Canon G9 vs. Lumix? DMC-LX2

[josep]

What is the best point and shoot digital camera?

 

I narrowed it down to these two choices, but I guess there are many that fit the

bill. So far, I use a Contax G1 and a Hasselblad 500C. I love film. I do. But

baby on the way. I am sure I will not have so much time for processing. thks

[pbizarro]

A P&S is not the best option to photograph a baby inside the house: low light levels, noise at high ISO, red eye, and so on.

 

Having said that, I would go with the G9 (which I have recently bought), because of the flash hot shoe.

 

I have photographed my children growing up, with a film SLR. Processing was done by the store that I trust. These days, it is even better; you can drop the film and get a CD with the scans. There is no need for a P&S digital, but of course it is hard to resist the trend:)

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Josep, you don't get the baby, keep loving film!

 

Cheers

[ronald_moravec1]

Film is better than small sensor P&S digi cams by a country mile at high ISO. Finders are crappy on all P&S, dim and inaccurate. Also there is the dreaded shutter lag. Press button, babby moves, picture is taken.

 

Get a proper Digi cam or at least A Nikon D40 which is but a few bucks more than the second best choice, a G9. I went from a Canon A610

to a Nikon D200. I still have every Leica, but the digi experiece is nice IF YOU GET A DECENT CAMERA.

 

The custom settings are nice on the G9. Those are the C on the "shutter dial". It returns the camera to same shutter, f stop, focus distance, and lens focal length just by turning it to C1 or C2.

Controls are all menue driven and it is hard and frustrating and slow to control like every P&S. Therefore C is nice.

[lutz]

<a href="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040125.yellow.web.jpg">Kids move, yeah</a>, and they make for lovely photo opportunities. Shutter lag is a non-issue with modern digital P&S these days, and the Lumix fits my bill. That said, with a digital P&S you will most probably end up with hundreds, thousands of baby photos, shot from all possible angles, compromising in light, framing, focal length, etc., etc. - just because you CAN shoot away easily and anytime and as often as you wish. You will have loads of them, some printed and given away to the family, most probably few of them kept, on some harddrive, or was it a DVD or a - what was it's name again? You know, those things we used to have earlier on, this century...?! <p>

Years from now you might regret, though, not to have carefully exposed and effortlessly archived that dozen of negs which would have immortalized your offspring's childhood and would have conserved it for a lifetime...<p>

Just a dad's thought.

[michael s.]

Lutz said:<p>

 

<< ... <i>Shutter lag is a non-issue with modern digital P&S these days</i> ... >><p>

 

Much as I respect Lutz and have relied upon his posts, I have to offer an amendment here. I would say it this way: <p>

 

Shutter lag is a non-issue with <u>some of the best of the</u> modern digital P&S these days.<p>

 

A few weeks ago, I was in a store and snapped a few with what I'm pretty sure is the new Nikon p & s flagship, called P5100. Unless pre-focused, the lag was in my opinion very substantial -- enough that it would make an effort to get the kind of photos Josep is talking about a most frustrating experience as soon as his new baby is old enough to be on the move.<p>

 

When you add the occasional need (or desire) to use flash into this mix, a small dslr would begin to look awfully good. Worth a look, in any case.<p>

 

Finally, Josep, when you talk about not having much time to process, it's important to note that with the digital photos, <b>you</b> become the lab. Contrast adjustments, color, sharpening, etc. -- all are your job now, unless you're willing to settle for what comes straight out of the camera. While I can't answer this for you, if you've become an accomplished user of your Hasselblad and Contax film cameras, my hunch is that you may find the straight-out-of-camera results not all you were hoping for ... and this applies both to p & s digital and to the dslr's.

[bobtodrick]

Shutter lag is fairly minimal on the G7/G9 cameras. I also have a Leica CM and the shutter lag is similar...in other words it is your standard A/F lag.

 

It is the neighbourhood of 2/10 of a second w/o flash. On the other hand Nikons performance camera, the P5000 has nearly 1/2 second lagtime. Unacceptable for kid pics in my opinion.

 

One thing to be aware of (and it is all over the net on various Canon forums) is that with the G9 (over the G7) you gain RAW at the expense of noise. And lots of it.

 

My own test confirmed what is on the forums...at ISO 400 the G7 rates 'acceptable', at 800 'poor' and 1600 is useless. The G9 drps all this down 1 stop...ISO400 rates poor.

 

I bought the G7. I use it mainly to photograph my family and it fits the bill perfectly. I dislike using flash when shooting my kids for a number of reasons...it looks artifical and as well the flash does add to the lag time. For this kind of shooting I found that the better low light capability to be of more importance than the RAW of the G9.

[lutz]

Hi Michael, thanks for your kind words. Well, it does indeed help to focus before snapping, that perfectly matches my experience with ANY kind of camera. So, why would I expect a P&S to be able to skip that step and deliver sharp pictures nonetheless...? ;-) With a Lumix I can do it either manually or via its autofocus which is very fast and reliable. After having focussed in either way, shutter lag is incredibly brief, easily on par with an M, trust me. So, after all, the Lumix is the faster, more reliably focussing street and kids photography tool, IMHE. But, as above, at the end of the day it all depends on which sort of moments you are after when documenting your child grow and how lasting you want your memories to be. Cheers.<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1211678-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1210236-lg.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3119399-lg.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/young_couple_web.jpg"><p>

[michael s.]

<< ... Well, it does indeed help to focus before snapping ... >><p>

 

Lutz, all this time and you're only now letting me in on the secret ? Wish I'd have known sooner. Think of the film and disk space I could have saved .... :-) [Like your last photo especially, by the way.] <p>

 

One "test" I use in typically-not-so-great camera store light is to ask the salesperson (just under 2 meters away, give or take) to look up from the counter and wave in my direction -- not too hastily, not in slow motion, but a "Hello, good to see you" wave. While the sentiment isn't genuine, this roughly mimics my indoor w/out flash environment for snaps of friends, family, or street -- candid street snapping being my favorite type of p & s photography -- at times when I cannot preset distance manually or half-press to lock focus, one of which I do whenever possible.<p>

 

If I can get a photo of this wave with the salesperson facing me, that's acceptably fast autofocus for a p & s camera. If he's looking back down at the counter, not so good. And if he's moved on to help other customers or left on lunch break before the exposure is made, then I know I've got a slow machine in hand.<p>

 

Indoor street:<p>

<center><a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2206/1562614899_a5f3577e19.jpg" width="500" height="439" alt="." /></a>

</center>

[lutz]

Well, Michael, in the light of your described snapping style, here's a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465602/">very bad film</a> you might like... ;-)<p>Have a nice day - mine is over here in Mumbai. Cheers.

[michael s.]

Clive Owen is a pretty decent actor, but that film I think I'll pass.

 

Project in Mumbai sounds promising. Can you say more ?

 

Incidentally, I'm giving thought to both of these cameras. I want the optical finder from the G9, but also the 28mm wide from the Lumix; the exterior iso control from the G9, but also the 16:9 ratio from the Lumix; and so on. While I'm at it I'd greatly appreciate the pivot/swivel lcd from my older Canon. In short, the camera I want doesn't exist.

 

But it's good to hear of your positive experience with the Lumix, though disturbing to see Bob's post noting that the G9 photos didn't hold up at iso 400. Can the Lumix do a decent job above iso 200 in your judgment ?

[carbon_dragon]

Maybe you should consider a SMALL DSLR, like the Canon Rebel XT. The body is pretty tiny. Even with a kit lens you'd probably get better images than with the point and shoot and you'd have more creative control and you could interchange lenses.

 

Remember that in film, a small camera like say a Contax T2 or a Leica CL uses the same film as a Nikon F5 even though their feature set and size and weight are very different. But in digital, the sensors in the small point and shoot cameras can be very small and quality suffers when you start cranking up the ISO.

[Jim_Tardio]

There isn't a point & shoot on the market that handles noise well above ISO 100...especially if you view your shots at 100%. The G9 is just the newest model that falls into this category. There is no "best" point & shoot. They're basically all fine for what they're designed for.

<p>

I have & use point & shoot cameras, but they're just no match for a DSLR. For about the same money as a G9 you could get a Nikon D40 with the 18-55 Kit lens. I think you'll be much happier.

[lutz]

Does the Lumix produce decent results above ISO 200? No. But f4(as in most kit lenses) at ISO 400 equals f2.8(Lumix) at ISO 200. Plus the Lumix has an excellent IS system that will easily allow for 1/8 handheld. Plus, bulk and weight are by far inferior to any DLSR, of course. The ideal camera doesn't exist, but for my mileage the Lumix comes pretty close, in terms of a compact, high quality digital P&S. Find some <a href="http://lutzkonermann.blogspot.com/">sample pics</a> here. As for the Mumbai project I'll be back for more, Michael.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>But f4(as in most kit lenses) at ISO 400 equals f2.8(Lumix) at ISO 200.</i>

<p>

I wish that was true, Lutz. I have a Lumix. There's absolutely no way on earth that my Lumix handles noise at 200 better than my D40 handles it at 1000...let alone 400.

<p>

I agree with the weight & bulk issues. But a point & shoot currently cannot even be compared to a DSLR...there's so much difference in quality.

[michael s.]

Jim, I agree: you cannot expect high iso results from a p & s camera that compare favorably with what a dslr produces.<p>

 

But I'm not interested in 100% crops or pixel comparisons of that sort. Just not my thing. <p>

 

Here, for example, is a snap from a p & s camera that I now see was set at 400 iso when I took this photo. I cropped and converted to b & w. Some noise is still visible, but not to the point where I'd say it ruins the photo.<p>

 

<center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/michael-s/492078832/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/492078832_fadb216414_o.jpg" width="700" height="715" alt="." /></a></center>

[Jim_Tardio]

Did you ever look at your negatives or slides with a loupe? You see a lot and you learn a lot. Consider viewing at 100% the same as looking through a loupe. If you're not doing this essential step in your post processing you're not really seeing the whole picture...so to speak.

[jobo1]

I'd strongly suggest a DSLR with its kit lens, unless it is an issue of bulk. Better finder, better autofocus, better low light performance. Add in an old 50/1.8 at $100, and you get DOF control to boot.

 

To answer your question, I'd give the advantage to the Canon, unless you need the small size and 28mm FOV of the Paneica.

[lutz]

Jim, I wasn't talking about noise. I was talking about available light capabilities as limited by f/stop and ISO. The absence of a usable 400 ISO setting is compensated by a faster lens. Plus, you get a very good optical IS with the Lumix. I'm including a snapshot I took one hour ago at ISO 200, including a 100% detail. Cheers.<div></div>

[bobtodrick]

Just an observation. Why is it that when people say their shooting requires (for whatever reason) a compact digital p&s (say family or street shooting) half the people reply 'for the same price you can get a DSLR with kit lens'...yet seldom when someone says they are considering an M camera for exactly the same reasons do people suggest 'for the same price you can get an F6 with lens'?

 

Sometimes (as in the excellent image by Michael S) a DSLR is just too obtrusive. A somewhat noisy image is better than not getting the image at all.

[michael s.]

My post above may have come across as dismissive, but it wasn't meant that way.

 

While I haven't evaluated photos with the close attention to detail that might ultimately be useful, I am interested in whether a photo from a small digital camera can be printed decently at, say, 8 x 10 or close to that size, because I print them at that size.

 

A question: Looking for example at Lutz' 100% crop, if we were to print the whole photo, approximately how large would our print be ?

[michael s.]

Thank you, Bob. I started and stopped my post and hadn't seen yours.

 

And I agree with what you've said about the appeal of small cameras, for the reason you mention and for an additional personal reason: the bigger/heavier the gear, the less likely I am to have it with me.

 

The good thing though is that the smaller and lightweight "entry level" dslr's like the D40 from Nikon, the Rebel XT/XTi from Canon, the K100D from Pentax, and others, have gotten so good and come down so far in price that they can now be mentioned as alternatives. A few years ago, that was simply not true.

[lutz]

Michael, the Lumix LX1 delivers 3840x2160 pixels (8MB) in the 16:9 format. If you were super-demanding and wanted to print at 300dpi that would translate to 12.8x7.2 print size. In the real world 200dpi are more than sufficient, so make that 17.2x10.8 prints. Your screen is giving you probably 72dpi. So, if you could live with the detail as seen on your screen in the 100% crop, your print could go up to 50x30, at which point you would probably be standing six feet away from it to see it all in one - at which point noise becomes a non-issue.

[Jim_Tardio]

I'm in agreement with you guys...Bob, Lutz, Michael. Like I said, I have & use point & shoots. I love my Lumix, as well as my older Canon S45.

<p>

I'm just pointing out that a point & shoot isn't a substitute for a DSLR. You can't get the same quality.

<p>

At the same time, a DSLR isn't a substitute for a P&S. If you need a pocketable, light camera to carry around, a P&S is great. And, yes, you can get great prints from their files. I'd stay below ISO 200 if larger prints were my goal, however.

<p>

To the original post, Josep is coming from a Contax G1 & a Hasselblad 500c. He's going to be disappointed with what comes out of a P&S.

<p>

Hopefully we'll soon have a P&S with the same size sensor that sits in the cropped-frame DSLRs.

[Jim_Tardio]

I haven't updated this page for a while, but I have some Lumix LX-1 shots <a href="http://www.jimtardio.com/lumix/lumix.html">Here</a>.

<p>

I'll update the page soon.