Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: G9  (Read 9840 times)
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
G9
« on: September 10, 2007, 08:32:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had a preproduction G9 for about 2 weeks, but no software or manual with it.  Finally got some software to process the raw files from a friend that bought a new G9.

My initial observations are this camera is too noisy for any serious consideration.  I'm getting better results with my 7mp Olympus jpeg files.  Far better.

Processing the raw files yielded horrible results, I was far better off just using the camera jpegs.

I'll be testing it a little more, but it sounds like Canon should have opted for a smaller chip with far less noise ... adding RAW to the camera sounds great but it doesn't seem to be performing.

If any of you have a G9 and have found any tricks to getting decent RAW conversions, I'd love to hear.

I'm glad I didn't spend the money to buy one of these. I just called my dealer and told him not to hold one when it comes in.

Perhaps eventually ACR will handle the RAW files better(especially the noise part), so perhaps there is hope yet, but I'm going to wait and see.

I'll try and post of couple of examples tonight or tomorrow.
Logged

jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


G9
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2007, 10:08:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Canon never got it together noise-wise with their P&S cameras. The Fuji F31-fd set the bar very high. Not perfect, no RAW, no IS, but great noise control, and a great lens.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
G9
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2007, 11:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, a few more hours to play with the images, and I'm a little more optimistic.  The current workflow for a raw conversion is pathetic to say the least, but I'm getting some better results.  Even though the raw tools say I can create a 16bit tiff, the only way I can get the image to look decent in photoshop is to assign the tiff sRGB profile when opening and then having it converted to the working space.  Not sure how that can result in a good 16bit image. but at least it looks as good, and perhaps slightly better than the in camera jpeg.

I'm going to try Noise Ninja a little, but to be honest, I'm guessing that Thomas Knoll will be able to add the camera to ACR and create a much better image from the raw file.  It may be a pretty good option.

My friend just bought one, and there are a few things his has that my pre-production version doesn't have.  We're going to shoot some side by side images and see how the two compare.  Could be there were some improvements in image processing I'm not seeing.
Logged

John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


G9
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2007, 05:51:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Canon never got it together noise-wise with their P&S cameras. The Fuji F31-fd set the bar very high. Not perfect, no RAW, no IS, but great noise control, and a great lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's all in the conversions.  Noise is pretty much in the same ballpark for all compact cameras with the same size sensor.

Fuji 6MP RAW noise (from the s6500fd) is actually higher *PER PIXEL* at ISO 100, and about the same at ISO 1600, compared to the much-maligned 10MP Panasonic FZ50 with a slightly smaller sensor.

Panasonic stirs it in a little, and Fuji irons out areas of contiguous color and luminance.  By swapping firmwares, you can get the characteristic JPEG look from each other.
Logged
HiltonP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
G9
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2007, 10:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I want to see side-by-side photos of RAW and JPGs (both un-processed, or at least processed exactly the same).

To date all I can find are ISOxxx -vs- ISOyyy comparisons. No-one has really quibbled about the G7 / G9's ISO performance, we all know it is better than most p&s's, but not as good as a DSLR's.

Where there was debate was the lack of RAW on the G7, and how much better the camera would have been if it had been included. Well, now with the G9 we can do that comparison via a RAW + JPG file setting. The two files should then be post-processed in exactly the same manner, and compared. Then we can see what we may have (or have not) been missing on the G7.

I have to confess to being slightly amused by the seeming lack of RAW / JPG comparisons following the release of the G9. There was such a hoopla made about its omission on the G7, but since the release of the G9 there has been this deafening silence.

It reminds me of the fuss made about the diminutive size of the 350D when it was released and how so many people weren't going to buy it because it was too small. They then released the 400D (exactly the same size) and a couple of Nikons and Olympus's (smaller) and not a peep!
Logged

Regards, HILTON
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
G9
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2007, 11:04:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where there was debate was the lack of RAW on the G7, and how much better the camera would have been if it had been included. Well, now with the G9 we can do that comparison via a RAW + JPG file setting. The two files should then be post-processed in exactly the same manner, and compared. Then we can see what we may have (or have not) been missing on the G7.

I'd prefer to see an in-camera jpeg versus the best possible processed RAW file. After all, the whole point of RAW is to be able to make *better* images from the original sensor data, not just to match the in-camera jpeg.

I have a G-7. It's fine for a compact camera, but the physical limitations of the sensor size pretty much guarantee noisy images at anything above ISO 200. I can't think of any reason why RAW files would change this.

As in much of life, size does matter.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
G9
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2007, 07:59:46 PM »
ReplyReply

After reading some of the comments I thought I might add a few from my experience.

At this point the only thing you can really do with a "raw" image is convert it without modification using Canon's Imagebrowser and the associated Raw Converter.  Modifications in RAW converter seem pretty weak, although so far white balance has been spot on with the camera so the default looks really good.  This part of the Canon RAW converter may work OK.  The RAW converter is very weak, and I found the noise reduction very poor.

There is no support for the camera in DPP, and I don't think Canon intends to put it there, so until we see ACR supporting the files, there are not many answers to the basic question of just how useful is the RAW capture.

So basically when you are done, the visual difference between the converted RAW and the in camera jpeg is pretty insignificant.  One is a tiff, but I can't really even end up with what I think is a true 16bit file even though that is an option in the RAW converter (see earlier in this thread).

I don't think this is where we'll end up with the camera however.  I do think a good RAW converter may help with camera noise because it can work while de-mosaicing the image.  Having the full power of a good RAW converter like ACR or Lightroom may be significant.  But as mentioned by one poster, most of the power in using a RAW image isn't about noise.

Right now I"m working with a few images and using noiseware on the resulting TIFF files with some decent success.  Granted not something I would like to do everyday, but my personal view of the camera is it's better to have something like a G9 to get a shot than to not get the shot at all.  It is amazing how many times you can grab an interesting shot in just day to day activities ... times you would never bother having your DSLR.
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


G9
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2007, 08:10:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I quoted wrong--this is the correct:  "I want to see side-by-side photos of RAW and JPGs (both un-processed, or at least processed exactly the same).

To date all I can find are ISOxxx -vs- ISOyyy comparisons. No-one has really quibbled about the G7 / G9's ISO performance, we all know it is better than most p&s's, but not as good as a DSLR's"


Its primarily because there is not a decent RAW converter that supports the G9 yet.  The only one provided by Canon is the old Zoombrowser/RIT--a pretty primitive RC to be truthful.  When Adobe upgrades--or perhaps Breezebrowser or another--then you will see comparisons I'm sure.  Besides--to me there is no reason to show a 'default' RAW conversion.  That's not the point IMO.

This is the first small cam I've bought since the original G1--and though I considered the G7, I opted to not without RAW (I have shot RAW since G1 days in 2001).  I've done RAW conversions, but I can do nothing even close to what I could do with an ACR/LR conversion.  

And--"addendum"--today I used ACR4.2  for G9 conversions.  Other than incorrect WB, works fine.

Diane
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 02:27:42 PM by picnic » Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
G9
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2007, 12:22:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Your P&S doesn't have low noise?  Say it's not so!  lol
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


G9
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2007, 01:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

The recently-released version of ACR (4.2) will now open and process G9 files (supposedly). Same goes with LR 1.2. The support is unofficial in that final profiling and testing has not been completed yet. So consider the support preliminary for now -- i.e., a first draft. If you get a chance to test with the new ACR it would be great to hear some updated feedback. It would be even better if you could post RAW files and then let individuals adjust the RAW themselves ...
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


G9
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2007, 02:23:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The recently-released version of ACR (4.2) will now open and process G9 files (supposedly). Same goes with LR 1.2. The support is unofficial in that final profiling and testing has not been completed yet. So consider the support preliminary for now -- i.e., a first draft. If you get a chance to test with the new ACR it would be great to hear some updated feedback. It would be even better if you could post RAW files and then let individuals adjust the RAW themselves ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric, it does indeed open G9 RAW files.  The 'as shot' and drop down menu preset WB are generally not correct--some of them are terrible, others pretty close, but using eyedropper and/or temp/tone that can be corrected.  Otherwise, everything works as usual.

I installed LR but I haven't imported any G9 shots yet, so don't know how it goes, but assume exactly the same.

Diane
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 02:28:07 PM by picnic » Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


G9
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2007, 03:33:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah I imagine this as being part of the "partial support" -- it can open and process but may not be reading / interpreting the WB tag data yet.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
G9
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2007, 07:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Been playing with some G9 files and LR 1.2 today.  I can indeed get 16bit files to photoshop. So far I've been pretty pleased with what I'm seeing ... I do think the noise reduction from LR 1.2 helps the files.  Certainly not going to replace my other cameras, but it may be a decent "computer bag" camera for those times I don't have a good camera along.

I've attached a quick and dirty example from a shot I took in Nevada on my way to Photoshop World.  Very tough image for a noisy camera.  In LR I used a very aggressive NR, Lum 77 and Color 57.  (Don't deal with a lot of noise, so I need to learn a little more.  Probably not the optimal choice, just looked pretty good).

I used an aggressive setting since the subtle tonal values were more important than the detail, other than the ridge lines.

(sorry the files a little big, guess I could have left the full image off.)

[attachment=3256:attachment]
Logged

benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


G9
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2007, 09:32:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I just got my (production) G9 friday.

I've been pleasantly surprised.

I'm not going to sell my 5D but the G9 is quite good for a P&S.  I had bought the new Fuji 12mp compact camera last week and it was quite horrible, I took it back after 2 days for a refund.

But the G9 is quite workable.  The RAW software is horrible.. but the camera is definitely promising.

With just JPGs I've found ISO 80, 100, 200 are very nice, ISO 200 can maybe use chroma noise reduction in Noise Ninja for a slight improvement.

ISO 400 is far more usable then any P&S I've had before.. but the jury is still out whether or not I will use it.

However there seem to be plenty of situations where I'd be using ISO 400, but with the IS I can use ISO 200 instead with this camera.

The big nasty thing I've seen is the JPGs seem to have a pretty horrible red cast on caucasian skin tones... not easy to remove in post processing.  The Canon RAW program didn't seem to help either.  I had read some stuff saying maybe ACR/Lightroom will fix this.   However I use Aperture.. so I'll apparently be suffering for a longer period.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 09:33:40 AM by benInMA » Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


G9
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2007, 10:52:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just got my (production) G9 friday.

I've been pleasantly surprised.

I'm not going to sell my 5D but the G9 is quite good for a P&S.  I had bought the new Fuji 12mp compact camera last week and it was quite horrible, I took it back after 2 days for a refund.

But the G9 is quite workable.  The RAW software is horrible.. but the camera is definitely promising.

With just JPGs I've found ISO 80, 100, 200 are very nice, ISO 200 can maybe use chroma noise reduction in Noise Ninja for a slight improvement.

ISO 400 is far more usable then any P&S I've had before.. but the jury is still out whether or not I will use it.

However there seem to be plenty of situations where I'd be using ISO 400, but with the IS I can use ISO 200 instead with this camera.

The big nasty thing I've seen is the JPGs seem to have a pretty horrible red cast on caucasian skin tones... not easy to remove in post processing.  The Canon RAW program didn't seem to help either.  I had read some stuff saying maybe ACR/Lightroom will fix this.   However I use Aperture.. so I'll apparently be suffering for a longer period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I pretty much agree with this assessment.  Its a camera I'll carry to places I don't normally carry my 5D--and where I normally don't shoot (case in point, I'm on the board of a regional environmental/green spaces non profit.  We put on our annual Riverfest Saturday--where I had lots of other responsibilities but they still wanted pics for our web page, future posters, paper next year, etc.---so I took a chance and shot with the G9 which I could carry in a small hip pack and still handle other things.  Just great for that.  I think I could have handled the DR better---direct overhead sun on the river, deep shadows, etc. LOL---with the 5D, but in RAW/ACR  and a bit of PS post they are pretty decent).

What helped a bit with jpegs (I shot RAW + jpegs the first week) was to set the camera on 'custom colors'--go to your set/func. button, bring up the menu and scroll to "My Colors' and click over to custom.  There I dialed down red, skin colors and saturation (as well as sharpening).  That helped a good bit, but using RAW is better, no doubt.  I opened all of my Saturday files in ACR 4.2 and only had to adjust WB since it is generally wrong--and then everything else worked fine with sliders.  I have not opened them in LR but it should be exactly the same when I get around to it.

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

Posts: 409



WWW
G9
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2007, 11:23:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a question about the G9 and external flash.  My question comes from experience with the G3 and Canon flashes.

With the G3 set for manual exposure, a Canon external flash also becomes completely manual -- that is, no ETTL flash control when the camera is set on manual exposure.  The flash power can be adjusted from the camera, or with some flashes, on the flash.

Also, the G3 has a lot of "shutter lag" when used with external flash.  This seems to happen even if the G3 is set for manual exposure and manual focus.  The well known "half button press" helps quite a bit but should not be necessary when all controls are set on manual.

Does the G9 have the same operational characteristics?
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090



WWW
G9
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2007, 12:50:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I purchased a G9 today, having been slightly disappointed with the perofrmance of the G7 regarding noise.

G9 raw files are not yet supported by SilkyPix, so I converted them with the latest DNG converter to DNG raws, and then converted to 16 bit tiffs using SilkyPix.  Overall, now I have tweaked my settings, I find the G9 files really much better than anything I got out of the G7 at equivalent ISO.  G9 files are still not as good as equivalent dslr files, but they are pretty good and they pass my personal acceptability test in a way the G7 jpegs never quite achieved.

I also have the wideangel adapter but I have not yet tried it.

The G9 will be the only camera I take to Monaco on Wednesday where it will get a thorough work-out.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


G9
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2007, 01:10:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I purchased a G9 today, having been slightly disappointed with the perofrmance of the G7 regarding noise.

G9 raw files are not yet supported by SilkyPix, so I converted them with the latest DNG converter to DNG raws, and then converted to 16 bit tiffs using SilkyPix.  Overall, now I have tweaked my settings, I find the G9 files really much better than anything I got out of the G7 at equivalent ISO.  G9 files are still not as good as equivalent dslr files, but they are pretty good and they pass my personal acceptability test in a way the G7 jpegs never quite achieved.

I also have the wideangel adapter but I have not yet tried it.

The G9 will be the only camera I take to Monaco on Wednesday where it will get a thorough work-out.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Glad to hear that as I haven't had a small cam since the very old G1.  I haven't tried the dng converter yet since I've just been using ACR 4.2.  Let us know how you feel about the camera when you get back.

Diane
Logged
soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


WWW
G9
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2007, 04:01:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Has the optical viewfinder been reworked (fixed) at all from the G7?
I'm not sure why they bothered to put it on the G7 since the framing was so far off as to be useless.
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090



WWW
G9
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2007, 08:22:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has the optical viewfinder been reworked (fixed) at all from the G7?
I'm not sure why they bothered to put it on the G7 since the framing was so far off as to be useless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope, in fact its worse.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad