Canon G9

anselwannab

anselwannab

Well-known
Local time
1:43 PM
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
457
Just saw on DPreview that Canon is bringing out the G9 (skip G8? no summit?) with RAW! 12MP, 35-210mm (eq.) lens at f2.8-4.8. Not bad. Nice to see that they listened about the RAW. Wish the lens was wider (shorter top end would be OK) and faster, but still looks interesting.

Can't wait for the 5D-G9 comparo!

Canon G9 on DP
 
Yea, the sensor is dimensionally challenged, and that's why I thought is was raw that they took out RAW on the G7. I would much rather see a 24-105eq lens at 2.0-2.8, but what do I know.

I would only really plan on using this on trips (I travel for business a lot) when I'm going to be out in the sun.

I was really hoping that they were going to bring out thier APS-c sensor in a P&S soon.
 
rogue_designer said:
I'd stick with a used G5 in this category - the others they've come out with all use smaller sensors.
Click to expand...

Dpreview says the G5 has a 1/1.8 sensor?

I agree, I've been looking for G5.

Mark
 
hmm - for some reason I thought it had a 2/3" sensor at least. Ah well.

still the S/N ratio for the G5 will be better since they didn't try to cram as many sensor sites on (nominally) the same size. Better for higher ISO work.
 
I like the ergonomics on the A series better. They announced the A650 IS which bumps up the MP count to 12.1MP from the A640. Recently got an A640 for one of my kids and she loves it.
 
Kent said:
Yep, a G10 with a 2/3" sensor and a 2.0-3.5/28-140mm lens - that would be a cam!
Click to expand...
F2.0 at the wide end sounds a bit excessive, especially since you specified 28 mm focal lenght. Of course it would be doable, but not easy and probably quite expensive, especially if you want it to have decent performance wide open. F2.8-4.5 would be much easier and cheaper, or F2.0-3.5/35-175 mm. The camera would still be heavier than the G7 and G9 and probably bigger as well due to larger glass.

On a related note: weight and size of glass is also the reason why APS-C size sensor is not going to happen in digital P&S, unless people are willing to settle to much slower lenses or shorter zoom range. 2/3" or 1" sensor is still realistic, but even 4/3" sensor is probably too big for a product that could still be marketed as a compact or P&S camera. Of course you could make a camera similar to the Olympus IS/L series of fixed zoom lens 35 mm film SLRs, but that was never a huge commercial success. Even if you delete the mirror as unnecessary on a digital camera, it is still going to be big compared to small sensor cameras. Most people would probably just buy a small DSLR instead.
 
Last edited:
rogue_designer said:
hmm - for some reason I thought it had a 2/3" sensor at least. Ah well.

still the S/N ratio for the G5 will be better since they didn't try to cram as many sensor sites on (nominally) the same size. Better for higher ISO work.
Click to expand...


That is an interesting question. How much lower is the s/n ratio ability getting as sites get smaller. Smaller sites now, but have the boosted the s/n?

The lenses is an interesting point. Smaller sensors need smaller image circles and they could smaller. You also need smaller apertures to get the same depth of field in practical use.

Is there a graph of sensor size on the x-axis, depth of field on the y-axis and lines for lens FL???

I would love to see a Canon PJ, 24-105eq with about 6mp and the best s/n and latitude they can do. Add in tough body and weatherproffing. Maybe some cool connectivity options.
 
DP has some test shots up. iso80 outside looks nice, up to 200 inside on teh kid looks OK, 400 shot of the little girls face is showing a lot of noise. Might be OK B&W or small.

Be nice if they posted some RAW shots and maybe some night shots.

Mark
 
Somehow, this megapixel thing leaves me wondering. The more pixels you cram into a sensor, the more noise there is. But that is when you look at those pixels at 100% on a screen..

If you print them, wouldn't the pixels (and therefore the noise) average out? I mean, would a similar sized print of 12MP actually look worse noisewise than one of 5MP?

Sensore size aside, the G9 seems to have a very decent feature set with RAW added and still includes the in my view essential optical viewfinder and accessory shoe.
 
Heh, i'm glad I'm getting rid of my G6 on evilbay right now.

While I loved the camera when i first got into digital, i havnt used the thing in a long while.

I like the way the G7 looked. Had a nice look to it, but definately no rangefinder. hehe.
 
pvdhaar said:
Somehow, this megapixel thing leaves me wondering. The more pixels you cram into a sensor, the more noise there is. But that is when you look at those pixels at 100% on a screen..

If you print them, wouldn't the pixels (and therefore the noise) average out? I mean, would a similar sized print of 12MP actually look worse noisewise than one of 5MP?

Sensore size aside, the G9 seems to have a very decent feature set with RAW added and still includes the in my view essential optical viewfinder and accessory shoe.
Click to expand...


That is a really interesting question. I hope someone with a G series Fetish can answer it.

Mark
 
You know... i just realized something... apart from the silver lettering on the front, the G9 and G7 look identical. What gives?

Did canon just use the same body and put new electronics under the hood? Or are the press photos just photoshoped with the letters g9 instead of g7 for the time being?

I'm confused.
 
photogdave said:
I concur. I tried out the G7 and you can't get any shallow DOF shots with that darn tiny sensor.
Click to expand...

I own a G7, and that is exactly the main fault of a great camera: always too much DOF (except for close up shots, of course), I don't know if sensor of 1/7 instead of 1/8 is enaugh to have more shallow DOF...

My question is about the lens: is it exactly the same of the G7? If it's so, how is it possible it has the same range (35-210 mm) on a bigger sensor?

Ciao
Franco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom