Canon G7: Best Thing Since Carbon Fiber Tripods?

I am a landscape/nature photographer wedded to my Pentax 67 system. It was my dream camera when I was in college, and now at 52, I still see it as the best option out there for landscape photography with the goal of super high quality 16x20 or bigger enlargements. Unfortunately, the camera is a monster and requires a monster tripod to tame the vibration of the monstrous focal plane shutter. The lenses for it are sized commensurate with format. My camera pack with lenses and tripod weighs 35 lb. The size and weight of this is not prohibitive for dedicated photo-ops. However, increasingly, when given the chance for an enjoyable walk in nature, I'm choosing to make it pleasurable rather than lugging the camera pack. I decided I needed something much smaller and lighter, that I could take anywhere without a second thought, and inject some needed spontaneity into my photography.

I thought this would be a good time to get more acquainted with digital, especially now that there are several 10 megapix P&S cameras out there. The Canon G7 stood out with its combination of USEFUL features, those being a high quality 6:1 zoom, full manual controls, image stabilization and full macro capability. This particular combination of features allows me to photograph in the same manor I do with my Pentax 67 system. However, instead of a 35 lb. pack, I carry the 13 oz. camera and a polarizer in a small P&S belt pack, secured to a stiff belt. When a tripod is needed, I velcro-strap attach a 2 lb. Manfrotto tripod and bungee cord to the back of the belt. Bringing along the accessory wide angle lens requires another small under 1 lb. P&S pouch attached to the belt. Using this setup, I can take a walk anytime, make some photos I would have otherwise missed, and enjoy the walk at the same time. I normally use the camera as I would the Pentax 67: on a tripod, on full manual control. I use the 2 second shutter delay timer for tripping the shutter instead of a cable release.

Recently I discovered the joy of shooting dragonflies with this camera. I tried this last year with the Pentax 67 and failed miserably! Using the Canon G7 set on macro, flash set to 1/4 power, auto-focus on, manual exposure, and image stabilization turned on, I found I could photograph dragonflies to my heart's content. I could stalk to within arm's length, slowly stretch out my hand with camera in it, frame the picture from arm's length using the 2.5 inch LCD, and take the picture. I could then immediately review it and re-shoot if necessary. And with dragonflies, it usually is necessary. The small focal length lens and small sensor chip then becomes your friend, with F/8 on wide angle producing depth of field equivalent to F/40 in 35mm. Try doing this with a digital SLR. You won't be able to get nearly as close to the bugs and you will then have to stand back and use a long focal length macro lens. You will then have the usual microscopic depth of field. With the G7, photographs of these insects can be made, even 3/4 view, all in focus, and hand held, that look to me better than 99% of what I have seen on the web. I have not seen any other reviews that emphasize the incredible macro possibilities of this camera, a major reason I decided to write this review.

So what does it lack? Well, the usual problem of all digitals with a sensor smaller than 35mm size: wide angle options are limited and/or bulky. It lacks RAW. Canon says this was omitted because the pixels are only 2 microns in diameter (DSLR pixels are 8 microns), and not enough extra "information" can be recorded to make RAW useful. Some have doubted Canon's motives for this, but I actually buy Canon's argument. You have to lose something when you squeeze that many pixels into such a small space, it seems to me. Since my starting point is using ISO 100 Velvia film, and having to "nail" the exposure, usually bracketing to make sure, this is not a big deal for me at all. If I were a street or sports photographer this would be a big deal, but I'm not.

Photo quality is the bottom line, isn't it? If you read other reviews of this camera, or any other P&S for that matter, they will bemoan the fact that the image quality degrades rapidly as you go up in ISO. They will point out how much better the DSLRs are in this regard, although their image quality degrades as well. I won't argue that. However, since I use ISO 100 film (exclusively) in my Pentax 67 for landscapes, exposed at ISO 80, why not set the ISO as low as possible, which also happens to be 80, in the G7? At that setting, I see no difference between photographs made with the G7 and larger (Pentax 67 sized!) DSLRs. This is what I do, and find the optimal enlargement size to be 11x14. I actually go to 10.5x14 so as not to crop out any of those valuable pixels, just as I try not to crop into my 6x7 film images from the big Pentax. I see detail at this size that I don't see at 8x10. 16x20s look sharp, but when held up close, next to my face, I really don't see any more of the leaf and stem fuzz on my photographed plants than what I see on the 10.5 x 14's. Would I get better than this with a DSLR? Not from what I've seen. Can I do better with the Pentax 67? Sure! And the bottom line: Am I having more fun with photography using a P&S I can take anywhere, do some field macro work better than any other system I am aware of, and get razor sharp enlargements to 11x14? You bet!

If you do the type of photography I do, I highly recommend the Canon G7 as an excellent backup, go anywhere camera. It can also extend the capabilities of whatever system you are using, whether large format, medium format, 35 mm or DSLR. The pundits have largely panned this camera, emphasizing their perceived negatives and playing down the fact this is the only professional-level P&S out there. Of course, the camera companies would rather you get a DSLR and get plugged into their lens system. And, of course, the people who write the reviews usually have web sites sponsored by camera retail outlets that would prefer you buy a DSLR. Better get one of these before the pundits convince everyone and Canon that there really is no need for a professional-level, Leica sized P&S.