Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: G9 Died, What Now?  (Read 14893 times)
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« on: June 06, 2008, 04:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

My Canon G9, which I've had as a carry around camera for the last few months has died, so I'll need to replace it. I was never really satisfied with the image quality compared to my D200, but I did like the lightweight and the good enough images and the RAW files.

So, now I have to replace it. I'm really debating if I want to spend the $500 again or buy something else. What else is out there that I should be looking at?
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2008, 04:21:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My Canon G9, which I've had as a carry around camera for the last few months has died, so I'll need to replace it. I was never really satisfied with the image quality compared to my D200, but I did like the lightweight and the good enough images and the RAW files.

So, now I have to replace it. I'm really debating if I want to spend the $500 again or buy something else. What else is out there that I should be looking at?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is it still under warranty?  I can't remember the warranty on the G series but its only been out since last Sept. --should be one year so you should be good to have it replaced/repaired by Canon.

There doesn't seem to be anything any better at that size price.   I was interested in the DP1, but the only thing going for it now is the IQ---the rest seems to drive most people crazy.  I considered the Ricoh and Panny/Leica, but in the end, the G9 seemed the best overall package.

You might look at that Sony (think W300) that Michael just reviewed--no RAW, smaller, but he seemed to like the IQ well enough up to ISO400.

Diane
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2008, 04:24:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Fujifilm f100fd?
Logged
sgietler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2008, 11:40:17 PM »
ReplyReply

for $620 you can get a mint condition D80, its lighter than the D200! and they share the same battery

scott
Logged

mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2008, 10:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=25482
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2008, 07:34:46 PM »
ReplyReply

D80 is still too big. I'm going to call Canon about warranty.

I have mixed feelings about the Sony. #1 I'd have to buy new memory cards, which I don't really want to have to do. Plus, it has mixed reviews. The G9 seemed mostly positive, but the Sony seems to run 50/50.

LX2 is interesting, but I think I'd really want to use it to see how camera-y it is. The lens cap seems to be a deal breaker. Thoughts? It has a built in flash right? mrleonard, you have a LX2 right? Could you send me a RAW file of an outdoor shot? Also, how big exactly is the lens? The G9 won't fit into a Aquapac 420 case. Will the LX2? http://www.aquapac.net/usstore/erol.html The controls look the same as typical annoying p&s, is this the case?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 07:23:19 PM by BryanHansel » Logged

mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2008, 09:46:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
D80 is still too big. I'm going to call Canon about warranty, but I don't think they'll cover it.

I have mixed feelings about the Sony. #1 I'd have to buy new memory cards, which I don't really want to have to do. Plus, it has mixed reviews. The G9 seemed mostly positive, but the Sony seems to run 50/50.

LX2 is interesting, but I think I'd really want to use it to see how camera-y it is. The lens cap seems to be a deal breaker. Thoughts? It has a built in flash right? mrleonard, you have a LX2 right? Could you send me a RAW file of an outdoor shot? Also, how big exactly is the lens? The G9 won't fit into a Aquapac 420 case. Will the LX2? http://www.aquapac.net/usstore/erol.html The controls look the same as typical annoying p&s, is this the case?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually prefer the lenscap...one  less part to break. And Ive had the retractable types break twice on me.It DOESNT let you take a pic with the cap  on  btw.Yes...pop up flash. I think it would fit in the case.
The controls are great actually..clean layout and simple to use. With the 28 wide..I often shoot with ...hmmm...framing 'lines' in the view (not sure what they are called). Helps to keep straight..and as a bonus gives you the intersect 'sweet spots' for composition.

I'm surprised MR didn't mention it in his recent review..as he seemed to really like his LX1.
will send you a raw
Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2008, 10:19:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
will send you a raw
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The file is  too big for me to attach. It's 19.5 megs...
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2008, 04:47:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The file is  too big for me to attach. It's 19.5 megs...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Youch. Are they typically this big? I read up on the camera a bit. How do you like the joystick control? It's used to adjust aperture and shutter speed, right?

It's really tempting to go this way, as I never really liked the size of the G9. Just a touch too big.

Also, I thought that MR reviewed the LX2 at some point and didn't like it as much as the LX1 for some reason. Don't remember why. He did. It's here: [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-quick06.shtml[/url]
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 05:17:02 PM by BryanHansel » Logged

Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2008, 06:46:28 PM »
ReplyReply

My G9 died too, about 4 months after I bought it and with very light use. The motor that extends the lens and then retracts it would not work. Canon repaired the camera at no charge.  I assumed that I had a bad copy but now I am wondering if others have had problems with their G9's?








Quote
My Canon G9, which I've had as a carry around camera for the last few months has died, so I'll need to replace it. I was never really satisfied with the image quality compared to my D200, but I did like the lightweight and the good enough images and the RAW files.

So, now I have to replace it. I'm really debating if I want to spend the $500 again or buy something else. What else is out there that I should be looking at?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Mark
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2008, 10:36:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My G9 died too, about 4 months after I bought it and with very light use. The motor that extends the lens and then retracts it would not work. Canon repaired the camera at no charge.  I assumed that I had a bad copy but now I am wondering if others have had problems with their G9's?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200496\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I was saying...about it being the first part to break. I had it twice with cameras. Three times actually...happened to  my Leica Minilux years ago.
 The controls on it are great. The joystick can control aperture,shutter,AND focus.I am sure you've read my summations,albeit brief, about my hands on experience with the G9,LX2,and GX100...and that overall..for the reasons I mentioned..I prefer  the LX2.
 The biggest downside of the LX2 MR was talking about..is when you shoot JPEG. The "venusII" noise removal is crap. I shoot RAW...so it's of absolutely no concern. With cards being so cheap,I dont see the need...unless I would (and have very occasionally) need the faster buffer of shooting JPEG.
 It seems odd at first..as no other P&S cams have a lens cap....but you get used to it quickly. It probably saves on battery a bit too.
Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2008, 10:36:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My G9 died too, about 4 months after I bought it and with very light use. The motor that extends the lens and then retracts it would not work. Canon repaired the camera at no charge.  I assumed that I had a bad copy but now I am wondering if others have had problems with their G9's?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200496\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I was saying...about it being the first part to break. I had it twice with cameras. Three times actually...happened to  my Leica Minilux years ago.
 The controls on it are great. The joystick can control aperture,shutter,AND focus.I am sure you've read my summations,albeit brief, about my hands on experience with the G9,LX2,and GX100...and that overall..for the reasons I mentioned..I prefer  the LX2.
 The biggest downside of the LX2 MR was talking about..is when you shoot JPEG. The "venusII" noise removal is crap. I shoot RAW...so it's of absolutely no concern. With cards being so cheap,I dont see the need...unless I would (and have very occasionally) need the faster buffer of shooting JPEG.
 It seems odd at first..as no other P&S cams have a lens cap....but you get used to it quickly. It probably saves on battery a bit too.
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2008, 04:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, so, basically, when I see the noise reduction problems on ISO200 pictures, it's because they were shot in jpeg. The noise reduction engine isn't going to do anything to the RAW files.

Because the G9s images above 200 are total crap, I never shot it that high anyway, so I can live with ISO200.
Logged

mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2008, 10:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay, so, basically, when I see the noise reduction problems on ISO200 pictures, it's because they were shot in jpeg. The noise reduction engine isn't going to do anything to the RAW files.

Because the G9s images above 200 are total crap, I never shot it that high anyway, so I can live with ISO200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly!
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2008, 07:47:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Because the G9s images above 200 are total crap ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We had a good discussion thread going here about noise reduction for G9 raw files,
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20662]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20662[/url]

I've since changed to Noiseware and find it best for my purposes and skills.  

"Crap"?  I suppose that "crap" and "taste" shouldn't be used in the same sentence so I'll just say that description seems a bit harsh.  It seems to me that a G9 ISO400 raw image can produce a decent 8x10print when properly exposed and processed.  To my taste, anyway.
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2008, 12:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We had a good discussion thread going here about noise reduction for G9 raw files,
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20662

I've since changed to Noiseware and find it best for my purposes and skills. 

"Crap"?  I suppose that "crap" and "taste" shouldn't be used in the same sentence so I'll just say that description seems a bit harsh.  It seems to me that a G9 ISO400 raw image can produce a decent 8x10print when properly exposed and processed.  To my taste, anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree.  I like Noiseware best now also.  Here's an ISO400 with just a minor touch of Noiseware--this is fine for a print for me (about 8x10).
 

I'm a 5D shooter so I'm 'peculiar' about noise (and really have no occasion to use it with the 5D images)  but the G9's is okay in the right circumstances and with a well exposed and processed file, as said above.

Diane
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2008, 02:17:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Before, we derail the discussion, let me clarify what I mean by 'crap': in my experience, in my opinion, for the usage of my G9, in the ISOs I shoot, for the quality I want, for the print size I'd like, for my taste, I've found that above ISO200, on my G9, in my opinion, is crap (remember, crap is a subjective opinion and not a statement of objective truth) and it doesn't suit my taste. Your experience may differ. If this discussion interests you further, let take it to a new thread. If you do, please, link to the new thread here, and let's move on.  

BTW, thanks for the link to the noise discussion.

Now can we get back to the regularly scheduled discussion about what other cameras I should be looking at?

EDIT: My G9 went back to Canon today, so I guess I'll see if they do anything.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 02:18:53 PM by BryanHansel » Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2008, 03:52:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Before, we derail the discussion, let me clarify what I mean by 'crap': in my experience, in my opinion, for the usage of my G9, in the ISOs I shoot, for the quality I want, for the print size I'd like, for my taste, I've found that above ISO200, on my G9, in my opinion, is crap (remember, crap is a subjective opinion and not a statement of objective truth) and it doesn't suit my taste. Your experience may differ. If this discussion interests you further, let take it to a new thread. If you do, please, link to the new thread here, and let's move on.  

BTW, thanks for the link to the noise discussion.

Now can we get back to the regularly scheduled discussion about what other cameras I should be looking at?

EDIT: My G9 went back to Canon today, so I guess I'll see if they do anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if you are still considering a small cam--there aren't a lot out there that can fill the bill for you.  None of them are really decent over ISO200 for all intents and purposes.  If you want something smaller than the G9--that cuts it even more.  If you want controls similar to a DSLR--even more.  The G9, Ricoh, Panny/Leica and the very quirky Sigma DP1 are about it AFAIK.  However, if you are willing to consider a small DSLR and maybe midrange zoom, then there are a number of choices.  It really comes down to where you will make your compromises.  

I would hope that, unless you have dropped your G1 or actually damaged it, even inadvertently (as, say knocking the zoom lens just a bit when its out), and the camera is just faulty (I can't remember what you said was the problem) that Canon will repair or replace at no charge.  They have done it for many others and that's what the 1 yr. warranty is meant for--to replace a faulty camera that fails due to no damaging instance within the first year.

So--what are your most important criteria--(you know the drill)?  That's where I would start.  Size, IQ, available light (that's one of mine and why I shoot primarily with my 5D), wider dynamic range and good tonality, features, etc.  I'd make a list of wants/needs and then find the cameras that will fit into those criteria.  I can't think of any other way.  

If you find something that seems to suit--then I'd ask questions about it.  I've been following the Sigma DP! since it came out--but have convinced myself from 'real person reviews' that its not for me--yet.  I weighed the pluses and minuses of the G9, Panny, Ricoh and that's how I decided on the G9--but still find a small sensor camera is still not a heavily used camera for me.

Diane
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 03:56:48 PM by picnic » Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2008, 07:54:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Diane, that's exactly what we've been doing in this thread. If you've been following along, I've been asking about the LX2 and mrleonard has been giving me feedback.

I've narrowed it down to three:

G9
LX2
W300 - only because of MR's review and I respect his opinion immensely.

I'd like a camera slightly smaller than the G9. I don't need and don't expect an ISO above 200 in a compact, but I want ISO200, a concern with the LX2. I want a camera that is as responsive as the G9 or better. I want RAW. I'm not interested in a compact DSLR, because it is too big for my purposes. If I wanted to use a compact DSLR, I just carry one of the few that I already own.

The camera I want is a carry around camera for me to use when I'm guiding kayaking trips, xc skiing, hiking, etc... which is one of the jobs I do, and then be able to use those images for prints to 11x17, but I'd rather 16x24, which, probably isn't going to happen in a compact.

I'd also like a lightweight camera for backcountry ultralight backpacking, and nessmuking. And to bring on a trip to Norway in July. I'm on the border on what to bring on that trip.

Anyway, thanks again. And we'll see what canon does. If they do replace it, I may still buy a 2nd compact to accomplish so
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2008, 09:16:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diane, that's exactly what we've been doing in this thread. If you've been following along, I've been asking about the LX2 and mrleonard has been giving me feedback.

I've narrowed it down to three:

G9
LX2
W300 - only because of MR's review and I respect his opinion immensely.

I'd like a camera slightly smaller than the G9. I don't need and don't expect an ISO above 200 in a compact, but I want ISO200, a concern with the LX2. I want a camera that is as responsive as the G9 or better. I want RAW. I'm not interested in a compact DSLR, because it is too big for my purposes. If I wanted to use a compact DSLR, I just carry one of the few that I already own.

The camera I want is a carry around camera for me to use when I'm guiding kayaking trips, xc skiing, hiking, etc... which is one of the jobs I do, and then be able to use those images for prints to 11x17, but I'd rather 16x24, which, probably isn't going to happen in a compact.

I'd also like a lightweight camera for backcountry ultralight backpacking, and nessmuking. And to bring on a trip to Norway in July. I'm on the border on what to bring on that trip.

Anyway, thanks again. And we'll see what canon does. If they do replace it, I may still buy a 2nd compact to accomplish so
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, that's basically what I said---its pretty much all been said about the possible contenders.  Its just up to you to figure out what compromises you're willing to make--because each has its pros--and cons.--and the W30 doesn't have RAW.  There doesn't appear to be a 'best of' though the G9 seems to be close except some would prefer a bit smaller size (me not being one of them).  From reviews, the G9 seems to be the closest to being reasonably responsive as opposed to the others you're looking at since you've mentioned that. On other forums folks have mentioned that they put it in MF and that gives them just a bit less lag--haven't tried it so don't know.  

Hope Canon either repairs or replaces.  That's what I would expect if mine failed--and they've certainly done it for others. The G9 has turned out to be a pretty reliable small cam from all the forum discussions.  

I will  note that Jim Radcliffe on dpreview and other forums has solved his problems by carrying the Leica (DLux 3/Panny based), the G9 and the Sigma DP1 in a small case.  He's also a 5D shooter but says between the 3 (with a quite sizeable difference in weight/size by carrying comparable gear for DSLR) he's able to shoot most everything he wishes.

Diane
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 09:37:03 AM by picnic » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad