Heresy! (or not?) Canon G9 better than M8?

T

teo

Well-known
Local time
1:31 AM
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
214
Location
Italy
View My Gallery
Just to stir up some trouble in the forum:😛
on Luminous Landscape Nick Devlin is thinking to sell his M8 with Tri Elmar after he found that a G9 is good enough...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml
What do you think?

Before burning him on a stake, I've got to admit that I'm contemplating to buy a small digicam, sometimes a "quality" camera is too cumbersome to carry on trips...
 
Teo, the nice thing about a camera with interchangeable lenses is that when you move onto a different body, you can take the lenses with you.

YMMV - Considering that the sensor on the G9 is about 1/10th of the physical area of the sensor on the M8 - I see depth of field issues. For landscape photography this isn't a biggy, but for people photos in crowded places - I would want the option to defocus the background while shooting.
 
I own the G9, not the M8, but the way I read the article, it is more about convinience than quality. Yes, the G9 is a very good little camera and for what it offers it is indeed dirt cheap, esp. compared to a Leica M8 and associated lenses - and I think that's what "tinted" the reviewers article. There is no way that the image quality of the G9 is better than the M8s. DOF is a real issue with these little sensors - none of the P&S cameras can get even close to a rangefinder system, or a SLR, DSLR.
 
In other news, a toaster is better than an M8, if you are mainly concerned with having fresh toast every morning.
 
RF-Addict said:
I own the G9, not the M8, but the way I read the article, it is more about convinience than quality. Yes, the G9 is a very good little camera and for what it offers it is indeed dirt cheap, esp. compared to a Leica M8 and associated lenses - and I think that's what "tinted" the reviewers article. There is no way that the image quality of the G9 is better than the M8s. DOF is a real issue with these little sensors - none of the P&S cameras can get even close to a rangefinder system, or a SLR, DSLR.
Click to expand...

Exactly...well put RFA!

Bob
 
This was done to death a couple of weeks ago on the LUF, complete with comments, justifications and explanations from the author of the article.

If he had not mentioned the M8 at all, there would not be this interest.

It is a workmanlike set of impressions about the G9. As has already been said, "horses for courses". I don't have an M8. I do have a G7, with the RAW upgrade. I regard the Gx as a go-anywhere backup/extension to my LTM, M and 4/3 systems. Sometimes I use it as a lightmeter for my meterless bodies, sometimes I just carry it as "something to carry". Would I use it as my only camera on a once in a lifetime trip? No. Would I stick it in a pocket if I was going shopping? Yes. Is it in my briefcase now? Yes. Is it good at things the Ms aren't? Yes. Do the Ms do things the Gx doesn't? Yes. Use the right tool for you for the job.

Regards,

Bill
 
Last edited:
teo said:
Just to stir up some trouble in the forum:😛
on Luminous Landscape Nick Devlin is thinking to sell his M8 with Tri Elmar after he found that a G9 is good enough...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml
What do you think?

Before burning him on a stake, I've got to admit that I'm contemplating to buy a small digicam, sometimes a "quality" camera is too cumbersome to carry on trips...
Click to expand...
The real appeal of the M8 is if you are already using Leica film rangefinders. If you are not then there is an infinite choice. I do not think your post stirs up much trouble. At the end of the day use a bit of shoe leather, try them both out and then you can post with some of your own experiences rather than quote some one elses.

Best wishes

Richard
 
The Canon G series, and similar sized bodies, seem the odd ducks to me. I had a G5 for awhile and all it offered over a DSLR was the tilting viewscreen. It was too big to fit in a pocket, so it got left home too often. I sold it and now have a Lumix FX-01, which has the same size sensor, but is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. If it's noisier at high iso's, I don't care. The point is it's with me all the time. Better a low-fi shot from a camera I can take on board than no shot at all from a camera so precious it gets left on shore. 🙂

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • windjammer.jpg
    windjammer.jpg
    216.8 KB · Views: 0
I was seriously considering an M8 but put the decision on hold when all the "issues" surfaced (IR, colour balance, green blobs, 8-bit raw files etc). If Leica (or Zeiss, or CV, or Canon, or Nikon ...) ever come out with a full-frame RF-type camera (sans issues), I'll be sorely tempted. I have had a Canon G5 and G7 (both since sold) and now a G9.

Comparing the handling of the G9 with my Leica M7, I prefer the Leica, but the G9 does handle extremely well for a digicam. Also the G7 and G9 have a more pocketable shape than the earlier Gx's.

After about one month of use, I dropped my new G9 from shoulder height on to a hard pavement. It was bitterly cold (in the UK) and I tried to remove my glove in a hurry to get to my cellphone. The G9 was on a wrist strap and it came off with the glove. There is a small ding near the ISO dial, and the rear plate is slightly buckled at the top-left corner. Adjusting the diopter now requires a finger-nail rather than just rolling it with a finger. Otherwise the camera seems unharmed. Focus is still reliable. Maybe I was lucky, but it has increased my respect for the G9 considerably.

In good light / low ISOs there is little difference in IQ between the G9 and my CAnon 5D. The slight difference there is is probably due to color gamut. I have the 5D set to Adobe RGB which is not available on the G9. The 5D can be used up to ISO 400 with virtually no noticeable loss of IQ, and up to the maximum of 3200 with careful exposure and a dose of Noise Ninja. The maximum on the G9 is 1600 ISO which really needs Noise Ninja (or similar) and can only be considered satisfactory for small prints, so you can't see the softness caused by the NR. I would imagine the M8 is somewhere between these two cameras in this respect.

The worst thing about the G9, IMHO, is the viewfinder, which (like the G7) only shows about 70% of the image, and this varies slightly with focal length. It is pretty close to accurate along the bottom edge, but cuts off the image by 10-15% at the top and each side. Knowing this, I still use the viewfinder, composing tight along the top and sides, and cropping the final print in the computer as may be necessary.

Others have commented on the DOF issue in that it's virtually impossible to throw the background OOF with the tiny sensor. AFAIK, there's no really satisfactory way around this. Edit: even with the lens wide open the DOF is still *much* deeper than it would be with the same FOV on a 35mm / full frame camera.

Just my R$0,02 ...

Edit: Addendum - several months later, my G9 has started to misbehave - the optical zoom viewfinder stil zooms out OK, but it won't zoom back again until you turn the camera off (then on again). I'm pretty sure this is a delayed readtion to the fall it sustained as described above. Oh, well ... I wonder if (1) it can be fixed or (2) I can live with it, or (3) I'll get another ...
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
The Canon G series, and similar sized bodies, seem the odd ducks to me. I had a G5 for awhile and all it offered over a DSLR was the tilting viewscreen. It was too big to fit in a pocket, so it got left home too often. I sold it and now have a Lumix FX-01, which has the same size sensor, but is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. If it's noisier at high iso's, I don't care. The point is it's with me all the time. Better a low-fi shot from a camera I can take on board than no shot at all from a camera so precious it gets left on shore. 🙂

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Horses for courses again. I also have an FX-01, but I find it too small. I mostly use it as an impromptu lightmeter for my LTMs. I have the Richard Franiec grip on my G7 and that improves the handling from "bar of soap" to "eminently usable".

Regards,

Bill
 
G9 vs M8

G9 vs M8

Ok, i own both these cameras. I have to say that the g9 is an excellent small camera, i carried on my neck for 10 days in SF and Monterrey. It takes great snapshots and some more challenging photographs at times, it also has an excellent video mode. However it is not in the same league as the Leica M8 in terms of mid to low light photography and creative photos with nice bokeh. There simply is no comparison, full stop.
 
I have an M8 and had a G9 but sold it mainly because it's widest is 35mm. I switched to a Leica D-Lux 3 because of the 28mm and the 16:9 ratio, but eventually found that I was taking the M8 with me most of time and just preferred using the M8, not just because of better files but more options (i.e. like shooting with the Voigtlander 15mm to get 20mm images). The new Panasonic Lumix FX35 10MP just announced interests me due to the 25-100mm zoom, but no camera raw. Will wait to see reviews and what files look like.
 
My 1st digi-box was a humble G2 , not worth selling , I have consigdered a G9 , but the G2 is a fine snapshot camera anyway - and I get more shots from the humble 4 meg sensor - it complements my M 8 - and is heck of a lot easier to use with table top model photography [ F2 for that dof ]
 
Canon? yeah right!

Canon? yeah right!

In our office we have a Canon photocopier and a Canon fax machine. Both are junk! When the Canon salesman showed up the other day; I showed the little creep the door!

Canons are only good for destroying stuff.
 
When the original Leica A came out, the concept was to have a small camera you could put in your pocket and use anywhere. It was designed to be a camera you could always have with you.

It was astonishingly small and light in the eyes of photographers of that era. The collapsible lens made it even more portable.

It took a lot of skill and work to get acceptable prints from it, you had to carefully expose, develop, and watch your technique very carefully. But you could get shots you could never get before with the huge cameras of the day.

The other "small" fast cameras, like the Ermanox, were not pocket cameras. They were a different kettle of fish altogether.

I think if any candid/news photographer of that era were able to get his hands on a tiny pocket digicam, the results would astonish. FAR better than the Leica of the era with the film of the era.

They would get down on their knees and thank god for one.
 
teo said:
Just to stir up some trouble in the forum:😛
on Luminous Landscape Nick Devlin is thinking to sell his M8 with Tri Elmar after he found that a G9 is good enough...
Click to expand...
What school teaches "good enough" = "better than"?

It logically follows, then, that the Canon G9 is better than any Nikon camera, because the Canon G9 is as good enough as any Nikon camera.

Just to "stir things up"... 😉 Or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
A Reviewer's Resonsibility
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Harry Lime
Harry Lime
C
The gear wars have started....
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
11K
edrodgers731
E
Back
Top Bottom