Serious G1 Deficiency Overlooked by Product Reviews

Hi Bob,

I think it's not so much that problems cannot be discussed here, it's more that some people don't see a problem to be as bad as others do. Take the metering of this camera for instance. To me it meters exactly the way I expect it to... for you, it basically sucks! Is it a "real" problem with the camera, or is it a "user" preference problem. That six flags structure photo is a prime example of how different users can look at things.

It's the same with this focus issue. To me it is a non-issue ...and to some others, judging from their responses, it is also a non-issue, but for you and some others, it is a huge issue. So who is correct in stating one way or the other?

I have taken almost 7000 shots now and given that I no longer need to buy film and have someone else blotch up my photos during processing is something I gladly will pay with a few out of focus shots. I honestly don't think I have seen even 1% of all my shots out of focus... that's 70 photos out of 7000! I have to admit though that I never really thought to count them.

Surely back in the days when I shot film it was not uncommon that I would walk away with far more unsatisfactory shots due to any miriad of reasons including missed focus.

Every camera is "challenged" in one way or the other. None are perfect. I know I didn't need to say that but it seems sometimes some people really get bummed out because the G1 "isn't" perfect. How much can we expect from this camera anyways? I can bet that many here did not buy the cp9xx series cameras simply because of the red-eye problem. There are trade offs everywhere we turn, so what are we to do?

I never see this forum as one that hides things. In fact it has brought out so many good workarounds for it's users. Just because I don't agree that there is a focus problem, or an exposure problem doesn't mean there isn't one for you or Don, but I really don't feel I'm "hiding" anything.
nahau

Bob Williams said:

I have just re-read this thread. It is becoming clear that you
can not discuss anything about the G-1 that might be seen as
a fault on this forum. If it looks bad for the G-1, even if every
single owner knows it to be true, you are not supposed to
mention it. You might scare someone off from buying the same
problem that is bugging you, and somehow, this is a bad thing.
Why is that? Why is it that honest discussion about this camera
is met with replies like, "This is an adults camera". It is just
plain
simple fact that in several ways, the G-1 is less than ideal. Sharing
this information, and discussing ways to make the camera get
around the problems would seem to be the point of being here,
not something to try to hide. I have taken a lot of hits for posting
about the problems, but with the help of a few people, I have
found workable solutions to most of the problems. Now, if
someone wants to get a good shot of a named red rose, and
post it with the EXIF intact, and then explain how they acheived it,
I for one would be very grateful. If they can get the shot, and
give a good explaination of how they edited it and kept it looking
like the correct variety, that would be helpful also, especially if it
is a process that everyone can use. A very small group of people
actually own and use PS. Quit covering the problems up, and
denying they exist. Share the proper methods on how to work
around them, so the problems become less of a problem. Quit
attacking those that tell the truth about this camera.

Click to expand...

Bob.. I've responded to you before, but I'll try to offer a slightly different "slant' this time so as to perhaps have you understand my concerns with your postings.

I totally agree with you that openly raising and discussing problems with the G1 is not only appropriate, but desireable. KEEP DOING IT. Again, so you clearly understand .. I AGREE WITH YOU. I enjoy my G1 and for me, it Has provided many many very high quality photos, but I also see a number of faults. I love learning from others how to work around these issues. I'm absolutely convinced however, that these and/or other problems exist on ALL other cameras.

My concern is in that all important area called "balance". I come from a business background. I have participated in discussions with extremely high level people with superior subject area expertise, who just never quite were able to get their point across.. and for one reason.. they were constantly negative. Please take my comments constructively and try not to get upset, but I have followed many of the postings on here and you seem to delight in always focusing (pun intended.. lol) on the worst of the G1. Surely you have found some positives. Surely you have something good to say. In the end it boils down to credibility. Those who exhibit balance and can see from multi directions, build credibility. Those who seem to salivate in pounding away at the negative.. well.. remember the story of "Chicken Little'?

Despite my comments, i do enjoy your insight.. i just know.. before it happens, that when I see a critical posting or thread.. that you will eventually be 'piling on" with a negative view.

Bob Williams said:

Don T said:

I am embarrassed to admit that after owning my G1 or more than six
months it is only now that I have come to realize the G1’s
autofocus deficiency. This is no minor problem, unlike the magenta
overcast, which is easily fixed with an editing program. There is
no easy fix for a camera that has a very weak autofocus system.

Rather than explain the problem in my own words, please read the
exert that I have extracted from Kevin Bjorkes discussion on G1
autofocus (botzilla.com):
Autofocus
“The G1 appears to use a contrast-based AF system. It also
appears to use the entire frame to measure contrast. In other
words, the contrast of pixels along the edges and in the corners
are given just as much importance by the AF system as pixels near
the center.
This uncentered approach has serious consequences for autofocus use
on real scenes. While it's fine for landscapes and may even do well
for group shots, what about a head-and-shoulders portrait?

Canon's G1 manual mentions "autofocus crosshairs" on page 38, but
this is simply wrong they're in the optical finder and clearly have
nothing to do with the Autofocus. What's more, they may give you
the impression that the AF is concentrating on the area of the
crosshairs (like the "target marks" did on the previous Canon
design, the Pro 70) and that's simply not true

The Pro 90 also has a "target bracket" area, which might actually
do something (it's part of the EVF and LCD, not the optical
finder). But both the G1 and Pro 90 manuals claim weakness to
"Subjects with extremely low contrast to the surroundings." Even
the A20 has AF brackets why does the G1 have this crippled system?
Is it some failed prototype of the A20's AiAF ?”

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.
Had I known this at the time I was ready to buy I would have bought
a different camera. (Probably a Nikon 990/995)
One might ask why didn’t I notice this “flaw”
earlier? I have taken many in-focus pictures with the G1 because
the autofocus works adequately for many conditions considering the
very generous depth of fields associated with short focal length
lenses. In fact the focal length of most digital camera lenses are
so short, you could get by with fixed focus for many of your
routine shots. It is in those difficult shots where you most need
the autofocus as for example macros or views with both foreground
and distant objects in the field of view.
There are workarounds using contrast targets or switching between
digital zoom and manual focus (see discussion on botzilla.com ) but
these shouldn’t be needed with a camera of this quality.

Conclusion:
For most of us who have invested so much in the G1 it is a little
too late to do much about it. We will just have to learn how to
live with it and hope Canon will fix the problem on a subsequent
update. I doubt if it can be fixed without some hardware changes.
First Canon has to acknowledge that a problem even exists.
For those considering a G1, give this some thought before you buy.
There are cameras with better auto focus systems.
Don T

--
Donald T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Don T said:

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.

Click to expand...

That's the key here. "If Kevin is correct," which he is not. As a matter of fact, he has no evidence for his conclusion that the G1 uses the full frame for focusing.

It may appear random where the G1 focuses, but I ask you to do yourself an experiment. Try and see where your focus is by maybe focusing on a newspaper shot diagonally at full aperture.

The truth is that the G1 may not focus at the true center of the frame... in my case, it's a little higher than center, and since I know that, I never miss a focus... EVER. When in closer than 3 feet or so, I need to switch to macro mode to have the focus anywhere near the center, but that works perfectly.

Try it yourself. Don't just take the word of someone who used to be high on the G1, then ran from the bandwagon for some reason.

Hmm, perhaps I can say something like "the G1 has a chewy marshmallow center." It must be true if you "have no reason to doubt me."

Bryan

Bob Williams said:

I have just re-read this thread. It is becoming clear that you
can not discuss anything about the G-1 that might be seen as
a fault on this forum. If it looks bad for the G-1, even if every
single owner knows it to be true, you are not supposed to
mention it. You might scare someone off from buying the same
problem that is bugging you, and somehow, this is a bad thing.
Why is that? Why is it that honest discussion about this camera
is met with replies like, "This is an adults camera". It is just
plain
simple fact that in several ways, the G-1 is less than ideal. Sharing
this information, and discussing ways to make the camera get
around the problems would seem to be the point of being here,
not something to try to hide. I have taken a lot of hits for posting
about the problems, but with the help of a few people, I have
found workable solutions to most of the problems. Now, if
someone wants to get a good shot of a named red rose, and
post it with the EXIF intact, and then explain how they acheived it,
I for one would be very grateful. If they can get the shot, and
give a good explaination of how they edited it and kept it looking
like the correct variety, that would be helpful also, especially if it
is a process that everyone can use. A very small group of people
actually own and use PS. Quit covering the problems up, and
denying they exist. Share the proper methods on how to work
around them, so the problems become less of a problem. Quit
attacking those that tell the truth about this camera.

Click to expand...

Bob, your problems with the G1 and your posts have become legendary to me on this forum. It is a little like the black grandmother who, in the sixties, had a racial problem with a drinking fountain? a bus? , my memory escapes me, who said, "Not no, but Hell no!" and started the whole civil rights movement in America. She was not a hero until many years later and was castigated at every turn during her lifetime.

I hope your crusade, and Crusade it must be judging by your many, many posts, has fruit long before hers did. Hell, if I was Canon, I would offer you the pick of the litter just to shut you up!

But, it doesn't work that way. You have broken major negative ground and have more listeners than you may think. I have seen your name on a HOT thread and thought, "Let's see what Bob "Anti-G1" Williams has to say about this." I have read your thread and had to admit you have countless good points. But I didn't want to hear it because you are right and I was fooled. It is all a matter of trust.

I TRUSTED Phil Askey and his in-depth review that ranked the G1 above the 990 and rated it "highly recommended". I didn't know what I expected but wanted the best for my money. I TRUSTED I was on the best site and the best review to find out.

I TRUSTED in Canon. I have always been a Nikon fan but appreciated the Canon SLR's and their cutting edge approach to photography. Their silence to this forum is very, very, very disturbing to me. They have my money, why should they care? I got a CCD that wasn't theirs, a lens that wasn't theirs, a focusing and metering system already proven to be inferior in the digi market, and ZoomBrowzer. All this for only $800.

Because of my TRUST, I was so excited when I placed my G1 order, opened the box, read the manual, and proceeded to take some of the most disappointing shots I have ever taken in my life. What was I expecting? Instant photographer-in-a-box? "You ain't from around here, are you, boy?".

I now TRUST the good folks on this forum who have helped me turn a disaster decision fraught with loads of denial into a workable solution that may, with lots of trial and error, yield a post in the future. Or not. Pride is a bitter pill to swallow.

My point is, thank you Bob for your courage to stick with your convictions that we have all been duped by Canon's claims and their refusal to even admit they have a problem. But, like most of life's problems, we have all learned to work around the G1 and take some great shots with each others' help. For those of you who see your role as a helper rather than a revealer, thank you, thank you.

Three years ago I bought my Nikon Coolpix 900 and have taken about 8000 pics with it.

Seven Months ago I bought my Canon G1 and have taken about 1500 pics.

I find the G1 is (as expected) a huge improvement over my cp900 with one exception. My cp900 has much, much, much, much better autofocus capabilities.

I agree completely with Don T. Maybe posts like his will keep others from making the same mistake I made in purchasing the G1.

Actually what I see is a healthy exchanging of opinions. The reason people respond with a rebuttal is because they might have a different experience. It is also true that not all G1s are created the same. I know that it's sad that they're not and we wished they were. It may be a badly created G1 after all! I think it's all down to personal preference. Just my 2cents.

Roni

Bob Williams said:

Don T said:

I am embarrassed to admit that after owning my G1 or more than six
months it is only now that I have come to realize the G1’s
autofocus deficiency. This is no minor problem, unlike the magenta
overcast, which is easily fixed with an editing program. There is
no easy fix for a camera that has a very weak autofocus system.

Rather than explain the problem in my own words, please read the
exert that I have extracted from Kevin Bjorkes discussion on G1
autofocus (botzilla.com):
Autofocus
“The G1 appears to use a contrast-based AF system. It also
appears to use the entire frame to measure contrast. In other
words, the contrast of pixels along the edges and in the corners
are given just as much importance by the AF system as pixels near
the center.
This uncentered approach has serious consequences for autofocus use
on real scenes. While it's fine for landscapes and may even do well
for group shots, what about a head-and-shoulders portrait?

Canon's G1 manual mentions "autofocus crosshairs" on page 38, but
this is simply wrong they're in the optical finder and clearly have
nothing to do with the Autofocus. What's more, they may give you
the impression that the AF is concentrating on the area of the
crosshairs (like the "target marks" did on the previous Canon
design, the Pro 70) and that's simply not true

The Pro 90 also has a "target bracket" area, which might actually
do something (it's part of the EVF and LCD, not the optical
finder). But both the G1 and Pro 90 manuals claim weakness to
"Subjects with extremely low contrast to the surroundings." Even
the A20 has AF brackets why does the G1 have this crippled system?
Is it some failed prototype of the A20's AiAF ?”

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.
Had I known this at the time I was ready to buy I would have bought
a different camera. (Probably a Nikon 990/995)
One might ask why didn’t I notice this “flaw”
earlier? I have taken many in-focus pictures with the G1 because
the autofocus works adequately for many conditions considering the
very generous depth of fields associated with short focal length
lenses. In fact the focal length of most digital camera lenses are
so short, you could get by with fixed focus for many of your
routine shots. It is in those difficult shots where you most need
the autofocus as for example macros or views with both foreground
and distant objects in the field of view.
There are workarounds using contrast targets or switching between
digital zoom and manual focus (see discussion on botzilla.com ) but
these shouldn’t be needed with a camera of this quality.

Conclusion:
For most of us who have invested so much in the G1 it is a little
too late to do much about it. We will just have to learn how to
live with it and hope Canon will fix the problem on a subsequent
update. I doubt if it can be fixed without some hardware changes.
First Canon has to acknowledge that a problem even exists.
For those considering a G1, give this some thought before you buy.
There are cameras with better auto focus systems.
Don T

--
Donald T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I still get frustrated with the camera. Talk to me right after I try
to capture a show quality red rose, and I might throw the camera
at you. I have tried to stop being so negative, as my post in this
thread shows. The downside of the G-1 is balanced by it's upside.
The focus assist lamp, hotshoe, swiveling LCD, and ISO 50 are
very good features. Once you are used to the quirks, you can
get very good images with the camera. I even recommended it
in another thread where the person was looking for a portrait/
full body shot camera for shooting pictures in a controled setting.
The hotshoe, swiveling lcd, and ISO 50 would have made it
maybe the best of the consumer grade cameras for her purpose.
The pink skys are a major sore spot for me, but I know that there
are ways to get around most of that problem. The focus is
a biggy, but again, once you know it, there are workarounds that
work very well. I refuse to memorize long chains of commands to
make sure of that focus, so I have to accept the results if it is
wrong. Thanks to the people that actually took the time to
explain that option in case it is needed for a shot that has to be
right. Once you get to spot mode all the time, and know to
meter the right type of light for the image you are taking, the
meter isn't a problem anymore. Those first few days can be a
real pain tho. I still have not figured a good way to use fill
flash in the day for my woods shots, but that will also be figured
out if possible. In other words, I can use the camera today.
Much of that is due to advice from people here. It is still not the
camera for my wife, or any basic point and shooter, but it doesn't
have to be, unless we recommend it to beginners without a full
explaination of the learning curve, letting them know that if they
don't want to learn to use it, to buy another camera. Doing so
is doing the exact same thing that the reviews did. In defense
of the reviewers, they had the camera for a very short time, and
this thread was started by someone that had just run into the
focus bug at six months. The reviewers may not have hit the
situations where the problem is bad. In my case, the bark mulch
behind a rose is the worst situation for it I have found. If we
blindly tell people that it is the best, then we are helping nothing
and no one. The slow shutter speeds I hit are a problem, but not
for the reason I thought. Going back over the Casio shots shows
the difference very clearly. I can't hold this camera as still as I could
the Casio, so the slow shutters cause me more problems with it.
That is my hands and the camera. For someone else, that may not
be a problem. Making or buying a handgrip would help. My post
wasn't about the bad in the camera, but more about us working
together to get around those problems. I posted about this in
another forum yesterday. Same problem I had. Coming from the
Casio to the D-7 instead. If you come from a SLR background, the
G-1 seems to make sense. If you come from the Casio, or another
digicam that had better metering and an AF that worked for you,
the G-1 can seem like a brick with a lens. It will take good pictures.
It is usable. It has the potential to take the very best pictures of
all the 3.3 consumer grade cameras. Lets discuss how to get those
shots. How do we get decent red rose shots? How do we keep
pleasing skys and still expose our subject? Is there an easier way
to counter the focus bug that doesn't require manual focus? How
do we deal with pink skys when they happen? I am not being
negative. I am trying to be positive. Maybe I am becoming a little
sensitive to seeing people blown off by many if they want to
discuss these problems. If I am, I apologize. I am very grateful
for the help a few of you have given. Lets just discuss the ways
to use the camera, and that includes the workarounds for the
problems. That does include mentioning the problems, and it
will also include listening to people blow off stream during the
times when the camera really looks like a brick with a lens on it
to them. To Bryan. If you think I am complaining about the
G-1 missing a rose that is a small part of the image, and focusing
on the mulch behind it 5 feet, then you are wrong. I take the
rose shots as close to full frame as possible. It has happened
when the mulch or foliage could only be seen at the corners of
the image. No focus point explaination you can come up with
covers what happens, unless my G-1 focuses in one of the
corners of the image. That is obviously not true. It just misses
sometimes and focuses on the wrong thing when there is
better contrast in another part of the image, and that item
can be all the way in the corner of a shot.

Bryan Siverly said:

Don T said:

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.

Click to expand...

That's the key here. "If Kevin is correct," which he is not. As a
matter of fact, he has no evidence for his conclusion that the G1
uses the full frame for focusing.

It may appear random where the G1 focuses, but I ask you to do
yourself an experiment. Try and see where your focus is by maybe
focusing on a newspaper shot diagonally at full aperture.

The truth is that the G1 may not focus at the true center of the
frame... in my case, it's a little higher than center, and since I
know that, I never miss a focus... EVER. When in closer than 3
feet or so, I need to switch to macro mode to have the focus
anywhere near the center, but that works perfectly.

Try it yourself. Don't just take the word of someone who used to
be high on the G1, then ran from the bandwagon for some reason.

Hmm, perhaps I can say something like "the G1 has a chewy
marshmallow center." It must be true if you "have no reason to
doubt me."

Bryan

Click to expand...

Bryan Siverly said:

Don T said:

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.

Click to expand...

That's the key here. "If Kevin is correct," which he is not. As a
matter of fact, he has no evidence for his conclusion that the G1
uses the full frame for focusing.

It may appear random where the G1 focuses, but I ask you to do
yourself an experiment. Try and see where your focus is by maybe
focusing on a newspaper shot diagonally at full aperture.

The truth is that the G1 may not focus at the true center of the
frame... in my case, it's a little higher than center, and since I
know that, I never miss a focus... EVER. When in closer than 3
feet or so, I need to switch to macro mode to have the focus
anywhere near the center, but that works perfectly.

Try it yourself. Don't just take the word of someone who used to
be high on the G1, then ran from the bandwagon for some reason.

Hmm, perhaps I can say something like "the G1 has a chewy
marshmallow center." It must be true if you "have no reason to
doubt me."

Bryan

Click to expand...

Bryan,
I think you miss the point about the focusing problem that I was making.
It is not about where the system is aimed, but how selective the view is.

The way to check this out would be to focus on a foregroud object that is only a small portionof the view, and to do it with a large aperature setting to avoid a very large depth of field.

The autofocus system moves the lens to maximize the sensor repsponse. Obviously if it is giving equal weight to all areas of the view it is not going to be influenced as much by the small area of the foregroud object and the lens will come to rest at some focus point between the object you are aiming at and the larger area background. If the background obbject is of low contrast the focus point will be much closer to the intended target.

And conversely if the background is much more contrasty than the foreground object it will focus closer to the background.

My guess is that the sensitivity of the sysem is too small to get by with only a small portion of the view, otherwise it would have been very easy to create a narrow view for autofocus ,as the camera does for exposure metering.

I will try some experiments to verify whether or not the premise is true and post some images of the results.

Don't forget the very large depth of fields yielded by the short focal length lens often compensates for a less than perfect focus setting.In many cases the G1 could have gotten by with a fixed focus lens set to its hyperfocal setting!

I must say I did not expect so much reaction to my post.But lets face it, the G1 doesn't function as well as a good SLR camera. If you took away its CCD and replaced it with a mechanism to hold film it wouldn't sell very well.

I still like my G1 and I would probably find a whole set of other faults with a Nikon or other camera.

Regards,
Don T

Bob.. GREAT.. now you are exhibiting some balance. Thanks

Bob Williams said:

Bryan Siverly said:

Don T said:

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.

Click to expand...

That's the key here. "If Kevin is correct," which he is not. As a
matter of fact, he has no evidence for his conclusion that the G1
uses the full frame for focusing.

It may appear random where the G1 focuses, but I ask you to do
yourself an experiment. Try and see where your focus is by maybe
focusing on a newspaper shot diagonally at full aperture.

The truth is that the G1 may not focus at the true center of the
frame... in my case, it's a little higher than center, and since I
know that, I never miss a focus... EVER. When in closer than 3
feet or so, I need to switch to macro mode to have the focus
anywhere near the center, but that works perfectly.

Try it yourself. Don't just take the word of someone who used to
be high on the G1, then ran from the bandwagon for some reason.

Hmm, perhaps I can say something like "the G1 has a chewy
marshmallow center." It must be true if you "have no reason to
doubt me."

Bryan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

How small a portion are you talking about? I did some tests and didn't notice this.

What did fake me out was that the G1 doesn't initiate autofocus like other cameras I'm used to. With those cameras only a tap of the shutter is required. Tapping the shutter on the G1 sets focus to infinity. Since infinity is short on the G1 this works fine for most shots but not closeups. With the G1 you have to keep the shutter depressed for autofocus to work. And you have to use macro mode when focusing really close.

I had a Coolpix 900 and bought a G1. At first I was disappointed. But now that I am familiar with the camera I love it. There are a few design flaws I don't care for but no way would I go back to the 900.

Hey Bob, how about using paragraphs!

Member said:

Member said:

I can't hold this camera as still as I could

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

the Casio, so the slow shutters cause me more problems with it.

You really should get a tripod.

I have a tripod. It is not practical in a lot of cicumstances tho.
I am considering a monopod for when I am on the farm with it.
I will try with the paragraphs. I write like I think sometimes.
Compound complex sentences that are paragraph length in
themselves. Drives my wife nuts. She is a publishing pro.

Peter T said:

Peter T44178 said:

Peter T44178 said:

I can't hold this camera as still as I could

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

the Casio, so the slow shutters cause me more problems with it.

You really should get a tripod.

Click to expand...

Bryan Siverly said:

That's the key here. "If Kevin is correct," which he is not. As a
matter of fact, he has no evidence for his conclusion that the G1
uses the full frame for focusing.

Click to expand...

In fact, the page in question bears a typical photo. After many struggles with the AF, not only in closeup but a variety of ranges, that is the conclusion I reached. http://www.botzilla.com/photo/G1focus.html

BryanS said:

It may appear random where the G1 focuses, but I ask you to do
yourself an experiment. Try and see where your focus is by maybe
focusing on a newspaper shot diagonally at full aperture.

Click to expand...

Wherever the contrast will be greatest, there too will the focus land. Not in a particular part of the frame.

BryanS said:

Try it yourself. Don't just take the word of someone who used to
be high on the G1, then ran from the bandwagon for some reason.

Click to expand...

I think my reasons for disillusionment with the G1 and Canon have been quite clearly delineated many times here and elsewhere.

kb
TG7, 13 mins at 71C

(Oh, and you can keep the G1 in focus -- just use the ol' f/8 trick:



1/250 f/8 550 EX through a 7'x4' diffuser
No retouch but the 1/4 resize)

Hi, Shaun. Nice photo! You have a couple of fine looking young men there and have every right to display their images with pride. Good luck to you!

Mike Flaherty

Shaun Fenton said:

I thought I'd include the following photo, not because its a great
work of art, but because I just love my kids.



Regards,
Shaun.

Don T said:

I am embarrassed to admit that after owning my G1 or more than six
months it is only now that I have come to realize the G1’s
autofocus deficiency. This is no minor problem, unlike the magenta
overcast, which is easily fixed with an editing program. There is
no easy fix for a camera that has a very weak autofocus system.

Rather than explain the problem in my own words, please read the
exert that I have extracted from Kevin Bjorkes discussion on G1
autofocus (botzilla.com):
Autofocus
“The G1 appears to use a contrast-based AF system. It also
appears to use the entire frame to measure contrast. In other
words, the contrast of pixels along the edges and in the corners
are given just as much importance by the AF system as pixels near
the center.
This uncentered approach has serious consequences for autofocus use
on real scenes. While it's fine for landscapes and may even do well
for group shots, what about a head-and-shoulders portrait?

Canon's G1 manual mentions "autofocus crosshairs" on page 38, but
this is simply wrong they're in the optical finder and clearly have
nothing to do with the Autofocus. What's more, they may give you
the impression that the AF is concentrating on the area of the
crosshairs (like the "target marks" did on the previous Canon
design, the Pro 70) and that's simply not true

The Pro 90 also has a "target bracket" area, which might actually
do something (it's part of the EVF and LCD, not the optical
finder). But both the G1 and Pro 90 manuals claim weakness to
"Subjects with extremely low contrast to the surroundings." Even
the A20 has AF brackets why does the G1 have this crippled system?
Is it some failed prototype of the A20's AiAF ?”

If Kevin is correct in his evaluation of the G1 system, and I for
one have no reason to doubt him, the G1 has one major flaw that has
not been picked up by the various experts who have published
extensive reviews of the G1.
Had I known this at the time I was ready to buy I would have bought
a different camera. (Probably a Nikon 990/995)
One might ask why didn’t I notice this “flaw”
earlier? I have taken many in-focus pictures with the G1 because
the autofocus works adequately for many conditions considering the
very generous depth of fields associated with short focal length
lenses. In fact the focal length of most digital camera lenses are
so short, you could get by with fixed focus for many of your
routine shots. It is in those difficult shots where you most need
the autofocus as for example macros or views with both foreground
and distant objects in the field of view.
There are workarounds using contrast targets or switching between
digital zoom and manual focus (see discussion on botzilla.com ) but
these shouldn’t be needed with a camera of this quality.

Conclusion:
For most of us who have invested so much in the G1 it is a little
too late to do much about it. We will just have to learn how to
live with it and hope Canon will fix the problem on a subsequent
update. I doubt if it can be fixed without some hardware changes.
First Canon has to acknowledge that a problem even exists.
For those considering a G1, give this some thought before you buy.
There are cameras with better auto focus systems.
Don T

--
Donald T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed before here. Use the search feature at the top of the forum and search for "G1 dental" and a couple of good threads will come up on the use of ring lights for this type of macro shot. I also recall a doctor using it quite effectively to document the treatment of skin diseases using macro shots.
Regards, Mike K

Basia said:

Thankx

Diane B Fields said:

Mike Flaherty said:

Sorry, but I don't know of any camera that can "easily" and
consistently lock autofocus on scenes with exceptionally low
contrast (I own a G1, Nikon 880, Olympus E-10, and Olympus
E-100RS). I think this guy is making a "mountain out of a mole
hill." I've taken literally thousands of G1 images, including
"head and portrait" shots with consistent reliability. The only
"focus issue" I've encountered with the G1 that's worth mentioning
is when shooting up close in macro mode. Often, the G1 will
erroneously report a focus lock under these conditions. Since I
understand this "flaw," I've learned to work with it.

Click to expand...

I have done a lot of macro shots since I bought the G1--I've
mentioned before that I do certain things now without even thinking
aobut them. First of all, I generally use a tripod--sometimes add
inexpensive macro lens, but I always ALWAYS use MF. And--I use it
with 2x digital zoom, then back to normal and RAW. Once you just
take this for granted (macro shots, to me, seem like 'special'
cases), you do it very quickly. It doesn't seem any different to
me than having to learn that if you want shallow DOF, you use the
largest aperture and zoom in. Just one more thing to learn.

Diane

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter, I'm sorry if I misspoke. I'm quite new to this (though obsessive about reading up on things until I've acquired some knowledge) and took the referenced botzilla article by Kevin to be a well-accepted truth. I have no independent information on where the Canon looks for focus.

But my point is really that we all tend to overreact; oh, I don't like this characteristic of this camera but read messages that THAT camera has a really good (fill in the blank), then get THAT camera only to find out it's really not as great as people said because they left certain things out. Do we really think that Canon engineers are so dumb that they can't even incorporate an autofocus system the equal of most other cameras? I mean, it's not like it's proprietary technology. My (uneducated) guess is that most other digicams (e.g. Fuji, Sony) have a version of this problem because they all use the same basic approach. Perhaps the Nikon or Oly systems allow a bit more flexibility or guess better in certain circumstances but IMHO it CAN'T be so much better than the G1 that people ought to flock to those cameras. I think you'll find many situations in which you will get out-of-focus shots. With any type of autofocus we just need to count on having a certain % of bad shots and try different workarounds to reduce that number. The most accurate way to put this is that, as far as autofocus goes, the G1 is slightly worse than some and no better than most. Pick another camera and you can say the same thing, just maybe about a different characteristic (Nikon, some say the lens, etc.).

Frankly, after trying and returning 4 or 5 different digicams I've gone through the "grass is always greener" thing enough. Unless the G1 REALLY screws up with me, it's a keeper.

Sorry for the length of the post. Just my $1.02.

=NLK=

Peter T said:

Do we know for sure that the autofocus covers the whole frame? I've
never heard of an SLR that works this way. As you say, all
autofocus requires good contrast. But it sure would help to know
where the camera is looking for the contrast.

Click to expand...

Peter T said:

I had a Coolpix 900 and bought a G1. At first I was disappointed.
But now that I am familiar with the camera I love it. There are a
few design flaws I don't care for but no way would I go back to the
900.

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement.

No doubt the G1 can take much better pics. I'm still using it, but mostly with the awkward manual focus and aperture priority. I just wish the autofocus worked better for me. I've researched and experimented with this extensively, but it is still hit and miss for me.

Mike Flaherty said:

Mike Flaherty said:

I thought I'd include the following photo, not because its a great
work of art, but because I just love my kids.



Regards,
Shaun.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nice photo. Both are good looking boys, but I love the solemn gaze of the older boy S (and the little one looks like‘’S27s just waiting to get out of bounds and be impish).

Hi guys,

I'm a 995 owner and have used an 880 and I can say that the macro performance on either cameras are outstanding, especially the 995. You can get really close without the use of any add on lenses.

Here is a photo of a figurine that is about as big as the average man's thumbnail:

http://www.clannopressure.org/np/sesentacuatro/album/pages/frankie_jpg.htm

Also check out this 995 gallery for some really nice macro stuff:

http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/

The swivel lens would also make it handy for awkward angles when shooting stuff for your dental practice.

BTW, I'm a very happy 995 user but I often stop by the Canon and Oly forums because I enjoy the great shots often found in these discussion groups. Especially some of the spectacular telephoto shots taken with the Pro90 and C-2100. I also enjoy many of the G1 photo samples I've seen as they are among the cleanest and sharpest images I've seen from any camera in its class. It was tough deciding between the 995 and G1 but I finally made a choice and I'm happy with my camera. And that is the most important thing.

Good luck with your next camera purchase, Basia...

-- BG

Diane B Fields said:

Basia, I'm not an 'expert' LOL. I have taken a lot of macros
though, but that isn't what I do the most (recently, I'm
focused--pun intended S --on infrared and B/W). I believe, and
hope someone else with some experience with the Nikons will step in
here--that the Nikon 990 or 995 is better all round at macro than
the G1. This is without any additional lens.

Click to expand...

[ ...snip... ]