View Full Version : Canon G9 - your thoughts
Hi all
I am about to buy the Canon G9. Basically just for home and fun use.
I have been told it is a fantastic piece of machinery, and would like to hear any other views on this?
Thanks
bwana
18-04-2008, 12:13 PM
I want this camera.
Its yours...for only R5795-00
eish!
bwana
18-04-2008, 12:19 PM
Its yours...for only R5795-00
eish!I know (which is why I'm planning on getting one from B&H later on in the year) but if you love your photography and dont feel like lugging around a dSLR then worth it IMO.
I just knew that bwana would be the first to post on this camera ..... :)
He has been after it for ages ....!!!!
yo bwana, does B&H ship to SA. How long does it usually take (realistically).
bwana
18-04-2008, 01:29 PM
I just knew that bwana would be the first to post on this camera ..... :)
He has been after it for ages ....!!!!
yo bwana, does B&H ship to SA. How long does it usually take (realistically).I've never used their shipping but I've heard it's not bad. that camera with shipping, but not including SA tax is under r3700.
What is B&HB&H Photo - www.bhphotovideo.com
but if you love your photography and dont feel like lugging around a dSLR then worth it IMO.
Noise levels not comparable though.
Wynsam
18-04-2008, 02:18 PM
I went to DPreview to read up on this as the Mrs does like my SLRs.
I read up on he G9, then the G7. Then looked them up on wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_PowerShot_G)
Looks like the G6 was a damn good camera. So I Dpreviewed (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page19.asp) that model. Seems like the Sony dsc v3 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv3/page17.asp) was very liked in that review.
So I ebayed (http://photography.search.ebay.com/Sony-DSC-V3_Digital-Cameras_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfromZR40QQsacatZ29997QQsat itleZSonyQ20DSCQ2dV3) it.
Looks like some sweet deals there.
In the point and shoot market the big new features very year are to jam more megapixels onto the same tiny sensor. I am not convinced this is always good and I am sure I don't need it for a mik and druk. If i want the last word in resolution my DSLRs are still there.
So buying a year or two model old makes sense for me. Those prices look good and will fill that gap.
What do you guys think?
Edit: for the Sony haters here are G6s (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&dfsp=32&catref=C12&from=R40&satitle=canon+g6&sacat=29997%26catref%3DC6&a25563=-24&a14=-24&a25565=-24&a25564=-24&a10244=-24&alist=a25563%2Ca14%2Ca25565%2Ca25564%2Ca10244%2Ca3 801&pfmode=1&reqtype=1&gcs=1420&pfid=1721&pf_query=canon+g6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=32%26fsoo%3D2)
bwana
18-04-2008, 02:41 PM
Noise levels not comparable though.No - course not but its a Point-and-shoot that shoots in RAW - and noise ninja has become a close friend to me. :D
I was interested in the Sigma DP1 that someone was talking about until I noticed the optical viewfinder cost $150 extra and it was a 28mm fixed focal length lens. :eek:
I went to DPreview to read up on this as the Mrs does like my SLRs.
I read up on he G9, then the G7. Then looked them up on wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_PowerShot_G)
Looks like the G6 was a damn good camera. So I Dpreviewed (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page19.asp) that model. Seems like the Sony dsc v3 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv3/page17.asp) was very liked in that review.
So I ebayed (http://photography.search.ebay.com/Sony-DSC-V3_Digital-Cameras_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfromZR40QQsacatZ29997QQsat itleZSonyQ20DSCQ2dV3) it.
Looks like some sweet deals there.
In the point and shoot market the big new features very year are to jam more megapixels onto the same tiny sensor. I am not convinced this is always good and I am sure I don't need it for a mik and druk. If i want the last word in resolution my DSLRs are still there.
So buying a year or two model old makes sense for me. Those prices look good and will fill that gap.
What do you guys think?
Edit: for the Sony haters here are G6s (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&dfsp=32&catref=C12&from=R40&satitle=canon+g6&sacat=29997%26catref%3DC6&a25563=-24&a14=-24&a25565=-24&a25564=-24&a10244=-24&alist=a25563%2Ca14%2Ca25565%2Ca25564%2Ca10244%2Ca3 801&pfmode=1&reqtype=1&gcs=1420&pfid=1721&pf_query=canon+g6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=32%26fsoo%3D2)After all that I'm trying to figure out what camera you're focusing on? :confused: :)
Any thoughts on:
Canon Digital IXUS 970 IS
bwana
18-04-2008, 03:25 PM
Any thoughts on:
Canon Digital IXUS 970 ISStats look decent enough - http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08031302canonsd970IS.asp - too bad they havent reviewed it yet.
Wynsam
18-04-2008, 03:37 PM
Because of the prices of the latest models a model that is 1 or two generations older will be perfect IMHO. Not much lost out in terms of features for a huge drop in price.:)
bwana
18-04-2008, 03:39 PM
Because of the prices of the latest models a model that is 1 or two generations older will be perfect IMHO. Not much lost out in terms of features for a huge drop in price.:)You're lucky - for me the only reason I'd consider a higher end P&S is the G9's ability to shoot RAW.
ldmelsa
18-04-2008, 04:23 PM
Have you guys seen how grainy the G9 is at 400ASA. :( I guess it must be because of the small chip.
Because of the prices of the latest models a model that is 1 or two generations older will be perfect IMHO. Not much lost out in terms of features for a huge drop in price.:)
I agree with you. Plus, raw is not really necessary.
/bwana hands ldmelsa an anti-ninja suit. :)
Thanks :D
bwana
18-04-2008, 04:24 PM
I agree with you. Plus, raw is not really necessary.I only said it was a necessity for me . . ;)
I only said it was a necessity for me . . ;)
And many others. :)
If you know what RAW is and how it can save your bacon, you would not want to go without it. The absence of RAW files on the G6 and G7 created a huge uproar amongst serious Canonites.
With all the travel restriction one has lately, the G9 is a serious travel camera, despite the high noise at high ISOs and slowish shutter release. One however need to add a wide angle converter to your kit, as the wide side is just to narrow and possibly a tele converter too.
bwana
18-04-2008, 04:42 PM
And many others. :)
If you know what RAW is and how it can save your bacon, you would not want to go without it. The absence of RAW files on the G6 and G7 created a huge uproar amongst serious Canonites.
With all the travel restriction one has lately, the G9 is a serious travel camera, despite the high noise at high ISOs and slowish shutter release. One however need to add a wide angle converter to your kit, as the wide side is just to narrow and possibly a tele converter too.I think the G6 actually had RAW but they removed it from the G7.
Working against the G6 though is its age - 4 years?
ldmelsa
18-04-2008, 05:15 PM
If you know what RAW is and how it can save your bacon, you would not want to go without it.
Format VS format. :rolleyes: Just trying to save the guy some money, but if your camera has raw, then use it. It's a better format. If you really want to save money then go for the Canon Powershot A720 or something like that. You will get the same shots.
Now I've done it. :o
koffiejunkie
19-04-2008, 08:00 PM
With all the travel restriction one has lately, the G9 is a serious travel camera, despite the high noise at high ISOs and slowish shutter release.
1/2500? What kind of travel photography requires higher shutter speeds? The only time while travelling that I ever went past 1/1000 was when taking pictures of sunrise over the bright white clouds from 33,000ft. And that's only because of the 40Ds stupid bias for high ISO in Auto ISO mode. It keeps it between 400 and 800 ISO even though the manual says it will go down to 100 if conditions are bright enough. I think it will only ever do that once it's cranked up the shutter to 1/8000 and stopped down to f/22 and it's still overexposing. By contrast, the little Pentax K100D can be set to do auto ISO from 200 to 3200 ISO. <sigh>
Working against the G6 though is its age - 4 years?
7.1MP and RAW in a compact - sounds like a winning combo to me. It still takes good pictures doesn't it?
Have you guys seen how grainy the G9 is at 400ASA. :( I guess it must be because of the small chip.
From what I've seen it's much the same as most other point&shoots.
bwana
19-04-2008, 08:44 PM
7.1MP and RAW in a compact - sounds like a winning combo to me. It still takes good pictures doesn't it?Winning combo? I guess yesterdays newspaper also qualifies if you don't mind the old news :D
Apart from the higher MP count there's a few other things between the G6 and the G9 - longer lens, closer macro, IS (apparently that makes a difference to some), bigger LCD, more compact body . . . for less than $75 more according to Amazon pricing.
About the more noise . . does the camera do post processing (ie noise reduction) when you shoot RAW or is that left up to the photographer in post?
koffiejunkie
19-04-2008, 08:58 PM
Winning combo? I guess yesterdays newspaper also qualifies if you don't mind the old news :D
Apart from the higher MP count there's a few other things between the G6 and the G9 - longer lens, closer macro, IS (apparently that makes a difference to some), bigger LCD, more compact body . . . for less than $75 more according to Amazon pricing.
Someone mentioned buying off eBay, so the gap might be much more. If he gets a good price for it, then yeah. If the G9 is too expensive, then he has a choice between higher resolution or RAW support. Compromises...
About the more noise . . does the camera do post processing (ie noise reduction) when you shoot RAW or is that left up to the photographer in post?
I imagine so. I only saw the jpeg results which I think is a fair comparison to most other P&S cameras.
Wynsam
21-04-2008, 09:03 AM
Yes the models mentioned in my post all do Raw. If you are buying an older model then fleabay is the way to go. Find one in good nick, put it on your all risks policy and all is good!
Why spend nearly 5k when for 1 K you can have something that does 99% of the job.
Ps the G6 had a faster lens. Many thought the newer IS lens was a step back.( I am a big fan of IS though)
Remember that my thinking was based on my needs. I have two SLRs, two DSLRs, so what I need is a small compact. If I want the last word in quality for a particular shot/shoot, I wont reach for the compact. Sometimes though the thought of lugging around my camera backpack is a bit much and I want something smaller. I would rather spend less on the compact and save the extra cash for a nice lens for the D/SLRs.
...so far, I am pretty amazed at how potent the G9 is! Of course being a newbie to photography I have lots to learn, but I am quite happy that I paid the price for a new camera, and already I see such improvement in the quality of pictures I am taking now.
Pity it doesnt make coffee at the same time!
bwana
24-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Congrats - I'm truly envious!
ldmelsa
24-04-2008, 12:10 PM
Yes the models mentioned in my post all do Raw.
raw raw raw... blah blah blah! :D
with the post-processing in todays latest cameras from canon and nikon, raw is becoming a bit pointless
i saw a friend's nikon d300 - why would anybody use raw on one of the new cameras
waste of space - just put it on jpeg :o
[/i'm only half serious - don't flame me :p]
bwana
24-04-2008, 12:13 PM
raw raw raw... blah blah blah! :D
with the post-processing in todays latest cameras from canon and nikon, raw is becoming a bit pointless
i saw a friend's nikon d300 - why would anybody use raw on one of the new cameras
waste of space - just put it on jpeg :o
[/i'm only half serious - don't flame me :p]which half is serious?
ldmelsa
24-04-2008, 02:24 PM
which half is serious?
On old cameras, like mine, raw is a good thing. But on the new cameras, it's not necessary. You can get the same thing if not better from the camera's jpegs. The raw converters (the software on your computer) are no better than the camera's own DSP. These days, jpegs from the cameras amaze me. One that comes to mind is the Nikon D40x. jpeg FTW! :D
bwana
24-04-2008, 02:36 PM
On old cameras, like mine, raw is a good thing. But on the new cameras, it's not necessary. You can get the same thing if not better from the camera's jpegs. The raw converters (the software on your computer) are no better than the camera's own DSP. These days, jpegs from the cameras amaze me. One that comes to mind is the Nikon D40x. jpeg FTW! :DComputer vs Camera? That's not what shooting in RAW is about. Shooting in RAW is about you, the photographer, being in control and not some generic algorithm and not having to worry about a lossy format (iow JPG) until you're ready.
This is why I've never understood professional photographers who are happy to let some high street lab/clerk develop and print their photos.
ldmelsa
24-04-2008, 03:04 PM
Shooting in RAW is about you, the photographer, being in control
It use to be and still is for me (300D), but those new Nikons. Wow!
and not some generic algorithm
The new ones are amazing. I thought the same thing, but was put in my place when a friend showed me how good it can be. (D300)
worry about a lossy format (iow JPG)
Technically, but makes no real difference to photography. I know and know of professional photographers who shoot jpg. I can't complain about their work. There is no way I can tell it was shot on jpg.
bwana
24-04-2008, 10:11 PM
Technically, but makes no real difference to photography. I know and know of professional photographers who shoot jpg. I can't complain about their work. There is no way I can tell it was shot on jpg.It makes a difference if you want to work on the photo after you shoot. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to know I wont want to but for now I like having the option. :)
ldmelsa
25-04-2008, 12:42 AM
It makes a difference if you want to work on the photo after you shoot. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to know I wont want to but for now I like having the option. :)
I like shooting raw on my Canon 300D, because then I can set the WB afterwards. I can also use the highlight recovery tool in Camera Raw 4.0. That's like Nikon's highlight priority thing. It works very well.
Wynsam
25-04-2008, 08:41 AM
Raw -- When I am in serous mode I only shoot Raw.
When i started out I only shot RAW as it allows greater scope for error. Nowadays I shoot bit more Jpeg for the fa,iuly snap king of shot.
But If I want a keeper, a shot that I think I will want to print big, or a once off kind of shot --Wedding etc, then only RAW.
Raw will be around for quite a while.
bwana
25-04-2008, 09:11 AM
Memory is cheap these days.
The only time I've shot JPG since getting my camera is when I was trying to get a photo of lightning and needed the extra continuous shooting - the 400D only offers 10 RAW vs 30 JPG.
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 10:32 AM
How do you expose lightning? When I was in JHB I unfortunately didn't have my tripod with me - I wanted to do a long exposure. Shooting handheld (leaned against the door frame) I could not get anything half decent, not even at ISO3200
bwana
25-04-2008, 10:35 AM
How do you expose lightning? When I was in JHB I unfortunately didn't have my tripod with me - I wanted to do a long exposure. Shooting handheld (leaned against the door frame) I could not get anything half decent, not even at ISO3200For this
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2307962323_2b9e5eccb1_m.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bwanarsa/2307962323/meta/)
I went the other way completely. I knew I'd get too much blur handheld any slower so
Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture: f/1.8
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 10:38 AM
Hmm, I guess that shooting looking upwards kinda screwed me because the lightning lit up the clouds too much - the lightning beam was either under exposed or drowned in the light of the cloud.
Not much lightning here, sadly. When it does happen, it's one shot, and then it's over.
bwana
25-04-2008, 10:44 AM
Its the only shot of lightning I've ever managed to get with any degree of success. From taking photos of the moon all the time I wanted to try it as fast as possible and just took frame after frame after frame . . . :D
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 10:46 AM
Its the only shot of lightning I've ever managed to get with any degree of success. From taking photos of the moon all the time I wanted to try it as fast as possible and just took frame after frame after frame . . . :D
That's where you'll love the 40D :D
bwana
25-04-2008, 10:49 AM
That's where you'll love the 40D :DGoing nowhere apart from full frame next. A 40D just doesnt offer me enough to warrant all that extra money.
Wynsam
25-04-2008, 10:55 AM
Full frame for me too. Just need to able to afford it.
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 10:59 AM
To be serious, I've only tried continuous shooting once for kicks - I have no real use for it. It is quite stunning when I do bracketing and the 40D takes three shots in RAW and is ready for the next shot quicker than my Cybershot can handle one picture... :)
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 10:59 AM
Full frame for me too. Just need to able to afford it.
Anybody waiting in anticipation for the 5D successor? :)
bwana
25-04-2008, 11:02 AM
Anybody waiting in anticipation for the 5D successor? :)Yeah - but only cos it means the 5D will be cheaper. :)
I figure $1000 for the 40D vs $2000 for the 5D . . . I'll just have to save a little longer and hone my skills in the meantime.
To be serious, I've only tried continuous shooting once for kicks - I have no real use for it. It is quite stunning when I do bracketing and the 40D takes three shots in RAW and is ready for the next shot quicker than my Cybershot can handle one picture... :)Canon's bracketing is a bit lame compared to (iirc) Nikons. 3 frames? blah.
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 11:26 AM
Yeah - but only cos it means the 5D will be cheaper. :)
True. They're all getting cheaper though - I can now pick up the 40D body for about £100 less than in January :eek:
Canon's bracketing is a bit lame compared to (iirc) Nikons. 3 frames? blah.
It's a bit lame compare to just about everyone else. Even the lowly Pentax K100D Super does better.
ldmelsa
25-04-2008, 02:15 PM
How do you expose lightning? When I was in JHB I unfortunately didn't have my tripod with me - I wanted to do a long exposure. Shooting handheld (leaned against the door frame) I could not get anything half decent, not even at ISO3200
Hand held:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2104069210_9072550ac8.jpg
Here's how:
ISO100
f-stop: f22
Shutter speed: Bulb
koffiejunkie
25-04-2008, 02:24 PM
Here's how:
ISO100
f-stop: f22
Shutter speed: Bulb
That's more along the lines of what I was thinking.
bwana
25-04-2008, 02:48 PM
Hand held:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2104069210_9072550ac8.jpg
Here's how:
ISO100
f-stop: f22
Shutter speed: BulbHow long did bulb translate to?
ldmelsa
25-04-2008, 03:33 PM
How long did bulb translate to?
I don't know. I hold it for a couple of seconds at a time. Maybe 5sec.
bwana
25-04-2008, 03:42 PM
I don't know. I hold it for a couple of seconds at a time. Maybe 5sec.Maybe I'll try that next time.
ldmelsa
25-04-2008, 04:34 PM
Maybe I'll try that next time.
You will only get the big ones, though. :o