In the first shot, the settings used on the G9 worked fine. A faster shutter speed was not needed so why did you choose to setup up the ISO when using the 5D??

Same goes for the second shot of pics, only in addition to that, why didn’t you use the lowest possible aperture on both cameras?? Weren’t you trying to test how well they throw the background out of focus??

In the fourth test, testing macro, you complained that the 5D didn’t have as wider depth of feild, yet you pumped the ISO up to 1600 and reduced the exposure by reducing shutter speed. If you wanted a wider depth of field, why didn’t you close the aperture a bit??

The telephoto indoors photo on the G9 worked fine. Once again, why you felt the need to use a higher ISO and increase shutter speed and close the aperture on the 5D is beond me. Obviously the 5D photo would be EVEN better if you hadn’t of made that decision.

There is more photos but I have to go to work.

In summary, this comparison is just silly.

1.) Every single time, the 5D produced less noise despite the fact that a lower ISO was used on it. In the first pic where there was plenty of light (enabling the use of ISO 80 on the G9) that difference was minimal. But the G9 produces way more noise at ISO 800 than the 5D does at 1600…to me that difference is huge.
2.) In terms of lens quality…wow, the G9 is impressive!!
3.) In terms macro ability, sure the G9 is good (can fill the frame without 22mm across, I tested it) but you have to get EXTREEMLY close to achieve it. You forgot to mention that a specialised macro lens will achieve the same thing but from a greater working distance….that is the key point!
3.) There is no comparison. No one buys a compact for image quality, they buy it for versatility and convince. It can only mach the image quality of the 5D when the situation enables ISO 80 to be used. That’s the only time!

I love my G9 but sooooo many times have lost indoor photos to motion blur and wished I could just turn the IOS up that little bit higher or open that appture that little bit more (f/4.8 is as open as it gets at 200mm).

The second example with near focus for the wide angle and the background blur. The blur on the second shot is due to a shorter shooting time (1/800 vs 1/320). Longer shooting time yields a wider depth of field. The rest of the comments on ISO are true, as well. Anyway, the work is worth since the Powershot G9 is a wonderful camera to take. If you purchased it, you made a great choice.

If I’m going to be out and about, I would be carrying the G9 in a bag, and if I’m going to carry a bag, why not carry the 5D instead? With a 50mm f1.4 and the battery grip removed it isn’t all that big or heavy, and if I wear a clown outfit it won’t even be obtrusive (people will be looking at the clown outfit rather than the camera).

I think the comments about apparent depth of field miss the fact that the comparison presented here is between a 38mm zoom setting on the Canon 5D’s lens and what is in reality something like 9mm on the Powershot G9 (the G9 has a 4x sensor crop); the G9 images are taken from what would be an unusually great distance if the sensor was full-frame and the photographer was using a 9mm lens. That in part explains the G9′s inability to produce pleasingly shallow depth of field.