Monday, 8 February 2010
Posted by Julie Metcalfe Pacini at 09:35
Sunday, 5 November 2006
MY REVIEWS ON CAMERAS AND QUESTIONS:
I have a question...I am looking at getting a new camera and I wondered what you thought of your newest small one now that you have had it for a few months? You showed it to me in the summer..what was it called? Anyway, I really want something that will do better up close portrait shots and just clear, nice looking pictures for landscapes and people. I know lens have a lot to do with those things...will it allow interchangeable lens? Your advise would be
OK, about my camera, I love it! I was actually thinking of only taking it to New Zealand, when I go, that I might not take my bigger camera, just my new little one. It's just so much easier. The more I think about it, I think I'll take both, but that at least gives you an idea of how much I like it! My bigger camera is really heavy, as a comparison!
Here's some thoughts on my small one and 2 other cameras to consider, I hope this helps!
My little camera is a Canon G7 (10 megapixels), they have a new one out a Canon G9 (12 megapixels), I'll tell you about it in a minute.
Go to: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G7/G7A.HTM
This site tells you some details about this camera. Now go to:
If you go down you'll see some shots taken with this camera. Go down to the child with the blue cap on. If you go down to the next photo you'll see an image cropped of the child's eye. The next few photos do the same thing. Now some people may think that you really don't need a 10 megapixel camera unless you are going to make some really large prints. For example; a 4 megapixel camera will produce some very nice 11 x 14 prints! The neat thing about a camera with higher pixels is that you can take a photo and then crop out something you want and it can still turn out nice.
If you go to:
http://www.fotosbyjulie.blogspot.com (this site)
The first 8 photos are taken with my G7. The 2nd and 3rd ones have been cropped. The one with the 4 deer, I was on a road above them, probably 40 feet away from them, they were pretty little in the photo, so I cropped it and pulled them in. That's the advantage of high pixels, you can crop the photo and get what you want! If you go up to the Salt Lake Temple photos, there's one of the Temple in black and white and green. I did that on the camera, which is easier than doing it after. It turned out nice!
The photo of Kaylie's toes I took really close to her using the macro setting, which I like and use a lot, particularly with flowers & insects. It would work with portraits, if you got close! My large Canon doesn't have this setting.
The G7 does have lens', but I have never used them. It has a digital zoom, but like all digital zooms, not the best photo results!
The G7 has a manual setting that is the easiest to use of ANY small camera that I have ever used! It really is good! It's light weight and I carry it with me wherever I go.
Now, Canon has just come out with a new Canon G9, if I was buying one today I would probably buy this one. It shoots in RAW, which most people wouldn't use, but it's an option.
You can go to Canon and see it:
Then click on 'PowerShot G9 Special Site' and you can see all the sides of it and info on it with some photos that it took.
Also, go to:
Click on (click here) below the green part that says:
'Simon: We've had a...' You'll see photos taken with this camera, they are great!
This is the Canon press release for the G9
The other camera I have is the Canon EOS 20D which I don't think you can buy anymore. They now have the Canon EOS 40D. It is just like the 35mm I have and like the one you have, of course it's digital and thus different, but looks like it, though it is heavier. Canon just came out with the 40D in Aug 2007 and it has 10 megapixels, mine has 8. It's monitor is a lot bigger, too. Actually, my G7's monitor is bigger than my 20D's.
Anyway, I love both of my cameras and use them differently. When I go out and take photos, landscapes, for example, I take both. My G7 is around my neck and my 20D has the telescopic lens on it and I have it over my shoulder. I use both cameras. The advantage is that I don't have to keep changing the lens on my larger camera. The disadvantage of changing lens' constantly is that dirt gets into the camera and you have to clean it out, often, otherwise the dirt shows up on the photo and it can be a mess, you can fix it on photoshop, but it takes a lot of time!
So, I don't know if that helps or not. If I had small children I probably would use the G7 or 9 a lot more as the 20D is heavy and it gets pretty heavy with all the lens', bag, etc. I have a small bag with a strap that my G7 is in, it holds an extra battery and media card. It has a strap that hooks to my fanny pack, when I use that. It's really convenient!
I don’t know anything about the lens for the G7 or 9, but I might look into a telescopic for mine and might end up taking that to New Zealand, rather than have all the weight! The zoom lens that is on the G7 is good, though like any camera if lighting is poor, you have to be real still or use a tripod!
I think you would be pleased with the G9 and would prefer it's flexibility over any other smaller camera! Remember it's not a SLR (single lens reflex) like the Canon D40. Which means what you see through the view finder isn't what you get on the photo, it's a little bit off. Some cameras are really bad with this, however, the G7 that I have works nice, if you use the monitor it's the same, if you use the view finder the actual photo is a little larger all around. I use both, depending on the shot. The G 7 was more expensive than the smaller cameras, but I think it was worth the added price!!
Oh, one other thing really quick! The battery on the G7 is wonderful! My other smaller camera, a Nikon, I would go through 5 batteries in a day, when I was out shooting. With the G7 I have 2 batteries and they have been sufficient!
Good luck with it!! Let me know what you decide to do!
Thanks for the feedback. So, I have been looking, actually, at the G9 and have just wondered if it would be as good with the kids as they move so fast! Would an SLR make a big difference there in capturing them at the right time. Then I wondered if the G9 would replace my little point and shoot Nikon, that I don't really like that much and then I would want a digital replacement for the Rebel. BUT, don't know if the the G9 and Rebel would give me much difference in shot quality, just one being big and one small. Do you think there would be benefit in even having both the G9 and the Rebel or would I have to move on to the 40D (I looked at the 20D the other day and found out they were discontinued) to be better than the G9? Ok,
does that make sense?
I know I would love the convenience of the G9...I take way more pics with something I can through in my diaperbag:) BUT, I did love what the Rebel could do and how easy it was for me as I am super amateur at photography. So, what do you think? G9, Rebel, 40D....
First off I went by a photography store to see about the lens' for the G7 or G9 and the man said that they have to special order them and that he's never used them, but he's read reviews. The telescopic lens apparently isn't good at all! He said that the photo doesn't come out clear, it has a bit of a blur to it. But, he said the wide angle lens is awesome, according to the reviews. I decided not to get them. I have a good wide angle with my SLR! And I love my telescopic.
OK, you mentioned something very important...speed of the object being photographed! My G7 is soooooooooo much faster than the Nikon I used before! I NEVER got a fast shot with my Nikon, HOWEVER, I don't do too bad with my G7, HOWEVER, it doesn’t compare to my SLR, it is so much better!!!! It takes one shot after another without hardly any delay! There is a delay with my G7, it's not bad, but there is a delay!!! My SLR is just like my old 35mm. Digital is always going to be slower, but the SLR's are nice, they are fast! Do you remember the close up shot that I took of Joshua playing t-ball, I used my telescopic with that. My G7 wouldn't have gotten him unless I took it before I saw him in my viewfinder, chances are I would have missed it. The SLR gets it right away! I don't know about the Rebel, but I would imagine it would be comparable! You could go on line to Canon and they do comparisons, so you could have them show you the difference with the Rebel and 40D, for example and then with the G9, Rebel and 40D. It should tell you the speed of each shot that each camera takes, so that will help you with this thought! I have never used a Rebel, but have friends who love theirs! There are a couple different Rebels, too, so you'll need to look at what the differences with them are!
Here's some things to consider with the different cameras, SLR's.
1. The weight
2. Battery type and capacity
3. Speed of each shot
4. ISO (I have a friend who has a Nikon and the lowest ISO on it is 200, mine does 100 and 100 is nice on a real sunny day. Something to remember with the ISO, the lower the ISO the larger the photo can be enlarged. So, a 400 ISO which is really good for taking photos of movement, become grainy as they are enlarged. But, a 100 ISO looks beautiful and clear when enlarged. 100 ISO, though needs a lot of light, otherwise you have to use a tripod. So, if the lighting is poor then the higher ISO is best, my D20 goes up to 1600, which means that if you are taking a photo of the Salt Lake Temple, for example, or I should say the Hong Kong Temple, at night, and you don't have a tripod, you could get a nice photo by putting your camera on the highest ISO, it's amazing the difference changing the ISO can make! My G7 goes from 80 - 1600.
5. Another thing is the easiness of manual setting. The Rebel should be just like your old Rebel and I would imagine it's like my 20D. One nice thing with the G9 and the Rebel or a SLR, the settings on the Canon are about the same, which is what I like. I didn't have to learn anything new when I got my G7, well a little bit, but as a whole it was the same. That's the advantage of staying with the same company. That's the number one reason why I like Canon, I am just used to them!
6. Megapixels, get the highest you can!
7. The monitor, the larger the better
8. Video - My SLR does not have a video, however my G7 does. It's nice to have it, though it's short, I can use it from time to time!
Ok, now back to the question of which to get, if you have the money, SLR's can get expensive and the G9 is more than other small camera's...well, if it was me, I would get both. Well, HA! HA! I guess that's why I have both!! (An SLR & a smaller one) If I was going to take photos of kids running around, sports, the SLR definitely would be better!
Now, as far as quality of shot, the Rebel and G9 would be the same! I just looked up the Rebel on the internet and it's 10 megapixels, so the G9 would be a little more at 12 megapixels. 2 pixels won't make too much difference. My G7 is 10 and the 20D is 8, so my smaller one is better than my larger, but that's ok, quality is about the same, but cropping is nice the more pixels you have! For example, if you took a photo of one of the boys playing soccer, you could crop out everyone else and just have them and it would be a really nice photo!! The difference would be in carrying the camera, a SLR is heavier and the G9 would just tuck in your bag. So, if it's raining you might want to take the smaller one, on another occasion the larger.
As far as whether to go with the Rebel or the 40D, Here's something I just found out about the Rebel on the internet:
The good: The Canon Digital Rebel XT's image quality leads its class; competitive price; ultrafast start-up time; very responsive.
The bad: The Canon Rebel XT's lightweight plastic body isn't ergonomically satisfying; no spot meter; limited continuous-shooting mode, unimpressive kit lens; 1.6X lens-conversion factor.
The bottom line: The Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT is an exceptionally small and lightweight camera designed for amateur digital SLR photographers, but it delivers the responsiveness and image quality you'd expect from a semipro model.
And here’s what is says about the 40D:
The EOS 40D becomes the sixth Canon 'prosumer' digital SLR, a line which started back in 2000 with the EOS D30, and how far we've come. It's been eighteen months since the EOS 30D and although on the surface the 40D looks like a fairly subtle upgrade there's a lot that makes this an even better camera. Of course we expect a step up in megapixels, and so the 40D comes with a ten million pixel CMOS sensor with the same sort of dust reduction as the EOS 400D, an ultrasonic platform which shakes the low pass filter. Other improvements bring the EOS 40D closer into line with the EOS-1D series, these include a move to the same page-by-page menu system, both RAW and sRAW (2.5 MP), 14-bit A/D converter and 14-bit RAW, cross-type AF points for F5.6 or faster lenses, a larger and brighter viewfinder, interchangeable focusing screens, a larger LCD monitor (3.0") and faster continuous shooting (6.5 fps).
Now after all of that, if you are only going to get one, right now, and you have a smaller one that you can use, I'd go with the SLR! I used my SLR with a Nikon for years, I didn't like the Nikon, but it was small and I could just throw it in my bag! But, I think if you only had the G9, you'd get discouraged because you have used a SLR before. Does that make sense? The Rebel seems nice and is a lot cheaper than the 40D, but if you really are a serious photographer, which I think you are, you have taken some really cute, beautiful, photos of your kids, I think you might really enjoy the larger camera, the 40D, put it this way, you won’t be disappointed. The only disadvantage of the 40D that I can think of , I would think that it is probably heavier, but otherwise you’ll be happy with it!
Ok, I just found a site on the internet that does a comparison with the Rebel (of that day, this was done a few years ago) and the one I have, the 20D, which would be similar to the 40D, it makes some good points. Check it out at:
Something’s that stood out for me:
larger viewfinder image
more rugged built
better match to larger lenses
bigger and more weight
way smaller and also less weight
Not a good match to longer/heavy lenses (also a camera at $900 does hardly invite to buy lenses that cost over $1K)
Maybe to small for some hands
Looks well built but not like the 20D
Viewfinder with some sort of "tunnel view". We think we can live with it though.
OK, that’s it for now!! GOOD LUCK and let me know what you decide!
Posted by Julie Metcalfe Pacini at 22:19
I'd love to hear from you!
To see more of my photos visit: