G7 sux

Hi,

look at dcresource review of GT and F30.

Compare for example the nightshots FULL SIZE full screen !!

(You have to download them)

Now tell me which picture do you like to look at.

I tried it with other cameras. The Fuji one is the most boaring picture of all.

Any explanation?

Sorry...

reviews of G7 (not GT) and F30

DrSid said:

G7 may show as best compact today anyway, even IQ-wise. Sure Fuji
has better low-light, but otherwise its nothing much.

Click to expand...

In brief:

"otherwise its nothing much"?! There are many wholeheartedly prosumer offers from many manufacturers (mfr's) like Fuji (eg S9000) and Panasonic (eg FZ50 and LX2), let's not talk about unconventional (large-senored) prosumers like Sony R1, Sigma DP1 or Leica M8. Even image-quality-wise many of these seem to be superior to the G7, see the link to lesnumeriques.com below.

In detail:

By wholeheartedly convetional prosumer, I mean generously offering all what u expect from a real prosumer: RAW, movable LCD, remote control, some mfr's offer 28mm in combination with other prosumer features...etc features which Canon is no longer willing to offer.

Panasonic has a reputation of having the noisiest sensors but uses excellent lenses made by Leica. Fuji has a very nice sensor like the famous one in the F30/31, (I am not sure if this is the same sensor as the S9000), but S9000's IQ is disappointing (too soft) maybe the lens was not very good quality. The processor in the Fuji's or the Panasonic's should not be a deal breaker for a would-be prosumer buyer who shoots in RAW which switches off in-camera processing.

Anyhow at least FZ50 and LX2 seem to be able to pick up more details than the G7. In additions to the generous feature set, they are bundled with a much more capable software pkg (SilkyPix) than Canon's ZoomBrowser. I downloaded a free trial of SilkyPix and used it for processing both JPG and RAW images from my Pro1 & A610, it makes a whole difference in all cases compared to what I get from ZoomBrowser (too basic and old fashioned compared to SilkyPix). But one can buy SilkyPix or better Bibble Pro for 100$ or 130$ respectively (so it should be taken into price consideration but not a deal breaker like the other features missing in the G7 which u can never be bought).

Check this G7/FZ50 IQ-comparison:

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=1&mo1=256&p1=1464&ma2=60&mo2=233&p2=1323&ph=2

In many images (or crops) in this comaprison FZ50 seems to be better in sharpness/details but a bit noisier. Both cameras are 10MP and 1/1.8" sensor. G7 seems to apply more NR (noise reduction) (I read on this forum a poster reporting Canon to say that the new DIGIC III in G7 applies more aggressive NR). While Panasonic has always been known for their low NR approach in their JPG (+ u have RAW which would switch off any NR). If u like to reduce noise, the SilkyPix pkg which comes with FZ50 has sophisticated handling of NR/sharpness (with many parameters and presets), so u can choose and play with these to make the balance that u think is right between NR & details (instead of G7's obligatory aggressive NR which is designed to impress only stupid people: "Very silky images just like a DSLR" they think).

Anyhow the lesnumeriques' comparison is not enough, I look forward to the G7 review on this site and the FZ50 on dcresource (vice versa are already available) to know with more cetainty who the IQ of these two cameras compares.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images

Mumon said:

Hi,

look at dcresource review of GT and F30.

Compare for example the nightshots FULL SIZE full screen !!

(You have to download them)

Click to expand...

Do the same comparison between
G7 vs A620;
G7 vs G6;
G7 vs Pro1.
And when the FZ50 review is posted in a few days G7 vs Fz50.

Then tell me which picture does look the most boaring and whether or not u have been shocked to learn that an A-series model can beat a so-called 'G' model.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images

PixelMinded said:

When u said earlier "in a little more light", I thought u are
talking about situations where light is not a big problem.

Click to expand...

No, I meant a little more light than ISO 1600, f1.4, 1/60th.

You would not have used a tripod where I was shooting the other night. I was in the middle of one of those big wraparound booths. And people were moving a lot anyway so even 1/60th was pushing it a bit. I was tempted to go to ISO 3200 and 1/100th or 1/120th.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

PixelMinded said:

Anyhow at least FZ50 and LX2 seem to be able to pick up more
details than the G7.
Check this G7/FZ50 IQ-comparison:

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=1&mo1=256&p1=1464&ma2=60&mo2=233&p2=1323&ph=2
In many images (or crops) in this comaprison FZ50 seems to be
better in sharpness/details but a bit noisier. Both cameras are
10MP and 1/1.8" sensor. G7 seems to apply more NR (noise reduction)
(I read on this forum a poster reporting Canon to say that the new
DIGIC III in G7 applies more aggressive NR). While Panasonic has
always been known for their low NR approach in their JPG (+ u have
RAW which would switch off any NR).

Click to expand...

Huh?? While those Panasonic samples have more sharpening, I don't think many people would agree that Panasonic uses a "low NR approach". In any comparison I've seen, Canon has much less destructive NR than Panasonic. Just look at the full size version of this (LARGE) ISO400 FZ50 image:

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/panasonicfz50_samples2/originals/p1010208_gs.jpg

That's aggressive to the point of losing resolution.

FWIW, here is the Canon press statement about Digic III NR:
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20060914_g7.html

which says: "What's more, thanks to the DIGIC III chip's more aggressive noise reduction, the PowerShot G7 digital camera is able to shoot at ISO equivalent speed ratings from 80 to as high as 1600." I don't think anyone would accuse Canon's Digic II of having "aggressive" NR. While Digic III may be more aggressive than Digic II (e.g. at higher ISO), but that doesn't mean it is more aggressive than Panasonic. cheers, gkl

OK, jkl we agree on more things than u thought, but before asking me to be fair, make sure that u urself are fair. In ur post u completely overlook the fact that RAW gives us the possibility to switch off NR (to zero NR). This is possible on the new Panasonic FZ50 and LX2 but has not been possible on new Canon compacts since G6 and S70 were announced back in fall 2004. So even if Canon's NR is lower than Pano's NR. NR is obligatory on Canon and optional on Pano (for those willing to shoot in RAW at least). Note that I agree with u only that Canon's NR was lower in their older models but it is debatable if this still holds in recent ones like G7.

Also I have initially seen horrible images from FZ50/LX2 (sample images of each on the Pano site itself). Then I saw lesnumeriques' comparisons (I did lots of comparisons between FZ50 vs many Canon compacts, even vs 350 & 400D), I found FZ50 to be not bad at all and looked better overall to me than G7 there (on lesnumeriques' comparisons) but as I said in the post on which u replied:

gkl said:

"Anyhow the lesnumeriques' comparison is not enough, I look forward to the G7 review on this site and the FZ50 on dcresource (vice versa are already available) to know with more cetainty who the IQ of these two cameras compares."

Click to expand...

Did you read that at the end of the post?

I certainly agree with you that the initial FZ50 image seen on the Pano site were horrible (I even posted on that here on this forum when FZ50 was still very new). When I found that on lesnumeriques FZ50 is better than G7 in IQ, I thought "could the G7 be worse than horrible or was there something wrong with the initial FZ50 images?!" most probably the later, but let's wait for the upcoming reviews here and on dcresource.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images

ljfinger said:

sueanne said:

Is this picture taken with the S3?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Click to expand...

Very nicely done, Lee Jay.

Jim
XT, REAL G2, S410, F30

ljfinger said:

PixelMinded said:

ljfinger said:

for smaller prints
in a little more light
given some extra care with in-camera settings
and post processing.

Click to expand...

These are just too many conditions under which all cameras but the
really bad ones (I mean really) are expected to perform well
IQ-wise. The first one is enough to turn me off comletely.

Click to expand...

Ballllllony. There are zero compact cameras capable of performing
well in genuinly low-light without a lot of extra care and
restrictions when compared to the 5D + 35/1.4L combination.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 5D with a good lens is not in remotely the same league as any point and shoot. As an aside, here's a low-light shot with the F30 (3200 ISO) that does show what the camera is capable of. Not bad for a P&S camera.

http://www.pbase.com/jal99/image/69812951

Jim
XT, REAL G2, S410, F30

and my only intention is to be helpful. I think what you are seeing on lesnumeriques may be at least in part due to stronger in-camera sharpening and increased contrast on the Panasonic.

FWIW, I can live with the NR in the G7 and A640, even at ISO 400. I too would prefer to have RAW - but I am not convinced it's going to help with a noisier sensor, and it does look like the Panasonic is noisier.

I agree Panasonic is making some interesting products, with decent performance at low ISO. If you are looking for comparisons made by the same site:

This site does not mince words about Panasonic's noise, e.g. "Here again we've shot at 100 ISO under bright light, yet noise speckles and smearing of detail is quite evident on the crops." "arguing the results look fine on smaller print sizes is surely missing the point of buying a 10 Megapixel product."

They also do a test of LX2 Jpeg vs Raw: "We could pretty much match the in-camera example by increasing the saturation and sharpness in ACR, but couldn't produce a result with significantly greater detail or lower noise."

BTW the Noise 2 page of the A640 review suggests that Canon's NR is less destructive than Fuji and Sony. They haven't reviewed the G7 yet, but from what I've seen so far, it's NR doesn't look too much more agressive than the A640's. As always, this is just my $0.02, YMMV. cheers, gkl

PixelMinded said:

OK, jkl we agree on more things than u thought, but before asking
me to be fair, make sure that u urself are fair. In ur post u
completely overlook the fact that RAW gives us the possibility to
switch off NR (to zero NR). This is possible on the new Panasonic
FZ50 and LX2 but has not been possible on new Canon compacts since
G6 and S70 were announced back in fall 2004. So even if Canon's NR
is lower than Pano's NR. NR is obligatory on Canon and optional on
Pano (for those willing to shoot in RAW at least). Note that I
agree with u only that Canon's NR was lower in their older models
but it is debatable if this still holds in recent ones like G7.

Click to expand...

gkl wrote:
If you are looking for comparisons made by

gkl said:

the same site:

Click to expand...

Dunno why it's blocked, but the site is cameralabs.com.

gkl said:

gkl wrote:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links gkl. I was able to see the camera-labs eventually. I am coming these days to the conclusion that if I really want to blow up images and pixelpeep the way I do, and still want high IQ with that, then I have to look at as big a sensor as I can afford. Which basically means if not a DSLR(dont like them), then one of the three large-sensored and unconventional prosumers: Sony R1(bulky), Sigma DP1 (limited but interesting) or Leica M8 (expensive).

Among small-sensored cameras difficult to find something that squarely beats what I already have so that the cost is justified. I was hoping G7 would but it did not.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images