Which one to buy? Canon G3 or F717?

[loosbrew]

I guess I will be the first one to ask the inevitable question...which digital camera do you guys/gals recommend? I've been reading alot online and i still love the sony dscf717, i took all of my old pics with a f505, but i dont think that sony offers pro style features, so i've been seriously considering the Canon G3, even though it is 'only' 4 mp. I seriously dislike the sony memory stick option of the f717, and do like the CF options for the Canon. But i really need some first hand accounts of which you would prefer in a pro / recreation environment. I need people who have used both to give thier honest opinions...

TIA

loosbrew

 

[jamesw]

Loos,

This choice will be strongly influenced by what you intend to use the camera for. Do you need a long zoom lens? Do you intend to shoot a lot of macro? Do you intend to use an external flash? Etc...

Cheers
James

 

[NKT]

Hi Loosbrew, I think it might be a good idea to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras to get a feel for each of them. Having held both at a store for some reason the G3 feels more "right" in my hands than the more awkwardly-shaped 707 (predecessor) that I held. In terms of image quality I don't think you could go wrong with either, since I've seen plenty of awesome images from both cameras.
But, as Jameso said it really depends on your needs and how you plan on using the camera, as they do have different strengths/weaknesses.
For myself, i personally think the memory card issue is significant enough that it would sway me over to the G3. Compactflash cards have kept getting better and cheaper, while memorysticks are still more expensive and lower in memory capacity. One other consideration is the 4mp of the G3 vs. 5 mp of the Sony, but I can assure you that 4mp is plenty for normal 8x10 or 8.5x11" prints, and with a little bit of scaling (in photoshop or in a program such as Genuine Fractals) I'm sure you can get decent results at 11x17.
Just my 2 cents...hope this helps and good luck!

 

[wetworx101]

I looked at both and chose neither. The nikon coolpix lineup stole my vote...hands down!! Canons are overpriced, and so are sonys...they always have been!! A coolpix 4500 is the best macro camera, and the 5700 is the best camera just short of a digital SLR. The old 5000 is even better of a macro camera than the 5700 or the 4500!! If i had to pick for aquarium photography from the two you mentioned, the sony would get my vote. It is an alright camera overall, but sonys do better under low light then any other camera i've used, and Im talking without nightshot! They are able to take the same photo as many other cameras but with higher shutter speeds. Canon makes great compact cameras, but the sony is stepping into a class with the minolta 7i, nikon 5700, olympus e20, etc.

 

[ravenmore]

They're all good cameras - I researched and researched for a long time. I was looking real hard at the 717 - I passed on the nikon's as they were too much $$$ for what you received. I eventually ended up passing on the 717 because the memory sticks only went to 128 MB.

I finally chose the Olympus c-5050. The only thing it didn't have was a high powered zoom (it's only 3x optical, but it does have a very bright 1.8 maximum aperature). BUT, it's WAAAAAYYYY less $$$. It also accepts 3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEMORY - and you can use two of them at the same time (pushing a button lets you choose between CF or Smart Media/XD memory). It also has a magnesium alloy metal body, so it's more rugged. It comes with the wireless remote trigger - which you wil use a lot for taking pics of your tank. It will take standard AA batteries, and you can buy extra rechargeable AA's anywhere these days cheaply. The macro is very good on it, and you have all kinds of manual controls (one that suprised me was manual flash exposure compensation - a feature I find myself using quite a bit). Last I checked you can get this little gem of a camera for ~$699. You can get it and a 256 memory card for less than the 717 and WAAAAAY less than the nikon. The 5050 gets overlooked for some reason but for a 5 megapixel camera it's hard to beat.

HTH,
-Mike

 

[wetworx101]

The C5050 is a good camera, but I fail to see some points you made...
The nikon 4500 is now going for just over $400 at retailers due to major rebates... so it is actually cheaper.
The memory you use for your 5050 would be compact flash, no? In which case the 4500 is the same, so cheaper memory, I think not!!
The body is magnesium, and the swivel frame helps it's lens stay safe when zooming, making it more durable than the 5050.
Optical zoom on the 4500 is 4x, better.
Minimum macro...2cm!!!
All the other little things are standard...
The sony, now thart is overpriced!!

