Talk:Canon PowerShot G

message: 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:
*PowerShot G1 - User:Dustball
*Canon PowerShot G3 - User:Redjar
*Canon PowerShot G5 - User:Feldmang
*Canon PowerShot G6 - User:Hielant
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)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Design Flaws 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G8 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G7 RAW support 

message: 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)
replies: text: Se 2A00:23C7:0:4D01:21AD:2DA1:331C:8BDA (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  35mm equivalents