Best compact around, for what that's worth

Don’t buy this camera if you want something small and simple. Do buy it if you want a wide range of features and RAW format functionality.
I love my DSLRs and, like many amateur photographers (I suspect), I’m something of a control freak, which rules out my picking up a compact or point-and-shoot because I’m given little or no say in what I do. I also despise the long, long, long shutter lag and complete inability to shoot fast-moving objects or in low light. The other gripes common to *all* compacts – chromatic aberration, distortion, noise – would normally prevent me from buying a compact at all.
I’ve owned two: the Nikon Coolpix 5100 and the Canon G9, which I’ve used when I needed something small. I gave away the Nikon. I’ve kept the Canon. Below are the reasons why.
The G9 is solid, well-built (some might say ‘chunky’) and only just qualifies (IMO) as a compact. It does have a tiny, but usable, optical viewfinder. If you have small hands, I would imagine the weight and no grip would make shooting one-handed difficult. If you have large paws like mine, the zoom dial is not easy to use. The Nikon is admittedly more ergonomic. I wonder why Canon bothered with an ISO dial on the top (nice touch, I confess), as only 80, 100 and 200 settings are of any use. There is the usual, pointless print button which is thankfully customisable. If you’re used to recent Canon models, the interface and buttons are not too complex. Highly useful functions, such as changing the white balance, EV settings and focus modes are all easily accessible. The Nikon interface is quirky, bordering on irritating.
Both cameras feature a 12 million pixel count, resolution presumably being the only number camera manufacturers think we can understand. Noise in low light conditions or at anything above ISO 200 makes the Nikon useless, the Canon just about OK. (I admit I’m spoilt, being used to Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) If you want to take family snaps indoors, don’t waste money on the Nikon.
The internal flash on the Nikon is poor and weak; it’s only weak on the Canon. Both cameras have a hot-shoe for speedlite flashguns. My Canon 580 Mk II is twice the bulk of the G9, which doesn’t improve handling.
I was struck by the sharp and vibrant colours of the Canon. In normal photo formats, chromatic aberration (colour fringing) and distortion were not noticeable – they can be corrected afterwards, if necessary. Neither offers an impressive zoom range, but the Canon’s wide angle is a bare 30 mm (full-frame equivalent).
Video quality on the G9, I am told, is excellent.
After image quality and relative speed, the best feature on the G9 for me is the RAW format function. This is a godsend and one not offered by the Nikon, but even without it, the Canon G9 is simply a better camera.
Compacts don’t really deserve their bad reputation. Trying to please everybody inevitably lowers overall quality, but the G9 tries hardest to achieve such an impossible goal. Does its wide range of features and improvement in image quality over other compacts justify the high price tag? If you’re unfamiliar with the terms ‘white balance’ and ‘RAW’, then the answer is definitely no. If you’re looking for the next step down from a DSLR, I would say yes.