G9 – A worthless tank?

[Glenn S]

I'm certainly no photographer, but I like snapping a shot once in a while. I've taken more at home than when I'm out, since I'm usually too wrapped up in the adventure to stop and take it all in. Something I need to slow down a little for I think. Personal goal. Anyway…

All I have is a 3mp camera on my Android device, which takes pretty crummy pictures. So I've been perusing this section a little, and looking at just an upgraded Android device and hemming and hawing and I just don't know. A few years back I bought a Canon G9 and it seems to take pretty good pictures, but it weighs an unwieldy 13 oz with the battery. NOT part of an UL kit! Or is it? With the 6x optical zoom and 1cm macro, is it a trade off? Is this thing just an old relic and a tank, or are the options that come on it justifiable for the weight?

I'm quite naive about cameras, but the kind of pictures I like taking are ones like these. I know purpose makes a difference on camera selection. The bugs were macro, but the hummer was with tele, which is what I'd probably use tele most for. It seems like anything works for landscape shots, so I hope I'm being relevant with the info I'm providing. I just don't want to plunk down a bunch of money on another camera just to bring in the woods, only to find it ends up weighing as much to get the same shots. Nor do I want to lug this tank around if it's a dinosaur. Not worried about video. Thanks for any advice. (They're clickable photobucket images)

[Bob Gross]

The Canon G9 is a few years old, but it can still get respectable results as long as there is nothing broken on it. But that is more of a judgment call on the part of the photographer. Do you think it gets respectable results? If yes, then keep it.

I see photographers retiring older cameras when one of a few problems arises. One is that they want or need more megapixels. I can understand that if you are trying to print large, or if you crop the center of the shot. Another reason is for color noise performance. Again, this is a judgment thing. Many cameras get good low noise only at ISO 100 or 200. As soon as you start kicking it up to ISO 400 or 800, the color noise gets poor, and higher ISO numbers are almost totally objectionable.

Maybe ten years ago I was "processing out" much of the color noise that I saw then in my old Canon D60 and 20D camera bodies. That was a work-around, but the newer generations of camera bodies offered lower and lower color noise. For a time, each new generation of Canon was improving the color noise performance by one stop per generation. So, that kept motivating some of us to keep moving up to newer and newer camera bodies. Now I'm happy shooting at ISO 800 nearly all of the time, and I almost never think about it.

Personally, I would be tickled pink to operate with a camera that light. I normally have about ten pounds of camera gear with me.

–B.G.–

[Glenn S]

"Personally, I would be tickled pink to operate with a camera that light."

It's just that I see these point/shoot jobs at 4 oz, which I wouldn't expect much from, but there seems to be a whole array around the 8 oz mark. I like the ease of point/shoots, but I also like the ease of the G9's manual overrides (hardware vs software controls) for those tricky lighting shots, even if I am still fairly clueless about "proper" use of it all. Then there's the hotshoe, swappable lens ring, etc, that give it a "big camera" feel to it.

I guess I wonder if I would be dissapointed with the performance of a lighter outfit and be sacrificing all the verstility that comes with this larger camera… Relatively speaking of course.

Oh, and no, there's nothing broken on it. It's in like-new condition with under 1k shots on it. As I say, I'm not a photographer by any stretch of the imagination lol

[Bob Gross]

I think you answered your own question.

I think the larger size, manual overrides, and depth of field control are good. I'm on my sixth Canon body now. I generally don't start shopping around for a new one until after I have 10K on the shutter.

–B.G.–

[Adam Kilpatrick]

The S90 (and onwards) series is much like the G series, except a much more compact form factor and fewer direct controls. Big weight and size saving. There wasn't much practical difference between the S90, 95 and 100 but the newest models probably jump some steps in speed now (esp AF and start up times, these have improved in all cameras recently).

There isn't much wrong with a G9 though. Don't upgrade until you feel limited by it, that's my advice. Learn as much about photography and composing and taking pictures-its a good tool for that with a lot of manual controls. Once you work all that out, and start getting annoyed at it holding you back, then upgrade. That's my advice anyway.

[Rog Tallbloke]

Great example photos, you have talent. The best camera is the one you have at the ready. The G9 has 6x zoom. This is useful for the shots you like to take, and the macro is good.

Lighter comparable IQ cameras are the Sony HX10 and the Pentax Q7 with constant f2.8 telezoom lens ($$$)

I think I'd stick with the Canon for now.

[Roger Caffin]

Humble opinion:
The G9 is good enough in pixel count, zoom ratio, and range of SLR-style controls, that imho the limiting factor for a long time will be the hand holding it.
And your photos seem to be fine.

Fwiiw: I used to reckon that one 'good' photo per reel of film was 'reasonable'. The ratio still seems relevant.

The bad photos are the ones you don't bother to take.

Cheers

[Glenn S]

Alright, well thanks for the input guys. I guess there's some weight savings to be had out there (isn't there always?), but it doesn't sound like I need to be feeling overwhelming guilt by toting my current device along.

[Author]

Posts