Canon G9 announced

[Paul Bestwick]

link here
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=15669

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

link here
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=15669

Raw is back!

But the sensel pitch is still 1.9 micron, which means anything narrower than say f/2.8 aperture will be diffraction limited. The DIGIC III will help to keep the noise down a bit, but I can't find if it does 14-bit ADC processing.

Bart

[John_Nevill]

These Canon announcements are coming in thick and fast, this G9 could well replace my wife's P&S for xmas, looks good!

[Nill Toulme]

RAW is good, glad they got that one right. But why oh why do they not put a 28mm wide end on a "serious" camera like this?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Diane Fields]

RAW is good, glad they got that one right. But why oh why do they not put a 28mm wide end on a "serious" camera like this?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Yes, I thought when I first saw this announcement that I might have found a smaller cam to carry that would shoot RAW, etc. I haven't shot with the G series since my G1, but its capabilities back then were wonderful in comparison with anything else that was available for the 'normal' person. It lead me to the Oly E10, D30, 60, etc., up to the 5D--and I was hoping, esp. after seeing what Ken Tanaka was doing with his G7, that this might be a small camera that I could enjoy using. I can't imagine I'll be happy with 35mm. I know that this cam allows conversion lenses (had them for the G1 WAY back then LOL), but if I would need those--I'd rather carry my 5D and a 28-75 (or add an xTI for what I imagine is the same price).

I also reserve any judgement on noise until I see some shots at more than ISO80. Ah, well--probably don't need a new small camera anyhow, but this one might have been tempting.

Diane

[Clayton Lofgren]

Am surprised to see a $500 price tag- should just fit under my x-mas tree.

[Diane Fields]

Am surprised to see a $500 price tag- should just fit under my x-mas tree.

Really??--I hadn't even looked at the price yet. That should tempt a lot of people--maybe even me in the end LOL. Its all going to come down to IQ--and noise level. There is a suggestion from some that there will be some NR done to the RAWs--we'll see. I haven't looked at the samples out there--but read a thread where a number had and they said all the pics were at ISO 80. Doesn't tell me much.

Diane

[Kathy Rappaport]

I bought an S80 a couple years ago and hardly used it. I missed some of the features that my old G2 had....this might foot the bill for a replacement. I will too be watching. I was thinking that I'd go with a new 40d for travel over taking my 5D but I could end up with this instead. I thought we wouldn't see RAW again in the digicams!

[Nill Toulme]

I'm more interested in the new SD870IS (US model numbering, IXUS 860IS in EU) — an update to the 28mm-wide-end SD800IS. I'll be looking forward to the early reviews of that one. I've been holding off on the SD800IS because of its apparently less than topnotch build quality and notably soft on the edges lens. My "pocket cam" is still my well-worn old S500.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Asher Kelman]

I'm more interested in the new SD870IS (US model numbering, IXUS 860IS in EU) — an update to the 28mm-wide-end SD800IS. I'll be looking forward to the early reviews of that one. I've been holding off on the SD800IS because of its apparently less than topnotch build quality and notably soft on the edges lens. My "pocket cam" is still my well-worn old S500.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi Nill,

We have an SD 800 IS. This 7.1MP camera is wonderful. I bought it for my wife and she has used it on a trip to Europe and for lots of art events. This is a perfect purse or pocket camera. It needs little case as there are those shutter doors that close over the lens. I believe that has been the weakmess on those camera as dirt probably can get in there and jam the doors. However, with nortmal care, I see no issues. 28mm wide end is just right. The camera is so inexpensive and yet so capable that I am not worried if it might break, although I don't see how anyone could say it is of poor construction. Looks like a pretty solid chink of stainless steel to me with soft rounded edges.

As to softness at the edges, I have never noticed that and I guess I should.

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

If they wanted to make it for pros then why bother squeezing more megapixels into an already far too noisy sensor? Pro's know not to expect quality from p&s's with lots of megapixels so why not take the Fuji approach of 6 or 8 megapixels but far better quality pixels? Why make it only 35mm at the wide end, Panosonic and Ricoh have shown that it's possible to make a quality WA?

If it ain't for pro's, well, to be serious, why bother putting on pro features in the first place?

[Asher Kelman]

Ben,

One can always bin the pixels and go down to 6MP with likely less noise than the 6MP camera.

Has anyone used this camera? I used to be a fan of the earlier G series where the lens was f 2.0 and the files were excellent. To have a camera capable of RAW output and with the capability of controlling any number of Canon speedlights, means that this can be a compact and quiet back-up to thrown in ones bag and even great for extra images at a reception.

Has anyone used one and does it meet any of our expectations?

Asher

[Uwe Steinmueller]

I think it is a great camera if it only had a good viewfinder. This is more related to the size and formfactor than this special model. I cannot shoot using the LCD. The image quality is amazing for the size and price. Of course there is no magic and it won't match a Canon 1D Mark III in high ISO noise :-).

Uwe

[Diane Fields]

Ben,

One can always bin the pixels and go down to 6MP with likely less noise than the 6MP camera.

Has anyone used this camera? I used to be a fan of the earlier G series where the lens was f 2.0 and the files were excellent. To have a camera capable of RAW output and with the capability of controlling any number of Canon speedlights, means that this can be a compact and quiet back-up to thrown in ones bag and even great for extra images at a reception.

Has anyone used one and does it meet any of our expectations?

Asher

I've had one for several weeks. I anticipated using it for the times when I never carry my 5D--or just to have a reasonably capable camera with me most of the time. As it turns out, I suspect I will use it more for black and whites and IR--only because I've found it pretty capable for those. However, the color is excellent--I'm shooting in RAW however, but I would bet most shoot in jpeg.

Its noisy above ISO200 (most say that its about the same as the G7 or perhaps somewhat better--I don't have a point of reference for that)--but that's no surprise. I'm shooting in RAW--ACR 4.2 supports this 'unofficially' which means that WB is wonky but easily corrected with a Whibal or temp/tone sliders. Otherwise everything else in ACR4.2 and LR 1.2 works as expected and I'm sure that it will be calibrated/profile by Adobe for the next upgrade and WB will be normal. After RAW conversion, I've found that a one click of Noiseware Pro at 'weak noise' makes ISO400 pretty good, ISO800 can be made acceptable for a small print I think--I haven't printed one yet.

I agree with Uwe about the OVF--I also anticipated using it most of the time-I haven't had a small sensor cam since the original G1, so I wasn't sure what the VF would be like except small. It has significant parallax problems, but I've found that I can use it in concert with the LCD by pulling it slightly away from my face to be sure of where I'm focused. The LCD--to my surprise---is quite good and I can use it in sunlight without any problem most of the time.

The controls are terrific for a small cam--I considered the Panny/Leica and the Ricoh wider angle but decided this would be a better all round small cam and I think I'm right for me. Everything is pretty intuitive to a Canon shooter---and the dials/buttons are all quite good to use---there's no possible hitting one by accident and changing it (the dials). I miss the wider lens (I'm a wide angle shooter primarily anyhow), but I can handhold this for a 2 or 3 stitch pano without much problem for static subjects.

The camera itself has a nice heft to it and feels very substantial. All in all, after futzing around for several years about buying a small cam, glad I chose this one. I bought my husband an F30 last year but I truly don't like shooting with it--and though good for his purposes, I don't like the NR at the higher ISOs--and that's its claim to fame.

I suppose I could say its lived up to my expectations. The 12mp didn't turn out to be a problem, though I suspect they could have handled noise better at 8MP. Who knows. I took it to a small shoot last week--shot with a 5D--nothing challenging, but fabrics for a Powerpoint presentation for an upholstered furniture mfg. I had time and no one looking over my shoulder after I styled and shot, so I did at least one shot on tripod (I found one of my smaller AS plates that worked on it--and actually ordered an L bracket from Kirk today LOL) that I could compare to the 5D shots. I suspect my client wouldn't have been able to tell the difference--esp. for the PP. The DR was what I noticed--and the smoother transitions of the 5D, but I have to admit I was surprised at how well it did for that--at 100% you get a 'crunchy' look and I'm sure that's the large number of small pixels crowded on a small sensor. There are many types of shots where it wouldn't compare nearly as favorably I'm sure but for what I want it for--its quite nice and a lot of fun to shoot with.

Diane

[Asher Kelman]

Diane,

Thanks for the mini review! Maybe you might print some favorite shots and tell us how they come out and to what ISO you could have an 8x10?

I haven't used Noiseware Pro. Any special reason for the choice over say noise ninja?

Asher

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The DR was what I noticed--and the smoother transitions of the 5D, but I have to admit I was surprised at how well it did for that--at 100% you get a 'crunchy' look and I'm sure that's the large number of small pixels crowded on a small sensor. There are many types of shots where it wouldn't compare nearly as favorably I'm sure but for what I want it for--its quite nice and a lot of fun to shoot with.

Sounds like a nice enough camera to consider having as a compact walk-around (the improved LCD is welcome). I've used my G3 at ISO 50 for such use for some time. Just be aware of the diffraction limitations when you intend to print 'large'. My G3 visibly deteriorates beyond f/5.6, I expect your G9 image quality to deteriorate at narrower apertures than f/2.8 (f/4 may still be somewhat usable) unless you can downsample for small output or adopt more relaxed quality requirements.

Bart

[Diane Fields]

Diane,

Thanks for the mini review! Maybe you might print some favorite shots and tell us how they come out and to what ISO you could have an 8x10?

I haven't used Noiseware Pro. Any special reason for the choice over say noise ninja?

Asher


Asher, I haven't used a NR plugin for a long time--I have the free Neat Image for prior use with other DSLRs, but with the 5D I haven't used it for a good while. When it was apparent if I ever wanted to use higher ISO shots from the G9 I would need one--I just dled demos from Noise Ninja, NW Pro, etc.---and found that I got the best results from NW Pro. I still haven't bought it though LOL--guess I will. I found the NR in ACR/LR just didn't cut the mustard for the G9 noise--now, perhaps it could do better when they 'officially' support it, but I'm guessing not too much. Since most every plugin and app these days has a demo--I just try before I buy.

Bart, I'm guessing I will never print larger than 8 x 10 if that from this camera. Based on MP you could, but I'm just surmising here that I won't like it after the 5D LOL--for some of the reasons that you stated--and others. But--for what I wanted it for--and as a camera one can use on the street, travel, IR--its good. I did just buy the adaptor-which takes it out of the 'pocketable' form (as a woman, it fit in a smallish handbag without a problem--or in some of my pants or jacket pockets) but makes it even nicer to use handheld with 2 hands--which is the way I shoot and because of the huge LCD--it was harder--give something, take something away LOL (big LCD--harder to find a place for the left hand). Its also a much more attractive adaptor than the old one I had for my original G1. Looks part of the cam. I won't add any converters--I only care about wider--so I will stitch if needed (likely if I want to shoot wide I will use my 12-24, 15-30, 20 or 3 x 3 my 45 TS on the 5D). I owned a Hoya R72 and stepdown rings so wanted to use it for IR--its not a way of shooting I care to do with the 5D--the results aren't worth the process--and I decided against having my 10D converted to full time IR. Because it has a bayonet connection for the adaptor, I can just take it off and carry it separate--just oz.--and still have the 'brick' form if I choose.


Diane

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for the extra information.

So Diane, can you, (on this special occaision, and anyone else,) post a few pictures showing of some snapshots in color B&W and IR! Just for fun and to make this thread not only intesting but also beautiful!

Asher

[Diane Fields]

Thanks for the extra information.

So Diane, can you, (on this special occaision, and anyone else,) post a few pictures showing of some snapshots in color B&W and IR! Just for fun and to make this thread not only intesting but also beautiful!

Asher

I forgot about the limit of 4 images, so I will exclude most of the images but leave the links and text. The comparison between the 5D and G9 with the 100% crops at the end might be the most informative.

Asher, I don't have many to choose from since I haven't used it much 'in anger' as they say LOL. I had 2 early experiences in very poor shooting environments---one was an outdoor sculpture exhibit with sun overhead and deep shade from huge trees in a park--and about my first day shooting with it
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85264875
The next shooting time was just the pits but while I was also working this event (an environmenal group/board that puts on an educational day concerning our river/basin and other environmental issues -with lots of exhibitors, this time including our state policy makers who had scored a victory in our state houses concerning water transfers, and--probably the highlight--lots of action on the river). I had things to do so just carried the G9--and then was asked if I would 'document' it for our web page, future newspaper articles, etc. LOL. Terrible shooting conditions--strong overhead sun, on the water with glare, extreme saturated colors, etc. It did 'okay' but not great
my favorite from the day--father and son (or mother/daughter) time trials
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85900877.jpg
and a couple of others.
I was able to capture faster kayekers using Tv at 1/200s
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85900871 and another, but a crop of larger pic--I was well zoomed out standing on shore--dark faces, saturated colors, glaring sun---oh my LOL
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85900934
and one taken in our library to see how well I could do with available light and RAW to pull up the shadows--how far I could go.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86459140.jpg
and one of the IR test shots I did yesterday at our pool. Not a great day for IR--cloud cover, we are in severe drought so greenery isn't registering as well on IR---and breezy (you can see that in the grasses--2 second shot).
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86636647.jpg

Consider all these shots 'experimental' or 'pushed into a corner' LOL, but the Riverfest shots are probably where I would carry this so I can't whine too much. Also, all but the library and IR shot were done before the ACR 4.2 upgrade so I had to use the very primitive Canon Zoombrowser/RIT for conversion to tiff, then took into ACR as a tiff and worked with them there. Since then the ACR/LR upgrade includes the G9 'unofficially supported'---so the WB is incorrect, but what a difference in being able to work with RAW.

I'm considering taking the G9 on a trip further south in Nov for street shooting and IR--think it will work fine there.

Don't know about making the thread 'beautiful' but it will illustrate using the cam in bad conditions where it still did okay. Perhaps for an illustration of where I struggled--a tele shot of one our lawmakers--they were standing under a roofed shelter, I was standing a good distance away so had to zoom completely out---and had trouble getting a focus on their faces at that distance. No contrasty area, using the OVF--sort of--since the sunlight was so strong where I was standing--and this is a crop, but not too much as I remember.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85980913
Nothing to do with the photo, but he was maybe the youngest state representative in Washington when he was elected--ultra conservative. The grey hair was there in his teens BTW. I feel I could have gotten better shots--I was not particularly familiar with the camera and struggled with it at this point and put it in P--with slower shutter speeds, stopped down more than necessary--and if I had shot in M I could have controlled things better. This is an example of low shutter speed--hands waving--and probably head waggling a bit on all just enough to make them softer
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85980910.jpg

So--if/when I get better representative shots from the cam--I'll post. Ah, just remembered--I do have too nicer shots taken the day I got the camera and a couple days after.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85437420
and
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/85583392
Hope this helps a bit in determining what the camera can do under various conditions--I've yet to print something though.

I just decided that crops from that fabric presentation I did with the 5D (and tried one shot each with the G9 for my own knowledge) might be interesting/informative. I did 100% crops of each, both shot in RAW, processed in ACR 4.2 (using Whibal to correct WB--but G9 lighted slightly differently from 5D), curves adjustment layer, capture sharpening (and some healing in ACR for minor picks or threads I couldn't see when shooting, etc.).
G9
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86682718.jpg
and the 5D you will have to use the link.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86682717

So there you are Asher--the sort of good, the bad and the ugly of the G9 in an early 'getting used to' arc. I have to say again that adding the Lensmate adaptor, while taking it out of pocketable, has made it a really nice handholdable small cam.


Diane

[Diane Fields]

I realized, after viewing here and on Pbase, that for a better comparison of the fabric pics, use the links for both

The G9
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86682718

The 5D
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/86682717

There appears to be a bit more compression or something after embedding them. I couldn't get the edit to save.

Diane

[Asher Kelman]

This is so helpful Diane!

I love the practical tests of the fabrics. BTW, you can use as many posts to cover your pictures! Just 4/post!!

The focus issue at distance is that a reproducable issue or just that one occaison? I'm wondering whether or not focus magic or something like that could deconvolve the poor focus?

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Diane,

What was the aperture and shooting specs on the IR shot and how do you deal with the altered focal plane? Further, how does the G9 compare with previous cameras you have used for IR. Justt looking at this one picture, it sure sure seems well-exposed and in focus.

For the fabric, the G9 performs at some 65-75% of the quality of the 5D and that is superb!

Asher

[Diane Fields]

Diane,

What was the aperture and shooting specs on the IR shot and how do you deal with the altered focal plane? Further, how does the G9 compare with previous cameras you have used for IR. Justt looking at this one picture, it sure sure seems well-exposed and in focus.

For the fabric, the G9 performs at some 65-75% of the quality of the 5D and that is superb!

Asher

The IR shot was 2s f/2.8 at ISO200. You don't really deal with the focal plane with these cams. I'm guessing because the DOF is so great with these sensors that that handles it more or less.

I shot 2 shots---one with the 5D and my 28 f/1.8 and the Hoya R72 on tripod and one with the G9 (not these shots)-- I've shot IR with several of my lenses that don't exhibit hot spots--on several bodies (often have to use my Cokin/Wratten 89B gel--and it doesn't work well with the 5D--need the next size Coken and gel). Its very fussy (though I like process and enjoy shooting with a TS to compare fussy processes), often difficult to get right focus even if there is an IR marking on the lens. IR with a digicam is easier LOL--you can actually sort of see the image on the LCD--plus the onscreen histo seems to be reasonably correct. With the DSLR, as you know--you have to prefocus, add the filter, shoot--try again and again for good exposure. All of mine except maybe the D30 required quite long shutter times due to the AA filter (I won't swear that's correct reason, but as I remember it).

I would say about that percentage also--and think its quite good for the fabric shots. I didn't expect nearly that good. I may have to print these--just for comparisons. I wonder how much difference I would see in an 8 x 10 print.

Diane

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Diane for the added insights on IR! I guess Canon's live view IR/UC forensive camera or buying a 40D with the IR filter removed swould be the way to go with a DSLR!

Anyway, back to the G9. I was so fascinated by your report that I decided to visit Samy's and look at oen. It's a well made brick! The screen is genrerous, like a small TV set!

I discovered the familiar * button at the back of the camera! I asked the salesman if it could be programmed for focus. He said you need a DSLR for that! Of course I assigned focus to the * and it works just like the 5D and 1DII! So for a Canon DSLR user the G9 is a no brainer. It uses the Canon speedlights so there's no new flash to buy and it looks like a any old aunt Maggie's point and shoot so that's perfect.

Asher

[Clayton Lofgren]

B+H now have the G9 in stock- ordered mine last night. My f30 has taken a bit of a beating about the LCD, so have been shooting semi blind waiting on the Canon. For the informal portraits that I do I expect the camera to be a step up for extra DR using raw, and the longer lens is just what the doctor ordered for me.
Did not want to hurt the feelings of the old KM5D, so have a 100mm macro in the same order.

[Diane Fields]

Asher, tell me how you registered the * for AF please. I found how you can use the shortcut button to use for the AFL, but not for the * button. I could only find to use it for AEL or Auto Flash Lock. On page 123 I found the infomation about registering the shortcut button for AFL. That works quite well--but not the same as what you are saying (which is the way I shoot except when using multiple lights).

All I can find for the * button is AEL or FL for flash exposure lock---pg. 128-130. I really dislike the new small Canon manuals--the old bigger ones used to have green blocks that had tips in them--that also sort of 'hyperlinked' parts of the manual together LOL.

Diane

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, tell me how you registered the * for AF please. I found how you can use the shortcut button to use for the AFL, but not for the * button. I could only find to use it for AEL or Auto Flash Lock. On page 123 I found the infomation about registering the shortcut button for AFL. That works quite well--but not the same as what you are saying (which is the way I shoot except when using multiple lights).

All I can find for the * button is AEL or FL for flash exposure lock---pg. 128-130. I really dislike the new small Canon manuals--the old bigger ones used to have green blocks that had tips in them--that also sort of 'hyperlinked' parts of the manual together LOL.

Diane

The last thing I do, Diane is RTBM (ready the bloody/blessed) manual! I merely assumed it would be there and used the menu on the LCD!

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i just bought the g9 and tested it a little bit. i think the camera is great. i am not so behind "clean" images if i use higher isos and i think if i am using raws - which is what i do - the camera is great till iso800. ofcourse not as the 5d, but the grain looks good. iso1600 looks good too, if used in b+w. this grain-thing is a matter of personal taste, but i think i will use this camera a lot.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rainer,

Yes with RAW this is attractive especially if one likes B&W. How much color have you done with high ISO.

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i just got the camera today. tryed it out in underground stations ... very bad weather. but the files look really good. i think i will use it only as raw camera. bought also a voightländer 35mm viewfinder to mount in the flash socket.

[Rainer Viertlböck]

the handling of the camera is good, after some hours of using it.
all knobs are intuitive and practical.
in raw the highlights have pretty much room for beeing recovered. i am astonished that Phil A and others write that there is just a little bit of space in the raw data for blown highlights. i dont agree here, it seems to be more or less one stop which can be restored, which is pretty good.

at all i thing till iso400 color quality is good, 800 is usable and 1600 is for b+w only.
i have not problem with grain, i was loving my ricoh gx8 also which was much much more noisy.
great tool for carrying around, the G9.
and the image quality is "professional" enough for many journalistic purposes and in is80 in daylight
for nearly everything. i am excited.
ofcourse its not a mf back and also not a 5d or 1ds* or even not a 350 or 400d,-
but therefor its decent and little.


the onliest issue seems to be that battery life could be longer.

my wishlist for the G11:
28mm at the wide end, maybe with f2 app.
moveable lcd, which could be also a 2,5".
bigger optical viewfinder would be great, also the image in the viewfinder is only around 80% of the final image, this is to less.

[Asher Kelman]

Rainer,

Two things: would you consider using it for IR as Diane does and or how about the optional wide angle lens? not much to carry in a pinch for nice vacation kit!

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i will try IR . but my ir filters are resting in spain, so i have to wait till im back there in 2 weeks. i dont think i will go for the ww adapter. its too huge.... maybe i will try one if i see it.
and i remember that many times i have shot with my m4p together with a 35 and a 90mm lens only. 35mm is not bad ,,,,

[Diane Fields]

i just got the camera today. tryed it out in underground stations ... very bad weather. but the files look really good. i think i will use it only as raw camera. bought also a voightländer 35mm viewfinder to mount in the flash socket.

Ranier, I'm considering a Voightlander 35mm VF also--but have never used a Rangefinder nor an external VF for one. I understand this particular VF has 'brightlines' or framelines for 35mm. I really have to admit one of my 'nits' about using this camera is using the LCD--just very unnatural for me. I am also looking at the much smaller mini 28/35 but not having any experience with these, I'm rather just assuming that the 35mm will be better (and I've seen pictures of it mounted on the G9). Are you finding it a better shooting experience using the VF?

Diane

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i think its very nice to use the voightländer, especially if you use it for fast "snaps". but it turns of the internal flash, there is some electronic contact in the flash shoe.

regarding highlights: under tungsten light the room in the highlights is less than under daylight ..... probably because the 3channels have more uneven light.

[Diane Fields]

i will try IR . but my ir filters are resting in spain, so i have to wait till im back there in 2 weeks. i dont think i will go for the ww adapter. its too huge.... maybe i will try one if i see it.
and i remember that many times i have shot with my m4p together with a 35 and a 90mm lens only. 35mm is not bad ,,,,

I bought the Raynox 7000 WA converter plus the necesssary Lensmate (as opposed to the Canons). Its smaller, appears to have about the same IQ
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099445.jpg
and
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/87099441.jpg
but also find that I'm rarely carrying it. I do like shooting with the Lensmate attached--a nicer 2 handed shooting, but often carry it 'naked' also, finding 35mm okay most of the time. However, carrying the WA doesn't require much of a bag--I found a very inexpensive, very small bag that allows me to put the WA on the bottom, tuck the G9 sideways, stick a battery in the small front pocket and really not even be aware that I'm carrying anything, so I can see this as a good vacation kit for some.

I have done no more IR--the season for much attractive IR is past here except with a fairly long shutter speed and I probably will do less until I go further south, though may try some interior with the IR on tripod out of curiosity. There is at least one person I've run across that it is having the G9 converted to IR, but that really doesn't interest me--I'd rather do 'normal' monos as opposed to IR all the time and don't want to own 2 of these LOL.

Someone is bound to ask about the plate on the camera--I have the little Kirk L bracket on--and even if I never use it on tripod, the plate really adds just a nice amount of 'geography' on the left to make handholding nicer for me. It also doesn't make it less 'pocketable' without the Lensmate for me--since I generally carry it in my not particularly large handbag, though sometimes in a large jacket pocket.

Ranier, I don't know about the availability of 3rd party batteries there, but I have 2 extra batteries for it that I bought from Sterlingtek (I've bought BP 511 batteries there for my DSLRs for a number of years and get longer life from them than the Canon batteries) for $10.99 USD each--and being small, I just stick one in my pocket also, though I've only run close, but not out (yet) with a 4GB card. I admit I've not yet completely filled the card yet though.


Diane

[Rainer Viertlböck]

quality is good with the raynox? you might be right with the ir. this will require a tripoid .... and than i am in a land where i can carry also bigger cameras as the 5d. anyway... is it good for ir? i just had tried mysinar e75 mf back, removed the ir filter but the results havent been good.

[Diane Fields]

quality is good with the raynox? you might be right with the ir. this will require a tripoid .... and than i am in a land where i can carry also bigger cameras as the 5d. anyway... is it good for ir? i just had tried mysinar e75 mf back, removed the ir filter but the results havent been good.

Do you mean IR with the 5D? Yes, its fine, but some lenses are not great for IR--have hot spots (50 f/1.4 for instance--there is a list of 'good' and bad Canon lenses for IR regarding hot spots), so if you pick your lenses, my experiments with the 5D and IR were reasonable. I need to experiment more with it also if I'm serious about shooting IR at all--I used to shoot IR with earlier cameras but haven't in a long while.

The Raynox (see this comparison http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) seems reasonable for IQ.

Diane

[Rainer Viertlböck]

thank you for the link. so it seems the 6600 raynox would be a nice lens. i will wat a little bit, but as i know me i will go for it sooner or later.
thanks for your tips ...

[Rainer Viertlböck]

after comparing the samples on this site
( http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) ,
i see that the clear winner of the lens adapters is the canon, at least for sharpness. 2. place has the raynox 7000 and the 6600 isnt very sharp and kontrasty, compared to the others. so i am still thinking about,- because the canon adapter adds a lot of weigth and site ..

[Rainer Viertlböck]

shooting more with the G9 and printing first images on my epson 7800 ( easy to see that i am a fan ):

very good with raw,- at iso80 visual comparable with my 5d ( although not if pixel peeping at 100% ) .
good prints at A2 (!)
good skin colors. very usable as "street-portrait" camera.
images are good enough for publications.
menues and handling is very good. better than my 5d.

together with PhotoAcute and stacking 3 images good results till iso800.

i am excited by the camera.
i only shoot raw.

[Diane Fields]

after comparing the samples on this site
( http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) ,
i see that the clear winner of the lens adapters is the canon, at least for sharpness. 2. place has the raynox 7000 and the 6600 isnt very sharp and kontrasty, compared to the others. so i am still thinking about,- because the canon adapter adds a lot of weigth and site ..

Ranier, I bought the 7000--a compromise--smaller than the Canon but closer in IQ than the 6600. However, I have not really used it--probably could have gotten along with it--as least so far.

I was reading your post and realized I don't think I ever heard about Photoacute. I checked out their product, examples--and it looks as though it might be a worthwhile product if one shoots a lot with a small sensor camera at higher ISOs. Thanks for mentioning it.

Diane

[Rainer Viertlböck]

Ranier, I bought the 7000--a compromise--smaller than the Canon but closer in IQ than the 6600. However, I have not really used it--probably could have gotten along with it--as least so far.

I was reading your post and realized I don't think I ever heard about Photoacute. I checked out their product, examples--and it looks as though it might be a worthwhile product if one shoots a lot with a small sensor camera at higher ISOs. Thanks for mentioning it.

Diane

yes its surprising. but although with the 5d it creates perfectly clean shadowsn ,which are at the level of my mf equipement. little bit slow the programm, but its algorythm seems pretty complicate.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

yes its surprising. but although with the 5d it creates perfectly clean shadowsn ,which are at the level of my mf equipement. little bit slow the programm, but its algorythm seems pretty complicate.

Actually, assuming you take multiple exposures, a program like Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) will also clean up shadow noise (by averaging). In addition, Photomatix will also allow to construct HDR files from exposure bracketed exposures. In both cases stationary subjects work best, but even handheld is possible.

Bart

[Asher Kelman]

Rainer and Bart, have either of you experience with both Photomatix and Photoacute to be able to give us a comparative evaluation?

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i have both and use both. photomatix is a hdr programm with sophisticated tone mapping possibilities. its not easy to use but can deliver very interesting results,- much better than photoshop cs3.

photo acute has a hdr function as well, but does not make tone mapping and does not increase the micro contrast,- it only write 16bit files which cant be tone mapped later. its strengths are layering files and decrease noise. if you give PA 3 files with different exposures ( 1 over- 1 on spot - 1 under ) it will use the best "zones" from each of this three, images overblown parts of the images will disappear as well as underexposed parts. in addition noise will be bined and highly reduced.
it can stack photos with different focus zones for increasing the depth of field.
it can use multiple exposures to increase sharpness and resolution ( it works ! )
it removes automatically in the processed files all CA ( works great too ).

boths programs are very usefull.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

i have both and use both. photomatix is a hdr programm with sophisticated tone mapping possibilities. its not easy to use but can deliver very interesting results,- much better than photoshop cs3.

Yes, although most people use it for the HDR construction and tonemapping, it also does averaging and blending of multiple exposures. That's what I wanted to point out.

it can use multiple exposures to increase sharpness and resolution ( it works ! )

How useful would you say that functionality is? Does it really make a significant enough difference (I know in theory it can, but how about in actual use)?

it removes automatically in the processed files all CA ( works great too ).

That should be a standard function in all image processing software. Good to know it works well in PA, thanks.

Bart

[Rainer Viertlböck]

about resolution increase:
i have to use sometimes the 12-24 sigma wideangle for architecture shots,- and unfortunately it happened several times that these super wide shots have caugth a lot of attention and they got also many publications for beeing spectacular.
the12-24 sigma is the main reason i use sometimes 35mm digital cameras for architecture, nearly all other stuff i shoot with 22 or 33mp backs. but the lens is at the edges often a visible limiting factor, so it does not matter if i use a 1ds-mk3 or the 5d ( which i actually do ) for it,- because the lens isnt sharp enough even for the 5d ,- at the edges.
here PA delivers "wonders". the optical impression of this unsharper zones is much sharper and bring the shots with this lens clearly over the "double-page-barrier",- although i allways was able to postpro this shots that they could have been used - ( even side by side with my sinar shots ), - i feel saver to have here more resolution and perceived sharpness.
very specific uasage,- but thats how i use it now.

why do i use the sigma 12-24?
because its the ONLIEST super wide angle evver made for 35mm which has only moderate distortion, the little distortion it still has is a pure barrel distortion ( anout 1% @ 12mm !).- it has not moustache form- simple barrel distortion forms are easy to correct so perfect that the final images do not show any distortions. thats what i need at first for architecture.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rainer,

So both you and Nicolas Claris earn money with the Sigma zoom lens. He prints wall size pictures from the lens! Now have you looked at the Canon 14mm version II?

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

Hi Rainer,

So both you and Nicolas Claris earn money with the Sigma zoom lens. He prints wall size pictures from the lens! Now have you looked at the Canon 14mm version II?

Asher
no,- and the zoom fits better my needs. Although not knowing the 14mm ... i would be very very surprised if it would not show up moustache distortion ... as all other canon nikon zeiss leica ( R ) wide angle constructions.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

the12-24 sigma is the main reason i use sometimes 35mm digital cameras for architecture, nearly all other stuff i shoot with 22 or 33mp backs. but the lens is at the edges often a visible limiting factor, so it does not matter if i use a 1ds-mk3 or the 5d ( which i actually do ) for it,- because the lens isnt sharp enough even for the 5d ,- at the edges.
here PA delivers "wonders".

Lacking corner resolution on super-wides is an excellent use for the "super-resolution" feature, on stationary subjects. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 which needs stopping down to f/11 @16mm if I want the extreme corner projections on a 24x36mm sensor array to be good.

Bart

[Diane Fields]

Lacking corner resolution on super-wides is an exellent use for the "super-resolution" feature, on stationary subjects. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 which needs stopping down to f/11 @16mm if I want the extreme corner projections on a 24x36mm sensor array to be good.

Bart

Yes, I have the 12-24 also and this sounds like something to try. I've been following the conversation about this.

Diane

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, I have the 12-24 also and this sounds like something to try. I've been following the conversation about this.

They have a free (watermarked output) trial version. With large files it's going to take some processing time, and also since files have to be loaded in memory first it pays to have lots of RAM on board (although it works on more limited resouces).

Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With large files it's going to take some processing time, ...

And just when I started exploring Raw file input (as converted DNG files) in PhotoAcute, it appears that the SuperRes output cannot be saved as "linear Raw" DNGs, when the output is larger than 9999 pixels in one dimension. It is caused by a silly Adobe limitation, also 'featured' in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. That means that 1Ds Mark II (and III) Raw files cannot be fully exploited, and larger MF sensor files are also stuck.

A 'work-around' is to use Raw converted and gamma adjusted TIF input, and save as TIF, but that results in a more involved workflow. Alternatively one can save the Raw imported result of a SuperRes operation as TIF, but that result will need colorbalancing and Gamma adjustment in postprocessing.

Bart

[Rainer Viertlböck]

its time that adobe change this 9999 pixel limit. i cant import any of my larger panoramas in LR. its really a huge limitation.

[Asher Kelman]

So, Rainer, what do people do when they scan a huge painting? !0,000 pixels is not such a lot! That's just a 100 MP image. Are you saying this is the latest limit in the size that can be saved or can be worked with?

I have not looked at it lately but with PS 7 for sure, I couldn't save more than 2GB files so I cut the file in two parts and saved the parts separately.

So where is the current block in CS2, CS3 and Lightroom. Also what are the corresponding limitations in other packages like Lightzone, Bibble, Lightroom and so forth?

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

photoshop can handle also larger files,- but raws can just be opened if they dont exceed 9999 pixels and lightroom can not import larger files in its library.

[Asher Kelman]

Raw is back!

But the sensel pitch is still 1.9 micron, which means anything narrower than say f/2.8 aperture will be diffraction limited. The DIGIC III will help to keep the noise down a bit, but I can't find if it does 14-bit ADC processing.

So how much limitation are you finding, Rainer and Diane or anyother lucky G9 owners from the G9's diffraction at smaller apertures? Do you have examples?

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

So how much limitation are you finding, Rainer and Diane or anyother lucky G9 owners from the G9's diffraction at smaller apertures? Do you have examples?

Asher

i dont find this limiting, but i am not so much "peeping" in the files with this camera as well ...

[Clayton Lofgren]

My G9 has found me in Morocco, but I have not found time to learn much about it. I have good intentions of spreading my wings beyond headshots, but in the meantime---

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t129/clayven2/temp/IMG_0018_1a.jpg[/IMG]

[Paul Bestwick]

wow Clayton... that is great. I have been considering purchasing a compact camera for a while. Your photo is more reason for me to put the G9 at the top of the list.
Thanks,

PB.

[Asher Kelman]

My G9 has found me in Morocco, but I have not found time to learn much about it. [/IMG]
You look serious in the picture! what were you thinking about!

I'm surpised at the detail, but it's at f4. Even then, those pixels do a great job on your fur. Is that from a RAW image or cameras sRGB jpg?

Asher

[Clayton Lofgren]

I still hadn't found the second step for Raw+jpeg, so my first shots were all jpegs. I now have some raw files, but have not figured out how to do anything with them with the Canon program. In a few days I will be home and get them in PS. Think I am going to like the camera, although I am still a bit awkward with it.

[Clayton Lofgren]

After a bit more time with the G9, I find the iso 800 better than I had expected. The IS works pretty well sometimes, but is not as consistent as my old KM5D. I expect that is just that the heavier camera is more stable. I had hoped for a bit more DR with the raw files. It is very easy to chop highlights(clip is too kind). Nothing artistic here- just a snap at a ball game. 1/25 at iso 800.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t129/clayven2/G9/IMG_0215.jpg