Just bought a Canon G6 - WoW! (1 Viewer)

Ronald Epstein · Mar 10, 2005

After being a Nikon 995 coolpix owner
for the past 3-4 years I did a major
upgrade this week by purchasing the
Canon G6 7.1 megapixel.

I did a lot of research amongst other
6-8 megapixel cameras and this one was
rated amongst the best.

After a day of use I am just floored
by the picture quality this baby delivers.
It's absolutely leaps and bounds above
my coolpix.

Any other members own this camera? Thoughts?

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 10, 2005

Congrats, Ron.

The G6 sounds like a great camera. I still have the older G3 (w/ 4MP) lying around from a couple years ago, but most of the features, etc. are similar beyond the more compact design and higher MP count of the G6. One of the things I liked about the Canon G series compact cams is the relatively bright lens (at f/2-3 max). Another is the higher-than-avg sensitivity plus "signal"-to-noise ratio at each given ISO setting. These characteristics combine for generally better indoor performance than most other compact cams when not using flash.

When flash is needed, you also have the option of adding an external flash for far superior flash performance -- I used a Canon 420EX speedlight for that although the flash itself looks bigger than the camera.

The external flash system is essentially the same as their original EOS line of SLR cameras, using E-TTL. Let me know if you want more info on this.

I also liked using the flip-out LCD for certain POVs and situations as well as the RAW format for more difficult lighting conditions. RAW is the camera's straight-from-CCD native format that allows much greater image processing and editing flexibility than JPEG (or even TIFF on some other cameras). Canon provides their own software for dealing w/ RAW, but most people opt for much better 3rd party solutions. With your G6, Canon's also offering RAW+JPEG, which is nice to have for choosing between straight-from-camera JPEG vs RAW option after the fact. That's what I do w/ my Nikon D70.

The camera also comes w/ a built-in ND filter that could be very useful when you need to stop down the light more than the aperture+shutter speed combos allow, especially for when you want to shoot w/ certain kinds of effects like motion blur (as in "silky smooth" looking waterfalls) -- Canon's the only maker to do this (w/ their G series and the Pro 1). I also own Canon's tele and wideangle converters for my old G3 -- nice to have for certain situations and compositions.

If you don't own a tabletop tripod already, you might want to get one like the Ultrapod:

http://www.pedcopods.com/instru01.htm

I have the larger Ultrapod 2 myself since I used my G3 w/ various add-ons that might be too bulky/hefty for the smaller one.

There are other accessories one might consider, including a good clear filter (multi-coated) plus lens adapter for protecting the telescoping lens element. The G series lens is definitely much more susceptible to damage than your old CP995. Many G series owners go w/ that option for protection as did I. Of course, doing so does make the camera much more bulky, so that's a tradeoff to consider. Here's a pretty good online dealer for certain accessories that make sense for the Canon G series cams:

http://www.lensmateonline.com/

I bought 3 of their lens adapters for my G3 -- one for regular use and one for each of my lens converters so that I can swap them quickly as needed. Their adapters seem nicer than the plastic Canon ones although a bit pricier. I might've also bought a neoprene wrist strap from them, which is much better than using neck strap for a smallish camera IMHO.

_Man_

Ronald Epstein · Mar 10, 2005

Man,

This is a wealth of useful information.

Thank You so very much.

Question..

I am really an amateur photographer so I don't
know much about filters/covers/etc.

What specific lens cover do you reccomend for
my silver G6 camera? Does this cover do anything
than just protect the lense or is there an added
benefit in picture quality?

Thanks in advance

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 10, 2005

Hi, Ron.

The lens adapter doesn't add anything to picture quality. In fact, if you use a low quality lens filter that's not multi-coated, you would actually degrade picture quality. So if you go that route, make sure to get a decent multi-coated filter. A good multi-coated UV filter that fits the G6 might run you around $15-20. But unlike most other compact cams, a filter for the G6 would fit on some SLR lenses also, if you should someday go that route. In fact, I do use my old filters for the G3 on a couple of SLR lenses for my D70. A good UV filter can improve picture quality a little for long distance landscape shots in bright outdoor situations.

BTW, I forgot to mention consideration for a good polarizing filter. Polarizers are popular for getting deeper color saturation and removing non-metallic reflections in bright outdoor scenarios. Often, in bright outdoor situations, all the light being scattered and reflected can yield a somewhat washed out look, and a polarizer can help a lot w/ that. Ever notice how you have a hard time getting deep blue skies for instance? Or ever wanted to get rid of reflections in glass windows? Polarizers also behave like ND filters as well and will reduce the light as a side effect. They're probably the most popular filters (after the clear variety that filter UV, haze, etc.).

