goodtimes
Expedition Poseur
In an attempt to avoid hijacking a different thread.....I'll move my comments here.
About a month ago, I purchased a Canon G9. This was done after nearly a year of contemplation on the move from a digital SLR back to a point and shoot. The primary reason for the move was physical size. The SLR + lenses is a bulky bit of gear. Not a big deal when travelling in the jeep, but it was a bit problematic when travelling on the motorcycle. This resulted in me not taking many pictures while on the moto trips, and sometimes simply leaving the camera at home during hiking/backpacking trips. The thought was that with a decent P & S, I would take more pictures on the moto trips and the non-mechanized trips.
I have been using nothing but digital SLR for the past 4 years or so, and have gotton quite used to the size, feel, and features. After reading several reviews of the G9, fondling it at a local shop, and talking to a few people about it, I spent the $$$.
On the surface, it is a nice camera. It has a robust feel (considering what it is), operation is smooth and quiet, the menu's are fairly intuitive, and the spec list is impressive.
What the G9 is not, is a SLR. You are virtually forced to use the LCD to compose your shots (the viewfinder is not all that accurate). There it the ever annoying "shutter lag"...that second or so from the time you push the "shutter release" button until it actually takes the image...and of course the 2 seconds or so from the time you push the button until the LCD lets you start composing the next shot. This isn't a huge problem for landscape, portraits, etc., but is really annoying when that Gila Monster is exiting stage left.
The versatility of the camera is, well, not on par with a dSLR. I expected this though....without the ability to change lenses, you simply lose versatility. The macro mode on the G9 is pretty good though. Combined with the IS, it allows you to shoot macro shots while hand holding the camera.
Somewhere I had read a spec list that listed the battery as the same as used in the Canon dSLR's. Well, that list lied. Batteries are not the same. Neither are the cards. The G9 uses SD cards rather than the CF cards that the SLR's use. So if you are hoping for interchangability there (like I was), you're out of luck.
There seems to be a lot of noise in the pictures. With the ISO at 800, it is worse than the SLR. At ISO100, it is still worse than the SLR. This is one area that really disappoints me. The reviews I have read stated that noise wasn't to bad. I disagree.
The images are also a bit soft. All of them.
The colors are also muted...but I will admit I have not had it out in really *good* light either. I find myself bumping the saturation on almost every image I take with it. Overall, I spend MUCH more time post-processing images from the G9 than from the dSLR. This may improve after spending some time with it and changing some of the default settings on the camera.
Overall, the image quality doesn't live up to the hype. At least it doesn't with the camera running the default settings.
The flash and shutter don't seem to be in time with each other. This could be the cummulative effect of a variety of factors, and requires some more "testing" before I am convinced there is a problem. But on my initial impression...something isn't right.
I'm not sure what causes the delay between shutter release and the LCD showing you the sensors view...maybe it is caused by the data transfer...but what ever it is, it sucks because rattling off multiple back to back shots isn't an option. There is a program mode which is supposed to allow you to shoot multiple shots back to back, but when I tried it, it would not let me record in RAW....only JPEG. Annoying at the least. I prefer to shoot in RAW, then tweak the image later to get the result I want (if needed), rather than let the camera decide what it thinks I want to see.
Start up and shut down times are pretty good. Faster than the dSLR.
Obviously, it is much smaller than the SLR. Much bigger (thicker) than many modern p&s cameras, but still small enough to stuff it into the pocket of a loose fitting pair of jeans or shorts.
The macro mode works pretty well. With the IS, you can hand hold the camera with small aperture sizes and end up with decent results. Something I can't do with the SLR. Macro + SLR = tripod required.
********************************************
So, there are my initial thoughts about this camera. I owe it some more time before I give up on it....but it certainly isn't a winner right out of the box. At least not for me.
About a month ago, I purchased a Canon G9. This was done after nearly a year of contemplation on the move from a digital SLR back to a point and shoot. The primary reason for the move was physical size. The SLR + lenses is a bulky bit of gear. Not a big deal when travelling in the jeep, but it was a bit problematic when travelling on the motorcycle. This resulted in me not taking many pictures while on the moto trips, and sometimes simply leaving the camera at home during hiking/backpacking trips. The thought was that with a decent P & S, I would take more pictures on the moto trips and the non-mechanized trips.
I have been using nothing but digital SLR for the past 4 years or so, and have gotton quite used to the size, feel, and features. After reading several reviews of the G9, fondling it at a local shop, and talking to a few people about it, I spent the $$$.
On the surface, it is a nice camera. It has a robust feel (considering what it is), operation is smooth and quiet, the menu's are fairly intuitive, and the spec list is impressive.
What the G9 is not, is a SLR. You are virtually forced to use the LCD to compose your shots (the viewfinder is not all that accurate). There it the ever annoying "shutter lag"...that second or so from the time you push the "shutter release" button until it actually takes the image...and of course the 2 seconds or so from the time you push the button until the LCD lets you start composing the next shot. This isn't a huge problem for landscape, portraits, etc., but is really annoying when that Gila Monster is exiting stage left.
The versatility of the camera is, well, not on par with a dSLR. I expected this though....without the ability to change lenses, you simply lose versatility. The macro mode on the G9 is pretty good though. Combined with the IS, it allows you to shoot macro shots while hand holding the camera.
Somewhere I had read a spec list that listed the battery as the same as used in the Canon dSLR's. Well, that list lied. Batteries are not the same. Neither are the cards. The G9 uses SD cards rather than the CF cards that the SLR's use. So if you are hoping for interchangability there (like I was), you're out of luck.
There seems to be a lot of noise in the pictures. With the ISO at 800, it is worse than the SLR. At ISO100, it is still worse than the SLR. This is one area that really disappoints me. The reviews I have read stated that noise wasn't to bad. I disagree.
The images are also a bit soft. All of them.
The colors are also muted...but I will admit I have not had it out in really *good* light either. I find myself bumping the saturation on almost every image I take with it. Overall, I spend MUCH more time post-processing images from the G9 than from the dSLR. This may improve after spending some time with it and changing some of the default settings on the camera.
Overall, the image quality doesn't live up to the hype. At least it doesn't with the camera running the default settings.
The flash and shutter don't seem to be in time with each other. This could be the cummulative effect of a variety of factors, and requires some more "testing" before I am convinced there is a problem. But on my initial impression...something isn't right.
I'm not sure what causes the delay between shutter release and the LCD showing you the sensors view...maybe it is caused by the data transfer...but what ever it is, it sucks because rattling off multiple back to back shots isn't an option. There is a program mode which is supposed to allow you to shoot multiple shots back to back, but when I tried it, it would not let me record in RAW....only JPEG. Annoying at the least. I prefer to shoot in RAW, then tweak the image later to get the result I want (if needed), rather than let the camera decide what it thinks I want to see.
Start up and shut down times are pretty good. Faster than the dSLR.
Obviously, it is much smaller than the SLR. Much bigger (thicker) than many modern p&s cameras, but still small enough to stuff it into the pocket of a loose fitting pair of jeans or shorts.
The macro mode works pretty well. With the IS, you can hand hold the camera with small aperture sizes and end up with decent results. Something I can't do with the SLR. Macro + SLR = tripod required.
********************************************
So, there are my initial thoughts about this camera. I owe it some more time before I give up on it....but it certainly isn't a winner right out of the box. At least not for me.
