Canon G11 vs 60D

[Ati]

Hello everyone, I'm currently using a G11 (10MPs, 1/1.7" (crop factor 4.5), 5x optical zoom, and a full range of Auto/P/Tv/Av/M setting choices). Now, I'm looking to upgrade to a better quality image (family weddings, portraits etc) without breaking the piggy bank, and had settled on the Canon 60D. I considered the Nikon 5200, but I really, really like my orientable LCD....
My question is, for my 850€ (basic kit 18-55mm), or (the sky's the limit)€ depending on choice of lenses, am I really going to get a significantly better piece of kit than my G11 ?
Or do I need to double the budget for e.g. a 7D (I'm not interested in video) ?
I've scoured the web, but no-one seems to make these like-for-unlike comparisons..
Thanks in advance for your wisdom !

[Inkanyezi]

One thing you must know, before "upgrading", is that it isn't the camera that takes the picture, and you should not expect your image quality to improve a lot by just buying a DSLR or other system instead of your excellent compact camera.

There are differences, and they are real differences, so if you opt for a system you should try to fathom what they woud be, and what those differences should mean to you. And there are many more options than those you mention. There are also severe drawbacks with many DSLR cameras when you use the "live view" feature. One very common reason for getting a DSLR is that you would want its quick response, but when you use live view, it becomes just as slow as the compact camera.

However there are system cameras that are not DSLR, but which are much quicker to autofocus, also when you use the screen instead of the viewfinder. Only Panasonic has them with fully articulated screen as your PowerShot, but for example the Lumix G5 model is in many respects comparable to the Canon cameras you mention. (BTW it also shoots video, as most cameras today do.) It would indeed be a significantly better tool for serious photography, just as the DSLR cameras you mentioned, but it would have substantial advantages in comparison, as the touch screen, which for me has changed my ways of taking some pictures, and its speed of focusing at the point indicated by the touch of a finger on the screen.

[inkista]

Hello everyone, I'm currently using a G11 (10MPs, 1/1.7" (crop factor 4.5), 5x optical zoom, and a full range of Auto/P/Tv/Av/M setting choices). Now, I'm looking to upgrade to a better quality image (family weddings, portraits etc) without breaking the piggy bank, and had settled on the Canon 60D. I considered the Nikon 5200, but I really, really like my orientable LCD....

Um, FYI, the D5200 also has a flippy LCD.

My question is, for my 850€ (basic kit 18-55mm), or (the sky's the limit)€ depending on choice of lenses, am I really going to get a significantly better piece of kit than my G11 ?

Well... depends on your definition of "better".

And these days, there are a few other viable options aside from just a P&S camera or a dSLR. You don't have to get a dSLR to get a camera with a large sensor and better responsiveness than a P&S camera these days. And you may not even have to go interchangeable lens.

So, a lot of this decision rests on how much you're willing to spend/carry around; how much you care about image quality, and what you want to shoot.

A large-sensored fixed-lens compact, like the Fuji X100, Canon GX1 or Sony RX-100, or RX-1 offers you the benefits of a larger sensor (better high-iso performance, the ability to achieve a thinner DoF) and are self-contained cameras that don't require add-on bits like lenses. While they may cost the same as a low-end dSLR, your spending mostly stops there. They are more limited because you can't change the lens, and they may not be as responsive, particularly on autofocus, but that's starting to change (the upcoming X100s is pretty astounding in that regard). Not a great option for fast action or long reach, but a better alternative than your smaller sensored G11 for shooting portraits in lower light.

There are also interchangeable-lens mirrorless compacts, such as the Sony NEX, Panasonic/Olympus micro four-thirds, or Fuji X systems. These also have the larger sensors, but are system cameras, so you can swap lenses. But being relatively new, the systems are more limited than the older more established dSLR systems (which leverage off film SLR developments). In the areas of flash photography and fast action gear, in particular, they lag behind Canon/Nikon offerings. But. They are much smaller and lighter, and (in the case of micro 4/3), there's a lot of model churn, and depreciation that can work in your favor if you like to shop used. But these days, some review sites are actually recommending that for hobby shooters, this may actually be the place to go, rather than dSLRs. And there are even some pros moving to this class of camera, now that the systems are maturing and rounding out. However, I walked into a local independent camera shop the other day, and they didn't have any gear for my little Panasonic G3 on the shelves. Nikon, Canon, and Pentax lenses, yes. Micro four-thirds, no.

dSLRs are if you really really want the whole enchilada: the largest most versatile systems with the most pieces. The drawbacks are that you'll typically have to buy the pieces and then haul them around with you. But they're currently the fastest and most responsive cameras, and it's the lowest-cost place to grab a full-frame sensor these days (US$2k) if you were interested in that for future upgrades.

