Reading mode: Light Dark

D60 vs G2 vs F707? Reality check!

Go to last post
C

Clint Thayer #32755

Senior Member
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, USA, WA, US
I regularly take photos of landscapes, buildings, and the occasional macro shot. My needs are satisfied with lets say a 34-155mm focal length range. The maximum size I'd be printing is about 8 x 10 with an Epson photo printer. But mainly, my images would be viewed with on-line galleries.

What quality would a D60 give me that a Canon G2 or Sony 707 would not give me at a third the price when you add lenses to the D60. It seems like the AF system is the same-- buffering is the same-- rapid shooting is the same. And the built in lenses on these two cameras are very fast (2.0) and remain fast all the way to its' maximum zoom range. This would be a very costly zoom add-on for the D60 to have this quality. And both the Canon and Sony use very good (albeit compact) glass.

The reviews here and elsewhere for both the G2 and Sony 707 rate it just as highly as the D60 for its' class. Both highly recomended- with cutting edge optics and resolution capabilities.

For my needs mentioned above, would the only real world difference be interchangeable lenses and the added prestige? Or is there going to be a improvement in photo quality that is obvious? I've been biting over this for awhile-- and I'm not coming up with a huge difference.

Is there a difference for my profile of shooting? What is your advice?

--Clint
http://www.pbase.com/moviebear
 
There are so many owners of the G2 and F707 that upgraded to "just" the D30 and have posted comparisons. The D30 blew the others away in actual picture results due to it's lower noise. Look at the noise ratings in the reviews. Noise negates resolution.

So, I don't know how many other replys you'll get since this has been discussed lots in the past.

There was one post earlier that had comparison pictures of the same subject - and their really wasn't a comparison in the detail levels.

Hope that helps - resolution sometimes is more of a marketing item. Resolution with noise equals less resolution.

D30 images are very clean. I came from an E10 which was 4meg "down" to the D30. There is no comparison there either. The difference is clear on panoramic landscapes - which is what I usually shoot. I will be getting the D60 when it's available and then my and other used D30's will be on the market. If I was in your shoes - I'd get a good clean used D30 with a couple of lenses and pass on the consumer digitals - unless they'll do the job for you.

But it isn't a "status symbol" as you suggested - there is a real LARGE quantitative difference which you'll see if you look at Phil's noise ratings.--John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Movie Bear said:
What quality would a D60 give me that a Canon G2 or Sony 707 would
not give me at a third the price when you add lenses to the D60.
Click to expand...
Take it from someone who has owned BOTH the G2 and the F707 and now the D30. There is absolutely no comparison between a point-and-shoot camera (both of these qualify) and a digital SLR. Once you change, you can never see yourself going back.

The only difficulty is you'll see money flying out of your wallet like you never thought possible. So there's that advantage in staying with the point-and-shoot world.--Bryan http://www.siverly.net
 
I agree... I would take a D30 over a 707 or G2 any day, even considering the price premium. The low noise is such a dramatic difference. Not to mention the speed of the camera, the better (real TTL) viewfiner, true manual focusing, wider lens choice, bokeh, etc. etc. They are just completely different animals.
John Mason said:
There are so many owners of the G2 and F707 that upgraded to "just"
the D30 and have posted comparisons. The D30 blew the others away
in actual picture results due to it's lower noise. Look at the
noise ratings in the reviews. Noise negates resolution.

So, I don't know how many other replys you'll get since this has
been discussed lots in the past.

There was one post earlier that had comparison pictures of the same
subject - and their really wasn't a comparison in the detail levels.

Hope that helps - resolution sometimes is more of a marketing item.
Resolution with noise equals less resolution.

D30 images are very clean. I came from an E10 which was 4meg
"down" to the D30. There is no comparison there either. The
difference is clear on panoramic landscapes - which is what I
usually shoot. I will be getting the D60 when it's available and
then my and other used D30's will be on the market. If I was in
your shoes - I'd get a good clean used D30 with a couple of lenses
and pass on the consumer digitals - unless they'll do the job for
you.

But it isn't a "status symbol" as you suggested - there is a real
LARGE quantitative difference which you'll see if you look at
Phil's noise ratings.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
-------------------------------------------------- M.K. Whitley'I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.'- Mark Twain
 
You will have no problems getting the kind of results that you want with the D30....no need to go to D60 or anything else. The D30 at 100ISO yields superb 8X10's. In fact with the proper exposure, I hqave gotten 13X19 out of the D30 with the new Canon 9000 printer that I showed to someone and they thought it was a poster that had been purchased it was that good!

I find that I battle noise at higher ISO like 400 to 1600 that even after running it through some filters it still isn't as good as ISO100 or 200. Particularly if I am trying to blow up to 8X10 or greater.

D30 really is a great camera and for what you want to do, 8X10's and on line picutres it will provide you everything you need and more.

my 2 cents!

regards, Herb
 
hi,

i had a 707 for a week or so and traded it in for a canon pocket cam.

one of the biggest diffs you can see right away is the colour. to me the 707 colours were just way over saturated. and the wide angle diff with a slr type cam is much better then the 707. i also had lots of focus problems with the 707, and trying to manualy focus the cam was hit and miss.

i am using a d30 now.

one thing i miss though is shooting from the hip with the live preview of the 707, like that angle and i always got some interesting perspectives that break my neck with the d30.
--w.
 
Clint Thayer #32755 said:
The reviews here and elsewhere for both the G2 and Sony 707 rate it
just as highly as the D60 for its' class. Both highly recomended-
with cutting edge optics and resolution capabilities.
Click to expand...
I think the G2 has been favorably compared to the D30 under good light when a normal lens will do the trick, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear the same about the 707. But the D60 isn't even on the shelves yet...
Clint Thayer #32755 said:
For my needs mentioned above, would the only real world difference
be interchangeable lenses and the added prestige? Or is there going
to be a improvement in photo quality that is obvious? I've been
biting over this for awhile-- and I'm not coming up with a huge
difference.
Click to expand...
The main difference is that the D60 produces MUCH better images than the G2 or 707. As it should, for the price. The pictures are higher resolution and much, much cleaner ( of noise ). They're MEANT to be interopelated to huge sizes and printed a few feet across. The difference will turn up in 8x10s, but I don't think it will jump off the page at you. The difference should be mainly the noise and the color.

Other advantages of the D60 are it's viewfinder -- the G2 and 707 are pretty lacking -- and it's amazing, film-like long exposures.

If you don't need wide or telephoto lenses, will be happy with f/2.0 to around f/11, and won't ever print beyond 11x14 ( pushing it a little ), then by all means save yourself a lot of money, and put some of it toward a vacation. Somewhere you'll get teriffic pictures to justify your new camera...
 
I just sold my G2, had it less than 2 months. Currently own 2 Pentax film slr's, a former Nikon F2a & F3 owner. Thought I'd get a G2 to test the digital waters: what was I thinking?? It's a nice digital toy that can produce decent images up to 8X10. But as a real camera, no way.

If you look at all the nice images G2 owners post, you'll notice that the vast majority of them are landscapes or still lifes - there's a reason for that: major league delay between the time you press the shutter release and the time the image is actually recorded. Sorry to say the G2 is not capable of taking any kind of pictures where "the Kodak moment" is important. This doesn't mean just sports/action either. It means someone's fleeting facial expression or gesture that's long gone by the time the G2 decides to take the exposure. Yes there are workarounds, but that only goes so far.

I don't mean to trash the G2, or put down happy owners of same, just wanted to point out a main difference between consumer digicams and something like the D30/60 et al. So, depends on what you're shooting and how much tolerance you have for missing great shots thanks to long delay times. For me, my tolerance for that is quite low and I was very tired of missing "the shot". Got my hands on a D60 during a trade show, and guess what, mine's arriving this week.

Regards, Ken
 
I really appreciate your objective answers here-- and are specific to the subject. I will compare the noise levels more carefully- and of course that is important to overall "photobility". Good God, I hate to spend the money. (Of course I could have bought a D1 for all the times I have traded and bought consucams).

I sure like the around the neck convenience though. Hard to figure...--Clint http://www.pbase.com/moviebear
 
Hi,
IMHO,

when I look at some of the specs of the prosumer cams I'm reminded of their annoying limitations as photographic tools.

With the G2 and 707, the max shutter speed is 1/1000, the D60 has 1/4000. With the prosumers, the smallest aperture is F8 (Uh-Oh), with the D60 it's whatever your lens will give you. My Sigma's give me f/32- way, way better. The G2 and 707 have minimum shutter speeds of 15 and 30 secs, the D60 has a bulb setting ON THE CAMERA.

With the G2 and 707 the max ISO is 400. Not very helpful if you shoot rock concerts like I do. The D60 has 1000, and the noise level is looking good too, IMHO

On these specs alone its clear that the DSLR's are giving you a degree if photographic flexibility which is considerably more attractive than the prosumers cameras.

This fact alone gets my interest up.

Add to this you can attach quality glass to the camera rather than dinky, distortion-central prosumer lenses and the bigger sensors, and the current crop of DSLR's appear much more attractive than any of the prosumers available.

That's why I'm getting a D60.--RegardsAndrew McGregor'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
 
With the angle finder C on EOS cameras, you certainly can shoot from above your shoulder or below your waist. The angle finder can rotate 360 degrees in a plane parallel to the camera back.
Movie Bear said:
I really appreciate your objective answers here-- and are specific
to the subject. I will compare the noise levels more carefully- and
of course that is important to overall "photobility". Good God, I
hate to spend the money. (Of course I could have bought a D1 for
all the times I have traded and bought consucams).

I sure like the around the neck convenience though. Hard to figure...
--
Clint
http://www.pbase.com/moviebear
Click to expand...
--Darkness is made up of dark particles.
 
Amac said:
With the G2 and 707, the max shutter speed is 1/1000, the D60 has
1/4000. With the prosumers, the smallest aperture is F8 (Uh-Oh),
with the D60 it's whatever your lens will give you. My Sigma's give
me f/32- way, way better. The G2 and 707 have minimum shutter
speeds of 15 and 30 secs, the D60 has a bulb setting ON THE CAMERA.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why the top shutter speed would be an issue. What can't you freeze with 1/1000 sec? A bullet, or parts of a humming bird? What's really impressive is how the D60 seems to preform at it's bulb setting. I've printed 8x10s from my Olympus at 8 seconds, with hours of noise and hot pixel removal in Photoshop.
Amac said:
With the G2 and 707 the max ISO is 400. Not very helpful if you
shoot rock concerts like I do. The D60 has 1000, and the noise
level is looking good too, IMHO
Click to expand...
My Oly was barely tolerable at 200. Even at it's base ISO, it doesn't look quite as good as a D30 or D60 shooting at 400, which was my Oly's max, and definately not useable in print.
 
Forrest said:
I'm not sure why the top shutter speed would be an issue. What
can't you freeze with 1/1000 sec? A bullet, or parts of a humming
bird?
Click to expand...
The higher the shutter speed you have, the wider the apeture you can use in bright sunlight.

What's really impressive is how the D60 seems to preform
Forrest41926 said:
at it's bulb setting. I've printed 8x10s from my Olympus at 8
seconds, with hours of noise and hot pixel removal in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Yep, it looks good for shooting cityscapes at dusk, for sure :))
Forrest41926 said:
My Oly was barely tolerable at 200. Even at it's base ISO, it
doesn't look quite as good as a D30 or D60 shooting at 400, which
was my Oly's max, and definately not useable in print.
Click to expand...
I've owned a 3040 and I know what you mean.

--RegardsAndrew McGregor'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
 
I am the owner of Minolta D7 and waiting for D60 and played with Nikon D1x. IMHO the bigest thing is that even though I had F2.8 lens I could not get that blured background with ver sharp subject. Unless the bacground is 200 feet away. I can't get that blur. I read in my manual that the reason my camera only goes to F9.5 is because it captures more detail bla bla. IMO that whole thing should be moved. I am probably capturing from F11 to F22 for comparison to DSLR cameras. Nice for shotting landscapes but you don't get that sharpness on the subject, everything seems soft. Although I do like the colors on my D7 :)
Andrew McGregor said:
Forrest said:
I'm not sure why the top shutter speed would be an issue. What
can't you freeze with 1/1000 sec? A bullet, or parts of a humming
bird?
Click to expand...
The higher the shutter speed you have, the wider the apeture you
can use in bright sunlight.

What's really impressive is how the D60 seems to preform
Amac said:
at it's bulb setting. I've printed 8x10s from my Olympus at 8
seconds, with hours of noise and hot pixel removal in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Yep, it looks good for shooting cityscapes at dusk, for sure :))
Amac said:
My Oly was barely tolerable at 200. Even at it's base ISO, it
doesn't look quite as good as a D30 or D60 shooting at 400, which
was my Oly's max, and definately not useable in print.
Click to expand...
I've owned a 3040 and I know what you mean.

--
Regards

Andrew McGregor

'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' --
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
Click to expand...
 
hi,

check around, u should be able to get a used d30 for around 1,000-1,3000.

the cam will grow with you enough that you can worry about lenes later. just get a standard lens to start with and grow into the set-up.

again the quality is something that you have to experience.--w.
 
Amac said:
Amac said:
I'm not sure why the top shutter speed would be an issue. What
can't you freeze with 1/1000 sec? A bullet, or parts of a humming
bird?
Click to expand...
The higher the shutter speed you have, the wider the apeture you
can use in bright sunlight.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a no-no? F/8 on a tripod, and all that? Especially when you have light to shoot from f/8 to f/11? Unless you want to throw the fore/back -ground out of focus... My Oly only stopped down to f/8, so ( in daylight ) when that wasn't enough, I would use a C-PL and/or ND filters to darken the image. I guess it's probably better not to have to, though...
Amac said:
What's really impressive is how the D60 seems to preform
Amac said:
at it's bulb setting. I've printed 8x10s from my Olympus at 8
seconds, with hours of noise and hot pixel removal in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Yep, it looks good for shooting cityscapes at dusk, for sure :))
Click to expand...
I'm hoping it will do mountain tops under a full moon. Very long exposures indeed, but it looks very promising so far.
 
I had a G2 (and G1, S20, S10)

I thought the pictures from the G2 were pretty good.

Now I look at them compared to the D30 (now my D60) and realize how bad they are.

They are over sharpened. There is noise all over. They look horrible, especially at 8x10, or cropped at 5x7.

I have several pictures I took last year that I really like of my kids and wife, that I really wish I'd taken with a D30. But I cannot go back and retake them. They will live forever as medium quality images.

Buy a D30 (or better yet a D60), a 24-85 USM lens and a 420EX flash. The whole setup will cost $1900(D30 used)-$2600 (D60 New). The images you get will be so much better than a G2 or 707, your only regret will be that you did not do it sooner.

-Steve Reed
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
The reviews here and elsewhere for both the G2 and Sony 707 rate it
just as highly as the D60 for its' class. Both highly recomended-
with cutting edge optics and resolution capabilities.
Click to expand...
I think the G2 has been favorably compared to the D30 under good
light when a normal lens will do the trick, and I wouldn't be
surprised to hear the same about the 707. But the D60 isn't even
on the shelves yet...
Forrest41926 said:
For my needs mentioned above, would the only real world difference
be interchangeable lenses and the added prestige? Or is there going
to be a improvement in photo quality that is obvious? I've been
biting over this for awhile-- and I'm not coming up with a huge
difference.
Click to expand...
The main difference is that the D60 produces MUCH better images
than the G2 or 707. As it should, for the price. The pictures are
higher resolution and much, much cleaner ( of noise ). They're
MEANT to be interopelated to huge sizes and printed a few feet
across. The difference will turn up in 8x10s, but I don't think it
will jump off the page at you. The difference should be mainly the
noise and the color.

Other advantages of the D60 are it's viewfinder -- the G2 and 707
are pretty lacking -- and it's amazing, film-like long exposures.

If you don't need wide or telephoto lenses, will be happy with
f/2.0 to around f/11, and won't ever print beyond 11x14 ( pushing
it a little ), then by all means save yourself a lot of money, and
put some of it toward a vacation. Somewhere you'll get teriffic
pictures to justify your new camera...
Click to expand...
 
Ken...well said!! I had the same problem with my previous camera...a CP990. I don't know how many shots I lost because of the delay in recording the image. I no longer own a digital camera because I'm saving my $ for a real digital...DSLR!!!
Ken Chow said:
I just sold my G2, had it less than 2 months. Currently own 2
Pentax film slr's, a former Nikon F2a & F3 owner. Thought I'd get
a G2 to test the digital waters: what was I thinking?? It's a nice
digital toy that can produce decent images up to 8X10. But as a
real camera, no way.

If you look at all the nice images G2 owners post, you'll notice
that the vast majority of them are landscapes or still lifes -
there's a reason for that: major league delay between the time you
press the shutter release and the time the image is actually
recorded. Sorry to say the G2 is not capable of taking any kind of
pictures where "the Kodak moment" is important. This doesn't mean
just sports/action either. It means someone's fleeting facial
expression or gesture that's long gone by the time the G2 decides
to take the exposure. Yes there are workarounds, but that only
goes so far.

I don't mean to trash the G2, or put down happy owners of same,
just wanted to point out a main difference between consumer
digicams and something like the D30/60 et al. So, depends on what
you're shooting and how much tolerance you have for missing great
shots thanks to long delay times. For me, my tolerance for that is
quite low and I was very tired of missing "the shot". Got my hands
on a D60 during a trade show, and guess what, mine's arriving this
week.

Regards, Ken
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like your needs are minimal. Assuming that's the case, I would recommend the G2. I have a D30 and a G1 that gets used for times when the D30 isn't convenient to use. I am very pleased with the performance of my G1, but I recognized its limitations when I purchased it. It serves its purpose well, in my case. You may also consider the Pro90IS. My wife has that model and, at only 2.6 megapixels, I can produce some fine 8X10's with it. It's more versatile than the G2 and has 10X zoom capabilities. IMHO, a person that buys into a D30 typically takes his/her photography seriously. D30 images outshine anything a G2 can produce by a mile - but you have to understand post-processing well to get those quality results. The G2/Pro90IS gives you sharp, saturated, and contrasty images right out of the camera. Good luck on your decision. Let us know what it is. Take care...

Mike
Movie Bear said:
I regularly take photos of landscapes, buildings, and the
occasional macro shot. My needs are satisfied with lets say a
34-155mm focal length range. The maximum size I'd be printing is
about 8 x 10 with an Epson photo printer. But mainly, my images
would be viewed with on-line galleries.

What quality would a D60 give me that a Canon G2 or Sony 707 would
not give me at a third the price when you add lenses to the D60. It
seems like the AF system is the same-- buffering is the same--
rapid shooting is the same. And the built in lenses on these two
cameras are very fast (2.0) and remain fast all the way to its'
maximum zoom range. This would be a very costly zoom add-on for the
D60 to have this quality. And both the Canon and Sony use very good
(albeit compact) glass.

The reviews here and elsewhere for both the G2 and Sony 707 rate it
just as highly as the D60 for its' class. Both highly recomended-
with cutting edge optics and resolution capabilities.

For my needs mentioned above, would the only real world difference
be interchangeable lenses and the added prestige? Or is there going
to be a improvement in photo quality that is obvious? I've been
biting over this for awhile-- and I'm not coming up with a huge
difference.

Is there a difference for my profile of shooting? What is your advice?

--
Clint
http://www.pbase.com/moviebear
Click to expand...
--Mike Flaherty http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top