Canon G7 Vs. Olympus sp-500UZ

[Eric Haglund]

IQ of the G7 speaks for itself: pixel density is too high and post processing is overdone.

The Oly review should be interesting.

--
Eric
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00535987629594874175
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

 

[xavozin]

Not being able to transform the G7 jpeg output to your liking is
not an indictment of the G7. If you have requirements of post
processing that requires raw, then a G7 is not the camera for you.
G7 jpegs come out wonderful with no post processing, which is a
mission statement that many photographers who wish to save time
want, many of which who ordinarily shoot raw with DSLR.

Oh! I thought that if the RAW option was available, users would
have still been able to shoot JPG as much as they would like, but
from what u said this doesn't sound to be the case.

very strange, this is new to me too, that having a RAW mode is in conflict or negatively affects the jpg mode in any way! I guess somebody has got it terribly wrong or is trying to mislead potential buyers that not having RAW is an advantage
negatively affect

 

[mamallama]

Savas Kyprianides wrote:
The specs speak for themselves; the flash on the G7 is weaker than
on the S3. That's to help sell more Canon flashes to use on the G7
hot shoe. Check it out yourself.

--mamallama

Sooo suspicious. Like no raw to protect DSLR sales? heh heh ..
couldn't possibly be that people have opportunity with a hot shoe
to take vastly improved flash pics with accessory flash units, a
rarity on a point and shoot and a feature to be desired? -- rather
than a sufficiently large, face-flattening blast of light replete
with red eye? But the inquiry I should have asked was: Does your
use of the G7 yield less range than the stated specs?
--
Unapologetic 5D / G7 fanboy and zealot

Why are you so touchy when anything said about the G7 is not flattering? I see you are proud to be a G7 fanboy and zealot, but let's not go overboard. All I said is that cameras with a hotshoe tend to have weaker onboard flashes to encourage buying the pricey external flash in connection with what I am looking out for in the Olympus SP-550. I said that to emphasize that the SP-550 would need a strong flash for me to consider it because it does not have a hotshoe. And that really set you off because I used the G7 as an camera with a hot shoe and a weak flash. Get a life.

I don't need your lession about the value of bounce and indirect flash. I have been doing that for over 30 years.

The G7 is a good camera. Now are you happy?

--mamallama

 

[TEBnewyork]

IQ of the G7 speaks for itself: pixel density is too high and post
processing is overdone.

The Oly review should be interesting.

Right and the point I was making is that pixel density isn't any better when you have 7mp on a smaller sensor. It will be interesting to see but I very highly doubt you will get better IQ from the 550UZ over a G7.

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Not being able to transform the G7 jpeg output to your liking is
not an indictment of the G7. If you have requirements of post
processing that requires raw, then a G7 is not the camera for you.
G7 jpegs come out wonderful with no post processing, which is a
mission statement that many photographers who wish to save time
want, many of which who ordinarily shoot raw with DSLR.

Oh! I thought that if the RAW option was available, users would
have still been able to shoot JPG as much as they would like, but
from what u said this doesn't sound to be the case.

very strange, this is new to me too, that having a RAW mode is in
conflict or negatively affects the jpg mode in any way!

I've never heard of that, and it makes no sense. The downsides to including RAW are: (1) slows down the shot-to-shot time--but only if RAW is actually used (2) fewer pictures on a memory card--but, again, only if RAW is used, and (3) people who don't understand what RAW is try to treat it like a jpeg, e.g. take the RAW photo files to an photo processing machine that doesn't recognize the format--and, of course, this is an issue only if RAW is used.

Having the RAW option is potentially useful even if it's never used, in that in order to allow for RAW the manufacturer has to include a bigger memory buffer, which helps with jpegs, too.

Bob

 

[Mark B.]

There is already a RAW firmware update out for the Canon s3 IS @
the Canon s3is forum site. The camera is less than a year old. I
would imagine that it should not be long before someone comes out
with an update for the G7.

Note that this is a HACK and not an official Canon firmware update.

Mark

 

[LarryPhoto]

G7 is a pocket camera, Oly is not, why even compare? Also not sure why all the comments on IQ of the G7, I've printed 20x30" prints on mine, very good detail. Have you guys even seen a print from a G7 or a sp-500UZ ?

Only fault on the G7 I've seen, is you have to watch "blow" highlights, and that is not that hard to manage.

PS I am not anti-Oly, I have 5 at home, 3 film, 2 digital, I like them all.

 

[Steven Wandy]

I have read several of Mr. Richmann's columns over the years and have both agreed and disagreed with him.

However, I still believe that it IS the photographer, not the camera that's more important. How often do we see wonderful, creative pictures taken with the cheapest and simpliest of cameras? How often to you see absolute dreck with more expensive ones?

I realize that there are times that having RAW is an advantage - primarily when the need for more exposure latitude is necessary. But please, RAW shooters try to make it seem like RAW is the coming of the Messiah for photographers. Just imagine all the work that was done BEFORE camera manufacturers decided to even put the option of RAW into their cameras. Amazing that we were even able to take photographs.

Steve

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

Why are you so touchy when anything said about the G7 is not
flattering? I see you are proud to be a G7 fanboy and zealot, but
let's not go overboard. All I said is that cameras with a hotshoe
tend to have weaker onboard flashes to encourage buying the pricey
external flash in connection with what I am looking out for in the
Olympus SP-550. I said that to emphasize that the SP-550 would need
a strong flash for me to consider it because it does not have a
hotshoe. And that really set you off because I used the G7 as an
camera with a hot shoe and a weak flash. Get a life.

