Canon G9 - your thoughts

[bwana]

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

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]

Winning combo? I guess yesterdays newspaper also qualifies if you don't mind the old news

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]

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.

 

[Wino]

Feedback

...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]

Congrats - I'm truly envious!

 

[ldmelsa]

Yes the models mentioned in my post all do Raw.

raw raw raw... blah blah blah!
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

[/i'm only half serious - don't flame me ]

 

[bwana]

raw raw raw... blah blah blah!
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

[/i'm only half serious - don't flame me ]

which half is serious?

 

[ldmelsa]

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!

 

[bwana]

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!

Computer 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

For this



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]

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]

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 . . .

 

[koffiejunkie]

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 . . .

That's where you'll love the 40D

 

[bwana]

That's where you'll love the 40D

Going nowhere apart from full frame next. A 40D just doesnt offer me enough to warrant all that extra money.