Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: skid00skid00 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 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8927203@N02/sets)
-
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?
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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?
-
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..... .
-
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=154262\")
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.
-
But the G9 is god.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like my G9 too, but ...
-
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?
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=154499\")
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
... 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?
-
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.
-
Murphy's Internet Forum Law: Whatever can be misunderstood or misconstrued .... will be.
Maybe you should have titled this thread: "Digicams Are Not Always Junk"
Cause I think that's what you are saying here. I got that you are not actually comparing the cameras and I think you have made it pretty clear but your title got folks off on tangents.
There is a pervasive opinion amoungst we camera snobs that digicams are all junk cause of the tiny sensors. You are saying this is not true. That for specific purposes a good digi is a useful and desirable tool. I agree. A well exposed pic from a digicam is far better than no pic at all cause you did not have your bulky pro camera with you. I can't think of a situation where my (arriving today) G9 will not be in my pocket or within arms reach. That is far from the case with my D3 (arriving not soon enough).
I can't go as far as Michael did in his article a couple years ago about his little Sony pack-of-cards thingy camera cause my fat fingers can't even run one of those things .... but the G9 is a great compromise to my mind.
-
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.
The point, Paul, is to find out the strengths and weaknesses of each system, whether it be motor cars we're comparing or cameras. There might well be situations where the Mini Cooper (a souped up sports version of the original Morris Mini) will outperform the Ferrari, perhaps on a particularly tortuous circuit with sharp bends. I don't know, but I'm prepared to test the obvious.
The scientific method, it seems to me, is actually based upon the willingness and motivation of a few individuals in the past to test the obvious and discover something new. Things are not alway what they appear to be.
In this particular comparison I believe the original poster has not done justice to the G9. There are certain critical factors when taking a photo that are essential to get right for a technically good shot. This is not necessarilly a comprehensice list but such factors include; accurate focussing, correct exposure, sufficient shutter speed and desired DoF.
The G9 is limited with regard to choice of DoF. It's difficult to get a shallow DoF if that's what's desired, so in this respect the 1Ds is streets ahead. The 1Ds will also focus faster and more accurately, although I'm not sure if the greater accuracy is relevant to any comparison because the extensive DoF of G9 shots makes accurate focussing less critical. This is something which should be tested.
However, in situations where both extensive DoF is desired and a reasonably fast shutter speed to freeze either subject movement or camera shake when tripod is not available and lighting is poor, I would predict that the G9 will trounce the 1Ds regarding image quality; take it to the cleaners, so to speak.
In this situation I would expect the G9 not only to produce sharper images than the 1Ds with better color but much cleaner images by a very noticeable margin.
How come? Because the G9 at f2.8 produces the same DoF as the 1Ds at f13. To use the same shutter speed as the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 80, you'd need to bump up the ISO of the 1Ds to 2000. Oops! The 1Ds doesn't have an ISO 2000. Its maximum is 1250. Never mind! Canon has usually under-stated its ISO values. I'm not sure but I think ISO 1250 on the 1Ds is probably closer to ISO 2000, so lets compare the G9 at f2.8, ISO 80 and say 1/50th sec with the 1Ds at f13, ISO 1250 and 1/50th sec.
At ISO 1250 I think the IDS image will not look good. It'll be noisy and will have lost tonality and color saturation as well as dynamic range. It will also have lost resolution, not only due to excessive noise but also the inevitable slight softening of a lens at f13.
The above differences in DoF have been calculated by comparing the diagonal dimensions of the sensors; 9.5mm for the G9 and 43mm for the 1Ds. This ratio represents the difference in f stops for equivalent DoF, ie. 4.5 stops.
-
I am surprized to see this heated discussion based purelly on emotion, instead of discussing the actual images submitted in the comparison.
On the other hand, I am looking at those images and I am surprized, how those can be presented as any basis of a quality comparison.
I find it unserious to submit images reduced to a fraction of their size and say "look, which is better". It is particularly strange to refer to raw images in this context.
One should submit the raw images, because that is the only "fact coming out of the camera", everything else is subjected to the taste and skill of the viewer.
Following is not an identical, but parallel case (lenses are part of the game). For a few weeks ago I ordered two lenses for my new 40D, the 16-35mm f/2.8L MkII and the EF-S 17-55mm. Both are highly regarded, top of the line lenses. I ordered them with the agreement, that I will send back at least one of them.
In the following week, during the trial periode, I shot hundreds of otherwise useless images of trees, newspapers, forest from farther away, bookshelfs, etc. I compared the raw images to find out, how they behave regarding resolution, sharpness, CA, flare, bokeh. Both are very expensive lenses, and I did not want to simplify the decision. I felt confident to make a decision only on this bases.
-
Following is not an identical, but parallel case (lenses are part of the game). For a few weeks ago I ordered two lenses for my new 40D, the 16-35mm f/2.8L MkII and the EF-S 17-55mm. Both are highly regarded, top of the line lenses. I ordered them with the agreement, that I will send back at least one of them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just out of curiousity, which did you keep?
-
One should submit the raw images, because that is the only "fact coming out of the camera", everything else is subjected to the taste and skill of the viewer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is why I submitted RAW-pictures from both the G9 and the 5D for comparison (sorry,
don't have a 1Ds) to help the discussion.
Ray, when you say:
However, in situations where both extensive DoF is desired and a reasonably fast shutter speed to freeze either subject movement or camera shake when tripod is not available and lighting is poor, I would predict that the G9 will trounce the 1Ds regarding image quality; take it to the cleaners, so to speak.
That may be the case with the 1Ds, but with a 5D I would go for the 5D image. The 5D is
cleaner at ISO 800 than the G9 at ISO 80, and have better resolution.
-
I am surprized to see this heated discussion based purelly on emotion, instead of discussing the actual images submitted in the comparison.
On the other hand, I am looking at those images and I am surprized, how those can be presented as any basis of a quality comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly! You've just given the reason why there's no discussion of the images. They are too small. We've given the OP the benefit of the doubt, probably because Michael in his review of the 10mp Leica M8 commented that he sometimes confused unlabelled G7 prints with the Leica prints.
The fact is, 12 megapixels is 12 megapixels and provided the G9 lens is good and the scene being shot does not have a particularly high dynamic range, I would expect the G9 images at ISO 80 to appear surprisingly similar to the 1Ds, if you don't look too closely.
However, comparisons at equal DoF and shutter speed should very much favour the G9.
-
Which is why I submitted RAW-pictures from both the G9 and the 5D for comparison (sorry,
don't have a 1Ds) to help the discussion.
Ray, when you say:
That may be the case with the 1Ds, but with a 5D I would go for the 5D image. The 5D is
cleaner at ISO 800 than the G9 at ISO 80, and have better resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well that proves it , Ronnynil. I've just looked at your images comparing the G9 at ISO 80 with the 5D at ISO 1600 and the 5D image is definitely noisier.
Considering how much better 5D high-ISO images are than the 1Ds, I think we can safely say that the G9 at ISO 80 would trounce the 1Ds at IS0 1250.
As regards sharpness, I agree the 5D image at ISO 1600 looks sharper, and so it should be. You've used 1/200th sec as opposed to 1/60th with the G9 and the 5D images are significantly larger by a proportion greater than the slight increase in pixel count. For the 200% crops below I downsized the 5D file to equal that of the G9 and those individual toy engines are still larger.
If you were to equal shutter speed and DoF for both images, which means using f2.8 with the G9 and f13 with the 5D, or if you like, f4 with the G9 and f19 with the 5D, I'd be willing to bet a few pennies that the G9 will be at least equally sharp (or as close as matters) and definitely less noisy.
[attachment=3962:attachment] [attachment=3963:attachment] [attachment=3964:attachment] [attachment=3965:attachment]
-
Well that proves it , Ronnynil. I've just looked at your images comparing the G9 at ISO 80 with the 5D at ISO 1600 and the 5D image is definitely noisier.
Considering how much better 5D high-ISO images are than the 1Ds, I think we can safely say that the G9 at ISO 80 would trounce the 1Ds at IS0 1250.
As regards sharpness, I agree the 5D image at ISO 1600 looks sharper, and so it should be. You've used 1/200th sec as opposed to 1/60th with the G9 and the 5D images are significantly larger by a proportion greater than the slight increase in pixel count. For the 200% crops below I downsized the 5D file to equal that of the G9 and those individual toy engines are still larger.
If you were to equal shutter speed and DoF for both images, which means using f2.8 with the G9 and f13 with the 5D, or if you like, f4 with the G9 and f19 with the 5D, I'd be willing to bet a few pennies that the G9 will be at least equally sharp (or as close as matters) and definitely less noisy.
[attachment=3962:attachment] [attachment=3963:attachment] [attachment=3964:attachment] [attachment=3965:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At same DoF and shutter speed the G9 is better when it comes to noise, but the 5D
is sharper and gives room for some noise reduction. The unsharpness of the G9 is
probably not due to the shutterspeed, I used a flash as lighting source and at that
distance it was probably lit for much less that 1/1000... The blur is most likely
diffraction as f/4 was wide open at that focal length.
Point is, the G9 is a good walkabout camera, but IQ is only about as good at same
DoF and shutter speed. It will loose on all other comparisons, which for me is almost
any image.
But I will admit that most people I know would not notice the difference between
a print from the G9 of 5D, and I consider the G9 more than good enough for casual
family photography.
-
Keeping in mind the title of the thread:
"Canon G9 vs 1Ds, Not as lopsided as you may think..."
I certainly think the G9 and 1Ds(2 or 3) are a lot closer to each other than eg: the Coolpix 900 and Kodak DCS 760 of 2000 were.
The innovation/technology trajectory is interesting. At some point increases to the quality of the "high end" will no longer be valued by the market (or at least the cost of the incremental improvement will outweigh the value to the market), and what is mid market will become "good enough", even for the "high end" user.
-
Just out of curiousity, which did you keep?
I kept the 17-55mm. Pehaps you are interested for the reasons as well.
1. the 16-35mm MkII is better in very fine details in some settings. However, the difference was really tiny.
2. The reach of the 17-55mm is really important at the long end, while the 1mm at the short end is nice, but much less important, at least for me.
3. The image stabilization (VR for Nikonians) is the winner. It makes the 17-55 a much faster lens, than the 16-35mm, as long as the subjects are not moving. As I am shooting almost exclusively for panoramas, moving subjects are really the last ones I give a fig for.
4. Last but not least: the 16-35mm is 50% more expensive, than the 17-55mm. Although I had been prepared to pay the higher price, I had expected some noteworthy advantage as well, more than the weather sealing.
Several tests qualified the 17-55mm as a remarkable lens. It is one IMO. It gives a hard time even to the 50mm f/1.4, and that means a lot.
-
At same DoF and shutter speed the G9 is better when it comes to noise, but the 5D
is sharper and gives room for some noise reduction. The unsharpness of the G9 is
probably not due to the shutterspeed, I used a flash as lighting source and at that
distance it was probably lit for much less that 1/1000... The blur is most likely
diffraction as f/4 was wide open at that focal length.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I'm not going to let you get away with such unfounded assumptions, Ronnynil .
If the room was completely dark, or at least very dark, the slower shutter speed used in the G9 shot would not have had any impact upon sharpness. But was it? It could have been a normally lit room for all I know, not bright enough for a hand-held shot without flash, but probably bright enough for a shot at say 1/10 sec at f4. Only you know, but you really shouldn't throw in such doubts in your testing .
If we assume the noticeable softening of the G9 image is due to the use of its lens at maximum aperture, then that's a comparison that is skewed in favour of the 5D. Any slight softening of an image at f11 with the 5D is virtually unnoticeable.
The interesting point here for me, perhaps because I'm mainly concerned with cameras as tools rather than status symbols, is that there is one set of circumstances involving maximum DoF in less than ideal light where the G9 will not only far exceed the image quality of the now out-dated 1Ds but will even beat the stellar performing 5D in terms of both sharpness and noise.
If you've got the time, I'd like to see a comparison with the G9 stopped down half a stop from maximum aperture and the 5D stopped down 4.5 stops from that; using the same shutter speed and a reasonably fast shutter speed so there's no doubt about camera shake, say 1/200th in daylight.
Hey! Let's do this thing properly, Ronnynil .
And try harder to get the objects the same size in the frame. I know there's a complication with the different aspect ratios. However, if we're comparing sharpness and detail, then that's important.
-
Well, I'm not going to let you get away with such unfounded assumptions, Ronnynil .
If the room was completely dark, or at least very dark, the slower shutter speed used in the G9 shot would not have had any impact upon sharpness. But was it? It could have been a normally lit room for all I know, not bright enough for a hand-held shot without flash, but probably bright enough for a shot at say 1/10 sec at f4. Only you know, but you really shouldn't throw in such doubts in your testing .
If we assume the noticeable softening of the G9 image is due to the use of its lens at maximum aperture, then that's a comparison that is skewed in favour of the 5D. Any slight softening of an image at f11 with the 5D is virtually unnoticeable.
The interesting point here for me, perhaps because I'm mainly concerned with cameras as tools rather than status symbols, is that there is one set of circumstances involving maximum DoF in less than ideal light where the G9 will not only far exceed the image quality of the now out-dated 1Ds but will even beat the stellar performing 5D in terms of both sharpness and noise.
If you've got the time, I'd like to see a comparison with the G9 stopped down half a stop from maximum aperture and the 5D stopped down 4.5 stops from that; using the same shutter speed and a reasonably fast shutter speed so there's no doubt about camera shake, say 1/200th in daylight.
Hey! Let's do this thing properly, Ronnynil .
And try harder to get the objects the same size in the frame. I know there's a complication with the different aspect ratios. However, if we're comparing sharpness and detail, then that's important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll redo it if I get some time, but thats really not going to change the findings. Norway is pretty
dark this time of year and an exposure without a flash would probably have been 1 sec. I used
the flash so that different shutter speeds would not matter.
But comparing the best possible image from an G9 to the worst possible image from a DSLR
is really not an useful test, as that is not how anybody is going to use the cameras.
And the G9 is diffraction limited at f/4, I just saw a test in a Norwegian magazine
(http://www.fotografi.no/) that found the same thing.
That mean that for full resolution you are limited to use only the wide end and f/2.8. The lens is
good and is sharp at 2.8 so any stopping down is only going to give you more diffraction blur.
-
But comparing the best possible image from an G9 to the worst possible image from a DSLR
is really not an useful test, as that is not how anybody is going to use the cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not how I see it. It is not unusual to be in a situation where there is fading light and you want a shot with good DoF. It might be a shot with moving figures and you need a fairly fast shutter speed whether you have a tripod or not.
In such a situation it's a matter of using the best tool for the job, if possible, and it looks as thought the G9 is the best tool in these circumstances.
It's unfortunate that the G9 lens is diffraction limited at f4, but at least that's something useful to know.
If the light is already poor in Norway at this time of year, then better take the shot at mid-day.
So it's the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 80 compared with the 5D at f13 and ISO 1600 at whatever shutter speed. Right?
-
I am a long-time leica shooter that just got a G9. It is a GREAT camera for the money and it size. It will never = a $3000 DSLR but it isn'rt as big or a heavy either. With RAW and almost always shooting ISO 80 by choice the damn thing gets great results... far beyond my expectations... this is a tool you could really do some fine-art work with... I'm surprised. On another list a pro shooter mixed some G9 files in with output from his 1Ds MII with the EXIF info erased ad the agency loved the output. I'm not surprised.
It's a great little camera!
I figure the $500 camera I have with me is going to get better shots than the $5000 camera that's sitting at home.
-
It will never = a $3000 DSLR but it isn'rt as big or a heavy either. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you've actually compared the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 80 with a $3000 DSLR at f13 and ISO 1600 and found the DSLR to be better? Never means not ever.
-
So you've actually compared the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 80 with a $3000 DSLR at f13 and ISO 1600 and found the DSLR to be better? Never means not ever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please... don't waste my time....