Who Wants to Give me Camera Advice?

Years and years ago, I abducted my dad's then-highly-coveted Nikon and taught myself to take pictures. As with so many other things during my teen angst years, I quickly grew bored of ALL THOSE LENSES, and trying to "work with" the available light, and to be honest, I didn't think I had such a great eye anyway.

So, I returned the camera to its pristine case, and satisfied myself with time spent in the darkroom, developing other people's photos for the newspaper and yearbook.

On my recent trip to Italy, though, I found myself enamored of being behind a lens again. When I came back, I decided I wanted to upgrade from my five-year-old Canon point-and-shoot. Then I put it off. And put it off some more.

Well, C finally put his foot down after I kept borrowing his camera in NY, and we are finally getting me a new camera. But I'm torn about what I want to shoot with.

The options are the new Powershot G9, or the EOS Digital Rebel XTi, and I'm definitely going to keep the older camera for things like Burning Man.

On the one hand, I love the idea of upgrading to an SLR -- I know I'll have lots more control over my images, and C has tons of lenses that I can use with the Rebel. But I do worry about toting around an SLR; will the size put me off of taking it with me wherever I go?

On the other hand, the G9 is nice and compact, and is getting GREAT reviews. But it's still a point-and-shoot, and I wonder if I won't grow bored with it fairly quickly.  I'm definitely more into taking landscape and still shots, but the G9 is also probably better suited to capturing spontaneous images, right?

Help me, interwebs! Please leave your thoughts, suggestions and opinions in the comments so others can benefit, too. And if you've shot with either of these two cameras, please let me know what you think.

Tags: Cameras, Canon, EOS Rebel, G9, Advice, Photography, San Francisco, Food & Drink

Comments

[erik_flannestad]

It's tough to weigh the options between point and shoot, semi-SLR, and full on SLR.

The weight and bulkiness thing has put me off of a full on SLR and I had a bad experience with a Konica-Minolta semi-SLR. I settled on the Canon A720IS, which I've been pretty happy with. It has enough manual control to get a bit creative as long as lighting is good.

Unfortunately, I do sometimes take pictures in bars and restaurants, and it pretty much sucks for that. Especially bars. And I miss being able to manually dial in the focus and zoom without punching a bunch of buttons.

But, I don't miss carrying around all those lenses, or the weight of the SLR body.

[David]

I use a Rebel and love it (although it took a while to figure out some of the features). I used someone's G9 and didn't like the quality of the photos as much. Maybe it was me, but I missed the control of the SLR. And I didn't love the quality of it. (You can see a photo I took with the G9 here.)

The G9 is good for carrying around, but each time I used it, I missed my SLR. The main difference is you can change the lenses on the Rebel; if you get one, get the cheap 50mm/1.8 lens, which is pretty light.

Lara at Still Life With did an excellent post, with examples: here.

[Brian]

Get 2 cameras.

I vote for the Rebel, *especially* if you have all those lenses. The Rebel XTI (or, even better, the new XSI) is fantastic, and light for an SLR.

Then, get a super-small point and shoot, like the new Canon SD-1100, to keep in your pocket everywhere you go.

I think the G9 or the S5 will be a poor compromise: it's too big to just stick it in your pocket, so you'll end up leaving it at home, and its lens is nowhere near as good as the ones C has, when you're in the mood to do high-quality stuff. The only reason to get the G9 is if you must have only one camera.

Finally, David's advice about the Canon 50mm 1.8 is dead-on. It feels like a cheap piece of plastic, but it is, amazingly, Canon's sharpest *and* cheapest lens. And it's 1.8, which is awesome for low light.

[Anita]

I bought a Canon A710is as an upgrade from a borrowed A320 -- my compromise solution, 18 months ago, when I decided I just could-not-would-not fork over the cash for a dSLR when all I was doing was taking hobby shots for the blog.

Six months later, I did what I should have done sooner: I broke down and bought a Canon 30D. (The Rebel is a good, lower-end cousin.) I use a 100mm portrait/macro lens for home, and a low-light 50mm for bars and restaurants (on the rare occasions that I know I won't be disturbing anyone.) I also went from having small-but-quirky shots on the blog to having larger (and better) images, and from there to having a bix 250px lead image and a filmstrip of 100px images at the bottom -- I take so many better pictures with the dSLR that I can't help sharing them.

Of course, I still keep the A710 as my messenger-bag camera. I take it out places where I would be too embarassed to lug the dSLR, and it does pretty well on the Manual setting, especially when shooting in Macro mode.

[Jeff Shattuck]

Catherine and are supreme proof of the existence of a "convenience" gene, and as such, have shunned SLRs because of their size. BUT, here's the thing: if you want to shoot in low light, as you know, you NEED an SLR. The point and shoot cameras can do it if they have to, but the biggies were designed to do it. Also, because the big, fat lens on an SLR lets in so much more light than the pinholes found on most point-and-shoots, it will make ALL of your pictures look a shitload (sorry for the technical jargon) better. As for the two-camera option, well, my guess is that for those shots when you REALLY wish you had the SLR, it will be back in the hotel room asleep on the bed and dreaming of the wonderful photos it could take. Someday. Sigh.

[Jeff Shattuck]

Oops, that was supposed to be "Catherine and I." I should work for the US intelligence community.

[L]

Both are great choices, as long as you understand what the trade-offs are. Personally, I really don't like using smaller point & shoots. It takes me longer to set all the manual settings that I like, since it's optimized around automatic functionality. But, my husband is a big fan of the G9 because it slides into a jacket pocket fairly easily, does a great job on auto, and does let you override everything if you need to. My best advise? If you can, get both! If you can't, figure out if small and quick is the most critical thing for you, or better photo quality. If you already have access to good lenses, then I'd say go ahead an bite the bullet and get the Rebel.

-L

[sam]

I am a one-trick SLR pony. Sure I have one - but I use it like a point and shoot. Luckily my favourite lens is the smallest one = less lugging around. Those cameras can take some shit too. Ours gets battered and maltreated but is very reliable. I am guessing that by the time it breaks we'll want a newer model anyway ...AND we'll still have the lenses so future upgrades won't be so expensive.

Apart from that I do like my iphone camera too for those moments when the SLR aint there.

[white on rice couple]

Wow, this can be tough. We have both and we use both extensively. I would have to say, it all depends on your budget. Secondly, it depends if you are technically motivated. If someones really reads the manual and learns the functions and full uses of a small point and shoot, they can attain much better results than someone who NEVER studies the manual on an expensive SLR. I know of people who have small cheap cameras, but they understand all the functions of this thing like the back of their hand! Their pictures are fantastic!
Overall, SLR's are obviously much more functional for all the reasons that have been listed on this post. If you've got the cash, go for an SLR . If not, start small.

[white on rice couple]

Wow, this can be tough. We have both and we use both extensively. I would have to say, it all depends on your budget. Secondly, it depends if you are technically motivated. If someones really reads the manual and learns the functions and full uses of a small point and shoot, they can attain much better results than someone who NEVER studies the manual on an expensive SLR. I know of people who have small cheap cameras, but they understand all the functions of this thing like the back of their hand! Their pictures are fantastic!
Overall, SLR's are obviously much more functional for all the reasons that have been listed on this post. If you've got the cash, go for an SLR . If not, start small.

[Dr. Biggles]

Follow your path, you've clearly done fine with what you already have. Creep forward with a little caution and you'll do fine.

I bought Nikon dslr rigs because Canon's lens choice was absolutely pitiful. I came from the 35mm era and the camera body didn't mean much, it was the lens that made the difference. This isn't so with recent digital bodies.

Even so, I can go back over 40 years worth of world class lenses with my D200. Even my D70 will use many of those hunks of glass.

Then there's flashes. I'm using a 25 year old Metz handle-mount flash unit with my D200 and it mates perfectly. What this means is I have 20 to maybe 40+ years of equipment that all work perfectly with today's digital.

Canon chose to s-can all their previous equipemnt and make users buy new. Ain't hip to that.

But when it comes down to the fine point, it's the artist behind the viewfinder that makes the photograph. I can get the results no matter what I use.

Go play!

Biggles