Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yesterday i took over 150I own 3 digital cameras, a Nikon 950, the G2 and a D60. I have no
doubt you're not making this up but I find my G2 focuses properly,
however it's near impossible to capture a moving subject because
the autofocus is just too slow. I'm not up on the Nikon 990 you
mentioned somewhere in this thread but if it's anything like my 950
the G2 outfocuses it hands down in every regard (speed, accuracy,
low light, etc) I would seriously check into the possibilty your
G2 may be defective, the way you described it sounds similar to my
worst case experiences with the G2, not the norm. The manual focus
is a joke, there's no way I can tell even from the enlarged area if
something is in focus or not and using the buttons to acheive focus
is really vague.
As you said, judging critical focus from shrunk jpegs isn't the
ideal but I have a few images taken with the G2 on the page at
http://www.bobspoolservice.com/photopage/Sections/Digitals/index.htm It was frustrating at some times to get a perfectly focused image but it was also possible (providing the subject stayed still long enough).
Good luck, I hope to hear how you things go with Canon here. I
agree totally about marketing hype, Canon should not call it a
professional tool on par with thier SLR cameras. This reminds me
very much of XM Radio calling thier broadcasts "CD Quality". If
you've ever heard satellite radio it sounds like a bad quiality mp3
file downloaded off the internet.
Rob
In other words, my conclusions are suspect, right? As I repeatI 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
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:
--Good. Your G2 and your method is working for you. Keep on keepinpictures . . . . .and i did not have
one out of focused image
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
--You're probably in the wrong place looking for advice on how to
measure or correct the problem with your G2.
Most on this forum are G2 love-in attendees who will be quick to
point out how well their G2 works and how deficient your photo
techniques are. After all, it can't be the cameras fault, so it
must be yours .... or maybe you weren't lucky enough to get a good
one.
My G2 failed due to the infamous " stuck controls " firmware
freeze, and it was suggested that I was " unlucky ", " drunk " ,or
simply an " angry man " among other choice phrases. I was told by
one to simply " go away ". So don't expect to get a lot of help
here.
Bring the camera back if it's not too late ..... the AF and
firmware problems in the G2 are ledgendary. There is no shortage of
well featured 4mp cameras .... get another brand and save the
aggaivation. After all this is supposed to be fun.
Thanks for running this test. Just to make sure I am absolutely clear as to your results, did you set the camera to Pan Focus, then take a series of shots, and then turn the Pan Focus off?I took about 7 Pan Focus shots, all show EXIF focus distance 1.39m,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
which is the standard hyperfocal length for f5.6 and 7mm on the G2.
GKL
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
