File :-(, x, )
Canon Powershot G7 Anonymous
Looking for an affordable digital camera for beginner looking for ease of use, but above average quality; We're talking to experiment here, very beginning of photography interests, to see if I enjoy it. What do you guys think of this one for this purpose?
>> Anonymous
How is G7 "affordable"? It's one of the most expensive point-and-shoots.

If size and weight don't matter much, I'd probably suggest adding a hundred more bucks and buying a DSLR like Canon Rebel XT, Pentax K100/110 or maybe even Olympus E-500. G7 is one of the best point-and-shoot cameras in terms of functions, image quality and nearly everything else, but even the simplest DSLR is still far superior.
>> Anonymous
>>62218cont'd.
Why a DSLR? Because once I've been thinking the same and bought a bulky, expensive point-and-shoot, and while it had good image quality and a lot of different controls, I outgrew it very quickly and bought a SLR. I didn't sell that point-and-shoot, but if I did, it'd probably go for half its initial price and I would've lost nearly $300 on my "experiment".

(It's possible that you'll eventually outgrow your first DSLR too; but that will take much more time, and in that case at least you'll keep the lenses and accessories)
>> Anonymous
OP here, thanks I'll have a look at those.

Reading my original post now, I realise how stupid it is to use relative terms like "affordable" anonymously hehe
>> Anonymous
>>62216
Even if you do go with a point and shoot, the G7 is shit. Canon took away a bunch of features from the previous G6. Look elsewhere or buy used.
>> Anonymous
>>62261
The only thing that really sucks is it's lack of RAW. As far as point and shoot goes, this is one fine, well-made camera. If size is a matter, the G7 is definitely a good choice. It's compact enough to fit in you pocket but large enough to use it without effort. A even the smallest dslr is quite bulky in comparison.

>>62218
I disagree, I've seen some shitty pictures come out of a dslr. If you are too cheap to buy a decent lens, or better several lenses (again: weight). Most cheap lenses (less than a G7 total) won't be enough.

Also with a compact you don't have to worry about dust. While my beloved EF 24-105 1:4 L IS ISM was gone, I got a similar Tamron replacement which was about 600€. Image quality was utter shit, and the plastic tube sucked the dust into my 5D. So you better stick with lenses that have environmental seals.
>> Anonymous
>>62286
>I've seen some shitty pictures come out of a dslr. If you are too cheap to buy a decent lens,
ANY camera can be used to take shitty pictures if you don't know how to use it. And an expensive lens isn't necessary for the DSLR. I've got no real complaints about the quailty of my two kit lenses; yes, they have aperture a bit smaller than the built-in lens of a G7, but I can use higher sensitivity to compensate for that and still get superior image quality.

>Also with a compact you don't have to worry about dust.
If you're so worried about dust, don't change the lenses. You can't change them on the G7 anyway. (Or buy an Olympus for fuck's sake)

>So you better stick with lenses that have environmental seals.
If there's so much dust that an environmentally sealed SLR body/lens is needed, G7 won't survive for long. You need something like Olympus (again lol) 720SW then, but image quality of the latter is utter shit.
>> Anonymous
>>62290
>really fast lens
Not much of an advantage when ISO 400 is noisier than ISO 1600 even on the shittiest DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>62294
1. Lens speed is about more than exposure.

2. I'm comparing the G7 against previous G series models and other point and shoots. I'm saying compared to its competition, including and especially previous G models, it's shit.

3. I don't know about the results on any of the other iterations of the G series, but the G2 had less noise at ISO 400 than any other point and shoot I've used or seen the results from.
>> Anonymous
>>62290


>>So you better stick with lenses that have environmental seals.
>If there's so much dust that an environmentally sealed SLR body/lens is needed, G7 won't survive for long. You need something like Olympus (again lol) 720SW then, but image quality of the latter is utter shit.

Changing lenses is not the problem. Zoom, that is what gets you dust in the body, esp. with zoom that suck, i.e. most kit lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>62296
Yes, it's about depth of field too. But since it's a compact camera with a rather tiny CCD, you won't get an impressively low DOF even with a f2 lens.

As for noise, it grew with each generation of the G cameras, as the number of megapixels increased. The G6 is better than most other P&S cameras of similar resolution (except SuperCCD-based Fujifilms), but ISO 400 is still pretty much unusable without heavy processing in NeatImage.

>>62297
Dust will likely get into a compact camera in this case too, if it doesn't have folded optics.
>> Anonymous
>>62300
I've managed it, even on f/3.whatever on other cameras. Not as pronounced, mind you, but it is possible to get a little shallow depth of field going.
>> Anonymous
Everyone is going to tell you a DSLR because not everyone on /p/ understands casual photography. If you want an inexpensive point and shoot I suggest the Canon A series; specifically the canon A630 or the A710IS. I used an A630 for some time and enjoyed shooting with it, it took quality pictures for the price. The Canon A series has a broad range of controls allowing you to start to get creative with your photos.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62362
>Everyone is going to tell you a DSLR because not everyone on /p/ understands casual photography.
He posted a picture of a PowerShot G7, which goes for about $500 new, so the assumption was that he was looking for something in that price range. You can get a low-end SLR for that much. So people recommended he get an SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>62380

True, he can get the cheapest DSLR in the market, but that would be exactly what it says: the cheapest dslr in the market, i.e. 100% plastic goodness. It's bulky, it feels cheap, it comes with a lens that sucks. The only real advantage would be the viewfinder, which is dark and small compared to "real" cameras. The choice would be high end point-and-shoot or low end dslr. Definitely not an easy choice.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>62439
The "only real advantage" isn't the viewfinder, which I'm also not terribly fond of. The real advantage is the image quality, which is leaps and bound better on a DSLR. Pic related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:14 14:59:39Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width487Image Height500
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62458
Don't forget speed. And the option of interchangeable lenses (including faster ones than are available for the G7).

The lowest end digital SLR is still a much better camera than the highest end point & shoot.
>> Anonymous
>>62468

Argh, I can't take it anymore... point-and-shoot vs. low-end dslr. Those are for two absolutely different types of amateur users. The first one is for casual photographers who also like to record video and don't want to carry around a lot of weight, the other one is for the more ambitious amateur. And both are insufficient from a professional point of view.
>> Anonymous
>>62563
I'm professional and I shoot with disposable cameras, you insensitive clod.