Canon G9

[edmundoab]

Hi guys,

I am in a dilemma.

Trying to decide if the Canon G9 should be the one to purchase (for mid size camera type)
But are they different brands that can do better macro shots yet get decent scenic shots?

Nikon or Sony?

Need some advice as I am a camera NewBee

I had used a D40X before(borrowed), and of course its a different category of cameras...
Unless the mid size ones are not worth getting, a DSLR being the next solution?

 

[angry hampster]

Just FYI, the G9 has been succeeded by the G10 in the last couple months. They are unbelievably good cameras. I suggest grabbing either one and getting a close-up filter as well as a circular polarizer. They are a bit pricey, and a used DSLR + good lens can be had for under $500. However, a G will be more flexible without sacrificing a whole lot.

 

[edmundoab]

Yes I am aware of the G10, however i did a comparison in specs, and saw not much improvement in it compared to the G9, (which is also lower in price)

As initially, I had thought of buying a basic D-SLR with good lense, or compact cameras which just don't cut it... until I did more research and found out about these mid range ones

 

[996GT2]

The G9 will produce good pictures in good light, but at high ISOs it's still no match for even the most entry level DSLR/kit lens combo. The sensor in the G9 is still 5-10x smaller than a DSLR's sensor.

Personally, I don't think the G9 I worth it. You can spend half as much and still get something with similar image quality, image stabilization, manual controls, etc.

If you want an alternative, the Panasonic LX3 has more features and excellent image quality from a very fast Leica f/2.0 lens.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

As a random side note Amazon.com has the G10 for $200 less than the G9.... Weird

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
As a random side note Amazon.com has the G10 for $200 less than the G9.... Weird

Strange, I see it at a $100 difference, but even so, that is weird.

The LX3 has gotten good reviews. However, it's zoom range is very slight (60mm) compared with either the G9 or G10. The LX3 does have a wider angle, though.

Image quality from the G10 seems to be really excellent for it's class, and the few people who've posted comparisons between the G10 and LX3 generally give the edge to the G10 until ISO hits 200, at which point the LX3 seems to do better. The G10 also seems to have an advantage beyond specs over the G9.

The LX3 is a much smaller, more portable camera than the G9/10.

A DSLR would ultimately do a better job, but of course is more expensive and bulkier, particularly if you want a macro lens.

 

[edmundoab]

I've not heard much about olympus, but it definately looks to have an impressive mid size camera range
especially eye catching with its optical zooms!

Could this be another option or does the G9/G10 beat those range of cameras?
Will put the LX3 in mind although as mentioned that it has limited zooming range

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: edmundoab
I've not heard much about olympus, but it definately looks to have an impressive mid size camera range
especially eye catching with its optical zooms!

Could this be another option or does the G9/G10 beat those range of cameras?
Will put the LX3 in mind although as mentioned that it has limited zooming range

Zoom range is overrated. What's more important is the wide angle coverage of the lens. In this area, the LX3 outdoes the G10, with a 24mm wide end compared to the 28mm wide end on the G10. The 140mm telephoto zoom on the G10 may be useful in a small number of situations, but it's really not enough to be useful for sports, airshows, and other events that commonly require long tele lenses. I've got a Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 zoom on my Nikon D200 and it works great for me in 80% of my shooting. In the other 20%, I use the tele end of a 55-200mm or 70-300mm lens.

Another important lens characteristic is it's ability to let light in, or it's maximum aperture (f stop). Here, the lens on the LX3 is faster optically: f/2.0 on the wide end and f/2.8 on the tele end. The lens on the G10, in contrast, is f/2.8 on the wide end and and f/4.5 on the tele end for the G10. What this means is that the LX3 can use a lower ISO/faster shutter speed than the G10 in a given situation and still get the same result. Also, shallower depth of field can be achieved with the LX3, since it goes all the way to f/2.0 at wide open aperture.

The LX3 also has an advantage in the noise department. First, its sensor is marginally larger, at 1/1.63" vs 1/1.7" on the G10. The LX3 also has the advantage of having 5 less megapixels, which gives it a larger pixel pitch. This lets it produce better results at higher ISOs compared to the G10.

There are a few other things that would lead to me choosing the LX3 over the G10. For example, the LX3 has a 720p movie mode, which the G10 lacks. It also has a faster burst shooting rate of 2.5 FPS for up to 8 frames at full resolution. In contrast, the G10 is capped to a slow 0.7 FPS in continuous shooting.

Oh, and the LX3 is also dramatically smaller than the G10:

G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm, 350g
LX3: 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm, 265g

 

[edmundoab]

I assume it is also cheaper

 

[dnuggett]

If you want macro an SLR is the way to go. That is if you are looking to do true macro. You'll also need to spend some on a macro lens. You may be confusing macro with close up shots though since you are considering a P&S to do macro.

Another thing to consider is your shooting habits. Forget about high ISO shots on the G10. You'll want to be at 200 or less, preferably 80 if you want to stay away from noise.


Unless you have to have a compact I'd strongly suggest looking at a D40 with a kit lens. Save up and add lenses as it makes sense to. All things equal the D40 is a far better camera.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: edmundoab
I assume it is also cheaper

not significantly, no.

Originally posted by: 996GT2


Zoom range is overrated. What's more important is the wide angle coverage of the lens. In this area, the LX3 outdoes the G10, with a 24mm wide end compared to the 28mm wide end on the G10. The 140mm telephoto zoom on the G10 may be useful in a small number of situations, but it's really not enough to be useful for sports, airshows, and other events that commonly require long tele lenses. I've got a Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 zoom on my Nikon D200 and it works great for me in 80% of my shooting. In the other 20%, I use the tele end of a 55-200mm or 70-300mm lens.

agreed. long focal length doesn't really start kicking in until 150 mm. below that is portrait range, imho. the LX3 just barely touches portrait range.

Another important lens characteristic is it's ability to let light in, or it's maximum aperture (f stop). Here, the lens on the LX3 is faster optically: f/2.0 on the wide end and f/2.8 on the tele end. The lens on the G10, in contrast, is f/2.8 on the wide end and and f/4.5 on the tele end for the G10.

to be fair, for all we know the G10 is still at f/2.8 by the time it gets to 60 mm, which would match the LX3. at the very least it's probably quite near f/2.8. say, 3.1?

What this means is that the LX3 can use a lower ISO/faster shutter speed than the G10 in a given situation and still get the same result. Also, shallower depth of field can be achieved with the LX3, since it goes all the way to f/2.0 at wide open aperture.

The LX3 also has an advantage in the noise department. First, its sensor is marginally larger, at 1/1.63" vs 1/1.7" on the G10. The LX3 also has the advantage of having 5 less megapixels, which gives it a larger pixel pitch. This lets it produce better results at higher ISOs compared to the G10.

There are a few other things that would lead to me choosing the LX3 over the G10. For example, the LX3 has a 720p movie mode, which the G10 lacks. It also has a faster burst shooting rate of 2.5 FPS for up to 8 frames at full resolution. In contrast, the G10 is capped to a slow 0.7 FPS in continuous shooting.

Oh, and the LX3 is also dramatically smaller than the G10:

G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm, 350g
LX3: 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm, 265g

[/quote]

check this thread for side by sides

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Zoom range is overrated. What's more important is the wide angle coverage of the lens.

Uh, where do you get this from? I know many people who would disagree with you. It all depends on an individual's photographic needs. In fact, I've seen more discussion on how wide-angle is "overrated" than telephoto. So for you to unilaterally dismiss the medium telephoto lengths is absurd.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: edmundoab
I've not heard much about olympus, but it definately looks to have an impressive mid size camera range
especially eye catching with its optical zooms!

Could this be another option or does the G9/G10 beat those range of cameras?
Will put the LX3 in mind although as mentioned that it has limited zooming range

Which Olympus camera range are you referring to?

 

[edmundoab]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: edmundoab
I've not heard much about olympus, but it definately looks to have an impressive mid size camera range
especially eye catching with its optical zooms!

Could this be another option or does the G9/G10 beat those range of cameras?
Will put the LX3 in mind although as mentioned that it has limited zooming range

Which Olympus camera range are you referring to?

I was referring to the SP-565 UZ

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Uh, where do you get this from? I know many people who would disagree with you. It all depends on an individual's photographic needs. In fact, I've seen more discussion on how wide-angle is "overrated" than telephoto. So for you to unilaterally dismiss the medium telephoto lengths is absurd.

with tons of MP you can crop in. you can't add info to the sides.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Uh, where do you get this from? I know many people who would disagree with you. It all depends on an individual's photographic needs. In fact, I've seen more discussion on how wide-angle is "overrated" than telephoto. So for you to unilaterally dismiss the medium telephoto lengths is absurd.

with tons of MP you can crop in. you can't add info to the sides.

