Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PowerShot G9 with RAW  (Read 8865 times)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2007, 12:51:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi!
I am a G7 user and very pleased with my camera. I've taken +1000 pictures and I have to say that this model is brilliant.
I have read some articles about the new G9 and it seem much better than G7. I am excited because I'm going to test G9 next week. I'll share my experiences here!

Bye!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Curious where you are going to be able to do this.  Is there a Canon preview near you--sometimes the new cams are at those.

I'm curious about the G9--I've contemplated a smaller all in one for several years--my last was the G1--but I'm still dubious if I really will use it--or if I'll always carry the 5D--'just in case'--thus doing away with any benefit of having one LOL.  

Diane
Logged
HiltonP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2007, 01:44:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At least we know in advance that there is a big difference in flexibility: the increased ability to adjust white balance, contrast etc after the shot, not to mention exposure.

That's my point . . . we "know" it, but in theory only. What I would like to see is some form of visual proof. One can now adjust w/b, contrast, exp, etc in JPGs thanks to PS2, PS3 and LR.

We know the benefits w.r.t. the larger sensor DSLRs, but I'd like to see side-by-side JPG -vs- RAW comparisons with the G9 to assess just how much of a benefit the RAW capability is on the small sensor, i.e. just how much did we miss out on with the G7?
Logged

Regards, HILTON
paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2007, 02:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's my point . . . we "know" it, but in theory only. What I would like to see is some form of visual proof. One can now adjust w/b, contrast, exp, etc in JPGs thanks to PS2, PS3 and LR.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course you`re right. We need to see proof, with our own eyes.

One can adjust JPGs in Lightroom etc. However, my eyes tell me that the image deteriorates much faster than with RAW. And burnt out highlights are gone when I shoot with my Ricoh GR-D in JPG.
What concerns me most with the G9, is what will happen to the noise levels if you try to recover details in the shadows, given the high pixel density.

But enough speculations. Letīs wait and see!
Logged

paul norheim
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2007, 04:46:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Seems like Canon have been listening to complains about the lack of RAW mode in their compact cameras during the last couple of years. On the other hand: 12 Mp in a compact is strange when their 40D DSLR with the much bigger sensor has 10 Mp. Are the "consumers" still impressed, when they hear about more and more pixels? Do they never shoot with high ISO in low light?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The big difference between Canon CMOS DSLRs and CCD compacts is that CCDs can be designed with very little little loss of photon capture due to smaller pixels.

Believe it or not, a compact like the Panasonic FZ50 captures as many photons per mm, maximum, as the 1Dmk2 does.  It does it at almost a stop higher quantum efficiency, so the Panasonic does it at ISO while the 1Dmk2 does it at ISO 50.

There really is little or no gain in image shot noise making a compact 12MP vs 10MP or 8MP in the same sensor size.  Unfortunately, manufacturers see the users as 100%-view pixel-peepers, and even when not viewing at 100%, most image-viewing software uses downsizing algorithms that are quick and dirty, and emphasize some original pixels over others, or even ignore many of them completely, increasing the image noise.  What you get is an attempt to hide the inevitable noise of small sensors and small photosites with heavy-handed noise-reductions that discard as much detail as they do noise, and make the images look like impressionistic paintings or cartoons instead of photographs.

If our monitors had totally flexible analog resolution, and could include every original-resolution imagepixel with equal weight on the screen, and if printers used error diffusion at the dot level instead of a tile/array, then I doubt we'd be seeing this ridiculous noise reduction.
Logged
soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 284


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2007, 02:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious, what happens when you set the camera to a lower pixel capture count than the maximum, for example the G9 is 4000 x 3000 @ 12 mp, will the results be a lower noise image if you set it at  3264 x 2448 (~8mp) or 2592 x 1944 (~5mp), or will you just get a smaller, equally noisy image?
Logged

richarddd
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 109


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2007, 03:22:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious, what happens when you set the camera to a lower pixel capture count
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Conventional wisdom is that you don't get any better noise performance, because the key is the physical size of the photosites on the sensor and they don't change with a lower pixel setting.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad