CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BTW - you have nearly an hour to 'edit' a post that is incomplete or has spelling mistakes, etc. Just look next to 'quote reply' after posting.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

We've spent 3 summers in AK in our RV shooting wildlife. I use a D500, with lens from 28 to 600mm (TC1.4), wife uses a SX50 hs. Denali wildlife may be 10ft or 100+ yards from the bus. Dall Sheep may be a few yards from the road or all you are able to see is a whits spec atop of a mountain. Katmia is a must for us, the viewing plate form is much closer to Brook falls now, I took a 150/600 lens which was to long, should have taken the 70/300. The salmon run at Katmia is mid July, if you decide to go make your reservations early, we used Rusts flying service in Anchorage. I won't suggest a camera, just that you'll need long reach, a viewfinder is a must for us.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I agree with the EOS M idea. Right now you can get a Refurbished EOS M50 with an EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 and a 55-200mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM for $710 at Canon:
https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/refurbished-eos-m50-ef-m-15-45mm-f-35-63-55-200mm-f-35-63-is-stm-bundle-black
This camera also has a viewfinder lacking in many of the other cameras mentioned.

Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb

Here's one good resource for comparisons. These 4 score higher to lower from left to right with the 740 being significantly below the others which are very close in scores. I'd prefer the G5X-II because it has a viewfinder. Good luck with your decision.

https://cameradecision.com/multi-compare/Canon-PowerShot-G5-X-Mark-II-vs-Canon-PowerShot-G7-X-Mark-III-vs-Canon-PowerShot-G7-X-Mark-II-vs-Canon-PowerShot-SX740-HS

Silverrails

My Personal Opinion is that you should strongly consider Nikon Cameras, they have a reputation of having very good Glass Is this is a first time Camera user, also consider a Used Camera.
Remember: K I.S.S.= Keep It Simple Silly.
I started my Photography journey 3+ years ago, buying a used Nikon D3300 and a 50mm 1.8g lens. It is easy to Learn and Operate. Do your diligent Research.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Forgive me, leo49, as I am merely curious as to the process of selection; I have no particular digital compact camera model to recommend. If I may ask, how is that your wife has already narrowed her choices down to two Canon cameras?

Was she exposed to a variety of different major brands of compact cameras, from Nikon to Sony to Panasonic to Fuji to Pentax, for instance? Exposed to these different brands online, in one or more bricks-and-mortar stores, or both?

I have no disparaging remarks to make about Canon's products; I own and use two pair of their Image Stabilized binoculars. I just wonder whether some bias, either intentional or inadvertent, was introduced into her selection process. After all, since she does not want an ILC, there’s no real advantage to her purchasing the same brand of camera that you own, is there?

jcboy3

Neither of these are appealing as P&S cameras, let alone a camera for a trip to Alaska.

I'm not going to recommend anything because you really haven't settled on your requirements, but these are the things to consider:

1. RAW vs JPG. I only buy cameras that shoot RAW in order to get the most flexibility for processing. You can shoot JPG with one, but shoot RAW + JPG and you can come back later to get the best out of the outstanding photos she will eventually be taking.

2. Viewfinder. Trying to see what you're shooting on an LCD screen in bright light is difficult. I only buy cameras with viewfinders, even if they aren't that good on these small P&S cameras.

3. Wi-Fi. Just to make it easy to get a photo from the camera to your phone, so you can post on Facebook as you are travelling.

4. Superzoom. I'm not a fan of superzoom cameras, but if you're going to switch between panoramic vistas and closeups of animals then a wide zoom range is necessary.

5. Sensor size. The best in portable cameras is in the 1" sensor sizes. But zoom lenses get big for that size sensor. Once you settle on zoom range, then the sensor size will give you the tradeoff with camera size.

If you want a camera to carry around at all times, then a P&S style is recommended. But if you want a camera for special trips, then I would step up and look at bridge cameras. They are larger, but combine larger zoom ranges with larger sensors. And have the room to get more controls on the body. A bridge camera with controls for mode, aperture, shutter speed (as with DILC's) provides the most flexibility for growth as a photographer.

photoman43

I would get a camera with a 1 inch sensor that has a fixed zoom that goes to 600mm in 35mm equivalents. Like this Canon PowerShot G3 X Digital Camera

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120052-REG/canon_0106c001_powershot_g3_x_digital.html

dick ranez

If you do buy her a camera without her "trying" it, make sure you can return it. Better she pick one out herself and if she's shot film, she should know enough about camera ergonomics to make a good choice. Unless, of course, you're really using her as an excuse to get yourself a new camera - then buy what you want, let her play with it and enjoy shooting as she tires of it.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

That’s the camera that was at the top of my list, but lack of an EVF was a deal breaker. In the end, I appreciate the EVF on my RX100 M7. On our recent trip/cruise, I used the EVF almost exclusively. On the other hand, the images from the G7X II are very nice.

jcboy3

Not a bad choice. You can get an add-on electronic viewfinder for another $200.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Both the G7XIII and SX740HS are 20MP cameras. Both use SD memory cards, both use the same NB-13L battery that's good for around 200 to 300 shots (your "mileage" will vary) and both have 3" LCD monitors. Neither camera has a hot shoe for use with an accessory flash. Both cameras use Canon's latest "Digic 8" processor (rumors are that Digic 9 are coming in some future models).

But that's about where the similarities end. They're designed and intended for somewhat different purposes, and are priced differently.

The SX740 HS sells for about $400, while the G7X Mark III costs about $750.

Because of the variation in sensor sizes used in compact digitals such as these, it's common practice to refer to them using "35mm equivalent" focal lengths, rather than actual focal length range, in order to be able to compare different models.

The SX740 HS is primarily a "super zoom" compact digital camera. It uses a 40X zoom that makes for "35 equivalent" range from 24mm to 960mm. The camera uses a tiny 1/2.3" CMOS sensor to achieve this. The dimensions of the sensor are approx. 6.25x4.75mm, or around 29 sq mm (into which are crowded 20 million pixels... or nearly 700,000 pixels per sq mm). This results in a 5.5X to 5.6X lens "multiplier" (as compared to 35mm "full frame").

Further, the SX740 HS lens' variable max aperture is somewhat limited to f/3.3 (at wide angle) to f/6.3 (at the telephoto end). Along with that smaller sensor, this limits the camera's usability in low light conditions and the enlargeability of its images. Canon limits the camera's ISO (sensitivity) range to 3200 maximum, but that will likely be unacceptably "noisy". I would be surprised if higher than ISO 400 or 800 is actually usable for a lot of purposes.

The G7X Mark III is a more advanced, premium model using a larger sensor that makes for a much more modest zoom range: "35mm equivalent" range from 24mm to 100mm. The camera uses a 1" CMOS sensor (also called "CX" size), measuring approx. 13 x 9mm for a total of 116 sq mm, into which 20 million pixels are fitted. That makes for approx. 172,000 pixel sites per sq mm. It also makes for a 2.7X lens multiplier (as compared to 35mm/full frame), which limits the extremes to which the zoom lens can go.

However, this larger and far less "crowded" sensor should allow much higher ISO to be used, to be able to keep shooting in lower light conditions. Canon sets a much higher maximum of ISO 12800, though users may want to limit it somewhat lower. The lens itself is "faster" too, with max aperture from f/1.8 (wide) to f/2.8 (tele), which will further allow for lower light shooting, as well as make for moderately shallow Depth of Field effects.

In a nutshell...

The SX740 HS would be a useful camera to photograph wildlife at a distance, so long as the light is good.

The G7XIII, on the other hand, would be a better portrait camera and more usable indoors or in other lower light conditions. The GX7III's images also should be more "enlargeable", likely making it more useful for scenic landscape or architectural shots.

The SX740HS is "JPEG only". The G7XIII can take JPEGs too, but it also is able to capture RAW files (which allow quite a bit more user adjustability after the fact, in post-processing... although the larger files will use more memory card space).

Both cameras can shoot video up to 4K resolution.

