G7 Raw

[jonrobertp]

Simon, one of the neat things about the G7 is the hotshoe. Now I can use this cam as a wedding backup, without needing 2 Dslr bodies. (last 2 yrs used film as backup). Oh yeah, the 550 or 430 flash will be plenty, even at lower iso. gotta love it !!
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[jonrobertp]

Eric, good point. Raw with a 1.8 doesn't come up to 20D in jpg. Trying to make a small 4 cyl. car act like a V8, sort of. Fun trying for some though.
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[notpc]

That's about as accurate and honest as you can get. True contempt for the consumer

4-8-4-Northern wrote:
Screw you, jerks.

Image quality is good enough for you pigs. Now, shut up and get
your wallets out.

 

[BravoBrown]

What a pity, but not in the least surprising since that was exactly the response about the S80. Maybe I should get another Pro1 while they still are around...... Thanks for checking into it for us. The more they hear that their previous buyers/supporters aren't all just peachy about the new offerings the better. Just a pity they're abandoning the fully functioned prosumer market.
Best regards,
Mark

Hi all - the offical response in a nutshell is "PowerShot G7
doesn't have RAW image support, and that there is no plan to
implement it for this model."

dpreview's Canon Europe contact added 'From Canon's point of view
the image quality using high quality JPEG images is excellent - as
many of the the visitors at photokina who evaluated the
pre-production PowerShot G7's on the booth did comment.'

At least we have a fairly definitive answer on that one, even if
it's not the one you'd like.
S

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[Richard van der Meij]

No camera combining all (I know the s3 does, it's just an example),
I could say I don't get that strategy but I suppose canon doesn't
want to create the "perfect camera" canibalising on their higher
end DSLRs.

This is a valid point, but the image quality of these smaller
sensors doesn't approach that of the bigger sensors in their DSLR's
anyways.

Actually that thought went through my mind when I was writing but I didn't point it out: there's of course more to it than a few controls and settings. Looking at it like that, canon might as well put all features into their compact cameras, someone wants the highest quality regardless of anything else will end up with a DSLR anyway. My guess is that they're banking on people who are more leaning towards a "compact" camera for whatever reason will then be persuaded into buying a DSLR. But still a body plus optics is another price category.

 

[Virvatulet]

Eric, good point. Raw with a 1.8 doesn't come up to 20D in jpg.
Trying to make a small 4 cyl. car act like a V8, sort of. Fun
trying for some though.

Forgive me, but judging from your answer you didn’t even begin to understand what Erik wrote!

Canon’s presumed conclusion that RAW in advanced P&S cameras would cannibalise DSLR sales is bogus, it’s based on absolutely nothing. Typical symptom of marketing “analysis”!

BTW, if one would put the same sensor technology in, one would have exactly the same image quality at pixel level.

-Virvatulet

 

[Ralph46]

Hard to believe that you are all just complaining and don't see what great benefits our benevolent favourite company is reeping on us.

Of course they don't want to worry us with complicated RAW manipulation or bothersome twisting lcd monitors that can be broken off.

Nobody seems to credit them that they have given us the greatest help for better pictures. More Pixels!

Just read the scan below from the Photokina Powershot brochure.

Cheers, Ralph



This was from:



--

• -Better a small camera in the pocket than a big one on the shelf --

 

[VincentJ]

dpreview's Canon Europe contact added 'From Canon's point of view
the image quality using high quality JPEG images is excellent - as
many of the the visitors at photokina who evaluated the
pre-production PowerShot G7's on the booth did comment.'

How excellent is excellent? As good as a 1Ds-II JPEG? As good as an A40 jpeg? In general, JPEG may be excellent, but RAW is a life saver when it comes to tricky exposure, color balance, and dynamic range. Great JPEGs are no excuse not to have raw in a G series.

 

[tom sugnet]

Megapixels are not a measure of the amount of sharp detail, as Canon say.

That's why Fuji F30 has much better results on resolution tests compared with 6mp Canon cameras. Cameras may have 6mp but FujiF30 captures 20-30% more details.

Effective resoultion (or 'tested one') is a result of sensor, lens and imaging processor. Canon should stop telling nonsense like 'Megapixels ae a measure of the amount of sharp detail'.
--
Feel free to visit my homepage: http://tom.st
my best shots: http://www.dreamstime.com/resp189502

 

[Suepete]

And I guess the "ultimate" is the G7 with no RAW, no fast lens and no swivel LCD...

