Angry New G2 User

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

I give up. I bought my G2 8 weeks ago. After extensive testing, I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

1. I took 179 photographs on a long trip. I've studied them extensively.

Of 21 close focus photos (by my definition, the subject was up to 3 meters away), 10 actually focused at least double the actual distance to subject. 3 focused at 66M.

Of 72 medium focus photos (subject is 3.1 to 15 meters by my definition), 40 either focused less than half, or more than double, the actual distance to subject. Several group shots were out of focus.

Of 86 long focus photos (subject over 15 meters away by my definition), 38 focused at less than half of actual distance. Especially troubling were the 10 that focused at 2 to 5 meters.

2. Since examining those photos, I've done extensive testing, probably 200 test shots in all. The G2 autofocus is all over the map and cannot be trusted for precision work.

3. I thought Pan Focus would be the easy solution since the manual implies that focus is fixed. Well, maybe it is, but the first in any Pan Focus series shows EXIF distance of 1.39 meters, the remaining show 66 meters. Comparison prints show the 1.39 meter photo is probably focused at the same point as the 66 meter photographs. So here is a case (the first photo in the series) where the EXIF distance data created by the G2 appears to be bogus.

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters. Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Now, before I'm flamed as not knowing what I'm talking about, I've been taking photographs for 45 years, have owned probably 40 cameras over that time of several brands and formats, and have extensively studied the technical aspects of photography over that time. I'm partial to no brand. And I know about contolled testing.

And I've read the G2 manual extensively. I know how to run the camera. I know all about pushing the shutter down part way and waiting for the green light or square to come on, then completing the exposure. And I know the importance of putting the crosshairs on the high contrast and important part of the subject. (Although for the life of me, I cannot understand why the G2 was designed to properly focus on vertical lines, but not horizontal lines.)

One frustration lies in the fact that the G2 gives little meaningful in-camera feedback as to actual focused distance. The zoom lever doesn't yield much unless the photograph is grossly out of focus. So I know little about actual focus distance until the image is transfered to the computer.

I'm also aware that the large DOF of a 7 to 21 mm lens covers up most focus problems. That's livable provided the max print size is small. But I want more than that. To me, no camera is worth it's salt unless ALL images are capable of 13 by 19 inch prints, (where the stars are aligned and the photograph is worthy of hanging on the wall.)

The G2 would be capable if it focused properly. The 4 megs, the color handling, and the wonderful lens are enough. But The G2 is the first camera I've owned which had autofocus problems. I can't believe that given the G2's great lens, color handling, and battery life, that Canon would screw up the autofocus so badly.

I simply cannot trust the camera. To ensure the photograph is properly focused, I have to use one of my other cameras. The G2 just doesn't hack it.

I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

vk · Aug 1, 2002

KMR said:
Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Remy84678 · Aug 1, 2002

Could you post a few examples of the said pictures?Also how many other digital cameras have you used?
Ivan
=======

KMR said:
I give up. I bought my G2 8 weeks ago. After extensive testing,
I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

1. I took 179 photographs on a long trip. I've studied them
extensively.

Of 21 close focus photos (by my definition, the subject was up to 3
meters away), 10 actually focused at least double the actual
distance to subject. 3 focused at 66M.

Of 72 medium focus photos (subject is 3.1 to 15 meters by my
definition), 40 either focused less than half, or more than double,
the actual distance to subject. Several group shots were out of
focus.

Of 86 long focus photos (subject over 15 meters away by my
definition), 38 focused at less than half of actual distance.
Especially troubling were the 10 that focused at 2 to 5 meters.

2. Since examining those photos, I've done extensive testing,
probably 200 test shots in all. The G2 autofocus is all over the
map and cannot be trusted for precision work.

3. I thought Pan Focus would be the easy solution since the manual
implies that focus is fixed. Well, maybe it is, but the first in
any Pan Focus series shows EXIF distance of 1.39 meters, the
remaining show 66 meters. Comparison prints show the 1.39 meter
photo is probably focused at the same point as the 66 meter
photographs. So here is a case (the first photo in the series)
where the EXIF distance data created by the G2 appears to be bogus.

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Now, before I'm flamed as not knowing what I'm talking about, I've
been taking photographs for 45 years, have owned probably 40
cameras over that time of several brands and formats, and have
extensively studied the technical aspects of photography over that
time. I'm partial to no brand. And I know about contolled testing.

And I've read the G2 manual extensively. I know how to run the
camera. I know all about pushing the shutter down part way and
waiting for the green light or square to come on, then completing
the exposure. And I know the importance of putting the crosshairs
on the high contrast and important part of the subject. (Although
for the life of me, I cannot understand why the G2 was designed to
properly focus on vertical lines, but not horizontal lines.)

One frustration lies in the fact that the G2 gives little
meaningful in-camera feedback as to actual focused distance. The
zoom lever doesn't yield much unless the photograph is grossly out
of focus. So I know little about actual focus distance until the
image is transfered to the computer.

I'm also aware that the large DOF of a 7 to 21 mm lens covers up
most focus problems. That's livable provided the max print size is
small. But I want more than that. To me, no camera is worth it's
salt unless ALL images are capable of 13 by 19 inch prints, (where
the stars are aligned and the photograph is worthy of hanging on
the wall.)

The G2 would be capable if it focused properly. The 4 megs, the
color handling, and the wonderful lens are enough. But The G2 is
the first camera I've owned which had autofocus problems. I can't
believe that given the G2's great lens, color handling, and battery
life, that Canon would screw up the autofocus so badly.

I simply cannot trust the camera. To ensure the photograph is
properly focused, I have to use one of my other cameras. The G2
just doesn't hack it.

I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Kristian Salo101843 · Aug 1, 2002

Good. If all of us call, maybe we get Canon to do something.

Kristian

KMR said:
I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

--
---
IXUS V, S40 and G2 Galleries
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

NNS · Aug 1, 2002

Hi kmr,

sorry to hear that you are having problems with your G2. I think in a way, all of us expected more of this camera than it is or was ever designed to do. I know that I purchased mine as a result of all the rave reviews I read on this forum and others.

I am happy with my G2. I've not experienced any of the focus problems others have described. Most of my pictures are vivid, sharp and in focus. The G2 is not a precision instrument but then again, go to the Nikon SLR forum and read about all the complaints on the new D100. I'm beginning to believe that no one is ever totally satisfied with their cameras and that in the end, it is the skill of the person taking the picture that makes the difference.

Would I buy the G2 again? Probably not given that I could get very similar results from a cheaper camera.

KMR said:
I give up. I bought my G2 8 weeks ago. After extensive testing,
I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

1. I took 179 photographs on a long trip. I've studied them
extensively.

Of 21 close focus photos (by my definition, the subject was up to 3
meters away), 10 actually focused at least double the actual
distance to subject. 3 focused at 66M.

Of 72 medium focus photos (subject is 3.1 to 15 meters by my
definition), 40 either focused less than half, or more than double,
the actual distance to subject. Several group shots were out of
focus.

Of 86 long focus photos (subject over 15 meters away by my
definition), 38 focused at less than half of actual distance.
Especially troubling were the 10 that focused at 2 to 5 meters.

2. Since examining those photos, I've done extensive testing,
probably 200 test shots in all. The G2 autofocus is all over the
map and cannot be trusted for precision work.

3. I thought Pan Focus would be the easy solution since the manual
implies that focus is fixed. Well, maybe it is, but the first in
any Pan Focus series shows EXIF distance of 1.39 meters, the
remaining show 66 meters. Comparison prints show the 1.39 meter
photo is probably focused at the same point as the 66 meter
photographs. So here is a case (the first photo in the series)
where the EXIF distance data created by the G2 appears to be bogus.

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Now, before I'm flamed as not knowing what I'm talking about, I've
been taking photographs for 45 years, have owned probably 40
cameras over that time of several brands and formats, and have
extensively studied the technical aspects of photography over that
time. I'm partial to no brand. And I know about contolled testing.

And I've read the G2 manual extensively. I know how to run the
camera. I know all about pushing the shutter down part way and
waiting for the green light or square to come on, then completing
the exposure. And I know the importance of putting the crosshairs
on the high contrast and important part of the subject. (Although
for the life of me, I cannot understand why the G2 was designed to
properly focus on vertical lines, but not horizontal lines.)

One frustration lies in the fact that the G2 gives little
meaningful in-camera feedback as to actual focused distance. The
zoom lever doesn't yield much unless the photograph is grossly out
of focus. So I know little about actual focus distance until the
image is transfered to the computer.

I'm also aware that the large DOF of a 7 to 21 mm lens covers up
most focus problems. That's livable provided the max print size is
small. But I want more than that. To me, no camera is worth it's
salt unless ALL images are capable of 13 by 19 inch prints, (where
the stars are aligned and the photograph is worthy of hanging on
the wall.)

The G2 would be capable if it focused properly. The 4 megs, the
color handling, and the wonderful lens are enough. But The G2 is
the first camera I've owned which had autofocus problems. I can't
believe that given the G2's great lens, color handling, and battery
life, that Canon would screw up the autofocus so badly.

I simply cannot trust the camera. To ensure the photograph is
properly focused, I have to use one of my other cameras. The G2
just doesn't hack it.

I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

vk said:
vk said:

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I've had a digital SLR for one year. I bought the G2 because my digital SLR with charger, flash, lenses, etc. is too large to fit into my tank bag for the 8,000 mile motorcycle ride I took (when I took the 179 photograhps).

The G2 specs were great, and when it focuses properly, it produces a great 13 in by 19 in print, quite comparable to my digital SLR. Only problem is this: My G2's focus is all over the map.

Eric Haglund · Aug 1, 2002

Hey! Did you steal my G2! ;-)

Seriously, I sincerely feel your pain. Myself and some others have been dealing with this and getting flamed for it for a month or so. Let me summarize my own opinions and what I've learned so far for you: (disclaimer: you have more photo experience than I do)

1- Canon marketing duped you (and me). They represent this camera to be one thing but they delivered something else. Everything about the camera is fabulous- except the AF. However, a system is only as good as it's weakest part and, well, the AF is defintely weak. Many of us are hoping that Canon steps up to the bag and makes this right.

2- I'm gonna guess that since you "only" took 179 pics on a "long" vacation, that you're new to digital photography, yes? Probably used to the crisp, fast focus of an SLR? Wake up Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore! This is digital, buy more CF cards and hammer away, man!

3- I've been told that unless you move up to a DSLR, the G2 represents the best of best. You could buy something else but you'd have to suffer with some other problem (crappy color saturation, etc). So, from what I can tell, digital prosumer cameras really don't offer a complete package yet. Despite the high price tag, you really don't get what you think you're gonna get. But in this stage of digital prosumer camera development, it's not fair to expect the $800 G2 to work as well as your $300 Rebel EOS. Seems like it should be but it's not. But Canon doesn't tell you this, do they?

4- However, done right, this camera can take WONDERFUL pictures. You'll have to work at it though. It will frustrate you but even a hack like me is learning the ins and outs and how to deal with the crappy AF. I really love the camera even though the AF p!sses me off regularly.

You'll just have to decide whether or not you want to work within the camera's limitations or move on (or back) to something different. But do let us know what Canon says and what you decide to do. If you decide to keep it, this is a pretty good forum. You can return to b!tch about the AF and learn more about it while you're here. Best of luck!

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

KMR said:
I give up.

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

ivan4741 said:
Could you post a few examples of the said pictures?Also how many
other digital cameras have you used?
Ivan
=======

Thanks for your reply. The G2 is my 4th digital camera.

The first was a Kodak 210 (an early camera, great when it came out, but now obsolete. Only 1 megapixel, for openers.)

Second was a Nikon 990. OK for it's time, but the G2 is 4 megs, vs 3.3, and the G2 lens is better. A properly focused G2 print is better than a 990 print. To my knowledge, though, the 990 has always focused OK.

Third was my D1X, bought a year ago. It's a great camera, but I wanted something physically smaller to take on a long distance motorcycle ride. The G2's specs were great, thus my purchase of the G2.

By the way, I'm not a Nikon freak. The reason I have had Nikon cameras is because my brother-in-law (a professional photographer and commercial artist) advised me to buy one in 1970. Once I had acquired a few lenses, I was financially locked into Nikon. Had my 2nd cousin advised me instead (he's a photographer for the Minneapolis StarTribune), I would have probably bought Canon. He uses Canon in his professional work.

In other words, I have great respect for the Canon line, I'm just having focus problems with my G2, and am unhappy with the performance and design compared to advertised specs.

As to posting examples, I'll work on that, but quiite frankly, one has to see my prints to really see the problem.

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

Kristian S. said:
Good. If all of us call, maybe we get Canon to do something.

Thanks for your reply. I called Canon Technical. After listening to my story, he advised me to send it in and include a BRIEF description of the problem. I'll send it in, but expect Canon Service to tell me the thing is working properly. We'll see.

Frank55552 · Aug 1, 2002

KMR said:
4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

If this is right, I’m pretty sure your camera is defective. I usually set the manual focus to 5 meters (EXIF data shows 4.96 meters) when I take landscape photos. Everything is sharp except if there is something within 2 meters in the picture.

Frank

Agostino De Marco · Aug 1, 2002

I have just sold my G2 and bought a Nikon 5700

The high price I got for the G2 is a mark of it's continuing reputation in photography magazines. It's a very nice little camera. All I can say that at a recent sunny weekend in Regent's Park, more of the G2 pictures were out of focus than in focus. I have found the opposite with the 5700.

Of course the 5700 costs more but 5mp and a stunning tele lens make up the difference.

I would have kept the G2 had it not been for regular focus problems. It's controls and menus are laid out in a much more logical and accessible manner than the Nikon. But in the end it's results that count and I found the focus problems were too great for the type of photograph I take.

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

NNS said:
Hi kmr,
sorry to hear that you are having problems with your G2. I think
in a way, all of us expected more of this camera than it is or was
ever designed to do. I know that I purchased mine as a result of
all the rave reviews I read on this forum and others.

First, thanks for your reply. I also read the rave reviews, and given the great Canon reputation, bought the G2.

NNS said:
I am happy with my G2. I've not experienced any of the focus
problems others have described. Most of my pictures are vivid,
sharp and in focus. The G2 is not a precision instrument but then
again, go to the Nikon SLR forum and read about all the complaints
on the new D100. I'm beginning to believe that no one is ever
totally satisfied with their cameras and that in the end, it is the
skill of the person taking the picture that makes the difference.
Would I buy the G2 again? Probably not given that I could get very
similar results from a cheaper camera.

I'm not happy with my G2 and wouldn't buy it again, but properly focused G2 photos are vivid and sharp. I'm happy with them. My D1X isn't perfect either, but so far I've been able to work around problems with that camera. But so far I have no workaround for the G2's autofocus.

KMR · Aug 1, 2002

Eric Haglund said:
Hey! Did you steal my G2! ;-)

LOL. But thanks for your long and serious reply.

Eric Haglund said:
Seriously, I sincerely feel your pain. Myself and some others have
been dealing with this and getting flamed for it for a month or so.
Let me summarize my own opinions and what I've learned so far for
you: (disclaimer: you have more photo experience than I do)

1- Canon marketing duped you (and me). They represent this camera
to be one thing but they delivered something else. Everything about
the camera is fabulous- except the AF. However, a system is only as
good as it's weakest part and, well, the AF is defintely weak. Many
of us are hoping that Canon steps up to the bag and makes this
right.

Hear, Hear!!

Eric Haglund said:
2- I'm gonna guess that since you "only" took 179 pics on a "long"
vacation, that you're new to digital photography, yes? Probably
used to the crisp, fast focus of an SLR? Wake up Toto, we're not in
Kansas anymore! This is digital, buy more CF cards and hammer away,
man!

I only took 179 on this 3.5 week motorcycle ride because it's my 4th ride up to Alaska and I've "been there-done that" as to most of the scenery. Had I stopped to take all photographs possible, I'd still be on the road.

Eric Haglund said:
3- I've been told that unless you move up to a DSLR, the G2
represents the best of best. You could buy something else but you'd
have to suffer with some other problem (crappy color saturation,
etc). So, from what I can tell, digital prosumer cameras really
don't offer a complete package yet. Despite the high price tag, you
really don't get what you think you're gonna get. But in this stage
of digital prosumer camera development, it's not fair to expect the
$800 G2 to work as well as your $300 Rebel EOS. Seems like it
should be but it's not. But Canon doesn't tell you this, do they?

No they don't, and if they could do better on autofocus, I'd be totally happy with the G2.

Eric Haglund said:
4- However, done right, this camera can take WONDERFUL pictures.
You'll have to work at it though. It will frustrate you but even a
hack like me is learning the ins and outs and how to deal with the
crappy AF. I really love the camera even though the AF p!sses me
off regularly.

As I mentioned in another reply post (or somewhere else, I can't remember), if I could work around the autofocus problem I'd at least have a camera I could use with confidence. But so far it's hit or miss. How do I know, for example, that when the green light comes on and the subject is contrasty, even with some clear vertical lines, that the the G2 actually has focused properly. I know there's one way, namely push the MF button in while holding down the shutter half way, but that's a tedious way to take photographs, one I didn't expect to have to go through before I bought the camera.

Eric Haglund said:
You'll just have to decide whether or not you want to work within
the camera's limitations or move on (or back) to something
different. But do let us know what Canon says and what you decide
to do. If you decide to keep it, this is a pretty good forum. You
can return to b!tch about the AF and learn more about it while
you're here. Best of luck!

Yes, this is a great forum. And I'll be back when I know something further. I really appreciate all time and effort taken to post problems and solutions.

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

KMR said:

I give up.

Click to expand...

chris · Aug 1, 2002

G2's AF is contrast detection and works best if you can find a pattern of vertical contrasting lines from your focusing subject. I had this tip once and has worked well for me. MF is really a pain to use, and even they have indicated the focusing distance info (an improvement from the G1) i still wouldnt rely on it. I only use MF it in macros. I think MF in digital cameras only works in DSLR's.

If you can work around this, then you can enjoy the great colors the G2 can deliver.

Chris

Frank said:
KMR said:

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Click to expand...

If this is right, I’m pretty sure your camera is defective. I
usually set the manual focus to 5 meters (EXIF data shows 4.96
meters) when I take landscape photos. Everything is sharp except if
there is something within 2 meters in the picture.

Frank

Anthapu Reddy · Aug 1, 2002

I have been following the AF problem threads. I am a G2 user, but not a professional. I cannot claim years of experience. Most of the times I take my compact Pentax camera with me. When I come home, and print pictures from G2 and compare them with film prints I don't notice any difference at all. I have printed even 8x10's. But when I look at exif data it shows 66m as focus distance. If the G2 pictures taken are totally unusable then I would agree it has to be fixed ASAP.

Could the problem be that canon cameras are reporting the distance? For me it is serving as where I could improve, in my photos. This AF thread discussion made me go and look at all my photos. Now I feel, I know where I could improve. This was good discussion to have come out.

May be instead of looking at EXIF reported distance, the tests of comparable Digicams should be what Phil is doing. Take the same picture with 2 digicams and compare themside by side. See, what satisfies your appetite. Also, in addition having the EXIF distance gives more power.

Just my thoughts.

Julio Costa · Aug 1, 2002

Hi KMR,

One thing which is conspicuously absent from this forum is an explanation/reply from Canon! I had exactly the same problem with mine from day one, I first thought I was doing something wrong. I also have an Ixus 330 (bought for my wife originally!) and this is perfect from an auto-focus point of view. I thought the G-2 would be better for the higher resolution, but it's actually an embarassment! Often, the image on the screen is TOTALLY blurred, and doesn't get any better, then after taking the pic, the viewed image is okay, but one's confidence in the camera is lost. When I want reliability (only always!) I use the 330.

TnSkiDude · Aug 1, 2002

Had my G2 since April and love/hate it! It has recorded some incredible images, but I've missed some shots that I wish I hadn't. Both the speed and accuracy of the AF are my only complaint with this camera. (And the almost useless MF mode.) I know it works most of the time, but there have been a few times it didn't that I really wished it had.

After a few 1,000 photos, I've decided it's time to sell my Minolta film equipment and get a D60.

RM Wilson · Aug 1, 2002

I have taken close to 10,000 pictures of all sorts of subjects with my G1. Rarely do I ever have any out of focus/or blurry pictures. When I do, it is usually due to camera movement, subject movement, slow shutter speed, pushing the shutter down half way then moving the camera, or such. I would guess that Canon didn't change much the basic way that the G2 autofocus worked from the G1 model. So I would suspect something wrong with your camera or its firmware. Maybe a firmware reload would work.

I love my G1. For travel purposes, I'd rather have it than a DSLR most of the time. The main reason I quit using my SLR was that it was just too heavy and bulky to carry around all the time. My G1 I keep handy in a fanny pack with extra memory and battery and hardly notice I have it.

Bob W.

KMR said:
I give up. I bought my G2 8 weeks ago. After extensive testing,
I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

1. I took 179 photographs on a long trip. I've studied them
extensively.

Of 21 close focus photos (by my definition, the subject was up to 3
meters away), 10 actually focused at least double the actual
distance to subject. 3 focused at 66M.

Of 72 medium focus photos (subject is 3.1 to 15 meters by my
definition), 40 either focused less than half, or more than double,
the actual distance to subject. Several group shots were out of
focus.

Of 86 long focus photos (subject over 15 meters away by my
definition), 38 focused at less than half of actual distance.
Especially troubling were the 10 that focused at 2 to 5 meters.

2. Since examining those photos, I've done extensive testing,
probably 200 test shots in all. The G2 autofocus is all over the
map and cannot be trusted for precision work.

3. I thought Pan Focus would be the easy solution since the manual
implies that focus is fixed. Well, maybe it is, but the first in
any Pan Focus series shows EXIF distance of 1.39 meters, the
remaining show 66 meters. Comparison prints show the 1.39 meter
photo is probably focused at the same point as the 66 meter
photographs. So here is a case (the first photo in the series)
where the EXIF distance data created by the G2 appears to be bogus.

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Now, before I'm flamed as not knowing what I'm talking about, I've
been taking photographs for 45 years, have owned probably 40
cameras over that time of several brands and formats, and have
extensively studied the technical aspects of photography over that
time. I'm partial to no brand. And I know about contolled testing.

And I've read the G2 manual extensively. I know how to run the
camera. I know all about pushing the shutter down part way and
waiting for the green light or square to come on, then completing
the exposure. And I know the importance of putting the crosshairs
on the high contrast and important part of the subject. (Although
for the life of me, I cannot understand why the G2 was designed to
properly focus on vertical lines, but not horizontal lines.)

One frustration lies in the fact that the G2 gives little
meaningful in-camera feedback as to actual focused distance. The
zoom lever doesn't yield much unless the photograph is grossly out
of focus. So I know little about actual focus distance until the
image is transfered to the computer.

I'm also aware that the large DOF of a 7 to 21 mm lens covers up
most focus problems. That's livable provided the max print size is
small. But I want more than that. To me, no camera is worth it's
salt unless ALL images are capable of 13 by 19 inch prints, (where
the stars are aligned and the photograph is worthy of hanging on
the wall.)

The G2 would be capable if it focused properly. The 4 megs, the
color handling, and the wonderful lens are enough. But The G2 is
the first camera I've owned which had autofocus problems. I can't
believe that given the G2's great lens, color handling, and battery
life, that Canon would screw up the autofocus so badly.

I simply cannot trust the camera. To ensure the photograph is
properly focused, I have to use one of my other cameras. The G2
just doesn't hack it.

I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Monster · Aug 1, 2002

Well said NNS....

NNS said:
KMR said:

I give up. I bought my G2 8 weeks ago. After extensive testing,
I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

1. I took 179 photographs on a long trip. I've studied them
extensively.

Of 21 close focus photos (by my definition, the subject was up to 3
meters away), 10 actually focused at least double the actual
distance to subject. 3 focused at 66M.

Of 72 medium focus photos (subject is 3.1 to 15 meters by my
definition), 40 either focused less than half, or more than double,
the actual distance to subject. Several group shots were out of
focus.

Of 86 long focus photos (subject over 15 meters away by my
definition), 38 focused at less than half of actual distance.
Especially troubling were the 10 that focused at 2 to 5 meters.

2. Since examining those photos, I've done extensive testing,
probably 200 test shots in all. The G2 autofocus is all over the
map and cannot be trusted for precision work.

3. I thought Pan Focus would be the easy solution since the manual
implies that focus is fixed. Well, maybe it is, but the first in
any Pan Focus series shows EXIF distance of 1.39 meters, the
remaining show 66 meters. Comparison prints show the 1.39 meter
photo is probably focused at the same point as the 66 meter
photographs. So here is a case (the first photo in the series)
where the EXIF distance data created by the G2 appears to be bogus.

4. Well, I thought, the solution is to manually focus. I just
took a shot manually focused at 5 meters. The EXIF distance data
shows 4.96 meters. So far, so good. Yet the print shows
absolutely clearly that the G2 actually focused at 2 meters.
Everyting 5 meters away is hopelessly blurred.

Now, before I'm flamed as not knowing what I'm talking about, I've
been taking photographs for 45 years, have owned probably 40
cameras over that time of several brands and formats, and have
extensively studied the technical aspects of photography over that
time. I'm partial to no brand. And I know about contolled testing.

And I've read the G2 manual extensively. I know how to run the
camera. I know all about pushing the shutter down part way and
waiting for the green light or square to come on, then completing
the exposure. And I know the importance of putting the crosshairs
on the high contrast and important part of the subject. (Although
for the life of me, I cannot understand why the G2 was designed to
properly focus on vertical lines, but not horizontal lines.)

One frustration lies in the fact that the G2 gives little
meaningful in-camera feedback as to actual focused distance. The
zoom lever doesn't yield much unless the photograph is grossly out
of focus. So I know little about actual focus distance until the
image is transfered to the computer.

I'm also aware that the large DOF of a 7 to 21 mm lens covers up
most focus problems. That's livable provided the max print size is
small. But I want more than that. To me, no camera is worth it's
salt unless ALL images are capable of 13 by 19 inch prints, (where
the stars are aligned and the photograph is worthy of hanging on
the wall.)

The G2 would be capable if it focused properly. The 4 megs, the
color handling, and the wonderful lens are enough. But The G2 is
the first camera I've owned which had autofocus problems. I can't
believe that given the G2's great lens, color handling, and battery
life, that Canon would screw up the autofocus so badly.

I simply cannot trust the camera. To ensure the photograph is
properly focused, I have to use one of my other cameras. The G2
just doesn't hack it.

I'm calling Canon today.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/monster/low_light

Jim K53618 · Aug 1, 2002

KMR said:
vk said:

KMR said:

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I've had a digital SLR for one year. I
bought the G2 because my digital SLR with charger, flash, lenses,
etc. is too large to fit into my tank bag for the 8,000 mile
motorcycle ride I took (when I took the 179 photograhps).

The G2 specs were great, and when it focuses properly, it produces
a great 13 in by 19 in print, quite comparable to my digital SLR.
Only problem is this: My G2's focus is all over the map.

I'm glad to see others are coming forth with this observation. I tried 2 different G2's with the same results you described. Also I determind that ISO 50 really is not ISO 50 but more like ISO 80 like the E20N, but let's not nit pick shall we.

I also was disappointed by the colors of the G2 even when shots came out in focus. Colors did not look as natural. I hope the G3 improves on these two major weaknesses.

By comaprision, the 7i, E20N, CP5K, CP5700, Fuji 602, Oly 4040, all produce more natrual looking colors, and focus more accurately even if slower sometimes.

I really wanted to like this camera as it would have been a great back up for my D60. I could have lived with slow AF, or soft focus, may be even the colors, but I could not live with the focus being all over the place.

Regards,
Jim K

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!

Angry New G2 User

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Member

Member

chris

Guest

Member

New member

Well-known member

RM Wilson

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts