Paul T.
Veteran
This is a joke, right? While I love the G9 for some purposes, hand-holding is absolutely not its forte. One reason for this is that the VF is so lousy you generally have to compose using the screen. Which means arms outstretched, Which means more camera shake. I find shake is a REAL problem especially considering it is only f/2.8 at some focal lenghts, plus noise gets bad at above 120 ASA.
As for image quality, make sure you don't shoot anything supposedly square. The pincushion distortion is absolutely dreadful.
The G9 is about equivalent to an Olympus Stylus, but more cantankerous and less stylish. While it's one of the better compact digitals, it demonstrates how poor the choice on offer is.
netape
Newbie
This whole debate is like comparing apples to oranges. Why aren't we comparing say 40D to G9?
(I'll tell you, because it's as dumb as comparing M8 to G9). They're in whole different leagues and all of you nay-sayers know it.
(I'll tell you, because it's as dumb as comparing M8 to G9). They're in whole different leagues and all of you nay-sayers know it.
retow
Well-known
A Hyundai is better than a BMW M3, it costs a fourth or a fifth, goes almost as fast, is roomier, offers more gadgets............................. What do I need a M3 anyway.
What a stupid logic!
Kevin's daughter hits the nail. Nothing against Swiss army knife G9, which has versatiliuty as its only outstanding strength (yes, I know what I'm talking about I own one, it has become a dust collector), but as far as I'm concerned, I prefer gear which offers something outstanding. The Ricohs' for their pocketability, zoomrange (GX100), lens quality (GRDII) and best UI by quite a margin, the dp1 for its best IQ (by far!) of any compact digital.
And the M8 is in a different league anyway. Whether on screen or on print, trying to argue that the G9's output is (almost) as good as the M8's is nothing but wishfull thinking
.
.
What a stupid logic!
Kevin's daughter hits the nail. Nothing against Swiss army knife G9, which has versatiliuty as its only outstanding strength (yes, I know what I'm talking about I own one, it has become a dust collector), but as far as I'm concerned, I prefer gear which offers something outstanding. The Ricohs' for their pocketability, zoomrange (GX100), lens quality (GRDII) and best UI by quite a margin, the dp1 for its best IQ (by far!) of any compact digital.
And the M8 is in a different league anyway. Whether on screen or on print, trying to argue that the G9's output is (almost) as good as the M8's is nothing but wishfull thinking
..
Axel
singleshooter
Tuolumne
Veteran
Because of the original post that started this thread: an article in Luminous Landscape comparing the M8 to the G9. That and the point that the G9 is very rangefinder-like in many ways, while dSLRs aren't.
/T
netape
Newbie
I've read the article, and it didn't specifically compare M8 to G9. His main point was that he wanted to change for something more lighter and "I-want-everything-now"solution and G9 was good for that.
With your logic, everyone should use P&S instead of any other camera. Why do we stop on G9? I've got this 1 mpix camera that almost disappears to my pocket and takes marginally good pictures (with definite character) and goes everywhere with me and is sort of a "rangefinder". Now that's what I call advanced (and I probably should sell my M8).
(sorry for the overly sarcasmic-attitude)
With your logic, everyone should use P&S instead of any other camera. Why do we stop on G9? I've got this 1 mpix camera that almost disappears to my pocket and takes marginally good pictures (with definite character) and goes everywhere with me and is sort of a "rangefinder". Now that's what I call advanced (and I probably should sell my M8).
(sorry for the overly sarcasmic-attitude)
R
ruben
Guest
question about the g9
question about the g9
Hi folks,
I have had no time to read this thread, but have looke into some despription of the camera.
I cannot find any info about the question if at the viewfinder you have any mark to ensure a precise autofocus. Do you know about it ?
Besides, how is the viefinder in general ?
Cheers,
Ruben
question about the g9
Hi folks,
I have had no time to read this thread, but have looke into some despription of the camera.
I cannot find any info about the question if at the viewfinder you have any mark to ensure a precise autofocus. Do you know about it ?
Besides, how is the viefinder in general ?
Cheers,
Ruben
R
ruben
Guest
I don't clearly understand your answer, Richard.
If there is no mark within the viewfinder the side light will tell that "somethig" is indeed in focus. Fine, but what ?
Are you comfirming threre is no mark at the viewfinder ?
Cheers,
Ruben
Tuolumne
Veteran
The optical viewfinder is not very good. You won't use it very much. But there is a cross-hair at the center to help you aim and put the auto-focus box where you want it. There is both an audible auto-focus confirmation (if you have that turned on) and a little light next to the view finder turns green when auto-focus locks on. If you use any of the lens accessories from Lensmate, they will block the optical view finder. I'm stilll not sure why someone would want to use the optical viewfinder on a camera like this. The video screen is so much better and easier to use. But you can compose with the video screen and then move the camera to your eye to help steady it and then look through the viewfinder when you shoot - a kind of hybrid approach.
/T
/T
Tuolumne
Veteran
There is no mark in the viewfinder. Just a cross hair. But if you have auto focus set to only focus on the video screen's center box, that cross hair shows you where it should be. Then the audible beep and lamp next to the viewfinder window confirm focus. It's harder to explain than it is to use. Still, the optical viewfinder is not great. It does zoom with the lens, but it's no thrill to look through. Also only shows about 80% of what will be captured. I can't use my optical viewfinder anymore. It is blocked by the hood I have attached to the lens.
/T
Jonni
-
The viewfinder, itself, has no information display. There are two lights to the side of the viewfinder which convey this information. Further, the viewfinder is rather inaccurate - what you see is definitely not what you get (but you can learn to compensate with experience). I feel Canon should certainly have put more care into designing the viewfinder - the idea is fine, the execution, poor.
On image quality, every comparative review I've read states that the image quality of the G9 and the M8 are similar.
On image quality, every comparative review I've read states that the image quality of the G9 and the M8 are similar.
Paul T.
Veteran
wow. SO the M8 is markedly worse than the R-D1?
I'm not irrationally down on the G9... but I just posted a bunch of G9 photos on my website, and they're so inferior to the R-D1 it's a no-brainer. A lot of it is down to the lens; flare, and absolutely ludicrous barrel distortion. But also occasional weird noise artefacts (to be fair, some of the latter could be down to the fact that with the R-D1 I'd always shoot Raw, whereas with the G9 I shoot jpegs).
Somehow, with the LCD, I seem to frame photos like a complete moron. I guess it helps to blame the technology...
Jonni
-
I'm only quoting the published opinions of people who have tested both cameras.
Paul T.
Veteran
I"m not arguing with you... I'm just dumb-founded that anyone has that opinion, because it's so contrary to mine with the G9 (and I don't own, nor am I an apologist for, the M8).
That luminous-landscape review does encourage me to try a Lensmate, to eliminate flare problems, but ultimately it's so much blah. There are a couple of... OK photos on there, not reproduced at a decent size. The guy has obviously never taken photos of anything with bricks in, or walls, because as I've banged on about tediously now, the barrel distortion on the G9 is a joke.
He is absolutely right about one thing, though; that the white balance on the G9 is great. And if WB is out on the M8, that's a near-crippling deficiency. By designing their own electronics, Leica engineers were re-inventing the wheel. Their wheel is very well engineered, but perhaps it's not quite round...
Jonni
-
Paul T.
Veteran
Very interesting... some good photos there. I think I might have a bad example, the one of the beach-house, with a 43mm equivalent FOV, are like some I took, with extreme barrel distortion, but those are perfect.
Here's an example I happen to have on photobucket... check out the lines of blocks at the top...
Here's an example I happen to have on photobucket... check out the lines of blocks at the top...
Last edited:
mackigator
Well-known
So here's my question: replace my Lumix LX1 with the G9? Or wait for the next GX100/G9 iteration? Looks like I get a hotshoe and usable ISO200 with a G9, but I give up WA and a little size, so I'm not quite sold.
I find these cameras to be frustratingly - tantalizingly - close to what I want in a small package: reasonable low noise (good at ISO400), no shutter lag, hotshoe, RAW, and good manual controls. Bonus for good optics and a zoom range no greater than 25-70mm.
It seems like we're right on the cusp of some very cool technology housed in small packages.
I find these cameras to be frustratingly - tantalizingly - close to what I want in a small package: reasonable low noise (good at ISO400), no shutter lag, hotshoe, RAW, and good manual controls. Bonus for good optics and a zoom range no greater than 25-70mm.
It seems like we're right on the cusp of some very cool technology housed in small packages.
