I bought the G2. Most of the the above issues apply, except I haven't noticed trouble with my EX flashes (except for the Sigma EF 500 Super, which isn't really an EX) or the color blooming. I have also been quite frustrated with the focus on several occasions. My biggest disappointment with the G2 is what I consider to be unacceptably terrible barrel distortion at the wide end of the zoom. When you get a good shot with it, though, it's really good. I think for the price it's a good camera.
************************************************************* That is always what gets me about digital photography and why I am always tempted to get one, but haven't done so yet: "I think for the price it's a good camera." The problem is that the price is as much as (if not more than) an elan 7 with a Canon 28-105 zoom. One of the reasons I picked the SLR in the first place was better responsiveness, and I am not sure if I want to give that up, even for just a backup camera (much less a backup camera that costs more than my main camera). That is why I am tempted to go the cheap digital route. E.g., a Canon A20 (2.1 MP) can theoretically produce decent 8x10 images. Even an A10 should be able to produce decent 5x7 images (1.3 MP). The G2 apparently isn't too much more responsive than the A20, though it is more flexible. Something like a more inexpensive digital may make more sense for casual snapshots than a G1. I would get some of the more obvious benefits of digital (immediate feedback, no need to wait for processing, easy sharing of photos, the luxury of not having to "save" film, and thus be able to experiment more). The big minus is the on-camera flash, which will probably result in a lot of red-eye. Has anyone tried to go this route, with cheaper digitals? * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
