How does your G9/10 stack up to your DSLR?

[cmdisme]

In terms of image detail/sharpness and focus accuracy, how well does your G9/10 compare to your DSLR (at base ISO)?

I know this may sound like a weighted question. I've been shooting with a FZ28 and while a great superzoom, the images could be sharper/cleaner. We have a lot of fair skin blondes in our family and eyelashes can quickly disappear. I've been considering a XSi, but a) the cost is quite high with a wider range 7-8x lens and b) I'm not sure I'd like carrying around a larger camera.

A friend sent a couple G10 vs D60 pics to me. The D60 images had a bit more DR and saturation, but with a touch of tweaking it was hard to tell which was which -- in fact, the G10 actually had sharper details. Curious what your experience have been.

[DaryleH]

I don't own a DSLR since I have Arthritis and can't hold up said beasts, I joined this group for info for the G series and so far the biggest thread is some oly cam not even within the thread mods, I have many Canons going back to 1962, too bad Canon didn't follow Pentax:lol:

[GordonSBuck]

I've made a project of documenting my experiences over the last two years with my G9 in a blog,
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/
which probably includes over a hundred G3 or G9 specific posts.

I like my G9 a lot and have it near me most of the time. That said, almost any recent DSLR will acquire focus noticably quicker than the G3, G9 or (I'm assuming now) the G10/11. Image quality? Truth be known, the G6/7/9/10 (assume 11) is more than adequate for most of us and even the G3 is OK. A large print made from a G10 was favorably compared to the same size print from a medium format digital camera costing almost 100 times as much (referenced in a thread on this forum); however, the professional taking those pictures still uses his medium format camera!

[Jim G]

I shoot with a G9 when I'm with family (Dad's camera) and with a 1D III personally most of the rest of the time and the 1D slaughters the G9 when it comes to focus speed and accuracy, particularly with difficult AF situations or low light. It's not in the slightest a fair comparison, though...

Take both cameras at f/8, shoot an average scene at a similar focal length in not particularly challenging light at base ISO, print them out 4x6" and I bet I'd have difficulty telling the difference... as would most people. Luminous Landscape did the test that Gordon refers to above with a Hasselblad and a G9, iirc... and a lot of very experienced pros had a lot of difficulty picking the difference.

[jimmyfingers]

l'm also curious about how they compare at base ISO quality. I have no intention of shooting indoor and any low light (dusk/dawn shots) would be made on a tripod. I wouldn't need the 3.5 shot per second so I'm wondering if I really need to bother spending a little more on the 450D or just get a G10? I can remove any ISO 80 noise with Noise Ninja so that doesn't really bother me. The only concern is if I print at 16"x20" (Maybe even one size up from that again) what the difference in quality would be like. Dynamic range may also be an issue. Jacket pocketable would be far more convenient too.

[GordonSBuck]

... The only concern is if I print at 16"x20" (Maybe even one size up from that again) what the difference in quality would be like. ...

With care in exposure and processing, I can get acceptable (to me) 12"x18" prints from my G9 at ISO 80 so I imagine that the G11 will be OK as well. The G10 at that size is, as noted previously, proven. But at this amount of enlargement is certainly debatable. If you are serious about enlarging even more than 16x20, then I suggest that you need a different camera and probably more pixels as well.

What are you currently using to take and print such large pictures?

[jimmyfingers]

Nothing at the moment since recently selling my 40D 17-40L combo. It's just in case I manage to capture a really nice photo that I may want to print it large. Maybe I'm just trying to cover all the bases a little too hard! lol

I think at the moment I'm 60% going for the 450D, 40% for the G10

[denncald]

Why not wait for the G11? It seems like it may have an edge in dynamic range and noise factors.

I still have my trusty G9, and I've had images printed at 24" x 36" that look fine to me and many others. I'm not a pro, but all our friends think the prints are great.

Dennis

[mlav]

Are you using it for portraits? No P&S will ever match a fast DSLR lense...DOF.

For people shots, the last camera I would grab is my G9.

[mathogre]

I have both the G9 and the XSi. You can look at various review sites and look at G9/G10 (and eventually G11) shots versus any DSLR you might consider. You can also read/listen to the Conventional Wisdom about what works and what doesn't.

Personally I find the G9 to be a very nice camera and one that I'll use for most anything. The most challenging work I've done with the G9 has been aircraft taking off or landing at National Airport (DCA). When you can easily read the aircraft type designation of a B737-400 on final approach at around 150kts from a G9 photo (proof is below), I think that says something about the camera.

Despite that, I prefer my XSi as it is almost entirely more flexible than the G9. (The one advantage to the G9 is that it has a built-in neutral density filter.) One of my main reasons for getting the XSi is that I wanted something that works well in low-light situations. Sure, the G9 can go to ISO3200, but you don't want to do that. The XSi makes nice photos at ISO1600.

I bought the XSi because the price was low enough. I had a film SLR in the past and wanted to get back into photography. Had I not been able to afford it, I would have been happy and pleased with the results from my G9.

1. Full image, shot with G9 in jpg (vs RAW) at Fine compression (versus Superfine).
http://homepage.mac.com/mathogre/.Pictures/IMG_3588.png

2. 100% crop.
http://homepage.mac.com/mathogre/.Pictures/IMG_3588_crop.png

[jimmyfingers]

Why not wait for the G11? It seems like it may have an edge in dynamic range and noise factors.

Dennis


As the G11 here in the U.K. will be £569 (US $940) when it is released, but I can get a G10 for £330 (US $545). I guess I'll have to wait for the reviews to see if it's worth the extra money.

[bsmotril]

G9 compared to 50D, no real comparison. The shutter lag and slowness of the G9 servo focus modes make it no replacement for the 50D for shooting action sports or racing. In good light where you're at ISO 100, image quality is comparable to my eyes. But go shoot a concert or club or indoor sport at ISO1600, and the G9 images are unusable.

[cmdisme]

G9 compared to 50D, no real comparison. The shutter lag and slowness of the G9 servo focus modes make it no replacement for the 50D for shooting action sports or racing. In good light where you're at ISO 100, image quality is comparable to my eyes. But go shoot a concert or club or indoor sport at ISO1600, and the G9 images are unusable.

Thanks for the input, but that's sort of an extreme IMO. I'm not talking about concerts, sporting events, etc, as the OP says. I'm just talking casual family pics and considering an entry level EOS with something like a 18-200 f4-6.3 lens. To get back to the OP:

In terms of image detail/sharpness and focus accuracy (at base ISO)... We have a lot of fair skin blondes in our family and eyelashes can quickly disappear. I've been considering a XSi with a wider range 7-8x lens.

[PlayersZ28]

I have a 40D and a G10. I use them for different things though so I don't think you can just simply compare a P&S to a DSLR without some parameters to compare on.

I wouldn't think of using the G10 on anything where I need to capture something at a specific moment (sports, etc) the shutter reactions is too slow. It's very portable though so it goes more places.

[cmdisme]

[QUOTE=PlayersZ28;8644160]I have a 40D and a G10. I use them for different things though so I don't think you can just simply compare a P&S to a DSLR without some parameters to compare on.

in terms of image detail/sharpness and focus accuracy (at base ISO)

[David_Senesac]

Reviews on the G10 at some of the most respected technical digital camera review sites on the web showed it to be rather favorable to output of a number of DSLR cameras when set to ISO80 or ISO100. That was a major selling point to this person because my major intended usage was only going to be tripod mounted for static closeup subjects. Another major selling point was it was claimed the sensor given its smaller cell sizes has the highest density of any sensor including those of any DSLR. To me that meant it might also deliver the most depth of field fine detail in closeup work given equal aperture sizes, even more so than DSLR's. Basically more pixels in smaller areas results in more potential depth of field detail given a constant aperture.

This is the fourth digital camera I've owned since 2001. Note my main work is large format 4x5 film and I shot 35mm and MF many years. So this G10 is the first digital camera where the highest resolution actually results in a reasonable capture of that amount of data. In other words say when I had a 4mp camera, capturing at 4mp really was so soft that the output was probably no better than a 3mp camera with a matched sharp lens because the physical optics fell short of the sensor potential. And I've seen similar results from shots on the modest number of other compact digital cameas of others I've looked at when one zooms out to 100%. Of course camera manufacturer marketing types proudly proclaim sensor megapixels without ever a peep about how much detail might actually result in output and consumers for the most part swallow it whole until they take a serious look at the way DSLR's with less megapixels but sharp lenses are much better. Also obviously the dynamic range of well designed DSLR sensors with larger cell areas will generally out perform those with small cell areas like all compacts. Thus the highlights and shadows given the same level of resolution can predictably be better rendered with a DSLR sensor.

I have recently uploaded a unique closeup gallery on my website that besides the downsized for web display full frame images also includes 100% crops from those same image files in order to view the fine detail.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/digi_closeups.html

So one may view a 4400x3200 pixel full frame image that has been downsized by a factor of 6.1 to 720x524 pixels plus a 720x720 pixel crop within the 100% full frame. Thus one can see the level of detail possible from this impressive 14.7mp camera. Note the two galleries also contain images from work with my previous 7mp Nikon Coolpix. However I have a species index page in table format that includes a column for each image file's 6 character alphanumeric name. All those filenames that begin with a G as for instance GW0303, have been taken this year with my G10. Thus just to look at G10 taken images use this page and choose images starting with a G:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/Sierra/sierra_wf_species.html

For example here is one such image full frame downsized:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/Sierra/238.jpg

And here is a 100% pixels crop from that same image file:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/Sierra/238cr.jpg

[WatchFan1]

I have G9 and now just recently purchased T1i /500d (had XTi/450 before).
DOF on G9 is very handy, slow shutter is not. Pictures with a plenty of daylight are very comparable.

NOW....when I compare XTi with T1i there is HUGE difference in quality of low light
shots in high ISO. (Can't wait for G11 with the same processor !!)

Tough to compare ...they both have their benefits and disadvantages.
I absolutely love my new T1i ! Not as bulky as some pro-bodies and one can squeeze some
serious quality pictures from it....(but as we have seen here - same can be done with G9.10 (if there is enough light ;) )

In the end as much as I find my DSLR superior in more aspects than my G9 - if in theory I could keep 'only one camera'.....I would pick G9 without hesitation.

Why, because I do not make living taking pictures and I have my G9 on me most of the time (this simply is NOT possible with DSLR) and the benefit
of compactness just overrules all the pluses that my DSLR has.

[denncald]

I have recently uploaded a unique closeup gallery on my website that besides the downsized for web display full frame images also includes 100% crops from those same image files in order to view the fine detail.



David,

Excellent images! I was noticing your comments on the G10 images included a reference to use of a diffusion disk. I'm not sure I understand what that is. Are you referring to something like a circular translucent screen you hold up to cut down the sharp light of the sun? Or, were you referring to something like an Expodisc to set white balance? I did several Google searches and received confusing results.

EDIT: I found the answer on one of your web links;

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/david_cu_ethic.html

thanks,
Dennis

[tol1l1yboy]

I actually love using my G10. I shoot mostly outside and in well lit situations but the ND filter built in and easy HDR (3 photos) makes it a definite keeper for a little camera. I still use my D300 more (mostly for the ultrawide and low light situations) but I love having my G10 and carry it with me everywhere.

[CJinAustin]

This has been discussed many times... you can produce great pictures in good light but bad ones in poor... Also remember that if you want a limited depth of field the G-series cannot really do this. If your good in PP you can have a lot of fun with a G-series. but it's limited by its sensor size,,, while a DSLR is limited by it's overall size.

[Mintie]

I've been using a 40D for about a year, prior to that a 350D and prior to that various film cameras. Just a couple of weeks ago I purchased a 2nd hand G9 I happened to see sitting on the local camera shop shelf. I'd been hankering for a smaller, more portable system than the 40D for a while.

While I've having some fantastic fun with the G9 and taking some great shots, the IQ is nowhere near that of the 40D. But neither did I expect it to be.

[CJinAustin]

IQ is nowhere near that of the 40D. But neither did I expect it to be.

Exactly, if you have 40D expectations you will be disappointed with this camera.