Given that the G9 has been reviewed so extensively on other sites, I’m going to approach this section slightly differently.

Removing the photographer and subject from the equation, the important thing to understand with compact cameras is that their image quality is really a factor of three things:

-    The lens / glass
-    The processing engine (particularly when shooting JPG)
-    The sensor

These days, there isn’t a great deal of difference in the quality of the glass / lenses. Some manufactures go out of their way to provide slightly better (or worse) but it’s not like the DSLR market where there is a huge difference between a low quality zoom and a high end prime. The Canon G9 includes a 35-210mm lens which is expectedly good and has the usual challenges of CA in extreme situations. There exists some debate over whether Canon should have left a shorter zoom on the camera with a wider aperture instead of this lens, and it’s a close call. Ultimately, on a compact where there is little flexibility to quickly extend the range, I think the greater zoom range will benefit more people but it’s a close call. A more clear cut preference would have been for the zoom range to start at 28mm. It’s a shame it doesn’t have that as the difference between 28mm and 35mm is much greater than the 7mm difference suggests.

As for the processing engine, some differences are starting to show on the market. Panasonic makes fantastic compact cameras but I’ve never liked their approach to noise reduction which I feel is too heavy handed in JPG mode although it comes down to taste in the end. The Canon G9 employs Canon’s Digic III engine. I would summarise its performance by saying that it strikes an excellent balance between noise reduction and detail at the lower ISO ranges. At ISO 800 and above, there’s not much it can do as image quality is not great anyway (garbage in = garbage out).

This brings me to the third aspect which is the sensor. In the DSLR world there are significant differences in the performance of sensors for image quality (CCD vs CMOS, FF vs DX, DX vs 4/3rds, etc). At the compact camera level, the differences narrow. At this size and also price range, you’re dealing which such small pieces of silicon there is only so much that can be done currently. As such, pixel density is typically the most significant factor in determining the quality that comes off the sensor (number of megapixels divided by the sensor size). If this density gets too great (i.e. too many megapixels on too small a sensor) you get issues with noise at much lower ISO’s and other problems. On the positive side with the G9, it offers the slightly larger 1/1.7” sensor but this is offset somewhat by cramming a class leading 12 megapixels into it. This is about the same pixel density as 7 or 8 megapixles on a slightly smaller sensor.

So, where does all of this leave us? Well, it basically means that save for a few exceptions, image quality on all compact cameras is surprisingly similar these days. You see, with all the camera manufacturers deeply committed to the “megapixel race” and therefore similar pixel densities, there is little difference in image quality other than the processing engines (which Canon implements well on the G9).

Now, before people start mailing me with 100% crops showing minor differences between model X and model Y, I’m not saying that everything is equal all the time. There are exceptions (both good and bad) and I’m not introducing an unbreakable rule. What I’m saying is that if a compact camera has been manufactured according to today’s standards and goals, it will turn out very predicable results with regards to noise and resolution.

The same goes for dynamic range. Highlight clipping is noticeable on almost all compact cameras. There is no magic formula or RAW format that will save a badly exposed image or high contrast scene – it’s a limitation of today’s technology and it applies to all the manufacturers. It’s also why I emphasize earlier the importance of good ergonomics on the G9 to be able to adjust exposure compensation.

And so finally, following this rant, we get to the G9. What we have on this camera is image quality that is, for lack of a better description, very predicable. It is predictably excellent at ISO 80 – 100 with very sharp images with little to no noise. It is predictably acceptable at ISO 200 for prints. It is predictably noisy at ISO 400, offering usable images but only to a point. And it’s predictably bad at ISO 800. It is just like many other sensors at 12 MP. Depending on your point of view, this is either great news or disappointing news. For me, given I’ve already accepted this industry trend, it’s a good thing as I know image quality under the right conditions can be very good. Of course, like always it’s a bit frustrating.

Until someone starts doing what Fuji did with the F10 / F11 / F30 / F31, offering fewer megapixels and therefore really genuinely good image quality at higher ISO’s, then don’t expect this trend to change unless a there is a technology breakthrough or unless larger sensors start shipping. Even Fuji it seems have made the departure from their old ways (their latest incarnation is now toeing the 12MP line) although we’ll see how this develops over time.

For this reason, I’m not going to bother posting 100% crops. You can find these in many places – if you’re interested, I recommend starting here.

Instead, perhaps the easiest way for me to summarise real world image quality is to say what ISO’s I’m comfortable using for different purposes. These are not set in stone and are both guidelines and personal preferences only:

• ISO 80 – 100. Excellent detail and low amounts of noise. Noise can be visible in blue skies at 100% but it’s not an issue. Well exposed images are printable up to 13 x 19” with interpolation for regular viewing distances
• ISO 200. Noise definitely noticeable at 100%. Not noticeable in web prints. 6" x 8" and for well exposed images, 10 x 12” is OK here.
• ISO 400. For well lit scenes (e.g daylight), ISO 400 is acceptable. For low light scenes, I won’t show images at ISO 400 any larger than web resolution (e.g. 800 x 600). Prints at 6 x 4" is OK for well lit scenes.
• ISO 800. For well lit scenes (e.g. daylight), ISO 800 is acceptable for web resolution. For low light scenes it’s not usable for web. Not usable for prints in either case.
• ISO 1600. Not usable for anything except maybe your MSN avatar.

I’ll get to sample shots later.

I’ll now cover some other points of note around the imaging prowess of the Canon G9 which stuck out from my usage with the camera…

The first was auto white balance. I found this to be particularly accurate under tungsten lighting which was a surprise, and welcome.

For RAW, there are some resolution benefits but as I’ve commented before, the real benefit of RAW in the real world is more limited than people expect (or hope). It has definite benefits in being able to adjust white balance after the fact, and in producing non destructable files. On a DSLR, I use RAW all the time as the ability to pull details out of shadows / highlights is much greater due to the superior dynamic range of larger sensors. However, on the G9 I usually shoot in JPG and mark the files as read-only as soon as I copy them. RAW on a compact is something I typically like having, but not necessarily something I need. It does get some use however and I’m glad it’s there.

One nice extra feature is the ND (Neutral Density) option in the menu settings. This gives the opportunity to reduce shutter speed in well lit locations. An example of its real world usage is in the following image (click for larger version).

Again, a snapshot only but illustrates a point. This was on a bright day, but using the ND filter I was able to get the shutter speed down to around a second which caused blurring of the water. ND filters are very useful for creativity photography in the DSLR world and the same applies here.

IS worked fine – as it does on most implementations these days.

Finally coming back to hot shoe capability, here’s an example of a setup image which had the G9 stretched to its photographic capabilities (click for larger version).

Note there is some additional post processing on this image, which is described here.

Sample Shots
I’m wrapping up the image review section and thought I’d finish with a few sample shots. Each of these images has been post processed. I use photoshop, around a max of 1 – 2 minutes per image, rarely more. As with all my reviews, I offer my samples as evidence of my ability to use a camera effectively. I have only had this camera for a week resulting in a few mornings to shoot (and sandwiched either side of my major event last week which was covering the Federer – Sampras match), so the fact that I’m able to share a dozen and a half decent shots that in some cases are indistinguishable from entry level DSLR & kit lens quality, is quite promising.