G7 instead of M8

[david_manning1]

My own experience with the G7...

 

Aside from being an avid photographer, I'm also an airline pilot. I shoot lots of travel stock while on my trips and have been documenting operations for a book project. In the past, depending on my mood, I've traveled with either a D2x or a Nikon F6 kit...including a strobe and three lenses. I love my equipment and it's response. It's almost an extension of my own eye. But I always wanted something more portable, with the same high-quality.

 

Rangefinders have always appealed to me for just that need, but I never owned one. I came close and looked at Leicas, but as opposed to cost of ownership, really the film workflow stopped me. And...all the digicams I saw not only looked terrible (I know...terrific reason for buying a camera), but handled just as badly.

 

As luck would have it, I saw the G7 online. After lots of reading both for- and against-, I bought it. I'm really glad I did.

 

That little G7 has really reinvigorated my love of thoughtful photography. What I thought were the real minuses of that camera are actually whetting my appetite for getting the shot right the first time, in the camera. For me:

 

Lack of RAW? No prob--I set the camera up for what I want to see come out of the printer, just like shooting Velvia chromes. 8-bit jpegs don't really lose detail to the eye until you start "combing" the histogram by adjusting the data in a computer. Banding is not a problem with all the data that comes out of the camera--beautiful blue skies. The controls are accessible and thorough. That pause to adjust makes me really consider what I want the end-result to look like anyway.

 

10 megapixels--plenty for large prints, or even stock.

 

Shutter lag? It's not designed to be an SLR. Then again, no rangefinder is. Without using the flash, especially outdoors, it fires almost instantaneously. In fact, using the viewfinder instead of the LCD, the lag is practically non-existent.

 

Build quality and looks/handling? It's like a brick of aluminum, and like a real camera, hangs from a thin neckstrap around my neck. In fact, it's so much more convenient than my other shooting kit (duh) that I take it everywhere. No more, "wish I had my Nikon with me"...I just shoot.

 

It has sharp, reasonably fast glass (no slower than the normal lens on my Mamiya 645AF).

 

I guess my point is--I'm very satisfied. It's not a toy and not priced like one. But, it's thoughtful shooting, which I enjoy and has it's place. It simulates shooting film for me.

 

Did I mention, it looks good too?

 

Happy shooting.

 

David.

[Brad_]

David, an excellent and very thoughtful mini-review - nicely oriented towards what

photography is really about. Very nice portfolio of images on your website, too.

[david_manning1]

Brad,

 

Thanks a lot. I think I get really tired of all the technology talk sometimes. I've been victim of spec-sheet arousal on more than one occasion, and your site and it's nice images remind me of what it's all about anyway. I think I'll go for a stroll with my G7!

 

----David.

[savas_kyprianides]

G7 prints come out gorgeous and belie the hear-say and pixel-peepers complaining about

noise. There are none in enlargements I have had done. NO post processing and obtaining

excellent exposure. Nothing is blown or filled in. Live histogram, one that animatedly and

continuously changes as you motion the camera about without pressing nary a button is a

revelation. Spot on exposure first time and every time. Talk to G7 users and you will rarely

find someone grousing about it - unless they might have been former G users who feel

shafted at the changes Canon did. I frankly didn't care as I am not a former G user. Call it

whatever alphabetic character you wish, it is a wonderful point and shoot that stands on

it's own. As to comparing it to an M8, well I don't know about that. The only other place I

heard of this was in the Luminous Landscape website whereby the author concluded there

was little difference in output from both cameras and that he purchased a G7 after

returning the review copy.

[mark_lewis2]

Far too many responses seem to think $500 should yield the perfect camera. That

premise is completely unrealistic now with digital or even in the days of film. No RAW or

wide enough lens? buy a DSLR and you're all set.

 

I shoot photos for a living and have for over two decades. Do I expect the G7 to replace

my 1DsII's, no. But for $500, I have realistic expectations. Just think what 4MP cameras

cost a few years back and the G7 starts to look pretty good.

 

Sure, I'd love it to have a 20mm lens and RAW but if you are a camera manufacturer and

pack every conceivable feature into a $500 camera, who is going to buy your upper level

models?

 

Maybe when the G8 comes out some of these concerns will be addressed. Until then, it's

decent value for money.