-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
G2 is ugly!
- Thread starter taektonic56631
- Start date
JerryO
Senior Member
If I be you I would buy the G2.. It is much improved over the G1 and the latest technology. You will have a new camera for probably a year. Too many problems with the G1 and the G2 has corrected most of them.. GO FOR IT!! It's only money and your wife is worth it.. Good investment..
K
Ken W.
Guest
Perhaps get her something else for her birthday and wait for the Christmas coupons to get the G2...if you can wait that long.
John Davis
Veteran Member
Do you really think its design has something to do with a longer batter life? Cameras are not like cars with a high fuel consumption rate, possibly caused by high wind resistence.
I hope you're just joking.
I hope you're just joking.
Hubert Tse
Forum Enthusiast
Gill,
Of course, it is just a joke. I could not help myself from throwing in a joke after reading David's comment.
I do not find G2 a bad design. At least it is not so offensive that I would reject it out of hand. G2 is not so boxy as G1 and it has a large hand gip which a lot people has been asking for. Would I buy a G2? Well, I have a G1 and hold myself back from getting the D1X awaiting the Contax N Digital. If I do not have a G1, I would buy a G2, based on Phil's review. It seems that G2 has some good improvements over G1. Unless there is a very big price difference between the two, why buy G1? If in doubt and not in a hurry, wait to see whether G2 can live up to the reviews.
Regards,
K. Tse
Of course, it is just a joke. I could not help myself from throwing in a joke after reading David's comment.
I do not find G2 a bad design. At least it is not so offensive that I would reject it out of hand. G2 is not so boxy as G1 and it has a large hand gip which a lot people has been asking for. Would I buy a G2? Well, I have a G1 and hold myself back from getting the D1X awaiting the Contax N Digital. If I do not have a G1, I would buy a G2, based on Phil's review. It seems that G2 has some good improvements over G1. Unless there is a very big price difference between the two, why buy G1? If in doubt and not in a hurry, wait to see whether G2 can live up to the reviews.
Regards,
K. Tse
Anthony Wang
Active member
Hi all G1 and (perhaps) also G2 fan,
honestly speaking none of both has a pro-design. So I think everybody who's buying a camera now will go definitely for the G2 and not for the G1. Reason? It's simple: the G1 (and obviously the G2) has never been designed to be elegant.
HYQ
honestly speaking none of both has a pro-design. So I think everybody who's buying a camera now will go definitely for the G2 and not for the G1. Reason? It's simple: the G1 (and obviously the G2) has never been designed to be elegant.
HYQ
Jerome47940
Forum Enthusiast
dear taektonic,
I appreciate your sensibilities and aesthetics but I really wouldn't worry about whether or not the g2 is less pretty or not.
Bottom line, both the G1 and G2 are essentially point and shoot cameras with some very clever features. As a pro photographer I love the idea that the G2 can be used tethered to a monitor so that a client can look at my computer screen as opposed to the tiny lcd screen. that alone is worth buying the G2 for me.
if you want a beautiful camera, I reckon the Eos 1 plus booster is hard to beat.
But don't be put off by ugliness. A sinar f (5x4" view camera) is "ugly" compared to a pretty wooden 5x4" field camera and yet it will do any and all film based tasks you can throw at it and will still cost less than a G2!
or the old Fuji 690Ws. It has presence like a magnificent tank . It is difficult to use (horrible viewfinder) but the results are so good that you will forgive it anything.
My contribution would be to say you don't have to buy anything (obviously) but to worry about an add on grip is silly. if you want a really ugly camera, how about the Nikon Coolpix 995? No flames from coolpix owners. I am aware it is a ground breaking camera but it is not to my taste. the G2 is not a camera with character but it might be an interesting working tool until i can afford a digital back for my Mamiya RZ
jerome
I appreciate your sensibilities and aesthetics but I really wouldn't worry about whether or not the g2 is less pretty or not.
Bottom line, both the G1 and G2 are essentially point and shoot cameras with some very clever features. As a pro photographer I love the idea that the G2 can be used tethered to a monitor so that a client can look at my computer screen as opposed to the tiny lcd screen. that alone is worth buying the G2 for me.
if you want a beautiful camera, I reckon the Eos 1 plus booster is hard to beat.
But don't be put off by ugliness. A sinar f (5x4" view camera) is "ugly" compared to a pretty wooden 5x4" field camera and yet it will do any and all film based tasks you can throw at it and will still cost less than a G2!
or the old Fuji 690Ws. It has presence like a magnificent tank . It is difficult to use (horrible viewfinder) but the results are so good that you will forgive it anything.
My contribution would be to say you don't have to buy anything (obviously) but to worry about an add on grip is silly. if you want a really ugly camera, how about the Nikon Coolpix 995? No flames from coolpix owners. I am aware it is a ground breaking camera but it is not to my taste. the G2 is not a camera with character but it might be an interesting working tool until i can afford a digital back for my Mamiya RZ
jerome
M
Martin Hoppe
Guest
I completely agree! It does not have a clear design characteristics, just a mixture of different elements. It´s really ugly!
Martin
http://www.drmhoppe.de
Martin
http://www.drmhoppe.de
taektonic56631
New member
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
G1 was a camera without a design that focused on the features.
And the features gave a character to its rather dull-looking design.
G2, on the other hand, has attempted to have some "design",
which is not what G1 was known for.
Sometimes No Design becomes a design.
A rectangle with a lens, a shutter, buttons without any designing attempt
can look really good, because then the camera asks user to favor the way
the camera looks by the features.
I know this sounds rather silly to criticize the design of a really good camera,
but the really good camera won't come in cheap.
And it is a pity that a camera with a $1000 price tag shows off itself
with a cheap design.
In addition, I personally think that G2 is not what G1 users were waiting for.
What the G1 users have wanted is:
The features of G2 on G1 via firmware upgrade,
and all-new G2 with surprising features just as G1 did last year.
G2 actually is like G1.2 or something.
taektonic
http://www.mindspring.com/~taektonic
I was just using my G1--I'm a firm believer in form follows function and that's why I liked the G1 design. I would have preferred a grip, but since I use a tripod so much, its pretty much a non-issue with me now--and I've also gotten used to using it handheld without. However---I wil say that I'm not going to be a lover of the champagne color. I like steel, black--somehow the champagne does remind me of less expensive and sort of 'doodled up' things. Nonetheless, a color wouldn't turn me off. If it 'works', then I'll consider it a good camera. Still won't trade my G1 for it though S .
Diane
I disagree (isn't a democracy beautiful?)
Yes, I wish that some of the G2 improvements could be applied to the G1.
1) The design was very Bauhaus, were form followed from the materials used. Retro is cool! The G1 reminded me of the range finders I started with in photography.
2) The G2 looks like a Casio! Besides, the G1 did have design.
3) This confirms what I said in 1
4) I am assuming you mean the G2? Then I would agree.
5) True to some degree. There are some deficiencies in the G2 which are already apparent. For example, one would prefer having the histogram available in the shooting mode rather than playback. Also, the line artifact issue hasn't been elucidated. I am not sure that the flash issues have been resolved either. Although multiple focus zones have been added, I am not sure whether there will resolve the problem of low contrast subjects.
Yes, I wish that some of the G2 improvements could be applied to the G1.
6) Looking back I am agreeing of 50% of your statements. Here too I concur. The G2 is a refined G1; evolutionary but not revolutionary.
Michael C56728
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, it could have been a lot worse in design.. such as translucent blue, red or green, or some other flavorful trendy color. 
I like the styling of the G2, very functional, now if the G3 could be designed to look similar to a Leica M6..
Michael
I like the styling of the G2, very functional, now if the G3 could be designed to look similar to a Leica M6..Michael
I
Icypeak
Guest
Hey, Snake, I heard you was dead!! (for movie buffs)
I
Icypeak
Guest
Having recently switched from a G1 to a Minolta D7, you can't beleive how many posts were made about the ugliness of the D7, before it's release. In many ways, it is like the G1, more designed for function than looks. The need for 'tweaking' of settings to get the best from the camera is also familiar from the G1. The Sony 707 looks like a d7 that someone ran through a power sander to smooth it's angular features. Now that I have it, I really like the looks of the D7, as I do the G1. I agree that it'a lost a little character in the G2 version, but if the features are better, then it's a winner.
-David
-David
lobster
Forum Enthusiast
Thank you so much Costas. You found the word I have been looking for to describe why I like my G1 look. MILITARY!!!!
Also in Phil's review of G2 this word hit my eyes (and guts, with disgust): FEMININE. That is why I didn't have a good feeling about the G2 on first sight.
That said, look is probably the last thing I would care. I think Canon's decision to base the G2 design on G1 is a perfectly correct and reasonable one.
Lobster
Also in Phil's review of G2 this word hit my eyes (and guts, with disgust): FEMININE. That is why I didn't have a good feeling about the G2 on first sight.
That said, look is probably the last thing I would care. I think Canon's decision to base the G2 design on G1 is a perfectly correct and reasonable one.
Lobster
agreed. a nice looking camera is a secondary benefit. i haven't seen any non-SLR with which i have been impressed by its design.
lobster
Forum Enthusiast
That hilarious. I sadly notice that the iMac started with G3. Maybe they WILL run that crazy stuff next year. Urrrrh!!
Lobster
Lobster
Never cared for the exposed hot shoe on the top. That looks ugly like a 60's car bumper. Might be better as a side attachment accessory. New handgrip is safer. (el)
B
Bob Williams
Guest
I could care less how it looks. I need something to hang on to,
and they tried to build that in. I am much more interested in what
the people who buy it will have to say about the point and shoot
issues, than I ever will be about looks.
and they tried to build that in. I am much more interested in what
the people who buy it will have to say about the point and shoot
issues, than I ever will be about looks.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum