Canon G3 versus G5

[michael2204]

Can anyone help?,
I am buying a digital camera for the first stime, and have kind of settled for a Canon G3 or G5. I've read all the reviews and critiques-and I cant decide. Another point, I seem to be able to get the G5 for much less than the G3 - I dont understand!
Help.
regards,
Michael

[ugot2bkdng]

With the G5 you are trading 1Mpixel more in resolution for increased noise and some chromatic aberration. Many folks are going with the lower noise and less chromatic aberration G3. The demand for the G3 is helping to keep the cost up.

I down loaded several of the photos in Phil Askey's reviews of these two cameras and compared them at actual pixel resolution in Photoshop. If I were making the decision for "myself" I would get the G5.

Disclaimer: Remember, free advice is worth what you pay for it.

[diji]

i own a g5. its worth it. reason why the g3 costs much...law of supply & demand.
canons website plus a few other reviews about those cameras.

[michael2204]

Chuck, Thanks for this. So, even with the "increased noise and some chromatic aberration" you would still chose the G5?
Michael

PS: Love your Photo's

With the G5 you are trading 1Mpixel more in resolution for increased noise and some chromatic aberration. Many folks are going with the lower noise and less chromatic aberration G3. The demand for the G3 is helping to keep the cost up.

I down loaded several of the photos in Phil Askey's reviews of these two cameras and compared them at actual pixel resolution in Photoshop. If I were making the decision for "myself" I would get the G5.

Disclaimer: Remember, free advice is worth what you pay for it.

[michael2204]

Diji,
Thank you for your advice- much appreciated. Also,I like your photo's
Michael

i own a g5. its worth it. reason why the g3 costs much...law of supply & demand.
canons website plus a few other reviews about those cameras.

[ugot2bkdng]

I am just saying that to me, the additional 1Mpixel is worth more than the noise and aberration. I am making this judgement based on viewing sample pictures at full resolution. I did not see enough difference in noise levels to bother me. Someone else may.

[ukexpat]

I am just saying that to me, the additional 1Mpixel is worth more than the noise and aberration. I am making this judgement based on viewing sample pictures at full resolution. I did not see enough difference in noise levels to bother me. Someone else may.

I suspect that the noise and aberration problems are there in the G3 also, but its lower resolution masks them.

[creativeimagery]

I own a G3 and I'm very pleased with it. Noise is low at low ISO ratings, a bit high at the higher ISO settings. I almost always shoot at ISO 50 or 100, so noise hasn't been a problem. I've yet to see any chromatic abberation, but it is possible in some lighting situations to get a blue fringe around bright light sources. This hasn't been a problem in any of the shots I've taken with the camera so far. The reviews of the G5 indicate that noise and blue fringe are a bit more of a problem, but I'd gladly trade them for the extra megapixel of resolution the camera offers over my G3. If you're serious about taking pictures, you can't get too many pixels (well, maybe you can, but not until you get to the resolution of film, which is about 20 megapixels for ISO 200 film). The increased noise and blue fringe are only likely to be a problem when you do significant enlargement of the image, and in that case the extra megapixel of information should help offset the problem. If you can afford the G5 (which I believe also has a longer zoom than the G3), I'd go for it.

[michael2204]

Terrymel,
Thank you for your advice - I am now convinced - G5 it is!
Michael
PS I just love Sam & Polly.

I own a G3 and I'm very pleased with it. Noise is low at low ISO ratings, a bit high at the higher ISO settings. I almost always shoot at ISO 50 or 100, so noise hasn't been a problem. I've yet to see any chromatic abberation, but it is possible in some lighting situations to get a blue fringe around bright light sources. This hasn't been a problem in any of the shots I've taken with the camera so far. The reviews of the G5 indicate that noise and blue fringe are a bit more of a problem, but I'd gladly trade them for the extra megapixel of resolution the camera offers over my G3. If you're serious about taking pictures, you can't get too many pixels (well, maybe you can, but not until you get to the resolution of film, which is about 20 megapixels for ISO 200 film). The increased noise and blue fringe are only likely to be a problem when you do significant enlargement of the image, and in that case the extra megapixel of information should help offset the problem. If you can afford the G5 (which I believe also has a longer zoom than the G3), I'd go for it.

[creativeimagery]

Michael,

I think you'll be quite pleased with the G5. One of the subjects I didn't cover in my previous posts is that I think the controls on the G3 are very well laid out. Most digital cameras have a gazillion settings, and the G3/5 is no exception. I found, however, that after you've used the camera a few times changing the settings is very fast and "natural" (or at least as "natural" as such a thing can be ). Please let me know how you like the camera. You can send me a private message if you want to take it out of the forum.

Thanks for your comments about Sam and Polly. You may notice that they have a painterly effect, created with Photoshop. I felt I had to do that since, after cropping and enlarging the images, I didn't have enough pixels to work with to get what I'd consider an acceptable photo.

"More pixels! More pixels! Rah-rah-rah!!!"

[pslavi]

I have both camera's and the G5 beats the G3 for reason that when you crop for 3:2 ratio like many dslr photos the resolution is noticeably higher on the G5. Noise is neglegible betwwen them at 50 or 100. Noise can easily be removed on both cameras in photoshop. Interpolating pixels on G5 image in photoshop shows greater detail. The G3 is slightly faster for high speed shooting. When I attach the crystalview lx lens on the G5 I get more resolving power. Purple fringing takes me 10 seconds to remove on both cameras images. The G5 is slightly worse off for CA but really not that much more. Anyway thats my opinion. Sadly my G3 died 2 weeks ago due to accident. PITY.

[ikwak]

The small sound that the camera produces won't really bother you unless you put your ear near the camera.

[sl668]

Why you just compare G3 with G5, how about their latest S1 IS? In terms of functionality, it is similiar to G3/G5, but with image stablizer. It is also cheaper and more compact in size. More important, it is 10X optical zoom which is important to take good portrait photos.

[ukexpat]

Why you just compare G3 with G5, how about their latest S1 IS? In terms of functionality, it is similiar to G3/G5, but with image stablizer. It is also cheaper and more compact in size. More important, it is 10X optical zoom which is important to take good portrait photos.

You do not, in my experience, need a 10x zoom to take good portraits. Also, the S1 only has a 3MP sensor, the G5 has a 5MP sensor.

[thobson]

I have a G3 and I love it. If my information is correct the G5 does not give better resolution than the G3. Yes you get 1 million more pixels, but this is done by increasing the size of the sensor not by increasing the resolution. The features lacking in the G3 vs the G5 that I miss are: 4x optical zoom and timelapse capability.