I don't need your lession about the value of bounce and indirect
flash. I have been doing that for over 30 years.

The G7 is a good camera. Now are you happy?

--mamallama

Ha ha - caught you fair and square making a ridiculous assertion. Don’t try and twist the logic to weasel out of it.

Hey - 5D has no pop-up flash solely to sell flash units! Don’t beleive that statement from Canon that they needed the room for the viewfinder mirror and such. Total BS.

--
Unapologetic 5D / G7 fanboy and zealot

 

[mamallama]

Why are you so touchy when anything said about the G7 is not
flattering? I see you are proud to be a G7 fanboy and zealot, but
let's not go overboard. All I said is that cameras with a hotshoe
tend to have weaker onboard flashes to encourage buying the pricey
external flash in connection with what I am looking out for in the
Olympus SP-550. I said that to emphasize that the SP-550 would need
a strong flash for me to consider it because it does not have a
hotshoe. And that really set you off because I used the G7 as an
camera with a hot shoe and a weak flash. Get a life.

I don't need your lession about the value of bounce and indirect
flash. I have been doing that for over 30 years.

The G7 is a good camera. Now are you happy?

--mamallama

Ha ha - caught you fair and square making a ridiculous assertion.
Don’t try and twist the logic to weasel out of it.

Hey - 5D has no pop-up flash solely to sell flash units! Don’t
beleive that statement from Canon that they needed the room for the
viewfinder mirror and such. Total BS.

Can you read English? I was talking about a reason for the weak flash on the G7. If you think it's a ridiculous assertion that it's weak, go read the specs. Who said anything about a 5D?

--mamallama

 

[butch burton]

Size is very important for me - got to be "pocketable"

G7 4.2" x 2.8" x 1.7" 13.4 oz

Oly" 4 x 3.1" x 3.1" 16.1 oz

The Oly is lots thicker - sure to draw Mae West jokes if you can get it in a pocket. Pocketability test run with G7 ended up with a flap on the camera opening - not good but will probably still buy one.

 

[jimr]

The weight of either one would take them out of the pocketable grouping.

 

[gerrydee]

OK guys, the boxing ring is in the "other" forum...
--
No matter how hard you try
It is impossible to ignore yourself...

 

[mamallama]

The weight of either one would take them out of the pocketable
grouping.

Not if you have a big pocket such as you would if you wore a large coat. But for that size camera, a waist pack is ideal and is, in essence, a special pocket that's much more versatile than a big coat pocket. Then either camera will fit.

--mamallama

 

[drMichael]

My E-1 has no pop-up flash, so I bought a small one for travel. Annoying, and I agree they had the same rapacious reasons.

 

[drMichael]

If size is that important, then go back to the debates on th Leica DLUX-3 vs G7 forums. The Leica is truly pocketable and 28mm!

 

[Heikki Kultala]

G7 has better image quality, and flash hotshoe, UZI has both wider and longer zoom.

Think if you need
a) external flash. Important for high-quality indoor shots. G7.

b) wide/short focal range. in order to take photos of big subjects from near, or landcape. UZI.

c) long focal range. in order to do paparazzi or bird shots, taking photo's from long range. UZI.

If I did not have my F11 I would propably choose G7 due it's better image quality and flash hotshoe, in order to get good images in bad-light situations.

 

[jimr]

Heikki Kultala wrote:

You do not know that (image quality). This is an assumption. Wait for test reports. Some of the samples look very promising.

G7 has better image quality, and flash hotshoe, UZI has both wider
and longer zoom.

Think if you need
a) external flash. Important for high-quality indoor shots. G7.
b) wide/short focal range. in order to take photos of big subjects
from near, or landcape. UZI.
c) long focal range. in order to do paparazzi or bird shots, taking
photo's from long range. UZI.

If I did not have my F11 I would propably choose G7 due it's better
image quality and flash hotshoe, in order to get good images in
bad-light situations.

 

[Guerito]

Actually, I've looked at about three dozen pictures from four different sources from the SPuzi and have not been impressed. The pictures are generally flat, dull and soft. So far, the G7 does have better IQ. I'm hoping that shooting RAW with the SPuzi will allow me to perk things up a bit, we'll have to wait and see. What irritates me more than anything is that Olympus decided to omit a hot shoe off their flagship (non-DSLR) camera. I guess they don't want to make money on over-priced flash guns.

G7 has better image quality, and flash hotshoe, UZI has both wider
and longer zoom.

Think if you need
a) external flash. Important for high-quality indoor shots. G7.
b) wide/short focal range. in order to take photos of big subjects
from near, or landcape. UZI.
c) long focal range. in order to do paparazzi or bird shots, taking
photo's from long range. UZI.

If I did not have my F11 I would propably choose G7 due it's better
image quality and flash hotshoe, in order to get good images in
bad-light situations.

--
'The primary purpose of any business is to make a profit.'
Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home ;jsessionid=GX90G0k1Qp!1508707039?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186095&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

 

[ne beginner]

... to a site where he posts some images and comments... says he's preparing a review.

Net-net, from his comments on noise, it sounds like the new 550 is in the same ball park as the G7 in that regard. I didn't look too closely at the images so I have no POV myself.