Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Digiteyesed on September 05, 2007, 12:17:25 pm
-
My G9 is ordered and should be on the way next week I'm told. Hopefully my SD cards arrive around the same time as this is the first digicam I've ever owned that doesn't use CF cards. I'm looking forward to shooting with it.
Did anyone else here order one as well?
-
My G9 is ordered and should be on the way next week I'm told. Hopefully my SD cards arrive around the same time as this is the first digicam I've ever owned that doesn't use CF cards. I'm looking forward to shooting with it.
Did anyone else here order one as well?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137494\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just bought one today. I've fiddled around for years whether to buy a small cam or not but none tempted me too much--esp. as they kept leaving RAW off. My first decent digicam was the G1 ( after years with film) but I soon moved to SLRs with the Oly E10 and then the D30 and 60, so I didn't spend much time with the G's---and gave it to my mother--and I recently replaced that for her with the A630.
I've been looking at the Leica/Panasonic because of the wider angle, RAW, easily accessed settings without menu, but never got my hands on one and they really do seem to exhibit more noise above the lowest ISO. The G9 may or may not be 'the' small camera for me--I'm still not sure I will use it much, but I've looked at others images with their G7 who also shoot with 5D and 1DsMkII and thought it might be a useful camera for me in certain situations. I do know I could sell it quickly if its not for me LOL--everywhere its difficult to find one right now--though they will be widely available soon I would think. I called and reserved this one last night at my 'local' (3 hour round trip) camera store and they held it until this morning for me. Theirs had just come in, (which I expected since I knew they had shipped late this past week and they were availble on the west coast this past weekend), but had not been put out yet when I called.
I like the bit of heft to mine, the LCD size is amazing, but my battery is charging so I haven't gotten a chance to turn it on yet. I bought a 4GB card for it since I will be shooting RAW, so in just a bit I'll have some indication if I like shooting with it.
The bad part is--though it has RAW, the only software available to process is Canon's Zoombrowser (I initially thought DPP would--but found out it has never been used for anything but DSLRs) and RIT, so until Adobe upgrades their ACR4.1 and LR, I'll be a bit stuck--and I don't expect upgrades for a number of months considering that a number of the new DSLRs won't ship until later this Fall.
Diane
-
The bad part is--though it has RAW, the only software available to process is Canon's Zoombrowser (I initially thought DPP would--but found out it has never been used for anything but DSLRs) and RIT, so until Adobe upgrades their ACR4.1 and LR, I'll be a bit stuck--and I don't expect upgrades for a number of months considering that a number of the new DSLRs won't ship until later this Fall.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ooooh, that's nasty. I hate Zoombrowser. It's going to be a long couple of months until the next ACR comes out. :-(
-
How's the viewfinder - accuracy of coverage at various zooms? I've never been a fan of the EVFs. I really like my Sony R1, but I think there are some advantages of this over the Sony (size being another one).
BreezeBrowser might be a quicker "plan B" in the RAW department...
-
How's the viewfinder - accuracy of coverage at various zooms? I've never been a fan of the EVFs.
I bought a G7 some few months ago and just today found a buyer for it. It's a cute camera, actually quite capable, but I've learned I'm a one-camera guy and the D70 is way better. The EVF was awful. I had to buy an Xtenda-view to cover the LCD to see clearly and stabilize the camera. Hope the one on the G9 is better!!
Marco
-
It's important to clarify that the G7 viewfinder and I presume the G9's is optical and not electronic. It's one of the plus points it has over most modern digi cams.
-
Diane wrote:
The bad part is--though it has RAW, the only software available to process is Canon's Zoombrowser
What I would do in that situation is bare minimal processing in Zoom Browser to recover highlights, adjust WB, or whatever it does acceptably; then save as 16-bit PSD; then open that in LightRoom to finish your adjustments. I don't think many raw converters accept non-raw files, but LR does. (Of course, if ACR accepts non-raw then use that instead.) If you don't own LR, this may be a good time for that free 30 day trial.
*
I would be very interested in hearing how much DR this camera handles in raw. The sample JPEGs on dpreview.com looked like a measly 6 stops.
-
Diane Once you've spent a little time with the G9 I'd love to hear your comments. After procrastinating about a digicam for some time I gave in after seeing Michael's review. Judged in context (I'm normally using a D2Xs and or D200) it does a superb job:
- Light and small, yet big enough that you can hold it firmly.
- Excellent out of the box .jpg's
- Makes good quality A3 prints (Epson 3800)
- Long battery life
- Great IS zoom lens
- Easy to use manual controls
- Impressive video mode
- DOF with such a small sensor
- Live histogram
The only things I don't like:
- No battery meter
- Not particularly wide at the wide end (Nature of the beast unfortunately)
- No RAW files
The only thing I am really unhappy with is the viewfinder. It's optical so that's good, but it's rather inaccurate. The first few times I used it I ended up with more sky than I'd seen in the viewfinder Now for any critical exposures I double check with the rear screen.
Pending shooting speed and RAW buffering, I'll pick up a G9.
-
What I would do in that situation is bare minimal processing in Zoom Browser to recover highlights, adjust WB, or whatever it does acceptably; then save as 16-bit PSD; then open that in LightRoom to finish your adjustments. I don't think many raw converters accept non-raw files, but LR does. (Of course, if ACR accepts non-raw then use that instead.) If you don't own LR, this may be a good time for that free 30 day trial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tried LR -- couldn't stand it. I've been using Photoshop since 1997 and LR makes me feel like I'm going backwards. I like my layers, masks, and blend modes, damn it! Whatever comes out of the G9 goes into straight into PS and nuthin' else. :-)
-
I tried LR -- couldn't stand it. I've been using Photoshop since 1997 and LR makes me feel like I'm going backwards. I like my layers, masks, and blend modes, damn it! Whatever comes out of the G9 goes into straight into PS and nuthin' else. :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might be missing the point. LR is designed for global non-destructive edits, where as Photoshop is a pixel editor. Most people using LR will also be using Photoshop.
-
You might be missing the point. LR is designed for global non-destructive edits, where as Photoshop is a pixel editor. Most people using LR will also be using Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point is that it doesn't do anything for me that PS wasn't already doing to my satisfaction so LR becomes an unnecessary and expensive element in my workflow. Besides, I always save my PSD files with the original (after dust spotting) as the bottom layer so it's not like I can't revert when I need to.
-
Diane wrote:
What I would do in that situation is bare minimal processing in Zoom Browser to recover highlights, adjust WB, or whatever it does acceptably; then save as 16-bit PSD; then open that in LightRoom to finish your adjustments. I don't think many raw converters accept non-raw files, but LR does. (Of course, if ACR accepts non-raw then use that instead.) If you don't own LR, this may be a good time for that free 30 day trial.
*
I would be very interested in hearing how much DR this camera handles in raw. The sample JPEGs on dpreview.com looked like a measly 6 stops.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly what I did--except you can't save as a psd from Zoombrowser so I saved as a tiff (your choices are jpeg, 8 or 16 bit tiff) and opened it in LR. Yes, ACR accepts non-RAW also same as LR.
As someone above said, Breezebrowser will probably be the first to upgrade for the G9--Chris has always been on top of it--and since he uses Canon info (SDK??) it can happen faster than other apps. I haven't upgraded my BB in a long time, but that was the first 3rd party RC for the early Canon RAWs and then Yarc Plus by Michael Tapes as I remember.
Diane
-
Diane Once you've spent a little time with the G9 I'd love to hear your comments. After procrastinating about a digicam for some time I gave in after seeing Michael's review. Judged in context (I'm normally using a D2Xs and or D200) it does a superb job:
- Light and small, yet big enough that you can hold it firmly.
- Excellent out of the box .jpg's
- Makes good quality A3 prints (Epson 3800)
- Long battery life
- Great IS zoom lens
- Easy to use manual controls
- Impressive video mode
- DOF with such a small sensor
- Live histogram
The only things I don't like:
- No battery meter
- Not particularly wide at the wide end (Nature of the beast unfortunately)
- No RAW files
The only thing I am really unhappy with is the viewfinder. It's optical so that's good, but it's rather inaccurate. The first few times I used it I ended up with more sky than I'd seen in the viewfinder Now for any critical exposures I double check with the rear screen.
Pending shooting speed and RAW buffering, I'll pick up a G9.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I remember reading, the VF is only 80%. I had planned to use it more since I'm used to shooting with a 5D but the huge LCD that actually functions in daylight may make it moot. There is RAW of course--but it may be a bit until we get something other than Zoombrowser. Still--at least we know it will arrive. I'm a wide end shooter too--considered the Leica/Panny, but they had other 'cons'.
Diane
-
You might be missing the point. LR is designed for global non-destructive edits, where as Photoshop is a pixel editor. Most people using LR will also be using Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I balked at LR too--even though I used the beta--mainly because at the time I was using Imatch, PS--and when PSCS3 came out I thought LR didn't hold anything for me. Then watching the C2P they kept referring to LR so, since I own a copy (RSP licensee), I got myself up to speed and now its part of my workflow--hybrid that it is. I edit, process in LR, do a roundtrip (very easy once I knew how) to PS for more editing and it stacks the edited version under the original RAW. Sometimes I even do virtual copies and process differently in PS. Just totally different things. I originally didn't like the LR develop module, but since using, I prefer it to aCR 4.1 now.
Diane
-
Hi
I have one on order, this will be our first point & shoot.
-
Well, I'm on back order. Sept 30 is the shipping date. Bloody hell!
-
Well, I'm on back order. Sept 30 is the shipping date. Bloody hell!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For anyone looking for one, B & H has them in stock now--altho' you can't normally place an order on a weekend until Sunday.
Diane
-
I'll probably just wait. I do all of my ordering through Camera Canada (cameracanada.com) as they've done a marvellous job of supporting me for the last four years. I like dealing with a merchant I know I can trust if a problem develops in something they've sold me. (Even if they are slow to get the new stuff occasionally!)
-
bump.
So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
-
bump.
So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it's the nicest point and shoot out there. Pretty amazing for what it is.
-
bump.
So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=148428\")
For what it is, its really quite nice. I have difficulty leaving the DSLR thinking behind--shallow DOF, low noise/high ISO--and I have to admit I don't like using an LCD, but all that said--a really good effort.
The controls are very intuitive and very DSLR like (if you're a Canon person), it has RAW which I use (ACR 4.2 and most of the time LR 1.2), sturdy little bugger--and the handling, for me, is very nice--plus an excellent LCD and better than almost any other I've tried for daylight shooting--plus you can see it at an angle so can shoot easily overhead or below. I added a little Kirk L bracket
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg]http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg[/url]
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027463.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027463.jpg)
which gives me more 'geography' on the left to handhold with 2 hands--and for use on tripod for IR
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87207433/original.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87207433/original.jpg)
processed as split tone.
IQ is very good for a small sensor cam but I still haven't printed any so can't say how well it holds up to what size. Its well thought out---menus are easy, most of what a serious shooter wants is there except 28mm. I do shoot wide a lot, so added a WA converter that will take me to 24mm. It takes it out of pocketable but still in a very very small bag. To do this, you have to add the Lensmate which covers the zoomed lens.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg)
The nice thing is that I just twist off the Lensmate/WA and I have a totally pocketable camera again.
So--all in all, I like it a good deal. I guess I'm still wondering how much I will shoot with it--but we'll see. Its the best of the lot I considered I think--the Leica/Panny and the Ricoh GR100--all TOO small for me.
Oh--the VF suffers from parallax error--and its hard to get a handle on when its close or not. Usable though in a pinch. I'd love to have a better VF. ISO above 200 is noisy, but ISO400 is quite good with just a touch of Noiseware Pro at weak noise and usable at ISO800 with same. Better than I thought.
I can certainly recommend it as a small sensor/small cam for serious shooters. I've had a bit of buyers remorse several times--because I find myself carrying it WITH the 5D--but I think I will get a lot of use out of it around the holidays for more casual use, in places where the DLSR is inappropriate, at times when I just don't want to carry a lot of gear (hiking). I've fiddled about for several years considering buying a small cam--and thought the G9 would be it. Really it is--has all I want in a small cam but wider really without using a converter. The option had more noise and was too small for easy handling for me.
Diane
-
I don't what to rain on anyone's parade but my experience with the camera is not good. I love the freedom of the camera compared to my SLR's. Small and easy to shoot from low or high angles. BUT: 1. The viewfinder is usless. What you see is NOT what the lens see's. 2. The LCD is usless outside. I just try to get the subject someplace in the middle of the LCD and hope for the best. The camera provides me with no clear and accurate view of what I'm taking. 3. At ISO over 100 the noise is terrible. At 80 and 100 the image quality is great, Other than that it sucks. Ordered another SLR to replace my 300d today. Sad. I used to work with Leica's and loved the small size and freedom of use. I had hoped to capture some of that with the G7 without speeding $ 10,000. on a digital Leica but so far that camera doesn't exist. When it does , and it probably will some day, that will be a great photographic tool.
-
bump.
So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Considering the type of camera it is, a good choice. I've been happy with mine. I certainly won't be using it in place of any of my main gear, but in the "better than nothing" category, times when it's the only camera you can conveniently have, it's a better choice than any other point and shoot I've tried.
Wayne
-
Considering the type of camera it is, a good choice. I've been happy with mine. I certainly won't be using it in place of any of my main gear, but in the "better than nothing" category, times when it's the only camera you can conveniently have, it's a better than any other point and shoot I've tried.
Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's what I was getting at---someone that had great gear wouldn't use it in place of that, but supplementary. I plan to do some IR, use it for social situations where I normally don't even shoot at all--but always wished I had, for places where the DSLR is inappropriate, hiking where photography isn't the main reason to do it, etc. I never have intended to use it 'in place of'--but for times when I often haven't carried a camera at all.
The VF is not totally useless--and the LCD is the best I've tried of all small sensor cams. Not perfect, but with the use of the VF and pulling my head slightly away and checking the LCD--usable in strong light. I have considered buying a 35mm VF for the hot shoe since I shoot a lot in that range. I still really like the fact that I can control the camera--and not let it control me. When its important--I grab the 5D, but the G9 will accompany me on vacation for those times I don't want or can't carry more.
Diane
-
I've had a G9 for about three weeks now. Previously, I had a G3 (well, I still have the G3). I also have a 20D.
I'm beginning to write about my G9 experiences in my blog, http:lightdescription.blogspot.com
(yes, I know -- shameless promotion, but I'll be documenting this experience for a few months, I suspect. Besides, it's just a hobby.)
So far, I'm favorably impressed with the G9. In addition to being a nice looking camera, it is very usable and useful. ISO 400 jpgs aren't nearly as bad as some would lead you to believe -- especially when printed instead of pixel peeped.
Although there seem to be a number of quality control complaints, my copy does not appear to have those problems.
I'm looking forward to the full implementation of ACR RAW but am using the beta right now. There may be no difference between official and beta but I'll feel better when the official is released. I've made noise profiles for Neat Image and it seems to me that Neat Image plus PK Sharpener can do a better job than Canon's in-camera processing. I'm tinkering with ACR noise reduction and Smart Sharpening in hopes of finding some magic combination!
Yes, the optical viewfinder can be called poor but, hey, you've got 12 million pixels! How about cropping some of them? (With the G3, I really did not want to crop.)
I'm also looking forward to Michael's opinion about the G9 from his field experience.
The G9 should be a fun camera. I expect to use it a lot.
-
The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/)
Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera.
-
The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/)
Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There appears to be a big disconnect somewhere in that review. DPR Claims it is robust built and good usability, image quality is the best for a point and shoot camera; and then says it is only just highly recommended.
The one aspect of the G9 is that it is not a DSLR and, therefore, it will be compromised in comparison. If one is expecting it to have the image quality, etc...of a camera with a larger sensor then you are going to be disappointed - but then that is the irony of the situation the the above statement alludes to.
Those who are expecting this to be the halleluah of cameras are going to be disappointed. However, where it does excel are in the situations where you probably will not have a big bag of DSLR goodies. My full DSLR kit comes in at 15Kg, my G9 is a fraction of that - this is where it really makes a big difference.
Is it a perfect camera? No. Is image quality the most important factor when choosing a camera or is good enough acceptable? Do you have a full range of controls, off camera flash capability (through hotshoe) all in a robust package? From my experience, yes.
If you accept the camera for what it achieves, rather than the expectations it is impossible for it to meet, then it is a good camera.
-
The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/)
Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder if canon could make a rangefinder which would be profitable. If it used the current sensors and lenses, it could be very interesting, plus they could make some nice wides. Would be nice and quite too, I'd love one for my theatre work.
-
I have had the G9 for about a week now. Before, I had the G7, but I ended up missing RAW. The G9 to me is what the G7 should have been in the first place, with RAW.
The image quality is actually pretty good, given the known limitations of small sensors. The availability of RAW is great to combat noise without smearing detail much, and also for highlight recovery.
I took the camera on a day trek in the mountains already, and it is a good feeling knowing that I had a small camera in my belt case that I could rely upon. The alternative would have been to haul my 1V plus the two L zooms in the Minitreker, not good.
I also tried IR with R72 filter, and it works well, same as the G7.
Regarding the Dpreview review of the G9, the reviewer says he was expecting better image quality for the price. Thus, the rating of HR (just). Even with this qualifier, the camera still delivers what he considers to be one of the best image qualities in its class. Personally, I think the G9 initial price is lower than the price for the G7 at its time, so its even better value.
The only thing that annoys me a bit is the noticeable barrel distortion of the lens at wide angle.
-
Is it a perfect camera? No. Is image quality the most important factor when choosing a camera or is good enough acceptable? Do you have a full range of controls, off camera flash capability (through hotshoe) all in a robust package? From my experience, yes.
If you accept the camera for what it achieves, rather than the expectations it is impossible for it to meet, then it is a good camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMO, you hit the nail on the head. It is at the head of the pack for that type of camera---but not in the league of DSLRs. Sometimes one wants that--and doesn't want to haul the whole kaboodle--nor needs it.
Diane
-
I wonder if canon could make a rangefinder which would be profitable. If it used the current sensors and lenses, it could be very interesting, plus they could make some nice wides. Would be nice and quite too, I'd love one for my theatre work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
intriguing thought. A really well made rangefinder, with maybe a slightly larger form factor, better sensor and lens. Seems like there is a possible market. Sort of a cross between a Leica and a G9.
-
intriguing thought. A really well made rangefinder, with maybe a slightly larger form factor, better sensor and lens. Seems like there is a possible market. Sort of a cross between a Leica and a G9.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What would be even nicer would be if they made it only manual focus and put an FD mount on it (which they would never do unless they started making FD lenses again). Think of the bargains you could pick up. I suppose you would then lose out on the non-retro lenses.
-
Before buying G9, better check on this:
http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html (http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html)
Ed
-
Before buying G9, better check on this:
http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html (http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=149450\")
5.5 seconds to save a raw file with the Ricoh Caplio GX100 = TOO LONG (and too noisy because of the small sensor)
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp[/url]
-
5.5 seconds to save a raw file with the Ricoh Caplio GX100 = TOO LONG (and too noisy because of the small sensor)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I sold my G7 to get the GX100. The GX100 is slow in saving RAW files, but it is actually quite fast compared to the previous Ricoh offers (GRD takes about 11 seconds...). So the GX100 is not every bodies cup of tea. But it is a very capable small camera too, and offers a nice 24-72mm zoom lens on top of that.
As far as noise is concerned, Ricoh combats noise even less than Canon, to preserve a lot of detail. A quick run through Neat Image solves the problem at ISO 400 and above. A good alternative to the G9, even thoug the latter feels more solid in the hand.
-
Just curious to know if anyone has made or can direct me to a comparison of an image made with the 12mp Canon G9 and a high quality 12mp Nikor or Canon DSLR with larger sensor chip?
I assume that a $500 point and shoot with a small sensor can not match a more expensive DSLR with much larger sensor, but to be able to see the exact difference would be interesting.
Sandy King
-
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg)
Diane
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=148473\")
Diane,
I assume that the lens in your jpeg above is the lens that comes with the camera. Right?
It looks a bit different to the pics in this review...
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp[/url]
Just wondering! ;-)
Very tempted to buy one of these. I want something I can take when travelling and yet which might be good enough for stock shots - after upsizing. I hate travelling with SLRs.
D.
-
Just curious to know if anyone has made or can direct me to a comparison of an image made with the 12mp Canon G9 and a high quality 12mp Nikor or Canon DSLR with larger sensor chip?
I assume that a $500 point and shoot with a small sensor can not match a more expensive DSLR with much larger sensor, but to be able to see the exact difference would be interesting.
Sandy King
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The G9 is nice, but I get cleaner images at ISO 800 from my 5D than at ISO 80
from the G9. But you can get good images from it in good light, it's just not on
the same continent as a FF DSLR.
-
I sold my G7 to get the GX100. The GX100 is slow in saving RAW files, but it is actually quite fast compared to the previous Ricoh offers (GRD takes about 11 seconds...). So the GX100 is not every bodies cup of tea. But it is a very capable small camera too, and offers a nice 24-72mm zoom lens on top of that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=149500\")
The GRD II is about to come out and that solves the previous camera's Achilles heel. Poor RAW write speeds. It's down to about 3.5 secs from 12-14 secs, but crucially it can take another picture whilst still writing.
May well be getting one now.
[a href=\"http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital2/sampleimage.html]http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital2/sampleimage.html[/url]
JPEG samples here, a bit too digital for my liking, though they tweak quite nicely in PS. But I'd like to try the RAWs and the higher ISOs. Though I have heard the higher ISOs are grainey like film, not noisy like digital. We shall see when we can try for real.
-
Diane,
I assume that the lens in your jpeg above is the lens that comes with the camera. Right?
It looks a bit different to the pics in this review...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp)
Just wondering! ;-)
Very tempted to buy one of these. I want something I can take when travelling and yet which might be good enough for stock shots - after upsizing. I hate travelling with SLRs.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you can see on the front of Diane's camera is the extension tube that is required to be in place when you use the wide angle lens . I'm not sure why it is still affixed to the camera as the wide angle lens screws into the extension tube which is the affixed to the camera by a bayonet mount - it is, therefore, a lot quicker and easier to disconnect the wide angle lens/extension tube as a single package rather than unscrew the wide angle lens from the tube. Looking at the picture again though it appears that Diane has affixed a filter on the front of the tube - not tried that one personally but may be more practical than affixing a filter to the front of the G9 lens itself.
-
Diane,
I assume that the lens in your jpeg above is the lens that comes with the camera. Right?
It looks a bit different to the pics in this review...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp)
Just wondering! ;-)
Very tempted to buy one of these. I want something I can take when travelling and yet which might be good enough for stock shots - after upsizing. I hate travelling with SLRs.
D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152180\")
That's actually the Lensmate adaptor--Canon makes one also but the Lensmate is metal and matches the G9 nicely and seems to be the adaptor of choice (and makes the camera very nice for handholding with 2 hands--my preference). I had one years ago for my old G1--last small cam I've owned. The retracting lens closes down completely--this stays on (bayonet mount). I added a WA converter (though now I wonder if I will use it much--35mm for this camera is mostly okay--esp. since I generally shoot wide with the 5D--but I own it now LOL). I also wanted to shoot some IR--owned the Hoya R72 that works with a step ring, so this allows me to add a filter.
See this for Lensmate plus WA.
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg]http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg[/url]
My biggest nit is composing with the LCD. Its by far the nicest I've seen on a camera--and reasonable in sunlight. However--not good enough for me for careful composition and I just HATE using the LCD to shoot. So--I've just bought the Voigtlander 35mm viewfinder. There are actually a number of folks that have added it--the first I saw was a Leica shooter who has the older one--but a number have added them or the Voigtlander mini 28-35 finder. I've also seen a Leica finder used, some Russian finders. I hope that works better than the OVF--which is difficult to use (or nigh impossible) with the LM. I also shoot it 'naked' LOL--and it fits nicely in my medium handbag or a pocket.
Its not a DSLR--but I printed an 11 x 17 (native size not up or down rezzed so it was about 10 x 14.5 or so)--shot the same subject (here on the farm--nothing fancy but lots of detail) on tripod at lowest ISO, approx. same FL--with 5D and G9 (forgot I also used a Whibal for each camera). I shot in RAW, did the best processing I could with each in LR, tweaked a bit more in PS (but no NR at all even in LR), used PKS for capture and output sharpening. IF--you didn't have the 5D print beside the G9 print--and weren't totally anal about pixel peeping of a print---it was very pleasing. Yes, the 5D of course had better DR (had I bracketed or done 2 RCs and merged manually of the G9 file it would do fine I think), the resolution/detail from the 5D was exceptional, but no one would sniff at the G9 shot--unless you are just really snobby about it. I've seen really much worse prints from a decent lab from 35mm film. Noise was a non-issue on the print quite truthfully.
More than you really wanted to know I"m sure LOL.
Diane
-
What you can see on the front of Diane's camera is the extension tube that is required to be in place when you use the wide angle lens . I'm not sure why it is still affixed to the camera as the wide angle lens screws into the extension tube which is the affixed to the camera by a bayonet mount - it is, therefore, a lot quicker and easier to disconnect the wide angle lens/extension tube as a single package rather than unscrew the wide angle lens from the tube. Looking at the picture again though it appears that Diane has affixed a filter on the front of the tube - not tried that one personally but may be more practical than affixing a filter to the front of the G9 lens itself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
AFAIK--it would be impossible to affix a filter to the G9 lens since it totally retracts. I actually prefer shooting with the Lensmate since it makes it much more 'shooter friendly' for 2 handed shooting which is what I'm used to. I sometimes carry it 'naked' but not always as I really like shooting with it on. Notice I also have a baby Kirk L bracket LOL--now that makes it really lovely to handhold--more geography on the left since the LCD is so big. I made the comment today I could have bought my 24 TSE on my 'wish list' instead of this and additional 'stuff' LOL. But--it will serve a purpose for me that I've wanted for awhile. I intend to shoot mostly mono (and I set the LCD for b/w though I"m shooting in RAW) including IR--and use it for hiking. After years of lugging DSLR and gear on hikes not really planned for photography only, I decided that was crazy.
BTW--I don't find taking off the Lensmate with WA on any faster than unscrewing from Lensmate--except I have to remove the filter (my decision) when I affix the WA. I'm honestly not using the WA much--but am shooting more with the Lensmate on--much nicer unless I really need it to be pocketable and that's a simple twise to remove it.
Diane