Angry New G2 User

KMR said:

After extensive testing, I've concluded this camera is not ready for prime time.

Click to expand...

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...

Ken W. 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...

--
Ken W.
http://www.quantumarts.com
http://www.mywhistler.com

Click to expand...

Mdriver said:

So do all G2's have the focusing problem or is it just some of
them? If it's just some, what's the easiest test I can do to check?

Click to expand...

Agostino De Marco said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

Kristian S. said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

KMR said:

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.)

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.)

Click to expand...

KMR said:

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.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I'm calling Canon today.

Click to expand...

s©tt 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.

Click to expand...

Could you please post an image where the EXIF-data says it's 66m?
Also, what program are you using to read the EXIF-data, and what is
the version of your firmware?

I ask, because since I've upgraded my S40 to firmware 1.1.0.0, the
standard 'subject distance' field (field 9206) in the EXIF data is
empty or contains junk, and WinXP and ZoomBrowser (therefore) no
longer display it. The subject distance is now only reported in the
EXIF field 927c (so-called "maker's note"), which is, I believe, a
free format field.

Scott.

Click to expand...

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...

KMR said:

I give up.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

KMR said:

I give up.

Click to expand...

Thanks to all of you who have posted a comment. My apologies to
those I have not directly responded to.

To answer a couple of questions, I'm using BreezeBrowser, which I
downloaded from http://www.BreezeSys.com . It's the only software I know
of that displays EXIF distance data, and only displays it for my
G2, not my 990 or D1X. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the
makers or sellers of this software, but I did buy the $35 version
because I like the other features as well.

As to the large prints I'm making, yes, I have to use the
resampling feature of Photoshop 7 to bump up the ppi. I don't use
a microscope to view these large prints. Those worthy of such
enlargement are put in frames, hung on the wall, and viewed from at
least 5 ft away. And by the way, I have limited wall space and
have to work very hard to get a goodie. But sometimes I get lucky
and the stars align and other people are as happy with my big
prints as I am. Making a great photograph is one heck of a lot of
work and the rejection rate is high. But then, you all know that.

As to posting examples of problem photos I've taken, I want to move
on now and not beat this thing to death. My recommendation is that
people do what I've been doing: Take a bunch of varying shots and
look at the EXIF info. Notice how many times the G2 gives a "go"
signal (i.e., locks focus and doesn't give the yellow caution
light), but generates an EXIF distance figure more than twice or
less than half the actual camera to subject distance. Then make
prints of any images where the numbers appear grossly out of whack.
If your results are better than mine, that's great. You will be
happy with your camera and you can forget about the problems I'm
having.

Now I'm going to Duluth to install a new exhaust hood over my Mom's
stove. While I'm there, I'm going to take some tourist shots of
the harbour area with my G2: One more test series before I send it
off to Canon.

By the way, I don't expect to have any answers from Canon for at
least two weeks, given shipping time, and allowing them a
reasonable time to review my camera.

Thanks again to all who've taken time to respond. Your comments
and questions have been very helpful.

Click to expand...

Robert Beacon said:

I have been following the threads of the AF issue in this forum
since the begining of the year There is one thing that i have
noticed with the complainers that they very rarely (if ever) state
what settings they are using in camera Such as single or continuous
AF Focus center or off center,
Aperture or Shutter priority, ISO setting, etc Most i suspect use
the Auto mode

Click to expand...

Robert Beacon said:

pictures . . . . .and i did not have
one out of focused image

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I'd like someone besides me run this test: Turn on your G2, set
it to Pan Focus, and take five photographs, pointing the camera in
the same direction for each shot. Then turn the camera off. Turn
it on again, and repeat for five more photographs, this time
pointing in different directions. Then examine the EXIF distance
data for each of the 10 photographs. My data shows as follows:
The EXIF distance of the first and 6th are 1.39M, the rest are 66M.
Yet when prints are made, all photos appear to be focused at
infinity.

I'd appreciate knowning your results. Thanks for your post.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...

KMR said:

In other words, my conclusions are suspect, right? As I repeat
below, you are getting satisfactory results with your G2 and that's
great. But I'm not.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

To back up to the beginning of this saga, I launched into the
review of my trip photographs simply because some prints that were
important to me were out of focus. I wanted to know why. Did I
screw up, or did the camera? In the process, I found that EXIF
data exists for the G2 and found software to display it.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I paid $1,000 for black G2 with case, strap, extra CF card, extra
battery and sales taxes, that is advertised as follows:

I quote from the G2 website: "Canon's new PowerShot G2 is a
precise and powerful tool for professional and advanced amateur
photographers who want a very high-resolution digital camera that
offers quality, performance, and reliability, similar to fine 35mm
SLR cameras."

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I say this with confidence: EVERY ONE of my 35mm SLRs focus one
heck of a lot better than my G2. The G2 doesn't even come close.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I'd like someone besides me run this test: Turn on your G2, set
it to Pan Focus, and take five photographs, pointing the camera in
the same direction for each shot. Then turn the camera off. Turn
it on again, and repeat for five more photographs, this time
pointing in different directions. Then examine the EXIF distance
data for each of the 10 photographs. My data shows as follows:
The EXIF distance of the first and 6th are 1.39M, the rest are 66M.
Yet when prints are made, all photos appear to be focused at
infinity.

Click to expand...

KMR said:

Robert Beacon said:

I have been following the threads of the AF issue in this forum
since the begining of the year There is one thing that i have
noticed with the complainers that they very rarely (if ever) state
what settings they are using in camera Such as single or continuous
AF Focus center or off center,
Aperture or Shutter priority, ISO setting, etc Most i suspect use
the Auto mode

Click to expand...

In other words, my conclusions are suspect, right? As I repeat
below, you are getting satisfactory results with your G2 and that's
great. But I'm not.

For the record, I mostly used program mode, but also used shutter
or aperture priority when I thought it was needed. Also, I used
center single AF all the time. But note that my photo taking
technique was and always has been to center the crosshairs or
rangefinder or whatever on the most important part of the subject,
then lock focus, then move the camera to give me the compositon I
want, then complete taking the photograph. In other words, I'm not
into point and shoot.

To back up to the beginning of this saga, I launched into the
review of my trip photographs simply because some prints that were
important to me were out of focus. I wanted to know why. Did I
screw up, or did the camera? In the process, I found that EXIF
data exists for the G2 and found software to display it.

Now, my post was not intended as a National Academy of Sciences
submission with hundreds of pages of detail accompanying the
summary conclusion. It was merely a summary of what I found after
examining each of the photographs. And what I've found with
subsequent testing. Others should run their own tests if they want
to, and base their conclusions on their tests, not on mine.

I paid $1,000 for black G2 with case, strap, extra CF card, extra
battery and sales taxes, that is advertised as follows:

I quote from the G2 website: "Canon's new PowerShot G2 is a
precise and powerful tool for professional and advanced amateur
photographers who want a very high-resolution digital camera that
offers quality, performance, and reliability, similar to fine 35mm
SLR cameras."

I say this with confidence: EVERY ONE of my 35mm SLRs focus one
heck of a lot better than my G2. The G2 doesn't even come close.

And based on other posts I read, I am not alone in being critical
of the G2 AF.

Robert Beacon wrote:

Click to expand...

KMR said:

KMR said:

pictures . . . . .and i did not have
one out of focused image

Click to expand...

Good. Your G2 and your method is working for you. Keep on keepin
on. I only wish mine was working for me.

I'd like someone besides me run this test: Turn on your G2, set
it to Pan Focus, and take five photographs, pointing the camera in
the same direction for each shot. Then turn the camera off. Turn
it on again, and repeat for five more photographs, this time
pointing in different directions. Then examine the EXIF distance
data for each of the 10 photographs. My data shows as follows:
The EXIF distance of the first and 6th are 1.39M, the rest are 66M.
Yet when prints are made, all photos appear to be focused at
infinity.

I'd appreciate knowning your results. Thanks for your post.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...

KMR said:

I'd like someone besides me run this test: Turn on your G2, set
it to Pan Focus, and take five photographs, pointing the camera in
the same direction for each shot. Then turn the camera off. Turn
it on again, and repeat for five more photographs, this time
pointing in different directions. Then examine the EXIF distance
data for each of the 10 photographs. My data shows as follows:
The EXIF distance of the first and 6th are 1.39M, the rest are 66M.
Yet when prints are made, all photos appear to be focused at
infinity.

I'd appreciate knowning your results. Thanks for your post.

Ken Reither
Aitkin, Minnesota

Click to expand...