In response to Flipped Gazelle:

There's a reason why Canon and Nikon don't make 60-140mm short tele lenses despite the fact that lenses with this short 2x zoom range would no doubt be optically superior to long zooms like the 18-135mm or 18-200mm: So few people would want a 60-140mm lens that it's not worth the development costs.

This is also the reason why 28-90mm lenses for full frame and film cameras are relatively unused on crop sensor cameras: the 44-135mm range is just not as often used as the 18-35mm range or the 150-300mm range.

I'm not dismissing the usefulness of short telephoto lenses completely. Some lengths, such as 85mm, are useful for portraits, and 105mm is a common macro focal length for DSLRs. But for the average user with a point and shoot, that range is not going to be widely used, and I would take the faster, wider lens of the LX3 over the slower, less wide, and longer zoom of the G10.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

996GT2, the reason Canikon doesn't make a short zoom like that is because for casual shooters, zooms of greater range fit the bill, and for more exacting photogs, well, that's what primes are for.

Just a quick count, Canon currently lists 9 zooms that overall cover the 18mm - 200mm range. Some of these lenses are redundant, but the point is there is clearly a demand for this. You're right, people don't want a 60-140 lens; they want a 28-105 lens.

For the whole wide angle vs short zoom debate, it's less about zooms than about primes. I know of many more photogs who shoot primes - and short zoom, really - in the 24-90 mm range (which would be 36mm-135mm in 35mm equiv) than shoot wide angle. And most of these people do not consider significant cropping an option.

Also, given the quality limitations of a P&S sensor, heavy cropping may or may not work so well, depending on the intended usage - web, print, etc.

IMO, 60mm is just too shot for a walk-around. At least with a DSLR you have the option of adding length; this does not occur with P&S.

Finally, people tend not to compose with cropping in mind. Joe P&S Camera (hah! ) wants to frame the photo in the LCD and shoot. He will get frustrated if unable to get close enough to his subject, especially if he is migrating from another P&S that most likely has a reach of at least 100mm. Versatility is key for a P&S.

 

[ElFenix]

are short teles telephoto at all?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Sorry, ElFenix, I meant to say short zoom. I corrected my post.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Anyway, we can go 'round and 'round on who prefers what range, and it will differ dramatically by shooter. I tend not to shoot wide angle, and have more shots fall between 35mm and 70mm (52 - 105 in 35mm equiv) than wider.

Sorry OP, I didn't mean for us to get into this debate, so back on topic...

edmundoab, that Olympus SP-565UZ is a larger camera than the Canon G9/G10, and absolutely huge compared the the Panasonic LX3. Image quality - particularly in less than bright light - will be inferior.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Anyway, we can go 'round and 'round on who prefers what range, and it will differ dramatically by shooter. I tend not to shoot wide angle, and have more shots fall between 35mm and 70mm (52 - 105 in 35mm equiv) than wider.

Sorry OP, I didn't mean for us to get into this debate, so back on topic...

edmundoab, that Olympus SP-565UZ is a larger camera than the Canon G9/G10, and absolutely huge compared the the Panasonic LX3. Image quality - particularly in less than bright light - will be inferior.

Agreed.

The SP565UZ has a smaller sensor (1/2.33") while packing the same 10 megapixels. What this basically means is that anything beyond ISO 200 will lead to noticeable losses in quality, and anything beyond ISO 400 will likely be unusable for large prints.

 

[edmundoab]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Anyway, we can go 'round and 'round on who prefers what range, and it will differ dramatically by shooter. I tend not to shoot wide angle, and have more shots fall between 35mm and 70mm (52 - 105 in 35mm equiv) than wider.

Sorry OP, I didn't mean for us to get into this debate, so back on topic...

edmundoab, that Olympus SP-565UZ is a larger camera than the Canon G9/G10, and absolutely huge compared the the Panasonic LX3. Image quality - particularly in less than bright light - will be inferior.

Agreed.

The SP565UZ has a smaller sensor (1/2.33") while packing the same 10 megapixels. What this basically means is that anything beyond ISO 200 will lead to noticeable losses in quality, and anything beyond ISO 400 will likely be unusable for large prints.

So in a nutshell, my options would be for the G10 or the LX3 right?
Unless I would want to venture into entry level D-SLR

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: edmundoab

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Anyway, we can go 'round and 'round on who prefers what range, and it will differ dramatically by shooter. I tend not to shoot wide angle, and have more shots fall between 35mm and 70mm (52 - 105 in 35mm equiv) than wider.

