a720is Vs. G9 high ISO quality

[sabesh]

Has anyone used both these cams? If so, I need an unbiased opinion:

Which produces better pics at ISO 400 and 800? I just purchased an a720IS to complement my DSLR and have been pleased by it's IQ. It produces decent IQ at ISO 400 and even ISO 800. Can the G9 do the same? (the reviews I'm reading suggest otherwise). I could use the extra pixels & RAW on the G9, so thinking of upgrading.

How about the lens? Both have a 6x zoom lens. Is one sharper than the other?

Thx,

Sabesh.

[bobtodrick]

The G9, especially when RAW (and it's ability to be used with noise reduction programs) is used should outperform the 720. As well the lens in the G9 has, according to Canon a number of 'L' series specification elements...and is considered to be one of the best lenses on a compact camera...though it does suffer badly from wideangle (barrel) distortion.
I think that some of the compacts get an undeserved bad 'rap' when compared to the DSLR's. People seem to think back to the film days and remember that a high quality p&s (say a Contax TV or Leica Minilux) gave comparable image quality to an SLR...whereas the G9 at high ISO is no comparison to, for example a 40D. But of course the recording medium...the film...was the same in both of the film cameras...where as the sensor in the G9 is much smaller than the DSLR.
It just isn't a fair comparison.
What needs to be considered (IMHO) is not just out and out image quality...but how much image degradation are you willing to accept in exchange for a small, pocketable quality camera?
All I know is that I shoot a lot of musicans in low light situations that are not really conducive to a big DSLR rig (meaning I grew up on M Leica's and am too lazy to haul around a 25lb bag of gear)...and in the last 8 months my G7 has made me about $4000...and made a lot of happy musicans.

[Dorman]

What needs to be considered (IMHO) is not just out and out image quality...but how much image degradation are you willing to accept in exchange for a small, pocketable quality camera?


Well said - I've kept this in mind and I'm picking up a G9 today for the times that I can't, or don't want to, pay the size/weight/inconvenience cost of carrying my DSLR rig. I'm also hoping this will encourage me to shoot more by carrying a camera more - the IQ that can be produced by the G9 in the right hands is also nothing to sneeze at.

[Cashmonee]

Take a look at these:

G9 ISO 400
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/viewer.php?picture=CanonG9-PeopleSL-ISO400-2.jpg

A720IS ISO 400
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/viewer.php?picture=CanonA720IS-PeopleSL-ISO400.jpg

G9 ISO 800
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/viewer.php?picture=CanonG9-PeopleSL-ISO800-2.jpg

A720IS ISO 800
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/viewer.php?picture=CanonA720IS-PeopleSL-ISO800.jpg

At ISO 400 it seems they are fairly comparable, but at ISO 800, the A720IS seems to have a slight advantage. Both are serviceable at 400 probably as long as you won't be blowing it up too much. I don't think either is really usable at 800 without help in PP. However, you know what kind of quality you need so those should give you an idea. If you want to see the whole review that includes examples of all of the ISO settings of both cameras go here:

G9
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-G9-Digital-Camera-Review-15723.htm

A720IS
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS-Digital-Camera-Review-15944.htm

[sabesh]

<snip> At ISO 400 it seems they are fairly comparable, but at ISO 800, the A720IS seems to have a slight advantage. Both are serviceable at 400 probably as long as you won't be blowing it up too much. I don't think either is really usable at 800 without help in PP <snip>
Thx! Yes, looks they are indeed comparable upto ISO 400. However, the a720IS does have an advantage at higher ISOs. I'm now beginning to doubt if the G9 will be more useful for me than the a720IS (I'll mainly be using it for casual snapshots and street shooting with no flash; I have a 5D for the serious stuff). Anyways, I'm off to purchase a G9: I can always exchange it again if not happy with it (size, lack of grip, noise, shutter lag etc).


<snip> What needs to be considered (IMHO) is not just out and out image quality...but how much image degradation are you willing to accept in exchange for a small, pocketable quality camera? <snip>
Thx, I agree completely.

[BobsYourUncle]

I have found the noise above 200 is quite noticeable on the G9.

I cannot offer a direct comparison, but because I dislike grainy pictures, I will only use a high ISO setting if absolutely necessary. Most of my shots are able to be taken at 80, which is where I leave the dial. I like the results there.

I have tried a number of identical pictures at various ISO settings and thats where I conclude that if you want quality, don't go over 200.

Having said that though, I have found that I have yet to NEED to shoot at 400 or 800 or higher. I have done some just to see the results. I have obtained the desired results by using a slower shutter speed. I have also got quite good at propping my hands and camera against an immovable object to minimize shake at half second exposures. Failing that, I break out my little pocket sized mini tripod.

Works for me. I love the camera - it takes awesome pictures.

[Dorman]

Just picked up a G9 on much lunch break to give me a more managable solution to my dslrs, can't wait to give it a go!

[bobtodrick]

One thing I would like to point out is that I think a lot of people take an image with a compact at high ISO, blow them up on the computer monitor and go...'wow, look at all that noise'...which is often a little unfair because the nature of the beast (backlit monitor) means it will show those little sparklies to great effect.
I've found that an image at 400 can indeed look terrible on my monitor, but with a bit of post processing plus the proper paper selection (I find Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl to be very good) I can make an 8x10 print whose apparent noise is no worse than and 8x10 on 400ISO film.

[Blue S2]

I chose the 720 over the G9 because it was more comfortable to hold in one hand and it was a bit smaller. And it also ran on 2 AA. I felt that would be more convenient should I find myself in a weird situation with no batteries. I could use my flash battery charger for it eliminating the need for yet another charger.

I honestly can't say the images are any different than a G series camera. I used a G2 for a long time. Anything below 800 ISO should be just fine. Sensor technology and megapixels is going to limit how good any compact looks above 400 ISO. I don't assume I am actually going to rely on a compact for any real work, so I wasn't concerned if the G9 lens was supposedly better, etc...

The 720 has been a lot of fun for what it is, and for the price! Its way cheaper than a G9!

[sabesh]

One thing I would like to point out is that I think a lot of people take an image with a compact at high ISO, blow them up on the computer monitor and go...'wow, look at all that noise'...which is often a little unfair because the nature of the beast (backlit monitor) means it will show those little sparklies to great effect.
I've found that an image at 400 can indeed look terrible on my monitor, but with a bit of post processing plus the proper paper selection (I find Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl to be very good) I can make an 8x10 print whose apparent noise is no worse than and 8x10 on 400ISO film.
I agree with your reasoning; However, I think it's completely fair to make that observation. I and most of my friends and family now view pics on large screen monitors or large LCD photo frames. On occasion, we print out worthy memorable pics. I'll have to respectfully say that this is the way of the future: Digital viewing ;) I have three 8" photo frames in the house in addition to viewing them on my 55" TV via Apple TV :) I also edit my pics on a 24" iMac screen. And, I'm not the only one as I've noted before. I'm not saying that noise needs to be completely eliminated: I'm saying that noise needs to be sensibly controlled. Pumping upto 12mp on a small sensor is NOT the way it can be sensibly controlled ;) If manufacturers are going to do that, they really should control it's consequences. An average salesperson will sell megapixels to an average consumer. There's no way they'll realize what they sell or buy until they actually try it out before purchase, which is rarely the case. For MINE and my family & friend's needs, noise control is essential. Cheers.

PS> I just picked up a G9. It's big compared to the a720IS; and, puny compared to my 5D w/ 85L II. Will test it out for a week and see if it's a keeper. If not, back to the a720IS. Here's an interesting article from a popular Canon DSLR user:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_powershot-a720is_review.html

[sabesh]

I chose the 720 over the G9 because it was more comfortable to hold in one hand and it was a bit smaller. And it also ran on 2 AA. I felt that would be more convenient should I find myself in a weird situation with no batteries.<snip>

I honestly can't say the images are any different than a G series camera. I used a G2 for a long time. Anything below 800 ISO should be just fine. Sensor technology and megapixels is going to limit how good any compact looks above 400 ISO. <snip>
These are the reasons why I purchased the a720IS in the first place. However, I need some cropping room. I'm hoping that the G9 matches or exceeds the a720IS's IQ. If so, AND if I find the G9 comfy to carry around, I'll keep the G9. Thx.

[Cashmonee]

One thing I would like to point out is that I think a lot of people take an image with a compact at high ISO, blow them up on the computer monitor and go...'wow, look at all that noise'...which is often a little unfair because the nature of the beast (backlit monitor) means it will show those little sparklies to great effect.
I've found that an image at 400 can indeed look terrible on my monitor, but with a bit of post processing plus the proper paper selection (I find Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl to be very good) I can make an 8x10 print whose apparent noise is no worse than and 8x10 on 400ISO film.

I have to agree with Sabesh here, more and more people are doing their main viewing on screens, whether it be a computer monitor or the ever more popular digital frames. In fact, I believe one of the best features of digital photography is the ability to share photos with a great number of people through the internet.

[bobtodrick]

I'll not disagree...well actually I will a bit. I sell, among other things digital frames...they have the highest return rate of any product in recent memory where the reason for return was 'I just don't like it...'
But...even so, why blame the camera for what in this case is a problem with the viewing medium?
Noise tends to show up less on a CRT monitor, for example, than an LCD...so why not push for better LCD monitors or perhaps technology that would allow the monitor to deal in part with the noise issue...it is a case of the areas that make up what we call noise as being very noticeable when backlit.
In my mind it is the same as viewing a conventionally (and properly made) fibre base print and comparing it to a quick and dirty RC print (the RC will loose every time) and saying...gee, the film must be at fault.
I agree totally however that the digicams would be best served (noise wise) if the maximum resolution was 8mp or so...lots of resolution for a decent size print but way less noise.
The resolution thing has gotten way out of hand and is only a marketing tool.