G1/G2 IS a point and shoot (sorry, it's a long one)

Oh pulease! Are you serious? Gee, you seem pretty knowledgable about Canon's marketing. Do you work for them? I have news for you, the G1/G2 IS a point and shoot and is marketed as a point and shoot albeit a sophisticated one.

Member said:

As others have already stated, the G2 is most definitely
NOT a point-and-shoot camera and someone who is not familiar with
it will not take very good pictures. Period.

Click to expand...

Canon marketing would dump a sold gold brick if they read this! Are you joking? You mean you can't just hand someone a G2 and expect a decent picture? It makes me laugh just thinking of the activity at Canon marketing if they thought that was the general concensus for the G2. Do you actually believe the tripe that just came out of your mouth? Here's a link you might want to read, it's Canon's Press Release for the G1. Here's a quote from it:

“Canon continues to make major strides in the design of fully-featured, easy-to-use digital cameras,” said Yukiaki Hashimoto, vice president and general manager of the Photographic Products Group at Canon U.S.A. “The PowerShot G1 is another example of Canon's commitment to designing high-quality products ideal for all levels of expertise* . Canon’s heritage as an optics and imaging company will continue to be the driving force behind our development of digital cameras that are sophisticated and easy-to-use,” Mr. Hashimoto added.

Complete press release is here: http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/G1/press.html

Ergo it is COMPLETELY REASONABLE to expect this camera to perform as well as a point and shoot when it is is point and shoot mode. That means it should focus as well as a point and shoot and MY camera does not focus as well as either my Olympus Epic fixed focal or my Yashica T4 fixed focal (not to mention my Canon Rebel SLR). Maybe yours does, mine does not. With the help of some decent people on this group, I intend to find ways of finding the exact trouble areas and then working around them but I can tell you that MY camera does not focus as well as any of the quality cameras I have owned in the past. Don't even think of doubting my experience because it's my experience, not yours.

Man I don't mean to keep this BS going but I'm really sick and tired of the self-righteous attitude of some people. You haven't used my camera, you have no idea how my camera works. You have no idea what kind of pictures I take or what situations I take them in. You only know how YOUR camera works so what gives you the divine insight to espouse this kind of BS to other people?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Someone appropriately titled BM said:

I was getting more than my fair share of fuzzy pics until I turned
off the continuous focus mode. Single focus works fine most of the
time as long as you give the camera a chance to focus by using the
half-press activation. The method I prefer is to lock focus and
exposure on the subject, then compose the frame, then shoot. Using
this method the G2 can be thought of as "SLR-like" and will give
consistantly good shots. They key here is to know what the camera
will do BEFORE pressing the shutter. In other words spend some
quality time with the owner's manual and LEARN HOW TO USE THE
CAMERA. As others have already stated, the G2 is most definitely
NOT a point-and-shoot camera and someone who is not familiar with
it will not take very good pictures. Period.

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

Ergo it is COMPLETELY REASONABLE to expect this camera to perform
as well as a point and shoot when it is is point and shoot mode.
That means it should focus as well as a point and shoot and MY
camera does not focus as well as either my Olympus Epic fixed focal
or my Yashica T4 fixed focal

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with these cameras, but if by "fixed focal" you mean lenses that don't need focusing, it does. You can emulate this mode by going to "Pan Focus". This is the G2's true point-n-shoot setting. Aim, click, done.

Eric Haglund said:

(not to mention my Canon Rebel SLR).

Click to expand...

SLRs have dedicated ccd or cmos chips for AF. The G2's design makes this at least impractical, so it will never be as fast as your Rebel.

---------------
http://edsphotos.us/

I may have the lingo wrong (wouldn't be the first time). The cameras (epic & Yashica) had no zoom capability. I thought that was called fixed focal length or am I thinking of something else?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

eg said:

Eric Haglund said:

Ergo it is COMPLETELY REASONABLE to expect this camera to perform
as well as a point and shoot when it is is point and shoot mode.
That means it should focus as well as a point and shoot and MY
camera does not focus as well as either my Olympus Epic fixed focal
or my Yashica T4 fixed focal

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with these cameras, but if by "fixed focal" you
mean lenses that don't need focusing, it does. You can emulate this
mode by going to "Pan Focus". This is the G2's true point-n-shoot
setting. Aim, click, done.

eg #37159 said:

(not to mention my Canon Rebel SLR).

Click to expand...

SLRs have dedicated ccd or cmos chips for AF. The G2's design makes
this at least impractical, so it will never be as fast as your
Rebel.

---------------
http://edsphotos.us/

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

I may have the lingo wrong (wouldn't be the first time). The
cameras (epic & Yashica) had no zoom capability. I thought that was
called fixed focal length or am I thinking of something else?

Click to expand...

no you're right

just to say something, don't expect the G2 to be as fast as a cheap fixed focal length analogic camera, the G2 is like all the other compact digital cameras, slow af... just get used to it, with time the digicams will become faster at autofocus, but right now all we see is a battle for more and more megapixel...

and the G2 is faster than most compact digicams ( with optical zoom ) at autofocus...

mine is set to single focus and at wide angle it takes from 0.6 to 0.9 sec to focus. it rarely goes beyond that, for me it's just fine! and if you want fast shutter lag, just predict things and half press the shutter button to focus the area you predicted you wanted to photograph, if you do that, you'll get times like 0.09 sec of shutter lag... now that's more slr like ...

cheers !

Rui Santos

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

I agree with your point-and-pray assesment, especially of people in wide angle. I think that is the frustration myself and many others feel- if a $40 Minolta can do it, why can't an $800 G2? I probably came on too strong, I apologize for that. But my frustration is just what you said in your last sentence, it seems anyone who is not getting good AF results is brandished as an idiot that needs to read the manual and it gets old really fast.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

I may have the lingo wrong (wouldn't be the first time). The
cameras (epic & Yashica) had no zoom capability. I thought that was
called fixed focal length or am I thinking of something else?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's right. But do these cameras focus or are they also fixed focus? If they are fixed focus then the G2 can accomplish that same task in Pan Focus mode.

It's my theory that many of the people who complain about G2 focusing are used to 35mm fixed focus P&S cameras. Fine, nothing wrong with that. But then it would be fair to put the G2 in the same mode before comparing.

Basically, if you're about to hand the camera over to someone clueless for a quick snapshot, I really do think you ought to put it into Pan focus. As long as you have enough light, that is as close as you're going to get to no-brains P&S shooting.

The Epic died in a canoe overturning incident so I don't remember but I beleive the T4 touts a 3 beam autofocus so it must not be fixed focus. Pan focus mode for handing the camera off to someone else is a good suggestion, thanks--

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

eg said:

Eric Haglund said:

I may have the lingo wrong (wouldn't be the first time). The
cameras (epic & Yashica) had no zoom capability. I thought that was
called fixed focal length or am I thinking of something else?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's right. But do these cameras focus or are they
also fixed focus? If they are fixed focus then the G2 can
accomplish that same task in Pan Focus mode.

It's my theory that many of the people who complain about G2
focusing are used to 35mm fixed focus P&S cameras. Fine, nothing
wrong with that. But then it would be fair to put the G2 in the
same mode before comparing.

Basically, if you're about to hand the camera over to someone
clueless for a quick snapshot, I really do think you ought to put
it into Pan focus. As long as you have enough light, that is as
close as you're going to get to no-brains P&S shooting.

Click to expand...

Eric, I don't know what log you have had your head under, but
the Canon G1 never was, and never will be a decent point and
shoot. You have to learn it, or you will get more bad shots than
good. This is a known fact, and has been a known fact for almost
two years! According to all reports, the G2 is better at this than
the G1, but no one said it was perfect. Now, what kind of shots
are you having problems with, and how can we help other than
listening to you rant?

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This topic makes better reading than the kid's TV programme - Sesame Street.

Perhaps we need two Canon Forums:

1 for Knockers only;

2 for genuine Happy Canon Users

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Zippity - A happy G2 owner
http://www.pbase.com/zippity/profile
Wellington, New Zealand

Zippity, I am a happy Canon owner, who takes lots of very nice shots
with my G1. That doesn't make me blind or stupid tho. The G1
requires that you pay attention to the backgrounds you are pointing
it at when focusing if you want to control the focus. It requires that
you take control of exposure pretty much all of the time is you are
not using the 420ex in bounce mode indoors. Like I posted before, I
shot about 150 shots at my son's wedding recently, and out of the
first 106 shots, 101 went to print. Now, I made maybe 200 camera
exposure, WB, and flash adjustments to get those shots. I also used
a converter lens on and off because of the conditions of the shoot.
No one without the time I have behind the G1 could have taken those
shots with my G1, not and had any where near that success rate under
the conditions of the shoot. Using the G1 as a point and shoot, in
auto or p-mode either one, 50 percent decent shots woud have
been good under the conditions, which were not good. This is not a
slam on the G1. My old Casio would not have been able to do much
better, despite a much better metering program. Point and shoot or
not, there are times when you need to realize that the Preacher and
the wedding party standing in the shade of the Willow are not going
to meter correctly when metered across a pond in mid day blazing sun,
unless the camera is forced to meter that part of the image correctly.
Spot will not work, since we basically have Black and White to spot
off of in this case. An adjusted averaged metering, or an adjusted spot
metering is required, if you want the shot right. Guess what? They
don't make a camera that smart yet! It takes a user that knows the
camera at this point. This is what this forum provides. The information
to learn how to use what you bought. The disappointed consumer
suppport group is down the street. I think they call it a bar.

Zippity said:

Perhaps we need two Canon Forums:

1 for Knockers only;

2 for genuine Happy Canon Users

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Zippity - A happy G2 owner
http://www.pbase.com/zippity/profile
Wellington, New Zealand

Click to expand...

Bob- Thanks for the offer to help. I'll take you up on it. Here's an example of a typically soft, infinity focus shot of a person less than 6 feet way.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3179330

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less) would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without manual intervention?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

I agree with your point-and-pray assesment, especially of people in
wide angle. I think that is the frustration myself and many others
feel- if a $40 Minolta can do it, why can't an $800 G2? I probably
came on too strong, I apologize for that. But my frustration is
just what you said in your last sentence, it seems anyone who is
not getting good AF results is brandished as an idiot that needs to
read the manual and it gets old really fast.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Click to expand...

Eric, do you have any control over the DOF with the $40 Minolta, or is everything always "in-focus". Does the $40 camera have a zoom? If you want your G2 to perform the same way as the Minolta, then you should pick a camera like the Casio GV-20. You should be very happy with the results...no focus problems, little shutter lag, good exposure. However, I suspect if you made the trade, you'd haunt the Kodak forum saying "I used to have a G2...why are my shots so much softer with my new Casio? Why no zoom, and why can't I blur the background?

The camera is a tool. You can unscrew a bolt with an adjustable wrench, a socket wrench, a box wrench, a crescent wrench, or pliars in a pinch. Take your pick. My tool box has all types of wrenches (and pliars) in it. They all get used. Pliars suck for hex bolts...they mangle them. Adjustable works fine if you don't know what size you will encounter. Socket works great...but you have to keep track of all those little heads, extentions, etc. Box wrench can't be beat if you need to apply a lot of torque. Take your pick. If you can only have one wrench, though, I reccomend the adjustable wrench. This is what the G2 is designed to be. A good, workable compromise.

Cheers.

Eric,

Take a look at this link:
http://www.botzilla.com/photo/G1focus.html
Also:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/autofocus.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2285773
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2890738

Greetings,
Roumen

Eric Haglund said:

http://www.pbase.com/image/3179330

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Roumen- thank you.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

roumen said:

Take a look at this link:
http://www.botzilla.com/photo/G1focus.html
Also:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/autofocus.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2285773
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2890738

Greetings,
Roumen

Eric Haglund said:

http://www.pbase.com/image/3179330

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I can see what the problem is right off. You used single focus center. The subject is standing with some tree branches in front of him and if there was any movement at all in the branches the camera had to make a decision inside the focal square whether try to lock on the branches. And one of the lessons I learned on this forum is that if you are shooting landscapes that involve alot of green (leaves, grass, etc) you need to adjust your settings to compensate. Seems to me by slightly adjusting the focal point so the branches were not confusing the issue the focus might have been better?
--
Have a great day
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001

Eric Haglund said:

Bob- Thanks for the offer to help. I'll take you up on it. Here's
an example of a typically soft, infinity focus shot of a person
less than 6 feet way.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3179330

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Click to expand...

