? I have a G2 and I'm just starting out MF cameras and i'm interested in scanning. But, I'm not sure about the quality of scanned images compare to G2. Any sharpness loss, color shift, or any other things to worry about? BTW, I'm not trying to print from the scanned file. Maybe for just fix some and put them on the web. But, I'd like to have a good quality.

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

--
Blue
http://www.pbase.com/image/1582173

 

[NKH]

if memory serves me correctly, i think it was nikon boasting that the CP5000 was going to offer SLR-like performance, not the canon with the G2.

yes, i was one of the ones complaining about the G2's AF but still gave it a (relatively) high mark. i too have film SLRs with quick, accurate AF but comparing them to the G2 is not at all a fair comparison.

although it doesn't make me particularly happy, i think canon is a smart company in the business to make money. they have a broad line of good products at competitive prices and a clear upgrade path. is the G2's AF perfect? of course not and they're not about to fix it either...how else are they going to get you to upgrade to a G3. or to plunk down even bigger bucks for a DSLR?

when will canon come out with something better? with their digicams selling well, not until the competition something more compelling. it only makes sense if you're in a competitive industry that you don't blow out your market all at once.

-norm

 

[Kristian Salo101843]

although it doesn't make me particularly happy, i think canon is a
smart company in the business to make money. they have a broad line
of good products at competitive prices and a clear upgrade path. is
the G2's AF perfect? of course not and they're not about to fix it
either...how else are they going to get you to upgrade to a G3. or
to plunk down even bigger bucks for a DSLR?

Any good company in the money making business knows that a happy customer is a customer that will come back. It is a lot easier to keep an old customer than to get new ones.

If Canon just ignores the G2 owners, many are going to other brands...

Kristian

 

[KFVH]

G2 - Fun to use?

In a recent thread, users were asked to score the G2 autofocus on a
rating of 1-5, 1 being the lowest.I was very suprised that, despite
the many complaints about poor AF performance, scores were still
much higher than I expected.

The G2 was advertised as having SLR-like control over picture
taking. My Nikon SLR has quick, accurate AF and, in addition, you
can immediately confirm any AF failure through the viewfinder. G2
autofocus is the exact opposite, slow, inaccurate and worst of all,
it LIES to you. And the manual focus option really is a joke.

Don't make excuses for this camera, like - others arent much
better, Well I didn't buy anothe brand, or - you must expect a
failure rate with any camera, Not one caused by the arbitary nature
of one of it's most basic functions. Even the best photragrapher
will select and discard, but too see otherwise good shots ruined by
basic AF failure is inexcusable. Value for money arguements? If I
had been given the choice of paying more and getting AF that
actually worked, then I would have paid more - but Canon appear to
bew proud of the G2 AF.

I still l use my G2. It can, in the right circumstances, produce
stunning results and the convenience factor is so high, BUT I am
increasingly using my SLR when I want to be certain that I dont get
failure due to arbritary technical deficiencies in my equipment. I
dont like using my dustbin for print storage.

So the G2 has become somewhat of a rather expensive 'fun' camera,
for more serious work, for the moment - it's back to film.
--
Agostino

I guess I am one of the lucky ones. I don't seem to have all the problems with my G2 that others are having. Perhaps it is more operator error than camera problems.

I have taken many great pictures with out the focus problems. Colors are great and very sharp.

If I had to replace this camera tomorrow it would be another G2.

 

[Robert Beacon]

If I had used my G2 and snapped photos is a sloppy way, like I did
with the Nikon, nearly all of my pictures would have been out of
focus.

Kristian

Kristian it would be interesting if you could outline the different methods you used to use the nikon compared with the G2 In other words what is the method you are using to get properly exposed images with the G2?

None of the people experiencing problems with the G2 seem to want to enlighten us with the way they expose their images

 

[Kristian Salo101843]

There is no problem with the G2 exposure. It works like a charm. The problem is with the autofocus which needs alot of baby sitting to get sharp pictures, but when you know what you do, you get excellent pictures.

I was suprised about the CP5700 autofocus as it seemed to focus very well also in dim light. With the cp5700 I did not had to find high contrast areas of the target to get a sharp picture as I do with the G2.

the CP5700 has a better AF but I still prefer the G2 as IMHO it takes better looking pictures. You just have to work more for them.

Kristian

Kristian it would be interesting if you could outline the different
methods you used to use the nikon compared with the G2 In other
words what is the method you are using to get properly exposed
images with the G2?
None of the people experiencing problems with the G2 seem to want
to enlighten us with the way they expose their images

--
---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

 

[mabradi]

I think you are comparing DIGITAL with FILM cameras and that is no fair for either of them. For the time being, each one has its own place, its advantages and its disadvantages. I feel more comfortable with G2 than with any other one and the fact is I have all the rest of my cameras (and are the cameras of more than half a century of amateur photography) in a closet since last December, when I bought my G2 and I am going to dismantle my laboratory. In choosing a camera I was very careful because here in Spain photographic equipment is very dear, my G2 cost 176900 ptas (1063.19 €), a very good price in Madrid, and that is a lot of money and I think, thanks God, I was right. If not, you can suppose my anger. Of course G2 is not perfect and has its own limitations, as has SLR, TLR, telemeter, compacts, miniature, field cameras, view cameras..., even myself.

