Test: G7 vs 400D

I know, I know. We have to compare Apple to Apple.

But out of curiosity and fun, I did the following test shots:

G7
ISO 80 Av f4.0 1/320 EV 0 35mm equiv - handheld
My colours: Off



400D with 17-50 Tamron
ISO200 Av f8.0 1/200 EV +2/3 35mm equiv - handheld
Picture Style: Landscape



To my surprise, G7 holds its own very well against 400D. Colour and sharpness is excellent. DR is quite good too (only slightly lessn than 400D).
It really makes a carry anywhere p&s cam with alot of features.

Noise level of G7 is also very good (of course not comparable to 400D or 5D) and I can get very usable 8x10 print out of the following ISO800 shot (properly exposed of course).



A FEW DISAPPOINTMENT (after 10 days of usage)

Although I don't care RAW in p&s (I rather shoot DSLR), it would be better if Canon include RAW mode (But then I think we cannot achieve Digic III level noise reduction by post processing RAW - Digic III is that good).

Remote and Intervalometer - Although it features customizable timer, I miss REMOTE

External Flash shutter lag - this is the biggest disappointment. Using external flash EX580, the shutter lag is the big pain. I think Canon intentionally did it so that G7 won't rival 400D and will not eat 400D sales. THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

Asides from above disappointments, I like G7 and it is the best p&s I ever used. IQ is excllent (the best every p&s) and in good light it rivals DSLR. The styling is cool (not like chunky G6) too.

--
Thadoe Hein



http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)

I'm suprised too . Color, contrast and sharpness are excellent. It would be difficult to recognize which pic is which in blind test.
Interesting comparison, thanks.

Regards, swnw.

Thanks for the comparison!

The G7 actually looks sharper in the corners bu it could just be the IS making the difference. The Tamron 17-50 is known to be a sharp lens so I'm surprised how well the G7 is holding its own against it.

I've been very pleased with my G7, I really don't have any complaints.

At the right corner, 400D+Tamron seems sharper.

For other corners, G7 is better (a lot). I think it is due to DOF with small sensor. You may have to stop down till f11 or so on 400D to get equal DOF.

You may see sharpening artifacts with G7 but you can turn down -1 to equal 400D +4 (landscape picutre style).

DR is quite good with G7.

GNMink said:

Thanks for the comparison!

The G7 actually looks sharper in the corners bu it could just be
the IS making the difference. The Tamron 17-50 is known to be a
sharp lens so I'm surprised how well the G7 is holding its own
against it.

I've been very pleased with my G7, I really don't have any complaints.

Click to expand...

--
Thadoe Hein



http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)

A couple of years ago luminous-landscape.com did a comparison between a Pro1 and the then-reigning Canon 8mp SLR, in good light, of a building, to compare the best-case images. The Pro1 was surprisingly very close to the SLR image. Looks like the G7 is in that realm also, albeit without some useful/important features.

Are you saying the 400D shot is at +4 sharpness? (In an 8x10 print the 400D seems more "three-dimensional" to my eye - altho the two prints are very close overall.)

Thanks for the comparison!

Mick Ruthven said:

A couple of years ago luminous-landscape.com did a comparison
between a Pro1 and the then-reigning Canon 8mp SLR, in good light,
of a building, to compare the best-case images. The Pro1 was
surprisingly very close to the SLR image. Looks like the G7 is in
that realm also, albeit without some useful/important features.

Click to expand...

Here is the link mentioned above.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml

This test of the Pro1 and a Canon dSLR was the tie breaker that made me buy my pro1 two years ago.

I sure hope pthers have a fast conection the pictures are very good but the files are BIG. Thank's for giving this to compair.

it isn't apple to apple. Take a dslr zoom in similar range of g7, and stop it down because of larger sensor, and the dslr will win, easily.

that said, the small sensor gives good deep dof, they just left off the digital negatibe so you are stuck with 8 bit jpeg. Not so good if you are inside and need whitebalance or if you take pics up in size
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

Thad, that is so very very interesting. thanks for posting. I have to say how amazed I am ! (own both the G7 and 20D). and people that say you have to stop down the slr for comparing is baloney. You use a tool as it is made. This comfirms to me why I am reluctant to go to the FF, as the greater dof in a 1.6 suits me just fine; covers some focusing errors once in a while too. If I want to blur the backgrd, I can use a longer/faster lens or do it in PS.

One other test I'd like to see is the 17-85 IS lens, shot wide open at it's long end, and the G7 at the same length, also wide open.

B. Then, the G7 at 210 mm, and the 17-85 IS cropped to give a same size image. I wonder if the G7 lens at 210 would beat the cropped 17-85 lens on an 8 or 10 meg. slr. What do you think, Thad? Thanks.
--

The choices you've made in the past and the ones you make today create your tomorrow.

See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

I stay with 30d and xt also.

I like my digicams because of the deeep dof for scapes.

for portraits, we need shallow dof.

The physics of the smaller sensor gives us deep dof

the g7 looks like it has a good zoom lens on it. but bokeh will suffer for sure because of the sensor size.

doing stuff in photoshop is a method, but takes too much time.

digicams are good for scapes and snaps.

if you read Tom's note in the other thread, he has come across the achilles heal which I said all along--whitebalance when you are inside.

When I shoot RAW with my cams, I can get whitebalance right everytime without interrupting the shoot with extra time and settings.

mac

jonrobertp said:

Thad, that is so very very interesting. thanks for posting. I
have to say how amazed I am ! (own both the G7 and 20D). and
people that say you have to stop down the slr for comparing is
baloney. You use a tool as it is made. This comfirms to me why I
am reluctant to go to the FF, as the greater dof in a 1.6 suits me
just fine; covers some focusing errors once in a while too. If I
want to blur the backgrd, I can use a longer/faster lens or do it
in PS.
One other test I'd like to see is the 17-85 IS lens, shot wide open
at it's long end, and the G7 at the same length, also wide open.

B. Then, the G7 at 210 mm, and the 17-85 IS cropped to give a
same size image. I wonder if the G7 lens at 210 would beat the
cropped 17-85 lens on an 8 or 10 meg. slr. What do you think,
Thad? Thanks.
--
The choices you've made in the past and the ones you make today
create your tomorrow.

See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

Thanks for the interesting comparative results. Always fun to see!

Thadoe said:

External Flash shutter lag - this is the biggest disappointment.
Using external flash EX580, the shutter lag is the big pain. I
think Canon intentionally did it so that G7 won't rival 400D and
will not eat 400D sales. THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

Click to expand...

This I doubt. Likely some technical reason.

The cameras really address different markets vs. competing.

Phil

Please complain about the shutter lag to customer support - they claim that no one has done so other than myself, and so are unwilling to acknowledge or do anything about it.

Mick Ruthven said:

A couple of years ago luminous-landscape.com did a comparison
between a Pro1 and the then-reigning Canon 8mp SLR, in good light,
of a building, to compare the best-case images. The Pro1 was
surprisingly very close to the SLR image. Looks like the G7 is in
that realm also, albeit without some useful/important features.

Click to expand...

He recently reviewed the G7 at the same time he was reviewing the Leica M8. He came to much the same conclusion this time, also.

"What's interesting is that my time testing the Canon G7 overlapped with my initial testing period with the Leica M8. Interestingly, both cameras are 10 Megapixel, and so since I was shooting with and making prints from both cameras, with subject matter from the same scenes, the sample prints often became mixed together."

"Much as I would like to pretend otherwise, it sometimes was difficult without close examination to be certain which A3-sized print had come from which camera. Yes, a close look would almost always show the G7 files to have a slight "digital" look, while those from the M8 did not, but it was remarkable how well the G7 did. I showed mixed-together prints to several technically knowledgeable and experienced photographers and it took each of them close examination to tell the cameras apart simply from the sample prints, and even then not always. As I said, remarkable image quality (but JPG only). "
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-G7.shtml

What is left out of these paragraphs is that, even though it is possible to get remarkable image quality with the G7, it can be more difficult to get pics that are spot on, compared to doing the same thing with a more expensive camera. Note that he only compared the pics he got. He didn't compare the pics he didn't get.

(I have a new G7 and I am impressed. But I'm not ready to sell my DSLRs quite yet.)

Wayne