Yu-Lin Chan
Well-known member
Do you really care what others think? The G1 may look ugly to some but I find it looks just a normal camera. What's important is whether you can live with the look or not.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the G1 Ugly?
- Thread starter WPPully
- Start date
Derek46213
New member
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll chime in with my opinion, if anyone is listening...
To me, the Nikon's (950/990/995s) are by far the ugliest and cheapest looking.
The Sony DSC-S75 wins my vote as the best looking. The large handgrip really makes the camera feel good when held. The silvery metal color and clean lines are nice too...
But when taking functionality and features (CF II storage, swiveling LCD screen, hotshoe,...) into consideration, the Canon G1 wins hands down. Its looks aren't all that bad. I wish the color were more silvery though!
Just my $0.02.
Derek
To me, the Nikon's (950/990/995s) are by far the ugliest and cheapest looking.
The Sony DSC-S75 wins my vote as the best looking. The large handgrip really makes the camera feel good when held. The silvery metal color and clean lines are nice too...
But when taking functionality and features (CF II storage, swiveling LCD screen, hotshoe,...) into consideration, the Canon G1 wins hands down. Its looks aren't all that bad. I wish the color were more silvery though!
Just my $0.02.
Derek
Ruvy
Veteran Member
Reading all the comments on this thread shows me what every manufacturer knows and care for: look is important feature for all of us including those who show off caring for nothing but function. I love Julio's humor even though I see no point in making the original poster feel like an idiot which he is not.
The truth of the matter is that all marketing researches shows that most people give significant weight to how the looks of their equipment reflects on them - it does not make technical sense but it is human. The fact that so many of you bothered to reply with so much heat proves the point.
It makes no difference if you like Sony or Nikon or Canon better but the question is good and any constructive opinion that can help other make a choice is worth while.
I salute all of you who are above this "nonsense"
The truth of the matter is that all marketing researches shows that most people give significant weight to how the looks of their equipment reflects on them - it does not make technical sense but it is human. The fact that so many of you bothered to reply with so much heat proves the point.
It makes no difference if you like Sony or Nikon or Canon better but the question is good and any constructive opinion that can help other make a choice is worth while.
I salute all of you who are above this "nonsense"
My secret shame is that I bought the G1 for its' looks.
Having had an AE-1 in my formative years, I've only had P&S film cams recently (original Stylus, Elph Jr). When I discovered dpreview.com last year, the DSC-P1 review caught my eye - sleek and compact, but a little lopsided. Then the CP880 review - nice look, in elegant black - but limited aperture control. Then the G1 review - ooo baby! looks like grandpa's old don't-touch camera, the classic Leica rangefinder, brought into the digital age.
Go out shooting w/G1 in its' sem-hard leather case, and people will think you're limping along w/grandpa's lil'ol'man cam - they won't give you a second look, and you can shoot in peace. (Well, until you start using the camcorder-style LCD...) Where I live, unless you have bodyguards, flashing nice things in public is just asking for trouble. In my town, tourists w/SLR+telezooms around their necks are unknowingly saying, "Here is $2000 hanging around my neck on a flimsy little strap - it can be yours in 2 seconds." Saw a young lady the other day outside the grocery store, framing a shot w/a black rectangular twist-body cam - excuse me, is that one of those expensive newfangled digital cameras that someone can grab out of your hands in half a second?
I could really use the easy-snap auto of the C-3000Z a lot of the time, and the shiftable program and matrix metering of the CP990 wounds me a little bit every time I think of it, but hey, I'm just a retro-guy who still has a Reynolds 531 road bike and to this day mourns the demise of Bridgestone's mountain bike line.
Notice how a "looks like a baby Ferrari" MR2 can get smoked by the boxy Volvo wagon? And how come that little red sports dart catches highway patrol sirens at 60mph while the drab grey box doesn't even look like it's really doing 120?
The G1 is about making images. But feel free to get the Ferragamo limited edition of the FinePix 6800z if you want something to go with your Prada outfit.
Having had an AE-1 in my formative years, I've only had P&S film cams recently (original Stylus, Elph Jr). When I discovered dpreview.com last year, the DSC-P1 review caught my eye - sleek and compact, but a little lopsided. Then the CP880 review - nice look, in elegant black - but limited aperture control. Then the G1 review - ooo baby! looks like grandpa's old don't-touch camera, the classic Leica rangefinder, brought into the digital age.
Go out shooting w/G1 in its' sem-hard leather case, and people will think you're limping along w/grandpa's lil'ol'man cam - they won't give you a second look, and you can shoot in peace. (Well, until you start using the camcorder-style LCD...) Where I live, unless you have bodyguards, flashing nice things in public is just asking for trouble. In my town, tourists w/SLR+telezooms around their necks are unknowingly saying, "Here is $2000 hanging around my neck on a flimsy little strap - it can be yours in 2 seconds." Saw a young lady the other day outside the grocery store, framing a shot w/a black rectangular twist-body cam - excuse me, is that one of those expensive newfangled digital cameras that someone can grab out of your hands in half a second?
I could really use the easy-snap auto of the C-3000Z a lot of the time, and the shiftable program and matrix metering of the CP990 wounds me a little bit every time I think of it, but hey, I'm just a retro-guy who still has a Reynolds 531 road bike and to this day mourns the demise of Bridgestone's mountain bike line.
Notice how a "looks like a baby Ferrari" MR2 can get smoked by the boxy Volvo wagon? And how come that little red sports dart catches highway patrol sirens at 60mph while the drab grey box doesn't even look like it's really doing 120?
The G1 is about making images. But feel free to get the Ferragamo limited edition of the FinePix 6800z if you want something to go with your Prada outfit.
As they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder... However some
things would rarely cause debate... like Julia Roberts or
or Jodi Foster etc etc.. Mark
Looks are very subjective. I think the G1 has a nice retro look
that I prefer to the current fad of making cameras that look like
they might jump into hyperspace at any moment.
Nick Knight
Active member
I guess that would depend on what you are buying a camera for. If you want something to accessorize your outfit, then it really doesn't matter what you get as long as it looks "cool" to your taste. On the other hand, if you're more interested in what comes out of the camera than surface appearance, the G1 is one beautiful piece of work.
It's inconspicuous, doesn't SHOUT "Steal this camera!", and, with a little practice, takes great photos.
It's inconspicuous, doesn't SHOUT "Steal this camera!", and, with a little practice, takes great photos.
D
Dave Lewis
Guest
Ugly!!! The Pro 70 was ugly. The G1 is a piece of art in comparison.
Jorge Gomez Azul
Member
Hey, I was not trying to make fun of the G1 owner who posted the original informative message. I truly have had people make fun of me, I have had to hide from people, I have had hot pixels in funny places too! Another photographer once tried to poke me when I whipped out my G1 in public. If anyone wants to help me start the G1 Support Group, I could use the help.
Martin Stefanus Tedjawardhana
Forum Enthusiast
Why not this?
I like simple, classical styles, rather than sexy, morden styles.
So I bought this:
Instead of this:
Plus, image quality is far more important.
Martin Stefanus Tedjawardhana
Forum Enthusiast
I thought it was ugly, until Rob said rangefinder..
These cameras dont have those beautiful curves, but they can create beautiful photos, have a class of their own and can drain one's pocket.
These cameras dont have those beautiful curves, but they can create beautiful photos, have a class of their own and can drain one's pocket.
Lolita46970
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, I live in NZ and today I had the opportunity to feel the G1 and the S75 in my hands.... Guys, It was love at first sight... The S75 is so hot and sexy and clean... on the other hand, on the G1 I was pushing buttons accidentally. G1 doesn't look "ugly" but compared with the S75...well.
I still haven't made up my mind about wich one to buy; but after today I'm more inclined towards the S75.
--Lolita
Les #39998
Forum Enthusiast
It's ugly and it takes "ugly" pictures. This one was no adjustments, except for resizing. Taken in "P" mode, spot metered close to rising sun to silouette city, handheld while coming into Ft Lauderdale at sunrise.
Les
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1661814&a=13006507&p=49524886&Sequence=0&res=high
Les
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1661814&a=13006507&p=49524886&Sequence=0&res=high
What a great looking camera the G1 is. Beautiful is a better word, Yeah that's it, it's beautiful.
Les #39998
Forum Enthusiast
Here is another with the "ugly" camera. Took it yesterday for photo record of wifes doll collection. Only resized and unsharp mask. Used 420EX flash with it.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1661814&a=12732254&p=49525218&Sequence=0&res=high
Les
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1661814&a=12732254&p=49525218&Sequence=0&res=high
Les
mark kay
Veteran Member
I am at a conference and was taking some photos and three people who knew me came up and said why dont you have a digital camera. I had to explain the G1 was digital but looks like an old 35mm. mark
Jorge47384
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 0
I totally agree, Canon G1 is one ugly camera, looks like a tin box, reminds me of old Kodak Brownie style cameras.
I really hope you don't put appearance before performance when you buy, well, anything but clothing. I don't care what it looks like, I care about what results it gives me.
Besides, if it's too "pretty" it'll draw attention to itself. I prefer to be more inconspicuous.
Besides, if it's too "pretty" it'll draw attention to itself. I prefer to be more inconspicuous.
Jorge47384
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 0
Andy:
Some people care about the total aesthetic experience of the Canon G1, including how it looks and how it feels in ones hands. I keep mine in a leather case.
Jorge
Some people care about the total aesthetic experience of the Canon G1, including how it looks and how it feels in ones hands. I keep mine in a leather case.
Jorge
But the lack of a handgrip is definitely a disadvantage of such a heavy compact camera. Is there anyone who know when Canon will have an upgraded model of G1?
Gosh, it is so fricken ugly that last evening I was at a community wide event shooting pictures and was almost thrown out of the event. Lucky I had my brick to defend myself with in case the crowd became really ugly. Can't believe that the newspaper is going to publish my photos too.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum