Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: HiltonP on January 24, 2008, 04:36:00 am
-
Congratulations on producing an informative and most enjoyable article.
It was a pleasure to follow your tale of discovery with your "petite, shapely and easy going" new friend.
The sample photographs were sufficiently varied in setting and composition so as to provide good insight into the G9's capabilities.
I for one look forward to reading more of your articles. Thank you.
-
Who does Nick Devlin believe he is? Bill Murray? Well something was "lost in translation" : . Seriously, the article was well written, informative but gave some comic relief to most of the dry articles we see in photographic web sites. I'm glad to see there's at least one professional photographer that doesn't take himself to seriously.
-
Good review. Many thanks.
But I wondered why Nick bothered to buy the Lensmate tube for his G9? I can understand an extension like that makes for a more stable grasp of the camera, but that only seems to be the case when using an optical viewfinder. But I never use the optical viewfinder on my G9, and it sounds as though Nick doesn't either. And the Lensmate extension gets in the way of the optical viewfinder, anyway.
So, Nick, why the Lensmate extension?
dave
-
So, Nick, why the Lensmate extension?
dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Short answer: 'cause it came with the camera!
Long answer: it really, really, really improves the feel of the camera in the hand. As I said in the review, I really liked carrying the camera by wrapping my hand around the Lensmate. It felt really good and stable.
Reasons two, it made a big difference on stability for me when shooting, even when composing with the LCD. It also allows the camera to sit level with the lens extended for better stability or self-timer shots.
Reason three: it protects the lens. My fiancee's daughter dropped her Nikon P&S with the lens extended last month, from about 8 inches off the floor. Now it just makes an ugly sound when the lens tries to retract. Dead as a doornail and economically unrepairable. These motorized zooms are comprised of lots of little plastic gears just aching to be broken or misaligned. The Lensmate offers very effective protection against that.
Reason Four: it's a passble lens shade.
C'est tout.
- N.
ps. thanks all for the kinds comments. Keeping the questions coming if you have any.
-
A good read and a good review. Recommended for all considering the G9.
The Lensmate adapter really does improve the handling of the G9 - to me anyway. Mine also has the grip attachment and a wrist strap.
Like the G7, the G9 has a near-cult following.
... and now there's a cable release attachment from Richard Franiec! I just got mine and it works very well.
-
It's a treat to read a report by someone wha actually has fun using a camera.
Nice review.
-
Short answer: 'cause it came with the camera!
Long answer: it really, really, really improves the feel of the camera in the hand. As I said in the review, I really liked carrying the camera by wrapping my hand around the Lensmate. It felt really good and stable.
Reasons two, it made a big difference on stability for me when shooting, even when composing with the LCD. It also allows the camera to sit level with the lens extended for better stability or self-timer shots.
Reason three: it protects the lens. My fiancee's daughter dropped her Nikon P&S with the lens extended last month, from about 8 inches off the floor. Now it just makes an ugly sound when the lens tries to retract. Dead as a doornail and economically unrepairable. These motorized zooms are comprised of lots of little plastic gears just aching to be broken or misaligned. The Lensmate offers very effective protection against that.
Reason Four: it's a passble lens shade.
C'est tout.
- N.
ps. thanks all for the kinds comments. Keeping the questions coming if you have any.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All good reasons. Really enjoyed the review. My question has to do with the Lensmate (which I too own). How did you manage to put it in your pocket with it on? I find myself with it off most of the time because I want to carry it in a small handbag or pocket (but, whoops--came back to say---I agree, it helps in the handling tremendously--I also added an L bracket since I thought I would shoot IR with it more---but succumbed to having a DSLR body converted). The G9 is the first small cam I've bought since the original G1 and it comes close--but still....
I like the grip--have that also, like the images---even bought a Voigtlander 35mm VF since I also have a problem using the LCD--really dislike using an LCD though I like the live histo LOL. And--I'm still having a love/dislike problem with the camera. I never can 'quite' get myself to carry it alone for any situation where I may want to 'seriously' take photos--though not a planned shoot. I suspect its more me than the camera. I"m working on it though. One of these days I'm going to get myself to walk out the door without the 5D (maybe LOL).
Diane
-
Very good review of the G9 I bought the G7 for the very same reason i.e. convenience when holidaying however the lens attachment would not appeal to me as I find the ability to fit it in my jacket pocket or a slim pouch on my belt to important to give up.
-
There is a temptation with any camera, or any other gadget for that matter, to find and acquire the extra accessories to make it that bit better. Whilst I applaud the innovation and thinking that has gone into many of these, what for me is simply great about the G9 is its simplicity. It can be used as a simple point and shoot, but there's sufficient sophistication to make it so much more flexible without having to buy extra bits. Clearly an electronic gismo will rarely deliver the same as a physical one, but I do think Canon have delivered well with the G9. Its now my carry everywhere camera, and more to the point its also my gets used nearly everywhere camera!
Great review - thanks Nick. So nice to read something objective. My M8 hasn't travelled for a while either...
-
Is there is anyone out there with a G7 and would like to shoot RAW? http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK)
A friend pointe me to this a couple of months ago. It been pretty robust in my exerience. It's not designed to overwrite your existing Canon firmware which is an additional bonus.
-
Excellent article, I like my G9 as well, no attachments, but have found the info on this link very useful for those somewhat noisy iso 800 shots I tend to shoot.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20662 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20662)
-
Surprised I had to dig back a couple days to find the thread on this excellent article. I don't drop in all that often any more. Like once a week whereas a couple years ago it was twice a day. Or more.
I really really liked this article. I usually end up skimming these sorts of articles by about one third of the way through. This one held me almost to the very last paragraph. Almost.
Really liked the images. That green Buddha with the mist is mesmerizing. Like to see it larger.
The author's prose was refreshing. Tasty.
I spose it helps that I luuuuuuv my G9.
[ imagine a 'thumbs up' icon here]
-
Nick,
A well-written, informative and enjoyable article. I also think the photographs are terrific, too, some are quite poignant.
I've had a G9 I've been using for about 4 months now. Like you, I am unsure about the camera in some respects. While I very much like the body and features, and how easy it is to access controls on the camera, I have issues around the image quality. I have a couple of F-series Fujis, and while they do not shoot in RAW, they quite simply mop the floor with the G9 when it comes to noise performance shooting in low light at high ISO. Really, there is no comparison. I find the G9 limiting in some sense because it really only meets my requirements for image quality at ISO 80. To be honest with you, I agree with Phil Askey in his recent comments on DPReview that I've haven't seen an improvement in image quality since point-and-shoots were at 6 megapixels resolution. I would really prefer a Raw-shooting G9 body using a 6th generation 6 megapixel Fuji SuperCCD sensor and a useable optical viewfinder. That would be a sweet camera in my book.
I will agree though, that the IS on the G9 works very well, and really does allow you to get impressively sharp photos at ridiculously low shutter speeds in low available light.
So, while the jury is out on the G9, I am still using it, and getting some very nice images. But, I've also taken to bringing one of the little Fujis along with me if I am going out at night or into situations with low light.
-
I would like to see a raw comparison between a g9 and a hacked g7.
-
Nick, great article and for me, perfectly timed!! Been looking for something small, my middle aged body has been complaining lately!
GregW..thanks for the link to the firmware..very interesting indeed.
-
I've had a G7 and played with my son-in-law's G9, and also have an M8. I agree with everything Nick said; the G9's a brilliant piece of work. But the Leica's image quality is better. It's not as small, but you can easily carry it just as Nick said he carried the G9, with a handstrap. You can stick a 21 on the camera, carry a 35 and a 90 in your pockets; or, if it's bright, a WATE and the standard TE, plus a 75 or 90.
Pocket-fitting or not-pocket-fitting seems to me to be the critical point; if I were willing to take a along a camera that it didn't fit in my pocket, might as well shoot the Leica. If I decided I needed or wanted to a camera in my pocket, I'd have made up my mind in advance that I'd be giving up picture quality. (Which is usually fine with me; I'm not usually traveling to take photos.)
When I travel to travel, I currently carry a Leica D-Lux 3, which I stupidly bought for fashion reasons, and is not nearly as good a camera as the G9; it is, however, more expensive. 8-) The D-Lux does have a better lens, I think. My dream camera of this sort would be a Fuji sensor of ~8-10mp in a G9 with a Leica zoom. All the parts are there, just not from the same people.
One thing that most people don't talk about, concerning the Leica, is that if you take along an assortment of lenses (a WATE, and fast 21, 35, 50, 75, 135), that means, for me at least, that I'm often leaving $10,000+ in lenses in a hotel room. I do it, but I'm always relieved to get back and find them still there...
JC
-
thanks for an excellent article! i too, bought the g9 a couple of months ago, looking for that easy travel companion that wouldn't compromise on quality (not too much at least)...
i'm especially glad that nick mentioned one particularly annoying bug: the display can't really be turned off. or if you turn it off, it still turns itself back on whenever the camera receives some sort of input from some of its sensors. extremely annoying and a real, practical disadvantage.
like nick i also programmed the 'quick function' button to turn off the display but that didn't change it's non-compliance with my simple wish.
i do hope that canon will fix this in a firmware update. this is simply 'unacceptable behaviour' from any camera.
two things that nick suggests i had actually adapted myself, well before reading his article. i'd just like to point them out here to re-affirm their usefulness.
one's the wrist strap. it does support nicely the way you'll be handling this little thing.
the other is the lensmate hood. it's a great accessory for the reasons stated. only one addition: i wasn't aware of the metal version from lensmate, so i bought canon's plastic piece to go with the wide angel converter. stay away from this. the lensmate sounds so much better, i'd always prefer solid metal (especially when screwing on the conversion lens!) to that icky, flimsy plastic thing that canon is dishing up.
if the g9 fairy visited me in my sleep and i had only one wish, it would be for more reach on the wide-angle end. i'd happily give up a tiny bit on the tele side for that. this would save people like myself from having to carry a fairly chunky conversion lens.
apart from this i can only agree that the g9 is a fun piece that's capable to deliver some fairly decent quality images. it's certainly got its place in my pocket.
-
Don´t want to start any fisticuffs here, just posing a question: those who already own high-grade cameras, why would you also own a cheaper, less good camera? If an image is worth making, then surely it is worth doing so at the highest level open to you; if it isnt worth the effort, how can it be worth shooting in the first place? What on earth can you want to do with second-best?
Rob C
-
When they make a Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds MKIII that fits in a pocket your point will be valid. (Or didn't you actually read the article?)
Michael
-
the G9's a brilliant piece of work. But the Leica's image quality is better ...
concerning the Leica, is that if you take along an assortment of lenses (a WATE, and fast 21, 35, 50, 75, 135), that means, for me at least, that I'm often leaving $10,000+ in lenses in a hotel room.
Well, I would hope that $10,000 worth of equipment would ultimately produce "better image quality" than a $450 point-n-shoot ... but the question is, does it produce $10,000-worth better images?
I have also just recently purchased the G9, and I agree there is no other camera that can touch it for the price range. And in RAW mode, with favorable lighting, the images from the G9 are about as clean as one could hope for.
No, the G9 is not as versatile and precise as a good DSLR in every condition, nor was it ever meant to be, but in many (if not most) situations it is infinitely more convenient to carry and use.
-
If an image is worth maing, then surely it is worth doing so at the highest level open to you; if it isnt worth the effort, how can it be worth shooting in the first place? What on earth can you want to do with second-best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Rob,
Please don't take this as an insult or personal criticism (you can't hear my tone in the typing -- this is not meant in an aggressive way) but I think your comment empitomizes the mistake-in-concept which plagues a large sector of the online photo-community. Namely, that the ironically labelled notion of 'Image Quality', whatever it is defined as, is an end-in-itself. It has become the false-god of choice for far too many people.
What really matters is 'IC' - *Image Content*.
Daguerotypes have awful IQ by contemporary standards. As does virtually anything shot before 1989 on other than large format film. As I observed on another forum recently, most of Cartier-Bresson's work is, by our IQ standards, soft, grainy and of very low resolution. Half of Capa's combat photos are motion blurred (combat is a bitch that way). Eisenstadt's work has very little shadow detail. Larry Burrows' photos' from Vietnam are seriously lacking in dynamic range. Eddie Adams and Nick Ut's Pulitzer Prize winners are both unsharp. Ditto Doisneau's Kiss. I could go on and on. Do any of us care? Did any of us even notice until we started talking about IQ?
On a theme more related to the type of photography this site is principly dedicated to, Galen Rowell shot most of his work on 35mm chromes, which are profoundly inferior by today's technical standards. Again, did we notice or do we care?
The answer, of course, is no. These secondary traits of the image -- focus, accutance and the presence/absence of inherent medium-based artefacts (grain, loise, whatever) -- are just that, secondary. What compells us is the content of the image.
Several of my most treasured photos were taken with a 6MP fuji P&S. They look great at 5x7. But what matters is that they captured a magical moment in time when I fell in love with the woman who is to be my wife. I would hand over my entire collection of hard-drives unflinchingly if forced to chose between them and my oevre of 'serious' digital photography. Why? Because of the 'IC'.
Should I have brought an H1 with a $40K Phase back on a romantic escape? Of course not. More to the point, had I hoisted such a beast between myself and my beloved, the moment would have been erased before it was ever captured, by the shere size and mechanical mass of the camera.
Similarly, the reason Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Rowell, et. al. were able to capture their images AT ALL, was because of the size/type of cameras they used.
For me, when I travel alone, I usually rise at dawn, and walk 10-20 kms over the course of the day. The ONLY way I can make the images I made on this trip was with a camera like the G9.
If commercial imperative had driven my trip, then of course I would have taken cameras capable of better resolution, tone, etc. But the nature of the equipment taken cannot be separated from the nature of the experience itself, which is, of course, central to nature of the images made during the journey. This applies equally to weeks in Japan and the span of one's life.
So you are totally right, and totally wrong, at the same time. Every image is worth capturing at the best level of quality. But the quality of many images, in fact their very existence, is largely, if not exclusively, dependent upon the camera-in-hand, if only because having to carry "better" cameras would in many cases prevent one from getting to (or getting) the image at all.
If we went on the same trip, me with the G9 and you with a full kit of the best cameras, lenses and accessories made, I would outshoot you every time. Why? Because I will be able to go further, longer, and harder because I have no physical burden, and because I will see more, and more deeply, because I am not distracted psychologically by the responsibility and myriad of choices and technical distractions imposed by such a collection of *stuff*.
My point in this article, and here, is that, while still deeply flawed as measured against the 'ideal', a P&S camera like the G9 can produce image quality which will allow me to do just about anything I want with the images at the end of the day. Assuming you had herculean strength and kept up with me on the trip, the files yielded by the 'Top Gear', while 'better' according to various arbitrary empirical measures, wouldn't actually afford you much greater ultimate useability. Sure, you could print a cleaner 30x40 print. How many 30x40 prints have you ever made? Me, about five in 20 years of shooting. If National Geographic would print a double-truck off K200 shot on Canon FD glass (and they have) they sure as hell would print a well processed G9 file.
So, to borrow a concept from buddhism, unhook from your stuff! Stop worrying about IQ and start worrying about IC. Don't judge the picture by whether your eye sees noise, but whether your heart sees meaning and feeling.
Wow -- is it 9:30 already? I better go to work....
Cheers,
- N.
-
That was a wonderful post.
What got me into photography was taking butterfly photos for my niece. I used a simple Powershot G6 last summer and took several wonderful shots with them. As I began to find a tremendous joy in this (loosely-defined) macro work, I began to get more serious about my photography and have wanted to upgrade my equipment for this upcoming spring and summer.
Yet I stop to think about how many really nice photos I would have missed, if I had to lug around a full-size camera, tripod, and legitimate macro lens? How many beautiful specimens would have "flown away" as I was getting the height adjusted on my tripod legs, the correct ISO settings on my camera, etc.?
Yet, because I had a simple point-n-shoot, of reasonable quality, I was able to creep-up and hold still just long enough to get my shot. Were they the finest-quality photos every taken in the history of photography? No. But they were still beautiful shots and they still made me and my niece smile ... and they were of a lot better image quality than what an empty frame would have looked like, had I lost the opportunity to get the shot at all, by scaring the butterfly away while setting-up and fiddling with higher-end equipment.
For this reason, I upgraded to a Powershot G9 and I can't wait to start the new season. I believe my "image quality" will be better than with the G6, but yet the simplicity and ease-of-use will be there too.
I am still wanting to purchase higher-end equipment also, because I want to explore other areas of photography too where I will have more time to deliberate, but I think all of this techno-babble about ISOs etc. takes away from the whole point of photography, which is personal enjoyment by capturing a moment, and not whether the shot was the most technically-sound, noisless photo of a nothing subject ever taken by man.
-
Hi Rob,
What really matters is 'IC' - *Image Content*.
- N.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brav0 !!!
-
When they make a Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds MKIII that fits in a pocket your point will be valid. (Or didn't you actually read the article?)
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, Michael, I did read it; but that doesn´t answer my question about second-best. I just find it hard to grasp that one can have double standards based on weight. Of the camera, I mean.
I have had a couple of heart events, have a stent implanted too and of course that affects how much weight I can carry on photographic adventures. But having said that, I still will not consider shooting anything worth shooting less well than I know that I can with the limited range of equipment that I now own. And if it is not worth shooting well, then I don´t shoot it at all. Why bother if I´d have to discard it later?
I did say I had no intention of starting a verbal fight; why bring one to me?
Rob C
-
What really matters is 'IC' - *Image Content*.
Cartier-Bresson's...C apa's... Eisenstadt's ... Larry Burrows' ... Eddie Adams and Nick Ut's ... Doisneau's ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not to mention my Kodak Brownie shots taken at the age of ten. If I ever get that time machine working one of the first items on the agenda is to give that boy a few dollars so he can get some more snapshots.
-
No fight intended. Sorry if it came across that way.
Life is full of amazing photographic opportunities and sometimes a shot, any shot, is worth having even if the IQ is less than stellar.
As Adams is reported to have said, There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea.
Michael
Yes, Michael, I did read it; but that doesn´t answer my question about second-best. I just find it hard to grasp that one can have double standards based on weight. Of the camera, I mean.
I have had a couple of heart events, have a stent implanted too and of course that affects how much weight I can carry on photographic adventures. But having said that, I still will not consider shooting anything worth shooting less well than I know that I can with the limited range of equipment that I now own. And if it is not worth shooting well, then I don´t shoot it at all. Why bother if I´d have to discard it later?
I did say I had no intention of starting a verbal fight; why bring one to me?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
ndevlin
Nice shot, but not quite on target.
You refer to a variety of photojournalists spanning several eras and different wars; fine, but you forget to mention (or I miss it) that they were all using state-of-the-art cameras. You might or might not be justified in the assumption that their work sucks by contemporary standards of image quality in the sense of ultimate sharpness or tonal range; that is hardly surprising in a war sitiuation. But who, here, is talking in terms of that level of stress? We are, I think, talking of a normal, happy, comfortable and non-threatening photographic situation where there is not a lot to distract or frighten one from the shooting of the image.
Harking back to the Vietnam guys for second, it seems that they started with Leica but swapped to Nikon because when the Leicas were down for repair, the Nikons bought in Japan as stop-gaps proved to produce more contrast and better newsprint results. Not much lack of professionalism there... I have also had the pleasure of seing a Don McCullin exhibition and no lack of purely photographic technique there either - as much technique as eye. A different argument, olde-worlde techniques and bog-standard D 163, but it sure shows how we have thrown many a poor old baby out with the bathwater too.
Daguerreotypes. I think it a llttle bit of a false analogy to include quite such early photographic experiments within the context of current IQ! That there is a current school of photographer seeking out such techniques also mystifies me, but what would I know? Must be an art market thing.
Doisneau and his Rolleiflex were not really under stress with The Kiss: he has gone on record saying it was set up. If you find IQ lacking, perhaps it is either the print you have seen or the repro in the book or magazine. Or, of course, his technique, none of which afffects the question of why use a lesser camera than one already owns. If bad technique, it is with all formats at all prices!
I have absolutely no argument with you about IQ, in the sense of the message within the frame being paramount; where we do have a serious difference of opinion is in making that very picture using less than your best camera. If you are saying that you cannot capture the same sort of image with your best equipment, then perhaps your best equipment isn´t what you should have bought in the first place - perhaps that M6 or M7 might have been a better choice! Wish I had one!
I am also far from willing to agree with you that Rowell´s 35mm Velvias or Kodachromes are ´profoundly inferior´ to today´s stuff! But there are as many others who would disagree with you on that point as there are those who would endorse your opinion.
My own gear, when still a busy pro, was mainly Hasselblad and Nikon. They were both top cameras and each, in its range, was as good as it got. No, I did not use Hasselblad to the exclusion of Nikon, nor did I think in the opposite direction either; each fitted a different need. But, and this is the esence of the only point I was making in the original question: each camera was the best available within its format in the earnest belief that it would be as good as I was capable of being; I did not expect either format to out-perform me or add magic beyond my own.
But, as with everything else in life and this has been no exception, there are always more questions than answers. And, of course, opinions.
Cheers - Rob C
-
No fight intended. Sorry if it came across that way.
Life is full of amazing photographic opportunities and sometimes a shot, any shot, is worth having even if the IQ is less than stellar.
As Adams is reported to have said, There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely, Michael, but would one have failed to get the same shot with better equipment? Alas, that will never be known. However, from my own experience, it is far better to wander around with one fixed focal length on the camera and leave the rest at home. On a personal shoot - not for money!
Ciao - Rob C
-
No fight intended. Sorry if it came across that way.
Life is full of amazing photographic opportunities and sometimes a shot, any shot, is worth having even if the IQ is less than stellar.
As Adams is reported to have said, There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just occurred to me: Ansel, if he did say that, could have been mistaken. Far worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea could well be a fuzzy picture of the same idea. It also makes me wonder if he was speaking in commercial or spiritual terms - I doubt that he ever paid any mind to the Beatles, either: unlimited commercial approval and success for extremely sharp fuzzy ideas!
Oh well - cést la vie.
Rob C
-
By the way:
This discussion has found its way over to the dpreview.com site in both the D3 board and the Open Talk board.
-
Quick question for those out there with a G9:
The last G-series camera I have experience with that was capable of shooting in RAW mode was the G5, and one feature I thought was really REALLY great was the ability to keep the camera set to JPEG mode, but to opt for a RAW file when the just-shot photo was being displayed on the screen by pressing the 'quick' button (if I remember what they called it correctly).
This way, you could still have the speed/filesize advantages provided by JPEGs, but still grab a RAW file if something about a particular shot seemed to call for it..
Does the G9 offer that sort of thing?
-
By the way:
This discussion has found its way over to the dpreview.com site in both the D3 board and the Open Talk board.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you mean we are being sold without permission, sans a photographers´ version of a model release?
Ciao - Rob C
-
Don´t want to start any fisticuffs here, just posing a question: those who already own high-grade cameras, why would you also own a cheaper, less good camera? If an image is worth making, then surely it is worth doing so at the highest level open to you; if it isnt worth the effort, how can it be worth shooting in the first place? What on earth can you want to do with second-best?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,
When I read your post I immediately tried to imagine what my 2006 trip to Tuscany might have been like if I had done it back when I owned an 8x10. The mere thought of lugging that and a tripod and a bunch of film holders around while strolling the streets of Florence made my back ache.
The actual trip was a two-camera trip, as are most of my photo trips. At that time my DSLR was a 10D, and my pocket camera was a lowly S60 (I think it's about 5 megapixels). Even the 10D was heavier than I wanted to carry when I was out strolling around, tourist fashion. But the S60 was always in my hand or pocket, and I ended up with many shots from the S60 (mostly snapshots, but many serious images as well), some of which have made it into exhibits and sold prints (of modest size, to be sure).
Not every situation needs the heaviest and best equipment. Given the choice between getting a carefully-made image from a modest camera and getting no image at all, I'll opt for the modest one every time.
Eric
-
I'd like to chime in on this topic. While in Iraq, I carried my Olympus SP-350. Not because it has awesome high-ISO noise performance, or has a stellar lens, but because it offers reasonably good photo performance in a small, light pocketable package. When you're already carrying 40+ pounds of body armor, gear, ammunition, and a weapon, another 40 pounds of Canon 1-series DSLRs and L glass just isn't workable, especially when in an environment where being able to move quickly can be a matter of life and death. So I accepted some compromises regarding image quality and handling performance, but was able to get some shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise:
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-07_0008.jpg)
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-04_0013.jpg)
-
I'd like to chime in on this topic. While in Iraq, I carried my Olympus SP-350. Not because it has awesome high-ISO noise performance, or has a stellar lens, but because it offers reasonably good photo performance in a small, light pocketable package. When you're already carrying 40+ pounds of body armor, gear, ammunition, and a weapon, another 40 pounds of Canon 1-series DSLRs and L glass just isn't workable, especially when in an environment where being able to move quickly can be a matter of life and death. So I accepted some compromises regarding image quality and handling performance, but was able to get some shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise:
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-07_0008.jpg)
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-04_0013.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Reminds me of a friend I used to fly with. He was an Army Cobra pilot who saw combat in Iraq, Somalia etc. He always carried a disposable camera (no focusing or exposure calculations) velcro'd to the windscreen upright. Always there and always fast. Amazing pictures while flying and getting shot at.
Marc
-
Quick question for those out there with a G9:
The last G-series camera I have experience with that was capable of shooting in RAW mode was the G5, and one feature I thought was really REALLY great was the ability to keep the camera set to JPEG mode, but to opt for a RAW file when the just-shot photo was being displayed on the screen by pressing the 'quick' button (if I remember what they called it correctly).
This way, you could still have the speed/filesize advantages provided by JPEGs, but still grab a RAW file if something about a particular shot seemed to call for it..
Does the G9 offer that sort of thing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In a word, no. My G3 could do the same quick conversion; however, the G9 will shoot in Raw + JPEG mode which my G3 could not do.
-
I've had a G9 I've been using for about 4 months now. Like you, I am unsure about the camera in some respects. While I very much like the body and features, and how easy it is to access controls on the camera, I have issues around the image quality. I have a couple of F-series Fujis, and while they do not shoot in RAW, they quite simply mop the floor with the G9 when it comes to noise performance shooting in low light at high ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, here's a 100% crop nearly-literal RAW conversion of an ISO 3200 RAW with no noise reduction (and no sharpening; which would increase noise further), from the S6500fd, which uses the same sensor:
(http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/89156547/original.jpg)
As you can see, the sensor and readout circuitry are not as noise-free as the JPEGs appear to be. The Fuji NR is extreme, approaching a cartoon-like character, IMO.
-
Nick,
I was with you all the way until you said,
"If we went on the same trip, me with the G9 and you with a full kit of the best cameras, lenses and accessories made, I would outshoot you every time. Why? Because I will be able to go further, longer, and harder because I have no physical burden, and because I will see more, and more deeply, because I am not distracted psychologically by the responsibility and myriad of choices and technical distractions imposed by such a collection of *stuff*."
But very few of the great photographers of any kind, after about 1930, were crippled by the weight of their gear. Capa's photos weren't always as sharp as they might have been, but he didn't complain about carrying a Leica around. If another photographer of your skills and physical abilities went on a trip with you, and you carried a G9 and he carried a Leica and 3 or 4 lenses, I doubt that he'd fall very far behind, and he would get ultimate shots that were better than yours if only for their color and definition and the ability to print big. If you want to find somebody that prints bigger than your G9 will tolerate -- and apparently makes a living at it -- you need look no further than the guy you borrowed the G9 from. And what if the other shooter said, "Why don't we go out after dark and hit some cafes and shoot some night life along the river, under the moon -- you take your G9 and I'll take my Nocti..."? Then, my friend, you'd be SOL.
The G9 isn't a better camera than the Leica; the Leica isn't a better camera than the D3; the D3 isn't a better camera than the latest Hassy. They're just all "best" for some stuff. The G9 is best for memory shots and for travel-travel; claiming much more for it is stretching the truth a little...
IMHO, of course.
JC
-
I've trekked up mountains in Nepal all day long with two cameras slung around my neck, a 5D with fairly heavy and bulky Sigma 15-30 and 20D with 24-105/f4 IS zoom, and at the age of 64. Of course I had a porter to carry the rest of the gear .
I tend to think there's a novelty factor with these small P&S cameras. Initially one is so impressed that such a small and lightweight camera can produce the results it does, but gradually one uses it less and less if one has a DSLR which one knows will produce technically better shots. At least that's my experience.
A fuzzy image with a sharp concept might always trump a sharp image with a fuzzy concept, but how about a sharp image with a sharp concept! (I'm not trying to make a point that Nick's G9 images are not sharp. They are. This is just an analogy that Michael also used).
I think this is Rob's point. If you do happen to capture a fantastic shot which you would like to sell and reproduce in different size prints up to poster size, one might regret having taken along the G9 instead of the 5D or D3.
-
Pocket-fitting or not-pocket-fitting seems to me to be the critical point;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure that Leica owners have big pockets! (or do they carry their wallet in a wheelbarrow?)
Sorry for french humour, but that just gives me the occasion to thank Nick Devlin for his soooo refreshing review!
-
I've trekked up mountains in Nepal all day long with two cameras slung around my neck, a 5D with fairly heavy and bulky Sigma 15-30 and 20D with 24-105/f4 IS zoom, and at the age of 64. Of course I had a porter to carry the rest of the gear .
I tend to think there's a novelty factor with these small P&S cameras. Initially one is so impressed that such a small and lightweight camera can produce the results it does, but gradually one uses it less and less if one has a DSLR which one knows will produce technically better shots. At least that's my experience.
A fuzzy image with a sharp concept might always trump a sharp image with a fuzzy concept, but how about a sharp image with a sharp concept! (I'm not trying to make a point that Nick's G9 images are not sharp. They are. This is just an analogy that Michael also used).
I think this is Rob's point. If you do happen to capture a fantastic shot which you would like to sell and reproduce in different size prints up to poster size, one might regret having taken along the G9 instead of the 5D or D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray -
Your last paragraph is EXACTLY my point; thanks for reminding folks about that!
Rob C
-
In a word, no. My G3 could do the same quick conversion; however, the G9 will shoot in Raw + JPEG mode which my G3 could not do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, thanks, Gordon.
I'm guessing it can also capture RAW+JPEG much faster than the old G cameras could do the one-off conversion in the first place, so the point is likely moot.. was just wondering, really.
-
Good review. Many thanks.
But I wondered why Nick bothered to buy the Lensmate tube for his G9? I can understand an extension like that makes for a more stable grasp of the camera, but that only seems to be the case when using an optical viewfinder. But I never use the optical viewfinder on my G9, and it sounds as though Nick doesn't either. And the Lensmate extension gets in the way of the optical viewfinder, anyway.
So, Nick, why the Lensmate extension?
dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't want to speak for Nick, but the reason I used a Lensmate on my G2 was so I could use a lens hood, which we all know will improve the performance of a lens under any lighting condition.
Used a collapsable rubber hood that was cut down to eliminate vignetting at WA and also for using a UV in ugly conditions. With a slip-on cap and the hood collapsed, it it wasn't that much bulkier. The Lensmate was a nicely made piece and I'm glad to see they're still around.
The G2 produced lovely images.
-
Don't want to speak for Nick, but the reason I used a Lensmate on my G2 was so I could use a lens hood, which we all know will improve the performance of a lens under any lighting condition.
Used a collapsable rubber hood that was cut down to eliminate vignetting at WA and also for using a UV in ugly conditions. With a slip-on cap and the hood collapsed, it it wasn't that much bulkier. The Lensmate was a nicely made piece and I'm glad to see they're still around.
The G2 produced lovely images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's for similar reasons that I have the Lensmate permanently installed on my G7.
I've actually found that the Lensmate and an old (read "chunky") step-up ring I have are normally enough to act as a decent hood in most situations, and the step-up ring lets me use my trusty Nikon polarizer.
I've also taken to putting a skylight filter on it to protect the zoom from bits of grit when I'm anticipating shooting in dusty situations, since that is definitely the most vulnerable part of the camera.
All of that, AND it vastly increases the handling of the camera. I'm trading up to a G9 soon and wouldn't contemplate using it without the Lensmate.
-
I've owned the G9 for about 5 weeks and really like the camera and the images it produces. Two things I would like to see improved. As Nick pointed out, the viewfinder is basically useless. After a lifetime of using a viewfinder I'm find it hard to adjust to the screen for framing. Also, I find that the battery does not last as long as my previous point and shoot (Canon SD 450). The battery went dead after about 110 exposures. With all that, the images are far superior to the SD450 and easily yield larger prints.
-
---even bought a Voigtlander 35mm VF since I also have a problem using the LCD--
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OMG that's so clever!
-
........Far worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea could well be a fuzzy picture of the same idea. .........
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And worst of all is the.....sharp picture and sharp idea not taken....... because the "best" camera system was at home, not set up yet, in the car, etc, etc.
Isn't it pretty simple? Obviously many serious photographers with "better equipment" still find a great use/need for the pocketable, walk around, high quality camera, for those times and situations when they can't have or couldn't get to their best eqpt.
Brad
-
...........your comment empitomizes the mistake-in-concept which plagues a large sector of the online photo-community. Namely, that the ironically labelled notion of 'Image Quality', whatever it is defined as, is an end-in-itself. It has become the false-god of choice for far too many people.
......What really matters is 'IC' - *Image Content*.
..................
......The answer, of course, is no. These secondary traits of the image -- focus, accutance and the presence/absence of inherent medium-based artefacts (grain, loise, whatever) -- are just that, secondary. What compells us is the content of the image.
.....Several of my most treasured photos were taken with a 6MP fuji P&S. They look great at 5x7. But what matters is that they captured a magical moment in time when I fell in love with the woman who is to be my wife. I would hand over my entire collection of hard-drives unflinchingly if forced to chose between them and my oevre of 'serious' digital photography. Why? Because of the 'IC'.
.............
........Similarly, the reason Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Rowell, et. al. were able to capture their images AT ALL, was because of the size/type of cameras they used.
.......................
.. But the nature of the equipment taken cannot be separated from the nature of the experience itself, which is, of course, central to nature of the images made during the journey. This applies equally to weeks in Japan and the span of one's life.
....So you are totally right, and totally wrong, at the same time. Every image is worth capturing at the best level of quality. But the quality of many images, in fact their very existence, is largely, if not exclusively, dependent upon the camera-in-hand, if only because having to carry "better" cameras would in many cases prevent one from getting to (or getting) the image at all.
.............
....So, to borrow a concept from buddhism, unhook from your stuff! Stop worrying about IQ and start worrying about IC. Don't judge the picture by whether your eye sees noise, but whether your heart sees meaning and feeling.
Wow -- is it 9:30 already? I better go to work....
Cheers,
- N.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
Well said! Great article too! I've returned to photography as my primary creative release after many years absence. The motivation for me is the same as it was back in my college years, using a Yashica D twin lens reflex or the Petri rangefinder and that is as you stated: IC - Image Content.
Yes, I want the best image available, but not at the expense of missing the moment in which the image visualization occurs. It's the decisive moment that drives the hand to lift the camera and shoot. It's the same feeling that occurs when playing improvisational music (something I've done for 30years) and connecting with each musician on a non verbal level - the music jumps up a notch and our hearts smile and the audience does too. IC is what matters most to me.
-
Nick,
I really enjoyed your article. For me the G9 is the camera I can take always with me and make pictures without being obtrusive (a thing no SLR or M8 can do for me).
This gives me the opportunity to make pictures without influencing the scene by being noticed as a photographer.
The other point is a picture taken is a picture taken and any larger equipment would often stay home or in the hotel. Nevertheless I agree with anybody who decides that only a picture taken with the best available equipment is worth taken. But this just let me question what is the best available. Is it the best I have available at all, the best I have available just now (because the rest stays home) or the best money can buy.
IMHO it's always the best I have just now because sometimes I think we are too much focused on camera technique and not so much on picture content. Of course the best outcomes are from excellent skill added with excellent equipment.
IQ is not only an aspect of technical features but much more an aspect of photographic skills. With a lot of people (especially from no pros) I feel they expect that better equipment automatically enhances the outcome (and this goes not only for photography but for others as well-a better car make no one a better driver) without realizing that in most cases the people holding the camera are the limiting factor and not the camera.
Technology is important and as an engineer I know that quite well but as with all tools you need the skill to handle them otherwise a simpler tool might have been a better choice.
Knowing my own limitations I must say that for now the G9 is good enough for my qualification because I feel it takes some time for me reach the point of the camera limitations. Pros like you, Rob and other more skilled people may have not theses limitations. I may reach this point with the G9 eventually but even then it will be a good addition to any better equipment I may get later just because I can take it with me everywhere and can just stay unnoticed.
In the end I think I bought the right camera when it's so close to the M8 that it's worth the discussion you have started -man have you started a discussion- but you know that by yourself.
Gerd