G9 or xti?

[BKP]

I've had the DX8000G for about 1-1/2 years now, and finally decided I'm unhappy with the noise. I can't rationlize it away any longer. Sooooo, coming back to Canon. The G2 was one of my all time p&s favorites.

So, logically, the G9 would be a no-brainer. However, there isn't *that* much of a cost difference to go up a notch to the xti (housing cost notwithstanding).

Anyone have any thoughts, comments, warnings, experience?

 

[cowjazz]

I have resisted upgrading to a DSLR camera because I do not want to have to put the camera's viewfinder up to my mask to take a picture. I like using the LCD screen on my point and shoot to frame the picture. I'm just looking want a few good shots from my dives to share with friends and family, and point and shoot cameras meet my needs.

I'll be upgrading to the G9 in a few months, and will use DSLR for land photography.

Just one man's thoughts.

 

[gballard]

Why don't you give the olympus E-330 a look? The camera has come way down in price, and you can frame your shots with the lcd screen. I would check it out if you're still looking for options. By the way I own the sea & sea 8000, but now I only use the E-330.

 

[KARELNIJEBOER]

Hi;

I own a G9 , and am impressed with the results. A DSLR is much bigger, much mor expensive, and can only produce marginally better pics. If you really want low noise however, then a DSLR is better for sure.
The G9 however has all dslr controls like aperture control and iso on a rotating button; which makes handling pretty much slr like (provided you buy the much better Ikelite housig)

Regards from the Netherlands

Karel

 

[jeraldjcook]

If you really want low noise however, then a DSLR is better for sure.

Absolutely. The sensor on the G9 is a 1/1.7 with a size of 7.6mm by 5.7mm while the Xti has a APS 25.1mm by 16.7mm. The GP fits 12 megapixels on 43.32mm2 while the Xti fits 10 megapixels on 419.17mm2. That almost 10 times the surface area. While you might not see much of a difference in image quality for macro work where using a flash you can use a very low ISO with the G9, if you want to do any wide angle shots of a wreck for instance, the Xti with its lower noise at higher ISO will make a big difference.

 

[KARELNIJEBOER]

Indeed; I think you summarise this technically very correct. Any low light situation will make a difference, like indeed a wreck at greater depth or poorer visibility. At 80 or 100 iso however, noise is still very low on the G9. The image stabilisation really works well too. One very good feature of the G9 is the super high resolution video mode at 1000x800 pixels; really nice for videoclips underwater. Much better the the 640x480 you normally get. Of course there is no video on the slr....
The G9 does deliver RAW format pictures as well; very few other "compacts" do.

 

[jeraldjcook]

Of course there is no video on the slr....

It's only a matter of time. Now that DSLRs have Live View (or whatever you want to call it), it's now technically possible. I have read rumors on dpreview.com that Canon could introduce it on the XTI successor due out in Feb/Mar 2008. It makes sense for Canon to first introduce the capability on their consumer line, where some ability would be better than none at all.

 

[vetdiver]

First thing's first - there is a thread somewhere in this part of SB - think it's under the general board - where someone compares extensively their experience with a high-level PnS and an SLR. At the time, I was using a G7 and two DS125's, and I scoffed at upgrading to SLR. I was very resistant to the idea of going SLR, mainly because wanted to use the LCD screen to frame my shots, it just seemed like not much of a difference except for the $.

Then one of my dive buddies bought an SLR, and almost immediately, her pics seemed better. While high-level PnS's do a great job, the thing is, with an SLR, you are using dedicated lenses and can control the overall sharpness a bit better, it seems. I am sure I'm gonna get crucifed for saying this, but...that's the way it looks to me....

One Friday night, after a couple of beers and some prodding from my husband, I took out the plastic and bought a whole used SLR setup, BAM, hyperventilating on the couch for about an hour afterwards. And after one dive, I was a CONVERT. I actually LIKE the viewfinder, it seems like you are more "in" the shot you're taking! When you press the shutter, it closes immediately, there is absolutely no lag time!! And the crispness....ohh. I went from the G7 to a 20D - fewer megapixels, but my shots are crisp when I crop them, and I can really get a lot more shots in the same amount of time.

All this said, keep in mind what you're suggesting, moneywise. You think it isn't that much more expensive, but it kinda is. It isn't just camera plus housing plus strobe. Add onto that various ports you'll need for the various lenses you'll also need...

Whatever your decision, good luck with it, and have fun.

 

[KARELNIJEBOER]

Hey Vetdiver

Did you use the same strobes on the G7 the on your 20D? I agree SRL is potentially better, butter the comparison should be made as honest as possible. Pricewise the comparison is very difficult..

Regards

Karel

 

[vetdiver]

Hi, Karel -

Yes, I kept my strobes; I was using DS125's and still am. Maybe when I recover from the financial shock of going SLR, I'll upgrade one....but that might take a while!

I am a bit bummed that I spent so long NOT going SLR. I can really tell a difference with my pics. Here is an example: coonstripe shrimp (local critter) G7 and 20D:

G7

20D

I think the second one is just a better pic anyways, less particulate and KRILL, of course, but the colors seem better in the SLR shot (no adjustments except a bit of lightening on both during post-processing), and the SLR shot is sharper all through (some of this may be due to the fact that I can use a smaller aperture on the SLR than is available on the G7.

I think you can take great pics on a G9, they are great cameras. But the SLR thing has just made me love UW photography all the more....

Good luck making your decision.