Want a New Camera

[Al]

It's very nice, takes great shots and is much smaller than an SLR.  Be ready to spend some time reading the book.  I still have a lot to learn about mine.

Al

[jeffblaylock]

All these great shots from the G9... should have mine tomorrow in the mail.  I plan on experimenting with the G9, as I'm ready to move up a bit in quality of my photos from what I get from my Powershot A540.  I wasn't ready for a DSLR, and want to keep the weight down for backpacking trips.  The G9 seems to be about as close you can get to a DSLR without the expense and size. 

You've hit it on the head. While not as flexible as a DSLR/SLR camera outfit, it weighs a lot less. I could count on one hand the shots that truly needed the DSLR, out of 1,500 photos taken in Yosemite and the Bay Area. There were several dozen shots where I couldn't stop down the camera enough in the field -- with RAW, I was able to decrease the exposures by several F stops using the home computer. As for convenience, I carried mine on my pack's sternum strap while backpacking and on my belt while exploring. Battery life was good -- about 250 photos per charge.

Best three pieces of advice I can give for extending battery life:
1. Keep the camera turned off except for when you're actually composing/shooting.
2. Don't review your photos. Learn to look at it when it flashes on the LCD panel and then don't look at it again.
3. Use the option to turn on image stabilization ONLY when shooting. This keeps those little gyros from spinning constantly as you move the camera around.

The other added convenience of the G9 versus a DSLR: smaller tripod. I used one of those little gorilla-pods. Worked exactly like I needed it to.

Al is right, though, be prepared to read through that manual and play with the camera while you're reading. Re-read it before you go on a trip.

[dkerr24]

Thanks for those tips, Jeff.  I just got the camera from the DHL guy about an hour ago. 

The charger took less than the 90 mins in the manual to charge the nb-2lh battery.

Already playing around with RAW mode... wow, what a difference going from a 6mp camera to a 12.1mp with RAW!

The body feels so much more substantial/sturdy than my old A540.

Q:  I've read conflicting reports of how large a SD card the camera can accept.  Can't find a confirmation on the Canon website.  I just tried a 4gb Extreme II card and it worked.  Will the G9 accept a 8gb SD card?  Right now, price per GB is actually less if you buy a 8gb card over a 4gb.

[badknees]

All these great shots from the G9... should have mine tomorrow in the mail.  I plan on experimenting with the G9, as I'm ready to move up a bit in quality of my photos from what I get from my Powershot A540.  I wasn't ready for a DSLR, and want to keep the weight down for backpacking trips.  The G9 seems to be about as close you can get to a DSLR without the expense and size. 

You've hit it on the head. While not as flexible as a DSLR/SLR camera outfit, it weighs a lot less. I could count on one hand the shots that truly needed the DSLR, out of 1,500 photos taken in Yosemite and the Bay Area. There were several dozen shots where I couldn't stop down the camera enough in the field -- with RAW, I was able to decrease the exposures by several F stops using the home computer. As for convenience, I carried mine on my pack's sternum strap while backpacking and on my belt while exploring. Battery life was good -- about 250 photos per charge.

Best three pieces of advice I can give for extending battery life:
1. Keep the camera turned off except for when you're actually composing/shooting.
2. Don't review your photos. Learn to look at it when it flashes on the LCD panel and then don't look at it again.
3. Use the option to turn on image stabilization ONLY when shooting. This keeps those little gyros from spinning constantly as you move the camera around.

The other added convenience of the G9 versus a DSLR: smaller tripod. I used one of those little gorilla-pods. Worked exactly like I needed it to.

Al is right, though, be prepared to read through that manual and play with the camera while you're reading. Re-read it before you go on a trip.

The other side of the story. Image quality, Shutter lag, focus speed. All MUCH better in DSLR.

High resolution compacts suffer from highlight clipping in bright contrasty conditions, a result of the limited dynamic range of sensors with such small pixels. Cramming 12mp on the small sensor results in small photosites. You can pull back a bit in a RAW post processor, But don't expect miracles,  pulling down the highlights can easily introduce color casts.

In addition with tiny, high pixel count chips,  noise is always going to be an issue.

RAW is essential to reduce the noise in post processing if you shoot the compacts over 200 ISO equiv(or maybe even more than 100). In-camera noise reduction can be way too agressive, especially in Canon - resulting in the "plastic" look.

While compact P&S are OK for Web viewing, a full resolution 300 ppi print at 8x10 or larger will be no contest. DSLR at 6mp will outshine a 12mp compact. All the camera manufacturers play the megapixel game with the compact P&S market. More is not necessarily better and in many cases worse in terms of noise and dynamic range. "I got more megapixels than you" doesn't count for much in the comparision between P&S and DSLR image quality.

In addition most camera manufacturers overcook saturation, sharpening and noise reduction in the image processor, so if you want realism in your photos, never shoot JPEG unless you turn these controls to "none" or "off". Better to add in post where you at least have some control. Ultimately I would still just shoot RAW.

