Canon G9 or G10?

P

Piphel

Messages
2
Name
Phil Jalland
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I'm looking for a little advice please.
I want to buy my wife a replacement for her Pro1, but can't decide whether there are any real advantages for her to move as far up as the G10.

As far as I can see the main differentiator is the wider angle, but as she only ever shoots subjects close up (between 1 & 3 feet), would there any discernable benefits in image quality? Would she then just need to get even closer to get the same results, or would this in itself improve the quality?

Any advice appreciated ......
 
Going through your questions backwards. The fact that the G10 has a 28mm lens won't improve the quality as such, but it will give a different perspective to the image.

The lens quality is actually VERY good. I bought one for some of my professional work and it will easily print A2 posters - DPS full bleeds can be done from cropped pictures!

You don't have to worry about the image quality. It produces jpegs of around the 15MB - 19MB order from RAW, which equates to about a 90MB TIFF if you convert to TIFF instead. That is as much as many SLRs, even some pro spec ones.

The shutter lag is minimal - you can capture action with the G10, provided it isn't too demanding. A horse jumping a hedge would be within its capability most times. The limitations are with its film speed - you can really only expect to use 400 at most, even though it goes up to 1600, forget it, the noise is just horrendous (like a paint brush spatter). At 400, it is acceptable. At 100 and 200 it is fine, better than fine in fact.

Itis built like a brick, so is much heavier than many compacts - this I think is a good thing. It will last years. The quality it produces is going to be plenty for most uses, even exhibition prints would be fine from it provided you are careful at the shooting stage.

At close up, the macro facility is not yet kicking in, but if you needed to do fine detail work close up it will, but the depth f field available is limited as you can only stop down to f8 at the most. From 18" this isn't too bad actually and gives you 5" or 6" of depth of field even at the longer end of the lens.

I am very happy with mine - and it is less obtrusive than an SLR for shooting in crowded places or travelling with. Go and have a play withone in a shop.
 
Thanks for that, but I'm really only trying to assess whether the G10 would be noticably better (different) to its predecessor the G9 - and for my wife's particular application. She usually only captures still life at fairly close range. She will never want to capture motion and the higher resolution that's capable is unlikely to be needed - the G9 would definitely be sufficient here.

As you say, it's the different perspective that may make the difference, but I don't know if it will be obvious enough to make it worth spending the additional £100 - and I suspect that 'playing' with one in a shop will not enable me to recreate her setup closely enough to determine this.

Below is an example of her work, which is mainly only used on web pages .....

In many ways too much clarity is a bad thing for these shots, but she'd rather have it there first and soften it again later using Photoshop or similar. It's more about determining what effect the wider angle will have on a close up. Will it appear to have more depth I wonder and make it a more realistic image. (This is not a real little boy of course, but it's the impression of reality that she's striving for).

http://www.tinkerbellnursery.com/Recent_Babies/Evan.jpg
 
You need to reduce the size of that image to 800 pixels on it's longest side, or you'll feel the wrath of the mods ;)

I haven't had a chance to play with a G10 yet, but I notice from pics that it has better ergonomics than the G9, by way of having the built in grip. The G9 is a bit of a brick in that respect, but if you spend a tenner or so on an aftermarket grip and thumbrest it transforms the handling of the camera.

As to whether the extras on the G10 are worth the additional money, the wider angle lens is a defintie bonus. I find my G9 lens very constrictive, but if you don't need the extra 7mm (35mm equiv) or the extra megapixels (which personally I don't see as an advantage on a compact) then the £100 could be better spent elsewhere.
 
I love my G9 and have taken lots of shots that I am very very happy with :D.
It is very versatile although it does struggle a bit at high ISOs and piccies get quite grainy.

On a practical note,because the G10 has only just come out there are probably some good deals to be had on a G9.
 
I only got one because I was actually looking for something of that kind of quality output.

If the G9 will do what your wife needs - then go and grab a bargain, because like everything that is getting phased out....outlets want to offload them!

I bet if you found a new one for sale in a shop, with the way the current economic climate is, if you offered to pay £200 in cash they would let you have it.

The 9 is very nearly as good as the 10, a few tweaks which I will find useful! The extra didn't worry me, because the taxman pays for it anyway!
 
The G10 is the way forward. I am stuck way back on the G5 which I use as a backup camera and it is going strong after 12,000 exposures. The RAW feature is flaming handy and the files are suprisingly good for the age of the camera. Go for the G10, I will be officially jealous.
 
"Refurbished"???

Do you think they might be new stock and they have to justify the lower price?

Synical? me?
 
Just seen G10, in stock @ £338.95 inc vat & P&P. With the current price of a G9 in some places still at around £280 - 305.. to me it's a no brainer! G10 here I come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top