Sony 717 vs Canon G3 - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/17/2003 05:27:51 AM · #1

I have read reviews and discussions from various forums, ideally getting a DSLR will be good, but I quess I will most likely defer this decision until another 1-2 years from now, hoping for the prize to drop to <$1000 level (possible?). For now I am targeting to get something in the range of $600-800. My consideration is either a Sony 717 or Canon G3. My biggest consideration is the shutter lag time as I 'suffer' a lot on my existing Fuji 1400. Secondly I am also concerned about the battery life. Any input and suggestion would be appreciated, particularly comparing these 2 models on performance on shutter lag and battery life. Thanks!

myqyl

Nikon D3100

02/17/2003 08:59:28 AM · #2

If shutter lag and battery life are your 2 biggest concerns, you would be very happy with the 717. I don't own a G3, so I can't say beyond that.

jab119

02/17/2003 11:00:32 AM · #3

the battery life is real good on the Sony 7x7, I have gotten about 300+ pics out of a single charge over a 4 day period in my 707, i hear the shutter lag is not as bad with the 717 as with the 707, but i only notice shutter lag in low light night shots. Then again im not all that worried about shutter lag like a lot of other people

James

Klee

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/17/2003 11:27:10 PM · #4

So far looks that there a 2 votes for Sony. Does the 300+ shots per single charge include turning on the LCD display all the time, and with flash turned on occationally? Wonder how easy is it to take a shot only thru the electronic view finder (with LCD turned off) - will this save the battery somemore?

Base on the review and inputs gathered, 717 looks great! I guess the only cons would then be the Proprietary memory stick. Also I am not too sure about the pros and cons on TIFF (sony) vs RAW (Canon G3) file as well.

Canon EOS-20D

02/18/2003 01:43:12 AM · #5

I have a G3. It has excellent battery life. It easily takes over 500 pictures per charge and that's with the LCD always on and occasional flash. I've taken up to three minutes of video and still not needed to charge.

The camera seems to take a bit longer to focus in darker areas which means longer to take the picture, but the shutter speed is quite quick. Much better than the Kodak DC240 that I had though.

Not sure what you mean about the electronic view finder as opposed to LCD, but I never shoot by looking through the viewfinder. One of the downsides to the G3 is that when the lens is extended, it blocks a corner of the view through the viewfinder. It doesn't do this through the lcd and taking photos through that was easy to adapt to.

This part I'm not sure on so someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that with a TIFF file, you lose some of the data while you don't lose any with a RAW (but RAW would of course be bigger.) I haven't shot any in RAW format.

I would definitely recommend the G3. I'm enjoying mine a great deal. Let me know if I can answer any other questions for you.

redfig

Casio Exilim EX-Z55

02/18/2003 01:49:12 AM · #6

I am with Kidyin [ of course] also i like the size of the G3 easy to hold . The focus takes time to get used to.I love the G3

jimmythefish

02/18/2003 02:33:33 AM · #7

The advantages of the Sony are clearly a larger zoom with a wider maximum aperture at both wide angle and telephoto (2.0-2.4), the extra megapixel, and the electronic viewfinder (which is a WYSIWYG display) as opposed to the G3's viewfinder, which is a rangefinder style. Of course, it's also quite a bit more expensive. I think it comes down to what you're using it for. If you need a relatively compact 'reportage' style camera that's going to be taken everywhere and the lens is less important than the features such as continuous shooting then I'd go Canon. If you're into taking your time with shots and want the best possible picture quality, go Sony.

Having a Sony myself, I've never had a problem with the memory stick format. For all practical purposes, it's the same as anything else provided you don't have multiple camera systems to trade between. It's also nice in that you can use them in a wide range of Sony gear.

jimmythefish

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

02/18/2003 02:41:09 AM · #8

Check out DP Review for details, including numbers on battery life and shutter lag for both models, contained within the reviews.

Message edited by author 2003-02-18 02:50:26.

briphoto

Nikon D700

02/18/2003 02:51:51 AM · #9

The TIFF format sucks big time, one shot takes 16mb, but, as one post opined, there is no loss of information with TIFF format, that is the reason for having it. I don't know about the RAW firsthand, though I've heard it is much better, as far as space is concerned, than the TIFF.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/18/2003 09:58:09 AM · #10

Originally posted by Klee:

So far looks that there a 2 votes for Sony. Does the 300+ shots per single charge include turning on the LCD display all the time, and with flash turned on occasionally? Wonder how easy is it to take a shot only through the electronic view finder (with LCD turned off) - will this save the battery somemore?

LCD and the viewfinder use the same amount of juice. Battery life is unaffected by which one you use. I'm not a big flash fan, but I use it from time to time for fill and I have yet to need my backup battery.

I've used TIFF (not often) and while it's true it takes 16 meg, so what? That's what CD burners are for. It's not the format I'd use unless I planned to make it a very large print, but it's certainly usable.

If you do go with the 717, plan to get a 128 meg stick immediately. The 32 meg it comes with is a joke. I keep hearing rumors of much larger sticks, but haven't seen the reality of one yet. It is the Achillie's heel of this camera.

Seeker

02/18/2003 01:03:47 PM · #11

My two cents:

The battery life on the Sony 707/717 is great. Buy an extra batter (pricey) or purchase the DPS-9000 external battery from Digipower from Best Buy for $29.95 and shoot for days. An option for the memory stick is to purchase a couple of Lexmar or Sandisk 128Meg sticks and one of the digital wallets that have been discussed in one of the other forums (sorry, I can't find which forum). One of the digital wallets costs about $89 and you add your own hard drive. You can get a multiGig drive for $59. You can put a whole lot of shots in the digital wallet and use it for other things also like music, etc. The 128M sticks are running about $50 on the net so the price isn't too bad. The proprietary argument is a non-issue in my opnion. If Sony was the only one who made them then I could see a problem but they aren't so it isn't .
I wish I had access to a G3 so I could be unbiased but don't so I lean toward what I know and like. If you need another reason to go to the 707/717 check this link Sony Ebook for a really neat book on using the camera. It's great to have a lot of nuances of the camera explained in detail plus some real interesting tricks and tips.

Oops, forgot to mention. The Sony Ebook brought up an interesting point that even after running an image through JPEG compression 8 (or 10 times, I'm at work so don't have the book handy) the loss of image quality was barely 1%. Some of the issues regarding JPEG compression is, in my admittly limited opinion, also a non-issue. You will encounter more problems with color shifts and resolution issues regarding monitors, printers, papers and inks than JPEG introduces into the original image taken by the Sony.

Message edited by author 2003-02-18 13:18:15.

Roseytone

Canon PowerShot G3

02/18/2003 03:19:35 PM · #12

I'm obviously with the G3 owners. I spent a lot of time on research before I plumped for this and am pleased with the overall package.
I previously had an HP 618 which I belive was a rebadged Pentax. It was neat and made digital photography come alive for me. However I now realise that many of the pictures were in fact false representations nad one thisng I really note about the G3 is true representation of colour etc. It seems I am now taking many more pictures on dull days ...but they do accurately reflect the real world.

It is also a good size to handle and carry being smaller than an SLR nut larger than most point and click. Strongly recommend.

Swashbuckler

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/18/2003 06:01:10 PM · #13

I'm another Sony person, but the advice I always give is touchy-feely.

Find someplace, like Circuit City, that has both models of camera that you want to buy. Hold them in your hands, (one at a time, please!) and mimic your photo taking pose. If one feels more "natural" than the other, your choice is easy. I feel that being comfortable with your tool is at least as important as it's features and cost. Both cameras have great trade-offs(features that one has and the other doesn't), but as with most tools, if it doesn't feel good in your hands, it's that much harder to produce good results.
Then look at what types of photos you like to take most. Which camera lends itself to that style more?
Cost is a big issue, but remember, you can buy additional parts as you can afford them, so it's not essential to break the bank from the start. Using the camera (once it's been purchased!!) will point out to you which options you will want the most. I want to take nature shots, esp. birds that tend to be shy, so my last purchase was an extra long lens. (Can't wait for it to arrive, pace, pace, pace....)

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/18/2003 08:08:14 PM · #14

Experience with the 717...

Flash Photography:
A couple weeks back I took all flash photography for 158 images at highest pixel density in dark conditions at long distance and with red-eye reduction turned on. That took all the battery power of the extra extended life battery I bought. I was pleased it did so well, but the the SONY battery would not have lasted as long.

With red eye reduction turned on the 717 takes over 1/2 second to flash; that is way too long and you cannot see anything through the lense during that time either. Turn off red-eye and there is only a slight delay and the battery will last longer still.

The 717 has an excellant built-in flash.

Tungsten downer:
The 717 is lousy at capturing accurate color in all tungsten light, even very bright light, so you might want to consider that.

Brightness and Contrast:
My 717 indoor images always seems to be a little washed out. You can adjust the camera to compensate for that, but you shouldn't have to.

Daytime Outdoors:
The 717 is at its best in these conditions. You will get outstanding images with accurate color.

Balance:
I'm right handed. As such it is the best balanced camera I ever used.
It has taken a bad rap in the press for being "L" shaped and "unbalanced" but I think they never actually held it. If you are left handed, though, it might be a different story.

Controls:
It seems to have every possible manual control you will ever want and is intuitive in its operation, but there is still a learning curve.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G ED

02/18/2003 08:23:55 PM · #15

Listen, the Sony is a fancier camera, has more whistles and bells. The Canon is more compact and the picture quality is excellent. If you want a camera that is more "portable" (fits in a purse of pocket) go with the G3. The best deal is to look at online reviews.

Happy shopping. I'm not biased but I hope you enjoy your G3 ;)

DougPaz

Nikon D40

02/18/2003 09:14:34 PM · #16

This thread is very interesting to me as I have been asking myself which of these two cameras is in my future. I've looked at all of the reveiw sites and felt them at Best Buy. After much back and forth and gnashing of teeth, I am saving for the F717.

It feels better to me and I love the way it Macros and shoots distance. My biggest drawback is the memory stick because I have a bunch of Compact Flash cards but so goes it. I will probably have a bunch of memory sticks in the future.

jimmythefish

02/19/2003 01:47:23 AM · #17

I'm definitely going F717. I'm going to keep my S50 as the compact, take-everywhere camera, as it takes great photographs and I'd hate to sell it. Being able to share batteries and memory sticks between the two will be a great thing.

TerryGee

02/19/2003 05:28:26 PM · #18

I truly love the Sony. It is great with macros and low light.
By the way sony is coming out in March with larger capacity memory sticks.
I just got back from a trip to Florida, took over 700 pics with the Sony, never needed the extra battery i brought. But i generally shoot with the viewfinder and no flash. Some shots looked sharp in the camera but were not, but the macro capability is incredible. Got within an inch to the butterflies.atlas moth close up

Message edited by author 2003-02-19 22:27:39.

Swashbuckler

02/19/2003 05:57:00 PM · #19

Awesome Moth shot Terry!!!!

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

02/19/2003 07:57:04 PM · #20

Grass hopper shot
Little wormie shot
Little wormie shot II in perspective

Go team G2 (G3) :)

Klee

02/19/2003 08:09:14 PM · #21

Terry
700 shots without replacing the battery is impressive. By the way someone commented earlier that whether you turned on the view finder or LCD, it makes no difference to the effect on battery live, is this true? Also do you get the equivalent information on both viewfinder and LCD? Thanks!

TerryGee

02/19/2003 10:24:01 PM · #22

I didn't take that many without a charge, I took about 150 a day without a charge. Viewfinder has same info as screen, I believe that the sceen uses more battery. Here's another macro of a monarch butterfly

Message edited by author 2003-02-19 22:25:44.

RLS

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/20/2003 02:06:58 AM · #23

Originally posted by TerryGee:

I have noticed that some images seen on the LCD of my F717 appear sharp until I unload them to my computer. This may be something you want to keep in mind when deciding which camera to purchase. It can be a little disappointing thinking you have a nice sharp image and finding out you have a problem image after you get home. I'm not certain what causes this problem with the image replay but I have found it to be annoying at times.

Bob

myqyl

Nikon D3100

02/20/2003 02:42:51 PM · #24

Originally posted by RLS:

Do you zoom in on the replay? I've had no problems seeing problem shots on replay when I zoom in full on them.

TerryGee