Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nick Devlin's G9 article  (Read 24582 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2008, 05:01:08 am »

Quote
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

Gabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2008, 09:59:52 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2008, 12:33:50 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

Gabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2008, 12:11:07 pm »

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 12:11:31 pm by Gabe »
Logged

Mark F

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2008, 10:40:27 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2008, 02:55:07 am »

Quote
---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!
Logged

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 772
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2008, 01:25:52 pm »

Quote
........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
Logged

mbkinsman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2008, 02:39:45 pm »

Quote
...........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.
Logged

geke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Nick Devlin's G9 article
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2008, 09:48:11 am »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up