40D + G9

Hi Everyone

I would like some comments from all who've splashed out and bought the G9 to compliment their 40D.

I have not done any controlled or scientific tests but I am more impressed with the general picture quality of the G9 than the 40D on a pound for pound basis (Call it dollars if you are the other side of the pond). Seeing as the G9 has a few more megapixels under it's belt am I to assume that my observations are correct and the extra pixels are enhancing the picture quality?

Of course I realise that the G9 lacks the versatility of the 40D SLR with all its available lenses etc: and I am not exactly a novice to digital phtography - but I would really like your comments/experience. Note:- I was fairly happy with the 40D untill the G9 fell into my hands - Is Canon just waiting to bring out the next version of the 40D with a 12 MPix sensor - or maybe a 14 or 16MPix sensor? Count me in Canon - blast you.

Just an added point - the 580EX MkII works well with both cameras - I am impressed.

Regards and happy Christmas to you all.

Hmmm. some comparison pics would be great especially one at ISO800 or ISO1600.

I do find that in certain situations, my old Nikon 8700 compact can match the 40D making identifying a pic taken from one to the other very difficult. But those conditions are pretty narrow. Family parties where everything is taken with a flash or out doors in full daylight with slow moving subjects the Nikon does great. Stray from those and the camera starts to show it weakness. I don't often shoot hight ISO, but with the 40D i consider ISO 400 as a low ISO as the noise is almost invisible. ISO 800 and 1600 are hight ISO. With my Nikon, ISO100 is already hight ISO and ISO 400 is unusable.

There is a place for both and latly I find myself going to the P/S more often as it's easier, delivers an image every bit as good as the 40D, it's portable and quick. The SLRs are mainly used when I go out shooting for fun.

ture my G6, you would notice alot of noise at iso 400

but MP isnt all there is to be
8.10.12.14mp on the same sized sensor, your not really gaining all that much

Hi John

I agree - I find myself going 'Green Square Shooting' with the G9 more than the 40D which I use for the more serious/pleasure stuff.

I must admit the high ISO performance of the 40D is better though.

There is obviously a place for both and maybe I haven't given enough thought to what I am trying to say.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #4563077
Hi Everyone

I would like some comments from all who've splashed out and bought the G9 to compliment their 40D.

I have not done any controlled or scientific tests but I am more impressed with the general picture quality of the G9 than the 40D on a pound for pound basis (Call it dollars if you are the other side of the pond). Seeing as the G9 has a few more megapixels under it's belt am I to assume that my observations are correct and the extra pixels are enhancing the picture quality?

Of course I realise that the G9 lacks the versatility of the 40D SLR with all its available lenses etc: and I am not exactly a novice to digital phtography - but I would really like your comments/experience. Note:- I was fairly happy with the 40D untill the G9 fell into my hands - Is Canon just waiting to bring out the next version of the 40D with a 12 MPix sensor - or maybe a 14 or 16MPix sensor? Count me in Canon - blast you.

Just an added point - the 580EX MkII works well with both cameras - I am impressed.

Regards and happy Christmas to you all.

I'm hoping to get one of these little gems for Christmas this year ... it's a fantastic little camera. However good the G9 is though it has nowhere near the ability of a 40D. IMO:

1. More megapixels just means more noise. Personally I wish Canon didn't get caught up in MP wars with this camera. With a MUCH larger sensor and lower MP your 40D is capable of much better IQ than a G9, not worse. And please Canon, don't increase the MP of the 5D MK II

2. Because of packing so many MP on such a tiny sensor the G9 exhibits a lot of noise at ISO 400 and above. You would probably need to shoot at ISO 1600 on your 40D to match the noise at ISO 400 on the G9.

3. Because of the tiny sensor on a P&S the depth of field is huge. With a DSLR you can have a extremely narrow depth of field requiring a lot more skill (and more accurate AF system) to ensure that correct focus has been attained.

4. It's hard to beat a DSLR for fast power up time and low shutter lag.

If you aren't looking for responsiveness or shallow DOF and if you shoot at ISO 100-200 I agree that a G9 would do just as well as a 40D and few could tell which camera took the final image.

I have both and am disappointed by the G9 at anything over ISO 100. My 20D was far better at ISO 800 than the G9 is at ISO 200 or more as far as I am concerned, but considering that for my needs I don't have a lot of other choices that are better and will cost about the same. I bought mine for underwater use, and I am not willing to buy nor dive with a DSLR in a housing the size that they are. A P & S in an underwater housing is all I want, and right now the G9 has the manual controls I need for my use, although I just found another possible camera to consider which is sold with a housing & which may be slightly less noisy because it is only 10 mp.

cicopo wrote in post #4563672
I have both and am disappointed by the G9 at anything over ISO 100. My 20D was far better at ISO 800 than the G9 is at ISO 200 or more as far as I am concerned ...

This is exactly my feeling. According to DPReview though, of all of the new generation P&S cameras the G9 is about as good as it gets. If I get one I doubt that I'll ever shoot higher than ISO 200.

It would be interesting to see an equivalent camera to the G9 with a 6 MP sensor with all of the lastest and greatest sensor design elements. Who knows, maybe we could actually have a P&S with useable ISO 800.

Ya know, I mulled this over myself and decided not to go that route. I have a Powershot A700 that's pretty sweet but thought maybe the G9 would make a better backup. turns out I'd rather just keep the A700 as more MP's doesn't mean much if you can't shoot clean at 400-800. My A700 actually looks pretty good at 400 and decent at 800. I decided if I'm gonna spend $450 on a P&S I might as well just get a xt kit.

Hey, Ray.Petri
Is that an Albino squirel (your avitar)? Never seen such a creature. Very cool

thatkatmat wrote in post #4564669
Hey, Ray.Petri
Is that an Albino squirel (your avitar)? Never seen such a creature. Very cool

Good question....

I've got a G7 hacked to shoot RAW and a 40D. Actually, I like my G7 better than the G9 for IQ. The G7 and G9 share the same lens.

The 40D is a much better camera IQ wise at any ISO in my opinion. Both cameras have their place usage wise, but I find myself carrying both a lot now.

As I was pondering the G9 I noticed the G7 was like $100 more than the G9, maybe just because it got replced? Dunno??

Hi Guys - Happy Christmas to one and all - Jingle Bells - Jingle Bells ---------

To Thatkatmat and Master-9:- Re the Squirel - yes; it was an Albino - complete with pink eyes - it regularly used to visit my garden and would sometimes sit atop my radio mast until this year. I think it must have passed on during the winter to where little squirels pass on to. For the more suspicious minded - it was NOT a Photoshop tweaked red or grey one.

Regards

I captured it with a 70-200 f4L with a 1.4x MkII Extender.

Hi everyone and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or if that is not applicable May you always, as long as you want to, whatever it is.

Now to get the the nitty gritty I have a G9 and a 20D and a 400D and a little Panasonic. All of them have been used in various locations by at least 4 different people ranging from absolutely ancient (not me) ancient (me) Middle aged and young (13) The ones that have optional lens have had those tried and the results range from Bl***y good to absolutely awful - certainly some of mine!
My opinion that the photographer; the location and the ambience produce the prize winning photo and not the camera, I think still holds good.
Yes a reasonable lens and, for the digital people, a reasonable number of pixels will make a difference - certainly the G9 is noisy at higher ISO speeds. but at the end of the day, if one of us goes to Brighton beach and takes "that shot" then it will be praiseworthy in all but the most extreme circumstances.
I maintain that, for a really versatile camera that gives good results, has an optical viewfinder as well as the electric one, can be shoved in the pocket and if you want to upgrade its memory can take literally thousands of pix (with a battery change of course) then the G9 fits the bill admirably.
Prices are coming down too after Crimbo!
If you want one go and fight with the local J*****s manager - they all seem to have a different hymn book to sign from when it comes to price.

Best of hunting

Hi

Bob - Simmo2006 is quite possibly right - it is the photographer; the location and the ambience that produce the prize winning photo and not necessarily the camera. However; the quality of the equipment in the photographers hands can produce the drive and inspiration to make better pictures.
But when the location and ambience is just right we must surely be correct in saying that a better camera will make that picture a little better? After all - if what Bob is saying really is correct - why bother with a decent camera and simply snap the subject with a cell phone and save some money. I haven't seen you advertising your gear yet Bob - perhaps it'll be on ebay in the new year?

Ray