 

[ravenmore]

Well the 4500 is a good camera, and probably the best bang for the buck from Nikon, but it is a 4 megapixel camera, and the 5050 is a 5 megapixel camera. Also, the 5050 does take compact flash memory, but it also takes smart media memory and the new XD memory format. It can use the compact flash and one of the other two memory formats simultaneously - they take seperate slots in the camera. So you could have a 256 MB CF card in the camera at the same time as a 128 MB smart media card for a total of 384 MB in the camera at once. The 5050 also comes with a wireless remote - that is extra in the Nikon. I find I use it all the time for tank shots.

They'll all take great shots - optical quality on all of them is superb.

 

[wetworx101]

4 or 5 megapixel is pretty much the same IMO, especially for macro/reef photography, but that is a personal decision.
The multiple media formats might be nice, but honestly, who cares? I mean, have youy ever needed to use more than one? I just use the CF. I have never even used up a whole 256MB at once, or half of my 512. I do plan to go on vacation and am buying a 1GB microdrive, just in case, and there are pland for up to 5BG versions on the way soon.
The one I will concede on is with the remote. Nikon's is $90!! And since for macros it is a real benefit, I am inclined to say "YOU WIN" based on that alone!! But add up prices and the nikon can still come out ahead.
Everything else is personal preferance.

Back to the cameras actually under eval in this post...

 

[reefNewbie]

how does the Olympus E-20 compare to the 4500?

 

[ravenmore]

The E-20 is more of a pro grade camera. It had some quirks, like unusually long write times or not enough buffer memory....it's been a while since I've looked into it. Plus it used to be very pricey - something on the scale of $2k - although it might have dropped substantially by now. You might check out it's review on www.dpreview.com - that a website who's reviews I trust.

If you were going to spend that kind of money on a digital camera, I might recommend the new canon digital slr - can't remember the model # (something with 10 in it I think) but it's replacing the D-60. That's my dream rig.

 

[wetworx101]

The E20 is a bada**. I considered it when looking at the 5700. It does cost a little more though, and so I figured I might as well just get a digital SLR for the money.
I consider this heavily when looking into a camera: I didnt want to go into it before, but it looks like the discussion in unavoidable: WHEN LOOKING AT A CAMERA, CONSIDER THE MANUFACTURER'S HISTORY.
There are two main classes of digital camera. The traditional camera companies that are branching into digital. These companies, such as CANON, NIKON, FUJI, OLYMPUS, MINOLTA, are well known for certain types of cameras they have always made. This influences heavily what their digital camera line will be. Canon has built a rep on making consumer level...and so they make the best in that category of digital camera for general consumers...from the G3 to the D1s (the $9000 bad boy). Minolta has made great focus systems. I chose Nikon, because 90% of professionals use Nikon body's. Nikon has the ED lenses which are known to be the best made (the 5700 is the only digital cam with ED lenses on it, previously only available as an add-on lens for a SLR starting at $1500 for just the lens!!). On and on...
Then there are the electronics companies. SONY, HP, etc. These companies dont have alot of traditional camera technology to bring to the table, but bring their electronic know-how into the game. They may not have the best optics, but easier menus, better compatibility, more options, etc.
Think about what you want in a digital camera to guide you. If you want a good Point&Shoot, that has been olympus's strength. If you want the best lenses, nikon is prolly the best. If you want ease of use, sony does it the best. Bottom line is, if you want a camera that you can manually adjust everything, dont get an olympus, chances are it wont have the white-balance controls that a nikon would.

 

[wetworx101]

i doubt the E20 would be good at macro due to it's long focal length (zoom). Often cameras with lower zooms do better for macros and low light because of less glass to focus through (example: the minolta 7 series sucks at anything less than a foot away). The 4500 is the BEST macro camera made right now IMO. (in case you wanted an answer to your question)
to tell you the truth, I have a hard time justifying buying a pro-level camera from a company who's bread&butter is point&shoots, no? The 5700 makes a better overall deal at that, for less.
HEY RAVENMORE, why dream of a D60?? The D1s is the $9000, 11 megapixel badboy.

 

[reefNewbie]

i really like the nikkon 4500 and even more the 5700 but len was telling me that they have too much of a delay when taking pics.

 

[wetworx101]

I just went to dpreview and my hunches were very correct. The olympus e20 would be a very poor choice. Look at the stats side by side with the 5700. The 5700 is better mostly because it is newer. The e20 has a horrble minimum focus (20cm!!) compared to the nikon's 3cm. the ISO ratings on the e20 are limiting. The zoom is only 4x vs 8x on the 5700. The shutter speed on the e20 tops out at 1/640, sucky for even a $300 camera, vs the 5700's 1/4000. God, that thing must be due for an overhaul because it really looks like it sucks, and it's $1900???!!!
..ok, my last post for now...

 

[wetworx101]

too much delay for what? I dont know, maybe they do...for something like a bullet coming at you...he he. I have noticed that the flash can delay a photo for a split second, but that is true of any camera. For action shots I use the focus and exposure locks, and then the camera shoots like a full auto pro. I have never felt the 4500 or 5700 cameras to be slow really, but that can be very subjective. The 5700 has a Best Shot SElector that takes shots in rapid fire and lets you go back and pick the best one. I use both cameras to take pictures of my always-moving african cichlids...once I figured out how to set the camera up right, I get perfect macros all the time (with motion), with perfect lighting (minimum flash adjust), perfect speed (1/125), Depth of field, focus, white balance, etc. Tell me, what do yu want to do with the camera?? I wonder if the speed is even an issue at all.

 

[reefNewbie]

main purpose is to take pics of my reef and fish.

 

[ravenmore]

This is probably getting waaaay to nit picky for the topic starting this discussion, but.....

The best lenses aren't generally Japanese, they're German. Zeiss, Leica, and Schneider probably have consistantly the best glass out there. You'll find these lenses in a range of consumer level cameras. Sony uses Zeiss, Panasonic actually has been using Leica, and I've seen some Schneider glass turning up in some Kodak cameras. The 717 probably has the best lens out right now, or at least out of the cameras we've been talking about.

But back to earth, we're really splitting hairs here. There are a lot of other qualities that are more limiting than the lens - most notably the sensor itself. The optics on all these cameras can resolve more detail than the cameras sensor.

Shutter lag is a big pain in the backside. I'd recommend you go somewhere and try the cameras out to make sure the shutter lag isn't going to annoy you. Shutter lag is particularly a problem in the kind of photography, tank photography, that we are talking about.

BTW, just checked and I found the E-20 has dropped in price down to about $1100 to $1200. I'd still lean towards the C-5050 - the 4500 might be tempting as well. The 4500's price is what I like about it, but the 5050 has a slighty richer feature set, and the extra features it has are features you will probably use. The c-5050 does have full manual control over just about any feature of the camera, including white balance. You can preset it for a variety of lighting conditions or do a manual white balance if you need to. It's auto balance works pretty well though. Actually I haven't seen a camera with more cutomization over its controls. It can be a point and shoot or you can take as much control as you like.

 

[ravenmore]

btw - I have a photography website if you guys want to check it out. It's www.harrisimaging.com - it's kind of just a random assemblage of my old portfolios. All the aquarium stuff was done with a toshiba pdr-m4(RIP), a camera that doesn't hold a candle to any of these cameras we are talking about.

hth,
-Mike

 

[wetworx101]

I remember one of the first cameras I used for aquariums. A 1.3 megapixel SONY Mavica. Remarkable thing really. It could take a photos of a 125g with only 80watts of light, flashless, at 1/60. Thats what I like about SONY cams. But that is about it. Their 717 actually has a rather limiting max exposure. Its one of those cams from an electronics MFG, expect more gadget than camera (catch my drift?). And I will always bash a sony for having that crappy memory stick, along with their high prices. It does have a sweet lens. My father-in-law has one. His pictures are flawless. Note one technicality: my nikons can focus through glass!!! It was much to my surprise, but awesome!! SONY, although benefiting from the carl z. lens, suffer from the sonar focus technology that CAN NOT focus through glass. Important, no?
The 5050 really doesnt have anything over the 4500. the 4500 is less expensive, and has white level control, as well as the other 'rich feature set' options of the 5050, if not more. Although the 5050 has an extra megapixel over the 4500, the 5050, along with the minolta 7 series, has a crappy macro range. I really blows. It is 20cm, 10 times the nikon's.
Hey, I agree that the zeiss and other non-japanese mfg's make great lenses, wish they were more common. I was just stating the diff between traditional camera makers and electronics companies.
Still gotta go with the 4500/5700...and I still havent found any lag in mine.
the e20 is still a ripoff, it is too old, and many $500 cameras outperform it.

 

[Hyolee]

The G3 is a nice camera. I think Canon digicams have incredible color. You really can't go wrong with that camera.

I would also recommend the Olympus C-5050. The 5050 and 4040 (it's predecessor) are THE non-dSLR cams to get for underwater photography. They are great because of their high-quality low light lenses (1.8) and inexpensive housings. (~$200) Much better than the Sony and Canon alternatives. I wonder if anyone has tried putting their uw camera in the tank to get rid of glass reflections?