Sorry OP, I didn't mean for us to get into this debate, so back on topic...

edmundoab, that Olympus SP-565UZ is a larger camera than the Canon G9/G10, and absolutely huge compared the the Panasonic LX3. Image quality - particularly in less than bright light - will be inferior.

Agreed.

The SP565UZ has a smaller sensor (1/2.33") while packing the same 10 megapixels. What this basically means is that anything beyond ISO 200 will lead to noticeable losses in quality, and anything beyond ISO 400 will likely be unusable for large prints.

So in a nutshell, my options would be for the G10 or the LX3 right?
Unless I would want to venture into entry level D-SLR

Yes.

Your choices are basically:

1) LX3 is you want smaller form factor, faster/wider lens, and the other features I mentioned before like faster continuous shooting and 720p movie mode.

2) G10 if you want longer zoom range, easier access to controls like ISO (G10 has external knobs for ISO and exposure compensation while LX3 has a joystick and buttons for those), and slightly easier holding (since it is a bit larger).

3) Small DSLR like the Olympus E-420 if you want better overall performance and ability to use many lenses, and don't care about larger size/weight. To be honest, though, the E-410 is really not much bigger than a G10 IF you use a 25mm pancake lens. It is a lot larger if you use a zoom lens.

Here is a size comparison of the Leica D-Lux 3 (same as LX3), G10, E-420, and Sigma DP1 (an expensive P&S with a DSLR sized sensor that never quite became too successful due to lots of issues as mentioned in the DPReview.com review).

Comparison Picture 1
Comparison Picture 2

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: edmundoab

So in a nutshell, my options would be for the G10 or the LX3 right?
Unless I would want to venture into entry level D-SLR

Well, God knows there's like a zillion digital cameras out there. The G10 & LX3 are the current apple of the enthusiast's eye at the moment.

The Sony DSC-W300 has been well-reviewed. Usually, I'm not a big fan of Sony, but in this case they seem to have produced a good camera.

It's hard to offer good advice, all we know is that you want to shoot macro and scenes. It seems like camera size/weight isn't important to you... or is it? Do you want to have a lot of manual control? Do you want a really long zoom, like the Olympus you linked to? Do you want to be able to shoot indoors in relatively poor lighting without using the flash?

You could get any entry-level DSLR - they are all good - and stick an 18-250mm lens on it (which equate to a 27-375mm range on a G10 or LX3) and get a $50 Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250 Macro adapter, and have all your bases covered.

What's your budget?

I think rather than just have a couple of us give you advice, you should check out some camera-review websites. DPReview.com, Imaging-Resource.com and DCResource.com are good ones. Steve's Digicams doesn't have great reviews IMO, but they do have a very friendly community, and answer the "what camera should I buy?" question very often.

 

[edmundoab]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: edmundoab

So in a nutshell, my options would be for the G10 or the LX3 right?
Unless I would want to venture into entry level D-SLR

Well, God knows there's like a zillion digital cameras out there. The G10 & LX3 are the current apple of the enthusiast's eye at the moment.

The Sony DSC-W300 has been well-reviewed. Usually, I'm not a big fan of Sony, but in this case they seem to have produced a good camera.

It's hard to offer good advice, all we know is that you want to shoot macro and scenes. It seems like camera size/weight isn't important to you... or is it? Do you want to have a lot of manual control? Do you want a really long zoom, like the Olympus you linked to? Do you want to be able to shoot indoors in relatively poor lighting without using the flash?

You could get any entry-level DSLR - they are all good - and stick an 18-250mm lens on it (which equate to a 27-375mm range on a G10 or LX3) and get a $50 Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250 Macro adapter, and have all your bases covered.

What's your budget?

I think rather than just have a couple of us give you advice, you should check out some camera-review websites. DPReview.com, Imaging-Resource.com and DCResource.com are good ones. Steve's Digicams doesn't have great reviews IMO, but they do have a very friendly community, and answer the "what camera should I buy?" question very often.

Yes Macro and Scenes is the main priority
I felt deprieved of zooming ability when I used a friend's D40X with the basic 18-55mm lense. Although pictures came out beautiful but I was limited to a certain distance
Night shots would be nice to have but not crucial
Fast shutter speed is what I have been impressed with the D-SLR that I have tried
Weight and Size does matter actually, due to portability. When I tour alone, it can be quite a burden to carry heavy D-SLR which is why i am considering a high end compact camera rather than something like a D40 as previously mentioned

Budget wise, lets be frank that i am prepared to fork out up to a price of a D90 range, which would be approx. $1000++ I figure?
But I know if I go for compact cameras, I won't have to spend that much anyway