G9 owners, How many users use Raw ! and if not is its Jpeg good enough!

[CAMMASTER]

To put people in the loop.......this thread was started by the OP to
challenge my claims (in another thread) that my G9 can be as good as
my F31 (and his F30) at ISO800. It also started because I said most
users like to use raw on the G9, especailly to control noise at
higher ISOs. Fair play to the OP. Looks like he/she is doing a roll
call...LOL!
I told the OP that I have the photos to back that up. It could have
been sorted in another post but here goes. This should pipe the OP
down a bit.

Here is your F30 (or my F31) in all it's full glory getting the pants
blown of it at ISO400 by the G9 in detail with raw. But cheer
up.....it does show why your little F30 is so good and clean though
at higher ISOs.....because they take the noise out fantastically. But
in doing so, they also take the detail with it by excessive noise
reduction! So wakey wakey, luv.



Now lets go up a notch to ISO800. Here is your F30 (same as F31)
against my G9 at ISO800 in the same lowlight indoor situation.

First of all I photographed a photo magazine which had fine detail on
the printed cover. Both were taken on a tripod under tungsten
lighting at same distances and same aperture and shutter speeds. SS
was 1/13s, which I would deem low enough lighting.



And here below are the crops after I processed the G9 in raw myself.
I should point out that not everyone will get these results if they
don't posses a fair knowledge of raw and processing. Actually, I was
dissapointed with my PP skills in this result as I only matched the
F31 blow for blow. I should have gotten it better and probably would
now if I processed it again. Anyway.....bottom line, the F31 is no
better!



And lets crank it up full, shall we? And for a larf lets see the G9
getting a total pasting.......not!
Again you will still see why your infamous Fuji is so good and clean
at high ISOs............here is both cams at ISO1600.
While I left more noise in the G9 crop in processing and you can also
see a little horrible color noise in there as well..... it completley
blows the doors off my F31 in detail once again in this magazine
cropped shot. The printed "cymk" on the magazine was retained by the
G9 in raw but went bye byes on the "NR smearing F31" in which you are
stuck with and can't undo.



And you stated your F30 jpegs are WAY better than the G9's? You must
have gotten a dud G9 or don't know how to handle that wild beast. Or
else you got a Super F30!
Here are 100% crops of the G7 in jpeg which I owned before getting
the G9 for raw. It has the same output as the G9 in jpeg. This is it
against the terrific Canon 30D at low ISOs. Not bad, eh? If it can
give a 30D a very close run for it's money, then your F30 must have
ONE HELL of a beast if it blows the socks off the G9 in jpeg. It
would blow the 30D along with it if that was the case!



And finally.....since you a bit hooked on noise. You forget one big
thing with the G9 and noise for indoor shooting.....there is no need
for noise with G9 at all!
Ever hear of a hotshoe? It's not put there to decorate the G9 for
xmas. It is there for a purpose. There is no need for NOISE on a G9
for indoor shooting with a low enough ceiling if you don't want
noise! And I for one, have no hang-ups in using it either for social
gatherings, birthdays ect when I want the upmost in quality but still
not wanting to lug all the bigger DSLR gear. Hell...it's another one
of the reasons I bought the G9.....to use this function!
So try to get this quality from your F30 indoors. No noise or detail
loss as we seen above from NR smearing in having to shoot ISO800/1600
with F30. And if you want to try and use low ISOs to match G9's image
quality with the F30..... you will have to use that little redeye
junky of a flash which will give very harsh shadows and unrealistic
colors. No harsh shadows, redeye or unrealistic colors on the G9.
Just pure quality with bags of detail.
And all with a flash that costed me €100 and is as small as your
SB400 (coat pocketable) which I can bounce it off a ceiling at ISO80.
Both flash and G9 together in a my bag is still way smaller than one
entry level DSLR like D40 in a bag. And it will produce just as good
images indoors for birthdays and social gatherings too!.
So off you go now....... and try to gather all the info you like to
fire at me with this thread you started. No amount of info will ever
convince of the facts even if you pointed me to some stupid jpeg
comparisons from reviews. And most of all you will never take away
from me in what I have and in what I produced here. And that is with
MY PP ABILITY and with MY CAMERA (G9), not only will I technically
produce as good images at nearly all ISOs with the G9 as your F30,
but also technically, the camera itself (as DPR put it) is leagues
ahead in all other areas compared to compacts like your F30.......
......so boo bl--dy hoo!







--
*****************************************
Packy

Lovely Lovely photos indeed with flash. I do wonder could one of those strikingly handsome gentlemen possibly be you ! Please tell ! Rhoda *

***************************************************

 

[packy]

CAMMASTER wrote:
Lovely Lovely photos indeed with flash. I do wonder could one of
those strikingly handsome gentlemen possibly be you ! Please tell !
Rhoda *

To answer your question....Nope. None of them are of me.

But please stay on topic and comment on the facts on your own thread that you started. And the facts so far are:

1: On last counting, seven people shoot raw with G9 as opposed to two people shooting jpeg. Guess that back up my comment that most G9 users shoot raw, eh? That's over 70% and a very clear majority! You probably wouldn't get a higher ratio than that if you ran a thread on D40 forum. I bet it would be about 50/50 between raw and jpeg there.

2: Of those who shot in raw, they reckon one of the reasons why they shoot raw is because they are using the OPTIMAL QUALITY with the G9. This explains to some degree why you couldn't get the most out of G9 and were disappointed.

3: Of those who shot in raw, only one guy made a comment relation to your query about ISO800. He commented that he gets very good 8x10s with G9 at ISO800. That is about all you will get with a F30 at ISO800 too from my experience and from reviews like "imaging resource" where they say about the F30 "ISO 800 images were very good at 8x10" and that the G7 shot in jpeg (they hadn't G9 reviewed) "ISO 800 shots are still good at 8x10".

So given that you can get more out of raw with the G9 (which that poster verifies too) at ISO800, one can easily deduct that the G9 ISO800s will improve on the G7's jpeg's "still good" to being a "very good" too at 8x10.

4: Since that the only comment you could come up with after my findings on shooting raw with the G9 against jpegs with F30/31 was to ask was I in one of the bottom photos....... it is quite clear you have nothing substantial to imput into your own thread and to bring forward to prove that your F30 is a better picture taker. Saying it repeatedly don't make it so, or shooting the G9 in "green auto" mode at default setting in jpeg make it so either....and nor does comparing inferior quality shots from G9 (jpegs) from review sites when the G9 is not shooting at optimal quality make it so, too.

People around here are more intelligent than that. They want hard facts and the both camera's shooting at optimal settings. That is what I gave them and the results was good enough to leave you with such a lame response (above).

5: my test also shows what really happens between the two cams and why the F30 is so clean. Because it smooths out noise brilliantly...but also details.

It is also clear in my tests that the G9 when shot in raw and processed by me in ACR, not alone does it matches your F30, but in some cases blows the doors off it! Again, you have nothing to bring forward to the table to contest this. That is quite clear with your "off-topic" and irrelevant response above. And saying a thousand times like a parrot in every post that the F30 is better, won't make it so and has no substance or weight around here. We want hard facts with photos with both cameras at optimal settings. Not a parrot repeating a message of no substance. Nor some inexperienced geek shooting a G9 in "green auto" mode in jpegs at default settings for a day or two and repeating a thousand times that the G9 is rubbish. That is not substantial hard facts. That only shows us your inexperience, bad handling and inability to get the most out of the G9.

--
*****************************************
Packy

 

[CAMMASTER]

CAMMASTER wrote:
Lovely Lovely photos indeed with flash. I do wonder could one of
those strikingly handsome gentlemen possibly be you ! Please tell !
Rhoda *

To answer your question....Nope. None of them are of me.

But please stay on topic and comment on the facts on your own thread
that you started. And the facts so far are:

1: On last counting, seven people shoot raw with G9 as opposed to two
people shooting jpeg. Guess that back up my comment that most G9
users shoot raw, eh? That's over 70% and a very clear majority! You
probably wouldn't get a higher ratio than that if you ran a thread on
D40 forum. I bet it would be about 50/50 between raw and jpeg there.

2: Of those who shot in raw, they reckon one of the reasons why they
shoot raw is because they are using the OPTIMAL QUALITY with the G9.
This explains to some degree why you couldn't get the most out of G9
and were disappointed.

3: Of those who shot in raw, only one guy made a comment relation to
your query about ISO800. He commented that he gets very good 8x10s
with G9 at ISO800. That is about all you will get with a F30 at
ISO800 too from my experience and from reviews like "imaging
resource" where they say about the F30 "ISO 800 images were very good
at 8x10" and that the G7 shot in jpeg (they hadn't G9 reviewed) "ISO
800 shots are still good at 8x10".
So given that you can get more out of raw with the G9 (which that
poster verifies too) at ISO800, one can easily deduct that the G9
ISO800s will improve on the G7's jpeg's "still good" to being a "very
good" too at 8x10.

4: Since that the only comment you could come up with after my
findings on shooting raw with the G9 against jpegs with F30/31 was to
ask was I in one of the bottom photos....... it is quite clear you
have nothing substantial to imput into your own thread and to bring
forward to prove that your F30 is a better picture taker. Saying it
repeatedly don't make it so, or shooting the G9 in "green auto" mode
at default setting in jpeg make it so either....and nor does
comparing inferior quality shots from G9 (jpegs) from review sites
when the G9 is not shooting at optimal quality make it so, too.
People around here are more intelligent than that. They want hard
facts and the both camera's shooting at optimal settings. That is
what I gave them and the results was good enough to leave you with
such a lame response (above).

5: my test also shows what really happens between the two cams and
why the F30 is so clean. Because it smooths out noise
brilliantly...but also details.
It is also clear in my tests that the G9 when shot in raw and
processed by me in ACR, not alone does it matches your F30, but in
some cases blows the doors off it! Again, you have nothing to bring
forward to the table to contest this. That is quite clear with your
"off-topic" and irrelevant response above. And saying a thousand
times like a parrot in every post that the F30 is better, won't make
it so and has no substance or weight around here. We want hard facts
with photos with both cameras at optimal settings. Not a parrot
repeating a message of no substance. Nor some inexperienced geek
shooting a G9 in "green auto" mode in jpegs at default settings for a
day or two and repeating a thousand times that the G9 is rubbish.
That is not substantial hard facts. That only shows us your
inexperience, bad handling and inability to get the most out of the
G9.

--
*****************************************
Packy

Inexperienced I may be, Geek if you ment me perhaps not , I dont think so but if thats your point of view ! and me saying my F30 gives better high iso results is what we all found here . and Is my point of view ,

We prefer the F30 shots to the G9 shots we tried and returned, but never tried or would use Raw in the G9, that camera imo had much noise even at 400 iso,

No we dont do raw, and not convinced most others do with the G9, or that you should have to to get F30 800iso results in low light ,so forgeting Raw for a second and back to my question to all folk not just you what is your point of view " how does the G9 do at lets say 800iso in jepeg mode is it acceptable, or do you find you have to use Raw and is it acceptable then would you say,

I did not say the G9 is rubish, but was not liked by me and our family members who use our cameras,, and I like my F30 photos both low or high iso,

Do you like your F31 I presume you have it for high iso work. even if its allways possible you might have less than perfect copy for all we know.

I dont have a problem getting the most out of a G9 looking at your LAST comment, I returned it of course for the various well known negative issues I mostly agree with, and most of all the also well known noise issue.

You wont deny will you that you mentioned you think you could use your old N D50 and F10 to do most of your photo work today, So we strugle on with our lowly camera collection see how low we can go, Only a crippled Nikon D40 DSLR,, old F30, soft corners IXUS 860, anciant A95 ,A80, ditto Panasinic FZ5 & FZ2 and only hope against hope we can become better more experianced and then fit to have an opinion on the forums and as for me strive to be less geeky, thankyou so much for your post expert comments Rhoda !*

l

 

[robbert100]

If RAW is available on a camera i shoot RAW (flash memory is so cheap today)

I consider RAW as the negatives we were used to in the "film" age. If i need JPG files i just (batch) convert the RAW files otherwise i convert the RAW files to TIFF for further lossless Photoshop work.

From a "just point an shoot compact camera" perspective the JPG files from a G9 are very good.

So, if you don't want to invest your time in postprocessing, recovering higlights etc. JPG's are just fine (using the highest quality settings) In that case buying a Powershot A650 would be a cost effective solution.

Best regards,

Rob

http://www.geckophoto.zenfolio.com

 

[packy]

CAMMASTER wrote:
So many replies can I thank others for there point of view and reply
just on this one seems not all think Raw is a must do.

7 out of 9 on this thread think that raw is a must do. That is pretty convincing in my book. But anyway, what difference is it to you? You sent back the G9 and will never own one, so why are you starting a G9 raw and jpeg thread? Pretty pointless if you are never going to own or use the cam.

Thanks for your opinion Russ, I know you are well respected poster
Sir and have watched your opinions and lovely profile picture .

Respected...yes, lovely profile picture...yes, but only one mans opinion. Funny how you single out only ONE MAN'S opinion out and IGNORE the other seven people who favoured shooting raw. Very balanced debate. Seems you only hear what you want to hear, I guess. So comical.

I never said G9 was not good at 800 iso, but that I prefered the F30
and thought it better compared to the G9,

Yes you did. When you say noise is bad on G9, then you will be including ISO800 in that statement....go figure.

anouther poster I think
said no and he uses Raw and at 800 iso its better than his F31 But he
might have a dud F31.,

Of course...I should have known. I have a dud F31! And I did the same tests with the G7 with raw hack and with my old F30 and got the same results. Maybe that F30 was a Dud too. Anything but look at the truth, I guess.

I also wondered why he still has a F31might be
for it be for sport and scenery work what do I know only a SIMPLE
girl.

If you read my posts you recently, you wouldn't have to wonder. It's outdated and obsoloete both in form and function. I don't use it. My girlfriend does. Great cam for simple little girlies in auto mode. That is why I still have it or it would go on ebay to some sucker for a killing!

I have a F30, I dont use Raw like yourself on my only half a
DSLR camera I was told D40,

So you don't use the D40's optimal image quality? You rather use 9 stops of dynamic range compared to 11 stops in raw. You rather shoot with LESS detail too? That's what seperates the snapshooters from the serious users, I guess.

I have not the Time or inclanation, and
was trying to find out if the G9 is that good at 800 iso a respected
poster mentioned ( he is an experienced poster ). and shines at 800
iso, even better he says go use Raw.

I Had a G9 for some time to try, returned it for a few well known
issues, but mostly the noise at 400 up.

Isn't that a contradiction? You claim you never said that ISO800 was bad on the G9, but yet sent the camera back because at ISO400 up it was.......B A D!

The F30 seemed cleaner
better at say 400 -800 iso + (anyway only my point of view) it
sure looked it after looking at both sets of photos and on the screen

It sure was cleaner. and I showed you why in my tests. But you never checked the fine detail, honey when yo had the cams. Too late now though. But I showed you what you are missing anyway.

This all came out of what would be better on the G10 and a celibrated
poster seemed (but I could be wrong of course ) to agree with me on
possibly 6 to 7mp like the F30, less noise, I can only imagine like
me he thinks 12mp is the wrong number on the G9, starting at 28mm
lens a must have ,, I would also like a better grip like my A95/80
and also like my A95/80 a swivell screen lovely.

Yep..6-7mp would be nice. But 12mp hasn't stopped me getting images on a par and sometimes even better than your glorious F30. And with more zoom range and cropping abilities too!

Thanks again so much Russ, for your always civil reply, for yours and
others points of view, we all have a point of view but it does not
have to be" Oh dear seems it sometimes " world war three because of
that point of view, does it Russ !. RhoDA*

But you have no point of view. You can't give a point of view of any substance on raw, if you have never used raw!

*****************************************
Packy

 

[packy]

CAMMASTER wrote:
and me saying my F30 gives
better high iso results is what we all found here . and Is my point
of view ,

Again, saying it a thousand times like a parrot don't make it so. And I don't believe you and contest your claims. I presented my proof. And not one single Fuji member ever contested my tests or findings.

Now you got to shows us yours findings. Post your evidence. Saying it doesn't make it so. Ever been to court? A prosecutor might have a fair idea and can say that a person is guilty a thousand times in court. But he has to PROVE it with hard facts. You have presented none. So your point of view (like the prosecuters) is totally weightless and hearsay.

*****************************************
Packy

 

[rameshpkumar]

Correcting WB, Color and adjusting sharpness, and recovering some amount of highlights are all possible with RAW.

Some people here say they hate RAW but they use Photoshop to adjust JPG, my reasoning is that if you are adjusting any image parameters in a software, why dont you shoot in RAW?

JPG is a compressed 8 bit format and if you start editing it is going to create more issues.

For casual family outings I use JPG.

--
Thanks Ramesh
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/portfolio
My G9 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/canong9

 

[CAMMASTER]

CAMMASTER wrote:
and me saying my F30 gives
better high iso results is what we all found here . and Is my point
of view ,

Again, saying it a thousand times like a parrot don't make it so. And
I don't believe you and contest your claims. I presented my proof.
And not one single Fuji member ever contested my tests or findings.
Now you got to shows us yours findings. Post your evidence. Saying it
doesn't make it so. Ever been to court? A prosecutor might have a
fair idea and can say that a person is guilty a thousand times in
court. But he has to PROVE it with hard facts. You have presented
none. So your point of view (like the prosecuters) is totally
weightless and hearsay.

*****************************************
Packy

I HAVE MY POINT OF VIEW! when you buy a G9 it does not say but maybe should , DANGER WARNING !this 12 mp camera sure is is CR---P at 400 iso up unless you use RAW .

You can put money on it every G9 user does not use raw, including you phrase any of those Geeks,

Your hmm using the word loose imo tests, some others also have the same opinion are not proof at 800 iso, and why would anyone bother contesting your not very wonderfull tests ,or even bother with you at all probably not because of and your schoolboy rants and rage if someone just has a different view !

I dont have to prove it but can put forth my opinion ! you can answer it or ignor it, but allow me to have it, others might have opinions of some of your recent photos you have shown, but dont rant and rage you for your shot selection,

I also tried the A650 no raw and that was just as noisy 400 up, my opinion is just that noise noise and more noise ,and is as valid as your opinion, even if others do not allways agree with you, if they ever did that would be just silly ,if you believe they do agree with your every spoken word, do you! if so that is really one daft idea and not how it is believe me ! Rhoda *

l

 

[jerryk]

I do this with all my cameras. With products like Lightroom it is just as easy to shoot raw. Add to that the flexibility of raws in post processing and I don't see any reason to shoot jpegs.

jerry

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Diane B]

Not a chance of me expounding on that. If I keep the G9, I'll always shoot in RAW--very easy and its part of my workflow (import through LR). Right now expecting to sell it as I have a used 400D enroute to use as my smaller cam which will just suit me better. Nothing against the G9--fine camera, just not for me.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

 

[packy]

CAMMASTER wrote:
I HAVE MY POINT OF VIEW! when you buy a G9 it does not say but maybe
should , DANGER WARNING !this 12 mp camera sure is is CR---P at 400
iso up unless you use RAW .

Do you read my posts at all? I said that you have no point of view as to regards to RAW as you have never used it. As for a point of view with the G9 itself, you have a point of view. I never said you had. But I said your point of view is totally weightless and useless unless you post proof. So you have a point of vierw. But it's a rubbish one because you lack any proof to back up what you are saying.

I have made claims too. But I posted proof. I posted side by side comparisons with the F31 & G9 right up to ISO1600....and the G9 smokes your Fuji! So accept it and get over it. Just because you haven't the capability to do it with the G9 in your hands....... doesn't mean we are all as incapable in using a G9 to it's FULL potential.

Also, in your last post you said you never said that G9 was bad at ISO800. You sure changed your tune now..... and with some very unlady-like language thrown in too, may I add!

You can put money on it every G9 user does not use raw, including you
phrase any of those Geeks,

HA HA HA......That's so funny. You did a poll here didn't you, on how many users do raw. Did you try counting, yet? I count it at the moment at about 10 people using raw and only two using jpeg. That's about 85% of users using raw. I never said EVERY SINGLE user will shoot with raw. I said "MOST" serious users will. And 85% would classify as MOST USERS. So accept the results from the poll that YOU started and don't be crying like a baby. Accept that you got burnt by your own thread. You were hoping for an overwhelming "jpeg" vote....but got stung! Unlike you....most people shoot with the G9 to it's full potential. It's why we are all happy campers and you had to send your G9 back to the Amazon jungle!

Your hmm using the word loose imo tests, some others also have the
same opinion are not proof at 800 iso, and why would anyone bother
contesting your not very wonderfull tests ,or even bother with you
at all probably not because of and your schoolboy rants and rage if
someone just has a different view !

Nobody contested me because they can't prove that F-series is better....period. And it's your the one who is cursing around here, not me. So whose schoolboy ranting & raving, eh?

I dont have to prove it but can put forth my opinion ! you can answer
it or ignor it, but allow me to have it, others might have opinions
of some of your recent photos you have shown, but dont rant and rage
you for your shot selection,

I never stopped you putting forward an opinion, you did just that regardless!. I just challenged it which I am entitled to do because you didn't put forward a little bit of proof to add some weight to your arguments.

You have challenged me on a numerous of occassions. But I had my facts and proof. And that bugs the hell out of you especially when you have nothing to prove me wrong.

I also tried the A650 no raw and that was just as noisy 400 up, my
opinion is just that noise noise and more noise ,and is as valid as
your opinion, even if others do not allways agree with you, if they
ever did that would be just silly ,if you believe they do agree with
your every spoken word, do you! if so that is really one daft idea
and not how it is believe me ! Rhoda *

You can try what cams you like. The A650 is irrevelent to the discussion. Don't have it and won't get it. Why? The G9 will blow the doors off it because I shoot raw and use a hotshoe.

So get back on topic. We are talking about the G9. And we are talking about what it can produce at its best setting....which is raw. And I showed you how it whopped your F30 and proved that all your rantings and opinions are laughable.... to say the least. So accept it and grow up. It seems to me that you can't handle the fact that there are better cameras out there to yours when put into the right hands.

You are the classic novice getting into a Grand Prix car and spinning out before the first a lap...... and then hands the car back and starts to constantly moan that the car was rubbish. Ever stop to think that it may be you that are rubbish and don't know how to handle and get the most out of these machines?

*****************************************
Packy

 

[Harvey]

Is the G9 compatible with the Nikon SB400 flash in TTL Auto Mode etc.?

 

[jerryk]

Not a chance of me expounding on that. If I keep the G9, I'll always
shoot in RAW--very easy and its part of my workflow (import through
LR). Right now expecting to sell it as I have a used 400D enroute to
use as my smaller cam which will just suit me better. Nothing
against the G9--fine camera, just not for me.

Diane,

Would mind expounded on your decision to get replace the G9 with a small DSLR? I am considering doing the same.

jerry

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Diane B]

Jerry, you've probably seen my posts of 'angst' here about using the LCD (trying external VFs, etc.), not being able to use DOF creatively and missing being able to shoot lower available light (I can push it and then use NR, but...). In all honesty, every time I take just the G9 I wish I had a DSLR. I also often use the Lensmate (more for nicer handling than anything else), so there we are at a 'not pocketable' camera--which is also okay for me since I use a very small bag anyhow. I realize that the reason many have for the G9 and similar is the fact they can carry it without additional 'stuff' and get decent shots. I also remembered I had the original G1 and was so happy to move to a DSLR (had come from film) and why.

Also--we work from a home office so I really find no good reason to have a camera with me always LOL--and when I'm out and about, its usualy car or foot--and carrying a small bag is no biggie. For those that are in an urban environment every day (or like Ramesh in India) and just want a very inconspicuous camera to get the shots they wouldn't get otherwise--the G9 makes a huge amount of sense.

For me--I just enjoy the process of shooting and really good IQ at the end. I, in all honesty, have to say after almost a year (I bought the G9 the week it came out last Sept and paid full price--dummy that I am LOL) I really don't enjoy using it. Just a personal thing--I've thought about it from all angles and just decided that my main reason for buying it was to carry something smaller/lighter--but it doesn't have to be pocketable (I've carried my 5D and 28-75 in a pretty small bag with my personal items--but its a good deal heavier than a 400D). One other thing that affected my thinking is reading the Sigma DP1 threads. I loved the results of that camera, knew they were shooting at 28mm only and I started to consider that I can go that route or a variety of other 'one prime only' with what I already own--and the 400D (Oh, I chose the 400D after reading one of Adam T's threads about choosing it over th new 450D and realizing I could buy one for 1/2 of the new--and it would still be a great cam for my 'small cam' use).

I considered the Oly 420--but decided against a second system when I have quite a lot of lenses (Canon mount). I made a small drawing of a Rebel against the footprint of the G9, looked at the weights (considering adding a small fast prime or 2 like the 28 and 50), went to Best Buy and shot with an XTI--and decided that that was a better route for me--smaller, can actually stick in the same very small Domke bag I used for the G9 plus Lensmate. So it will be my carry around cam with probably a 28 on it (a good 'normal' prime) and of course it accepts every other lens I own, so I have a great deal of flexibility.

That was my thought process. I'm not selling the G9 this minute to give me time to see how it goes.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

 

[jerryk]

. In all honesty, every time I take just the
G9 I wish I had a DSLR.

This statement sums up my feelings on the G9. It is IMHO, the G9 is frustratingly good. A great camera and package, that is hindered by a small noisy sensor and slow AF.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Howard S]

about 99% of the time and the 1% I shoot RAW + jpeg. Is the G9 jpeg good enough? Probably as good as most, but I bought it to use RAW which gives more control and potential.

At ISO800 I would only shoot RAW if it was available, even with a DSLR

Do I think RAW worth the time and effort? I guess the answer to that is clear.

having said the above I did do some jpeg shotts just having bought the G9 to see what it was like. Here's one at ISO800. Not brilliant quality but OK as a memory shot.
http://www.pbase.com/howards/image/98958011

What is your opinion on your G9s Jpeg engine, is it good enough , or
if not is Raw a major improvement , Must Raw be used do you think.
and if using 800 iso for example, Also do you believe Raw worth
the time and effort involved,
Thankyou for your point of view. Rhoda *

*******************************************************

 

[Diane B]

. In all honesty, every time I take just the
G9 I wish I had a DSLR.

This statement sums up my feelings on the G9. It is IMHO, the G9 is
frustratingly good. A great camera and package, that is hindered by
a small noisy sensor and slow AF.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

Two of my reasons are directly related to sensor size--which is why, I'm sure, I was so attracted to the DP1--but it has other frustrations, at least I see them as probable frustrations for me. I can deal with using an external --or even the not very good, "but at least there is one" internal VF.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

 

[lyblly]

G9's JPEG engine is good at ISO 80 - 400. I avoid JPEG at ISO 800 or higher. Whenever the picture is important or needs further PS, I will switch to Raw mode.

 

[packy]

Howard S wrote:
having said the above I did do some jpeg shotts just having bought
the G9 to see what it was like. Here's one at ISO800. Not brilliant
quality but OK as a memory shot.

http://www.pbase.com/howards/image/98958011

Excellent sharp and clean exposure with lovely color. And lovely use of G9 zoom with IS for steady and sharp candid shot. And shot in jpeg, you say? Some persons (like OP) complained that you can't get clean images in drab UK weather at even ISO400. You shot in lower light than cloudy UK weather, and you shot at ISO800 and still got an excellent clean capture with jpeg. OP must have got a dud G9 or it just shows what can be done in right hands! Me thinks it's the latter. Thanks for sharing!

...Oh!....and may I add that I noticed too that it would impossible to get that shot with the "old" lowlight kings like F30. You shot that at 140mm, f4, 1/50s. F30 only goes to 105mm. Even if it was shot at 105mm with F30, the apeture would be one stop more at f5.6 so you couldn't shoot at ISO800 at 1/25s, you would have to go to ISO1600 to get same shutter speed (1/50s). Then you get a watercolor smeared image of poorer quality to G9's ISO800.

And without IS, you will run the risk of camera shake even at 1/50s @ 105mm on F30. Things don't bode too well for lowlight kings at the tele end. Always said it....lowlight kings like F30 only has advantage at wide angle over G9's. Come away from WA and use the zoom on F30 and the advantage is gone "bye byes" and you will have to always shoot one ISO higher to match the faster G9 lens.

*****************************************
Packy

 

[packy]

jerryk wrote:
This statement sums up my feelings on the G9. It is IMHO, the G9 is
frustratingly good. A great camera and package, that is hindered by
a small noisy sensor and slow AF.

P&Ss have their limitiations & frustrations. But so has DSLRs. All will be rosy in the garden for a while with the lovely clean ISOs and wicked fast AF of the DSLR.

Then you will start to encounter that you can't shoot every scenario with the kit lens. Then lens frustrations and cost come into it. Want to shoot macros? $500 at least for a good lens. Want to cover G9s lens range? Another $500 for an optically inferior quality 18-200 lens or for a second zoom lens on top of the kit lens. Want to shoot indoors without flash in dim churches for natural weddings, family communions and take advantage of those excellent high ISOs? Standard lens still too slow so another $600 for a reasonably good f2.8 straight through lens or else a prime or two.

Not trying to put you guys off.....but a lot of folks "con" themselves into believing that they will be only spending about $600 for a dslr and kits lens or $1,000 for a twin kit combo. I thought that too, four years ago. Believe me, people with a DSLR and just the kit lens are a rare breed! Pop a thread in any DSLR forum and see for yourself. But if you are willing to accept the costs, then DSLRs are fun too and a wonderful experience and go for it. But there will always be a place for a G9 as well in my home. Both my G9 and my DSLRs have their time and places.

*****************************************
Packy