--
Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

 

[Wolfgang101453]

although it doesn't make me particularly happy, i think canon is a
smart company in the business to make money. they have a broad line
of good products at competitive prices and a clear upgrade path. is
the G2's AF perfect? of course not and they're not about to fix it
either...how else are they going to get you to upgrade to a G3. or
to plunk down even bigger bucks for a DSLR?

That's not true. You really need to return your crystal ball because it's busted.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that nonsense. If Canon could address the AF and improve upon it via a firmware update, make no mistake - it would be released in a heartbeat, period.

I'll agree that the AF system on my G2 could be better but I get great pictures with this camera and would happily buy another.

 

[Jim K53618]

I couldn't agree with you more. For the life of me I still can not figure out why so many people excuse, justify, and defend the G2. After 3 different g2's I gave up on it. It's not that I could not live with the slow AF, that was ok. It wasn't the soft focus either, which is a Canon trade mark. Indeed, the G2 could produce stunning images at ISO 50, when you got what you wanted to be in focus focused. It was one of the most user friendly camera's I ever used, so don't buy the excuse that you have to "master" the G2's AF, pure rubbish. It's either HIT or MISS. It's not attributed to operator error, or not mastering one of the simplest cameras out there. It's that the AF is simply unpredictable! Even with a AF light assist it fails to get what you want focused. My CP5000 which has no AF light assist gets better results even in bright light! All I can figure is that perhaps not all g2's AF is as bad as some of us have seen, or most people with G2's simply don't know how inferror the AF is because either
A.) they think all cameras are that bad

B.) they simply deny it to justify their purchase (after all it can take great pics at times).

So many people say the G2 is the best consumer camera out there. More rubbish. I've tested almost all of them. Only the E10/20 has AF problems similar to the G2, and not as bad at that! Just about any other consumer cam will focus better. So what's all the noise about the G2? Beats the hell out of me. There are better out there. I think some people place too much weight on reviewers and can't think for themselves.

Regards,
Jim K

 

[KFVH]

I couldn't agree with you more. For the life of me I still can not
figure out why so many people excuse, justify, and defend the G2.
After 3 different g2's I gave up on it. It's not that I could not
live with the slow AF, that was ok. It wasn't the soft focus
either, which is a Canon trade mark. Indeed, the G2 could produce
stunning images at ISO 50, when you got what you wanted to be in
focus focused. It was one of the most user friendly camera's I ever
used, so don't buy the excuse that you have to "master" the G2's
AF, pure rubbish. It's either HIT or MISS. It's not attributed to
operator error, or not mastering one of the simplest cameras out
there. It's that the AF is simply unpredictable! Even with a AF
light assist it fails to get what you want focused. My CP5000 which
has no AF light assist gets better results even in bright light!
All I can figure is that perhaps not all g2's AF is as bad as some
of us have seen, or most people with G2's simply don't know how
inferror the AF is because either
A.) they think all cameras are that bad
B.) they simply deny it to justify their purchase (after all it can
take great pics at times).

So many people say the G2 is the best consumer camera out there.
More rubbish. I've tested almost all of them. Only the E10/20 has
AF problems similar to the G2, and not as bad at that! Just about
any other consumer cam will focus better. So what's all the noise
about the G2? Beats the hell out of me. There are better out there.
I think some people place too much weight on reviewers and can't
think for themselves.

Regards,
Jim K

Why don't you tell us how you really feel ???????

Have you considered prozac?

I think I will hang on to my G2.

 

[Jim K53618]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel ???????

Have you considered prozac?

I think I will hang on to my G2.

Is that an endorsement on your part? I'll take your word on it. Prozac must really work : ))

Regards,
Jim K

 

[Philip Persio]

Someone in this forum already mentioned that the G2 autofocusing system would function satisfactorily with AF mode set to "Single".

However, it is necessary to set AF mode to "Continuous", if you want to use remote control or self timer to take pictures.

I would not say G2 is the best choice in the market, but according to those samples posted on the WEB, I would at least say G2 can take better pictures if it is compared to the Nikon 5000 or even the 5700.

Check it out yourself!

http://www.pbase.com/jimmy01/g2vsd7ivs5700

I couldn't agree with you more. For the life of me I still can not
figure out why so many people excuse, justify, and defend the G2.
After 3 different g2's I gave up on it. It's not that I could not
live with the slow AF, that was ok. It wasn't the soft focus
either, which is a Canon trade mark. Indeed, the G2 could produce
stunning images at ISO 50, when you got what you wanted to be in
focus focused. It was one of the most user friendly camera's I ever
used, so don't buy the excuse that you have to "master" the G2's
AF, pure rubbish. It's either HIT or MISS. It's not attributed to
operator error, or not mastering one of the simplest cameras out
there. It's that the AF is simply unpredictable! Even with a AF
light assist it fails to get what you want focused. My CP5000 which
has no AF light assist gets better results even in bright light!
All I can figure is that perhaps not all g2's AF is as bad as some
of us have seen, or most people with G2's simply don't know how
inferror the AF is because either
A.) they think all cameras are that bad
B.) they simply deny it to justify their purchase (after all it can
take great pics at times).

So many people say the G2 is the best consumer camera out there.
More rubbish. I've tested almost all of them. Only the E10/20 has
AF problems similar to the G2, and not as bad at that! Just about
any other consumer cam will focus better. So what's all the noise
about the G2? Beats the hell out of me. There are better out there.
I think some people place too much weight on reviewers and can't
think for themselves.

Regards,
Jim K

--
Persio