Talk:Canon PowerShot G

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merger

This page is a combination of several pages created and edited by several people. Their contributions remain listed on those pages, and I've listed here the creators of those articles:

I have merged these pages to bring it in line with Canon Digital IXUS, which is much more compact. This page still needs work: I think we should have a list of common characterists at the top, with developments in each section. The 'no G4' section obviously needs writing. The JPS 14:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

manual focus?

The article argues that one of the distinguishing features of G family as opposed to A family is manual focus... I'd like to point out that Powershot A series also have manual focus capability... Is the capability significantly "better" in G series than in A series to justify listing it as a distinguishing feature? - regards, Blueshade 10:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oh... i was too fast on that one... of course, the same applies to manual exposure compensation. this is also present in Powershot A series...

Yes, that section of the article does need tidying. Please feel free to update as appropriate. The JPS 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i shall try... as soon as i get my hands on an a80 and g5 side by side (i have access to both of these but have no time to make the comparison now)... best regards, Blueshade 18:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the differences between A series and G series because it was misleading. The A series has always been an entry-level camera in the Canon lineup compared to the G series which is always been towards the high-end-consumer range, and to imply that the differences are merely the batteries and the flash hotshoe isn't really correct. The G series has always led in megapixel count and offered much more in the way of "advanced amateur" functionality. --Kenliu 14:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not imply that these were "merely" the only differences. The wording implies that these are some of the more noticeable differences. I have reworded it slightly to make it clearer; it is not asserting that these are the only differences. The JPS 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. I added even more information to distinguish the A from the G series after doing some research on dpreview.com. --Kenliu 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Design Flaws

It appears to me that the paragraph about design flaws is not valid regarding to WP:NOT (no discussion forum or appendix thereof) and WP:NOR (somebody just came up with this on a forum), but I'm not sure about that. Please discuss. -- 790 (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction when I saw that... in fact, I already removed the link to the flickr group from the external links section. It should be removed from the design flaws section as well, since it's clearly not a reliable source. This leaves the entire section without references. I think we could safely delete it. --Angelastic (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8

The G4 model name was left out, as explained in the text. The G8 model name was also left out, and I have yet to see a good reason for this. The theories I have seen are (a) Canon did not want to overlap with the Group of Eight (b) "G8" sounds rude in Chinese and (c) Canon planned to ditch the G series in favour of the PowerShot Pro1, and the G8 name became lost in the confusion. Is there an official reason? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 RAW support

I added a link to a link to a firmware add-on for the G7 (and other Canon's) which enables the camera to shoot in RAW. I hope this was done correctly. This is only my second contribution. Pepegee (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 X Mark II

The table of models shows a column whose header is "Memory card" and column details are dimensions. The column with header "Size WxHxD" shows weight in grams. The problem continues for columns to the right.

Looking left, there is a column "Wiev finder", I assume should be "View finder". The column contents appear to show the memory card information.

It is not immediately obvious to me what is the problem or how to fix it.

35mm equivalents

The chart shows "35mm equivalents" for focal length and (one assumes) aperture.

This is half incorrect.

The apertures shown have NOT been converted to 35mm equivalent for bokeh (ability to defocus foreground and background of the subject). Instead they're left in the original units. Unconverted, they do convey an idea of the expected exposure times, so aren't useless. But they are extremely misleading. Cameras are shown with f/2.0 zoom capability. a 35mm lens with actual f/2.0 that can zoom is like US$4000, and the chart claims the PowerShot's zoom is equivalent? Give me a break!

To convert apertures for the purpose of conveying bokeh, as well as size and price, to 35mm, simply convert by the same multiplier you use for focal length. For instance a camera with an 18mm-wide sensor and a 25mm f/2 lens "is equivalent to" a 50mm f/2 lens for purposes of exposure time, but otherwise "is equivalent to" a 50mm f/4 lens in terms of size, price, volume, and bokeh. (35mm film is 36mm wide, as are nominally 35mm sensors. Given the example 18mm wide sensor, 36/18=2.0 multiplication factor.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Se 2A00:23C7:0:4D01:21AD:2DA1:331C:8BDA (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]