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

[Diane B]

Packy, I think you need to read threads or posts thoroughly. I SAID I had lots of lenses to choose from--I own a 5D, 10D converted to IR and I've owned the original D30, D60, 10D, 20D and now the 5D for over 2.5 years. I know what they are capable of--and I didn't buy the 'kit lens'--body only. You need to have read (if you read the post) that I plan to use the 28 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 for 'small' but I have the flexibility of using a number of other lenses too if I choose. It will make a smaller (though a bit larger than G9 plus Lensmate) kit than my 5D w/RRS L bracket and lens--AT TIMES. I have no plans to stop carrying my 5D--only want a smaller kit for hiking, times when photography isn't the main focus.

BTW, Jerry shoots with a 5D also. We aren't going into this with our eyes closed---and both of us have given the G9 a shot (a LONG shot for me) for the purpose we choose to use it for. The G9 is a neat little cam and the best of its class--just not for me.

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

 

[packy]

Diane B wrote:
Packy, I think you need to read threads or posts thoroughly. I SAID
I had lots of lenses to choose from--I own a 5D, 10D converted to IR
and I've owned the original D30, D60, 10D, 20D and now the 5D for
over 2.5 years. I know what they are capable of--and I didn't buy
the 'kit lens'--body only. You need to have read (if you read the
post) that I plan to use the 28 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 for 'small' but I
have the flexibility of using a number of other lenses too if I
choose. It will make a smaller (though a bit larger than G9 plus
Lensmate) kit than my 5D w/RRS L bracket and lens--AT TIMES. I have
no plans to stop carrying my 5D--only want a smaller kit for hiking,
times when photography isn't the main focus.

BTW, Jerry shoots with a 5D also. We aren't going into this with our
eyes closed---and both of us have given the G9 a shot (a LONG shot
for me) for the purpose we choose to use it for. The G9 is a neat
little cam and the best of its class--just not for me.

My apologies to you both. I read your first post and Jerry's first response only and hadn't time to follow the rest....my mistake. Came across from those two posts that maybe you both were just about to venture into the DSLR market.

As I took you as potential first time buyers, my advice was solid enough and others may benefit from that post. And both of you are examples of that. It's a rare breed that are satisfied with a DSLR and one lens was my message. A lot of folks venture into the entry level DSLR world thinking that is all the will need to get. Don't quite work out that way for most, though. So it can be a costly hobby over a period of time if one only shoots for pleasure..... but very fun and rewarding.

I can understand that a G9 isn't for everyone. We all have different shooting situations and expectations. G9 is a must for me. Like to shoot rock concerts and can't get in with a DSLR to most places, so many missed moments and opportunites without it.

Also like the controls, raw and size of camera for good snapshots on holidays were speed is not of the essence. Lugging my 5D or even my 450D and some lenses to cover what the G9 covers is far too cumbersome and bulky on a motorbike holiday where space and travelling light is of the essence. Also my partner gives me strange looks and rolls her eyes up to heaven when I pull a DSLR out in a restaurant to capture some nice moments! She's pretty cool with the G9 though
Take care and apologies to you and Jerry once again.........

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

 

[Diane B]

Packy, I realized after I posted, I probably came across a bit strong (not my usual way I don't think--or hope I don't LOL). Also--I'm as guilty as you are of not reading long threads and sometimes coming in with a post that just doesn't quite fit smile

Your advice to someone moving to a DSLR from a P & S is probably right on the money. I do really think others feel they will get away with one lens, likely the kit lens--and get terrific shots just like with a P & S (and I actually DON'T feel the G9 fits quite into that category--its feature filled and one reason I like it--and still may hang onto it). T'aint' going to happen (and this is not even considering focal length or macro ability)--I'm a 'process' person--probably comes from my years as a textile artist where process was a lot of the creativity. So---the choosing of a lens, the aperture for DOF, etc. is part of what I like about shooting. Its sort of a slow process most of the time for me. I should have known better since I rarely shoot even family or friend pics or quick vacation photos. Ah, well. I do sort of feel I will have to rationalize though to keep the G9--maybe a 'just in case' that fits in my pocket when I'm really pared down and yet hate to miss an opportunity LOL.

So--I'd say for others thinking about this route (moving up to DSLR unless they really want to get even more involved in process--and the ultimate laying out of more money LOL) that your advice should be at least considered.

Take care. Best,
Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

 

[packy]

Diane B wrote:
Packy, I realized after I posted, I probably came across a bit strong
(not my usual way I don't think--or hope I don't LOL). Also--I'm as
guilty as you are of not reading long threads and sometimes coming in
with a post that just doesn't quite fit smile

Your advice to someone moving to a DSLR from a P & S is probably
right on the money. I do really think others feel they will get away
with one lens, likely the kit lens--and get terrific shots just like
with a P & S (and I actually DON'T feel the G9 fits quite into that
category--its feature filled and one reason I like it--and still may
hang onto it). T'aint' going to happen (and this is not even
considering focal length or macro ability)--I'm a 'process'
person--probably comes from my years as a textile artist where
process was a lot of the creativity. So---the choosing of a lens,
the aperture for DOF, etc. is part of what I like about shooting.
Its sort of a slow process most of the time for me. I should have
known better since I rarely shoot even family or friend pics or quick
vacation photos. Ah, well. I do sort of feel I will have to
rationalize though to keep the G9--maybe a 'just in case' that fits
in my pocket when I'm really pared down and yet hate to miss an
opportunity LOL.

So--I'd say for others thinking about this route (moving up to DSLR
unless they really want to get even more involved in process--and the
ultimate laying out of more money LOL) that your advice should be at
least considered.

It sounded that you were a bit peeved alright! But it was still my slip up and yo and Jerry deserved an apology. And I know it's not your usual way. I have seen some of your posts from time to time and know that you are not a person with malice in you. On top of that, there was no point in starting a war. God knows i'm having a battle as it is with one lady already...don't think I can handle two!......LOL

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

 

[jerryk]

You bring up valid points. DSLRs have great features and performance, but cost a lot of money and are bulky.

In addition to the 5D I have 1 series cameras and largish (400 mm) lenses. So the G9 is tiny. And even a XTi with a small prime seems pretty small.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Y_VDM]

Raw every time.
--
Yves VDM -------------------------------
------- http://www.virtualgallery.be

 

[sergifotocat]

Always RAW. In fact, I don't even pay attention to any camera that can't offer RAW capabilities, I don't care about a superfast autoeverything megazoom camera, if it can offer JPEG only is like that camera didn't exist because it fails in its most important feature: IQ.
Not the undeniably truth, just my oppinion.

sergifotocat

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Always RAW. In fact, I don't even pay attention to any camera that
can't offer RAW capabilities, I don't care about a superfast
autoeverything megazoom camera, if it can offer JPEG only is like
that camera didn't exist because it fails in its most important
feature: IQ.
Not the undeniably truth, just my oppinion.

sergifotocat

Now that strikes me as too extreme a view. What if you had to choose between two cameras: one has a superb large (or large-ish) sensor, a not overly-high MP count, and highly-developed jpeg processing that carefully balances resolution and noise reduction, but does not offer RAW? Compare this with a camera based on a smaller sensor with a higher MP count, which does offer RAW. I suggest that no matter what you do in RAW processing, if you start out a sensor that has a lot of noise in its output, that puts a limit on what anyone can do with the RAW files. It's the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. RAW software cannot perform magic; it just gives you more options, and allows you to choose the balance of various image attributes that you prefer.

Bob

 

[sergifotocat]

Now that strikes me as too extreme a view. What if you had to choose
between two cameras: one has a superb large (or large-ish) sensor, a
not overly-high MP count, and highly-developed jpeg processing that
carefully balances resolution and noise reduction, but does not offer
RAW? Compare this with a camera based on a smaller sensor with a
higher MP count, which does offer RAW. I suggest that no matter
what you do in RAW processing, if you start out a sensor that has a
lot of noise in its output, that puts a limit on what anyone can do
with the RAW files. It's the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.
RAW software cannot perform magic; it just gives you more options,
and allows you to choose the balance of various image attributes that
you prefer.

Bob

I don't know wich one I would choose because your post is just a supposition not a real world case. I agree that an excessive MP count in a very small sensor brings too much noise, and low dynamic range, so all I can tell you is that I would choose the one that gives me better IQ (raw or jpeg). But in these days I shot RAW because post processing in PSP I can obtain better IQ than shooting the same scene using JPEG with the same camera or a similar featured camera.

rgds,
sergifotocat

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Now that strikes me as too extreme a view. What if you had to choose
between two cameras: one has a superb large (or large-ish) sensor, a
not overly-high MP count, and highly-developed jpeg processing that
carefully balances resolution and noise reduction, but does not offer
RAW? Compare this with a camera based on a smaller sensor with a
higher MP count, which does offer RAW. I suggest that no matter
what you do in RAW processing, if you start out a sensor that has a
lot of noise in its output, that puts a limit on what anyone can do
with the RAW files. It's the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.
RAW software cannot perform magic; it just gives you more options,
and allows you to choose the balance of various image attributes that
you prefer.

Bob

I don't know wich one I would choose because your post is just a
supposition not a real world case.

I was actually thinking of the Fuji F31fd (14MP/cm square pixel density) vs. the Panasonic FZ-18 (32MP/cm). The FZ-18 has many more features (including, of course, the wide-ranging zoom), but, RAW or not, the F31fd's IQ is superior (rated 9.0 vs. 7.5 for the FZ-18 in dpreview's test). From what I've seen, jpegs from the Canon A620 (19MP/cm) would also handily beat the FZ-18 shooting RAW.

I agree that an excessive MP count

in a very small sensor brings too much noise, and low dynamic range,
so all I can tell you is that I would choose the one that gives me
better IQ (raw or jpeg). But in these days I shot RAW because post
processing in PSP I can obtain better IQ than shooting the same scene
using JPEG with the same camera or a similar featured camera.

Well, that I would not disagree with. Other things being equal, it's good to have RAW, and if you're skilled and take the time with RAW processing, you may be able to do better than the camera's jpeg processing. But the bottom line is still the final image, and, while RAW can help it does not by itself guarantee high IQ, and a lack of RAW may be more than compensated for by other techincal attributes. To take an extreme example, if you compare, say, the Canon 5D's jpeg images against RAW-based images from any small digicam, there is no contest.

Having said that, if I had the G9, I would probably shoot RAW most or all of the time, because I would want to extract every bit of quality that the sensor (which has a pretty high pixel density of 28MP/cm) is capable of.

Bob

 

[packy]

Robert Deutsch wrote:
I was actually thinking of the Fuji F31fd (14MP/cm square pixel
density) vs. the Panasonic FZ-18 (32MP/cm). The FZ-18 has many more
features (including, of course, the wide-ranging zoom), but, RAW or
not, the F31fd's IQ is superior (rated 9.0 vs. 7.5 for the FZ-18 in
dpreview's test). From what I've seen, jpegs from the Canon A620
(19MP/cm) would also handily beat the FZ-18 shooting RAW.

There is more to IQ than pixel density and pixel count. IQ is across the board...as in sharpness, DR, detail, color, noise, contrast, ect. The D40 has a better pixel density than the D300, but give me the D300 anyday (well, I already have it!). The images off the D300 are streets ahead than the 6mp D40 even at high ISOs.

And you have misinterpreted the ratings, Bob. They do the ratings against same caliber cameras. ie...the build quality of the F31 is rated against the build quality of similar P&Ss..... and not against Megazooms. Otherwise the F31 (9.0) has better IQ than than the S100 (8.5). And believe me as an owner of both, the S100 would blow the doors off the F31. Also if you just go by the figures on the ratings, the F31 has better IQ that the D60 (8.5), E420 (8.0), and K20 (8.5) DSLRs.

Also, I have already showed in this thread that I could easily match (if not better) anything that the F31 has to throw at the G9 even at higher ISOs too despite the G9 having a worse pixel density also. And that is soley due to raw. I wouldn't get too close to the F31 in jpeg.

But as I said, there is more to IQ than pixel density. With the F31, you are stuck with the sharpness/contrast/colour that the camera offers you, and whatever WB that you select yourself. As you know, with raw, you have EASY and COMPLETE control over all these aspects of the image "after the fact" and without DEGRADING that image. And with the G9 and ACR, you have about a half a stop of range to pull back in the highlights too.....the difference in saving (and not saving- in jpeg) a bit of burn out sky.

As for losing DR in higher pixel count sensors, I can say without a doubt than my G9 has way better DR than the F31. On paper, the F31 should be better. But you forget, you are not using the raw image at sensor level. You are using Fuji's engineer's own contrast curve which as even DPR point out, is set way too strong which limits the DR capabilities of this cam. Also this high contrast is a nice little bit of trickery to help "mask" noise especially in the shadow areas at higher ISOs.

"though like most compacts the contrast is set too high and highlights can be clipped fairly easily."

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

 

[AnaDigi]

Raw only. Taking JPEG just like taking film camera with no film(almost). Feel like using Polaroid camera.

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Robert Deutsch wrote:
I was actually thinking of the Fuji F31fd (14MP/cm square pixel
density) vs. the Panasonic FZ-18 (32MP/cm). The FZ-18 has many more
features (including, of course, the wide-ranging zoom), but, RAW or
not, the F31fd's IQ is superior (rated 9.0 vs. 7.5 for the FZ-18 in
dpreview's test). From what I've seen, jpegs from the Canon A620
(19MP/cm) would also handily beat the FZ-18 shooting RAW.

There is more to IQ than pixel density and pixel count. IQ is across
the board...as in sharpness, DR, detail, color, noise, contrast, ect.
The D40 has a better pixel density than the D300, but give me the
D300 anyday (well, I already have it!). The images off the D300 are
streets ahead than the 6mp D40 even at high ISOs.
And you have misinterpreted the ratings, Bob. They do the ratings
against same caliber cameras. ie...the build quality of the F31 is
rated against the build quality of similar P&Ss..... and not against
Megazooms. Otherwise the F31 (9.0) has better IQ than than the S100
(8.5). And believe me as an owner of both, the S100 would blow the
doors off the F31. Also if you just go by the figures on the ratings,
the F31 has better IQ that the D60 (8.5), E420 (8.0), and K20 (8.5)
DSLRs.

I haven't seen any explicit statement from the DPR staff about what cameras are being compared in the IQ rating, but it's obviously not an absolute rating--a DSLR with a relatively low IQ rating still has IQ that's still better than that of a small digicam with a higher rating. However, I don't think the comparison as narrow as, say, other digicams with a 4x zoom and a similar form factor. My impression is that they lump together all digicams, regardless of zoom ratio or form factor, so that the rating of an ultrazoom can be compared to that of a 4x zoom. Actually, I would expect that, other things--like sensor pixel density--being equal, the IQ rating of a 12x zoom would be lower than of a 4x zoom. As for the S100, while you may feel that its IQ is superior to that of the F31fd, I think they downrated it because the IQ, while admirable in many ways, had excessive CA, an "effect is so pronounced at times that it is visible even in small prints" and "we can't quite in all conscience highly recommend a camera with such a flaw in its image quality." Freedom from CA is not the Fujis long suit (including the F31fd's), but they said the S100's CA was"some of the worst we've seen in recent times." If CA doesn't bother you (I'm not as sensitive to it as some people) or you're willing to work at correcting it in PP, then the S100 is clearly a very desirable camera.

In my comparison, I was talking about the FZ-18, with which I have some experience, not the G9, with which I don't. I think in terms of IQ the F31 beats the FZ-18, even if you shoot RAW. My impression is that the G9's IQ is better than that of the FZ-18--and if the G10 (or whatever) has 28mm extension and a sensor that offers more than just a higher MP count, I will be taking a close look at it.

Bob

 

[Stephen_Eastwood_2]

http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples2/

the marked ones.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Previous Posts can be found at
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjilifidhyik

and
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hgiwiwiyhx

 

[MrClick #421805]

No doubt about it. RAW is better than Jpeg. No doubt about it too. Any one who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Just remember, Jpeg is always a subset of RAW. So if you have a poor RAW exposure you WILL have a poor Jpeg as a result. But a lot more can be salvaged from RAW than Jpeg. These ARE the facts. No point if arguing about it ad-nauseam.

But yes, processing RAW does take time and effort... and patience and skill. But if one knows what to do and the parameters to work with, the results are generally rewarding.

If you don't like to deal with RAW hassles, just make sure your digicam has a good Jpeg rendering engine. At least you will have acceptably decent converted Jpegs most of the time.

Just as an experienced jeweler can notice generally what would be imperceptible flaws in precious stones, it takes an experienced photographer to notice imperfections in images which are generally imperceptible to amateurs. This is the reason why there are many prefer Jpegs to RAW. They just cannot perceive the differences or do not really give two hoots about them.

Packy's arguments have a lot of substance... no ifs and buts about it really.

--
Click

 

[Tung Vietnam]

Everyone here keep comparing G9 and F30, a highend camera to a simple Point and Shoot camera that costs me just 120$ for a like new F30 with 1GB XD memory card over here ? is it fair ?

Can you just let me know which one else from Canon can beat Fujifilm F30/F31fd at the lower price than G9 ( as I know, the best high-end of Canon camera )

Btw, I've been used Canon G5 before, and I never mention to shoot in RAW, because it takes time to study about RAW processing and it takes place to store RAW files ...

Anyway, I prefer the lens on G5 to the ones on G9 ...

 

[sianon]

Always RAW, although the JPEGs on the G9 are acceptable I prefer to allow myself he maximum data to process the image how I want as opposed to allowing the camera to complete the processing.

Karen

 

[CAMMASTER]

Everyone here keep comparing G9 and F30, a highend camera to a simple
Point and Shoot camera that costs me just 120$ for a like new F30
with 1GB XD memory card over here ? is it fair ?

Can you just let me know which one else from Canon can beat Fujifilm
F30/F31fd at the lower price than G9 ( as I know, the best high-end
of Canon camera )

Btw, I've been used Canon G5 before, and I never mention to shoot in
RAW, because it takes time to study about RAW processing and it takes
place to store RAW files ...

Anyway, I prefer the lens on G5 to the ones on G9 ...

Nothing ive read about has better IQ for the money ! I think so anyway ! my Ixus 860 is has not got the IQ of my F30 plain to see sadly, but has the 28mm lens thats all Im keeping it for, so its staying off Ebay for a bit longer than I thought it would

I prefer the F30 by far in my purse to the G9 my friend has just bought on ebay is heavy and as he lent it to me up to now confirmed my previous thoughts and doubts about it

But going to put his through its paces just curios how do I like iit and its IQ now, its the second one I have chance to try, the G9 before I returned,and bought a second F30.

New F30s showing up this wek on Ebay UK thats kinda rare, might go over and buy one more ! for the future its temting. RhoDA*

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

 

[Tung Vietnam]

It seems there is another war here ? A war of Packy against Fuji F-series ... Just kidding

I think Fuji done their best to design such a nice camera like F30/F31 and earlier F10/F11... Is it true that Canon copied that from Fuji when they design Canon G9 ? I guess so because the at same time the F31fd entering the market, Canon G7 still has the 1/1.8" CCD, without RAW shooting and then one year later Canon G9 has the 1/1.7" CCD ( same size as F-series with SuperCCD ). That's what Fuji done long time ago in F-series ... a CCD with slight larger size than normal ??

Can I call Canon G9 as Canon G- with SuperCCD ?

The first point, the CCD I think they are the same

The second, I think Canon have better lenses but not good as previous Canon G5, G6 ...
The third, I think they two ( Canon and Fuji ) have different approach:

• to leave the image with very little noise reduction or store in RAW without PP ( Canon ) ( G7 still no RAW mode and can never beat Fuji F- )
• and take a quite smart noise reduction at all lever of ISO ( Fuji ) ... at ISO (400)800 and up when zoom to 100% the photos look like painting but they look great when viewing at screen size, also when print them. Appreciate this as great work from Fuji ...

The result is that:

• Fuji can sell F-series with quite low price with acceptable quality to most of user at that segment - with less money and less skilled ( most better result than the same price Canon cameras ) .

• Canon charged more on G9 by adding some advance features with such a high price for advanced users. I have no comment on extra money for those features.

I estimated that simple photos from F31fd at ISO 800 and up must achieve 95% of final result when comparing to G9 highest quality derived from shooting photos in RAW and PP them

And as you remember, Phil Askey has the same testing and he also has some reasons for giving F31fd some good words...

 

[jackkurtz]

I think RAW is worth it and moved from a G7 to a G9 specifically for the raw feature.

That said, the G9 raw engine is quite good. For most photos it works great. RAW really comes into its own when you set the wrong color balance (for example leaving it on daylight when you're shooting in a tungsten environment) or make a serious mistake in exposure. If you're careful about color balance and exposure you can get excellent results in JPEG.

jack

--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177