The only advantage I see in a P&S is weight and size. For me, image quality is MUCH more important than the extra  1 -1/2 lbs a DSLR adds to my pack.

All this being said, everyone has their own opinion and photo objectives. I am not trying to disparage anyone's choice of camera, just offering a different opinion.

Post Script:

It would be interesting to see some of the histograms of the some of the 1,500 shots that didn't need a DSLR and see how many highlights were actually clipped in high contrast situations. In addition some 1:1 crops to evaluate noise.

[Al]

BK, calm down.  No one is saying a G9 is as good as a current state-of-the-art SLR but they really are nice cameras capable of very nice pictures given some of the limits you outline.  In low light and higher ISO equiv, noise IS very much an issue.  But I can throw my G9 in the bottom of my briefcase with no hassle when traveling and with minimum hassle have a camera capable of taking very nice pictures readily available.  The G9 is generally referred to as the camera a professional will use if an SLR is not available.  The only lens issue I've seen is near the edges of macros.  As far as blowing most shots up to large format prints . . . there really isn't a problem. To suggest a 12 MP camera is just an internet camera is a bit extreme.

Al

[jeffblaylock]

The other side of the story. Image quality, Shutter lag, focus speed. All MUCH better in DSLR.

Yes. All true. Focus in particular is wobbly, such as trying to focus on a bear moving through trees. Shutter lag on the G9 is by far the best I've seen in compacts, but it's still noticeably slower than my EOSes. Not aggravatingly slow (like the Nikon it replaced), but slower nonetheless.

High resolution compacts suffer from highlight clipping in bright contrasty conditions, a result of the limited dynamic range of sensors with such small pixels. Cramming 12mp on the small sensor results in small photosites. You can pull back a bit in a RAW post processor, But don't expect miracles,  pulling down the highlights can easily introduce color casts.

Yes. Afraid the DSLR market is also guilty of too many pixels on too small a chip. High-contrast situations are particularly challenging, and these would be the shots I wished I was carrying the EOS (That, and the bears).

In addition with tiny, high pixel count chips,  noise is always going to be an issue. RAW is essential to reduce the noise in post processing if you shoot the compacts over 200 ISO equiv(or maybe even more than 100). In-camera noise reduction can be way too agressive, especially in Canon - resulting in the "plastic" look.

Yes. Fortunately, most of my shooting was done at ISO 80. I shot nothing over ISO 200. Anything above 200 is about worthless as far as I'm concerned. If anything, I'd like to see the processor go lower down in ISO. Never never never use in-camera processing effects, save perhaps the built-in neutral density "filter" (although take another shot with it turned off), whether shooting RAW or jpeg. And never shoot jpeg if you have a RAW option.

While compact P&S are OK for Web viewing, a full resolution 300 ppi print at 8x10 or larger will be no contest. DSLR at 6mp will outshine a 12mp compact. All the camera manufacturers play the megapixel game with the compact P&S market. More is not necessarily better and in many cases worse in terms of noise and dynamic range. "I got more megapixels than you" doesn't count for much in the comparision between P&S and DSLR image quality.

I've had success with resolutions as low as 120 ppi, where the extra pixel real-estate of the 12mp comes in handy (also helpful for crops). Agree that a smaller mp DSLR processor is superior in terms of image quality, especially if it's a true 35mm-sized chip.

In addition most camera manufacturers overcook saturation, sharpening and noise reduction in the image processor, so if you want realism in your photos, never shoot JPEG unless you turn these controls to "none" or "off". Better to add in post where you at least have some control. Ultimately I would still just shoot RAW.

Agree completely. I'll repeat, "never never never use in-camera processing effects ..." and never shoot jpeg if you can shoot RAW.

The only advantage I see in a P&S is weight and size. For me, image quality is MUCH more important than the extra 1 -1/2 lbs a DSLR adds to my pack.

Agree, except that my overall camera outfit adds 3 to 5 1/2 pounds to my pack, in addition to being more awkward to carry. Like many choices in backpacking gear, there is a balance between weight and convenience AND quality and "bomb-proof-ness" for lack of a better overarching term. The G9 probably tips too much toward weight and convenience, but I'm okay with it. If I could design the "perfect" backcountry camera, it would have a larger DSLR chip and processor capability in a G9 body with better optics, lower ISO, better battery life, built-in GPS, and easier external filter mounting. Oh, and it would cost half as much as the G9. 

All this being said, everyone has their own opinion and photo objectives. I am not trying to disparage anyone's choice of camera, just offering a different opinion.

Noted and appreciated. Your comments ensure that the otherwise "love-fest" feel of this thread will not falsely lead someone to believe the G9 is the perfect camera.

Post Script:

It would be interesting to see some of the histograms of the some of the 1,500 shots that didn't need a DSLR and see how many highlights were actually clipped in high contrast situations. In addition some 1:1 crops to evaluate noise.

Probably. Remind me to look into that after the trip report is completed. I don't have as sharp an eye for the histograms (although I use them when processing in Lightroom) as other "real" photographers on the board, but I'm sure I could find some good examples for y'all to comment on.

[dkerr24]

lol... didn't mean to start a DSLR / P&S war. :)  DSLR wins the quality contest, hands down. 

Anyone able to use a 8gb or higher SD card in their Canon G9?  I don't want to drop $50 on a 8gb card if it won't work in the G9.

[badknees]

BK, calm down.  No one is saying a G9 is as good as a current state-of-the-art SLR but they really are nice cameras capable of very nice pictures given some of the limits you outline.  In low light and higher ISO equiv, noise IS very much an issue.  But I can throw my G9 in the bottom of my briefcase with no hassle when traveling and with minimum hassle have a camera capable of taking very nice pictures readily available.  The G9 is generally referred to as the camera a professional will use if an SLR is not available.  The only lens issue I've seen is near the edges of macros.  As far as blowing most shots up to large format prints . . . there really isn't a problem. To suggest a 12 MP camera is just an internet camera is a bit extreme.

Al

Al

I'm calm.
Like I said

All this being said, everyone has their own opinion and photo objectives. I am not trying to disparage anyone's choice of camera, just offering a different opinion.

You can't remove the downside of P&S's just because they are light and convenient, just like you can't have a 12 oz SLR.  Following this logic there is a trade off in image quality. Each individual has to decide which one is most important and when. Heck, the ideal situation is to have both cameras and use the right one in the situation you feel is appropriate. I belive that is what Jeff B. has done.

[jeffblaylock]

lol... didn't mean to start a DSLR / P&S war. :)  DSLR wins the quality contest, hands down. 

Anyone able to use a 8gb or higher SD card in their Canon G9?  I don't want to drop $50 on a 8gb card if it won't work in the G9.

Yes, I used Kingston 8GB SDHC cards in Yosemite -- performed great. Holds around 420 RAW images at 4000x3000 resolution.

[Al]

I know they're good for 4 GB can't say about 8.  BK, ask Jeff what's the relative percentage use of the EOS since he bought the G9.  There is a lot to be said for convenience.

Al

[dkerr24]

lol... didn't mean to start a DSLR / P&S war. :)  DSLR wins the quality contest, hands down. 

Anyone able to use a 8gb or higher SD card in their Canon G9?  I don't want to drop $50 on a 8gb card if it won't work in the G9.

Yes, I used Kingston 8GB SDHC cards in Yosemite -- performed great. Holds around 420 RAW images at 4000x3000 resolution.

Thanks Jeff... I wasn't sure after reading Steve's Digicam review of the G9.  He mentioned up to 4gb cards.  But then I read another review that said up to 32gb.  I'll pick up an 8gb card before my Grand Canyon trip in Nov. 

I also did a bad thing and ordered 3 generic batteries for the G9 from bluenook.com.  $53 for three 1400mAh batteries.  I'll post here and let you guys know if I wasted my $$.

[Al]

That may not be a bad deal.  Even if two are equal to one OEM you still have one left for a few more bucks than OEM.  It probably is more bang for the buck.

Al

[RichardM]

Shop around for SD/SDHC cards and you can get well under $50 for 8GB. Meritline.com has them starting at $28, shipped. SuperMediaStore.com has some in the same price range or better. There may be cheaper vendors out there, but those two are consistenly the cheapest I've seen. I've ordered from both in the past.

[jeffblaylock]

BK, ask Jeff what's the relative percentage use of the EOS since he bought the G9.

Al

I haven't touched it, except to steal the battery, since it's the same one the G9 uses.

Thanks Jeff... I wasn't sure after reading Steve's Digicam review of the G9.  He mentioned up to 4gb cards.  But then I read another review that said up to 32gb.  I'll pick up an 8gb card before my Grand Canyon trip in Nov. 

I also did a bad thing and ordered 3 generic batteries for the G9 from bluenook.com.  $53 for three 1400mAh batteries.  I'll post here and let you guys know if I wasted my $$.

I have heard both 32GB and 16GB are the topping out points. Personally, I would not go beyond 8GB, simply because I hate having all my eggs in one basket, so to speak. If a card fails, or falls, I don't want to lose an entire trip. I have six 4GB cards and two 8GB cards. I bought them from Amazon and Adorama, depending on who had what on sale when.

Good luck with the generics. I doubt you wasted your money but I suspect they will underperform.

[dkerr24]

Shop around for SD/SDHC cards and you can get well under $50 for 8GB. Meritline.com has them starting at $28, shipped. SuperMediaStore.com has some in the same price range or better. There may be cheaper vendors out there, but those two are consistenly the cheapest I've seen. I've ordered from both in the past.

Richard - any problems with those generic SD cards?  I've only purchased Kingston or Sandisk cards to date.  Most likely, they're all made at the same plant in China... :)