.... Or do I need to double the budget for e.g. a 7D (I'm not interested in video) ?

Here's the main thing to keep in mind. The 60D and 7D share a sensor and processor (ok, the 7D has two of them, vs. the 60D only having one; but they're both Digic 4 cameras). That means the image quality is near identical between the two. You aren't going to get better image quality for the extra bucks. What you get are extra usability features: more buttons, wheels, settings, and a more sophisticated AF system for fast-action photography.

Portraits generally don't require a whole lot of fast-action capability. Sports and wildlife (and possibly chasing rugrats around the kitchen) are more the thing that require really fast burst rates and configurable AF zones. Weddings, depending on how you shoot them and what kind of weddings you go to might be. But my recommendation is that the 60D is probably fine for what you want to do, and if you wanted to save some cash for the glass, you could possibly squeak by with a T4i/650D. The dRebels are a little more awkward to use, but also share the same sensor/processor. They just have fewer buttons, wheels, and menu commands; and a less sophisticated AF system.

Also. It's nearing March. Feb/Mar and Sept/Oct are the times of year that a lot of new camera announcements happen. It's not 100% (some do get announced in the summer time), but the rumors sites are heating up, and we're getting pretty close. If you can wait a little bit, on the Canon side of the fence, we're hearing rumors for 7D and/or 60D replacements. My bet would be the 7D (as it's older). There won't be a sudden price drop on the used market, it usually takes a few month for the exodus from an older model to a newer one to kick in, but a used 7D might come within your price range if you can wait, say, six months. But if a 70D gets announced, and you were willing to up your budget for more features, it might make a nice purchase.

BTW, camera prices continually depreciate, even from the time they're new. The 60D, when it first arrived on the market in the fall of 2010, it MSRPed, body only, for €1150. I'd expect a 70D to be in that neighborhood if it appears.

One more note. Your G11 is plenty capable, within its limits. I'm posting a self-portrait I took with the Powershot G9 in my living room. It relies not so much on the camera as knowing how to use off-camera lighting.


Canon Powershot G9. @7.4mm (35mm equiv.), iso 80, f/5, 1/160s.
YN-560 in an 8" softbox on a light stand, triggered with YN-602 radio triggers.

If posed portraiture is what you're after, it could be that all you need to do is start reading the Strobist and unlocking the power of that hotshoe.

[jcuknz]

To duplicate what you have but to improve the results I would suggest the M4/3 camera that Urban does, or the GH version.
That is my experience in moving from a bridge camera to a larger sensor. I believe I may have lost some IQ in using the Lumix 14-140 but this is compensated for me by the fact I have almost the zoom range of the bridge ... x10 from 28mm v. x12 from 35mm. Not sure your budget can cover this suggestion but it would be a good move if it can. The only drawback you face, which may or may not be that serious is getting used to an EVF against the optical viewfinder of the Canon.

After years with bridge cameras I view the DSLR with some distaste ... so I'm rather biased I'm afraid

[Ati]

Wow ! So much, so quickly ! Thanks to all three.
Kathy : love the photo. as for

Um, FYI, the D5200 also has a flippy LCD.

: thanks for the correction, my brain is addled from too much review reading.
Urban, jcuk, I particularly appreciate having 3 different approaches to my query in 3 answers. I'll take some time to digest and get back to you all.

Thanks again, Chris.

[inkista]

BTW, I've got a Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 (the G5's predecessor). It rocks. It's what I was referring to in the mirrorless group. (I posted a bunch of shots in another "upgrading my camera" thread.) Today, in the US, you can pick the G3 body up for US$250 from B&H, since they're blowing them out as the "older model". Like I said. Lots of model churn and depreciation. You may be able to find a similar deal.

I meant to add with the Strobist stuff: the additional outlay for that portrait was less than US$200. I used a $65 flash, a $30 light stand, a $20 swivel, a $25 softbox and $40 worth of triggers. That's a lot less than a new camera.

[Inkanyezi]

Maybe I should also declare my choice of camera. I have an Olympus OM-D E-M5, which I think might be the top of the line among µ4/3 cameras presently. It does not have a fully articulated screen, but it tilts two ways. The image quality and most technical mumbo-jumbo is fully comparable with the Canon cameras you mentioned, and in some respects exceed them. It is not all a matter of sensor size - or pixels. I would have preferred a fully articulated screen, but I wanted the Olympus when my Lumix G1 went AWOL, not starting any more. That one too was a serious tool for photography, although the OM-D is notably better in several respects, and I have come to love the touch screen where by the touch of a finger, focus may be set and the shutter released. I suggested the Panasonic, because it is in so many ways similar to your Canon, but also in many ways superior. If that swivel screen is important, it is an obvious candidate. After using the touch screen for some time, I wouldn't want to be without it. It is a game changer for low shots, making formerly awkward angles comfortable. I also have a PowerShot, but a G7, which does not have articulated screen. A notable ergonomic difference is that the touch screen AF is lightning fast. There is virtually no release delay at all.

And the EVF is no disappointment when you come from the optical viewfinder of a PowerShot G(n) camera. It is better than most SLR viewfinders.

[Dave Humphries]

Hello everyone, I'm currently using a G11 (10MPs, 1/1.7" (crop factor 4.5), 5x optical zoom, and a full range of Auto/P/Tv/Av/M setting choices). Now, I'm looking to upgrade to a better quality image (family weddings, portraits etc)

Hi Chris,

I'll tackle this from yet another angle

Can I ask if you are shooting jpg or RAW with your G11?

If you're not shooting RAW, you are probably missing something that can give better quality (without spending any money).

May be that's not what you want to hear - in my view; a lot of the "quality improvement" when moving from P&S (and some jpg only bridge cameras) to a "DSLR" (be that pure or mirror-less) is because the photographer soon realises that they need to move to RAW to get the quality - learn PP skills and invest the time in PP.

As someone mentioned, if you're not careful, you'll go from a 5x zoom range G11 to a 3 x zoom range kit lens DSLR, which may disappoint - and have you reaching for the G11 again.

I moved from a 10x zoom bridge to a 10x DSLR by buying the 'body only' and investing that bit more in the lens. Sure the 'wide zooms' aren't as good as a prime or a fast zoom, but I suspect they are as good as the kit lens and considerably more versatile.

Hope that helps,

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hello everyone, I'm currently using a G11 (10MPs, 1/1.7" (crop factor 4.5), 5x optical zoom, and a full range of Auto/P/Tv/Av/M setting choices). Now, I'm looking to upgrade to a better quality image (family weddings, portraits etc) without breaking the piggy bank, and had settled on the Canon 60D. I considered the Nikon 5200, but I really, really like my orientable LCD....
My question is, for my 850€ (basic kit 18-55mm), or (the sky's the limit)€ depending on choice of lenses, am I really going to get a significantly better piece of kit than my G11 ?
Or do I need to double the budget for e.g. a 7D (I'm not interested in video) ?
I've scoured the web, but no-one seems to make these like-for-unlike comparisons..
Thanks in advance for your wisdom !

Hi,

I have a G11 and it's image quality for " (family weddings, portraits etc) " is good. My grandkiddies use it and they seem very satisfied with it too.

If you want to move to a DSLR, I'd suggest a Nikon D5100 because it's LCD is articulated
( which you like) and quite affordable. Reviews say its image quality compares with the D7000 because they both have the same sensor.

Meanwhile, have fun with your G11.

Thanks

[rpcrowe]

Chris, I cannot talk intelligently of prices since, obviously the costs of gear in France will be different from the costs of gear here in the USA.

It is the lens (and the users proficiency with the lens as well as proficiency with post processing) that determines the quality of an image far more than the camera itself. One point that I can make is that, although the basic kit lens for either the Nikon or Canon is fairly decent; neither is really a versatile nor remarkable lens. Both start with a relatively slow aperture and really get slow (f/5.6) by the time you are up near the maximum focal length of 55mm. That can put you in a bind under dimmer light situations as well as diminish the capability for using selective focus.

I always recommend that a person start off with a mid-range zoom lens that has a constant f/2.8 aperture. This will allow you a far greater latitude in what and where you can shoot. An f/2.8 aperture is two stops faster than f/5.6.

I would recommend getting a camera body (Nikon or Canon - take your choice) and equip that body with a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron lens... Sigma also has a lens of these approximate specifications.

Purchasing the camera and lens separately will, obviously, cost a bit more money (I don't know the pricing in France) but, IMO, the extra cost will be well worth it in the added capabilities a lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture will provide.

I use a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens (which is quite expensive) and I just absolutely love the capabilities of that lens. However, Tamron and Sigma have constant f/2.8 17-50mm lenses which are very close in capability to my Canon.

I would personally prefer an older body with a better lens. I would far prefer to shoot with an older Canon 50D and a very good lens than a new 60D with a kit lens... OTOH, the 60D is a great camera with many of the capablities of my Canon 7D. The recent Canon Rebel Cameras T3i and T4i also provide excellent image quality at a reasonable price.

I have been talking mostly about Canon gear since I know and use that brand. However, I am sure that Nikon has comparative offerings.

Finally, IMO, an articulating LCD is not a great reason to select one camera over another. I avoid using the LCD at all costs because it is a totally inefficient way to shooot. There are several problems with using the LCD; among which are the fact that it increases the shutter lag, IMO it is difficult to vew all the nuances of an image looking at a three inch or so LCD, especially on a bright day. It is more difficult to follow fast moving and smaller subjects using the LCD than it is following with an eye level viewfinder. Finally for me, I like to see nothing but the image that I am going to shoot (plus some shooting information) rather than framing my image looking at a relatively tiny LCD surrounded by the back of the camera, in turn surrounded by the hand holding the camera abd finally surrounded by the big wide world...

[Ati]

Thanks to you all ! I'm a bit overwhelmed..... I'm grateful for Urban and Kathy's remarks (and Dave's broad hint ) about the importance of upgrading one's skills before upgrading the kit. Throwing money at new kit is easy; the discipline to make the most of it less so.
The background is that one of my sons has had the generosity to challenge me to do the photos for his wedding, so my first reaction is PANIC. However, I do have until August.
To start with the easy one :
Dave

Can I ask if you are shooting jpg or RAW with your G11?

I'd been blithely using JPEG until joltted out of my complacency, but have been looking at RAW+JPEG since a few days. I'm surprised at a first pass to see that for normal daylight lighting conditions, when I pull both into Photoshop and flip-flop between them, I can't see a huge difference. I need to check out the CIC RAW vs JPEG threads.
Kathy, Urban, jcuknz, thanks for introducing me to a whole class of cameras that I didn't know existed ! the micro 4/3 with EVF. I have some more work to do there. However, I have to state a preference, I prefer 'knobs and dials' to nested menus whenever possible, and as the G11 is quite good in that area, it'd be a slight wrench to go backwards. I'll check out all the models and ranges you mention.
Kathy, thanks for your emphasis on off-camera lighting, on balance I agree that should be where I make my first investment, both in time and money. I'd be happy making portraits of that quality.
Victor, thanks for your encouragement ! I looked Benguet up on Google Earth, double WOW !
Finally, Richard, I take to heart your thoughts on lenses. Your recommending Tamron as a viable option answers another of my queries. However, I don't quite follow you on your distaste for LCD viewfinding. At least as concerns the G11, the optical finder is so small as to be gimmicky except in extreme situations where the LCD just doesn't work, particularly as I always have the LCD extended anyway and will be jamming my nose or my glasses against it !

[Dave Humphries]

I'm surprised at a first pass to see that for normal daylight lighting conditions, when I pull both into Photoshop and flip-flop between them, I can't see a huge difference.

Hi Chris,

You won't, mainly because you are still comparing two 'default' images.
RAW does not give you better quality images 'just like that', you do have to work at it.

The difference comes when you need a broad dynamic range, or to re-white balance, or shoot at a high iso and noise reduce.

If you have a challenging photo and PP the RAW and the jpg separately, you will very likely see 'artefacts' in the source jpg one.

Think of it like having a burger or 'sub' with lots of things in; if you don't like tomato, it is better to have the burger/sub where it wasn't put in by the 'chef', than have the one where you have to extract it after it is served to you

Cheers,

[Inkanyezi]

You should not expect a huge difference when comparing jpeg images with what your RAW files look like when you open them in DPP, as the default setting is to show them just the same.

The difference is most notable when you need to do either or both of two things: correct the colours, or brighten up shadows.

Provided your RAW file is correctly exposed, you may always set white balance afterwards if you missed it when you took the image. Often AWB, automatic white balance, in the camera will fail. Then, if you have the RAW file, you may correct it with no loss.

Sometimes, particularly when your scene contrast is high, you might have very dark shadows, darker than you would like, even if the brighter parts of the scene are okay. Then if you work from the RAW file, there is more room for tweaking than if you use the jpeg, because the RAW file has substantially more digital levels.

In both of those cases, working on a jpeg is prone to cause posterisation, and sometimes you cannot correct the white balance of a jpeg, when the colour is vastly off. Also in some cases, when you have under-exposed an image, the RAW file has sufficient data to render a reasonable image, while the in-camera jpeg might be impossible to brighten without causing odd effects.

