Canon G7

[Dierk Haasis]

... right to the chase:

What idiot came up with the idea to call the Canon G7 the G7? Must have been somebody in marketing, trying to cannibalise on the G-series fame.

The original G-series was about top-of-the-line compact cameras [digicams], which had a tilt-&-swivel monitor, used robust CF-cards, where small but not tiny, and let you save in RAW format. They also looked quite good and had decent handling. The G7 doesn't look like the former G-digicams but like a slightly over-sized older minor Powershot design. It does not support RAW, uses SD-card, is too small to hold steady but still too big to fit a shirt pocket, has a fixed monitor ...

Instead it comes with face recognition - I am missing the Volvo voice telling me when to shoot - and totally idiotic 10 MPx.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The original G-series was about top-of-the-line compact cameras [digicams], which had a tilt-&-swivel monitor, used robust CF-cards, where small but not tiny, and let you save in RAW format.

I was also very surprised to find it doesn't output Raw, and losing the tilt-&-swivel LCD makes it quite a bit less versatile than my aging G3.

I am curious about the noise performance of the sub-2-micron sensels in combination with the Digic III. By the way, sub-2-micron sensels also mean that any aperture smaller than approx. f/1.4 will almost certainly reduce visible resolution, due to diffraction. I can only imaging that Canon felt forced to join in the megapixel race for compacts, they said they had abandoned.

The performance of the Digic III on such inevitably small photon counts (=noise) might be indicative as to what performance can be expected from a future 22 MP 1Ds Mark III, or whatever name/specs it will get. The current sensel dimensions of the 1Ds Mark II are already at the lower end of what might be considered acceptable for S/N ratio and thus Dynamic Range, and the Mark III will have smaller sensels yet.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Bart,

1. Is there room for decreasing the intersensel spacing to get a little more area for the photon capure and also to increase the depth?

I was also veryThe current sensel dimensions of the 1Ds Mark II are already at the lower end of what might be considered acceptable for S/N ratio and thus Dynamic Range, and the Mark III will have smaller sensels yet.

2. Can you put up the diffrection limit calculation in this case? It will be a good learning lesson.

By the way, sub-2-micron sensels also mean that any aperture smaller than approx. f/1.4 will almost certainly reduce visible resolution, due to diffraction. I can only imaging that Canon felt forced to join in the megapixel race for compacts, they said they had abandoned.

Appreciate you insights,

Asher

 

[Diane Fields]

... right to the chase:

What idiot came up with the idea to call the Canon G7 the G7? Must have been somebody in marketing, trying to cannibalise on the G-series fame.

The original G-series was about top-of-the-line compact cameras [digicams], which had a tilt-&-swivel monitor, used robust CF-cards, where small but not tiny, and let you save in RAW format. They also looked quite good and had decent handling. The G7 doesn't look like the former G-digicams but like a slightly over-sized older minor Powershot design. It does not support RAW, uses SD-card, is too small to hold steady but still too big to fit a shirt pocket, has a fixed monitor ...

Instead it comes with face recognition - I am missing the Volvo voice telling me when to shoot - and totally idiotic 10 MPx.

Every once in awhile I get the thought to add a small fixed lens camera and the G series has always been in my mind. I had one of the G1's (which is now used by my almost 91 yr. old mother) and learned to use RAW with this one---moving from the awful Canon software to Chris Breeze's Breezebrowser at the time. The tiltable LCD was nice--so that you could actually use it to compose if you chose not to use the viewfinder (but I still hate any of these teeny tiny cameras w/o viewfinders, as my husband's otherwise nice for what it is Fuji F30). As far as I'm concerned, the G series died with the 6 and there really isn't a small camera that I would consider at this point. I guess its something like a Rebel with small prime--or nothing (actually the 5D with a small prime is not bad).

Diane.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

As far as I'm concerned, the G series died with the 6 and there really isn't a small camera that I would consider at this point.

Sad, isn't it? On the Photokina I had a look-around at Nikon's stand for their digicam offerings. Found they had discontinued the 8400 and 8800. Obviously the bulk of the market goes to shirt pocket cams.

For roughly 18 months I am telling everybody who wants to hear it [most don't want, let alone actually listen] how it is the cell phone cam taking over the lower and middle section of the digicam sector. Instead of competing with over-sensorised mini-digis, which do not offer cell phone capabilities, MMS and e-mailing, optical manufacturers with a great brand [Nikon, Canon, Olympus] they should strengthen the larger top-end of the market - producing more digicams like the 8xxx- or G-series.

My G2 - the pinnacle of the series - may look like a brick to many but it is still much smaller and lighter than any consumer dSLR.

 

[Asher Kelman]

For a fixed screen, I expect a slim digicam to go in my shirt pocket.

The G2 was indeed great. Still is as Mary is showing herself! Glad she didn't buy a replacement!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

1. Is there room for decreasing the intersensel spacing to get a little more area for the photon capure and also to increase the depth?

I'm not sure if there is much room left, but companies like Canon probably already use as much as they can get away with, with their current technology. Afterall, Canon produce their own sensors with their own production equipment, so they can experiment to their hearts content.

2. Can you put up the diffrection limit calculation in this case? It will be a good learning lesson.

The diffraction limit is aperture and wavelength dependent, but for a full visible spectrum the average numbers on this site are close enough I guess.

He apparently used the diffraction for green light (555nm), so the simplified calculation for circular apertures becomes 1.3542 x Aperture number = diffraction spot diameter in microns (micrometres).

Bob Atkins also offers a simple free (Windows) 'Depth of Field' utility on his site, which warns when the diffraction spot size exceeds the chosen 'Circle of Confusion'.

This is another interesting site which addresses the diffraction effects in the DoF calculations, and offers an on-line calculator. It also suggests the method I use to determine the narrowest aperture for huge enlargements, namely the one where the diffraction spot size is twice the sensel pitch (assumes AA-filter is used) and also equal to the CoC in the calculations.

Appreciate you insights

You're welcome. I'm just passing on the info I've gathered over the years (and some I've derived from that).

Bart

 

[Daniel Harrison]

You may be interested in this short review FWIW

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20610874

 

[Kim Fullbrook]

Why couldn't Canon have included Raw capability on the G7 ?

"No Raw, No Sale"

Kim.

 

[Joseph Ferrari]

Why couldn't Canon have included Raw capability on the G7 ?

"No Raw, No Sale"

Kim.

Just before Christmas, I went into my local camera store, inserted a 1 GB SD card of my own and took all kinds of shots—you couldn't ask for more out of this class of camera.

I didn't buy. No Raw.

Could Canon be planning something just above the G7?