DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> New Canon G7... No RAW :-(
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/14/2006 09:35:34 AM · #1
Why Canon, WHY?

This is the first G series that doesn't shoot RAW. I am interested in a high-quality "business-travel" P&S camera, so that I don't have to lug around my 20D + lenses on my business trips to Denver. But I can't give up RAW.

Supposedly Canon's reason is to protect their SLRs. That's a dumb reason, IMO.

-Chad

09/14/2006 09:48:33 AM · #2
Originally posted by cpurser:

Why Canon, WHY?

This is the first G series that doesn't shoot RAW. I am interested in a high-quality "business-travel" P&S camera, so that I don't have to lug around my 20D + lenses on my business trips to Denver. But I can't give up RAW.

Supposedly Canon's reason is to protect their SLRs. That's a dumb reason, IMO.

-Chad


Dumb indeed. I used the G6 and finally upgraded to the 350D. How did having RAW on the G6 protect the SLRs? For a good, do-everything camera the G6 is fantastic. Maybe they think it's too good and will prevent some from upgrading later?
09/14/2006 10:18:21 AM · #3
Yeah, looks like I'll have to go backwards to the G6 if I want to stick with Canon. That's ok I guess... it will be cheaper!

-Chad
09/14/2006 10:30:01 AM · #4
That's disappointing, but the extra resolution, Digic III, etc. will probably still make JPEGs from the G7 superior to RAW files from a G6.
09/14/2006 11:02:55 AM · #5
//www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=14321

10MP and ISO 1600 in a PnS? Yikes.
The XGA movie mode sounds interesting, and the styling is 100x better than the G6 IMO. Maybe even better than the G5.
09/14/2006 11:20:13 AM · #6
I never used RAW with my G5, it wrote so slowly that it was just about useless. Was the G6 better?

Though now, I might be able to better take advantage of it since I am much more familiar with RAW.
09/14/2006 12:05:39 PM · #7
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I never used RAW with my G5, it wrote so slowly that it was just about useless. Was the G6 better?

Though now, I might be able to better take advantage of it since I am much more familiar with RAW.


RAW isn't too slow with the G6 unless you are in burst mode and fill up the buffer.

As far as ISO 1600, I'm not entirely confident you can get anything usable at that setting. The G6 goes up to 400, but even at 200 there's a lot of noise, and 400 is just awful.

Edit: Just checked out the link. What I noticed 1st is that the bigger LCD isn't a flip-out. That bites. The G6 lens is 7.2-28.8mm F2.0-3.0. It appears (hard to see) that the G7 will be 7.4-44.4mm F2.8-4.8.

Message edited by author 2006-09-14 12:18:48.
09/15/2006 12:09:58 AM · #8
Originally posted by MadMan2k:

the styling is 100x better than the G6 IMO.

Yep, had to agree. It's one of the best looking G-series powershot to date. But I'm unimpressed by the "improvement" in the specs. Two major items I noticed immediately is the slower lens (F2.0 vs F2.8) and also they have removed RAW... also now the LCD cant be rotated anymore. What gives? They water-down the camera so the IS series could survive? That's ridiculous.

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 23:40:57.
09/15/2006 12:30:46 AM · #9
Ah, that sucks. The flip-out LCD was a great feature to have on my G5, even if it seemed a little camcorderish at times and I ended up using the viewfinder or it folded into the back like a regular camera. The fast lens was really nice too, but usable ISO over 100 would have sweetened the deal..

I guess since SLR's don't have flip-out LCD's, they copy them with the G7.
09/15/2006 12:41:57 AM · #10
Its a damn sexy cam-- I wouldnt mind having one-- wonder how the noise is at 400 and up though-

Anyone who has held the G series knows they are well built and comfartable-- I like this new cam- even though no raw
09/15/2006 12:42:46 AM · #11
Love my 5 year old 4MP G2, produces amazingly noise free photos for a Point and Shooot, has all the manual controls you need and shoots RAW too!

From my G2: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/476/thumb/314448.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/476/thumb/314448.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
09/15/2006 01:38:49 AM · #12
Originally posted by buzzrock:

Its a damn sexy cam-- I wouldnt mind having one-- wonder how the noise is at 400 and up though


Yep, now all we need is test photos and sample pics. I'm pretty sure the sharpness and details on the Canon would be as good as their previous models, but the G series was never that good with noise above ISO200. Lets hope Canon did some serious improvement on that part, and we'd have a winner here.

(I wonder if Sony will continue their V-series now that Canon revived their G...)

crayon
09/15/2006 01:58:28 AM · #13
G7 sample pics here

Hey, this guy can go up to ISO3200, whoa!
09/15/2006 06:47:20 AM · #14
Originally posted by crayon:

G7 sample pics here

Hey, this guy can go up to ISO3200, whoa!


Quote from their site on ISO 3200: "The number of recording pixels is fixed at 1600 x 1200 equivalent, and the digital zoom (digital tele-converter) cannot be used in this mode."
09/15/2006 06:58:43 AM · #15
I got a G6 for sale if anybody's interested :p
09/15/2006 07:06:08 AM · #16
Originally posted by scalvert:

That's disappointing, but the extra resolution, Digic III, etc. will probably still make JPEGs from the G7 superior to RAW files from a G6.


No offense, not trying to be argumentative Shannon, but I disagree with this.

I think that the JPEGs from the G7 will be superior in many cases to the JPEGs from the G6 (one would hope anyhow), but the purpose of shooting RAW is usually to get more true information with less thrown away, thus retaining the widest range of color and light.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the G7 will be able to hold its own, but I'd count it rather unlikely that the JPEGs would beat the RAW from G6.

This seems to be a marketing decision based on the small number of shooters that actually use RAW. Not an image concern.

Having more pixels, it's likely that the dynamic range of he G7 will actually be LESS than the G6, which in turn would only be compounded by the JPEG compression and the discarding of the information on the ends of the luminosity scales.

I would say that it's pretty likely that one of the primary reasons that people shoot RAW on the G6 will not be superior in the G7.

Watch for Phil Askey to nail the G7 on blown highlights.
09/15/2006 07:12:23 AM · #17
Originally posted by crayon:

Yep, had to agree. It's one of the best looking G-series powershot to date. But I'm unimpressed by the "improvement" in the specs. Two major items I noticed immediately is the slower lens (F2.0 vs F2.8) and also they have removed RAW... also now the LCD cant be rotated anymore. What gives? They water-down the camera so the IS series could survive? That's ridiculous.

[img ]//www.dpreview.com/news/0609/canon2/PowerShot-G7-2-FSR-TOP-001.jpg[/img ]


So, you got permission to post that photo?

DPReview's Copyright Policy

Message edited by author 2006-09-15 07:14:00.
09/15/2006 11:35:48 AM · #18
According to THIS, the G7 DOES support RAW.
09/15/2006 11:57:22 AM · #19
Interesting conflict.

Canon.com does not list RAW.

But it could be an oversight on their part. I'll wait for Phil's take on it.

This looks to be quite a nice cam!
09/15/2006 12:10:37 PM · #20
Originally posted by eschelar:


Canon.com does not list RAW.

But it could be an oversight on their part. I'll wait for Phil's take on it.


Most lkely not a big selling point. How many casual P&S users want the hassle of RAW? RAW is more of an advantage to photography hobbyist than for casual clickers.
09/15/2006 12:30:32 PM · #21
yeh the flip-and-turn lcd was my favourite part of my G5. G7 seems to be 1 step forward, two steps back.
09/16/2006 09:23:28 AM · #22
There are three really poor aspects to this great new G7 camera.

Firstly: its lack of RAW capability. Given the reality that the G5/G6 were both rather inadequate with regard to white balance handling, the only effective solution to this has been shooting RAW and then adjusting on the computer. Similarly, the ability to modify the exposure of the RAW photo is a magic tool in a photographer's hands. So I see the absence of RAW output as a major marketing mistake and one that will turn pro users away, to other equipment. I am one such semi-pro camera user who will not be buying the G7, even if the 400/800 ASA settings can provide excellent images (which I seriously doubt given the size of the film sensor). Without RAW, the G Series is a dead duck.

The second big mistake is the loss of creativity and excellent functionality provided by the swivel/flip LCD Screen on G5/G6. It's loss is a big downer, and likely to lose Canon many sales.

The third BIG failing is the loss of the F/2.0 - 3.0 lens and its replacement with a 6x zoom of only F2.8 - 4.8. That is a loss of major significance that the improved ISO rating and IS will be hard pushed to replace.

There are times when I pull my hair out over the poor thinking behind some marketing decisions. This G7 is one of them. I don't want to buy a big and heavy and very visible DSLR. I need a very high-quality pro camera that is relatively inconspicuous and light that can shoot brilliantly in low light situations without flash. The Canon G7 could very easily have been all that. Technically Canon could easily have produced that. Canon knows why they chose not to deliver such a camera. This G7 does not deserve the name 'G' anything.

Message edited by author 2006-09-18 06:12:30.
09/16/2006 09:41:53 AM · #23
I've got RAW on my Coolpix 5400. It doesn't come with it, but there's a free firmware upgrade available. There are even cheap lens kits you can buy for about $100 on eBay, and the whole kit and kaboodle fits in one small camera bag that I take with me everywhere. I don't know if you consider 5 megapixels high quality, but I certainly do alright with it. My only complaint with it is that it won't shoot b/w in RAW mode.

Message edited by author 2006-09-16 09:47:09.
09/18/2006 09:48:41 AM · #24
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by eschelar:


Canon.com does not list RAW.

But it could be an oversight on their part. I'll wait for Phil's take on it.


Most lkely not a big selling point. How many casual P&S users want the hassle of RAW? RAW is more of an advantage to photography hobbyist than for casual clickers.


So this is designed for the "casual P&S user"? i dont see many casual users giving $600. for this camera. What features does it have over an A series? or even an S3 for that matter?

The fact it has a hotshoe and a dial for ISO tells you right there who it was designed for. I guess they didnt think we would miss raw or a swivel LCD. :/

Message edited by author 2006-09-18 09:50:15.
02/17/2007 02:12:32 PM · #25
Just got the G7 and very impressed with the quality of the photos! (I don't care about the RAW or the flip LCD) I bought this for travel(and fun) and also for the excellent video mode. I can leave this around my neck all day and no pain..! ahhhh...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/10/2019 03:35:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/10/2019 03:35:01 AM EST.