Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: G9 competition ?  (Read 24148 times)
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2008, 07:05:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Heh-heh, that's exactly what I was thinking

Heck, even the Canon 1Ds (which costs several thousand) can't rival a Hasselblad or a Mamiya, but yet they still take amazing photos. A point-n-shoot isn't designed to rival a Hasselblad (or even a 1Ds) for image quality either, it is designed to be versatile, handy, and enjoyable ... while still providing a decent image to share with your friends and family.

One fellow said he didn't like the G9 because "it still produced images like a P&S." LOL, this is insane, to berate a camera for performing at the level it is. Of course a G9 produces images like a P&S, because that is what an G9 is!  They were never designed to produce images that would win resolution contests against the finest cameras $40,000 would buy; they were simply designed to produce reasonably-clear images, easily and handily, without having to lug a bunch of equipment around.

In short, the G9 was designed to produce images good enough to share with others, while still being handy enough to allow you the freedom to have fun!

Try it sometime

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think there is some truth in this - we've become so entranced by the amazing image quality available from dslrs that we forget how far we've come and how noise/grain can be a part of the aesthetic in some photography. I enjoy my gx100 for what it is iq and all -  there are two situations particularly that it works for me

- I can go out and play on the beach etc with my children, which is hard to do with a 1Ds around your neck

- I can use it around town or sitting around with family and friends and it's very discreet and non-intimidating compared to a dslr (interestingly I find the 1Ds3 to be less intrusive in some situations than the 5D though as the shutter is quieter)

Mike
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2008, 07:53:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[attachment=6038:attachment]Here's a shot I took with it that was TERRIBLY noisy as it was backlit with NO flash.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting shot! Very eye-catching, but you need to provide a larger image so we can appreciate the noise   .

I think it would help greatly with these small P&S cameras if the manufacturers could provide much faster frame rates, less shutter lag and a larger buffer to accomodate more RAW images.

Now that's going to increase the cost a bit as well as the bulk and weight, but would make the camera much more useful. I'd rather pay an extra $100 (or even $200) and have a camera that I'm willing to use.

My own experience with P&S cameras is that one goes through an initial stage of being very impressed with what such a miniature camera can do, then one gradually becomes disillusioned with it's limitations and one then uses it less and less frequently.

Why are 6 frames per second in RAW mode so difficult? Would it, for example, double the cost and/or weight, or is it mainly a marketing decision, that the type of consumer who buys P&S cameras is just not interested in blending images to reduce noise and extend DR?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3542



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2008, 08:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One fellow said he didn't like the G9 because "it still produced images like a P&S." LOL, this is insane, to berate a camera for performing at the level it is. Of course a G9 produces images like a P&S, because that is what an G9 is!  They were never designed to produce images that would win resolution contests against the finest cameras $40,000 would buy; they were simply designed to produce reasonably-clear images, easily and handily, without having to lug a bunch of equipment around.

In short, the G9 was designed to produce images good enough to share with others, while still being handy enough to allow you the freedom to have fun!

Try it sometime
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you are forgetting is that the good 35mm compacts could produce images to match pro level 35mm SLRs. And that's what some of us want from our compact cameras. Also a G9 or any camera with manual features/RAW is most certainly not a P+S, they are aimed at enthusuiasts/pros, but the small sensor is very limiting. Also being able to shoot high quality without obtrusive/heavy gear is what many pros would like. Some work is not best done with a big obvious camera and current DSLRs are anything but small.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2008, 07:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What you are forgetting is that the good 35mm compacts could produce images to match pro level 35mm SLRs. And that's what some of us want from our compact cameras. Also a G9 or any camera with manual features/RAW is most certainly not a P+S, they are aimed at enthusuiasts/pros, but the small sensor is very limiting. Also being able to shoot high quality without obtrusive/heavy gear is what many pros would like. Some work is not best done with a big obvious camera and current DSLRs are anything but small.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



In the right circumstances, a G9 can produce images as good as a pro level DSLR. The RAW features have their decided use in this capacity.

For instance, suppose you are enjoying your G9 in a beach setting, as Mike described, and suppose you took one really nice photo of your wife and kids. By taking it in RAW you certainly could blow-up that photo to 8x12 dimensions and have yourself a wonderful family portrait to decorate your home or office. No, it may not be the most technically-great photo that would have been possible with the most expensive equipment in the universe, but yet you never would have been able to capture that candid family moment had you first tried to set up such expensive equipment before taking said shot in the first place.

Thus a point-n-shoot with RAW capability gives us the ease and convenience to bring anywhere, and with RAW and reasonably-high-end capability it also gives us the ability to print out some of these shots to hang on our wall or to mount on our desk at the office.

Further, even the fun little spider photos I took (while certainly not rivaling what a true macro could do) are still better than any photos you will see in most any book (and most of what you see online). Go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of the National Wildlife Federation's Field Guide to Insects and Spiders of North America, and go to the top of page 403. This is how I identified the spider whose photo I took. You will soon see that those fun little photos I took of that Bold Jumping Spider are 10x better than the photo which is featured in this "professional, published" book on the subject, and that my photos show the detail of the face and fangs in a much closer and better light than did the "professional, published" photo. You can also browse "Bold Jumping Spider" online, and you will see that 9 out of 10 photos of this spider do not compare to what I just took with my G9, for fun.

Thus a G9 is absolultely adequate for taking photos to be published in a little field guide. Most field guide photos are only 2.5" x 2" in size and a G9 certainly can produce photos that are equal to or better than any photos you will find in any field guide.

No, a G9 will not produce photos that you can blow-up and make into posters, and no it will not produce photos that you can sell individually as fine art. But it sure as heck can produce a wonderful family photo, clear as can be, as well as produce fun and interesting "field guide"-quality photos for a little book or interesting show-and-tell amongst your friends and family, up to and including for publication.

Jack
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 08:08:21 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2008, 08:49:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Golly, if the G9 is "not good enough" for "art quality" or posters, then my Pana TZ5 must be a real dog. That, or my customers are ignorant swine. Hee hee hee.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2008, 09:44:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I had a Sony V3 for a couple of years and still have not seen photos from any other compact digital to match what that camera produced (super sharp lens and good RAW capture).  I have sold as many prints from that camera as I have from my DSLRs, though, to be fair, the Sony had a one year head start! (I used film before then).

Yet I sold the Sony and replaced it with a technically inferior but diminutive Minox.  Why?  Well, the Sony, like a G9 of DP1 or other "better quality" point and shoots was just too big to keep in a pocket - if it needed a bag, may as well take a small SLR body.  The Minox is already paying its way because, like any camera, it can take great photos in certain conditions but, more importantly, it's always with me!  I think this is a much under considered factor of portable cameras.

With any camera, learn its limitations and strengths and play to them.  If the limitations of a particular camera are too much, get something else.  I really believe point and shoot cameras have overshot and five megapixel ones of a year or two ago are more capable in more light conditions than the current ten megapixel or more storage hogs!

By the way, the Minox photos are selling as 16 x 20 prints and look wonderful - not something you would expect looking at the pics 100% on a computer screen.

Don.
Logged

Don
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2008, 09:06:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I have sold many fine art prints taken by my Lumix LX2. It is nonsense to say you CAN'T make fine art prints or poster size prints with a P&S.You most certainly can...and WILL,because invariably you will take many great pics with it where you didn't have your DSLR with you. A few of my best pics were taken with a P&S, and the techncal quality is more than adequate.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2008, 06:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have sold many fine art prints taken by my Lumix LX2. It is nonsense to say you CAN'T make fine art prints or poster size prints with a P&S.You most certainly can...and WILL,because invariably you will take many great pics with it where you didn't have your DSLR with you. A few of my best pics were taken with a P&S, and the techncal quality is more than adequate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I really don't think we're arguing, I think we're agreeing actually. Perhaps I overstepped by implying the G9 (or other high-end P&S) "can't" take a fine art photo, but I am sure you understood what I meant ... it's not exactly the tool of choice for "ultimate" image quality.

However, it is the tool of choice for extreme convenience combined with reasonable and usable image quality. That is the point I was trying to make, that you seemed agree with also, is the overall convenience, and so I really wasn't trying to quibble over minutia.

Dalethorn touches on a major point also, and that is 99% of the public out there, who are the actual customers for photos (either via photos by themselves or those found in books) really can't tell the difference between a photo taken by a G9, a 5D, or a 1Ds. The general consumer is either attracted to the color and subject of the photo or they are not. So whether some austere photography guru can point out the flaws in one photo vs. another ultimately means nothing to the average consumer. The average consumer either likes the subject photographed, or they don't, and the G9 is fully capable of taking satisfactory photos for most people.

It kinda reminds me what a rock star once said about his musical talent. He said, talent-wise, he was just average technically. He said he would go to dive bars and see these amazing musicians, who were technically superior to him, but these dive musicians were broke because they didn't know what a hit song was all about. These musicians could run circles around the rock star, technically, but they couldn't make music that people wanted to listen to. 99% of the public can't tell the talent difference between two high-level guitar players, only other high-level guitar players can. What matters, therefore, after a certain proficiency level is achieved, isn't the extremest of the extreme talents, what matters is who can touch people by creating the catchiest hit song.

There has to be a certain level of technical proficiency to excel in any field, including a camera's technical ability to take clear photos, but in photography the most technically-capable camera isn't necessarily going to take the best photos ... because if it isn't available when the moment is there, or if it doesn't have the right person behind it, what good is the tool?

A camera like the G9 is technically-capable enough to shoot very nice photos, and it is conveninent and available enough to be there when that special moment is actually there and needing to be captured.

So I hope we can agree on this,

Jack
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 06:28:27 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2008, 07:08:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A camera like the G9 is technically-capable enough to shoot very nice photos, and it is conveninent and available enough to be there when that special moment is actually there and needing to be captured.

So I hope we can agree on this,

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes...
But I prefer the LX2 or GX100 as I think the G9 is still too bulky and only goes  wide to 35mm. The LX2 is the best value for the money so far..in my opinion. As you can get them in good used condition for $400 or under.
The Sigma DP1 is...unfortunatley...crap. The first of a new wave tend to have a lot of flaws. The image quality isnt everything...MORE inportant is ergonomics,design and camera functionality..and the DP1 fails on this. Plus it costs $800. I predict it will only be adopted by die hard early adopters that will overlook it's flaws, and believe the dream (ahem...lies) that it is a great camera (sort of like the M8..lol)
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2008, 07:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting article where the "Strobist" used a G9 with Nikon flashes on a photojournalism assignment:  

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-as...for-course.html
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2008, 07:18:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting article where the "Strobist" used a G9 with Nikon flashes on a photojournalism assignment: 

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-as...for-course.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 A year or two back I ran out of memory shooting a wedding (shriek!- not so bad, it was late at the party afterwards) but still had my Sony V3 with a memory stick in it.  So I stuck my Olympus FL36 flash on and kept going, no trouble at all!  Why don't all manufacturers allow such common sense?
Logged

Don
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2008, 09:47:03 AM »
ReplyReply

This discussion (excellent) reminds me that the mfrs' marketing decisions are very short-sighted. If CocaCola can stuff the shelves with its dubious alternate flavors, why can't the camera mfrs (at least for small P&S models) offer two or three alternate versions of a particular camera? Say, a 42-420 zoom instead of a 28-280 zoom? Or a viewfinder with small screen instead of just a large screen? Or more manual controls and small screen? Or even RAW (gasp!)
Logged
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2008, 05:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This discussion (excellent) reminds me that the mfrs' marketing decisions are very short-sighted. If CocaCola can stuff the shelves with its dubious alternate flavors, why can't the camera mfrs (at least for small P&S models) offer two or three alternate versions of a particular camera? Say, a 42-420 zoom instead of a 28-280 zoom? Or a viewfinder with small screen instead of just a large screen? Or more manual controls and small screen? Or even RAW (gasp!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In many senses they already do this.  That's why each manufacturer has a dozen or so models of P&S cameras.  What you're looking for is a lot of options on a particular model. Design costs are higher for cameras than they are for colas.  Making sure everything works perfectly over a range of different options is an engineering pain.

--dilip
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2008, 08:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply

 

Jack
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2008, 10:29:58 PM »
ReplyReply

These invertebrate photographs show another very strong feature of "point and shoot" digital cameras - macro.  To get the same depth of field with an SLR takes a tiny aperture, which brings with it lots of problems.  The very small sensors on most compacts give a huge depth of field, even with large apertures.  As well as that, you can just put them down beside something to compose the picture and they will work well, better than SLRs with live view (unless you have the Olympus E330).

Don.
Logged

Don
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2008, 04:26:43 AM »
ReplyReply

It makes sense, really; small cameras for small subjects and big cameras for big subjects   .
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2008, 10:44:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In many senses they already do this.  That's why each manufacturer has a dozen or so models of P&S cameras.  What you're looking for is a lot of options on a particular model. Design costs are higher for cameras than they are for colas.  Making sure everything works perfectly over a range of different options is an engineering pain.

--dilip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't agree with any of this. The total product cost for a new cola is just as high or higher. And what I'm asking for in two cameras of the same size is easier than two dissimilar cameras, since the variations share most features, and the differences are easy to code. I code software now, and it's not hard to split a few features while sharing the remaining thousand or so.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2008, 01:34:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These invertebrate photographs show another very strong feature of "point and shoot" digital cameras - macro.  To get the same depth of field with an SLR takes a tiny aperture, which brings with it lots of problems.  The very small sensors on most compacts give a huge depth of field, even with large apertures.  As well as that, you can just put them down beside something to compose the picture and they will work well, better than SLRs with live view (unless you have the Olympus E330).
Don.



Exactly ... you just point ... and shoot ... and you get a pretty decent image

For those that say the G9 is "too big" for a pocket, it depends on what you're wearing I guess. Personally, I just keep mine in the semi-hard case offered by the manufacturer:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4633..._Hard_Case.html

Fits right on the belt and is ready when you are. I actually prefer the G9's rugged build to some of the lighter offerings, as the G9 feels like it can stand up to a lot of abuse. It doesn't have that cheap, plasticky feel of some of the smaller cameras, but instead it's just the opposite: the G9 feels like a brick you could also use as a weapon if you had to, LOL

Jack
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2008, 04:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

More limited in terms of facilities, but otherwise the Sigma DP1 has better image quality, particularly much lower noise.

Quentin
Logged

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

Posts: 88



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2008, 10:47:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
LUMIX LX2
Ive used this (and LX1) since they came out. Solid, dependable and small. The ricoh is delicate i've heard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here. I simply love this little camera, very small yet full featured and intuitive.  It has a 16:9 sensor (not a cropped one), and a zoom as wide as 28mm, which is rare in a compact camera.  It fits in my shirt pocket. Noise is a big issue above 200ISO, but then you have to make compromises somewhere.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad