G3 or G5

[achim]

Hi,

so I will start here with my question as the first one. I am thinking about buying a G3 or G5.

I read some reviews that the G5 is actually not worth the additional price. It would give more noise and for the normal user the G3 would be sufficient.

Does anybody has an opinion/experience with one of them?

Thanks

 

[honda]

Hi Achim, I have and use a G3. Shots-Good BUT optical veiwfinder poor, lens obstructs part of view. Difficult to see lcd screen, (though I have not tried a bellows shade yet. Have you read dp-review on G3 G5. he says not worth paying extra for G5. Friend of mine uses a Fuji Digi Much better finder almost slr quality. I think if I had seen this one first may not have bought G3.
I also use Canon film camera EOS 3 Realy good. Use it with Microtek 4000t film scanner.
What i`m saying is try others as well before you make your mind up.
Hope this helps.- Gordon.

 

[jesper]

Hello Achim,

I have the G3. I have read reviews and looked at the specs of the G5 and so far the only difference between the G3 and the G5 I've found is 4 vs 5 megapixels. For the rest, the G5 is exactly the same as the G3 (even all the menus etc. are exactly the same). In my opinion the G5 doesn't justify the price difference.

Jesper

 

[fotografz]

Achim, there are more slight differences than 1 meg. The G5 comes in black, has a bit of an improved shutter lag, utilizes Canon's latest in camera processing...

 

[howard]

Marc,
Is the decrease in shutter lag significant? Or is it just a slight improvement?

Howard

 

[fotografz]

Howard, I have the G3, S-50, and G5. I purchased the G5 on the basis that even a little more resolution is worth it at that end of the megapixel spectrum. Same for any improvement in shutter lag time. The claim by Canon and theCanon dealer was somewhat improved performance in both areas. Again, it is personal opinion as to whether it is worth the money. To me it is.

On photo.net, Leica forum we just did a friendly "street shootout" to evaluate various P&S digitals against Ms to see if decisive type work could be proformed with the little digitals.
I used a G5, Contax TVSD and a Leica M7 with 2 lenses (50 & 90 ). The G5 did quite well in two areas... by shutting off the LCD and shooting with the viewfinder, I was able to catch decisive moments, and with the LCD turned on I could catch candids without the subject being aware (same can be done with the G3). I detect a minor amount of improvement in the shutter lag in practical application. But any improvement is enough for me.

 

[sclamb]

There are some points in the texts above that are not entirely correct. Firstly, the G5 does not use any 'latest in-camera processing'. Both the G5 and G3 use the same Digic processor with no changes. From a performance aspect, the shutter speed difference is so low that you would not notice any improvement, if indeed there is any.

Lastly, and the big reason I kept the G3, the colour fringing on the G5 is abysmal. You need to be stopped down to around F8 to get rid of the purple fringing around high contrast edges and it's significantly worse than the G3, which gets rid of such abberations by around f/3.5 to f/4.

Unless you need the extra megapixel, and you can live with the inferior image processing causing the fringing, then go for the G5. Otherwise, save a couple of hundred and get the G3.

Simon

 

[bnlgrabows]

> [Hi Simon Your comparison of the Canon G3 and G5 was very interesting. Currently, I have a Canon EOS elan II and I am tired of lugging around the camera, battery pack, and a couple of lens. I am considering the G5 because I wanted the ability to blow up portion of the frame. I am used to shooting with telephoto lens so, if I go to a digital without that much telephoto horsepower, I want to be able to enlarge a portion of the frame to get the telephoto affect.

Your commentary has given me second thoughts about the G5. I was also looking at the new Nikon 5 megapixel camera. I know this is a Canon web site but I was wondering if you had any knowldege of the Nikon.

Hoping to hear from you.

Bernie > ..]

 

[iberger]

If Bernard Grabowski is "tired of > lugging around the camera [EOS Elan II], battery pack, and a couple of lenses," he might be better off getting a 5-megapixel zoom-lens reflex like the Nikon 5-MP he mentions, or the Minolta equivalent. My own Minolta 7i, with the equivalent of a 28-200mm zoom (f/2.8 at WA) weighs about as much as the slower 28-200 zoom I use on my EOS film bodies. (The Nikon does not go as wide, but goes longer, which might be more to his taste.)

Of course, it all depends on the lenses he's lugging. For instance, I know no digital camera with the equivalent of the 24mm f/2 I use on my OM-2.

The Olympus E-1, a digital reflex with interchangeable lenses, has a body not much smaller or lighter than an EOS. On the other hand, its lenses should be much lighter because they're half the focal length of 35mm lenses with equivalent coverage.

-Ivan > > Bernie > ..]

 

[sclamb]

Bernie

There are some excellent reviews and s&le images at these locations (although I should mention that I tried the G3 and G5 personally and can vouch for hte colour frining issue being worse in the G5):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong5/
(the fringing is demonstrated here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong5/page13.asp)

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g5-review/

Hope these help. The first link compares the G5 to the Nikon 5400 and the Sony DSC V1.

There is another review that I cannot find now that clearly shows the superior imaging capability of the G3 over the G5. They are after all the same lens, just the sensor has changes.

Hope this helps.

Simon