Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Anyone else here ordered the Canon G9 yet?  (Read 20779 times)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2007, 04:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
bump.

So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For what it is, its really quite nice.  I have difficulty leaving the DSLR thinking behind--shallow DOF, low noise/high ISO--and I have to admit I don't like using an LCD, but all that said--a really good effort.  

The controls are very intuitive and very DSLR like (if you're a Canon person),  it has RAW which I use (ACR 4.2 and most of the time LR 1.2), sturdy little bugger--and the handling, for me, is very nice--plus an excellent LCD and better than almost any other I've tried for daylight shooting--plus you can see it at an angle so can shoot easily overhead or below.  I added a little Kirk L bracket
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg]http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027465.jpg[/url]
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87027463.jpg
 which gives me more 'geography' on the left to handhold with 2 hands--and for use on tripod for IR
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87207433/original.jpg
processed as split tone.  

IQ is very good for a small sensor cam but I still haven't printed any so can't say how well it holds up to what size.  Its well thought out---menus are easy, most of what a serious shooter wants is there except 28mm.  I do shoot wide a lot, so added a WA converter that will take me to 24mm.  It takes it out of pocketable but still in a very very small bag.  To do this, you have to add the Lensmate which covers the zoomed lens.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg
The nice thing is that I just twist off the Lensmate/WA and I have a totally pocketable camera again.

So--all in all, I like it a good deal.  I guess I'm still wondering how much I will shoot with it--but we'll see.  Its the best of the lot I considered I think--the Leica/Panny and the Ricoh GR100--all TOO small for me.

Oh--the VF suffers from parallax error--and its hard to get a handle on when its close or not.  Usable though in a pinch.  I'd love to have a better VF.  ISO above 200 is noisy, but ISO400 is quite good with just a touch of Noiseware Pro at weak noise and usable at ISO800 with same.  Better than I thought.

I can certainly recommend it as a small sensor/small cam for serious shooters.  I've had a bit of buyers remorse several times--because I find myself carrying it WITH the 5D--but I think I will get a lot of use out of it around the holidays for more casual use, in places where the DLSR is inappropriate, at times when I just don't want to carry a lot of gear (hiking).  I've fiddled about for several years considering buying a small cam--and thought the G9 would be it.  Really it is--has all I want in a small cam but wider really without using a converter.  The option had more noise and was too small for easy handling for me.

Diane
Logged
maxgruzen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2007, 05:15:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't what to rain on anyone's parade but my experience with the camera is not good.  I love the freedom of the camera compared to my SLR's. Small and easy to shoot from low or high angles. BUT:  1.  The viewfinder is usless. What you see is NOT what the lens see's. 2. The LCD is usless outside.  I just try to get the subject someplace in the middle of the LCD and hope for the best.  The camera provides me with no clear and accurate view of what I'm taking. 3. At ISO over 100 the noise is terrible.  At 80 and 100 the image quality is great, Other than that it sucks.  Ordered another SLR to replace my 300d today.  Sad. I used to work with Leica's and loved the small size and freedom of use.  I had hoped to capture some of that with the G7 without speeding $ 10,000. on a digital Leica but so far that camera doesn't exist.  When it does , and it probably will some day, that will be a great photographic tool.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2007, 04:57:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
bump.

So any comments from the folks who might have some hands on experience by now?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering the type of camera it is, a good choice.  I've been happy with mine.  I certainly won't be using it in place of any of my main gear, but in the "better than nothing" category, times when it's the only camera you can conveniently have, it's a better choice than any other point and shoot I've tried.



Wayne
« Last Edit: October 29, 2007, 01:08:22 AM by Wayne Fox » Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2007, 06:56:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Considering the type of camera it is, a good choice.  I've been happy with mine.  I certainly won't be using it in place of any of my main gear, but in the "better than nothing" category, times when it's the only camera you can conveniently have, it's a better than any other point and shoot I've tried.
Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I was getting at---someone that had great gear wouldn't use it in place of that, but supplementary.  I plan to do some IR, use it for social situations where I normally don't even shoot at all--but always wished I had, for places where the DSLR is inappropriate, hiking where photography isn't the main reason to do it, etc.  I never have intended to use it 'in place of'--but for times when I often haven't carried a camera at all.

The VF is not totally useless--and the LCD is the best I've tried of all small sensor cams.  Not perfect, but with the use of the VF and pulling my head slightly away and checking the LCD--usable in strong light.  I have considered buying a 35mm VF for the hot shoe since I shoot a lot in that range.    I still really like the fact that I can control the camera--and not let it control me.  When its important--I grab the 5D, but the G9 will accompany me on vacation for those times I don't want or can't carry more.

Diane
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2007, 09:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had a G9 for about three weeks now.  Previously, I had a G3 (well, I still have the G3).  I also have a 20D.

I'm beginning to write about my G9 experiences in my blog, http:lightdescription.blogspot.com
(yes, I know -- shameless promotion, but I'll be documenting this experience for a few months, I suspect.  Besides, it's just a hobby.)

So far, I'm favorably impressed with the G9.  In addition to being a nice looking camera, it is very usable and useful.  ISO 400 jpgs aren't nearly as bad as some would lead you to believe -- especially when printed instead of pixel peeped.

Although there seem to be a number of quality control complaints, my copy does not appear to have those problems.

I'm looking forward to the full implementation of ACR RAW but am using the beta right now.  There may be no difference between official and beta but I'll feel better when the official is released.  I've made noise profiles for Neat Image and it seems to me that Neat Image plus PK Sharpener can do a better job than Canon's in-camera processing.  I'm tinkering with ACR noise reduction and Smart Sharpening in hopes of finding some magic combination!

Yes, the optical viewfinder can be called poor but, hey, you've got 12 million pixels!   How about cropping some of them?  (With the G3, I really did not want to crop.)

I'm also looking forward to Michael's opinion about the G9 from his field experience.

The G9 should be a fun camera.  I expect to use it a lot.
Logged

Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2007, 11:45:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/

Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera.  
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2007, 08:43:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/

Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There appears to be a big disconnect somewhere in that review. DPR Claims it is robust built and good usability, image quality is the best for a point and shoot camera; and then says it is only just highly recommended.

The one aspect of the G9 is that it is not a DSLR and, therefore, it will be compromised in comparison. If one is expecting it to have the image quality, etc...of a camera with a larger sensor then you are going to be disappointed - but then that is the irony of the situation the the above statement alludes to.

Those who are expecting this to be the halleluah of cameras are going to be disappointed. However, where it does excel are in the situations where you probably will not have a big bag of DSLR goodies. My full DSLR kit comes in at 15Kg, my G9 is a fraction of that - this is where it really makes a big difference.

Is it a perfect camera? No. Is image quality the most important factor when choosing a camera or is good enough acceptable? Do you have a full range of controls, off camera flash capability (through hotshoe) all in a robust package? From my experience, yes.

If you accept the camera for what it achieves, rather than the expectations it is impossible for it to meet, then it is a good camera.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2007, 08:56:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The review is online at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/

Nice camera, but with the wrong sensor. It should have the sensor from the 40D, a bigger viewfinder, changeable lenses and should be named as Canon M9... oh, but that's a different camera. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder if canon could make a rangefinder which would be profitable. If it used the current sensors and lenses, it could be very interesting, plus they could make some nice wides. Would be nice and quite too, I'd love one for my theatre work.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2007, 11:49:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had the G9 for about a week now. Before, I had the G7, but I ended up missing RAW. The G9 to me is what the G7 should have been in the first place, with RAW.

The image quality is actually pretty good, given the known limitations of small sensors. The availability of RAW is great to combat noise without smearing detail much, and also for highlight recovery.

I took the camera on a day trek in the mountains already, and it is a good feeling knowing that I had a small camera in my belt case that I could rely upon. The alternative would have been to haul my 1V plus the two L zooms in the Minitreker, not good.

I also tried IR with R72 filter, and it works well, same as the G7.

Regarding the Dpreview review of the G9, the reviewer says he was expecting better image quality for the price. Thus, the rating of HR (just). Even with this qualifier, the camera still delivers what he considers to be one of the best image qualities in its class. Personally, I think the G9 initial price is lower than the price for the G7 at its time, so its even better value.

The only thing that annoys me a bit is the noticeable barrel distortion of the lens at wide angle.
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2007, 07:34:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it a perfect camera? No. Is image quality the most important factor when choosing a camera or is good enough acceptable? Do you have a full range of controls, off camera flash capability (through hotshoe) all in a robust package? From my experience, yes.

If you accept the camera for what it achieves, rather than the expectations it is impossible for it to meet, then it is a good camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IMO, you hit the nail on the head.  It is at the head of the pack for that type of camera---but not in the league of DSLRs.  Sometimes one wants that--and doesn't want to haul the whole kaboodle--nor needs it.

Diane
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2007, 01:15:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder if canon could make a rangefinder which would be profitable. If it used the current sensors and lenses, it could be very interesting, plus they could make some nice wides. Would be nice and quite too, I'd love one for my theatre work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

intriguing thought. A really well made rangefinder, with maybe a slightly larger form factor, better sensor and lens.  Seems like there is a possible market.  Sort of a cross between a Leica and a G9.
Logged

mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2007, 03:13:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
intriguing thought. A really well made rangefinder, with maybe a slightly larger form factor, better sensor and lens.  Seems like there is a possible market.  Sort of a cross between a Leica and a G9.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What would be even nicer would be if they made it only manual focus and put an FD mount on it (which they would never do unless they started making FD lenses again). Think of the bargains you could pick up. I suppose you would then lose out on the non-retro lenses.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2007, 03:21:58 AM by mahleu » Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2007, 07:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Before buying G9, better check on this:
http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html

Ed
Logged
Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2007, 11:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Before buying G9, better check on this:
http://www.adorama.com/IRCGX100K.html
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

5.5 seconds to save a raw file with the Ricoh Caplio GX100 = TOO LONG (and too noisy because of the small sensor)
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp[/url]
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2007, 12:08:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
5.5 seconds to save a raw file with the Ricoh Caplio GX100 = TOO LONG (and too noisy because of the small sensor)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgx100/page14.asp
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I sold my G7 to get the GX100. The GX100 is slow in saving RAW files, but it is actually quite fast compared to the previous Ricoh offers (GRD takes about 11 seconds...). So the GX100 is not every bodies cup of tea. But it is a very capable small camera too, and offers a nice 24-72mm zoom lens on top of that.

As far as noise is concerned, Ricoh combats noise even less than Canon, to preserve a lot of detail. A quick run through Neat Image solves the problem at ISO 400 and above. A good alternative to the G9, even thoug the latter feels more solid in the hand.
Logged
sanking
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2007, 08:58:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Just curious to know if anyone has made or can direct me to a comparison of an image made with the 12mp Canon G9 and a high quality  12mp Nikor or Canon DSLR with larger sensor chip?

I assume that a $500 point and shoot with a small sensor can not match a  more expensive DSLR with much larger sensor, but to be able to see the exact difference would be interesting.

Sandy King
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 10:22:57 PM by sanking » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2007, 01:21:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote

Diane,

I assume that the lens in your jpeg above is the lens that comes with the camera. Right?

It looks a bit different to the pics in this review...

[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp[/url]

Just wondering! ;-)

Very tempted to buy one of these. I want something I can take when travelling and yet which might be good enough for stock shots - after upsizing. I hate travelling with SLRs.

D.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2007, 02:11:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just curious to know if anyone has made or can direct me to a comparison of an image made with the 12mp Canon G9 and a high quality  12mp Nikor or Canon DSLR with larger sensor chip?

I assume that a $500 point and shoot with a small sensor can not match a  more expensive DSLR with much larger sensor, but to be able to see the exact difference would be interesting.

Sandy King
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The G9 is nice, but I get cleaner images at ISO 800 from my 5D than at ISO 80
from the G9. But you can get good images from it in good light, it's just not on
the same continent as a FF DSLR.  
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3364



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2007, 02:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I sold my G7 to get the GX100. The GX100 is slow in saving RAW files, but it is actually quite fast compared to the previous Ricoh offers (GRD takes about 11 seconds...). So the GX100 is not every bodies cup of tea. But it is a very capable small camera too, and offers a nice 24-72mm zoom lens on top of that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The GRD II is about to come out and that solves the previous camera's Achilles heel. Poor RAW write speeds. It's down to about 3.5 secs from 12-14 secs, but crucially it can take another picture whilst still writing.
May well be getting one  now.  

[a href=\"http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital2/sampleimage.html]http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/gr_digital2/sampleimage.html[/url]
JPEG samples here, a bit too digital for my liking, though they tweak quite nicely in PS. But I'd like to try the RAWs and the higher ISOs. Though I have heard the higher ISOs are grainey like film, not noisy like digital. We shall see when we can try for real.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 02:40:03 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2007, 04:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diane,

I assume that the lens in your jpeg above is the lens that comes with the camera. Right?

It looks a bit different to the pics in this review...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page2.asp

Just wondering! ;-)

Very tempted to buy one of these. I want something I can take when travelling and yet which might be good enough for stock shots - after upsizing. I hate travelling with SLRs.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What you can see on the front of Diane's camera is the extension tube that is required to be in place when you use the wide angle lens . I'm not sure why it is still affixed to the camera as the wide angle lens screws into the extension tube which is the affixed to the camera by a bayonet mount - it is, therefore, a lot quicker and easier to disconnect the wide angle lens/extension tube as a single package rather than unscrew the wide angle lens from the tube. Looking at the picture again though it appears that Diane has affixed a filter on the front of the tube - not tried that one personally but may be more practical than affixing a filter to the front of the G9 lens itself.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad