Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon G9 vs 1Ds  (Read 13743 times)

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« on: November 18, 2007, 07:31:11 pm »

I've had a Canon G9 for several days, and have been very pleased with the clarity of the lens, and the pixel-level sharpness.  I decided to actually do a comparison today.

For background, the cameras are a 1Ds (classic!), with the 24-70 2.8L, and 70-200 2.8L IS, and the G9 with it's all-in-one 35-200 2.8-4.5 zoom (35mm equiv.).

Both cameras were shot in RAW.  The G9's files were converted with Adobe's DNG converter, and then files were processed in ACR for PS CS2.

The 1Ds uses the color calibration tab, while the G9 did not.  There was no sharpening applied in either ACR or PS.  White balance, brightness, contrast, and curves were set on the G9 to approximate the look of the 1Ds.

Note that light levels were changing from shot to shot, and all images were shot hand-held.  It was cold, so this is not an excruciating test.

I also did NOT match DOF, but chose to shoot in manual mode, to try to match light levels.

What I found:
Image quality:  Surprisingly close, within the limits described below.

There are two huge differences between the two cameras.  Focus on the G9 is slower, and you can't tell exactly when the exposure starts and ends.  This really annoys me.  

Also, Canon has really pumped up the exposure, and appears to be doing some funky things in DIGIC.  RAW data seems to be overexposed, and then a curve applied that brings the midtones and shadows back down.  Even shooting at EV -1/3 to -1, skies are easily blown.

Surprisingly, strong shadows in outdoor shots do NOT suffer from noise.

Here's some pics:  (Remeber to click on the 'all sizes' icon for 100% crops)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8927203@N02/sets
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 07:35:02 pm by skid00skid00 »
Logged

jerryrock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • The Grove Street Photographer
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2007, 07:43:29 pm »

I have both cameras and the G9 does not compare to the 1Ds. The G9 packs in more pixels (12.1 vs 11.1) in a much smaller sensor (1.7 vs 1.1) resulting in a much noisier image lacking the detail and clarity of the 1Ds images. The lenses just cannot be compared, they are not in the same league.

Your comparison test should have used the same tools. ACR 4.3 supports both cameras.

"White balance, brightness, contrast, and curves were set on the G9 to approximate the look of the 1Ds."
How is this a fair comparison?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 07:45:16 pm by jerryrock »
Logged
Gerald J Skrocki

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2007, 10:20:40 pm »

It's a 'fair' comparison because that's exactly what you would do to PP any image.  You'd convert to get the best image.

Since I've spent the last 4 years optimizing my 1Ds workflow, I know what look I want.  And in daylight, I can get frighteningly close to that with a G9 (with the exception of DR, obviously).

If you can't get as good images from your G9, you might want to practice!
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2007, 10:36:05 pm »

More like - if you can't get better images from a 1Ds, YOU need to practice

Man, the things people try and convince themselves of - LOL

Hey - my Mini is better than an old Ferrari too, cause I have similar lap times in both
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 12:25:11 am by kaelaria »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 10:59:41 pm »

I am not surprised by your findings.

I have done a rough comparison of my D80 vs the Ricoh Gx100 and the results are not that different at low ISO in terms of sharpness.

The file of the D80 is cleaner and does have more DR, but overall I would say that the results in print are close.

Cheers,
Bernard

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2007, 09:52:44 am »

Am I missing something here? Back in the days of film there were some really good compacts by makers such as Minox. They often used the same sensor as Pro SLRs - Velvia 50 for example. And both produced excellent results. But I don't recall any comparison reviews because they were considered to have different roles - has something changed? Good to hear that the G9 is capable of good results but I'm not sure that there is a great deal of point in comparing it to the 1DS.
Logged

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2007, 08:21:40 pm »

Quote
Am I missing something here? Back in the days of film there were some really good compacts by makers such as Minox. They often used the same sensor as Pro SLRs - Velvia 50 for example. And both produced excellent results. But I don't recall any comparison reviews because they were considered to have different roles - has something changed? Good to hear that the G9 is capable of good results but I'm not sure that there is a great deal of point in comparing it to the 1DS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hell, yes you're missing something!

The fact that a $450 p&s can provide 12 MP of pixel sharp image nearly as good as $12,000 of DSLR & lenses (1Ds, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS) ought to be a huge slap in the face for everyone!  

Let me restate the very first sentence of my OP, for the reading impaired: "I've had a Canon G9 for several days, and have been very pleased with the clarity of the lens, and the pixel-level sharpness."

Yeah, I KNOW it's not a completely equivalent comparison.  That's beside the point.  The G9 provides very sharp pixels, at 19 times the density of the 1Ds (or the D3, for that matter).  That's 209 MP in FF!  

This thing shoots movies at 30fps.  How far away do you think a 200, or 400, or 1000 fps camera is?  Canon could have 2-micron pixels in a FF 35mm, and take multiple samples to avoid highlight clipping, and have a large-format equivalent in a 35mm body.

God, I thought I had left behind the insanity of DPR when I came here.  I guess that internet photo forums have become the cb radio of the 2000's.  What a waste!
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2007, 08:43:29 pm »

Quote
Am I missing something here? Back in the days of film there were some really good compacts by makers such as Minox. They often used the same sensor as Pro SLRs - Velvia 50 for example. And both produced excellent results. But I don't recall any comparison reviews because they were considered to have different roles - has something changed? Good to hear that the G9 is capable of good results but I'm not sure that there is a great deal of point in comparing it to the 1DS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul,

A few years back, I visited a World Heritage site in Japan called Yakushima. It is an island South of Kyuushu that is famous for its very old trees.

At the time I had shot with a Nikon F100 with a Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 without tripod for various reasons.

I went back to the place this year with my ZD, a tripod and also a compact Ricoh GX100. A 10 MP compact camera with a 24-70 lens and built in VR.

Needless to say, the Mamiya images were miles better than enything shot with Velvia on the F100, but what came as more of a surprise was that the hand held images shot with the GX100 were overall much better also than those shot with the F100 back then.

The point the OP and I are trying to make is that compacts, when used within their sweet range of performance, can be amazing tools that IMHO show the way as far as the future of digital photography lies, whether it is with smaller sensors, or with larger sensors with much higher resolutions.

Regards,
Bernard

Sfleming

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2007, 01:42:39 am »

Skidoo,
Don't let the folks who haunt internet boards with a five iron ready to whop any and all as they fail to read the OP or just ignore it and swing away regardless bother you.  They're everywhere.  Believe me most of us understand what you are up to and I for one appreciate it.  I'm watching the driveway for the UPS guy this week waiting for my little bundle of joy to arrive.  G9.

I noticed a marked majenta cast to the G9 shots.  Have you found a good way to deal with this?
Logged

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2007, 03:50:21 am »

Quote
The point the OP and I are trying to make is that compacts, when used within their sweet range of performance, can be amazing tools that IMHO show the way as far as the future of digital photography lies, whether it is with smaller sensors, or with larger sensors with much higher resolutions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard

I have absolutely no problem with this! But why the comparison? The G9 would interest me if I didn't have sufficient cameras already (including a G5 which my wife uses happily enough despite its age/noise for a digital camera) and I'm glad to hear that it produces excellent image quality. I can understand comment such as those you make above (ie "within their sweet range of performance") but its the comparison of a 1DS and G9 that simply doesn't make sense to me as they have such potentially different functions/abilities/raison d'etre/etc..... .
Logged

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2007, 04:19:21 am »

Quote
I have absolutely no problem with this! But why the comparison?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps he was merely noticing how the old top dog is now similar in performance to a compact today, and tomorrow to a webcam.
Logged
________________________________________

Ronny Nilsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • The Quiet Landscape
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2007, 04:24:31 am »

Quote
The fact that a $450 p&s can provide 12 MP of pixel sharp image nearly as good as $12,000 of DSLR & lenses (1Ds, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS) ought to be a huge slap in the face for everyone! 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The G9 is a very good P&S and I'm very happy with mine. But, it's no competition
for a DSLR. I took a few snapshots now with both my 5D and the G9 so people can
compare IQ for them self and decide on what is almost as good.  

You can find 4 sample pictures [a href=\"http://www.ronnynilsen.com/tmp/G9/]here[/url]

Bottom line is: the 5D is sharper and have less noise at ISO 800 than the G9 at ISO 80.
But the G9 is god.

The files raw so you have to figure out the processing for yourself.  

All pictures is taken with the same flash: Speedlight 580.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 04:28:58 am by ronnynil »
Logged
Ronny A. Nilsen
www.ronnynilsen.com

Gordon Buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
    • LightDescription
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2007, 05:23:46 pm »

Quote
But the G9 is god.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like my G9 too, but ...
Logged
Gordon
 [url=http://lightdescription.blog

Eli Burakian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
    • Photogaboutit
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2007, 05:41:36 pm »

I'm actually interested in comparing the new breed of p&s cameras to some older ones to really see how low ISO image quality has improved (or not).  I'm thinking about getting another pocket camera as I don't want to always bring my dslr on the ski slopes.

Anyways, I've got a Canon S70, which had raw and takes great 7mp pics. I know features (VR, better screens...) have improved, but how has actual low iso resolution? Would a G9/GX100/LX2 provide me better overall images for a well lit scene?
Logged

Nigelfrommanchester

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
    • http://www.nigelatkinson.biz
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2007, 06:28:17 am »

Quote
Anyways, I've got a Canon S70, which had raw and takes great 7mp pics. I know features (VR, better screens...) have improved, but how has actual low iso resolution? Would a G9/GX100/LX2 provide me better overall images for a well lit scene?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had the S70 but never really liked it, so sold it when everyone went nuts about needing raw in a compact. I bought the IXUS 850IS and have found it excellent even though it 'only' does jpegs. I've also really enjoyed the freedom to take it everywhere - especially with the waterproof housing.

It does seem that photography is going the same way as hi-fi. Enthusiasts will pay a fortune for 'better' but average folks will get everything they've ever wanted from a compact.

At a recent school outing I mixed a 5D/ 24L and the IXUS and they both did great at what they're good at!
[a href=\"http://www.nigelatkinson.biz/recent1.htm]Link to photos[/url]


Nigel
Logged
Nigel Atkinson
[url=http://www.nigelatki

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2007, 07:18:59 am »

Image quality at base ISO on static subjects without a lot of DR doesn't tell the whole story. What about low light shooting at ISO 800 where the P&S can't lock focus on moving subjects, (think concerts/stage performances here) but the 1Ds can? Or what about subjects with a lot of DR, like a woodland scene with sunlit sky and clouds and deep shadows below the horizon? That's the kind of situations where the extra cost of the 1Ds pays dividends over a digicam.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2007, 09:27:41 am »

Quote
It does seem that photography is going the same way as hi-fi. Enthusiasts will pay a fortune for 'better' but average folks will get everything they've ever wanted from a compact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Excellent comparion that extend to the environment in which the equipment is used.

I happen to have pretty good hi-fi equipment but do currently not have the possibility to modify the listening room the way I would like to. The net result is that I am probably only enjoying 50% of the potential (already small) quality gap compared to much cheaper gear.

The same goes for cameras, it takes more and more rigour and skills to tap fully into the pretty small headroom compared to much cheaper equipment.

Cheers,
Bernard

Gordon Buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
    • LightDescription
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2007, 10:09:39 am »

Quote
I'm actually interested in comparing the new breed of p&s cameras to some older ones to really see how low ISO image quality has improved (or not). [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've had a Canon G3 for about five years and recently got the G9 in hopes of getting a more usable ISO 400 as well as a few more pixels.  Even though the G9 pixels are small, noise is less than on the G3:  RAW, JPG or post processed.  I'm happy with the G9 and have written and shown some comparisons to the G3 on my blog.
Logged
Gordon
 [url=http://lightdescription.blog

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2007, 10:20:45 am »

Quote
... but its the comparison of a 1DS and G9 that simply doesn't make sense to me as they have such potentially different functions/abilities/raison d'etre/etc..... .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not so sure about that, Paul. They are both photographic tools that take pictures. One is more versatile because it can take different lenses, has higher DR, faster focussing etc. The other you can fit in your pocket.

Since the G9 has RAW capability, if your subject is stationary you could use merge to HDR if you want to increase DR, even if you don't use a tripod, with CS3.

Remember also, for equivalent DoF (except shallow DoF which is difficult with P&S cameras) you're able to use a much faster shutter speed than you would with the 1Ds.

What's the frame rate of the G9?
Logged

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Canon G9 vs 1Ds
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 01:06:25 pm »

Ray

I understand the temptation to compare the two, but.....

Its a bit like doing a road test comparison of a Ferrari vs. a Mini. They both go from A to B, the Mini's more practical in many situations, The Ferrari's probably more exhilerating (I've never driven one and probably never will).

BUT how may road testers would seriously do a comparison of the two side by side - I for one don't see the point. IF on the other hand I read an obviously competent user's observations that for say hiking, the G9 was a really good camera for X, Y, Z reasons and could yield results that were even comparable to those from a 1DS for landscape work and even some other types of photography, I would happily accept that - indeed it would even be very useful to hear.

Its simply this idea of COMPARING two photographic tools which quite simply are unequal in just about every respect - as I said, when we shot Velvia we didn't compare Minox's with F4s, 5s, whatever. It seems to me that comparing lenses and sensors has become a very accepted part of photography and I simply want to point out (inoffensively I hope - I always want to keep discussions polite) that this simply seems to me to be an untenable concept.

We seem to live in a world where the question of is X better than Y is all too often an illogical constant. Which is better is an acceptable question only when comparing like.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up