Is G2 overkill for an amateur?

Hi Everyone,

I am a photography novice who currently own a S100. While I love its compact size, the S100 has very poor low light capabilities. Unless the lights are turned on very brightly indoors, the indoor pics that the S100 generates is unacceptable.

I want a camera that has better range than the S100 (especially in low light conditions), and everywhere I look people are raving about the G2. The ISO 400 rating on the camera really caught my eye (not to mention the excellent picture quality).

But now Canon just introduced the new S200, which is the same size as the S100 AND has ISO 400 capabilities. Moreover, the S200 contains technology that is 2 years more advanced than that of the S100, so even daytime shots will supposedly look noticably better.

My dilemma is whether to upgrade to the G2 (bulker but 4 megapixels) or the S200 (tiny size but only 2 megapixels). I use my camera primarily for documenting my vacations and family activities. Seems like getting the G2 is overkill in a way because I don't need all the advanced features, and I certainly can't haul a G2 around with as much convenience as a S200.

Do would you do if you were in my situation? What are the considerations I am not keeping in mind? What are my blind spots? Thanks in advance!

George Chang said:

My dilemma is whether to upgrade to the G2 (bulker but 4
megapixels) or the S200 (tiny size but only 2 megapixels). I use
my camera primarily for documenting my vacations and family
activities. Seems like getting the G2 is overkill in a way because
I don't need all the advanced features,

Click to expand...

i would also check the S30 (3mjn pixels) or the S40 (4mjn pixels)
both have partly a G2 inside, but i a smaller housing.

(many of the advanced features/settings of the G2 are available, but no flip display, smaller battery and no lens adapter for filters or tele ie.)

The battery-time is also reasonable (about 80 pics when using flash)
for such small battery.

I would say check the DP reviews of these cams ;-)

Chris

George,

I was in the same shoe as you 2 months ago. I've owned the Canon Digital Ixus (S100) for more than a year. I love this camera for its compactness and cool look. However, the down size is its short battery life and, as you rightly said, poor indoor image quality. Its outdoor shots are pretty good though.

I bought the Canon G2 about 2 months ago. Though it is much larger than the S100, the image quality is excellent with very good battery life. The flip LCD is very useful for taking shots in awkard positions. It has a very fast lens (f2-2.5) and you may not even have to use the flash for some indoor shots. I'm also an amateur photographer. For a start, I set the G2 to Auto mode - Perfect shots everytime. I started to explore the other modes (Aperture priority and shutter speed priority) for night shots and very satisfied with the results. I would strongly recommend the G2 without reservation, even for an amateur.

Jeff

George Chang said:

Hi Everyone,

I am a photography novice who currently own a S100. While I love
its compact size, the S100 has very poor low light capabilities.
Unless the lights are turned on very brightly indoors, the indoor
pics that the S100 generates is unacceptable.

I want a camera that has better range than the S100 (especially in
low light conditions), and everywhere I look people are raving
about the G2. The ISO 400 rating on the camera really caught my
eye (not to mention the excellent picture quality).

But now Canon just introduced the new S200, which is the same size
as the S100 AND has ISO 400 capabilities. Moreover, the S200
contains technology that is 2 years more advanced than that of the
S100, so even daytime shots will supposedly look noticably better.

My dilemma is whether to upgrade to the G2 (bulker but 4
megapixels) or the S200 (tiny size but only 2 megapixels). I use
my camera primarily for documenting my vacations and family
activities. Seems like getting the G2 is overkill in a way because
I don't need all the advanced features, and I certainly can't haul
a G2 around with as much convenience as a S200.

Do would you do if you were in my situation? What are the
considerations I am not keeping in mind? What are my blind spots?
Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Other people are going to leap right in with good advice, so I'll just advise you not to get too excited about ISO 400. If you must have a shot -- or you're very forgiving of image quality -- then 400 works, but it's quite noisy for truly attractive pictures.

Don

I have had a G2 for a few months now, after upgrading from an Oly 3030. I have consistently been pleased with this new camera.

The G2 certainly is larger than the tiny digicams, so you should consider this seriously. I haven't found it to be a problem. My priority is picture quality over size. If I valued size more, then I'd go with an S40.

I REALLY appreciate the ability to add a 420EX flash to the camera. Using a bounce flash with this camera makes pictures that have to be seen to be believed. Far and away better than anything that comes from the typical on camera flash.

Don Ellis said:

Other people are going to leap right in with good advice, so I'll
just advise you not to get too excited about ISO 400. If you must
have a shot -- or you're very forgiving of image quality -- then
400 works, but it's quite noisy for truly attractive pictures.

Don

Don,

Click to expand...

Look at what G2 can do at night at ISO 400 (ancient fence of a church in Moscow, Russia):

Cris Peterson said:

I have had a G2 for a few months now, after upgrading from an Oly
3030. I have consistently been pleased with this new camera.

The G2 certainly is larger than the tiny digicams, so you should
consider this seriously. I haven't found it to be a problem. My
priority is picture quality over size. If I valued size more, then
I'd go with an S40.

I REALLY appreciate the ability to add a 420EX flash to the camera.
Using a bounce flash with this camera makes pictures that have to
be seen to be believed. Far and away better than anything that
comes from the typical on camera flash.

Click to expand...

..and if you want to save a couple of bucks, and you already have a flash, buy yourself a little wen safe-synce for like 45 bucks. This will allow you to use any exiting flash. Only one drawback, though, you have to set your lens manually..oh well,..i notice that with the average flash, for ISO 50, F2.8 to F4 seems to work pretty well.

--..And all along I thought that Chromatic Aberration referred to cheap sun glasses!!

Cris Peterson said:

I REALLY appreciate the ability to add a 420EX flash to the camera.
Using a bounce flash with this camera makes pictures that have to
be seen to be believed. Far and away better than anything that
comes from the typical on camera flash.

Click to expand...

I would add my vote to this. Bounce flash is the single most important technique you will encounter for generally improving the looks of your indoor photos. Having a hot shoe on the camera (G2) is a great feature.

Gene

CSB said:

CSB said:

Don,

Click to expand...

Look at what G2 can do at night at ISO 400 (ancient fence of a
church in Moscow, Russia):

Click to expand...

Like Don, I've found my G2 ISO 400 produces images that are much noisier than the image you showed, more like the ones in Phil's review? Did you apply a smoothing algorithm to that picture? Just curious. GKL

Starship Skipper said:

..and if you want to save a couple of bucks, and you already have a
flash, buy yourself a little wen safe-synce for like 45 bucks.
This will allow you to use any exiting flash. Only one drawback,
though, you have to set your lens manually..oh well,..i notice that
with the average flash, for ISO 50, F2.8 to F4 seems to work pretty
well.

Click to expand...

Some non-Canon flashes do work. Others get triggered by the E-TTL preflash, so the flash fires at full power when the shutter is still closed. Flashes without an autoexposure sensor may fire only at full manual power. At the moment, only Canon E-TTL flashes (220EX,420EX,520EX) will give you full E-TTL control on the G2. Other brands won't, even when they work in E-TTL mode on Canon film SLRs. Try before you buy. And as SS says, use a Wein Safe Sync if the flash has a high trigger voltage (see http://www.botzilla.com ). GKL

gkl said:

Like Don, I've found my G2 ISO 400 produces images that are much
noisier than the image you showed, more like the ones in Phil's
review? Did you apply a smoothing algorithm to that picture? Just
curious. GKL

Click to expand...

And would he like to share it? Maybe it's that noise reduction action I read about (think it was for the Coolpix cameras...not sure).

Yeah. I've found 400 ISO very noisy. I haven't found a reason to use it yet.

gkl said:

Like Don, I've found my G2 ISO 400 produces images that are much
noisier than the image you showed, more like the ones in Phil's
review? Did you apply a smoothing algorithm to that picture? Just
curious. GKL

Click to expand...

No, no post-processing except resizing and conversion to .jpg to reduce size.

BTW the temperature at the moment when the shot was taken was about -8 centigrade. It may add to noise reduction due to better sensor cooling.

File size: 2,978KB
Image Serial Number: 101-0133
Camera Model: Canon PowerShot G2
Firmware: Firmware Version 1.01
Owner: Date/Time: 2002.03.16 21:38:18
Shutter speed: 1/10 sec
Aperture: 3.5
Exposure mode: Tv
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Center-weighted average
Drive mode: Single frame shooting
ISO: 400
Lens: 7.0 to 21.0 mm
Focal length: 18.0 mm
Subject distance: 1.048 m
AF mode: Continuous AF
Focus point:

Image size: 2272 x 1704
Image quality: Raw
White balance: Auto
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Low
Contrast: Normal​

Thank you for your responses. Reading the posts makes me wonder about two additional sets of questions.

1) So the ISO 400 setting on the G2 does not yield impressive pictures? As I mentioned before, the pictures that are taken by the S100 (ISO 100)in low light are unacceptable. So if G2 at ISO 400 looks bad, then I can only use the ISO 200 setting at the most while still expecting good looking pics in low light? That renders the ISO 400 on the G2 rather useless since it does not produce sharp images. Also, will the G2 ISO 100 images look sharper and brighter than the S100 ISO 100 images?

2) I am using a 128M Sandisk compact flash card in my S100. If I get a G2, then I will want an even bigger card. There are now Sandisk "Ultra" cards which are supposedly better than the regular kinds. What is the difference (if any) other than write speed? Are the pictures actually better looking on the "Ultra" cards? And is there a brand of CF cards that has the reputation of storing the images with the best picture quality?

Thanks again! Looking forward to hearing from you!

George Chang said:

Hi Everyone,

I am a photography novice who currently own a S100. While I love
its compact size, the S100 has very poor low light capabilities.
Unless the lights are turned on very brightly indoors, the indoor
pics that the S100 generates is unacceptable.

I want a camera that has better range than the S100 (especially in
low light conditions), and everywhere I look people are raving
about the G2. The ISO 400 rating on the camera really caught my
eye (not to mention the excellent picture quality).

But now Canon just introduced the new S200, which is the same size
as the S100 AND has ISO 400 capabilities. Moreover, the S200
contains technology that is 2 years more advanced than that of the
S100, so even daytime shots will supposedly look noticably better.

My dilemma is whether to upgrade to the G2 (bulker but 4
megapixels) or the S200 (tiny size but only 2 megapixels). I use
my camera primarily for documenting my vacations and family
activities. Seems like getting the G2 is overkill in a way because
I don't need all the advanced features, and I certainly can't haul
a G2 around with as much convenience as a S200.

Do would you do if you were in my situation? What are the
considerations I am not keeping in mind? What are my blind spots?
Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

George Chang said:

2) I am using a 128M Sandisk compact flash card in my S100. If I
get a G2, then I will want an even bigger card. There are now
Sandisk "Ultra" cards which are supposedly better than the regular
kinds. What is the difference (if any) other than write speed?
Are the pictures actually better looking on the "Ultra" cards? And
is there a brand of CF cards that has the reputation of storing the
images with the best picture quality?

Click to expand...

Cards offer storage size and speed. Often with consumer level cameras, the speed is limited by the camera's writing/reading speed rather than the card.

Picture quality has nothing to do with the card.

I'm a fan of using several, reasonably sized cards rather than using fewer huge cards. In the event that I lose a card or experience format problems, I'm not out ALL of my pictures. Currently, I use 256MB cards with my G2

Jeff Tan said:

I bought the Canon G2 about 2 months ago. Though it is much larger
than the S100, the image quality is excellent with very good
battery life. The flip LCD is very useful for taking shots in
awkard positions. It has a very fast lens (f2-2.5) and you may not
even have to use the flash for some indoor shots. I'm also an
amateur photographer. For a start, I set the G2 to Auto mode -
Perfect shots everytime. I started to explore the other modes
(Aperture priority and shutter speed priority) for night shots and
very satisfied with the results. I would strongly recommend the G2
without reservation, even for an amateur.

Jeff

Click to expand...

I am very much like George. I bought the G2 in Jan - and could not be happier. I bought it primarily for the fine resolution, the RAW image, the 4M ( as I want to print 1st class 8x10s, and the possible addition of an outboard flash - my 1st digital did not shoot indoors well.

You will like the G2 - though you should also plan to grow into it. New printer, more pc time, etc.
Good luck.--Jim

I use a slave flash for my Canon S100. The huge difference in indoor photo quality is unbelievable!! I can't do without the slave flash anymore!

Erik.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gene Wilburn said:

Cris Peterson said:

I REALLY appreciate the ability to add a 420EX flash to the camera.
Using a bounce flash with this camera makes pictures that have to
be seen to be believed. Far and away better than anything that
comes from the typical on camera flash.

Click to expand...

I would add my vote to this. Bounce flash is the single most
important technique you will encounter for generally improving the
looks of your indoor photos. Having a hot shoe on the camera (G2)
is a great feature.

Gene

Click to expand...

I am an amateur photographer who, until just a month or so ago, was in the same quandry as you. I opted to go with the S40. I LOVE IT!!! I was stuck between the S40 and the G2 for a long time but a great sale made the decision for me.

I think the S40 is the perfect option for you. You'lll have 4 megapixal, ISO ratings of auto, 50, 100, 200, or 400, fully auto to fully manual aperature and shutter settings. You won't have the external flash option nor the ability to use filters but it's a great camera for your needs. It's also very compact... I take mine EVERYWHERE!!

I've heard the G2 does macro much better than the S40, but I took some great macros today of some roses with my S40.

You will do yourself a grave injustice if you don't consider the S40 - it's a fine camera and comes highly recommended by many reviewers (including Phil...)

Let us know what you decide to do, I am curious!

Paige

Thanks for the advice, Paige!

I was at Circuit City this weekend and was playing around with the S40. Weird, but is there no way to force the flash to fire?

I like the sturdy feel of the S40 over the G2. And I'll be going back to Circuit City with more of an effort to check out the S40 next time.

I think having a great macro mode is great but realistically it does not play to my needs of capturing my vacations and familylife shots. The important elements that I look for are compact size, good low-light capabilities, long battery life, quick and nimble performance, and durable (not flimsy).

So I really think we are in the same situation.

The battery life is shorter with the S40. Have you found that to be an annoyance?

The S40 will serve to completely replace my S100, then. Thank you again for your sharing. It will make a difference in my choice.

George

Paige said:

I am an amateur photographer who, until just a month or so ago, was
in the same quandry as you. I opted to go with the S40. I LOVE
IT!!! I was stuck between the S40 and the G2 for a long time but a
great sale made the decision for me.

I think the S40 is the perfect option for you. You'lll have 4
megapixal, ISO ratings of auto, 50, 100, 200, or 400, fully auto to
fully manual aperature and shutter settings. You won't have the
external flash option nor the ability to use filters but it's a
great camera for your needs. It's also very compact... I take mine
EVERYWHERE!!

I've heard the G2 does macro much better than the S40, but I took
some great macros today of some roses with my S40.

You will do yourself a grave injustice if you don't consider the
S40 - it's a fine camera and comes highly recommended by many
reviewers (including Phil...)

Let us know what you decide to do, I am curious!

Paige

Click to expand...

George Chang said:

I was at Circuit City this weekend and was playing around with the
S40. Weird, but is there no way to force the flash to fire?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can force it to fire by putting the Flash to 'On' or 'On w/Red Eye Reduction' instead of 'Auto' or 'Off' modes.

George Chang said:

I think having a great macro mode is great but realistically it
does not play to my needs of capturing my vacations and familylife
shots. The important elements that I look for are compact size,
good low-light capabilities, long battery life, quick and nimble
performance, and durable (not flimsy).

Click to expand...

Well, an S30/40 (I have S30) does have other capabilities you mention except for long battery life. While it is not actually bad, it's not very good either. Buying a second battery is recommended. Need to buy one myself (just got the camera on Friday).

George Chang said:

The battery life is shorter with the S40. Have you found that to
be an annoyance?

Click to expand...

Not yet, since I've only used the camera at home so far. However, on a vacation I can imagine running out of battery if you take a lot of pictures and can't recharge between shooting - say, you are hiking or other such thing.

George Chang said:

The S40 will serve to completely replace my S100, then. Thank you
again for your sharing. It will make a difference in my choice.

Click to expand...

An S30/S40 will definitely be a good choice. However do not forget the new S200 or S330... I think you mentioned the S200 in your first post? Well anyway they do have better low-light than the S100, because you can control the shutter and have higher ISO settings. For the usage you described an S200 or S330 might be enough, but of course an S30/S40 will be even better, though larger. Had I the money (which I don't, the S30 ate all of it) I'd buy an S330 as a true go-anywhere secondary camera, as it looks so cool too ; ) (if I could get one real cheap, I could even take a S110/S300 second-hand...) Still, the S30 is very portable too.

I hope I managed to actually help, not just confuse : )