Is G5 much inferior to Digital Rebel?

[franky9]

Hello, I am looking at buying a digital cam. The two I have been debating about are the Canon G5 and the Digital Rebel. I pretty much had made my decision to go with the G5 when I saw the DR. The only reason I really considered it was the price. For a DSLR to be priced so attractively is hard to pass up. The G5 seems to be more compact. From the reviews I have read both cams are fantastic. In terms of image quality I would imagine the DR blows the G5 away. But how much inferior is the G5 anyways? Feature-wise, I believe the G5 has more. But the reality is, the DR is a better cam. Can anybody help me make my decision easier.
Thanks very much.
Frank

[vvizard]

I can help you a bit. If you intend pay big bucks for taking "snapshots" as well as creative shooting, go for the G5. A 300D (if anywhere near a 10D in size) won't fit in you pocket (no matter what lens (or not) mounted), trust me on that =)

If you intend to use your camera most for creative shooting, and don't care so much about missing some "snapshots" of parties etc, and as long as you don't mind paying big bucks for making art that most of the time isn't considered art by most other people (you might of course be better than me), then do as I did, go for the SLR =) I've owned a SLR-like cam before (Minolta DiMage 7i) and it doesn't come remotely close to my new 10D-baby =)

But of course, the 300D can of course take snapshots that will blow away any taken from a P&S-cam, but to get that snapshot, you'll have to constantly carry a heavy bag of house and lenses on you. I don't do that, so I've stopped taking snapshots. Maybe if I get rich, I'll buy a good P&S-cam to go along when the 10D don't. Until then, I don't do snapshots.

[justme_dc]

Yes, yes it is. Here are just two reasons. One, The G5 has horrible chromatic abberation. It can't be avoided it's the fault of the lens. Two, It has no bulb mode It'll only go as long as 15 seconds. Those two reasons alone are enough to avoid it. Buy a 300D or buy a G3 you'll be happier either way.

[psk4363]

Hi Frank,

I've just upgraded to the 10D, the heavier cousin of the DR, from the G5.

Before the G5 I had the G2 and before that the G1. Before the G1 I had a fairly comprehensive, non-digital, SLR outfit. What's the point of all this? Well it comes down to whether your the type of person who can limit yourself to either what images you take or what you take those images with.

Once you get on the D-SLR route, temptation will get to you re additional lenses (e.g. a macro lens for close-up, a good telephoto for distance work, etc.). This isn't a problem until the day comes when you realise that you aren't taking many images any more, and when you work out why it's because all that kit you've bought is just too much to carry around with you.

If you take the compact G5 route, you'll take lots of images because it's so small and light, you can take it anywhere without it becoming a burden. But after a while you start to realise that the G5 is rather restricting in what you can take, compared to that guy over there with his D-SLR and telephoto. The quality of images from the G5 is superb, but after a while you start to think that greater number of pixels from the DR will bring about better and larger images.

I've been down both routes and have returned to the SLR route and lenses through choice because I wanted the flexibiity again. I plan ahead and take with me what I anticipate needing, no more, and I'm taking lots of images. Sure, at times, I miss a shot or two but I'm generally very happy I've moved up from the G5.

Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Barry

[CoolToolGuy]

I bought a G3 in March, and when the Digital Rebel was announced, my initial reaction was that I should have waited. However, I thought back to my film SLR days and remember that at some point I had reached that point of having too much to carry and wishing I had a really nice rangefinder to carry all the time.
So I decided to keep the G3 when I got the DRebel. I don't see it as a P&S, it is a rangefinder (small point, yes, but allow me). I keep the G3 in the car all the time, and if I see something that must be shot, I can shoot it. I have gone to parties and events and gotten it out of the car on the spur of the moment, and the results are great.
When I go somewhere that I know is a photo shoot, the DRebel is the weapon of choice, and the G3 comes along, too, cause it can do a couple of things that the DRebel can't - movie mode, for example.
Bottom line - if you can only afford one camera, go for the DRebel. But having both cameras in your arsenal will give you a lot of flexibility.

Have Fun

[MiG82]

Hmm, I don't know if I'd be touting sub 15 second exposures as a major reason not to get a more basic camera. How many people have taken exposures longer than this? Now, how many people did it just because the camera is capable of it? :)

A much more important difference to me is the fact that you can wind up the sensitivity on the 300D and still get acceptable photos, unlike the G5. Recently my friends and I got together for some drinks and using the flash resulted in a "f*** off" so I had to resort to long exposures (around 2 sec) and steady holding. I was able to reasonably control hand shake but I couldn't do anything about people moving.

[boBquincy]

Inferior? No, not when used for what it was intended for.

The G series are very nice P&S cameras with plenty of manual overrides. They take very good images and for up to 8x10 prints (the largest size probably 99% of users can print) and even larger, they are fine.

