Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon G9.Love it or hate it.

Go to last post
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I see how a hot shoe is of use to many folks. However, in my case I only take landscapes and so am attracted to the incredible resolution of the G9 and A650. The A650, for me, has the advantage of the tilting LCD for taking wildflower shots close to the ground.

I am considering the supplemental lens with its greater zoom range but am wondering how much resolution is lost using it. For my landscape use, this seems a great package to have and the total cost would be less than for a G9 without the extra zoom range.

One missing feature of the A650 would be a live histogram. Just today I learned of the software that can be used to display a live histogram and zebra strips to show over exposed areas. That sounds FANTASTIC, but I do not know how accurate and how reliable these histograms are. Details are at
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage

My final concern is that perhaps I would not be able tos ee the LCD on a sunny day.

Any opinions would be appreciated.
 
Oak and Acorn said:
Point is, the G9, or any half-way decent P&S cam can and will produce
stunning shots that can be printed just fine at larger sizes provided
the exposure (and other settings) are appropriate for the scene.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that, considering that the photo that was choosen to be printed at 70x50 cm (27,5"x19,7") was shot by our car driver as we made a pause from the church to the wedding reception, at a beutiful place. Since he was not very experied with cameras, I handed him my G7, as opposed to my 20D, with a Metz-54z3 (for fill flash as it was a very sunny day to lift any harsh shadows on the faces) and it worked just fine. The print has excellent quality even if you look at it very close. The G9 would provide a tad more resolution and I can't imagine noise being a problem at lowest ISO on a sunny day, in a similair scenario.

Regards,
Roger

--



My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm
 
Well I suppose the questions to ask are 1) how are you processing your raw files? 2) how good are your sharpening and noise reduction skills? 3) how well are you exposing your pictures? and 4) how big do you want to print them and with which technique?

The G9 can produce very good files and noise comes pretty low down in my personal list of things the camera doesn't do well. There's no secret: you just need to know what you are doing in post-production and treat each image individually. Like everything, it's largely a question of ambition and effort.

My 5D is faster and has less noise. A Leica M8 would do better in low light (although not as well as my 5D). A Sigma DP1 would probably have better overall image quality but be too slow to use...
 
Got the G9 to complement my 30D and still reach for the 30D whenever I want great photographs. The G9 is a compromise - if portability is paramount, then it's one of the best tradeoffs out there, giving you great control compared to point & shoots. However, for me it just proves every day that it's not an SLR, it doesn't give me the pure joy of taking pictures that the SLR can. My two cents - if you want good pictures, get the G9. If you want to really get into photography and learn to love it and create great pictures, I'd go with the SLR anyday.

I expected to be blown away by the G9, but every time I shoot with it, I'm just not - both the experience and the results are not-quite-there.

Also, if you're going to be shooting RAW, the G9 will blow most compact cams out of the water, but doesn't stand a chance against a proper DSLR. On my 30D, RAW is seamless.

My only real gripe against the G9 is the fact that it's not wide enough. Other than that, it's not really fair to rail against it for not being an SLR - it never claimed to be one.

Have fun!
 
Wilson, vc é brasileiro?

There's no possible comparison between the G9 and a Leica M8.But thanks for the links posted all information is wellcome!
WILSON DE BARROS BELLO FILHO said:
LeonelMaluf said:
Aimed at Leica (M8) but it's way
beyond what i want to pay at present moment.After a lot o research G9
seemed a logical "best buy" option.
Click to expand...
--

Canon G9 versus Leica M8? Take a look at this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml

I think you'll also apreciate this one:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_gear_cameras/20080206_Canon_G9/index_alain_briot.html

Wilson Bello
Click to expand...
 
I use to expose in manual mode, do not apply any "in camera" effect, something i've learned with experience, better have an untouched original and tweak with it later having your originals preserved;made light interference in Post production.

I don't shoot raw, yet, something i'm seriously considering after reading and gathering information.I always shoot low ISO.

As i come from film background,first as a still life photographer, advertising studio photographer with view cameras, documentaries, industrial films, TV comercials in 16 or 35mm, TV shows, etc.

Maybe i making some mistakes about digital photography ( My experience with digital is with TV and movie productions in HD format wich is different to photographic cameras ) such as:
  • The bigger the sensor, less grain/noise
  • The amount of MP's is not necessarily what will deliver a neat sharp image
  • Fixed focal lens is always better than zoom lenses
  • No matter what you are shooting you have to aim to the highest quaiity possible
  • Too much post production gives the image an artificial look
Maybe i'm "old school" and have to learn about a new approach to photography, no problem.

You see, in my dayly work i have to deal with a lot of people involved in a movie or tv production, most of the shooting days are tense because they involve a lot of money and different interests.THe guys who shoot advertising / release pictures for mkt dept convinced me to go digital in my personnal pictures and i think that's the way world is moving to, in a short time movie pictures will be fully digital.Panavision and Arri developed their digital sistems and they are excellent besides beeing expensive at present moment.
Sorry making such deviation from main issue....Back to it:

I don't use and don't need the "in camera " gadgetery i shot manualynand all i need is to trust my equipment ( Light measurement, focus capability ) the rest, and more important is your creativity wich is linked to how much you trust your gear.My previous PS camera was a 35MM Rollei with fixed 50mm lens made in Germany in the 60's(It belonged to my father) wich gave me a lot of joy and pleasure, but it's gone; broken no repair possible.RIP.

So, dear David, if you have any advice on how to keep noise under control, specially in shadow areas, it will be very wellcome!
David Carr said:
Well I suppose the questions to ask are 1) how are you processing
your raw files? 2) how good are your sharpening and noise reduction
skills? 3) how well are you exposing your pictures? and 4) how big
do you want to print them and with which technique?
The G9 can produce very good files and noise comes pretty low down in
my personal list of things the camera doesn't do well. There's no
secret: you just need to know what you are doing in post-production
and treat each image individually. Like everything, it's largely a
question of ambition and effort.
My 5D is faster and has less noise. A Leica M8 would do better in low
light (although not as well as my 5D). A Sigma DP1 would probably
have better overall image quality but be too slow to use...
Click to expand...
 
LeonelMaluf said:
Wilson, vc é brasileiro?
Click to expand...
LeonelMaluf said:
There's no possible comparison between the G9 and a Leica M8.
Click to expand...
Brasileiro.
São Luís, Maranhão.
Amador.

You're right, there's no possible comparison between Canon G9 and Leica M8. You can also say: there's no possible comparison between Canon G9 and any DSLR too.

I think the point is: Canon G9 is a samall camera and it's easy to carry it with you all the time. With Canon G9 you can have raw files and good image quality.

BUT, it is important to consider that:

1- Leica M8 and DSLRs have larger sensors and it means better image quality;

2- Leica M8 and DSLRs are faster, much faster if you use RAW files, like I always do;

3- Leica M8 and DSLRs let you change lenses and let you choose better lenses (if you can pay for them);

4- DSLRs have faster, much faster, autofocus, and both Leica M8 and DSLRs have more confortable and faster manual focus.

Wilson Bello
 
Thanks, i'll take that in consideration.As i do not want to carry a DSLR i will start to shoot RAW to take the better of my camera.I like it's square format, it's weight and how it feels on my hand; now it's a matter to get the best it can deliver and do not take to seriously it's flaws.
What i think about digital cameras at this particular moment?
  • Think about Leica, Rollei and Hasselblad and some others.It's just about basic features and superb lenses.They were all portable.NO gadgetery.Regardless the fact they use film in it's many formats.Think about the concept.
Why there is not a single digital camera based on such effcient concept?
Hernan1304 said:
Got the G9 to complement my 30D and still reach for the 30D whenever
I want great photographs. The G9 is a compromise - if portability is
paramount, then it's one of the best tradeoffs out there, giving you
great control compared to point & shoots. However, for me it just
proves every day that it's not an SLR, it doesn't give me the pure
joy of taking pictures that the SLR can. My two cents - if you want
good pictures, get the G9. If you want to really get into
photography and learn to love it and create great pictures, I'd go
with the SLR anyday.

I expected to be blown away by the G9, but every time I shoot with
it, I'm just not - both the experience and the results are
not-quite-there.

Also, if you're going to be shooting RAW, the G9 will blow most
compact cams out of the water, but doesn't stand a chance against a
proper DSLR. On my 30D, RAW is seamless.

My only real gripe against the G9 is the fact that it's not wide
enough. Other than that, it's not really fair to rail against it for
not being an SLR - it never claimed to be one.

Have fun!
Click to expand...
 
Grande São Luis! Estive ai algumas vezes a trabalho, me diverti muito no centrinho historico, comi muito bem e fui muito bem acolhido por este povo maravilhoso do grande estado do Maranhão!VIva São Luis e o Maranhão!
Sou do Rio de Janeiro, Capital.
 
LeonelMaluf said:
Grande São Luis! Estive ai algumas vezes a trabalho, me diverti muito
no centrinho historico, comi muito bem e fui muito bem acolhido por
este povo maravilhoso do grande estado do Maranhão!VIva São Luis e o
Maranhão!
Sou do Rio de Janeiro, Capital.
Click to expand...
--

Faz tempo que não vou ao Rio, a última vez foi em 1989, ainda na adolescência. Depois fiquei um pouco arredio, por conta das notícias sobre a violência urbana (e depois vieram trabalho, casamento, filha, despesas...). Meus pais, tios, primos, irmão e irmã continuam indo com freqüência ao Rio que, não há dúvidas, é uma Cidade Maravilhosa.
 
tudo q vc leu e ouviu é, em gande parte, verdade.Infelizmente esta cidade n é mais maravilhosa há muito.

E há agora o perigo da dengue.....Triste balneário decadente esse daqui.Não recomendo.
WILSON DE BARROS BELLO FILHO said:
LeonelMaluf said:
Grande São Luis! Estive ai algumas vezes a trabalho, me diverti muito
no centrinho historico, comi muito bem e fui muito bem acolhido por
este povo maravilhoso do grande estado do Maranhão!VIva São Luis e o
Maranhão!
Sou do Rio de Janeiro, Capital.
Click to expand...
--

Faz tempo que não vou ao Rio, a última vez foi em 1989, ainda na
adolescência. Depois fiquei um pouco arredio, por conta das notícias
sobre a violência urbana (e depois vieram trabalho, casamento, filha,
despesas...). Meus pais, tios, primos, irmão e irmã continuam indo
com freqüência ao Rio que, não há dúvidas, é uma Cidade Maravilhosa.
Click to expand...
 
Leonel,

I think that it's bad post-production than gives pictures an artificial look...

My advice? Give up on in-camera JPEGs. Buy Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening techniques and look around the web for tutorials. There's plenty of information out there and a world of difference between what comes out of the camera as a JPEG and what you can coax from the raw information in PP.

I find that pulling the best from compacts like the G9 takes far more work than if I use a DSLR. The raw files give generally less leeway for poor technique and manufacturers supply less comprehensive software (or no software at all) with compacts than with DSLRs. If you make small prints, in-camera JPEGs or poorly sharpened raw files might well be acceptable. If you are more ambitious, you need to be more careful, especially as with these cameras there is always a trade-off to be made between noise reduction and sharpness.

It's possible to interpolate G9 files by 200% and maintain impressive quality. This gives you a 200 dpi print measuring about 1 metre on the long side.

I didn't intend to be flippant: it really is simply a question of effort, just like making a good print in the darkroom was in the old days...
 
LeonelMaluf said:
I'm new to digital photography and don't want to carry big DSLR's
with lots of lenses, filters, etc.Aimed at Leica (M8) but it's way
beyond what i want to pay at present moment.After a lot o research G9
seemed a logical "best buy" option.
After running some test shots i got disapointed with camera's noise
level even at low ISO speed in shadow areas and even in highlight
areas in some cases.It have one of biggest sensors in it's category,
lots of good features like RAW shooting , solid construction easy to
carry around and others.Misses a wider angle lens and a real optical
VF.
Need some more opinion and tips from users to get the best of it.
Thanks to all!
Click to expand...
The G9 takes extremely sharp photos at ISO 80, and the noise is very fine and would not be noticeable at all when printed at 13 x 19". If your goal is to make huge poster sized prints, maybe the camera you need is a 1Ds Mark III.

My only image quality complaint is that the lens is a little bit soft at the corners. (It's best to shoot at F5.6 for best corner sharpness.)

My other complaints with the camera would be:

(1) Optical viewfinder could have been done a lot better, although it's useable if your main goal is to hold the camera steadier than you would be able to using the rear LCD.

(2) Other people have complained about dust getting sucked into the camera. It would suck if the day after the warranty expires, the camera sucks up a huge dustball.

(3) The JPEGs have too much sharpening, even when in-camera sharpening is set to the lowest setting. This limits the usefulness of the JPEGs. Of course you can shoot RAW, but on most DSLRs there isn't much reason to shoot RAW.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
 
Your ISO 3200 images look great. May I ask how you accomplished NR for these images and how much was applied? Thanks.

rg
 
The Sigma DP1 might be of interest if you're looking for a more "pure" solution than the G9 in a compact package.
 
roweraay said:
People underestimate the portability advantages of a brick-like
shape. A projecting grip on even a small camera, simply makes it too
bulky to carry along, even though it may be ergonomically better.

A G9 wins BIG points on that score, where the flatness of its shape
ensures tremendous portability and the built-in IS certainly helps in
stabilizing the image. Portability ensures that we will have a camera
along, when we need it. People who talk about a dSLR (even a small
one like the D40) and compare its portability with a flat shape like
the G9, simply don't know what they are talking about, IMO. Sure, a
D40 (and a Canon 5D and a Nikon D300 and a 1DSMKIII) will run circles
around a G9 when it comes to image quality but that is a whole
different subject.
Click to expand...
That's a huge reason why I opted for the G9. It's bigger than my previous P&S, but a heck of a lot smaller than any DSLR. I will never carry a 'man-bag' to hold my camera :P hahaha
 
Folllowing advices of many people in this thread i shot some RAW format pictures.For my surprise it seems they can only be opened by Canon's suplied software.Is it what is called "proprietary" RAW format? They cannot be opened in Photoshop CS3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top