Some comparisons:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_SX740_HS_vs_Canon_G7_X_Mark_III/BHitems/1427176-REG_1498748-REG
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-PowerShot-G7-X-Mark-III-vs-Canon-PowerShot-SX740-HS
https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/sx740-hs/vs/canon/g7x-mark-iii/
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-g7-x-mark-iii-vs-canon-sx740

More detailed reviews of each model:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g7xiii
https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx740hs

EDIT: Someone above suggested yet another model... the Canon G3X. This is sort of a premium quality compromise between the G7XIII and SX740HS.

The G3X doesn't have quite as much telephoto "reach" as the SX740HS.... But it's 25X zoom is a whole lot more powerful than the G7XIII's. And it uses a larger sensor for better image quality and low light capability. In the end, the G3X would be a more versatile camera.... capable of doing much of what either of the other two models offer.

Of course, it also costs more.... $850 for the camera alone. It also doesn't have a built-in viewfinder, like the other two cameras. An accessory viewfinder is available and recommended, but brings the total cost to $1150.

The G3X has a hot shoe, too... which that auxiliary viewfinder uses when it's installed. But it also means this camera can be used with an accessory flash, which can be very handy at times. The built in flashes in all these cameras are pretty small and not very powerful. Even a smaller accessory flash like the Canon 270EX is considerably more powerful and capable than the built-in... plus has it's own power supply so it doesn't rapidly drain the camera's rechargeable battery. The G7XIII and SX740HS don't have hot shoes, so they cannot be used with a flash like this.

I don't know why the G3X is bundled with the $300 EVF-DC1 viewfinder. It also appears to be able to use the EVF-DC2, which is $100 less expensive. There may be differences in capabilities of these viewfinders, which should be considered before committing to one or the other. I really don't know.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187753-REG/canon_powershot_g3_x_digital.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/999967-REG/canon_speedlite_270ex_ii_essential.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1318788-REG/canon_1727c001_evf_dc2_electronic_viewfinder_black.html

One thing is certain, you can always rely upon UHH to help you spend your money!

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Agreed. The G3X is older tech, but still a very viable camera. It’s also still fairly expensive. A couple years ago you could get the camera AND the add-on EVF for $899.00 Now the camera is $849.00 and the EVF is and additional $300.00. For a bit more money, I’d get the Sony RX10 M3, and a bit more than that, the RX10 M4. They have a 1” type sensor and the lens is spectacular. Zooms out to 600mm. Both are proven to be amazing cameras.

I also have to agree with an earlier post saying that you need more than a compact pocket camera for an Alaska trip. I think one needs at least a 200mm reach or more. The Sony RX10’s fit the bill nicely if the budget allows. You get a nice optical zoom range without having to switch lenses, and there’s less gear to carry around.

Dossile

I like a fast lens for travel, which is usually the problem with bridge cameras, even when they have great zoom capabilities. For an Alaska trip the need for both a zoom and wide angle seems paramount, not a fast lens. I like my Panasonic 4/3 and have fast lenses, but it is just ok for animals due to the focus speed. Some on UHH have not had the same difficulties shooting animals with a 4/3. I really do like to travel with my Panasonic Gx9.

Panasonic, Canon, Nikon and Sony all make exceptional bridge cameras with fine capabilities! Go to a photo shop and let her try some out. Buy something that shoots in RAW.

If she used an SLR previously, she may want the digital version. Nikon has their top consumer DSLR on sale, a D7500 with 2 lenses (for under $1000) as well as their midrange consumer D5600. Both are exceptional.

Bill P

Linda,

As usual, you nailed it, with your VR vs. LCD comment. 5 or 6 years ago, I was getting concerned with my aging body and my Nikon D3. I looked over things, and decided that micro 4/3 might be what I want. I had purchased print in one of Mike Johnston'e sales of a photo sot and printed br Ctein. I still have it hanging, it's a 13x19 and is indistinguishable from a print form a FF camera. And then Amazon had a special on a Panasonic GF3, camera and lens for 250 or 300. I thought, here's a cheap way to get my feet wet in 4/3 and see if it gets the job done. It did and it didn't.

It was generally good, but I didn't love the using the LCD screen for shooting. And then one
day I was at an Airshow, and it was a sunny afternoon, and I couldn't shoot AT ALL! The least amount of sun would blankout the LCD. I though, well screw this, get a camera with a VF or find something else.

Im now fully kitted out in 4/3 now and happy.