However, if you get a polarizer w/ thoughts of reuse on an SLR camera, you should know that the AF system on virtually all SLR cameras are not compatible w/ the less expensive (and usually lower quality) linear polarizers -- SLR's usually require circular polarizers that would also work w/ all other cameras.

Beyond those, most other kinds of filters are not that necessary for digital photography since most of them can be simulated w/ image editing. And no, postprocessing/editing is not necessarily cheating in case you're wondering

although the digital age has made "darkroom" work much easier to do w/ much more possibilities than in the film world.

And oh, for help on learning photography, you can check out this post I made a while ago even though it was targeted at some Canon 20D users:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...23#post2480723

Most of the stuff in that post still applies to a G6 user although there are some notable diffs between a compact digicam and most digital SLRs.

I also seem to recall making at least one other post w/ more substantial list of resources for learning photography, but can't seem to locate it right now.

If you want, you can find most such resources by checking out my profile on the DPR site over here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/po...r=hjixikixhwiv

_Man_

Rob Gillespie · Mar 10, 2005

Ron, I have the older 5 megapixel G5 and I've been really happy with it. I'm just starting to get away from having everything on auto to learning what the more manual adjustments can do. The G6 is superior in terms of resolution (though unless you're printing at big sizes those extra couple of megapixels probably wont make much difference) but is also better due to the significantly decreased 'purple fringing' chromatic abherration (sp?) which I've noticed the G5 suffers from very often.

Get a big, FAST CompactFlash card and you'll notice a snappier response, especially with the continous mode.

Here's a couple of shots I took last weekend:
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/IMG_1426.JPG
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/IMG_1435.JPG

First has been converted to greyscale in PhotoShop and both have had the shadows boosted a bit.

Thomas Newton · Mar 10, 2005

I don't own this camera, but I'd say you've picked a good one. I've been thinking about getting a better digital camera (one more geared to an advanced amateur), and have come up with a short list of four models:

1) The one you got (Canon G-6). The reviews claim that it has low noise and excellent picture quality for a high-megapixel, small-sensor compact. The TTL-metered flash shoe would make it real easy to use a real tilt/bounce flash to avoid "red eye" (a huge win over most compacts for any sort of indoor family photography). The lens is also fast (f/2.0-3.0).

2) The Nikon D-70. No huge startup or shot-to-shot lag, takes TTL flashes, takes a range of lenses, said to have excellent build quality.

3) The new version of the Canon Digital Rebel.

4) Panasonic Lumix FZ-20. No TTL-metered bounce flash -- and noise is probably not so great -- but it has that 12x constant f/2.8 image-stabilized Leica lens. (On a SLR, a lens like that would probably set you back as much as the whole FZ-20 camera, if not more.)

Thomas Newton · Mar 10, 2005

Note that some photo processing places now have "one-hour" digital photo kiosks. You bring in your photos (on CD or memory card), place the order, and they print your photos on regular photo paper using the same backend processes as for film.

These can be a convenient alternative to inkjet prints, or to expensive "instant" kiosk prints. (Especially when you consider that a film-style printing process is likely to produce long-lived prints.)

One caveat: 35mm negatives and 4x6 prints have a 3:2 aspect ratio. Most non-SLR digital cameras have a 4:3 aspect ratio. If you care about the way the prints crop your pictures, you may want to prepare 3:2 cropped copies before taking photos to a kiosk, printing them on your inkjet, etc.

Scott Merryfield · Mar 11, 2005

Ron, I've also owned the older G3 (4MP)version for a couple of years and have been absolutely delighted with the camera. Man offers some great advise on getting the most out of your new camera. With my lower 4MP version, I have still been able to take some beautiful pictures that look wonderful blown up to 16x20.

I plan on upgrading to a Canon digital SLR at some point, but this camera is still meeting almost all my needs right now.

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 11, 2005

RE: the thoughts about going DSLR, one significant diff not noted is the diff in depth of field (DoF) control (and ability to get very shallow DoF w/ nice background blur on the DSLR). With compact digicams, you have very little control over DoF and tend to get much larger DoF. This can be good or bad depending on what you want in the picture. It makes focusing much easier for acceptably sharp results, but makes selective focusing/defocusing nearly impossible in most situations. This was one main reason why I upgraded to a DSLR.

There are other reasons to go DSLR as mentioned, but many of those other gaps between compacts and DSLR have been closing up w/ the recent crop of compacts. However, the issue of DoF control is probably one gap that is least likely to narrow for the forseeable future (unless you're comparing the new smaller, non-35mm format DSLRs like Olympus). Indeed, this DoF issue is one of the reasons why some people want full-frame DSLRs vs the much more common APS-sized ones.

_Man_

Ryan Tsang · Mar 11, 2005

Man:

You said full frame DSLRs. Are you talking about 35mm sized sensors cuz our D70s are not. That's $$$$$$$$$$$$ right now is it not? That's would be the only way to make me upgrade from my D70, so as to get away from the 1.5x focal length "problem" and improve resolution.

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 11, 2005

Yep, that's what I meant, Ryan. And yeah, the Canon FF bodies (1Ds and 1Ds Mk2) are way too expensive -- of course, they're also very serious pro bodies and built like a tank. Still, if you want FF at more manageable prices (for either Nikon or Canon lens mount), you could always give Kodak a try if you don't mind the quirks and problems inherent to their bodies and sensor technology. They're not exactly cheap, but much closer to what us mortals can afford.

Some fashion photogs seem to use them.

Personally, I'm not so sure FF is that important. There are both pros and cons to either case. I think for most people the APS-sized crop factor is probably more suitable than FF although crop factor adjustment can certainly be confusing at first. But yeah, some will definitely find FF to be more suitable. Maybe the future will eventually be semi-pro and pro FF bodies w/ optional APS-sized crop factor and APS-sized bodies for the prosumers, if the concept introduced by the Nikon D2X takes off.

For myself, I would consider upgrading for better AF system w/ bigger viewfinder in addition to modestly better PQ and other features that are missing from the D70. The D70 is good, but it doesn't hold a candle to the AF system in the D2 pro bodies.

_Man_

Sam Posten · Mar 15, 2005

Tell ya what, you couldnt pry my 20D out of my hands these days but the Canon A70/80 series and G series are absolutely top notch for what they offer. I'm still waiting for a $300 cam to offer true manual focus, I think there could be a huge market for that.

Sam

Ryan Tsang · Mar 15, 2005

I don't think the people who spend $300 on a camera would care to manual focus. I find manual focus a bit cumbersome on my D70 simply because the VF is too small and not bright enough. On my F90X it's a different story. Are the LCDs on digicams clear enough to MF?

Thomas Newton · Mar 16, 2005

Try a 35mm film SLR camera. Seriously. If your budget is "only" $300, and you are into photography enough to need/want a manual focus option, film is the way to go.

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 16, 2005

Ryan,

You might consider going w/ brighter lenses plus a viewfinder magnifier add-on for MF w/ your D70, if those are the only issues for you. Of course, brighter lenses might cost you much more than $300 extra depending on what you need -- and viewfinder magnifiers are not exactly cheap either.

I guess if you can somehow separate MF and AF applications very distinctly, Thomas' suggestion might work. Of course, both you and Sam already tried 35mm film SLRs -- I believe Sam has some edition of the Nikon FM3, IIRC. Since you already have an F90X, I guess you could just lug it w/ you w/ film loaded just in case, but probably not very practical to do unless you were shooting for pay.

BTW, the Canon's do generally offer bigger viewfinders -- and the 20D is brighter than D70 also. The Nikon pro bodies also have bigger viewfinders. I don't have an actual film background, but from what I can gather, I'm not so sure one can do any better than the camera's AF w/out focus aids like split-prism screen. Even then, you can probably only do better in certain difficult situations that throw off the AF badly -- and probably many of those cases would also make it difficult for MF as well.

Yeah, I'd love to have an optional split-prism screen for the occasional MF-ing I'd like to do. But if the camera's AF is better w/ much better distribution of sensor points, that would go a long way to reducing need for MF me thinks.

And no, no digital camera has good enough LCD for MF although some provide some sort of zoomed view in MF mode to help out. Ron's Canon G6 does this (as did my G3) although it's probably not nearly good enough to be effective. I think the camera makers probably need to provide something reasonably close to 100% crop in MF mode zoomed view and maybe also offer exact focus distance readout as another aid -- very useful for DoF calc. Maybe optionally allow you to easily switch between fullscreen 100% crop zoomed view (for adjusting MF) and normal view (for framing/composing the shot). That would probably do it.

OTOH, most non-SLR digicams probably use a design that has rather few focus steps anyway, relying mainly on the intrinsically large DoF of the tiny lens+sensor combo, so it's not like you can get all that accurate focusing anyway. Indeed, I relied on that fact to utilize the otherwise useless MF mode on my old G3. Interestingly, I found my G3's MF mode more useful than my D70's MF capability.

Of course, w/ my G3, the AF was weak enough to warrant regular use of MF.

_Man_

Sam Posten · Mar 18, 2005

As Man-Fai notes, I use a Nikon 8008s and a Canon 20d. I used to own a Nikon F3HP, and that camera has a legendary high eyepoint viewer, it just rules. I find the smaller screen of the 20d limiting, but until someone makes a sub $1k full frame DSLR with a high eyepoint, it will work for me.

Truthfully tho, we are talking apples and oranges. I seriously think there is a market for a $300 digicam that uses manual focus, and I understand the engineering limitations that prevent it. For snapshots AF is going to work for people 90% of the time. For pictures that you 'make' instead of 'take', manual focus is not optional, its an integral part of the process.

I'm not being a snob here, I make AND take, and understand that some cameras are not really optimal for both. What I am saying is that there will be a 'rangefinder' style camera sometime in the near future that doesnt cost $3k and come from Leica. Whoever gets it on the market first will make a mint.

Sam

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 18, 2005

Sam, maybe I misunderstand this statement a little, but you don't mean to suggest that *every* photograph you "make" must use MF, correct? I assume you mean there are plenty of times when AF won't cut it for "making" a photograph rather than that photographs can only be "made" if-and-only-if one uses MF.

Yes, I agree that AF won't cut it many times unless one only goes for "snapshots" -- and as you point out, even "snapshots" will sometimes benefit a whole lot from MF.

The same things can be said about every other automatic aspect of modern day cameras to varying degrees, including the automatic processing that goes on to convert the CCD captured image data all the way to the final output on screen, on print or whatever other output media.

For instance, if you *never* do any postprocessing, then chances are you're not really "making" photographs.

_Man_

PS: Personally, I'm not bent on making too much distinction between "snapshots" and photographs (or "art" as some calls it). At the end of the day, it's not the verbage that matters, but the image itself -- well, that plus the satisfaction one enjoys in the process of making that image whatever one cares to call it.

Sam Posten · Mar 18, 2005

Yeah, I definitly get where you are coming from. You know I'm a colorblind klutzy geek of a photographer, so I dont mean this to degenerate down into a discussion of art =)

What I mean tho is that there are plenty of time where you are content to just 'flip a button and go' and live with the best that the brains of the camera can come up with, and there are times when you want to have more exacting control over what happens.

Two examples from my own motley collection:

Now, neither one of these classifies as art by any stretch of the imagination. The first one was taken out of a van in the middle of hollywood with an A75. The second taken with a 20D and a zoom lens at low aperture. No way I would have lugged the 20D around for 7 days and no way I would have gotten the tiny DOF effect with the A75. Horses for courses, but like I said, I'm convinced there is a huge market, especially for street photojournalism, for some light hybrid camera that gives fine control.

Sam

ManW_TheUncool · Mar 18, 2005

Aaah! Ok, I think I understand what you mean more clearly now.

You're probably actually talking more about fully AI driven AF, not just basic AF like single spot AF w/ control over DoF. AI AF would be like full auto exposure and full auto white balance. Basic AF like single spot AF w/ reasonable control over the AF spot (and/or using the old focus-and-recompose technique though flawed it may be) and control over DoF via aperture setting, etc. would be more like using aperture priority or shutter priority exposure mode w/ maybe spot metering -- and perhaps some amount of exposure comp, etc.

But your point really boils down to having some amount of vision beyond the see-point-and-shoot mentality and enough control to execute that vision.

Of course, different people might define somewhat different criteria for what that "vision" has to be before a picture is considered a "made photograph" instead of a "taken snapshot". But usually, whenever I come across folks who are sticklers for such verbage, they will also typically consider a "made photograph" as "art" (or as the reason for calling it a "photograph") while a "snapshot" is not.

BTW, as I've probably mentioned before, I'm actually fairly new to photography (beyond the typical p&s thing), and such discussions over "art", "made photograph", "taken snapshot", etc. are the reason why I decided to arrange this gallery w/ selections from my various other "galleries" on pbase.com:

http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong/what_is_art

As I suggest there, I don't mean to claim there is any "art" in those photos. But rather, they are merely of enough interest for me to put there to help me see and understand better about this "art form" called photography -- and also, it serves well as a "select" sampling of my photos to share w/ those who'd rather not wade through all the different "galleries" w/ whatever varieties of quality (or lack thereof), subject matter, etc. on my account.

_Man_

Marty M · Mar 19, 2005

I have been a photography hobbyist for nearly 35 years and finally ventured into to digital photography. It was my 17 year old son who convinced me to make the change.

I have been impressed with the results I have gotten so far. I have gotten good results from getting 4 X 6" prints from a local Walgreens and a good price for 8 X 10" enlargements from a website, http://www.ezprints.com

I have gotten great service from this etailer. There was a delay in processing my first order and when the delay was resolved they sent the order next day Fed Ex at no extra charge.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

Just bought a Canon G6 - WoW! (1 Viewer)

Founder

His Own Fool

Founder

His Own Fool

His Own Fool

Second Unit

His Own Fool

Second Unit

His Own Fool

His Own Fool

His Own Fool

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Forum statistics