Please make sure that your post is a question about the product. Edit your question or post anyway.
Sort: Most Helpful first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 22 questions
1
vote
If you really want sports action, then even the lowest grade SLR beats any point and shoot camera. I use a Canon T3 to successfully take sports action although it rates poor when compared to top line SLR's. Point and shoots have slow buffer speeds when taking fast action particularly if you also want a RAW copy. (low burst response; the Nikon 7000 cannot be used for sports) You can buy the T3 with a basic lens for $499.00 and get superior shots to anything produced by such cameras as the G-12. I love the G-12 and use it for my walk around camera. The T-3 does all my heavy lifting for semi-pro shooting and enlargements.If you are a really serious sports photographer and want pro results then by all means buy at least a D60 Canon! The Sx 40 is a good camera but that lens never produces real sharp prints and the lens speed is slow for fast action.
Mar 8, 2012 by Barry A. Hudson
1
vote
Supply & demand ie relatively small supply (discontinued) and relatively high demand (for those that want the flip-out screen which the news models do not have). If the latter does not concern you, then the newer models are a better deal.
May 9, 2014 by Slim Chance
0
votes
For me the big difference is that the G12 has the flip out screen. If you like to take pictures from different angles the movable screen lets you get these shots without having to get down on the ground or climb up on stuff. My old Canon A620 has this kind of screen and it is worth the extra money.
Mar 17, 2011 by Jeffery W. Dailey
0
votes
No - the G12 is a fixed lens camera. You can screw a telephoto converter on the front - that, together with working at the long end of the lens, will help you create the shallower depth of field you seem to be looking for - the term is bokeh. That said 85mm-135mm (35mm equivalent) are considered to be the classic portrait lengths - the longer focal length (as compared to the 50mm you mentioned) contribute to the shallow depth of field. Be aware that if you use one of these lenses wide open you will get bokeh but you will also have to work to learn how to get the area of interest in focus. One other thought - part of the reason a DSLR (especially a full frame one) has less depth of field is the larger sensor. Basically the smaller the sensor the more depth of field - one of those immutable laws of physics things - that's why even the Canon Gx1 with its comparatively larger sense exhibits less depth of field (ie more readily creates bokeh).
Jun 17, 2012 by Chris Korody
0
votes
I've always considered lenses of less than 35 mm "wide-angle". It's a matter of degree, but I would consider 28mm a wide angle lens. Since around 50mm is "standard" focal length, it is quite a bit wider than that.
Mar 4, 2013 by Daniel Pearson
0
votes
Have used this feature quite a bit and have to be careful not to touch the subject, thats how close you can get. I also like that you can then still zoom in on the photo afterwards and get even more magnified without losing any significant resolution. I have actually used this feature like a low powered microscope to see objects and organisms close up and in detail.
Feb 27, 2013 by Melissa
0
votes
14 megapixels on such a tiny sensor makes each teeny weeny pixel unresponsive to even moderate levels of light. So minicams with above 10 MP have very poor performance if the picture is not taken in daylight or strong flash. Canon responded by placing a new 10 MP sensor (the largest they could fit in the camera, with the largest MP count that would meet their low-light performance floor) in the G11. Result? I sold my G10 with its noisy, overpixellated marketing gimmick of a sensor in favor of a solid imaging performer in the G12. Now I own both the G12 and the S95, a tiny pocket camera that has the same sensor, the same guts and a better lens, but I can carry it around with me. I find myself leaving the G12 at home and using the s95 for about 90 percent of the point-and-shoot work I do. It gets me the shot, just like the G12 does. But it fits unobtrusively in my front pants pocket. In sensitive situations like certain museums that don't allow flash photography and/or public figures that see every big camera as belonging to paparazzi, the S95 can get you shots with its fast lens and responsive 10MP sensor that the old G10 could never get. It's an awesome bit of technology, and I love it. If you haven't yet bought the G12, you should give the S95 a test drive. It is truly a G you can fit in your pocket.
Nov 10, 2011 by Coug Moog
0
votes
I have an S95 which has is basically similar internally to the G12. It's far better indoors and in low light than my Nex 5 which produces very dull pictures lacking color indoors without a flash. The Nex 5 18/55 has a 3.5 lens therefore let's far less light into the sensor.
Jun 8, 2011 by Amazon Customer
0
votes
@Coog makes good points for a new G series, however, my number one interest in the G12 is the viewfinder. This is simply where the S100 doesn't make the cut. The fully articulating rear screen on my S5 IS has enabled many, many otherwise unobtainable shots. Being able to hold the camera in positions where one's head can't go simply enables shots that would otherwise be missed. With that, I hope that Canon does continue the G series, swapping sensors and processors as prices come down. I need these sub-$400 cameras because I'm pretty hard on pocketables. The last two only lasted 4 months each.
Nov 19, 2011 by Ed Van Sicklin
0
votes
Hmmm... i it wont really bogg your shooting experience, my G10 is really fast writing the files to the SD card. Actually i think this camera is not intended for shooting sports or high speed moving subjects. On the other hand i have a nikon, not the P7000 but a D90 and thats another story... i have already taken like 75 consecutive raws before the buffer slowed down... but here we are talking about a DSLR. My best sugestion would be not to worry to much about this aspect, i think the P7000 will handle raws just like a G11 or G12. Check the specs for all your options: burst speed (frames per second), image size in MBytes for raw files, buffer size (this is how much space in MBytes the internal memory of the camera can handle before it has to be written to the sd card), make some calculations and that will tell you how fast or slow each will be. The best advice i can give you... its more important to get the best SD card you can afford, there are high speed cards that will handle any situation and wont let your camera slow down. I have Sandisks extreme edition with 30MB/second write speed... wich means it can handle 6 frames per second at 5MBytes each frame (for example)... its like the top speed of your car... and trust me, no Gseries nor the P700 can take 5 frames per second. Check the specs for the write speed of your choices, get the best cards you can afford and that will help you more than any comments. Good luck
Oct 19, 2010 by Andres Cordon
‹ Previous   1   2   3   Next ›
 
Unanswered questions
Search Questions and Answers