Digital camera...Canon or Sony

[lordhutt]

I was just checking out the Canon Powershot G9 12.1 MP w/ 6X optical zoom on sale at BB for $450....although I can get it from Amazon for $440 with no tax.

I was also considering the
Sony Cybershot DSCT300 10.1MP Digital Camera with 5x Optical Zoom
which wont be out for a month or so and will be $400

I like how they both have the 16:9 option to display on a HDTV.

It's been awhile since I bought a digital camera (almost 6 years since my top of the line 4mp).
Any thoughts on the 2....or others?

[Conquest10]

Get the G9

[lordsmurf]

When it comes to point and shoot cameras, there's Canon, and then there's everything else. No contest. The quality of processing, glass, etc -- far superior to others.

With DSLR's, it's Canon v. Nikon, and different needs yield different suggestions there. The others are mere spectators (although some of them can meet certain needs -- like Pentax).

[Bodyslide]

The Canon S3 is a really Great Camera....Also the Newer Canon S5 is very good also....The S3 you can get for around 200.00, the S5 around 300.00....

[lordhutt]

Thanks guys....
I was on Canons site.
They appear to have 3 levels of camera.

From the lowest level the A650IS for $288.99 (Amazon)
Next level SD950IS $336.19 (Amazon)
And the high level G9 I mentioned $439.99 (Amazon)

I did a comparison on Canon's website and I don't really see much difference here. I few more shooting modes and 1/2" bigger lcd on the G9. They are all the same MP, they all have 6X optical.

What am I missing here....what is the advantage of spending more money on the 'higher end' cameras? I am sure there is something that has to make these worth the extra dough but they certainly don't make it clear when you do a 3way comparison on their site.

Thanks.

[SquirrelDip]

The G9 will shoot RAW and will probably be the closest to DSLR without being DSLR.

I've heard a lot pro's choose the G9 as their point-and-shoot.

[Conquest10]

I did a comparison on Canon's website and I don't really see much difference here. I few more shooting modes and 1/2" bigger lcd on the G9. They are all the same MP, they all have 6X optical.

Then you didn't really do a comparison.

[Conquest10]

I've heard a lot pro's choose the G9 as their point-and-shoot.

I heard that too. Its a nice little camera. It shoots RAW and has a hotshoe on it. Makes it really versatile and easy to switch back and forth between it and dSLRs.

[lordhutt]

I did a comparison on Canon's website and I don't really see much difference here. I few more shooting modes and 1/2" bigger lcd on the G9. They are all the same MP, they all have 6X optical.

Then you didn't really do a comparison.

I selected the 3 cameras and it gives you a side by side of them. They were all basically the same.
Then I pulled up 3 separate windows and compared the specifications...looked about the same to me....

I dunno, maybe I am missing something?

[Conquest10]

I dunno, maybe I am missing something?

Yes you are. You shouldn't be looking at useless stuff like megapixel count or lcd screen size or the amount of zoom on the lens or how many shooting modes it has to see which camera is better. Professional cameras have very little shooting modes but does that mean that a Casio is better than a Nikon D3? Also, for the vast majority of people 3-4 megapixels is more than enough. What should be more important is the actual picture that comes out of that camera, not the meaningless specs. The lens is the most important thing in the final output of the camera. Not the amount of zoom but the quality of the glass. You can never go wrong with Canon. They spend millions of dollars in research on their lenses. Go to any event and sure enough you'll see the vast majority of people using Canon lenses.

[SquirrelDip]

Conquest10 is correct. There's a reason that there is a different price between those 3 cameras and if doesn't show up on a spec list it will (should) be in photo quality.

If those are the three you're choosing between then hit a camera store that has all and try them out. You'll have to weigh the quality against the price against the feel/size - the best for you may or may not be the most expensive one.

[lordhutt]

I dunno, maybe I am missing something?

Yes you are. You shouldn't be looking at useless stuff like megapixel count or lcd screen size or the amount of zoom on the lens or how many shooting modes it has to see which camera is better. Professional cameras have very little shooting modes but does that mean that a Casio is better than a Nikon D3? Also, for the vast majority of people 3-4 megapixels is more than enough. What should be more important is the actual picture that comes out of that camera, not the meaningless specs. The lens is the most important thing in the final output of the camera. Not the amount of zoom but the quality of the glass. You can never go wrong with Canon. They spend millions of dollars in research on their lenses. Go to any event and sure enough you'll see the vast majority of people using Canon lenses.

Well, that is why I came here
Because all of that 'useless' stuff is what the average joe like myself (probably 99% of people buying cameras) goes by.

However, as I am not comparing Canon to Sony anymore but Canon to Canon.

I just checked the Lens (as you mention is the most important part) of the 3 cameras on Canon's site.
The most expensive and the cheapest of the 3 have the exact same lens specs...

Lens
Focal Length
7.4-44.4mm f/2.8-4.8 (35mm film equivalent: 35-210mm)
Digital Zoom
4x
Focusing Range
Normal: 1.6 ft./50cm-infinity
Macro: 0.39 in.-1.6 ft./1-50cm (W)
Autofocus System
TTL Autofocus

I also compared Aperture and Shutter as well as Exposure Control...once again exactly the same between the cheapest and most expensive.

So, although I appreciate the help you have not really answered my question.
What in particular makes the G9 worth $150 more than the A650IS?
Besides the RAW and another 1/2" lcd screen and a few shooting options that you say don't mean anything I can't see the difference....
Unless of course for some reason if cameras with the same specs can give me different quality pics?

[lordhutt]

Ok,
Well, I called Canon. Unless the guy on the phone is bullshitting me he said the quality of the pics from the much cheaper A650 will be the same as the G9. All the specs are basically the same. He said the majority of the cost difference is in the bigger LCD screen. The ability to take the RAW pics if what he tells me about how that works then I will never use it. He said that the process you have to go through for those will take about 5 minutes per photo and is mainly used by professionals.

So, it looks like I will probably save $150 and go for the A650IS.

[Conquest10]

oh yeah, forgot.

If its between the A650IS and the G9, for me the extra $150 for the G9 is worth it. You get RAW and the hotshoe. I don't know if you would ever want to use those but if you'd like to use it to try to learn more about photography the hotshoe can be very, very useful for more advanced techniques. They look to be around the same size so ergonomics should be pretty similar.

[SquirrelDip]

Hotshoe is definitely a plus but for me the advantage would be RAW - better postprocessing.

If you're not going to do much photoshop work on the images (and don't think you ever will) then save the money.

[lordsmurf]

RAW! RAW! RAW! Makes all the difference.

Hotshoe? All the bounce flash and wired/wireless options for controlling lighting. Much better than standard P&S feature.

The guy working at Canon is a dumbshit. Sad, isn't it? The worst information is often generated inside your own company.

[lordhutt]

While raw and hotshoe are probably great and important for you guys, I am not going to use either.
I am buying a point and shoot for a reason
The extend of any editing I may do will be to crop and remove red eye. And I am certainly not going to carry around any extra flash equipment.

If I was into it that much I would most likely go the distance and get an SLR.

Thanks for the education fellows, but, those options are just not for me.
While my normal personality would normally to just go buy the most expensive weather I need it or not I decided this time to be more practical.
I ordered the A650 yesterday and saved the $150 on options I will never use.

On another topic...on the 1000 or so 'paper' photos I have from many years past that need to be digitized....
Anyone recommend a good scanner for the job?
I was checking out the Epson Perfection V700 Photo scanner. Once again a similar question like I asked about the camera...is this worth the $500 for me...I just want to scan and basically walk away. I am not going to spend time editing each photo. There are scanners out there that claim to be great for photos that are about $200. Is the 'digital ice' a big factor in the Epson printers?

Thanks again! As always, great advice here.

[SquirrelDip]

Do you have negatives to scan or are they all paper?

[lordhutt]

Do you have negatives to scan or are they all paper?

I have negatives for I would guess about 80-90% of the photos.
Can't vouch for the condition of them...I never really paid them much mind. Most are probably in good shape though.

Is there that much of a noticeable difference (to the average lay person) when scanning negatives vs photos.

[Conquest10]

Is there that much of a noticeable difference (to the average lay person) when scanning negatives vs photos.

Oh yeah. There is definitely a huge difference. The photo labs are usually run by high schoolers being paid $8 an hour so they don't know much. They usually just pump up the contrast and over-sharpen to make the image look better. You're better off scanning the original and you'd be surprised at how much better you can do with it.

[Conquest10]

As far as that scanner goes, I'm not too knowledgeable on them. Ideally it would be best to buy a dedicated film scanner but of course those are uni-taskers and you might want a flatbed to also scan documents. I personally use an old Epson Perfection 3170. I get pretty good results. Here are two random scans of negatives.

[lordhutt]

The only thing that sucks about the dedicated negative scanner is that once I am done it will never be used again. I wonder how good the resale is on these things.
The Epsons claim to be great at scanning negatives as well as photos. I believe your claim that scanned negatives will look better than a scanned photo.
But, how much better will a dedicated negative scanner look than one of the higher end Epson flatbeds that they (Epson) claims is so great at scanning negatives.
What did you use to scan the negatives used in those pictures.

[Conquest10]

I used an Epson Perfection 3170. Dedicated film scanners I doubt will be for you. My flatbed is good enough as you can see and I've printed up to 13x19 with great quality.

[lordhutt]

Cool. Well, since like you said that is an older model and does not look like it is made anymore. I would most likely be in line for the V500 $212 or the V700 for $500.

As far as the negatives go...I never paid much mind to them as I never imagined I would be scanning them one day but I doubt they are really scratched up or anything but I am sure many have fingerprints and that sort of thing going on. Would they need to be cleaned before they are scanned? Is this easy to do?
Also I guess if there is any dust or surface problems the Digital ICE is supposed to take care of it.

[SquirrelDip]

Can you rent one (negative scanner) from a (larger) camera store?

[lordsmurf]

Negs need to be wiped with a special gloved hand, and "canned" air (good stuff, not the crap at office stores that spews juice).

ICE 4 removes, but not perfect.

[lordhutt]

Negs need to be wiped with a special gloved hand, and "canned" air (good stuff, not the crap at office stores that spews juice).

ICE 4 removes, but not perfect.

Should it be safe to assume these are items I could get at a camera store such at Ritz?...I believe there is one at the mall near by.

[lordsmurf]

Ritz sucks -- they have a lot of third-rate crap for supplies. And it's retarded expensive (as bad as Best Buy, sometimes worse). Either post or PM me your location (major city) and I'll recommend a shop to you.

Or open a phone book, and look for camera stores. Again, feel free to PM or post for more details, help you pare down a list.

[MJA]

if you didn't buy one yet.check the Canon PowerShot SD870 IS .
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=122&utm_id=17&ref=pricegrabber&utm_source...sku=CNPSSD870S

I bought the SD1100 IS from them .fast shipping,and free

if you want one with a nice lens,settings and things like that check the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8K.I bought it 6 months ago . http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ8K-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000MWVMRG/ref=...5330941&sr=8-6


I took this Pic few days ago from inside a moving car with windows up and dirty



p1010201.jpg