Ultimate must apply to MP...


--
Sue * Pro One

 

[Ralph46]

Megapixels are not a measure of the amount of sharp detail, as
Canon say.

Tom,

I think that that is known to 98% of the prople on these forums but probably only to 3% of the general camera-buying public.

I find it disturbing that Canon prefers to confirm the public mistake by providing false information in their brochures. Instead of printing that pictures contain more details when the pixels increase (see my adjacent post), they could just as well have said something like "we prefer to limit our MP count on our small sensors to 5 - 7 because an increase above this leads to the destruction of fine detail by increased noise reduction".

But the general public would not understand it.

Cheers, Ralph

--

• -Better a small camera in the pocket than a big one on the shelf --

 

[saotupp]

Hard to believe that you are all just complaining and don't see
what great benefits our benevolent favourite company is reeping on
us.

Of course they don't want to worry us with complicated RAW
manipulation or bothersome twisting lcd monitors that can be broken
off.

Nobody seems to credit them that they have given us the greatest
help for better pictures. More Pixels!

I hope that was sarcasm. More pixels is no where near the greatest help for better pictures. I would expect not so smart consumers to buy that BS but to hear it in dpreview is something new.



So, tell me how do you explain this if only the megapixels are a way to get better resolution.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page15.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz850/page13.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp3/page3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/page13.asp

So if the BS that Canon says is true then why is it that 6 megapixels is better than those 8 megapixel cameras. I would much rather have quality pixels (5-7) than useless 10 megapixels that take 7 megabytes of space and have little to none real use because of their quality! If I want to shoot quality I would shoot RAW but as you can see the quality is not what Canon is trying here. There's no RAW in any of their new P&S just more pixels and higher ISO numbers to make consumers happy. Cropping is useless if the quality is poor and most of the time unnecessary anyway.

Usually when you say quality you're talking about dslr. So let's see how many pixels they have.

Canon 30D 8.2MP, sensor size 22.5 x 15.0 mm
Canon 350D 8MP, sensor size 22.2 x 14.8 mm
Fuji S5 Pro 6.1MP, sensor size 23 x 15.5 mm
Olympus E-330 7.4MP, sensor size 18.00 x 13.50 mm
Pentax K100D 6.1MP, sensor size 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Sigma SD14 4.6MP, sensor size 20.7 x 13.8 mm

And clearly because Canon says so, G7 with 10MP and sensor size of 7.18 x 5.32 mm takes the victory here. Hurray!! Sorry for being an ahole, but so long as people buy this cr@p there's no way we're getting any real quality P&S cameras from big manufacturers. I'm sick and tired of consumers to buy those big numbers and then complaining about the quality. Btw have you noticed that A630 has worse noise pattern than A640. That should be impossible since they have the same size sensor and should have the same software. So what happend is that Canon had to cripple A630 noise reduction to make A640 seem better. Smells fishy.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/a640/samples/img_0099
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/a630/samples/img_0046

Just add .jpg to make those work. Canon knows what it's doing, it's making money but that doesn't mean they're making better products.

--

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment of knowledge always pays the best interest.

 

[saotupp]

Sorry Ralph

--

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment of knowledge always pays the best interest.

 

[thw]

If the SD800 IS images are any indication, we can expect DIGIC III to over-process the images for noise reduction, resulting in severe loss of details.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[thw]

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[thw]

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[jonrobertp]

Same quality?? no, a P&S lens does not equal an L lens from Canon, prob. not even a "consumer" slr lens. You get what you pay for, or less. Rarely more.
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[jonrobertp]

sao, I have several of those lower megapixel cams that you prefer. You may ask me about them, as I want more, more.
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[Virvatulet]

Same quality?? no, a P&S lens does not equal an L lens from Canon,
prob. not even a "consumer" slr lens.

What if I would tell you that these tiny lenses in P&S cameras are much more capable than high quality SLR lenses, would you believe that?

-Virvatulet

 

[linuxworks]

Same quality?? no, a P&S lens does not equal an L lens from Canon,
prob. not even a "consumer" slr lens.

What if I would tell you that these tiny lenses in P&S cameras are
much more capable than high quality SLR lenses, would you believe
that?

I have seen examples where ps lenses DO exceed the 'kitties' (kit lenses).

you have to get mid grade or better on an slr to really beat a GOOD p/s cam.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~