Powershot G9 or Alpha 200K?

[Blackice]

Hi all!

I want to get in to digital photography - right now, I'm a bit of a newbie. I've been reading up on it, and I want to get an entry-level camera to help me understand it. I'm currently torn between a Canon Powershot G9 and Sony Alpha 200K.

On the one hand, I like the Canon's compact size. I like how it appears to be good for people entering the field, so as you learn about new techniques, you can experiment with manual exposure control. There are also rumors of a G10 coming at Photokina in August, which may help alleviate concerns about noise at higher ISO sensitivities and shooting speed, as well as the lens (some people want a 28mm lens, which as I understand it, has to do with providing a wider angle). I was planning to buy around mid-July, but I can hold off until August.

On the other hand, I like the idea of having a DSLR camera. As I become more experienced in the field, I can buy new lenses and experiment a bit more, and the larger sensor size will allow for better quality images. It's far more flexible than the Canon, but is also bulkier, and probably too complex until I know a bit more about it.

They both support RAW images, whose formats are supported by Mac OS (I'm on a Mac. Want to use Aperture), and both cost about the same (~?270). Both support SDHC cards. The Canon apparently supports Aperture tethering, but it's a bit problematic from what I've read, although that situation might have changed.

So, what do you guys think? Is the Canon a good starting point? Is the Sony too complex to learn from? Are the benefits of a DSLR over the G9 that much better that I can't afford to miss the chance?

Thanks,

Karl

[giga Veteran]

The G9 is one of the best point and shoots on the market.

If you require its small size, then get it. Otherwise, the A200 bests it in everything else. (speed, noise, flexibility, image quality)

[Blackice]

I experimented with both models today. I don't like the A200, for the simple reason that it has no LCD preview. Really, for a ?300 camera, it should do. Even if it's not as good as the fancy live preview system on the other models, it should have something. The G9 is a fantastic camera, the conversion lenses are great, and the small size means you can take that fantastic picture quality and control and shoot with it anywhere. Some of the pictures I've seen with the standard lens are amazing.

I've also had a look at the A300. It's ?100 more with an 18-70mm lens (I'm still getting my head around the impact of the focal length). That fancy live preview system is immensely cool. I love how it gives you such a good preview of the DOF. With the Canon, controlling that was a bit hit-and-miss. I got some good pictures eventually, but it took quite a lot of experimenting.

I'm still unsure where I should start with this. I'd like to get in to photography, so do I go full steam ahead and get an SLR? Or do I work my way in to it, first using something less complex, such as the G9? Which is best to learn from?

[Marshalus Veteran]

The G9 is how I'd go.

[Simon Veteran]

I experimented with both models today. I don't like the A200, for the simple reason that it has no LCD preview.

Believe me when I say this: you don't want LCD preview. The viewfinder is not only a straight view of what's coming through (instead of something that refreshes every few milliseconds, as in an LCD), but it uses no extra battery other than the HUD inside it. I was skeptical about my Canon Rebel XTi at first because it lacked a live preview, but I then realized that previewing is pointless when the viewfinder is fed through the lens anyway. On a regular camera, I could understand it, because the viewfinder goes through a different place than the lens, so there's a bit of a perspective change.

[giga Veteran]

If you want to get into photography, you'll learn that Live View will become basically useless for most of your endeavors.

Viewfinders offer so much more that you'll plainly get tired of shooting through the LCD in any camera after some time of using an slr. Instead of seeing a picture through a poor LCD, you're actually seeing it "as it is" through the optical viewfinder--color, light, and focus are so much more accurate and fast.

While the A300 might have a nicer Live View system, they flawed the optical viewfinder with that design by making it even more smaller and darker.

[Blackice]

There have been a lot of complaints with the G9's viewfinder - when I played with it, I saw that it doesn't cover the entire width that the sensor detects.

Also, simon360: you should check out the Sony's live preview. It's far better (smoother motion, better features) than any other camera I've seen.

That said, I probably will go with the G9. It has the potential to take some pretty amazing pictures. If you're interested, here's a thread with pictures taken from the G9 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=493680). Some of those are fantastic, especially for such a compact camera. The snake on page 2 is just epic.

[giga Veteran]

The G9 is a great camera, that's for sure. But what are your main reasons for getting it over the A200 or D40? Both are the same price. Surely not just for Live View hopefully?

[Prince Charming]

I'm with simon360 here, I really wouldn't discount the A200 because of a lack of a Live View feature. I couldn't imagine using the LCD for composition now, the VF seems more natural. Equally, the pose you hold a camera in when viewing through the VF is more stable than the arms-reach of an LCD. If you did get the A200, you wouldn't have a bad word to say about using a VF within a couple of days. And it does give DSLRs absolutely epic battery life - Live View requires that both the LCD and the CCD/CMOS sensor be powered up, VF is a purely optical mechanism, and uses zero battery.

I would suggest the G9 pretty much only if you wanted a small compact camera, but I really really wouldn't suggest getting a G9 over a A200 because of Live View.

[Marshalus Veteran]

If you must get a dSLR with LCD preview I think Olympus has them in an affordable range. But I'm with everyone else, why would you want that?

[giga Veteran]

If you must get a dSLR with LCD preview I think Olympus has them in an affordable range. But I'm with everyone else, why would you want that?

Not very useful though. The only real substitute for it is in the A300 range which uses the second sensor. Even then though I wouldn't waste my money on something as trivial as Live View.

[Brian M. Veteran]

I'm with Giga on this.

I have an A200 on order, and after trying them in the store, the A300 really isn't worth it. I hate Live Preview on compact cameras, let alone on DSLRs.

Personally, I'd say get the A200 with a decent lens, rather than paying extra for Live Preview. Oh, and RE the first post, the A200 doesn't support SD as far as I know, it's either Compact Flash or Memory Stick Duo

[Marshalus Veteran]

Memory Stick Duo

:x

[Brian M. Veteran]

:x

Which is why I also have a couple of 4GB CF Cards on order (for some reason 2 x 4GB was cheaper than 1 x 8GB) ;)

[Blackice]

Oops, sorry about the SD mistake. I wear glasses, so having an LCD viewfinder is quite important. The optical VFs do have some correction, but the LCDs are better.

Since I'm learning, I'll be experimenting quite a lot. I like the idea of getting a 16Gb SD-HC card, inside a great camera in a compact shell, and being able to take pictures wherever I am. And with an LCD VF, I can take a picture and get a large, instant preview. Before the moment's passed. With the A200, I'll have to keep on checking if the picture came out as I think it should've - switching between optical and LCD between shots.

I'm guessing you guys who don't like LCDs are quite experienced photographers - that is, when you take a picture, you've got a good feel for how it's come out. I'm going to have to be checking if the DoF is right, if the shutter speed is OK, and if the exposure is right. I imagine that I'll be experimenting a lot more than a more experienced photographer might. Once I get a feel for that, I can buy a DSLR and appreciate it more.

[Marshalus Veteran]

Actually I've been doing this for a month and would never use an LCD preview :p

[giga Veteran]

Since I'm learning, I'll be experimenting quite a lot. I like the idea of getting a 16Gb SD-HC card, inside a great camera in a compact shell, and being able to take pictures wherever I am. And with an LCD VF, I can take a picture and get a large, instant preview. Before the moment's passed. With the A200, I'll have to keep on checking if the picture came out as I think it should've - switching between optical and LCD between shots.

I'm guessing you guys who don't like LCDs are quite experienced photographers - that is, when you take a picture, you've got a good feel for how it's come out. I'm going to have to be checking if the DoF is right, if the shutter speed is OK, and if the exposure is right. I imagine that I'll be experimenting a lot more than a more experienced photographer might. Once I get a feel for that, I can buy a DSLR and appreciate it more.

Thing is though--an LCD preview won't give you an accurate "WYSIWYG" preview of your final image. The final image will almost always show a different portrayal of the light.

As for speed, the DSLR trumps anything with that as well. Focusing is a lot faster. Shutter lag is next to nothing. Turning the camera on and off is instant. And the preview is just like regular cameras--take a picture and you get an instant preview right on the back of the screen. If you want to capture something "in the moment", a DSLR is the way to go.

And while you can adjust exposure settings, it can be set to full auto as well--just like a P&S.