G9 or G10 or DSLR?

Good afternoon all,

I have recently decided it time to upgrade the trusty point and shoot to something more closely resembling an enthusiast level of kit. Having seen the Canon G9 my choice seemed to have been made. However (the plot thickens) I then saw the G10 and have been in a slight quandary ever since. I shall explain.

First. Which is better - the G9 or the G10? i have trawled through online reviews to get the lowdown but cannot decide. Do the apparent benfits of the G10 (i.e.wider lens, better lcd) justify its more expensive price tag? and have the extra megapixels compromised the quality of pics seen in the G9?

Secondly, if indeed the G10 is superior, is it not worth my while spending slightly more on a dslr that has seemingly much higher spec/features? I mean the majority of reviews i have read comment that, unsurprisingly, the G9/G10 do not offer the same levels of quality, especially at higher ISOs compared with dslrs. So shirley that should be my first choice? I ve been looking at the canon 450d as a possible alternative. Or if i was to be really extravagant, possibly the canon 40d or nikon d90.

Several questions there. Help please.

Chris

Chris, IMO it would depend entirely upon what you shoot, how you shoot--and why you shoot. That sounds like a slough off--but----if you shoot sports, birds, interiors, landscapes--each of those might change one's mind. If you shoot on tripod or in hand---lower light handheld--then those could be game changers. Then--if you are interested in going further with your photography improving techniques and being able to choose a variety of lenses for creative reasons--esp. faster lenses--then that's yet another thing to consider.

I have a G9--if I was buying today I would buy a G10. Why---it is wider and appears to benefit from newer technology and some changes in the actual camera body and controls. However because I shoot a lot of lower available light AND like to take advangage of creative DOF and other things that are better done with a DSLR--I shoot with several DSLR bodies and a number of lenses.

Its very difficult for anyone to recommend choosing between a camera like the G10 and a DSLR---you need to consider that there is also the need for lenses--and then choosing those lenses--rarely can it be a one lens camera and be worth its salt--at least IMO LOL. Then you need to think about WHY you want to move up to a DSLR---size and weight are considerably more, cost will ultimately be considerably more. I'd consider the why and what first--then do some research and go into a shop and handle a DSLR, shoot with it---think about if you will print and how large, if you need to have a camera that will allow you to shoot at higher ISO's or want a shallower DOF, lens with longer reach---you see where I'm going.

Good luck in your pursuit. I will say that even the G9 prints out very nicely to quite largeish sizes and that or the G10 may be the next best step for you, but I just don't think that others can really make that decision for you.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

I wouldn't worry about megapixels. Once you reach six, unless you are blowing up huge prints, the megapixel count is usually a poor reason to upgrade.

I have a Nikon D90, which is a great camera. I love it, but I wanted something small too, but still with good manual control, so I got a G10.

To be perfectly honest, unless you take the photos to a lab to examine them, like they do here in their reviews, you cannot tell the difference between a $1400 DSLR and the G10, in most cases.

Of course, a DSLR has a much larger range of options than does a compact (though a G10 still has a few decent ones, like a telephoto lens addon and it has a standard flash shoe). But you also can't stick a DSLR in your pocket. I like putting the G10 in my coat pocket and go everywhere with it. Phone in the left pocket, camera in the right You never know when you'll see that perfect shot and you can have the most expensive DSLR in the world. But if you don't have it with you, it is useless. The G10's portability makes taking great shots always available.

As far as the G9 vs the G10 goes, my favorite difference is the exposure dial. That alone makes the G10 worth the exra price for me.

--

IQ , capability, then no contest, Go DSLR , D40 is a superb camera at a bargain price ,a better tool if you dont mind the size and wieght , a better investment for better pictures is my point of view.

I have a G9 for casual snapping in good light though . I cant like its pictures over 200iso , and now we keep it in the car glove box its not able to compete with the D40. Tried the G10, sent back, but its getting even bigger for a P&S than the 9 kinda ugly, knobs and dials ,and the noise was even worse I felt than the 9.

Cant get much better for cheap right now that Nikon legend of value for money the D40 for better photography days out, and holidays, with just a couple of lenses I can take most pictures I want , Nikon 18-200VR and Sigma 10-20 the results are just amazing, that photo legend " Ken Rockwell " really likes the D40, so do I.

Rhoda.

Thanks for the advice. I'd say primarily I will use a camera during the day (I have a snappier P&S nikon for evenings ;o) and primarily for landscapes, but having a good solid macro function is important to me - I tend to take lots of shots when out on walks etc so wildlife/plants/flowers are often used for close ups.

I have read both the G9 and G10 have excellent macros facilities so that is a definate plus point.

In terms of pushing my photography to the "next level" I am defiantely looking at more specifically the creative side of using shutter speeds for photgraphing water (this is one example where id like to experiment having seen some good examples in magazines etc). I had my doubts just how far you could tweak a G9 or a G10?

In terms of weight/size/portability, Im not that bothered by the downsides of having a dslr. maye that is my exuberant naivity coming into play )

I guess im loking for advice on whether or not to opt for the G10 (i think id appreciate the extra width to the lens) or spend that little bit extra for a dslr that will guarantee (i use this word loosely) better quality images and allow more freedom?

I have to admit of the two the g10 appeals more. And like i say my initial instinct was the G9. I like the retro look they both have, plus the build quality is a definate plus for having played around with my dads canon 20d.

That said, entering my chain of thought was an slr, simply down to price. If I am to splash out that much for a G10 why not buy an slr? i guess this is totally down to personal preference rather than quality of the camera.

I may just have to persuade my dad his 20d is in need of renewal and poach his, and buy the G10 as a smaller alternative ;o)

Chris

Griff01 said:

Thanks for the advice. I'd say primarily I will use a camera during
the day (I have a snappier P&S nikon for evenings ;o) and primarily
for landscapes, but having a good solid macro function is important
to me - I tend to take lots of shots when out on walks etc so
wildlife/plants/flowers are often used for close ups.

I have read both the G9 and G10 have excellent macros facilities so
that is a definate plus point.

In terms of pushing my photography to the "next level" I am
defiantely looking at more specifically the creative side of using
shutter speeds for photgraphing water (this is one example where id
like to experiment having seen some good examples in magazines etc).
I had my doubts just how far you could tweak a G9 or a G10?

In terms of weight/size/portability, Im not that bothered by the
downsides of having a dslr. maye that is my exuberant naivity coming
into play )

I guess im loking for advice on whether or not to opt for the G10 (i
think id appreciate the extra width to the lens) or spend that little
bit extra for a dslr that will guarantee (i use this word loosely)
better quality images and allow more freedom?

Click to expand...

--

You can tweak a G cam if youve good light and shoot under 200iso . .So most keep them at 80iso or 100iso It can take decent pics but go higher and they gets noisy fast. , A lot like a real pocket rocket that can truly fit in your purse or pants, and choose a Canon SD or Ixus, do google and look at Ken Rockwells site, he prefers a SD to a G10 it seem so. Might help you decide hes a D40 fan as well take a look.

Rhoda

Rhoda

Rhoda

Griff01 said:

I have to admit of the two the g10 appeals more. And like i say my
initial instinct was the G9. I like the retro look they both have,
plus the build quality is a definate plus for having played around
with my dads canon 20d.

That said, entering my chain of thought was an slr, simply down to
price. If I am to splash out that much for a G10 why not buy an slr?
i guess this is totally down to personal preference rather than
quality of the camera.

I may just have to persuade my dad his 20d is in need of renewal and
poach his, and buy the G10 as a smaller alternative ;o)

Chris
--

Click to expand...

Good one. I prefer the better zoom range of the 9 ,others dont mind that loss of zoom in the 10 but I do .
Better by far imo get a proper camera, go on, its called a DSLR .

RhoDA*

My thoughts exactly. I love the look of the G9 but the G10 looks more cumbersome for a compact. Plus i dont think i can justify the extra cost on what is essentially a compact camera. Like i say, I am willing to fork out for a g10, why not fork out a little bit more and get an slr.

I think the G9 is the obvious choice in tems of price and what I want out of the camera. I dont think I will notice much, if any difference between the G9 and G10 in terms of IQ, simply because I havent got the experience to nit-pick. I can appreicate the noise problem but so long as this doesnt effect performance at normal levels (seeing as I shoot in the day anyway) Im not too bothered.

I know it sounds silly, but can anyone say how much difference there is between the lcds on either camera? i relise the G10 has more resolution but ive read the g9 is just as nice.

Chris

For me, the most important advantage of the G10 over the G9 is the 28mm wide angle. The lack of this wide angle provision was the main reason for my not buying the G9. There are many inside group picture situations where 35mm is just not wide enough to include everyone comfortably. The difference between 35 and 28mm may not seem like much if you're just thinking of the numbers, but it makes a big difference in practice. Giving up some telephoto reach to get the wider angle is well worth it, in my opinion. (Actully, because of the G10's higher resolution, you can get back some of the tele reach by cropping and still end up with the same resolution as the G9.)

The size/weight difference is inconsequential, and is more than made up for by the G10's improved handling characteristics.

The choice of the G10 over a DSLR mainly comes down to whether you find the DSLR form factor acceptable. The G10/G9 can be carried in a large pocket or (my preference) a waist pouch. DSLRs can't. If that's not an issue, then undoubtedly a DSLR offers a potentiall higher level of IQ under a wider range of situations.

Bob

Griff01 said:

My thoughts exactly. I love the look of the G9 but the G10 looks more
cumbersome for a compact. Plus i dont think i can justify the extra
cost on what is essentially a compact camera. Like i say, I am
willing to fork out for a g10, why not fork out a little bit more and
get an slr.

I think the G9 is the obvious choice in tems of price and what I want
out of the camera. I dont think I will notice much, if any difference
between the G9 and G10 in terms of IQ, simply because I havent got
the experience to nit-pick. I can appreicate the noise problem but so
long as this doesnt effect performance at normal levels (seeing as I
shoot in the day anyway) Im not too bothered.

I know it sounds silly, but can anyone say how much difference there
is between the lcds on either camera? i relise the G10 has more
resolution but ive read the g9 is just as nice.

Chris

Click to expand...

Diane B. stated it very well. It depends what you want to shoot. If you want to shoot alot of action, sports, BIF, race cars, portraits with blurred backgrounds, creative DoF type shots, or low light shots that require high ISO's, then dslr is your only option. I'd recommend the 40D. Its an excellent camera and I believe I've seen the prices come down to $1,100 for body only (it retailed for $1,400 when it first came out). The XSi is very good as well, from what I've heard and read about it.

If your looking at casual shooting...landscapes, pets, people, events, streetscapes, etc. where blurred backgrounds are not necessary, or you shoot in situations with good to decent lighting where you don't need high ISO's and you want portablility and excellent IQ, then go with the G10. The G10, IMO, will give you equal IQ in terms of sharpness, color accuracy and color richness to a dslr, and come pretty close in terms of contrast (the dslr does provide better dynamic range). And you can get a G10 now for as low as $420 with free ground shipping.

--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

OneDMark3, FortyD, G10
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
http://blplhp.smugmug.com/

The best thing that could poke you in the eye....is your viewfinder.