D-SLRs are larger, heavier, noisier, more expensive, etc. and for many uses you probably won't be able to see a difference in the images.
The SLR is also faster, has less image noise, wider range of features, many lenses, etc. to justify it's place in the lineup.

Choose your weapon...I don't see one as inferior to the other. I still carry my P&S a lot!


boB

[Andy_T]

There are some major advantages of the more expensive, heavier, noisier etc. SLR:

- Significantly higher ISO:
If you use your G5 at 200 ISO, the noise becomes unbearable. For most images, 100 is the utmost acceptable. On the 300D, you can use 1600 (so with the same lens, you can take pictures at 1/100 sec where you 'll have a hard time to hand hold the camera at 1/10 sec with the G5)

- Faster/better autofocus
The G5 isn't known for its great autofocus. It's slow, unprecise and works poorly in badly lit areas. The 300D is significantly better here.

- Image Control
You can compose the image in the viewfinder, see the effect of the polarizer, check DOF etc. That's just not possible on the small LCD or viewfinder of the G5

Best regards,
Andy

[GenEOS]

Coming from a person who sold their G1 to get a D60, I can tell you the only thing I miss about that little camera. OK 2 things. 1.)asa50 2.) the abitlity to place that camera just about anywhere, and move the viewfinder to a comfortable position to take photos. It is a nice small camera with lots of features.

Only draw back is it is not an interchangeable lens camera. But it does have a f2.8 lens.....stock.

Its a toss up in my mind. Depends on what your end result is. Both are good cameras. I would have to see the examples of the iso differences to claim the 300d has less noise than the g5 at higher asa... It was my belief that Canon had fixed the noise problems withthe G5....

My 2 cents, let us know which one you get...

[dtrayers]

GenEOS wrote:
I would have to see the examples of the iso differences to claim the 300d has less noise than the g5 at higher asa...

I had a G3 and upgraded to a 300D. The ISO 50 of the G3 is the same, if not a little noiser, than the ISO 100 of the 300D. Up from there, the G3 gets a lot worse.

Phil Askey agrees:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp

Also, the f/2.0 of the G3 was nice for low light, but at the top end was f/8. And with the much smaller sensor, the DOF of the G3, even at f/2, was pretty narrow compared to a normal lens on the 300D.

[mwinog2777]

"Much inferior" ??

Its only moderately inferior.


Depends on what you want to do with camera, how much you want to spend, how easy to carry around and use.

I started with G1. Still have it, and its done some great 8x10 pictures.

Or do you want to go to the next level?

Glass isn't as good as lenses you would otherwise use for SLR. Doesn't have same low light capabilities. Sensor is smaller.

If you want a point/shoot camera, its pretty good, maybe the best; read review on dpreview.com.

[LegMaker]

Since it seems that you may be swaying towards the G5, I would agree with some of the other comments here and actually find a G3 instead. I'm assuming you would get it for cheaper and from what I've read, had better reviews and results than the G5.
There is something to be said about having a smaller camera that you can ALWAYS have with you for those "shots that got away" when you decided not to lug your DSLR and gear during your walk through the city. As far as quality goes, I have seen some incredible photographs posted on our "share photos" board here by many G series users. Check out some of Laz's stuff.
I'm in the opposite situation and now looking for a smaller camera to have with me at all times, just in case. It's an expensive addiction, this photography is!
My two cents.
Good luck.

[Crashzone]

Hi !

I agree completely on psk4363's wise words:

"Once you get on the D-SLR route, temptation will get to you additional lenses (e.g. a macro lens for close-up, a good telephoto for distance work, etc.). This isn't a problem until the day comes when you realise that you aren't taking many images any more, and when you work out why it's because all that kit you've bought is just too much to carry around with you."

I'm a happy owner of a G5 and I have no intention to trade it in! Not for long, that is. My experence is just the same, but with non-digital SLR's. I have heaps of stuff - 6 SLR houses, lenses, close-up flashes, tripods, filters.. -you name it!

And.. the PHOTOGRAPHING suffers in the end!
The G5 gave me back my interest and lust for photographing and I use my G5 most of the time, along with a small HP digital camera for snapshots AND my non-digital cameras for when I feel inspired to cary all the gears around with me.

I don't understand 'justme_dc" that wrote that the G5 has a "horrible chromatic abberation". There IS a chromatic abberation - yes - but it isn't that strong. Of the many thousand shots I've taken with the G5 there is very few occasions where it becomes disturbing.

I've been working as a camera technician repairing cameras, flashes, lenses etc for nine years, and maybe that fact gave me an "overdose" of cameras, taking fewer photos. Now when I've got the G5, I'm having good fun photographing again!

Best wishes / Bosse

[FOS2003]

Having shot film with the EOS 620 for a long time, I recently made the switch to digital with an Olympus D510 (2 MP). Great intro to digital, great pictures for only 2 MP--mainly snapshots, and small.

BUT I was missing shots due to the dreaded "lag", timing shots was tricky with the half-pressed shutter, and then missed shots between shots!

That was the final straw that allowed my CFO (i.e. wife) to green light the early Xmas/anniv./b-day/father's day present, the Dig. Reb.

And it's been great ever since! (Only been a week). I love being able to use my zoom lens, love the "larger" feel of the SLR (steady shots, more secure, etc) compare to my P&S, and NO LAG! I love blasting away without the guilt of wasting film--the perfect combo between digital and SLR.

Being the "unofficial photog/videographer" for most of our social get together, events, etc. (most of our friends have quit bringing their cameras if they know I'm going to be there--they just ask me to burn them a CD instead), I can get more shots with the DigReb like I used to when I worked for my undergrad's PR dept. as a staff photog.

Both are nice, but I'm usually lugging a miniDV camcorder and camera, so it's no big deal. Plus I work out and left weights...LOL!

Ernie

ps. I don't know if the G5 has any lag or not, so this may not be an issue with it. But the interchangable lens...nice!

[Andy_T]

Time lag may not be as bad on the G series as on other compact digitals, but it still is there.

Focusing is definitely faster on the DRebel.

Good point.

Regards,
Andy

[DNHayashida]

It depends on what you are going to take pictures of, and where. After years (32 - could it really be that long?) of using a film SLR, I went digital with a G2. The G2 was great - nice color, contrast, and sharpness. Until I tried to take action pictures of a basketball game inside a gym. I missed many pictures due to shutter lag, and to get anywhere close to a decent shutter speed I had to up the ISO to 200 or 400. The noise at 200 is horrible, and at 400 the pictures were unusable. So then I got the Digital Rebel. No shutter lag - or a shutter lag that isn't noticeable, about a quarter second or less and a useable 1600 ISO - it has a little noise, but 800 ISO is very smooth. I can't tell the DR's 400 iso from the G2's 50 ISO.

But - I still use the G2. I take it hiking because it is smaller and lighter, and in the daylight, and where shutter lag doesn't make any difference (landscapes, scenery, posed pictures, etc) at 50 or 100 ISO the pictures out of the camera are better than the DR's pictures. - Yes it is true - the pictures straight out of the camera are better from the G2. With all DSLRs that I have seen or read about the in camera processing - sharpening, contrast and color correction is less. It is up to you to do more post processing with PhotoShop or similar program. And, with a little practice you can make the DSLR pictures look better, but straight out of the camera you might be disappointed.

The question of is a DigiReb better than a Gx has to be qualified with what are you going to be taking pictures of and where?
Darryl Hayashida

[franky9]

dnhayashida wrote:
It depends on what you are going to take pictures of, and where. After years (32 - could it really be that long?) of using a film SLR, I went digital with a G2. The G2 was great - nice color, contrast, and sharpness. Until I tried to take action pictures of a basketball game inside a gym. I missed many pictures due to shutter lag, and to get anywhere close to a decent shutter speed I had to up the ISO to 200 or 400. The noise at 200 is horrible, and at 400 the pictures were unusable. So then I got the Digital Rebel. No shutter lag - or a shutter lag that isn't noticeable, about a quarter second or less and a useable 1600 ISO - it has a little noise, but 800 ISO is very smooth. I can't tell the DR's 400 iso from the G2's 50 ISO.

But - I still use the G2. I take it hiking because it is smaller and lighter, and in the daylight, and where shutter lag doesn't make any difference (landscapes, scenery, posed pictures, etc) at 50 or 100 ISO the pictures out of the camera are better than the DR's pictures. - Yes it is true - the pictures straight out of the camera are better from the G2. With all DSLRs that I have seen or read about the in camera processing - sharpening, contrast and color correction is less. It is up to you to do more post processing with PhotoShop or similar program. And, with a little practice you can make the DSLR pictures look better, but straight out of the camera you might be disappointed.

The question of is a DigiReb better than a Gx has to be qualified with what are you going to be taking pictures of and where?
Darryl Hayashida

Darryl et al, thanks so much for replying to my question. I think you have summed it up quite remarkably. The DR is definitely the better of the two. My ultimate concern is having to lug around a larger camera if I go the DR route. I must be honest Darryl you are the first person that has said the DR pics right out of the camera are not any better than the G5. I do not want to waste time modifying or correcting the pics with a 3rd party software. Do others believe this is true?
As for the pics I will be taking, they will mainly be family pics of my 2 young children inside and outside, birthday parties, outside shots, vacations, sporting events, son's soccer and hockey games, daughter's ballet, Christmas, all you parents know what I am talking about. I too am the family photographer! I dont want to say after buying the G5 that I should have bought the better DR and it sounds like that is what will happen according to many of the replies posted here. Money is not a concern here, size is!
Currently I have a 1979 Fujica ST801, takes great shots but I am tired of film. It's time for Digital. I am used to the size of a regular 35mm but I know it is inconvenient and costly. Thanks again for your help
Frank

[AndyDe]

I had a comprehensive eos film kit & bought the G2 for for my first foray's into digital...it was small but offered a fair bit of manual intervention. Since then I decided to switch completly to digital & purchesed a 10D. So I've now got the G2, which takes excellent pics, when I don't want to or cant takes a bag full of SLR kit along with the superb 10D & all my lenses for my SLR work.
For once I'm happy with my kit.
So if in any doubt....get both ! ;-)

[franky9]

dtrayers wrote:
GenEOS wrote:
I would have to see the examples of the iso differences to claim the 300d has less noise than the g5 at higher asa...

I had a G3 and upgraded to a 300D. The ISO 50 of the G3 is the same, if not a little noiser, than the ISO 100 of the 300D. Up from there, the G3 gets a lot worse.

Phil Askey agrees:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp

Also, the f/2.0 of the G3 was nice for low light, but at the top end was f/8. And with the much smaller sensor, the DOF of the G3, even at f/2, was pretty narrow compared to a normal lens on the 300D.
Darryl et al, thanks so much for replying to my question. I think you have summed it up quite remarkably. The DR is definitely the better of the two. My ultimate concern is having to lug around a larger camera if I go the DR route. I must be honest Darryl you are the first person that has said the DR pics right out of the camera are not any better than the G5. I do not want to waste time modifying or correcting the pics with a 3rd party software. Do others believe this is true?
As for the pics I will be taking, they will mainly be family pics of my 2 young children inside and outside, birthday parties, outside shots, vacations, sporting events, son's soccer and hockey games, daughter's ballet, Christmas, all you parents know what I am talking about. I too am the family photographer! I dont want to say after buying the G5 that I should have bought the better DR and it sounds like that is what will happen according to many of the replies posted here. Money is not a concern here, size is!
Currently I have a 1979 Fujica ST801, takes great shots but I am tired of film. It's time for Digital. I am used to the size of a regular 35mm but I know it is inconvenient and costly. Thanks again for your help
Frank

[scottbergerphoto]

I agree with many of the posters above. I have a G2 and love it for walking around pictures, and when i don't want to carry alot of gear. My wife prefers it when we are together as it takes up less of my attention. I have the 10D and love it to. When I use my 10D, it's more like I'm working on a project. I spend alot more time thinking about process: metering, depth of field, best lens, etc. They are both great cameras for what they are designed to do. Although I must admit I have some beautiful 8x10's from my G2 using a Pocket Wizard Plus wireless system with studio lights.
Scott

[Andy_T]

franky9 wrote:

Darryl et al, thanks so much for replying to my question. I think you have summed it up quite remarkably. The DR is definitely the better of the two. My ultimate concern is having to lug around a larger camera if I go the DR route. I must be honest Darryl you are the first person that has said the DR pics right out of the camera are not any better than the G5. I do not want to waste time modifying or correcting the pics with a 3rd party software. Do others believe this is true?
As for the pics I will be taking, they will mainly be family pics of my 2 young children inside and outside, birthday parties, outside shots, vacations, sporting events, son's soccer and hockey games, daughter's ballet, Christmas, all you parents know what I am talking about. I too am the family photographer! I dont want to say after buying the G5 that I should have bought the better DR and it sounds like that is what will happen according to many of the replies posted here. Money is not a concern here, size is!
Currently I have a 1979 Fujica ST801, takes great shots but I am tired of film. It's time for Digital. I am used to the size of a regular 35mm but I know it is inconvenient and costly. Thanks again for your help
Frank

Now that's only the first part - you are now informed and have narrowed down your options.

Seems like the G5 and the DR with the kit lens are both possible alternatives to get you started.

The second part is going to the photo shop and trying out the two cameras side by side, comparing which one you like better, how big/small they really are etc, whether *you* consider flexibility or size more important...

BTW, if size is an issue, then you might also look at the S50!

Similar functionality (Creative modes) as the G5, smaller package. Think you lose one f/stop from the lens and the ability to add external flash and converters. (But then, if you want those, you'd maybe go all the way for the DR :))

Regards,
Andy

[billhercus]

Different cameras .... different purpose sums it all up beautifully.

I am very lucky with a G3 and EOS 300D. I gave up film 35mm, - far too much to carry about- traded the lot in years ago for a very good compact. No of pictures taken increased tenfold as it (the compact) was with me far more.

Sheer flexibilty and joy of no cost experimentation with my G3 has rekindled interest in more serious work and led to the 300D. BUT the G3 is with me for that unexpected event. The 300D for the continued development (sic) of a great hobby