Reading mode: Light Dark

This is why the G3 sucks ...

Go to last post
M

Matt105483

Veteran Member
Messages
2,388
Solutions
5
Reaction score
522
Location
CA
.. in some peoples opinion (I like it :) :
  • Most G3 shots I have seen so far are rather low indoor light snaps. These are often soft as aperture is wide open and shutter speed is low adding shake and blur. other photos are rather snaps too.
  • all prosumer digital photos are rather soft (unless foveon maybe)
  • It was highly anitcipated, maybe more was expected.
  • Maybe more was expected as is technically possible
  • It was expected it would compensate for user errors.
  • it was expected the camera would get every shot to be a great photo
  • It really is only a G2 Plus and i dont think it would be easy to tell apart a G2 and G3 photo of the same subject.
  • It probably uses the same sensor as G2
  • I would almost assume the G2 3x lens is optically better than the G3 4x lens.
  • 5MPixel may not have objective advantages but was expected
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
  • its maybe a year too late and should have been the G2 a year ago.
-> If I could straight trade my G2 for a G3 I would still do it. I dont think the G3 is bad, I think expectations are just too high. Overall I find the G3 a great package, HOWEVER there may be better material on the market.
 
This is a very strange post...
Matt105483 said:
  • It really is only a G2 Plus and i dont think it would be easy to
tell apart a G2 and G3 photo of the same subject.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the photo quality of the G2 was considered great by many, so where did they expect this to go?
Matt105483 said:
  • It probably uses the same sensor as G2
  • I would almost assume the G2 3x lens is optically better than the
G3 4x lens.
Click to expand...
Possible, though I hope not.
Matt105483 said:
  • 5MPixel may not have objective advantages but was expected
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what you mean by this.
Matt105483 said:
  • its maybe a year too late and should have been the G2 a year ago.
Click to expand...
this I don't understand at all. The G2 was, and is (to a lesser extent) an excellent camera for the price. I think at the time it was released it was head and shoulders above the competition... so what are you talking about?
Matt105483 said:
-> If I could straight trade my G2 for a G3 I would still do it. I
dont think the G3 is bad, I think expectations are just too high.
Overall I find the G3 a great package, HOWEVER there may be better
material on the market.
Click to expand...
Like which ones? (I have to admit, I can probably guess what you will say, but if you mean the Olympus 5050 or the Sony 717, then I would point out that the first has about an equal share of advantages and disadvantages while the second is not only more expensive, it serves a different purpose. Both these arguments have been debated at length elsewhere)
 
Easy said:
This is a very strange post...
Click to expand...
True ;)
Easy said:
Easy said:
  • It really is only a G2 Plus and i dont think it would be easy to
tell apart a G2 and G3 photo of the same subject.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the photo quality of the G2 was considered great by
many, so where did they expect this to go?
Click to expand...
The competition got better... It was great a year ago .. now its good (based on the competitio)
Easy said:
Easy said:
  • It probably uses the same sensor as G2
  • I would almost assume the G2 3x lens is optically better than the
G3 4x lens.
Click to expand...
Possible, though I hope not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i also hope not, but zoom power comes with a price :(
Easy said:
Easy said:
  • 5MPixel may not have objective advantages but was expected
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what you mean by this.
Click to expand...
Its quiet expensive, a good overall package, but nothing outstanding.
Easy said:
Easy said:
  • its maybe a year too late and should have been the G2 a year ago.
Click to expand...
this I don't understand at all. The G2 was, and is (to a lesser
extent) an excellent camera for the price. I think at the time it
was released it was head and shoulders above the competition... so
what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
The G3 fixes many problems of the G2 and adds options that could have been in the G2.... The differences G2-G3 are not that great. What they sell as G3 now should have been available a year ago as G2. The AF seems better, which would have been nice in the G1/G2 to begin with.
Easy said:
Easy said:
-> If I could straight trade my G2 for a G3 I would still do it. I
dont think the G3 is bad, I think expectations are just too high.
Overall I find the G3 a great package, HOWEVER there may be better
material on the market.
Click to expand...
Like which ones? (I have to admit, I can probably guess what you
will say, but if you mean the Olympus 5050 or the Sony 717, then I
would point out that the first has about an equal share of
advantages and disadvantages while the second is not only more
expensive, it serves a different purpose. Both these arguments have
been debated at length elsewhere)
Click to expand...
Dont get me wrong, I would pick the G3 over the others. But other people feel strongly other cameras are better (you named them).

Other threads have exhausted the advantages of each camera...

"Better" is a relative statement. A better camera for me doesnt have to be the better choice for you and so on ... Some people must have super power zoom and 5 Mpixel, for them a 717 would maybe be better ...
 
Mad Hatter said:
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on that. But since the competitors are equally expensive there's not much you can do about it.
About the features:
ND Filter - great!
AFB - nice feature
Interval shooting - great!
"Twistable" LCD - a must!
Best battery life - no brainer..

I really think that G3 has the best feature set out there. Only if you absolutely need longer zoom you need to select a different brand.

BTW: I really wouldn't judge anything based on those reader shots. It's so easy to get bad photos ("technically-wise") that only proper qualitative tests will really tell the truth. If there's such thing :)
 
Matt105483 said:
What they sell as G3 now should have been available a year ago as
G2.
Click to expand...
When do you think the G2 was released?

It was released 1 year ago (+ - a few months). Why do you keep saying that the G3 is what the G2 should have been a year ago? Are yo saying it was overpriced and underfeaatured at launch? Or are you thinking that this s a 2 year old camera that has just now been updated?
 
imho we get too involved in latest technology...........a lot of the subjects discussed are subjective.........every person has a different sense of what is normal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,after all pictures are reproductions of a scene.........composition and planning make a great photo...........not necessarily the camera
i own a G2 (for a year........great camera)

Wayne
 
Mad Hatter said:
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
Here in Holland it costs at least $900

So that is overpriced. I think $750 would be a nice price. Exactly the price you'll pay in the US.
Matt105483 said:
  • its maybe a year too late and should have been the G2 a year ago.
Click to expand...
One year ago the G2 was one of the best consumer cameras on the market. So I don't think your statement makes sense.
Matt105483 said:
-> If I could straight trade my G2 for a G3 I would still do it. I
dont think the G3 is bad, I think expectations are just too high.
Overall I find the G3 a great package, HOWEVER there may be better
material on the market.
Click to expand...
There's always better material. The question is whether or not it's better for YOU

I don't think the expectations are too high at all. Maybe people on forums like this had great stories to tell about it, but when you just looked at the specs you can see the small diferences between the G2 and G3.

--
G3...come to daddy!!! :D
 
Hi there! :)

First: I'm a G1 owner. ;)

Then:

I think G2 was announced in summer 2001, I "touched" the first one on September 2001.

The first month after it was realeased, a lot of people were complaining on the quality of G2, saying its pictures were "plasty" (don't), its autofocus was worse (not) and about its much worse infrared capabilities than the G1 (that's true).

You only have to search the posts of that time... I think it was nonsense... it was a new camera and some people were afraid of (some G1 users, some nikon or other brands owners... you know what I mean)

I allways thought G2 was better than G1... but not SO MUCH BETTER as some people said...

I think G3 will be better than G2 but it will not be SO MUCH BETTER as some people expected...

I will await till Phil review it... if I think it's worth it, I'll sell my G1 and get the G3, else, I'll keep it and go on saving for a DSLR :)

BTW: Did you remember the pictures took by Peka Sarinen (spelling?)... They were absolutly GREAT! ... and he used a G1...

I think that the three cameras are very capable machines... I don't think it's worth to jump from a G2 to a G3... ¿from a G1? maybe... ;)

cu,
Sarbos
 
The G3 is not really a quantum leap. Its evolution from the G2. I think the G2 should have been more finished before it got released.

The G2 was good at launch. It would have been the killer if they had improved it a little bit.

The G3 now is good but maybe a little too late.
Easy said:
Easy said:
What they sell as G3 now should have been available a year ago as
G2.
Click to expand...
When do you think the G2 was released?
It was released 1 year ago (+ - a few months). Why do you keep
saying that the G3 is what the G2 should have been a year ago? Are
yo saying it was overpriced and underfeaatured at launch? Or are
you thinking that this s a 2 year old camera that has just now been
updated?
Click to expand...
 
Moody said:
Mad Hatter said:
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
Here in Holland it costs at least $900
So that is overpriced. I think $750 would be a nice price.
Exactly the price you'll pay in the US.
Click to expand...
Well, don't forget that you have the VAT rolled into the price. Here in Nashville, if I buy a $750 camera locally, I'll have to pay another $70 (we have an almost 10% sales tax, one of the highest in the country (but we currently have no state income tax, so it evens out). What is your VAT on cameras - 18%? If I come to Holland as a tourist (I did last year as a matter of fact), I could get the VAT taken off and have that "cheaper price". Of course, my government doesn't offer the social services that yours does, so it's all a matter of degree I suppose.

That's most of the difference right there. The advantage that we have in the states is that we can avoid sales tax if we buy out of state on the internet. They are slowing trying to close those loopholes, but they haven't done it yet.

Another difference is that I think you have slightly higher customs as well.
 
There are so many people that bash everything. The G3 took some beating. Much was unjustified. There are a whole lot of wrong expectations to this camera.

I agree with your list of goodies! If I didnt have a G2 I wouldnt hesitate much and get the G3!
Hezekiel said:
Mad Hatter said:
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on that. But since the competitors are
equally expensive there's not much you can do about it.
About the features:
ND Filter - great!
AFB - nice feature
Interval shooting - great!
"Twistable" LCD - a must!
Best battery life - no brainer..

I really think that G3 has the best feature set out there. Only if
you absolutely need longer zoom you need to select a different
brand.

BTW: I really wouldn't judge anything based on those reader shots.
It's so easy to get bad photos ("technically-wise") that only
proper qualitative tests will really tell the truth. If there's
such thing :)
Click to expand...
 
Our VAT is 19% and all prices are incl. VAT, but I still think $900 is a very high price to pay for the G3.

Don't forget this is the lowest price, average prices are more like $1000 or $1050

But you're right that we've got excellent social services, but I don't get ill very often, so I'd rather have cheap cameras :)
teleburst1 said:
Moody said:
Mad Hatter said:
  • its maybe overpriced for what it offers
Click to expand...
Here in Holland it costs at least $900
So that is overpriced. I think $750 would be a nice price.
Exactly the price you'll pay in the US.
Click to expand...
Well, don't forget that you have the VAT rolled into the price.
Here in Nashville, if I buy a $750 camera locally, I'll have to pay
another $70 (we have an almost 10% sales tax, one of the highest in
the country (but we currently have no state income tax, so it evens
out). What is your VAT on cameras - 18%? If I come to Holland as a
tourist (I did last year as a matter of fact), I could get the VAT
taken off and have that "cheaper price". Of course, my government
doesn't offer the social services that yours does, so it's all a
matter of degree I suppose.

That's most of the difference right there. The advantage that we
have in the states is that we can avoid sales tax if we buy out of
state on the internet. They are slowing trying to close those
loopholes, but they haven't done it yet.

Another difference is that I think you have slightly higher customs
as well.
Click to expand...
--
G3...come to daddy!!! :D
 
Agree it's not a battle, and a really bad one to win too. I have pre-ordered a G3 from sweden, and since the norwegian currency is strong at the moment it means 20% "discount" because of difference in currency. Mine is 940$ from sweden translated into norwegian currency, however they usually cost about 1000-1050$ on average in web-shops.

Frode.
 
Easy said:
Like which ones? (I have to admit, I can probably guess what you
will say, but if you mean the Olympus 5050 or the Sony 717, then I
would point out that the first has about an equal share of
advantages and disadvantages while the second is not only more
expensive, it serves a different purpose. Both these arguments have
been debated at length elsewhere)
Click to expand...
I've missed the discussions on the Oly 5050. Can you give me a very brief summary of its drawbacks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

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