Some test shots: Canon G9 and Pentax K20D [Archive]

View Full Version : Some test shots: Canon G9 and Pentax K20D

koffiejunkie

30-08-2008, 11:12 PM

I was out shopping for various accessories today, and while in my favourite camera shop, I took a chance to play with the G9 and K20D.

On the G9 I was specifically interested in high-ISO performance and sharpness. I'm not disappointed.

Canon G9, ISO 200, 44.4mm (max), f/4.8, 1/4s with IS. I had it rested on the service desk, and had the shutter on 2 second delay to minimise shake from me squeezing the trigger, but it may still have moved somewhat:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2812237032_c1768a88a1_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2812237032_e4bf024c88_o.jpg)

And a 100% crop:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2811390855_026f4af20d_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2811390855_0b239e842b_o.jpg)

Canon G9 (12MP), ISO 1600, 44.4mm, f/4.8, 1/125 with IS, hand-held.:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2811390497_e0725a97c9_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2811390497_79724fc3c9_o.jpg)

And a 100% crop:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2811389935_d16e5b3082_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2811389935_270f5ab61d_o.jpg)

With the Pentax I was just fooling around, I was more interested in how it feels and where various controls are, but this picture is notable anyway. I've praised the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens before, and this shot, I think, shows why:

Pentax K20D (14MP on a 1.5x crop), ISO800, 18mm, f/5.6, 1/30 with SR on, hand-held:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2812234980_0ed174fe79_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2812234980_4a4d150272_o.jpg)

And a 100% crop:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/2811388811_952a42fe3d_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/2811388811_c65e56eaba_o.jpg)

ldmelsa

31-08-2008, 11:47 AM

P&S lowlight - eish!

why don't they just keep the p&s at 6mp?
wouldn't they be able to do better lowlight with half the pixels?

koffiejunkie

31-08-2008, 02:32 PM

I should have tried setting it lower. It certainly helps on my 40D...

ldmelsa

31-08-2008, 03:35 PM

Pooky

31-08-2008, 03:41 PM

I meant the camera companies. Their P&S cams were grainy at hi ISO, back when they were 6MP. Now they're 12MP and grainy at hi ISO. Would today's tech not allow them to make a P&S with better lowlight if it had a 6MP sensor? Maybe not. I'm not an electronics PhD. I just hope they aren't sacrificing lowlight for MP. Who needs 12MP on a P&S? You need lowlight, though.

People buy megapixels these days. As soon as a sales representative tells someone they're getting a camera with 12 megapixels for relatively cheap, they'll have their credit cards out in no time.

koffiejunkie

31-08-2008, 03:41 PM

Who needs 12MP on a P&S? You need lowlight, though.

Mom&pop who thinks it will make their pictures look better. SIGH...

I know what you meant. I just meant that I should have tested it at lower rez toe see if it makes a difference. I've done this with my 40D, and although the shots were just informal snaps, it does seem to make a difference.

I'm wondering, why make an ISO range at all? Would it not make more sense to make a sensor that can do only one sensitivity - say 1600, but do it bloody good? I mean, making faster shutters and smaller apertures is far easier.

I guess that would hurt the DSLR market far more than the high rez P&S "bridge" cameras do.

koffiejunkie

31-08-2008, 03:44 PM

That said, however, this G9 looks pretty good. Noise is far lower than on any P&S I've ever seen. And it's loads sharper. The images I posted were converted from RAW with Aperture, but the JPEGs are fairly close - it outputs fairly high quality JPEGs.

bwana

31-08-2008, 03:50 PM

Mom&pop who thinks it will make their pictures look better. SIGH...

I know what you meant. I just meant that I should have tested it at lower rez toe see if it makes a difference. I've done this with my 40D, and although the shots were just informal snaps, it does seem to make a difference.

I'm wondering, why make an ISO range at all? Would it not make more sense to make a sensor that can do only one sensitivity - say 1600, but do it bloody good? I mean, making faster shutters and smaller apertures is far easier.

I guess that would hurt the DSLR market far more than the high rez P&S "bridge" cameras do.A digital camera has one native ISO - make it too high and you'd probably need either incredibly fast "shutters" or a pinhole size aperture even in normal light.

koffiejunkie

31-08-2008, 04:06 PM

A digital camera has one native ISO - make it too high and you'd probably need either incredibly fast "shutters" or a pinhole size aperture even in normal light.

I know that. But by making the sensors better at the higher ISO (whichever way they get there) must ultimately compromise the native ISO. I don't see fast shutters and really small apertures as being a problem, especially in Point&Shoots. The mechanics are much much smaller, and can be moved around much easier.

ldmelsa

31-08-2008, 04:18 PM

They can use neutral density filters in the camera. (video cams do this - the have settings like "ND1" "ND2" on the cam)

bwana

31-08-2008, 04:21 PM

I know that. But by making the sensors better at the higher ISO (whichever way they get there) must ultimately compromise the native ISO. I don't see fast shutters and really small apertures as being a problem, especially in Point&Shoots. The mechanics are much much smaller, and can be moved around much easier.I'd prefer not to have to sacrifice when it comes to DOF.

koffiejunkie

31-08-2008, 04:33 PM

I'd prefer not to have to sacrifice when it comes to DOF.

I was talking about point&shoots. They have huge DOF anyway. There are a number of reasons why this would be bad for SLRs. DOF and long shutter times comes to mind.