The G1 is Breaking my Heart!

• The G1 is small enough that I can take it with me and not be over conscious of the fact that I have a camera. This enables me take more pictures and say less often "Damn, I wish I had my camera"

• It takes good pictures most of the time. I certainly had my share under/over exposed and unfocused pictures from my 35mm.

• I get instant feedback. If I don't like the way a picture turned out, I reshoot, rather than waiting to develop the film and saying "Note to self: go back to location xxx and don't screw up this time"

• The twistable LCD is great! I recently took some waterfall shots off a small rock using a tripod. There was very little room for me to manuever behind the camera. If I was using my 35mm, I probably would not have taken the shot, for fear of falling off the rock trying to get my eye to the eyepiece. With the G1, I simply stood above the camera, swiveled the LCD and confidently took the picture.

• I've always wanted to do infrared photography, but never motivated myself to go through the hassle. Now, I just attach a filter and I'm doing IR!

Taz said:

By the way, Jorge is right...it's just the polite thing to do to
use the Find or Search feature on a forum before asking questions
on a subject that may have been covered previously. And use the
Search engine I did. I found post after post after post about the
dreaded hot/dead pixel. So much discussion going on about it that
I'm surprised the reviewer has not appended a note about it in his
review on this website.

A couple of posts in particular caught my attention. One was from
a chap in the Dominican Republic who said even though he knew some
G1s had this problem, he decided to "take a chance" anyway.
However, much to his dismay upon first usage he found his G1 also
had the same problem.

I am greatful for Jorge's and other's posts here that alerted me to
what is obviously a serious quality control problem at Cannon with
their otherwise superb digicam. Unlike the poor fellow above, I am
not willing to "take a chance" with a $1,000 worth of gear (i.e.,
by the time I buy the camera plus extras, that's probably what I'd
spend). Yes...one can always send it for repair or take it back to
the vendor, but what about the posts that talk about the problem
developing months down the road...perhaps even after the warranty
period? Not to mention the enormous inconvenience (my free time is
precious to me).

Click to expand...

nahau said:

Now considering that the first photo is not all that bad, (it is a
little dark)the second photo shows a lot more detail in the shadow
areas and the overall brightness is better. The reason I shot the
second photo with spot is because I wanted to use the spot window
as a "gauge" for centering on the little window of the far house so
that when I took the next photo with the B300, they would be framed
alike.



Now looking at your recently posted photo, it seems to be saying
"please help me!!"..."please expose me with spot metering!!" The
center of your photo is so much darker than the sky!



Now while the G1 does use center-weighted averaging, it is
"expected" to shoot the scene just the way it did for your photo.
The best way to achieve the correct exposure is to use spot
metering. In terms of 35mm SLR usage in the old days, the only way
you could do this (spot metering) was to walk up to your subject,
meter it, lock the exposure on the brightness of the subject, walk
back, reframe, then shoot. Spot metering allows you not to have to
do this. Instead, the camera gives you a specific metering choice
to choose the area to measure the exposure with.
Every camera that uses center-weight averaging will give similar
results with what you got. 35mm point and shoots will also give
the same results. Even Nikons, with their "supposedly" superior
metering will give the same results. If you need evidence of this,
I can point you to a site. These types of photos require some
"user" interface before exposure can be expected to come out
"acceptable". It's no different from shooting beach or snowy
mountain scenes where the overall brightness will cause
underexposure relative to available light. This is something "you"
need to consider in all your photographic efforts.
This is the reason I ask how much "real" photography you have done.
Anyone who has used 35mm SLRs to some extent would know by
"experience" that shooting this scene would have ended up the way
it did...or, not be bothered as much because of the way it turned
out.
From you postings, I assume you do not have this 35mm SLR
experience and that is why you struggle so much. If you need a
good book on photography, I recommend you buy and read National
Geographics Photography Field Guide (~$20). It is a highly
recommened book and one that I own. Even though I have been
shooting 35mm for over 25 years, this book brought back much of
what I had forgotten. Unfortunately, it does not cover digital
photography, but then that doesn't seem to be your problem. As
for your other issues, I have no comment.
By the way, your photo corrected with curves in photoshop:



nahau

Bob Williams said:

I agree and thanks for the kind words. It is real easy for people
to tell someone else to throw 800$ plus their extended warranty
away. My experience with the camera would not change what I
wrote in the above message tho, except maybe the metering
and focus parts. The other issues are common to all G-1's. I have
challenged anyone to post a named red rose with the original
file available with the exif intact. No one has done so. I would
then go get a correct color image and post it beside it. This is
a minor irritation tho beside not being able to count on any of
the images being usable. The posting I made earlier is a prime
example. At ISO 50, at 1pm this afternoon, the camera would not
allow a shutter speed fast enough to hand hold the camera at
full zoom. At ISO 100, the first 3 images are fine, but with little
detail. 40 feet or so shooting a 8 foot raft with five people in it
at full zoom. The next images are ok, taken at full zoom off a
bridge right over my wife, but again, the detail and shadow
blooming is bad. The very next shot is the one I posted. Like
I said, it may just be this camera, but I hear echoes of all the
same problems from others. My camera just seems to have all
of the problems at the same time. I am going to try a phone
call to Canon tomorrow and see if that is any more successful than
emailing support has been. If not, I will fix it so that the store
will replace it, one way or another.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian said:

nahau said:

Now considering that the first photo is not all that bad, (it is a
little dark)the second photo shows a lot more detail in the shadow
areas and the overall brightness is better. The reason I shot the
second photo with spot is because I wanted to use the spot window
as a "gauge" for centering on the little window of the far house so
that when I took the next photo with the B300, they would be framed
alike.



Now looking at your recently posted photo, it seems to be saying
"please help me!!"..."please expose me with spot metering!!" The
center of your photo is so much darker than the sky!



Now while the G1 does use center-weighted averaging, it is
"expected" to shoot the scene just the way it did for your photo.
The best way to achieve the correct exposure is to use spot
metering. In terms of 35mm SLR usage in the old days, the only way
you could do this (spot metering) was to walk up to your subject,
meter it, lock the exposure on the brightness of the subject, walk
back, reframe, then shoot. Spot metering allows you not to have to
do this. Instead, the camera gives you a specific metering choice
to choose the area to measure the exposure with.
Every camera that uses center-weight averaging will give similar
results with what you got. 35mm point and shoots will also give
the same results. Even Nikons, with their "supposedly" superior
metering will give the same results. If you need evidence of this,
I can point you to a site. These types of photos require some
"user" interface before exposure can be expected to come out
"acceptable". It's no different from shooting beach or snowy
mountain scenes where the overall brightness will cause
underexposure relative to available light. This is something "you"
need to consider in all your photographic efforts.
This is the reason I ask how much "real" photography you have done.
Anyone who has used 35mm SLRs to some extent would know by
"experience" that shooting this scene would have ended up the way
it did...or, not be bothered as much because of the way it turned
out.
From you postings, I assume you do not have this 35mm SLR
experience and that is why you struggle so much. If you need a
good book on photography, I recommend you buy and read National
Geographics Photography Field Guide (~$20). It is a highly
recommened book and one that I own. Even though I have been
shooting 35mm for over 25 years, this book brought back much of
what I had forgotten. Unfortunately, it does not cover digital
photography, but then that doesn't seem to be your problem. As
for your other issues, I have no comment.
By the way, your photo corrected with curves in photoshop:



nahau

Bob Williams said:

I agree and thanks for the kind words. It is real easy for people
to tell someone else to throw 800$ plus their extended warranty
away. My experience with the camera would not change what I
wrote in the above message tho, except maybe the metering
and focus parts. The other issues are common to all G-1's. I have
challenged anyone to post a named red rose with the original
file available with the exif intact. No one has done so. I would
then go get a correct color image and post it beside it. This is
a minor irritation tho beside not being able to count on any of
the images being usable. The posting I made earlier is a prime
example. At ISO 50, at 1pm this afternoon, the camera would not
allow a shutter speed fast enough to hand hold the camera at
full zoom. At ISO 100, the first 3 images are fine, but with little
detail. 40 feet or so shooting a 8 foot raft with five people in it
at full zoom. The next images are ok, taken at full zoom off a
bridge right over my wife, but again, the detail and shadow
blooming is bad. The very next shot is the one I posted. Like
I said, it may just be this camera, but I hear echoes of all the
same problems from others. My camera just seems to have all
of the problems at the same time. I am going to try a phone
call to Canon tomorrow and see if that is any more successful than
emailing support has been. If not, I will fix it so that the store
will replace it, one way or another.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Good examples- I wonder why so many people think pictures should
always be perfect "out of the box" 2 seconds of editing & Bobs shot
is perfect.
Just a small correction to your statement Almost ALL SLRs over the
basic entry level have spot meters. Though at least in the case of
Nikons matrix metering, they are seldom needed.

Click to expand...

nahau said:

Taz,
Normally, I never recommend this camera to people. For the simple
reason that I really feel that you need to have 35mm SLR experience
to fully understand and use this camera. There are many here for
whom the G1 is the "first ever camera" and they have done really
well. Then there are those who just suffer along because they
"expect" too much out of this technology. These people don't
understand that all "basic" photographic rules apply to digital as
well as film and thus get disappointed when their expectations are
not met. This of course is my personal feeling.

Click to expand...

Taz said:

To be more accurate, I probably should have put in the subject line
that the G1 AND Cannon are breaking my heart.

After reading tons of information, I begrudgingly began to accept
that digital technology could perhaps come pretty close to giving
my "old technology" SLR a run for it's money. So...I began to
reasearch cameras.

I read, and visited stores, talked to friends, and of course
finally found my way to this wonderful website (it is truly
organized in the finest manner I've ever seen).

In my research, I thought I had narrowed things down to two
cameras, neither of them Cannon's. But then I stumbled accross the
G1. From the moment I read over the features list, I knew it had
virtually everything that would fit my needs.

My continued research just got me more and more excited as I became
convinced I had found the perfect camera for my needs. Finally, my
mind was made up that I would be purchasing the G1 and it was time
to look for a vendor.

As luck would have it, I dropped in here to this forum before I
began my vendor search. For some reason, in my many visit's to DP
Review I had just never bothered to drop in. The first post I read
was from Jorge asking for a moritorium on posts about G1 's
hot/dead pixels. A moriturium, I wondered? Could there be so much
discussion going on about a common problem with the G1 that one of
the regular's was expressing his frustration with the sheer number
of posts?

By the way, Jorge is right...it's just the polite thing to do to
use the Find or Search feature on a forum before asking questions
on a subject that may have been covered previously. And use the
Search engine I did. I found post after post after post about the
dreaded hot/dead pixel. So much discussion going on about it that
I'm surprised the reviewer has not appended a note about it in his
review on this website.

A couple of posts in particular caught my attention. One was from
a chap in the Dominican Republic who said even though he knew some
G1s had this problem, he decided to "take a chance" anyway.
However, much to his dismay upon first usage he found his G1 also
had the same problem.

Then there was another post from someone that reported news of his
store in New Zeland doing quality control checking before placing
the cameras for sale. The implication being that, due to past
experience with how many of them had problems, they felt the need
to test their shipments.

I am greatful for Jorge's and other's posts here that alerted me to
what is obviously a serious quality control problem at Cannon with
their otherwise superb digicam. Unlike the poor fellow above, I am
not willing to "take a chance" with a $1,000 worth of gear (i.e.,
by the time I buy the camera plus extras, that's probably what I'd
spend). Yes...one can always send it for repair or take it back to
the vendor, but what about the posts that talk about the problem
developing months down the road...perhaps even after the warranty
period? Not to mention the enormous inconvenience (my free time is
precious to me).

This saddens me greatly as I felt the G1 was perfect in every way
for what I was looking for in a digicam. I could fall back to one
of my other two choices, but they frankly would always be
second-best to me and I'm not sure I'd be happy with it. I
probably will just go back to using my conventional gear and leave
the digital world alone...at least for awhile.

It is just too, too bad. Cannon makes some good products. But I
for one do not feel the consumer should be placed in a situatiion
where he or she is expected to "take a chance".

Click to expand...

Bob Williams said:

I do not have extensive photography experience. My AE-1
hasn't been touched in years. I do have enough experience
with digicams to know just how bad this one is, my third. I did
not choose this camera, and would not have. I recieved it
as a replacement for my last one that died. I am good enough
that the cameras limitations get in my way. I don't use auto mode.
That does not excuse the fact that I can not hand the camera to
my daughter, tell her how to prefocus and have her get good shots.
I haven't used anything but single focus and spot metering
since day two with the camera. Nahau, in case you did not notice,
there is no dark shadow area in that image, and no, you would
not have metered it differently, as the concrete and water area
was brighter than the sky that turned white. As it is, the spot was
on the so called wrongly metered part of the image. I notice your
camera did not do this. Want me to post one directly down on
water at close range so you can explain the blooming along my
wifes arms in the shadows? I take mostly nature shots, and not
being able to use the flash as fill on a f-4 1/400th shot is really
annoying. By the way, I don't have any stuck/dead pixels either.
No, all digicams do not suffer from the limitations of the G-1. If
you wish, I will post a f-2 x 1/1000's image from the Casio. I will
post a bright sunlit forest scene where fill flash was used to
properly expose the darker areas. I did not mention the magenta
cast problem, because it is not a problem for me. Not being able
to capture a red rose is. To the person that said to use macro
to keep the focus from being crazy, that is exactly where mine is
the worst. Now, to all of you that Canon has given so prompt
service, how come I can't even get an email answered? If there
is a Canon tech that comes here, where is the feedback on getting
support, or is it too much trouble for them also. I guess the people
posting here about their warranties being voided by a small ding in
the camera are lieing also, just to pick on the G-1. I got over
90 percent useful images out of my last digicam. People are still
asking for prints from it. No one has asked for a G-1 print. I
notice
no one even commented on the fact that using the great ISO
50 feature, that I could not get a shutter above 1/6th outdoors
on a bright altho not sunny afternoon. I have always stated that
it might just be my camera, and the problems with metering and
focus may be. The 1000's at f-8 only problem is in all of them.
The flash sync problem making the use of fill flash useless outdoors
is also real, and applies to all of them. I would love to have a
camera that I could use in p-mode and get even 60 percent decent
exposures. Instead, I have one that gives you about 20 percent
in p-mode. I don't want a cam that I have to use PhotoShop to
get the results that Nahau just posted using curves. I did not use
curves on it, as I wanted it to be an example of what the camera
does. I used auto levels so you could tell what the image was.
Yep, that is right. That was already a corrected image. If I
bother to use curves and edit an image, it will be a good image,
not that one that has about as much detail as my old Argus
640x480 would have had.The original was much worse than what I
posted. If this camera did what you people say yours do, you
would never see me here much except to post samples of the
latest batch of images.
It does not.

Click to expand...

Taz said:

To be more accurate, I probably should have put in the subject line
that the G1 AND Cannon are breaking my heart.

After reading tons of information, I begrudgingly began to accept
that digital technology could perhaps come pretty close to giving
my "old technology" SLR a run for it's money. So...I began to
reasearch cameras.

I read, and visited stores, talked to friends, and of course
finally found my way to this wonderful website (it is truly
organized in the finest manner I've ever seen).

In my research, I thought I had narrowed things down to two
cameras, neither of them Cannon's. But then I stumbled accross the
G1. From the moment I read over the features list, I knew it had
virtually everything that would fit my needs.

My continued research just got me more and more excited as I became
convinced I had found the perfect camera for my needs. Finally, my
mind was made up that I would be purchasing the G1 and it was time
to look for a vendor.

As luck would have it, I dropped in here to this forum before I
began my vendor search. For some reason, in my many visit's to DP
Review I had just never bothered to drop in. The first post I read
was from Jorge asking for a moritorium on posts about G1 's
hot/dead pixels. A moriturium, I wondered? Could there be so much
discussion going on about a common problem with the G1 that one of
the regular's was expressing his frustration with the sheer number
of posts?

By the way, Jorge is right...it's just the polite thing to do to
use the Find or Search feature on a forum before asking questions
on a subject that may have been covered previously. And use the
Search engine I did. I found post after post after post about the
dreaded hot/dead pixel. So much discussion going on about it that
I'm surprised the reviewer has not appended a note about it in his
review on this website.

A couple of posts in particular caught my attention. One was from
a chap in the Dominican Republic who said even though he knew some
G1s had this problem, he decided to "take a chance" anyway.
However, much to his dismay upon first usage he found his G1 also
had the same problem.

Then there was another post from someone that reported news of his
store in New Zeland doing quality control checking before placing
the cameras for sale. The implication being that, due to past
experience with how many of them had problems, they felt the need
to test their shipments.

I am greatful for Jorge's and other's posts here that alerted me to
what is obviously a serious quality control problem at Cannon with
their otherwise superb digicam. Unlike the poor fellow above, I am
not willing to "take a chance" with a $1,000 worth of gear (i.e.,
by the time I buy the camera plus extras, that's probably what I'd
spend). Yes...one can always send it for repair or take it back to
the vendor, but what about the posts that talk about the problem
developing months down the road...perhaps even after the warranty
period? Not to mention the enormous inconvenience (my free time is
precious to me).

This saddens me greatly as I felt the G1 was perfect in every way
for what I was looking for in a digicam. I could fall back to one
of my other two choices, but they frankly would always be
second-best to me and I'm not sure I'd be happy with it. I
probably will just go back to using my conventional gear and leave
the digital world alone...at least for awhile.

It is just too, too bad. Cannon makes some good products. But I
for one do not feel the consumer should be placed in a situatiion
where he or she is expected to "take a chance".

Click to expand...

nahau said:

Now what do you think went wrong with this nikon shot? Bad camera
or operator error??
You even ramble about the f2 1/1000 limitation that in a previous
post you admitted you knew about going in. What's that all about?
Get over it, the G1 wasn't designed to deliver!
If your situation were a real G1 issue affecting numerous users,
you would see many people posting the same things you
are…many people! Stop and look around this forum. While you
will see problems of all different sorts…NO ONE seems to have
as many problems as you do…all at the same time! This tends
to point to operator error...or a bad camera. Either that, or
people like myself just have exceptionally brainless prerequisite
G1’s that can magically work on their own.
I believe your obsession with your camera is clouding your better
judgement. Rather than being fair in your responses to inquiries,
you simply bash the camera. I have read many of your responses in
many forums and it is unfortunate that you will be responsible for
many good people buying something less capable than the G1. Your
experience is not typical, Bob and maybe you need to rethink what
damage your negative comments can cause. Of course, you will never
meet the people you have pushed toward another vendor, so maybe it
really doesn't matter if they turn out happy or not...does it?
I’m tired!

nahau

Bob Williams said:

I do not have extensive photography experience. My AE-1
hasn't been touched in years. I do have enough experience
with digicams to know just how bad this one is, my third. I did
not choose this camera, and would not have. I recieved it
as a replacement for my last one that died. I am good enough
that the cameras limitations get in my way. I don't use auto mode.
That does not excuse the fact that I can not hand the camera to
my daughter, tell her how to prefocus and have her get good shots.
I haven't used anything but single focus and spot metering
since day two with the camera. Nahau, in case you did not notice,
there is no dark shadow area in that image, and no, you would
not have metered it differently, as the concrete and water area
was brighter than the sky that turned white. As it is, the spot was
on the so called wrongly metered part of the image. I notice your
camera did not do this. Want me to post one directly down on
water at close range so you can explain the blooming along my
wifes arms in the shadows? I take mostly nature shots, and not
being able to use the flash as fill on a f-4 1/400th shot is really
annoying. By the way, I don't have any stuck/dead pixels either.
No, all digicams do not suffer from the limitations of the G-1. If
you wish, I will post a f-2 x 1/1000's image from the Casio. I will
post a bright sunlit forest scene where fill flash was used to
properly expose the darker areas. I did not mention the magenta
cast problem, because it is not a problem for me. Not being able
to capture a red rose is. To the person that said to use macro
to keep the focus from being crazy, that is exactly where mine is
the worst. Now, to all of you that Canon has given so prompt
service, how come I can't even get an email answered? If there
is a Canon tech that comes here, where is the feedback on getting
support, or is it too much trouble for them also. I guess the people
posting here about their warranties being voided by a small ding in
the camera are lieing also, just to pick on the G-1. I got over
90 percent useful images out of my last digicam. People are still
asking for prints from it. No one has asked for a G-1 print. I
notice
no one even commented on the fact that using the great ISO
50 feature, that I could not get a shutter above 1/6th outdoors
on a bright altho not sunny afternoon. I have always stated that
it might just be my camera, and the problems with metering and
focus may be. The 1000's at f-8 only problem is in all of them.
The flash sync problem making the use of fill flash useless outdoors
is also real, and applies to all of them. I would love to have a
camera that I could use in p-mode and get even 60 percent decent
exposures. Instead, I have one that gives you about 20 percent
in p-mode. I don't want a cam that I have to use PhotoShop to
get the results that Nahau just posted using curves. I did not use
curves on it, as I wanted it to be an example of what the camera
does. I used auto levels so you could tell what the image was.
Yep, that is right. That was already a corrected image. If I
bother to use curves and edit an image, it will be a good image,
not that one that has about as much detail as my old Argus
640x480 would have had.The original was much worse than what I
posted. If this camera did what you people say yours do, you
would never see me here much except to post samples of the
latest batch of images.
It does not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Taz said:

To be more accurate, I probably should have put in the subject line
that the G1 AND Cannon are breaking my heart.

After reading tons of information, I begrudgingly began to accept
that digital technology could perhaps come pretty close to giving
my "old technology" SLR a run for it's money. So...I began to
reasearch cameras.

I read, and visited stores, talked to friends, and of course
finally found my way to this wonderful website (it is truly
organized in the finest manner I've ever seen).

In my research, I thought I had narrowed things down to two
cameras, neither of them Cannon's. But then I stumbled accross the
G1. From the moment I read over the features list, I knew it had
virtually everything that would fit my needs.

My continued research just got me more and more excited as I became
convinced I had found the perfect camera for my needs. Finally, my
mind was made up that I would be purchasing the G1 and it was time
to look for a vendor.

As luck would have it, I dropped in here to this forum before I
began my vendor search. For some reason, in my many visit's to DP
Review I had just never bothered to drop in. The first post I read
was from Jorge asking for a moritorium on posts about G1 's
hot/dead pixels. A moriturium, I wondered? Could there be so much
discussion going on about a common problem with the G1 that one of
the regular's was expressing his frustration with the sheer number
of posts?

By the way, Jorge is right...it's just the polite thing to do to
use the Find or Search feature on a forum before asking questions
on a subject that may have been covered previously. And use the
Search engine I did. I found post after post after post about the
dreaded hot/dead pixel. So much discussion going on about it that
I'm surprised the reviewer has not appended a note about it in his
review on this website.

A couple of posts in particular caught my attention. One was from
a chap in the Dominican Republic who said even though he knew some
G1s had this problem, he decided to "take a chance" anyway.
However, much to his dismay upon first usage he found his G1 also
had the same problem.

Then there was another post from someone that reported news of his
store in New Zeland doing quality control checking before placing
the cameras for sale. The implication being that, due to past
experience with how many of them had problems, they felt the need
to test their shipments.

I am greatful for Jorge's and other's posts here that alerted me to
what is obviously a serious quality control problem at Cannon with
their otherwise superb digicam. Unlike the poor fellow above, I am
not willing to "take a chance" with a $1,000 worth of gear (i.e.,
by the time I buy the camera plus extras, that's probably what I'd
spend). Yes...one can always send it for repair or take it back to
the vendor, but what about the posts that talk about the problem
developing months down the road...perhaps even after the warranty
period? Not to mention the enormous inconvenience (my free time is
precious to me).

This saddens me greatly as I felt the G1 was perfect in every way
for what I was looking for in a digicam. I could fall back to one
of my other two choices, but they frankly would always be
second-best to me and I'm not sure I'd be happy with it. I
probably will just go back to using my conventional gear and leave
the digital world alone...at least for awhile.

It is just too, too bad. Cannon makes some good products. But I
for one do not feel the consumer should be placed in a situatiion
where he or she is expected to "take a chance".

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Thanks for all the insights and helps you give to this forum. I
find myself learning alot from your comments to Bob. Please
realize that even when people like Bob refuse to hear others like
myself do. I am so glad there weren't any Bob's around when I
bought my G1. I might have bought a different camera.

Thanks again.

Grant

P.S. How do you post pictures on this forum? I did a search but
came up empty.

nahau said:

Now what do you think went wrong with this nikon shot? Bad camera
or operator error??
You even ramble about the f2 1/1000 limitation that in a previous
post you admitted you knew about going in. What's that all about?
Get over it, the G1 wasn't designed to deliver!
If your situation were a real G1 issue affecting numerous users,
you would see many people posting the same things you
are…many people! Stop and look around this forum. While you
will see problems of all different sorts…NO ONE seems to have
as many problems as you do…all at the same time! This tends
to point to operator error...or a bad camera. Either that, or
people like myself just have exceptionally brainless prerequisite
G1’s that can magically work on their own.
I believe your obsession with your camera is clouding your better
judgement. Rather than being fair in your responses to inquiries,
you simply bash the camera. I have read many of your responses in
many forums and it is unfortunate that you will be responsible for
many good people buying something less capable than the G1. Your
experience is not typical, Bob and maybe you need to rethink what
damage your negative comments can cause. Of course, you will never
meet the people you have pushed toward another vendor, so maybe it
really doesn't matter if they turn out happy or not...does it?
I’m tired!

nahau

Bob Williams said:

I do not have extensive photography experience. My AE-1
hasn't been touched in years. I do have enough experience
with digicams to know just how bad this one is, my third. I did
not choose this camera, and would not have. I recieved it
as a replacement for my last one that died. I am good enough
that the cameras limitations get in my way. I don't use auto mode.
That does not excuse the fact that I can not hand the camera to
my daughter, tell her how to prefocus and have her get good shots.
I haven't used anything but single focus and spot metering
since day two with the camera. Nahau, in case you did not notice,
there is no dark shadow area in that image, and no, you would
not have metered it differently, as the concrete and water area
was brighter than the sky that turned white. As it is, the spot was
on the so called wrongly metered part of the image. I notice your
camera did not do this. Want me to post one directly down on
water at close range so you can explain the blooming along my
wifes arms in the shadows? I take mostly nature shots, and not
being able to use the flash as fill on a f-4 1/400th shot is really
annoying. By the way, I don't have any stuck/dead pixels either.
No, all digicams do not suffer from the limitations of the G-1. If
you wish, I will post a f-2 x 1/1000's image from the Casio. I will
post a bright sunlit forest scene where fill flash was used to
properly expose the darker areas. I did not mention the magenta
cast problem, because it is not a problem for me. Not being able
to capture a red rose is. To the person that said to use macro
to keep the focus from being crazy, that is exactly where mine is
the worst. Now, to all of you that Canon has given so prompt
service, how come I can't even get an email answered? If there
is a Canon tech that comes here, where is the feedback on getting
support, or is it too much trouble for them also. I guess the people
posting here about their warranties being voided by a small ding in
the camera are lieing also, just to pick on the G-1. I got over
90 percent useful images out of my last digicam. People are still
asking for prints from it. No one has asked for a G-1 print. I
notice
no one even commented on the fact that using the great ISO
50 feature, that I could not get a shutter above 1/6th outdoors
on a bright altho not sunny afternoon. I have always stated that
it might just be my camera, and the problems with metering and
focus may be. The 1000's at f-8 only problem is in all of them.
The flash sync problem making the use of fill flash useless outdoors
is also real, and applies to all of them. I would love to have a
camera that I could use in p-mode and get even 60 percent decent
exposures. Instead, I have one that gives you about 20 percent
in p-mode. I don't want a cam that I have to use PhotoShop to
get the results that Nahau just posted using curves. I did not use
curves on it, as I wanted it to be an example of what the camera
does. I used auto levels so you could tell what the image was.
Yep, that is right. That was already a corrected image. If I
bother to use curves and edit an image, it will be a good image,
not that one that has about as much detail as my old Argus
640x480 would have had.The original was much worse than what I
posted. If this camera did what you people say yours do, you
would never see me here much except to post samples of the
latest batch of images.
It does not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Richard35285 said:

2. The focus mechanism that is used in the G1 is for all practocal
pirposes identical to that used in all "prosumer" digicams (Minolta
D5 and D7 are exceptions). It is designed to work on determination
of maximum contrast, and while this method does occasionally turn
out a bad pic, most of them will be at least as useable as those
from an inexpensive fixed-focus ("focus free?") film camera. I do
wish, however, that Canon had allowed better focal zone control.
It doesn't really take much effort to override the autofocus's
selection and switch to manual, adding about 2 seconds to the shot,
but it shouldn't need to be done. The problem is, really, that
most of the cameras based on this lens and contrast-maximization
technique will exhibit this problem to some degree or other. I ran
into it quite a bit whem I first got my Iron Maiden, but now I
hardly ever see the problem anymore. For one thing, I will use
macro mode for my portrait shots so that there is no way the camera
can focus on the background. I usually don't like my subjects to
stand right up against the background anyway, preferring to have a
softer background.

Click to expand...

Richard35285 said:

4. The metering, while IMO is weak, can be controlled easily,
certainly much more so that on most other digicams. It is the same
metering problem that has existed for the past 15 years, trying to
create a pic with overall intesity of 18% gray. The problem isn't
the metering, it's the limitation of 8-bit pixel depth and the
limits this imposes on dynamic range. Shoot in RAW to get 10-bit
depth to get better control if this is a problem for you. There
have been reports of "magenta cast" but I have experienced this
only in mixed-lighting (mixed frequency or color temperature)
situations, and almost any digicam in the same circumstances would
do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Richard35285 said:

Just my two cents...

--rhb

Bob Williams said:

Taz, the dead pixel problem is just the beginning. The focus does
not work reliably. The flash will only sync to 250. The metering is
positively horrible. The fastest shutter without f-8 is 1/500th. If
you put the slightest ding in it the warranty is void. Canon support
will not even return an email. Flash only at wide open shutter.
Forget fill flash on any bright picture. The camera is incapable of
capturing a red rose that actually is the color of the rose. You can
get red with some work, but not the proper red. The Auto mode
is a joke. This camera can capture good images. The results are
strictly on you unless you are attempting to take perfect situation
pictures tho. In todays digital camera world, it is about as bad
as it
gets.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bob Williams said:

Brian said:

nahau said:

Now considering that the first photo is not all that bad, (it is a
little dark)the second photo shows a lot more detail in the shadow
areas and the overall brightness is better. The reason I shot the
second photo with spot is because I wanted to use the spot window
as a "gauge" for centering on the little window of the far house so
that when I took the next photo with the B300, they would be framed
alike.



Now looking at your recently posted photo, it seems to be saying
"please help me!!"..."please expose me with spot metering!!" The
center of your photo is so much darker than the sky!



Now while the G1 does use center-weighted averaging, it is
"expected" to shoot the scene just the way it did for your photo.
The best way to achieve the correct exposure is to use spot
metering. In terms of 35mm SLR usage in the old days, the only way
you could do this (spot metering) was to walk up to your subject,
meter it, lock the exposure on the brightness of the subject, walk
back, reframe, then shoot. Spot metering allows you not to have to
do this. Instead, the camera gives you a specific metering choice
to choose the area to measure the exposure with.
Every camera that uses center-weight averaging will give similar
results with what you got. 35mm point and shoots will also give
the same results. Even Nikons, with their "supposedly" superior
metering will give the same results. If you need evidence of this,
I can point you to a site. These types of photos require some
"user" interface before exposure can be expected to come out
"acceptable". It's no different from shooting beach or snowy
mountain scenes where the overall brightness will cause
underexposure relative to available light. This is something "you"
need to consider in all your photographic efforts.
This is the reason I ask how much "real" photography you have done.
Anyone who has used 35mm SLRs to some extent would know by
"experience" that shooting this scene would have ended up the way
it did...or, not be bothered as much because of the way it turned
out.
From you postings, I assume you do not have this 35mm SLR
experience and that is why you struggle so much. If you need a
good book on photography, I recommend you buy and read National
Geographics Photography Field Guide (~$20). It is a highly
recommened book and one that I own. Even though I have been
shooting 35mm for over 25 years, this book brought back much of
what I had forgotten. Unfortunately, it does not cover digital
photography, but then that doesn't seem to be your problem. As
for your other issues, I have no comment.
By the way, your photo corrected with curves in photoshop:



nahau

Bob Williams said:

I agree and thanks for the kind words. It is real easy for people
to tell someone else to throw 800$ plus their extended warranty
away. My experience with the camera would not change what I
wrote in the above message tho, except maybe the metering
and focus parts. The other issues are common to all G-1's. I have
challenged anyone to post a named red rose with the original
file available with the exif intact. No one has done so. I would
then go get a correct color image and post it beside it. This is
a minor irritation tho beside not being able to count on any of
the images being usable. The posting I made earlier is a prime
example. At ISO 50, at 1pm this afternoon, the camera would not
allow a shutter speed fast enough to hand hold the camera at
full zoom. At ISO 100, the first 3 images are fine, but with little
detail. 40 feet or so shooting a 8 foot raft with five people in it
at full zoom. The next images are ok, taken at full zoom off a
bridge right over my wife, but again, the detail and shadow
blooming is bad. The very next shot is the one I posted. Like
I said, it may just be this camera, but I hear echoes of all the
same problems from others. My camera just seems to have all
of the problems at the same time. I am going to try a phone
call to Canon tomorrow and see if that is any more successful than
emailing support has been. If not, I will fix it so that the store
will replace it, one way or another.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Good examples- I wonder why so many people think pictures should
always be perfect "out of the box" 2 seconds of editing & Bobs shot
is perfect.
Just a small correction to your statement Almost ALL SLRs over the
basic entry level have spot meters. Though at least in the case of
Nikons matrix metering, they are seldom needed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

eg said:

nahau said:

Taz,
Normally, I never recommend this camera to people. For the simple
reason that I really feel that you need to have 35mm SLR experience
to fully understand and use this camera. There are many here for
whom the G1 is the "first ever camera" and they have done really
well. Then there are those who just suffer along because they
"expect" too much out of this technology. These people don't
understand that all "basic" photographic rules apply to digital as
well as film and thus get disappointed when their expectations are
not met. This of course is my personal feeling.

Click to expand...

I've said this before, but I have seen hundreds of truly awful
pictures taken with 35mm film P&S cameras. Lousy focus, lousy
exposure. And don't get me started on APS.

Yet the people who take these awful pictures are perfectly
satisfied. What happens when someone picks up a G1? Do they
suddenly expect perfect results when they haven't taken a decent
picture before?

I'm not saying everyone who complains in this forum about the G1
fits this profile, but there does seem to be an unrealistic
expectation from some.

Click to expand...

Taz said:

To be more accurate, I probably should have put in the subject line
that the G1 AND Cannon are breaking my heart.

It is just too, too bad. Cannon makes some good products. But I
for one do not feel the consumer should be placed in a situatiion
where he or she is expected to "take a chance".

Click to expand...