Can I think of my Canon G9 as a "Rangefinder"

P

polaski

Guest
There's no appropriate forum for this, so since I own and use CV bodies and lenses, here I am.

I started life with a Konica S-II rangefinder (the S-II is not a typo), and can now hang around my neck or put in a back pocket Voigtlander B's and II's, plus Perkeo II and "Baby 66"'s. And Retinas (II and IIa), plus a FED 1 and what the heck, the Kalart rangefinder on my 2x3 Graphic can be lugged around as well.

But, I've run short of time and space, and have started to use digital. I won't talk about Pentax gear and the little Pentax s4i I used to replace my Minox B.

Going digital in a rangefinder is a real trial. Sorry, when I am using a camera that is 100 years old (Kodak No. 2 Model B), I can't consider a CV digital rangefinder that has questionable longevity. And. sorry, I've come of an age at which the cost of a Leica digital is just totally unjustifiable for me.

So, I waited, and waited, and along came the Canon G9 with lots of pixels, a decent lens, shoots RAW (!!!), and either hangs around my neck or fits into a pocket as neatly as my prized Retina IIa.

So, I don't find the range: the camera does that (with a couple of options set by me, including totally manual range setting). And, the optical viewfinder is less than precise, but then I use the Retina viewfinders, don't I? For that matter, I do have to turn the camera on to use it, but the Retinas and the Perkeo II have to be unfolded a bit before shooting, also.

So, my friends, when I stuff the Canon G9 into my jacket pocket, do I have any standing here on the RFF?

It's not a matter of life or death for me; I come from a background in which bringing back a useable image was just about all that counted. I'll use whatever is closest to hand. I'm just curious where other folks' boundries may lie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what does it matter if some camera is a rangefinder for you? Just try camera and see if it works for you. Even if it has AF or is P&S camera.

For me personally, I see a camera with mechanical focus as a real rangefinder. anything else are fake IMHO ;)

I can understand that M8 is very expensive and one can get a fake copy instead as g9 ;) My general advice is to get a analog M for cheap price if one wants a true RF experience.
 
For me, the G9 is a bit too slow and beyond shooting in straight P or AV mode, it gets even slower to use.

12MP is a joke, it smears any kind of details, so I really think it is more around an effective 6-8mp count.

Anything beyond iso100, to me, is way too noisy.

RAW is a bit redundant since the Canon RAW convertor doesn't allow much beyond what it would look like if you shot in jpg.

It isn't a bad camera, and it takes nice video.

The G9 is pretty tough, though I had to send mine back after the lens jammed.

Let me put it this way, the G9 is a lot closer to being my Leica CL, than my Leica CL is to being a G9.

To me the camera Canon should make is more like the DP1, or at least get a faster lens that goes to 28MM eq., and even cut back the MP count for better low light performance.
 
it is a nice camera, but when you see the world through a rangefinder camera you know the G9 is not one... not even close.
 
Yes, close enough....

Yes, close enough....

I was about ready to pull the trigger on purchasing a G9, but then I did some investigation on the previous G series camera, primarily because of the RAW, which it turns out was gone in the 7 and put back in on the 9.

I don't really buy pulling 12 Mp out of the small sensor. My reckoning and reading tells me 7-8 is a good range for the sensor size.

Then, I found out something very interesting. While the G6 had a 4X zoom, instead of the 6 of the G9, it did have a 2.0 fstop lens at the wide angle. The ratings on the G6 were all very good, including fairly reasonable noise characteristics. Another advantage.. most are currently selling at about $225 to $250.

All in all, a nice package for half the money. Granted the G9 has a couple more bells and whistles, but the more reasonable megapixel rating for sensor size and the 2.0 lens draw me to the G6. Oh yes, and the G5 and G6 models also have camera RAW.
 
kuzano said:
I was about ready to pull the trigger on purchasing a G9, but then I did some investigation on the previous G series camera, primarily because of the RAW, which it turns out was gone in the 7 and put back in on the 9.

I don't really buy pulling 12 Mp out of the small sensor. My reckoning and reading tells me 7-8 is a good range for the sensor size.

Then, I found out something very interesting. While the G6 had a 4X zoom, instead of the 6 of the G9, it did have a 2.0 fstop lens at the wide angle. The ratings on the G6 were all very good, including fairly reasonable noise characteristics. Another advantage.. most are currently selling at about $225 to $250.

All in all, a nice package for half the money. Granted the G9 has a couple more bells and whistles, but the more reasonable megapixel rating for sensor size and the 2.0 lens draw me to the G6. Oh yes, and the G5 and G6 models also have camera RAW.
Click to expand...

The G6 was a great camera. I ended up with the Sony DSC-V3 for some reason, but you can't go wrong with a working G6.
 
Sure, you can think of the G9 as a rangefinder. I think half the people here on RFF like me. See how deluded we can be?

dead-clowns.jpg
 
I am a G6 owner and I really love the quality of the pictures that it takes. Great color rendition with good detail and sharpness with almost no artifacts. However, in the never ending quest for the new and improved, I was looking forward to a spectacular camera when Canon came out the the G7. However, the G7 fell short with no RAW and too many other great G features missing. So, I held on to the G6 waiting for the next generation of the G. The G9 quickly followed the disappointing G7. It had restored the RAW, but still lacked flip out LCD, a remote or a really good lens, plus too many pixiles for the sensor size.

I am glad that I kept the G6. Super sharp, fast lens at f/2.0. A good balance between sensor size and megapixiles.....great skies. Flip out LCD, RAW, remote and great ergonomics. Looks like digital has been here long enough to have produced some really good cameras that have gotten out-moded by "improved" technology and more megapixiles. I feel Canon is headed down the wrong path with the G series. They need to forget the numbers, i.e. megapixiles, and concentrate on the picture quality.
 
The F2.0 lenses on the older G's were great, and so was pretty much everything else. The problem with the G6 and older cameras is that they are even slower in operation than already slow (compared to most RFs) G9.

A better "G" camera from Canon for me would feature:
6mp but clean to ISO400 and usable at 800
Zoom range closer to 28-70 than 35-250
F2.0 at the wide end if possible
Image Stabilizer
Excellent battery life

The camera should be built around shooting performance and the lowest lag possible.
 
there is a two page spread in OUTSIDE magazine (approximately 11x16) shot with a Canon G9, looks pretty darn good to my eye...

anselwannab said:
For me, the G9 is a bit too slow and beyond shooting in straight P or AV mode, it gets even slower to use.

12MP is a joke, it smears any kind of details, so I really think it is more around an effective 6-8mp count.

Anything beyond iso100, to me, is way too noisy.

RAW is a bit redundant since the Canon RAW convertor doesn't allow much beyond what it would look like if you shot in jpg.

It isn't a bad camera, and it takes nice video.

The G9 is pretty tough, though I had to send mine back after the lens jammed.

Let me put it this way, the G9 is a lot closer to being my Leica CL, than my Leica CL is to being a G9.

To me the camera Canon should make is more like the DP1, or at least get a faster lens that goes to 28MM eq., and even cut back the MP count for better low light performance.
Click to expand...
 
The G9 is not as good a camera as it thinks it is. For looks and built it deserves credit. Otherwise, it tries to be the the Jack of all trades, but performs pretty mediocre in everything it does. Just another small sensor camera with plenty of smearing and noise and lots of barrel distortion at 35mm.

If you want compact, digital and excellent IQ get the DP1 - love mine. If truly pocketable and decent IQ matter most, the GRDII is the one to get.

Just my two cents. But I tried them all to be used as backup for the M8, D-Lux3, GX 100, G9, and none of which could satisfy my expectations. The GRD II is nice, but the Sigma DP1 is light zones ahead as far as IQ goes.
Dream compact would be the UI of the Ricohs, the IQ of the DP1, and the functionality/versatility of the G9.
 
I agree

I agree

though the G9 has a small (1/1.8) as opposed to the really tiny 1/2.5 sensor, even 6-8MP of larger sensors would have been nice like on the early Fuji finepix f cameras.

I shoot JPGs only, so am waiting for the A650is to come down cheap in the next year or two. It, as well as the SD950 share the same sensor, but the SD950 has little manual control, but is tiny.

kuzano said:
I was about ready to pull the trigger on purchasing a G9, but then I did some investigation on the previous G series camera, primarily because of the RAW, which it turns out was gone in the 7 and put back in on the 9.

I don't really buy pulling 12 Mp out of the small sensor. My reckoning and reading tells me 7-8 is a good range for the sensor size.

Then, I found out something very interesting. While the G6 had a 4X zoom, instead of the 6 of the G9, it did have a 2.0 fstop lens at the wide angle. The ratings on the G6 were all very good, including fairly reasonable noise characteristics. Another advantage.. most are currently selling at about $225 to $250.

All in all, a nice package for half the money. Granted the G9 has a couple more bells and whistles, but the more reasonable megapixel rating for sensor size and the 2.0 lens draw me to the G6. Oh yes, and the G5 and G6 models also have camera RAW.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom