Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: stebbo on November 30, 2007, 03:15:00 am
-
They drive me crazy, but they have their place.
So I'm looking for a new one that'll drive me less crazy.
That means great high ISO performance so I can get away without the flash for inside shots.
A good flash when I need to use the flash.
Low shutter delay so I don't have to keep the thing prefocused waiting for the shot.
Buttons and dials as opposed to deep menus.
Small as possible.
Megapixels not important.
Manual control and no stupic gimmicks getting in the way.
Essentially a shrunken down prosumer DSLR.
Does it exist?
-
Essentially a shrunken down prosumer DSLR.
Does it exist?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
-
A P&S is almost by definition a series of compromises over what can be delivered by an DSLR form factor.... but I'm sure you know that. So in the end it depends on what dimensions of performance you're willing to compromise on.
My personal favourite is the Sony R1 - It's "as small as possible" given the size of sensor it has, but probably (even though your requirement is articlated "small as possible") is too big (and hard to get).
Next on the list is the Canon g9 - has everything you want except DSLR-like noise performance, and it's still menu driven.
What would you be looking for in terms of lens? Zoom? 5 or 10X or is fixed focal ok? The Sigma DP1 is vapour, but apparently not dead yet:
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/...sage_071130.htm (http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/DP1_UpdateMessage_071130.htm)
but is not a zoom. It might get closer, but I'll bet a beer it will still have menus
-
A P&S is almost by definition a series of compromises over what can be delivered by an DSLR form factor.... but I'm sure you know that. So in the end it depends on what dimensions of performance you're willing to compromise on.
My personal favourite is the Sony R1 - It's "as small as possible" given the size of sensor it has, but probably (even though your requirement is articlated "small as possible") is too big (and hard to get).
Next on the list is the Canon g9 - has everything you want except DSLR-like noise performance, and it's still menu driven.
What would you be looking for in terms of lens? Zoom? 5 or 10X or is fixed focal ok? The Sigma DP1 is vapour, but apparently not dead yet:
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/...sage_071130.htm (http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/DP1_UpdateMessage_071130.htm)
but is not a zoom. It might get closer, but I'll bet a beer it will still have menus
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I still think the DP1 could be my ideal second camera - if only they get it right and make it at all!! 35mm equivalent lens please, dials for shutter/aperture...
-
I still think the DP1 could be my ideal second camera - if only they get it right and make it at all!! 35mm equivalent lens please, dials for shutter/aperture...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The DP1 has a 28mm equivalent lens. Sigma just announced the reason why it has been delayed for so long. Apparently, they are replacing the entire processing pipeline, and have no guess as to when it will actually go into production. Check out the announcement on DPreview.
Personally, I use an old Canon S50 because it does RAW. The later S70 is better in pretty much every respect, but the S80 has no RAW mode. My S50 shows a number of lens flaws, which are easily corrected in software. It is noisy at high ISO, but Neat Image does a fantastic job of taking care of that. If it ever dies, I'll get an S70 off of eBay. Going rate is under $200.
-
Personally, I use an old Canon S50 because it does RAW. The later S70 is better in pretty much every respect, but the S80 has no RAW mode. My S50 shows a number of lens flaws, which are easily corrected in software. It is noisy at high ISO, but Neat Image does a fantastic job of taking care of that. If it ever dies, I'll get an S70 off of eBay. Going rate is under $200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had an S60 which was replaced by an S70 when the S60 finaly fell apart [it had a very hard life!]. But the S70 is a good example of more MP making for a poorer image and not a better one. I bought an s60 in the first place not the s70 for that reason. I'd have bought an s80, but for the lack of RAW. A shame as the s80 is much better in so many respects bar the lack of RAW.
The excellent handling Ricoh GRD looked like a decent P+S but 14secs to write RAW, which meant it was crippled for the sort of people that would use it. However the GRD II has sorted this issue out as you can now even take a pic whilst the previous shot is being written [now 3.5 secs]. May well be getting one, though waiting to try one first. I never believe marketing hype.
But the Sigma with the bigger chip would be my prefered choice esp if it was as nice as the GRD to use.
-
I had an S60 which was replaced by an S70 when the S60 finaly fell apart [it had a very hard life!]. But the S70 is a good example of more MP making for a poorer image and not a better one. I bought an s60 in the first place not the s70 for that reason. I'd have bought an s80, but for the lack of RAW. A shame as the s80 is much better in so many respects bar the lack of RAW.
The excellent handling Ricoh GRD looked like a decent P+S but 14secs to write RAW, which meant it was crippled for the sort of people that would use it. However the GRD II has sorted this issue out as you can now even take a pic whilst the previous shot is being written [now 3.5 secs]. May well be getting one, though waiting to try one first. I never believe marketing hype.
But the Sigma with the bigger chip would be my prefered choice esp if it was as nice as the GRD to use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really? The reviews I read never had much bad to say about IQ in the S70. Is the S70 much noiser than the S60 or something? Specifically, what problems did you have from the higher res sensor?
I'm really interested because my S50 is now so worn that I can't read the icons on the dial. I'd hoped to replace it with an S70 (mostly due to the much better lens). But if an S70 actually produces worse images, I won't.
-
A P&S is almost by definition a series of compromises over what can be delivered by an DSLR form factor.... but I'm sure you know that. So in the end it depends on what dimensions of performance you're willing to compromise on.
...
What would you be looking for in terms of lens? Zoom? 5 or 10X or is fixed focal ok?
I guess low-light performance would be the most important requirement. ISO400 on my current Powershot SD300 is pretty woeful, but I have no choice (its flash is ridiculous) when shooting indoors at night.
Anything I need to photograph seriously I'll pull out the other gear, so I don't need raw, megapixels, fps,...
-
i'm still using the S60 for the RAW format (although the RAW image + JPEG thumbnail with the EXIF is a pain) because there doesn't seem to be anything better. Large prints are possible with decent light, ant there really isn't any reason for higher resolution with this type of camera.
Hopefully when Canon gets their CMOS consumer line running there may be some hope, but until then the marketing focus on more pixels with less quality is ultimately a dead-end. If snapshooters had the choice of really good low light performance there could be a really big winner.
-
I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 7mp that I use for the purposes that you describe. It has a sharp Zeiss lens, 10x zoom, and fits in your pocket as the zoom disappears completely into the camera body. It also shoots great-quality bug pictures with a home-made extension tube and a Raynox 2.5 lens. Problems: short battery life (I bought and keep charged 4 no-name LiIon batteries to ensure a day's shooting.) Also: very little manual control. (It does have auto exposure bracketing, though.)
-
If low noise and small size weigh in heavily, everyone seems to have forgotten the Fuji F10-20-30, etc series with the CCD sensors. I don't seem to remember anyone equaling them in low noise levels for P&S cameras.
-
I bought an Oly SP-500 earlier this year. This is now discontinued, but the replacement (SP-550?) boasts higher resolution, longer zoom, and (I think) optical image stablization.
On the plus side, the SP-500 is small, light, shoots RAW, has decent battery life, has a viewfinder, offers P,S,A,M, and has a 10X zoom. The full auto mode does a superb job in low light, but for some reason it is not possible to shoot RAW in this mode. On the downside, noise is an issue above ISO 100, the images are a bit soft, and the lens does not focus well at longer focal lengths. Also, it is slow as hell at times. Still, like many p+s cameras, you have to learn where the sweet spot is and exploit it.
If I were going to buy a PS camera now, I'd probably go for the Canon G9.
-
If low noise and small size weigh in heavily, everyone seems to have forgotten the Fuji F10-20-30, etc series with the CCD sensors. I don't seem to remember anyone equaling them in low noise levels for P&S cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Fuji cameras really don't have sensors that are less noisy than most other P&S cameras. It's all software noise reduction.
-
If you want RAW and SLR-type controls in a compact form, then the choices are not that many: Canon G9, Ricoh GRD/GRDII and GX100, Panasonic/Leica LX2/D-Lux3.
They all suffer from noise at higher ISO values, and they combat it with different strategies. I am currently using a G9, which I have already tried at ISO 800 in street markets and inside a cave, with excellent results (good A4 prints) after a touch of noise reduction. Canon chooses not to smear away noise and detail, which is good.
The little Fujis of a generation ago are good (F/30/31/40) at high ISO, but they either lack aperture/shutter priority, a live histogram, or both. And of course, no RAW.
-
Olympus XA (http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?OlympusXA.html~mainFrame)
Absolute responsiveness, slide the cover open and you can grab the shot in a fraction of a second. Fully manual rangefinder focusing is often faster than contrast-detect AF, with a little practice. Full manual control of aperture, camera sets the shutter speed, which you can compensate with the film speed dial. The flash can be detached when not needed, and when it is needed, it's pretty good and can be used on auto or adjusted manually.
Of course, it lacks most of the bells and whistles of modern digital compacts, which means that there's nothing to get between you and your image and get in your way.
It also runs circles around tiny-sensor digital for image quality, in some ways. The lens is tack sharp, though that's not unique, but the sensor is the really great part. Load it with Velvia 100 and you'll get high-resolution files with juicy colors, load it with good black and white film and you're looking at definition you just can't get on a bayer sensor, it'll beat your 5d. You can push some modern black and white to 800 and get a crisp, clear image far better than you'll get from any digital compact (shooting a compact at higher than 800 is not practical)... or for color, Fuji's got a brand new 1600 color emulsion that has fine grain and great colors, though it's only useful with the XA3 and XA4 due to the ASA dial. I use Kodak UC400 with mine, and the files I get after cheap developing and scanning done are about the same filesize as an 8 MP camera with much better detail-per-pixel, and I suspect the film has even more detail that the cheap scanner isn't able to record. Not to mention that the dynamic range is about the same as full-frame digital, the grain doesn't seem to exist, and the colors are rich.
It'll only set you back about $100 (at the most). I got mine for $2.
I hope I'm not attacked for my recommendation, but the realm of compact cameras is one area where film can still outperform digital in almost every way. You'll never have one of those moments where you think "why won't the camera just do what I want?" as you wait for it to write files or focus in low light. It just gives you what you need to take the picture and gets out of your way.
It fits the criteria you give almost exactly.
Oh, and you can beat on it and change the batteries only once a year.
-
I voted with my wallet for the Canon G9.
-
I agree with Er1kksen.
Digital has got advantages and disadvantages in comparison to "chemical" photography.
You know the advantages of digital already. I think people tend to overlook the advantages of film.
One of those is that you can have, with certain "point and shoot", a quality which is certainly superior to that of digital p&s.
I have a Yashica T3, 1989. Fixed 35/2,8 lens, no possibility to exclude motor (no manual film advance, no manual film rewind) and only automatic exposure. The Zeiss Tessar is good but not on par with the lenses I have on my SLR (Minolta MD).
This camera is "weather resistant", has got a tiny vertical viewfinder besides the normal tiny viewfinder, can force fill-in flash with daylight, can disable flash at night (it would flash automatically), has got a tripod screw hole, can lock focus, autofocus is 16-step (not the 5-step or 6-step you find in cheap P&S), reads EV from 3 to 17, shutter times from 1 sec. to 1/630 (central shutter, synchro on all times) and I take pictures with it that are accepted by Alamy (a stock agencies) so not that bad as far as quality is concerned. With DX films ISO setting is automatic (64 - 1600). Minimum focusing distance is 0,5 m. (parallax indication on viewfinder).
Weight is 295 grams with battery (lithium 3V CR2025, you still find it everywhere). Dimensions are really tiny. I had it hidden in my pocket when a guy tried an armed robbery (a small knife) against me on the Boca quartier of Buenos Aires (he did not get anything, by the way, I think I risked something that day...), it is with me when I go hiking, or when I go round with my motorbike. Actually I often have it with me when I walk round Rome just because it is handy to have a camera in your pocket. The tripod screw makes sense if you carry with you one of those very small tripods which can be quite useful. Remember the camera reads down to EV 3 at ISO 100 (1/4 at f/2,8) which is enough for nocturne pictures in town (monuments with lightings).
I have examined various digital alternatives but I never found something that could really add flexibility without detracting from quality, or without adding weight. Especially distortion of zooms at the wide end makes those cameras less desirable. Only image stabilization might probably induce me to switch to digital for this kind of pictures.
The two big disadvantages are: fixed focal lenght (you guessed it, you can't have a P&S, with a zoom, and expect quality. This camera has a decent quality lens, but no zoom) and no manual exposure.
In order to overcome the autoexposure you have only two means, or three:
a) Cover the DX info on roll canister so that you can set ISO speed manually, than you can correct somehow. Dangerous, never done so. Also if you use 100 ISO film you are limited on overexposure correction (minimum ISO is 64).
The good old trick: when you are in the sun and your subject is in shade, you raise your hand over the camera in order to project a shadow over it, the hand must be outside of field of view and there must be no violent antifascist around so the camera will expose for shades. This covers almost half of the cases when I would like not to follow the light meter.
c) You can use negatives. I have always used slide film but now I want to experiment with negatives + scans. Negatives obviously can forgive some exposition mistake.
"Minor" disadvantages are a certain amount of vignetting and some chromatic aberration that you can see sometimes at "actual pixel size". Lens distortion is not very well corrected. Flare control is really excellent. Overall optical and digital quality is probably way above any digital point & shoot around.
Oh, I forgot: you can project real slides on a screen in a darkened room. Remember the sensation?
Cheers
Fabrizio
-
Ok, I know we're all about to be blasted for going way off topic. The original poster wanted to know about digital. I think he would have mentioned film if it were an option for him.
But as long as we're out there, I'm particularly fond of the Bolsey B2. Rangefinder focus, decent lens, manual exposure control. Very small and extremely ruggedly built. You can also attach a flash. They even made a TLR version which is a little bigger, but allows for discreet snapshooting.
I am nearly certain nobody will go buy one based on this post, and few people will admit to even knowing what a Bolsey B2 is.
-
Ok, I know we're all about to be blasted for going way off topic. The original poster wanted to know about digital. I think he would have mentioned film if it were an option for him.
Actually, not at all. I appreciate the Olympus XA suggestion (thanks Er1kksen) and although I still haven't sold the film scanner, it's just too much effort these days.
I had a look at some of the options many of you have suggested. Thanks.
The G9 looks a beautiful setup, read a few reviews on it but too much to pay without solving the low-noise problem.
The dpreview of the G9 mentioned that nearly all P&S's use the same sensors, so I could be facing an uphill battle. Might have to hold off buying for a while. Wife just wanted a cheap P&S for xmas so I though I'd give her the (mid-range) SD300 and upgrade myself (is that selfish?).
-
Actually, not at all. I appreciate the Olympus XA suggestion (thanks Er1kksen) and although I still haven't sold the film scanner, it's just too much effort these days.
I had a look at some of the options many of you have suggested. Thanks.
The G9 looks a beautiful setup, read a few reviews on it but too much to pay without solving the low-noise problem.
The dpreview of the G9 mentioned that nearly all P&S's use the same sensors, so I could be facing an uphill battle. Might have to hold off buying for a while. Wife just wanted a cheap P&S for xmas so I though I'd give her the (mid-range) SD300 and upgrade myself (is that selfish?).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=157844\")
The G9 "noise problem" can be significantly reduced by shooting RAW and using the ACR settings discussed in this LL [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20662]thread. [/url].
-
The aforementioned Sigma could actually be pretty great, if it ever comes to market. It will surely have lower noise then almost any other P&S.
-
The aforementioned Sigma could actually be pretty great, if it ever comes to market. It will surely have lower noise then almost any other P&S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would, but the prospect isn't very reassuring.
I'd rather have a more basic-featured bayer-sensor camera with a large sensor than foveon, just because it'd probably cost less... of course, that's where my $2 XA has me covered... I'm shy towards any compact that costs more than an slr, since I can barely afford one of those.
-
The G9 "noise problem" can be significantly reduced by shooting RAW and using the ACR settings discussed in this LL thread. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20662).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah Gordon, I've just been reading your blog...
From your experiments, how would you say the G9 handles shooting indoors at night, under typical average lighting for screen viewing only.
My Powershot SD300 won't freeze humans posing well enough at ISO400 and even after Noise Ninja, it's still too noisy to really enjoy (without being picky).
-
If you want RAW and SLR-type controls in a compact form, then the choices are not that many: Canon G9, Ricoh GRD/GRDII and GX100, Panasonic/Leica LX2/D-Lux3.
They all suffer from noise at higher ISO values, and they combat it with different strategies. I am currently using a G9, which I have already tried at ISO 800 in street markets and inside a cave, with excellent results (good A4 prints) after a touch of noise reduction. Canon chooses not to smear away noise and detail, which is good.
The little Fujis of a generation ago are good (F/30/31/40) at high ISO, but they either lack aperture/shutter priority, a live histogram, or both. And of course, no RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll second that. I personally know a pro photographer (fashion) who owns the LX2 and loves it. Tho, yes, it's NOT an SLR, so, you have problems in high iso and all, but it's a great camera to have in your pocket at all times. Pretty close to the best you could have outside SLR realm in a very compact body ( having even manual focus ).
-
That Sigma compact camera looks cool, but right now, I don't think it matters what compact camera you use. Choose your poison. Find one that fits your hand and that you like it appearance. There is only a gnats @ss of difference between image quality of a $175 and a $500 digicam these days.
I got a cheap A670. It was cheap. I like it because it was cheap. Its cheapness makes me willing to take it with me when I do things like mud wrestling, ultimate fighting championships, or ham fests. ...and, because it was cheap, I don't mind when I get mud on it.
Really, when you have a DSLR, you will want that for high quality work. Otherwise, the drop-off is sooo great that any nice, cute little camera is likely to suffice. What features are important to you? Size? Zoom range? Raw? Image Stabilization? Whatever? The sensors are all very similar in quality. Even the Fujis don't compare to an average DSLR. Pixel peeping on digicams is dead. Cameras from the major manufacturers are all pretty decent.
-
Ah Gordon, I've just been reading your blog...
From your experiments, how would you say the G9 handles shooting indoors at night, under typical average lighting for screen viewing only.
My Powershot SD300 won't freeze humans posing well enough at ISO400 and even after Noise Ninja, it's still too noisy to really enjoy (without being picky).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I’m tempted to say that the G9 will be fine at ISO 400 in existing room light for producing screen size images but I actually haven’t taken any shots that way myself – yet. I’ve had my G9 for two months but most of my indoor shots have been with external bounce flash and ISO 80. I’ll be at a little party tonight so will fire off a few shots at ISO 400 and see what happens.
I always think of existing room light exposure as ISO 400, f2.8 and 1/30 second because that’s what I could do years ago with Tri-X and my old Konica SLR. It seems that many industrial offices are a stop or or two brighter. Screen view, to me anyway, is still 1024x768 even though my own monitors are a bit bigger.
I upgraded to the G9 from a G3. Like your SD300, the G3 is a 4 MP camera. I think the G3 sensor is bigger but older than the sensor in your SD300. In upgrading, I said that if the G9 was OK at ISO 400 for an 8x10 print then I’d be happy and I am. My guess is that, compared to the SD300, you’d be pleased with the improvements in resolution and image quality but the real reason for upgrading to the G9 is likely to be the versatility, especially raw and external flash.
Reading other forums, some people are expecting to put this year’s digicam in full auto mode and get great improvements over the camera they bought last year. Those people are disappointed; in fact, some are angry.
-
Olympus XA (http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?OlympusXA.html~mainFrame)
I hope I'm not attacked for my recommendation, but the realm of compact cameras is one area where film can still outperform digital in almost every way. You'll never have one of those moments where you think "why won't the camera just do what I want?" as you wait for it to write files or focus in low light. It just gives you what you need to take the picture and gets out of your way.
It fits the criteria you give almost exactly.
Oh, and you can beat on it and change the batteries only once a year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A digital XA is what I want. I've got three of them. One died and I found 2 replacements when they were very hard to come buy, so I stocked up. Brilliant cameras with an excellent lens - it was deemed pro quality when it appeared. They used to cost as much second as new here in the UK after Olympus stopped making them.
It frustrates me how big and heavy digital SLR cameras are compared to film and even then they have smaller viewfinders in spite of their bulk.
-
Really? The reviews I read never had much bad to say about IQ in the S70. Is the S70 much noiser than the S60 or something? Specifically, what problems did you have from the higher res sensor?
I'm really interested because my S50 is now so worn that I can't read the icons on the dial. I'd hoped to replace it with an S70 (mostly due to the much better lens). But if an S70 actually produces worse images, I won't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No drastic problems as such, but the S70 just doesn't seem as good at 200ISO - a bit noisier. Both are cack at 400ISO.
My S60 literally fell apart, it was eventually held together by camera tape [Film camera tape that is]. It got hammered and was bounced off various hard surfaces way too many times.
-
No drastic problems as such, but the S70 just doesn't seem as good at 200ISO - a bit noisier. Both are cack at 400ISO.
My S60 literally fell apart, it was eventually held together by camera tape [Film camera tape that is]. It got hammered and was bounced off various hard surfaces way too many times.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This says something about the wisdom of Canon's marketing department. People like you and I are using old generation cameras way beyond their expected lifetimes because Canon refuses to replace those models with cameras that work as well. Somehow, they've convinced themselves that we really want face recognition and many tiny, noisy pixels, rather than clean RAW files.
I suppose a lot of ordinary folks must actually agree with that. Maybe there aren't enough advanced photographers out there to justify building a small camera they would like. Seems unlikely to me, but I'm not in the camera business either.
My uberDSLR is a great tool, but a lot of times I really need something else that can be pocket-carried. The old S50 fit the bill nicely. Is a decent small camera with RAW too much to ask?
-
I'm now taking extra good care of my S60, since nothing current seems to beat it for what it does.
-
I’m tempted to say that the G9 will be fine at ISO 400 in existing room light for producing screen size images but I actually haven’t taken any shots that way myself – yet. I’ve had my G9 for two months but most of my indoor shots have been with external bounce flash and ISO 80. I’ll be at a little party tonight so will fire off a few shots at ISO 400 and see what happens. ....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the party last night I set the G9 on Program mode, ISO 400 and turned the flash off. I also set auto focus to “face recognition”. Capture was set to raw plus jpg files with auto white balance. I took some pictures myself and also passed the camera around for others to take a few. All in all, most of the pictures turned out OK. As I thought, but didn’t know, image quality using existing room light is acceptable to me on a 1200x1600 screen.
The party was actually our photo club exhibit at the local library. The gallery room was somewhat brighter than normal household lighting. The party room was slightly darker than the gallery room. At ISO 400 and in Program Mode without flash, most exposures were about 1/30 to 1/60 second in the general range of f2.8 to f4 aperture.
Comparing the raw images to the in-camera jpg and pixel peeping at 100%, there is certainly visible noise in the raw file but this was expected. The Canon noise reduction routine has acceptably (to me) squelched that noise in the jpg version. The ACR noise reduction settings previously mentioned do a slightly better job on the ISO 400 raw file than the Canon noise reduction in my opinion. (ACR noise reduction is significantly better on ISO 800 noise.)
I was amused to note that face recognition did not always lock in on faces -- often favoring other parts of the anatomy -- but generally worked well and quickly.
Automatic white balance was not particularly good. The lighting was entirely fluorescent and I could have set the G9 accordingly but didn’t. Of course, the raw file white balance can be changed after the fact and, as a result, the raw images have the correct, and more consistent, color balance.
It has been very interesting to see the pictures that other people took with the G9. All the pictures I took came out OK. My operating procedure is to always push the shutter button halfway (thinking “focus”), see the confirmation, recompose if necessary and then finish pushing the shutter button. Obviously, most people using the G9 last night simply pushed the button. About half of those pictures are blurred from camera movement; strangely, many of those also seem a bit underexposed. The G9, like many (all?) of Canon’s digicams, definitely exhibits shutter lag but, not being particularly quick myself, I’ve learned to work with it.
-
Olympus XA (http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?OlympusXA.html~mainFrame)
Absolute responsiveness, slide the cover open and you can grab the shot in a fraction of a second. Fully manual rangefinder focusing is often faster than contrast-detect AF, with a little practice. Full manual control of aperture, camera sets the shutter speed, which you can compensate with the film speed dial. The flash can be detached when not needed, and when it is needed, it's pretty good and can be used on auto or adjusted manually.
Of course, it lacks most of the bells and whistles of modern digital compacts, which means that there's nothing to get between you and your image and get in your way.
It also runs circles around tiny-sensor digital for image quality, in some ways. The lens is tack sharp, though that's not unique, but the sensor is the really great part. Load it with Velvia 100 and you'll get high-resolution files with juicy colors, load it with good black and white film and you're looking at definition you just can't get on a bayer sensor, it'll beat your 5d. You can push some modern black and white to 800 and get a crisp, clear image far better than you'll get from any digital compact (shooting a compact at higher than 800 is not practical)... or for color, Fuji's got a brand new 1600 color emulsion that has fine grain and great colors, though it's only useful with the XA3 and XA4 due to the ASA dial. I use Kodak UC400 with mine, and the files I get after cheap developing and scanning done are about the same filesize as an 8 MP camera with much better detail-per-pixel, and I suspect the film has even more detail that the cheap scanner isn't able to record. Not to mention that the dynamic range is about the same as full-frame digital, the grain doesn't seem to exist, and the colors are rich.
It'll only set you back about $100 (at the most). I got mine for $2.
I hope I'm not attacked for my recommendation, but the realm of compact cameras is one area where film can still outperform digital in almost every way. You'll never have one of those moments where you think "why won't the camera just do what I want?" as you wait for it to write files or focus in low light. It just gives you what you need to take the picture and gets out of your way.
It fits the criteria you give almost exactly.
Oh, and you can beat on it and change the batteries only once a year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Er1kksen. I agree with everything you say. But i'm sure you will get your share of attackers screaming nonsense.
The XA is a great camera-a classic that is still useful now.
Point and Shoots have always been my favorite cameras. I've had Olympus XA, Ricoh GR1 and am currently on my second Fujifilm Zoomdate that has a 24-50mm 2.8 lens which I found on Ebay UK for $50.00. I don't think they are still being made but were only available in England and Japan. My first one was stolen recently and I was more excited about finding one for $40 on Ebay UK than getting a new Nikon D3. It has reasonable shutter lag, ability to turn off flash completely or set it for fill (which is actually very accurate) 2 shutter release buttons, left and right, and a tiny convex mirror on the front for taking pictures of yourself. The lens is excellent and I only use 800 or 1600 color negative film in it. Sometime B&W. Its so ironic that color neg. film has evolved to such a level of quality in some people's minds no longer useful. For the type of shooting I do with a P&S, film is perfect and cheaper once computer time is factored in.
I have a Sinar 54H, nikon D2x ,a new D3 and more computer "stuff" than I care to own and maintain, and I still prefer a film P&S. Better value and better quality and no equivalent in digital. Just another OPINION.
Best,
Frank Poole
-
How is the G9 at limiting DOF?
-
How is the G9 at limiting DOF?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As with all small sensor cams, its difficult. You have to carefully set it up, open (f2.8 at 35mm, f/4.8 at 210mm) as wide as possible, use tele if possible, have subject a distance from the background. Its one of the compromises you make using a small cam.
Diane
-
The DP1 is a disappointment. It could have been such a great camera and taken a huge part of the market. I'm sure that there are lots of people who want a large sensor in a compact body, I know I am.
Having settled on a EOS 5 and 1DII, I have been looking for a good compact for what seems ages. I'm currently using the G7, but I still have the feeling that it isn't all I could want, especially when I see the results. Would a G9 be better, I'm not sure. What I want is a bigger sensor. The spec of the DP1 looks great, but after reading the review, I think I'll pass. Maybe the DP2 will fix the handling and other issues. Better still would be for Canon to come up with a compact camera with a large sensor. Sticking it in an IXUS body would be great, but probably asking too much. I'd settle for it in a G body. I'd think they'd sell like hotcakes.
-
I'd honestly go with a used 35mm viewfinder camera. Inexpensive and the prints will cost you the same as digital, or close to it. I still have a small Konica that I take with me on trips, though it's close to dying, being almost 40 years old.
You could also get a nice 35mm SLR - something like an old Minolta X700 or Canon AE1. their bodies are actually fairly compact and there's essentially nothing to break on them. despite their age, they still can take fantastic professional quality pictures.
From there, it jumps straight to digital SLRs, IMO. Anything digital that's point and shoot is going to be a total disappointment to anyone other than a tourist.
-
also taking good care of my s60 - enough pixels, i'd just like less noise at ISO 400 and faster RAW
somebody needs to break out of the "high megapixel low IQ" spiral
-
My personal favorite P&S for the past year is the Panasonic FX-50. I travels well, slips into a shirt or sport coat pocket and has a Leica lens which is 28mm 35mm equivalent on the wide end. It has a big LCD and image stabilization.
It has a weak flash, except for up close, and no RAW mode. It does a great job with outdoor pictures.
The pictures that I have taken with it enlarge nicely and they are a lot better than the pictures that I never took because my DSLR was a home on a shelf. P&S cameras have an important role. My mother doesn't know (or care) that the pictures of her beloved grandchildren are not shot with $8,000+ of camera gear.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Hi
We have the G9 & like it.
-
Actually, not at all. I appreciate the Olympus XA suggestion (thanks Er1kksen) and although I still haven't sold the film scanner, it's just too much effort these days.
I had a look at some of the options many of you have suggested. Thanks.
The G9 looks a beautiful setup, read a few reviews on it but too much to pay without solving the low-noise problem.
The dpreview of the G9 mentioned that nearly all P&S's use the same sensors, so I could be facing an uphill battle. Might have to hold off buying for a while. Wife just wanted a cheap P&S for xmas so I though I'd give her the (mid-range) SD300 and upgrade myself (is that selfish?).
I am a bit confused. Why do you believe the G9 (priced at a mere $450) is "too expensive" for the level of camera it is? Realistically, what would you honestly expect to pay for a pro-level point-n-shoot camera? The title of your thread and original post is Serious photographers buy which point 'n shoot?, and you stated your bottom line desire at the end of your original thread as being Essentially a shrunken down prosumer DSLR. Does it exist?
The G9 is that camera, but yet you ultimately want to quibble about its very small price of $450? I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me. It seems the question you need to ask yourself is are you really looking for a pro-level P&S or are you just looking for a bargain camera?
The G9 has more features and user-control capabilities than virtually any other P&S on the market, it has also had more professional use (and professional articles written about it) than any other P&S on the market, and it also has RAW capability.
The G9 surpasses many of the lower-end prosumer cameras in some of its abilities, and it pretty much is a prosumer camera in a P&S body. And at $450 I don't believe is is exactly "expensive" for what you get.
Just my $0.02 ...
Jack
-
I posted a review of the G9 here (http://catbear.livejournal.com/465202.html).
I've shot many more frames since then, and the review still holds water.
I'm quite satisfied with it as a carry-everywhere camera. Indeed, with the LowePRO Rezo 50 case protecting it, it lives around my neck or on my belt or in a cargo pocket.
-
Just got back from Portugal with a 5D and G9. I had done Paris last year with an xti and g7. These G series cameras are both great if you can live with the tradeoffs as others have mentioned, i.e. speed and noise. They are great for handing over to someone to take a family shot, when anything bigger will be inappropriate, but in NO way are they a dslr replacement for image quality overall. There is NO XA replacement in the digital world, well maybe the DP1, but haven't used one yet, and frankly do not want to be limited with just one focal length, for me, that just doesn't work. When Canon or other company will come out with a decent P&S with an APS size chip or larger then it will work, but until then we have to accept the tradeoffs or compromise with an D60 or XSi size slr body and a large range zoom lens, not the size of a P&S but as close as we can get yet.
My trade off will be to use my 5D or 40D and one or two small primes like a 24 and a 50mm lenses... I have had to accept that I do not want to sacrifice image quality for convenience until someone makes a camera where I won't have to...YMMV....
-
The G9 surpasses many of the lower-end prosumer cameras in some of its abilities, and it pretty much is a prosumer camera in a P&S body. And at $450 I don't believe is is exactly "expensive" for what you get.
Just my $0.02 ...
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just curious how you deal with the limitation of the viewfinder. I had a G7 and it drove me nuts...
Marco
-
G9 G9 G9,
No contest
-
Iwould say the Panasonic LX2 is the winner so far.
I also have the G9....but given the LX2 fits in a pocket this is what distinguishes it as a LEADER. The best picture you can take with these P&S cameras is the one you take with whatever camera you have with you at the time.
Because of its portability, I always have it with me.
Also, it shoots 28mm....and I think most would agree that P&S are mostly used,and benefit from more on the wide end, then on the tele end. Street shooting and interiors definatley benefit from its 28mm as opposed to the G9's 35mm.
There may be those G9 users that disagree... they dont know Jack.
-
Iwould say the Panasonic LX2 is the winner so far.
LOL, here we go again
In what way is it the winner, independently, in the real world outside Leonardville?
I also have the G9....but given the LX2 fits in a pocket this is what distinguishes it as a LEADER.
So fitting in one's pocket constitutes leadership? You probably have one old condom in your pocket too, which for you probably consititutes a whole year's supply. Does this pocket-placement make said prophylactic a "leader" too?
The best picture you can take with these P&S cameras is the one you take with whatever camera you have with you at the time.
True, and I always have my G9 with me as well.
Because of its portability, I always have it with me.
Which? The condom or the LX2?
Also, it shoots 28mm....and I think most would agree that P&S are mostly used,and benefit from more on the wide end, then on the tele end.
Maybe in Leonardville "most" people do, but in the rest of the world most people use P&Ss at the other end, to zoom-in, for family shots, and for handy macro, not for trying to do landscapes.
Street shooting and interiors definatley benefit from its 28mm as opposed to the G9's 35mm.
Again, you speak as if Leonardville is where everyman resides. In the real world, the sales volume, the reviews, and the general consumer and professional purchase decisions say otherwise, that the G9 meets the needs of most users better.
There may be those G9 users that disagree... they dont know Jack.
LOL, that was cute
Jack
-
John.
I know we've already had an instance of a thread being closed by Michael on this issue, so we have to keep it civil. But I tend to agree with mrleonard here, that given the choice of two cameras that produce very similar image quality, both having a RAW mode and manual functions, I would opt for the lighter and more pocketable camera.
Without having done an exhaustive comparison of the features of these two cameras on dpreview, I would say that after fundamental image quality and compactness, the features that might sway me in favour of one camera over another are features such as wide-angle capability, macro capability (how close can one get?), frame rate in RAW mode and shutter lag.
I think both cameras are probably lousy above ISO 400. The fact that the LX2 might produce better results in the 16:9 aspect ratio is a plus. On the other hand I expect the G9 would probably produce slightly better results in the 4:3 aspect ratio.
I own a Sony T30. I'm very happy with its compactness (internal zoom) and its macro modes, but I'm less happy with the unavoidable image smearing that results from its jpeg output and noise reduction. It has no RAW output.
I look forward to the day when we can get small, lightweight P&S cameras with negligible shutter lag, fast frame rates and large buffer to accommodate at least half a dozen RAW images before slowing down.
-
Is that a G9 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Now that it has gotten warmer my G9 is the leader in being left at home. My G9 is fine in the winter or any time I have a coat (read: big pockets) with me. I'll be buying a fuji f100d soon to replace my late fuji f10 to have a small camera to have with me in the summer.
-
I still don't understand why we can't have the equivalent of the XA with something like the 400D sensor in it. What's the big problem?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
...or, for that matter, a G10 with something like the 400D sensor in it. If they can sell the 400D for 600 clams, they could certainly sell a G10 with the same sensor for the same 600. What am I missing?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
The G9 is pretty big. With the lens you'd need to support a 1.6 crop sensor it would be huge. Easier to just get a Oly E-420 at that point.
-
Is that a G9 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
That was funny
I guess the flipside to that would be "no thanks I don't smoke" when you give her your LX2 under the table, LOL
Jack
-
Hey Jerk..er.. Jack..tone down the crap please. State your own point of view rather than ride off of others. You DO know your avatar is a pic of you...right? With your simian-like features that only your mama would love, I doubt even the leadership winner G9 in RAW could help that mug. You dont need to carry around a condom in your wallet...ever.
Fortunately the compact LX2 does allow me to carry all the daily dozens of prophylactics I need, thx for asking.
-
John.
I know we've already had an instance of a thread being closed by Michael on this issue, so we have to keep it civil. But I tend to agree with mrleonard here, that given the choice of two cameras that produce very similar image quality, both having a RAW mode and manual functions, I would opt for the lighter and more pocketable camera.
Sure, and that's a personal choice. I opted for the more rugged camera with more options, better macro, and better zoom.
Without having done an exhaustive comparison of the features of these two cameras on dpreview, I would say that after fundamental image quality and compactness, the features that might sway me in favour of one camera over another are features such as wide-angle capability, macro capability (how close can one get?), frame rate in RAW mode and shutter lag.
It would be interesting if you or Mr. Leonard would do such a review ... but I know one thing, the G9 lets you get closer for macro than just about any camera I can think of. I myself have no use for wide-angle, only macro and zoom.
I think both cameras are probably lousy above ISO 400. The fact that the LX2 might produce better results in the 16:9 aspect ratio is a plus. On the other hand I expect the G9 would probably produce slightly better results in the 4:3 aspect ratio.
I only use the 4:3 for what I do and I have a need to convert RAW files to .tiff files for book publication, for the printing company, on a project I am working on.
I own a Sony T30. I'm very happy with its compactness (internal zoom) and its macro modes, but I'm less happy with the unavoidable image smearing that results from its jpeg output and noise reduction. It has no RAW output.
Yes, for me, RAW is imperative as it converts to .tiff easily in PS. Compactness is not an issue for me, as I have a belt case for my G9 that I prefer to having anything in one of my pockets.
I look forward to the day when we can get small, lightweight P&S cameras with negligible shutter lag, fast frame rates and large buffer to accommodate at least half a dozen RAW images before slowing down.
I am pretty happy with the way the camera is right now, really, but maybe the G10 will incorporate still more convenient features ...
Jack
-
Hey Jerk..er.. Jack..tone down the crap please. State your own point of view rather than ride off of others. You DO know your avatar is a pic of you...right? With your simian-like features that only your mama would love, I doubt even the leadership winner G9 in RAW could help that mug. You dont need to carry around a condom in your wallet...ever.
Fortunately the compact LX2 does allow me to carry all the daily dozens of prophylactics I need, thx for asking.
LOL, I musta hit the bullseye
Take care,
Jack
-
Just curious how you deal with the limitation of the viewfinder. I had a G7 and it drove me nuts...
Marco
Honestly Marco, I have never used the viewfinder
-
This thread has been closed.
Come on folks. Cut the petty personal attacks or go play at DPreview. Not here.
Michael