It's important that we compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges here.

Compact film cameras, film SLR's, and consumer digicams all have different focusing mechanisms. I don't know the technical details why this is.

But as a whole, compact film cameras are the easiest to use. EVERY digital camera I have used is harder to focus than a point and shoot film camera. If that is your complaint, then this is not just an issue for the Canon G2 but for all of Canon's models, and in fact the entire industry. If so, this discussion should be in the general forum.

OTOH, perhaps you are finding that the Canon G2 also has inferior autofocus compared to other digital cameras in the same level/ price range. That would be comparing oranges to oranges of course.

It seems like there's some confusion over this, which is why we read the same posts over and over. When you say 'every other camera I've ever owned', its impossible for us determine what your point of comparison is.

Eric Haglund said:

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--

Click to expand...

For example, take a look at this thread from another site-

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=2787

'I keep hearing good things about the CP 5000 on the list but I seem to have trouble getting consistent results. I am on 1.6 of the firmware which I believe is the latest version. The camera seems to be extremely slow to focus and hits and misses with the sharpness in the image. I used a CP 990 for a year with much better success. I'v been a photographer for 20 years plus so I think I pretty much know what I'm doing here. Is anyone else having a similar problem? Does anyone have any suggestions that I may not know about related to this Digi Cam? So far I'm disappointed with the CP5000. Maybe I'm expecting too much.'

'I have also had inconsistencies using the Nikon 5000 focus. The worst one for me was setting the focus to infinity manually when shooting a series of shots on a bright sunny day for a panorama. You would think that if one sets the aperture to 7.1 and shot a landscape that is over mile away that the image should be sharp when the focus is set manually to infinity - it isn't.'

Sound familiar?

My guess is that the G2, the CP5000, or just about any consumer digital camera out there uses pretty much the same contrast detection focusing mechanism.

Actually, it seems that many manufacturers try to introduce 'smart' focusing to try to automatically recognize subjects, but these seem to muck things up a lot. Nothing like overengineering, but at least generally you have a choice. I personally prefer your basic center spot focus, at least then I know what the camera is doing, and can manually look for a good focusing point.

Steve Lang said:

Compact film cameras, film SLR's, and consumer digicams all have
different focusing mechanisms. I don't know the technical details
why this is.

But as a whole, compact film cameras are the easiest to use. EVERY
digital camera I have used is harder to focus than a point and
shoot film camera. If that is your complaint, then this is not just
an issue for the Canon G2 but for all of Canon's models, and in
fact the entire industry. If so, this discussion should be in the
general forum.

OTOH, perhaps you are finding that the Canon G2 also has inferior
autofocus compared to other digital cameras in the same level/
price range. That would be comparing oranges to oranges of course.

It seems like there's some confusion over this, which is why we
read the same posts over and over. When you say 'every other camera
I've ever owned', its impossible for us determine what your point
of comparison is.

Eric Haglund said:

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.madmaxmedia.com

Eric, this is a predictable error that is best taken care of by
focusing on something at the right distance, and recomposing
the shot. The problem here is the Green. The sensor that
the focus is being read off of contains two green sensors for every
single red and blue sensor. In shots where there is any contrast in
green right behind you subject, as there is in this shot, the G1 will
miss most of the time. I shoot my daughter a lot against a treeline.
I had to find a proper distance from the green and gray background
with lots of contrast, so that my daughter would become the
object of the focus. Place a piece of tape over the focus assist lamp.
Use a converter lens to throw the background out of focus more
causing a better focus response, or mount a 420ex on the camera.
All three of these will help. I can not explain why the 420 effects
focus accuracy, but it does. Now, lots of people are going to argue
with some of the things I just said. Don't think at them. Try them!
Once you have tried them, then come back and discuss them.

Eric Haglund said:

http://www.pbase.com/image/3179330

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Bob Williams said:

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

BM said:

"Point-and-shoot" can mean many things to different people. My
definition is that ANY bozo, even one who has never held a camera
before, can point the camera, mash the shutter, and get a good
picture, without thinking about the shot at all. A $39 Minolta
Freedom camera (35mm) that I bought at Walmart several years ago
falls into this category. That camera has never failed to take a
properly exposed and focused picture. My $700 Canon G2, on the
other hand, takes much thought to get the majority of pictures to
expose and focus the way I think they should. That ain't
point-and-shoot, it's point-and-pray. Sort of like using Windows on
my computer. Maybe Canon intended for the G2 to be P&S but they
failed with this attempt. I like the camera now that I have its
quirks fiqured out but I wouldn't buy another one.

If your camera absolutely does not focus like it should then send
it in for repairs and quit trying to convince the world that
everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Steve-

Thanks for responding. My previous cameras were all film as listed above. I used one digital a Nikon CP800 and had good luck with it but I didn't use it in enough circumstances to say if it was better than the G2 or not at focusing. I think the problem is expectation management. I expected an $800 camera to focus as well as my $100 Oly Epic and I'm finding that for whatever reason, higher cost does not equal better performance in some instances. The G2 does everything better than the Oly and digital is way cool but it simply does not focus as well on people at wide angle. It's a big disappointment because I bought the camera primarily to take pics of my kids. No one tells you to expect inferior focus when you buy digital, you get to be surprised later. I'll learn to deal with it but I'm truly disappointed in Canon's AF, I hope they throw some engineering dollars at it so it's at least as good as the Oly Epic, Yashica T4, etc that I had before. Meanwhile, I'll try the Macro focus on situations like the example pic I posted above to see if it does better.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Steve Lang said:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=2787

'I keep hearing good things about the CP 5000 on the list but I
seem to have trouble getting consistent results. I am on 1.6 of the
firmware which I believe is the latest version. The camera seems to
be extremely slow to focus and hits and misses with the sharpness
in the image. I used a CP 990 for a year with much better success.
I'v been a photographer for 20 years plus so I think I pretty much
know what I'm doing here. Is anyone else having a similar problem?
Does anyone have any suggestions that I may not know about related
to this Digi Cam? So far I'm disappointed with the CP5000. Maybe
I'm expecting too much.'

'I have also had inconsistencies using the Nikon 5000 focus. The
worst one for me was setting the focus to infinity manually when
shooting a series of shots on a bright sunny day for a panorama.
You would think that if one sets the aperture to 7.1 and shot a
landscape that is over mile away that the image should be sharp
when the focus is set manually to infinity - it isn't.'

Sound familiar?

My guess is that the G2, the CP5000, or just about any consumer
digital camera out there uses pretty much the same contrast
detection focusing mechanism.

Actually, it seems that many manufacturers try to introduce 'smart'
focusing to try to automatically recognize subjects, but these seem
to muck things up a lot. Nothing like overengineering, but at least
generally you have a choice. I personally prefer your basic center
spot focus, at least then I know what the camera is doing, and can
manually look for a good focusing point.

Steve Lang said:

Compact film cameras, film SLR's, and consumer digicams all have
different focusing mechanisms. I don't know the technical details
why this is.

But as a whole, compact film cameras are the easiest to use. EVERY
digital camera I have used is harder to focus than a point and
shoot film camera. If that is your complaint, then this is not just
an issue for the Canon G2 but for all of Canon's models, and in
fact the entire industry. If so, this discussion should be in the
general forum.

OTOH, perhaps you are finding that the Canon G2 also has inferior
autofocus compared to other digital cameras in the same level/
price range. That would be comparing oranges to oranges of course.

It seems like there's some confusion over this, which is why we
read the same posts over and over. When you say 'every other camera
I've ever owned', its impossible for us determine what your point
of comparison is.

Eric Haglund said:

Any and every other camera I've ever owned (that cost much less)
would have nailed the focus on this pic but my G2 decides to just
let it slide to inifinity focus. This is very common with my
camera. What would your camera have done with this shot? Is it an
unreasonable expectation to expect the boy to be in focus without
manual intervention?

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.madmaxmedia.com

Click to expand...