G7 or G9

If Canon G9 did not have a RAW, had the same LCD size and cost the same as Canon

G7, which one would you get and why?

<p><i>"If Canon G9 did not have a RAW, had the same LCD size and cost the same as Canon G7"</i></p>

<p>Without those, a G9 is just a G7 with 12mp instead of 10. If it were like that I'd get a G7 for theoretically lower noise. However, your hypothetical scenario is basically comparing two identical apples. The fact is, a G9 <i>does</i> have RAW, a larger LCD, and a higher cost, so why the comparison in this manner?

If you only had one arm and were asked to point at the camera of your choice which arm would you choose to point with?

I waited all these many months, and finally bought the G9, and --dang it -- I was asking myself the wrong question!

you mean you should have gotten G7?<p>

For those who asked why I posted this question: the only thing Im concerned about is the image quality, especially noise at ISO 400 at most ( don't care about higher ISO). I think there is quite a difference besides LCD size, RAW and price. Is 12.1 MP DIGIC III worse than 10 mp DIGIC II after all noise reduction and other algorithms applied? That is the question I find the most difficult to answer

The 9 is fine. Shoot raw and enjoy.

Throw in different color rendering and we can really get into a paralysis of analysis. I didn't consider a Canon G series until the returned the RAW format. I have a G9. I actually wish they had not increased the MP count.

Go ahead with the Canon G9, and not worry about. It's a great little camera. By the way I

still like the pictures from my Canon G2, and that was purchased six years ago.

I had the G7, and sold it for lack of RAW; after seeing that the camera could not deliver adequate JPGs under difficult light conditions, and seeing that the Ricoh GX100 (with RAW), could, it was a no brainer.

 

I just bought a G9 because RAW was reintroduced, and it performs better under the same circumstances due to RAW. Again, a no brainer.

 

I have to say that I do not care too much about noise at high ISO, because I mostly use it for travel shots, and I don't mind using a tripod and keeping the ISO low. For other situations, Neat Image does a good job of removing unwanted noise, when I want to print big.

Paulo - I'm undecided between the GX100 and the G9, the GX's 24mm is excellent but no viewfinder. The G9's viewfinder is simple but there, but lens is only 35mm at its widest. Otherwise what's your take as one of the few folks I've heard who've used both (I assume you did buy a GX?)?

John,

 

I bought the GX100 to replace the G7, and it is a very nice camera. It does not have a viewfinder, but there is an accessory EVF that you can buy and attach to the hotshoe. The lenses are completely different in the GX100 and G9, of course, and that is a deciding factor.

 

I use my GX100 as a "replacement" for when my EOS 1V and 24-70L were just "too much", as the zoom lens in the GX100 covers the same range. I use the G9 more as a complement to my SLR, in situations where I carry both. This is because the G9 integrates very well in the EOS system (same flash and control philosophy).

 

Do I wish the G9 had a 24mm, or even 28mm lens? Yes, of course, a G9 with something like 24-105, or 24-135mm zoom lens would be great, but Canon are not famous for their wide-angles, so... for the time being, I am very happy to have the G9 as part of my arsenal, it is a wonderful camera. In fact, this is what the G7 should have been, if it had RAW in the first place...

 

Finally, something I missed with the GX100 was the robust feel of the G7. I have to say that I have never had a problem with my GX100, but the G7/G9 do feel more robust and substantial in my hands, which I prefer. That said, I actually had a dust in sensor problem in my G7, when I took it to the windy desert... My current take is that with RAW, the G9 is now a much more complete photographic tool than the G7. Compared to the GX100, it is possibly not better or worse, just different.

 

I am also curious to see what Ricoh will develop as the GRDII, and what the sigma DP1 will end up like.

The most important thing I have learned to avoid in using PN forums is analysis paralysis. The G7 clearly had noise problems, and I wouldn't be able to fix them in RAW. The G9 has noise problems also, but maybe to a lesser degree and RAW offers some decent noise control possibilities.

 

Argument over, at least for me.

 

In 1970, while pushing film and chemicals trying to make pictures of black cats in coalbins at midnight, we had noise, which in those years was called grain. In night shots in Venice, Italy, I had that grain again. We not only lived with it, it gave the photographs a certain panache.

The G9 in dusty environments is well handled with the addition of its optional lens adapter

and a filter of your choice. Canon furnishes their plastic version, Lensmate manufactures a

black anozided aluminum alternative. Canon and Raynox make wide adapters for the G9,

though it will add bulk to your carry. If you generally bring a bag, it should not be a problem

to have it on hand.

Savas makes a nice point. I got the G9 precisely for its compactness which is lost with the adaptor. However I will probably get a lensmate adaptor since the G9 will probably do IR better than my 20D and it gives me access to a polarizer. I am going to try removing the filter pack from my G2 to get a dedicated 4 MP IR camera.

Thanks Paolo. Jeff's right though. I was leading a group this week and they asked about noise and one guest was saying that the GR and GX Ricoh's were 'noisy' whicih meant they would not buy them. I asked about their photography experience and it was virtually all digital, no film, and certainly no b&w, so for them grain was something you found in a block of wood!