So it is not so much that a RAW file would render better image quality. In general, it shouldn't, because the jpeg is a conversion made in the camera from the same RAW file. If parameters for conversion are correct, the camera should do a good job. It is rather those not so rare occasions when something is amiss, that it is easier to correct from the RAW file, and the result will usually be better when corrections are done from RAW than if you try to do them to the jpeg.

[rpcrowe]

This is a topic which has spawned a gazillion posts on this and other forums; so I will only make a short comment...

I always shoot in RAW! Like many digital shooters, I began shooting JPEG and then (because I was afraid of RAW) began shooting in RAW + JPEG. I finally took a concentrated look at my general workflow and realized that soon after shooting RAW + JPEG; I was no longer touching the JPEG images; so I discontinued the double capture and began shooting in RAW alone...

Since, I never use my images for any purpose, straight from the camera and always run every image through at least minimal post processing; shooting RAW is actually easier for me than shooting in JPEG...

Is there a place for JPEG in todays digital world - CERTAINLY THERE IS! If you need (or want) to use your imagery (for one reason or another) without the benefit of post processing; JPEG is the way to go! However, IMO, if you have a decent editing program (free like Picasa; inexpensive and simple like Photoshop Elements; or expensive and complicated like Photoshop CS*); I would learn to shoot in RAW if for no other reason than your edits are non-destructive when working in RAW...

BTW: Has anyone ever mistakenly shot using the wrong white balence when using JPEG? That doesn't happen in RAW!

Once you get a handle on working with RAW, it's a lot like learning to creatively use flash. Flash opens up many new avenues of capture which are not available when shoting eclusively with available light. YUP, it takes a bit more experience and knowledge, but the final result is usually better!

[jcuknz]

I never shoot RAW and all the terrible tales of woes from shooting jpgs never seem to eventuate for me so I can only guess that what I take is suited to jpg and doesn't need the 'extras' of RAW. I did try RAW some years back and the cons outweighed the pros for my needs. I also shot Tiffs a few times too I groan when I come across them when going though old files.

Oh and PS ...I never use a file straight out of the camera and all are PP's, some quite extensively, so I find the comments about you cannot PP jpgs really most strange

Second edit ... jpg is a way of saving a file, while for convienience one may use it at the camera stage one does not use it subsequently except for files to be sent on the web ... perhaps that is why I don't have problems Though if you adjust your editor one can do almost loss-less saves with jpg as with other processes.

[Ati]

jcuknz, I too do a lot of PP from jpg, 'tho I do kick myself for each frame ('should have shot that one better' !). What I understand from Dave, Urban, and Richard is that PP'ing from RAW should give more scope because none of the info has been cut out at source. Watch this space, I'll do some tests in REALLY bad lighting conditions and see what happens.
Richard

BTW: Has anyone ever mistakenly shot using the wrong white balence when using JPEG? That doesn't happen in RAW!

Does this mean that w.b. is part of the in-camera treatment downstream from the RAW file ? Good news if so, w.b. is my bugbear.

[Ati]

Fantastic help !
Firstly, technical skills : I need to learn off camera lighting and PP-ing from RAW. Should a couple of weeks be enough ?
Then I need to assess whether I'm satisfied with the results from good ol' G11
If I do decide to buy more gear, I have the m4/3 route to consider as well as the APS-C, and have taken on board that I could do well to rebalance my budget towards the combination of older / cheaper bodies and better lenses.
Also, I need to watch for the spring announcement season

And then, and then.... I suppose that praying for inspiration on the day doesn't hurt ?

Thanks once again, Chris.

[Ati]

Kathy, your post was amazing. I've bookmarked 'the Strobist', looks like a whole new world. I like your comment that the G3 'rocks'. Hope it has image stabilisation.
BTW : while researching your different camera recommendations on DPReview, I came across the Sony SLT alpha65. The specs look fantastic. Any thoughts ?

[inkista]

Kathy, your post was amazing. I've bookmarked 'the Strobist', looks like a whole new world.

Oh, it is. We all fall down that rabbithole. I tend to tell people that Neil van Niekerk's Tangents blog is the blue pill of using flash (on-camera bounce techniques), but David Hobby's Strobist is the red pill. I've probably watched the Matrix too many times.

For wedding shooting, though, I'd say you don't have time to learn off-camera. And that the G11 probably won't cut it. The G series is great for all-manual off-camera stuff, but for on-camera TTL... the speedlight tends to make the whole thing unwieldy. If you are going to get an SLR and a speedlight, you're probably better off looking at van Niekerk's pages on how to bounce a flash. He's a professional wedding shooter and does a lot of on-camera flash. The technique is simpler, the results are impressive, and he's a great teacher about flash basics. Hobby's site kind of assumes you already know about on-camera flash use and are frustrated with the limitations of bouncing already.

I like your comment that the G3 'rocks'. Hope it has image stabilisation.

Ah. It rocks for my needs. Yours might be different. I was mostly referring to the image quality of I'm getting out of it. The handling is distinctly different from my SLRs and sometimes it's better, and sometimes it's a swearword-inducing PITA. But overall, I am very happy with it. But on-camera flash usage, sports, low-light fast action, and birds in flight are not in its wheelhouse.

And no, it doesn't have stabilization. The Olympus m4/3 models have the in-body stabilization. Panasonic m4/3 cameras do it in-lens (just like Canon and Nikon), so the lens has to be designated as OIS to be stabilized (Canon: IS, Nikon: VR). There are also a few annoyances the G3 has: it's downscale from where the G line typically sat, so they removed a few features (and lowered the cost): there's no sensor to automatically switch the image display from the LCD to the EVF (electronic viewfinder: kind of like a camcorder's where you stare at a tiny video screen) and back again. You have to push a button. And it has no built-in rotation sensor (!!), relying instead on the OIS unit in a stabilized lens to sense orientation. Which means if I shoot with an unstabilized lens (and in my case, that's most of my lenses), I have to manually rotate any portrait shots in post. There are ways my G3 lags behind your G11. No camera or lens is ever perfect. But in my estimation, the current $250 body/$350 kit pricetag kinda makes up for stuff like this.

I'm not sure I'd want to shoot a wedding with my G3 as a pro. As a bystander/guest, it's fine, but if your son is urging you to shoot his wedding for free as the official photographer, you may want to sit down and have a talk with him about what he's expecting and what you can deliver. Wedding shooting is a whole 'nother kettle of crazy vs. hobbyist shooting or portraits, since it combines three skillsets (event shooting, posed portraiture, product shooting [cake, bouquet, etc.]), requires great people-herding skills, fast reflexes, and the ability to stay on top of everything all. day. long. The three posts I'd urge you to read (which are the ones I read that engendered this advice) are:

FWIGTEW from lensrentals's Roger Cicala, the Fred Miranda board's Weddings FAQ, and Jeff Ascough's blog entry on how he prepares to shoot a wedding. Just to get some idea of how pros attack the job. You don't have to do what they do, but expectations need to be set on both sides of the fence. And keep the G11--that can be your backup gear.

BTW : while researching your different camera recommendations on DPReview, I came across the Sony SLT alpha65. The specs look fantastic. Any thoughts ?

Sony Alphas are terrific cameras. The overall system, though, is smaller than Canon or Nikon. If you know the lens selection can suit your needs, then no reason not to go there. And they have autofocusing Zeiss in their lineup (nobody else does). For me, it's that damn Minolta proprietary hotshoe that's an annoyance if you go Strobist. It won't stop you from doing Strobist stuff, but you may end up having to get a lot of hotshoe adapters. Even Sony's finally gotten the message as the new hotshoe they put on the NEX-6 and A99 are now iso-compliant, but it's gonna take a while to trickle down to all their camera bodies.

[Inkanyezi]

Setting white balance in camera is a routine thing for me, and I always carry a white balance reference. Lately, my home-made reference has been complimented with a WhiBal card, although I got a too small WhiBal to use it for setting white balance in the camera. I use it for a RAW reference shot. But my cut piece of a plastic jar hasn't been too much off so far.

The G11 has a very easy way of setting your own white balance, just as my G7, and it is done in a "NY ns". Most system cameras, except Canon, also are easy to set. Canon has its own raindance that is different, but better for checking flash WB. That is their DSLR cameras; the compacts are as easy as any other.

When shooting RAW, if always working from the RAW file, there is no need at all to set camera WB, except that the histograms will be closer to the truth if the camera white balance is set. I would recommend using the presets in most natural light, and only use the custom white balance when shooting in artificial light. Often under tungsten one might prefer a somewhat warmer colour rendition than a custom WB with a reference would give, and that is achieved by cranking up the Kelvins in post production, fooling the computer that the light was more blue. So with standard tungsten of 2700 K, I usually set my WB to 2900 K.