Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>Hello Dave, I am tempted by this Canon G2 camera myself, having read so many good reports about it. Plus it is stylish (much more than the Digilux 1). And it is now also available in a limited black edition. Could you please share some experience with it, possibly via private mail? TIA Pascal NO ARCHIVE<< Pascal, I looked at a lot of digital cameras, pre and post purchase. I don't think you can go wrong with the G2. What I like and don't like about it has more to do with digital in general. There's no comparison between a G2 and an M6. The M6 isn't just my favorite camera. It's a friend. The G2 is a flashy date. I haven't yet figured out if it's a long term relationship, or something that will fizzle out. Lately it's been fizzling. The G2 really replaced my Contax T2 as a camera of convenience. It's great for a quick shot or a fast assignment. I have a Canon Digial Elph, too. I use it nearly as often as the G2. The G2 is capable of pretty amazing output. The Elph's big draw is small size. The Elph is OK for web shots and prints up to 5x7. I've printed G2 files as large as 12x18 with good results. Genuine Fractals helps. I compared output from other digital cameras, including the D1x and D30. The G2 output was just as good. Not just my opinion but that of 12 other photographers. The G2 easily accepts filters. That's a good thing. I bought the hood adaptor (a plastic tube basically). I put a 58-62 step up ring as I have several expensive 62mm filters, including a B+W circular polarizer. I also took out the glass in a 62mm UV filter and replaced it with a cut out from a Lee #87 for IR. If you want to shoot IR, there may be better options. The G2 has a hot filter that blocks IR better than some other cameras. Maybe that's why it does such a good job with correctness. I always use a hood on the G2; an old plastic Nikon slip on hood that I attach behind the step up ring. It works well but it the viewfinder. . No problem. I never use the optical viewfinder. I always use the LCD to frame. It's different from using an M, as you can imagine. I've bumped and dropped the G2 a number of times. The makeshift hood has saved the camera more than once. The hood is always attached. I never use the lens cap. The LCD panel works from many different angle. High, low, right, left, close to or away from the body. Very similar to a Rollei TLR in some respects. Shutter lag is the worst feature. It really takes some getting used to. Makes the camera unpractical for some things. I think the G2 is a bit lacking for b/w. I usually shoot in RGB and change to greyscale in PS. You can't use the proprietary Raw file format in b/w mode. B/W images look like chromogenic prints. I can duplicate -- and maybe even improve upon -- the grain look in a conventional print with a quality scan of a Leica neg printed with Piezography. I like Ms for b/w. My opinion on b/w is subjective. I've seen some nice b/w prints from digital cameras. But it's worth evaluating. A larger issue, IMO, than film and developer comparisons. Sometimes little things can make a big difference. Framing with the G2 is less than ideal. I'm a nut when it comes to vertical lines. I miss too often with the G2. And not out of negligence. I try hard to lines things up. For snapshots it doesn't matter. For anything worth enlarging it does. Problem is I never know when that special shot will appear. (Or would have been special if not for the leaning wall or tilted doorway). The G2 has more barrel distortion than I like in the wide range. I guess I'm spoiled from using Leica. It's hardly noticable in smallish or web images. But extreme enlargement brings all the skeletons out of the closet. Again, I prefer the M. Panoramics are sort of fun with the G2. Can't say that I've yet shot a panoramic worth printing. Oh, I've printed more than a few. Still hoping one will turn out well I've always considered the term digital somewhat synonymous with disposable. I almost feel obligated to use my digital cameras as much as possible before the next model arrives. As a Leica buff, it's difficult for me to come to grips with that. Sometimes I use my G2 when the M would've been better for the occasion. I want to get my money's worth. . Every photographer should own at least one digital camera, and certainly a Leica, too. For economy, I considered buying a used G1 and pretending it was 2001. In '88 I bought an M3, pretending it was '54. Figured the reason I couldn't take a decent good photo with it was because I wasn't born yet. Eventually I was able to hold it. Later I thrived with it. No such time luxury with a digital camera. My G2 has been problem free and a real workhorse. I've refilled my 128K CF card so many times it probably has a light leak. I probably should send it to Hasselblad to have the felt replaced. Sadly my success rate in capturing images is less with the G2 than with the M6. The Canon flash system is pretty amazing. Far less challenging than the Vivitar 2800 I use on an M. It literally is point and shoot. As I said in my previous message, I really think digital replaces color print film, only. Sure would be nice to have a Fuji Pictrographic 3500 printer to go with it. The M is still my camera of choice for serious work. I don't see that changing any time soon. DaveR - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html