G 9.0
Newbie
A superb metering system
A superb metering system
Hello everyone!!
Last month I bought a G9 and took off to the chilean Patagonia for the fall colours.
There are several pluses and minuses.
As the same as a Leica, the viewfinder doesn't convince me, but the 3'' LCD does. The battery wouldn't last a 4 Gb memm card. There is no weather sealing ( nor does the Leica...)
The build quality is ok for 500 USd, but the metering system is worth 5.000!!! There is a matricial evaluation that francky, would make Ansel Adams' live a lot easier.
There is a autobracketing function that allowed me to begin worwing on HDR photography, and that's were the results begin to kick in....
This G9 has nothing to envy my only Leica, the R8 ( except mayby, for a faster shutter) in terms of build quality. Of course, the optics is another tale....
A superb metering system
Hello everyone!!
Last month I bought a G9 and took off to the chilean Patagonia for the fall colours.
There are several pluses and minuses.
As the same as a Leica, the viewfinder doesn't convince me, but the 3'' LCD does. The battery wouldn't last a 4 Gb memm card. There is no weather sealing ( nor does the Leica...)
The build quality is ok for 500 USd, but the metering system is worth 5.000!!! There is a matricial evaluation that francky, would make Ansel Adams' live a lot easier.
There is a autobracketing function that allowed me to begin worwing on HDR photography, and that's were the results begin to kick in....
This G9 has nothing to envy my only Leica, the R8 ( except mayby, for a faster shutter) in terms of build quality. Of course, the optics is another tale....
sockeyed
Well-known
There's a good little piece HERE from the National Geographic blog. While it's interesting to read that the majority of photogs shot on film for the China issue, the relevance to this thread is that one of Fritz Hoffman's images that made it to print in the issue was shot on a Canon G7.
"For a shot of Shanghai’s skyline at night, Fritz was using his G7 point & shoot to check the lighting, and then shot the scene using his Leica and film. Later, when editing the story, the digital snapshot proved to have captured detail that was beyond the range of the same scene shot on film. The photo that ran across two pages of the magazine was the only digital photo that Fritz made, and it was shot with his little G7."
"For a shot of Shanghai’s skyline at night, Fritz was using his G7 point & shoot to check the lighting, and then shot the scene using his Leica and film. Later, when editing the story, the digital snapshot proved to have captured detail that was beyond the range of the same scene shot on film. The photo that ran across two pages of the magazine was the only digital photo that Fritz made, and it was shot with his little G7."
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Actually, I hope I ipso facto become a dentist or a doctor; I need the income. I'm rooting for people saying so many times that it must come true. I see that line of logic worked very well for the WMD search.
So far people's assertions of what they believe to be true regarding things Leica (i.e. they don't own one, and therefore anybody who owns one is Evil) haven't worked out for me.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Therefore, the G7 is "better" than the G9, and "better" than film.
I wonder if it was because he used what he had in hand to his advantage, regardless of brand/technology/tautologies?
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
I had a look at the G9. It's a toy. My Canon Vt de luxe has a better finder, and it is about 50 years old - and my Leica M6 finder is much better than the old Canon's RF. The G9 delivers an image quality that is surprisingly low, much lower than a good average amateur negative film.
As I don't have the money for an M8 and dislike the image quality of the Epson - is there an equivalent to the M8's image quality at all that is not a DSLR? And that has "zero or less" shutter lag? The usual digital shutter lag would kill all my images. Some of these expensive digital cameras have a shutter lag that is so bad you need to place very fresh fruit in your still life images and can be glad if the apples don't decay before the shutter opens.
As I don't have the money for an M8 and dislike the image quality of the Epson - is there an equivalent to the M8's image quality at all that is not a DSLR? And that has "zero or less" shutter lag? The usual digital shutter lag would kill all my images. Some of these expensive digital cameras have a shutter lag that is so bad you need to place very fresh fruit in your still life images and can be glad if the apples don't decay before the shutter opens.
sockeyed
Well-known
Ah, no. The majority of images in the issue were shot on film, and the rest on high-end DSLRs (most likely). I guess the point is that the G7's image, in this particular case, was of a high enough quality to warrant a 2-page spread in Nat Geo. I certainly couldn't imagine an entire article shot with something like the G7/G9.
Highway 61
Revisited
gDallasK
Member
Reformed Canon user confesses.
Reformed Canon user confesses.
I too have both a G9 and an M8. I bought the former because I wanted a competent camera with RAW and manual controls that I could take anywhere. I have to say that I was pleased and surprised by the quality of some of the images I managed to produce from it. I could always tell the difference between G9 images and those from my 1DS2 - but the difference in image quality was in no way proportionate to the difference in price! That said, many of the images I produced had a somewhat "video" look about them which I was never able fully to remove with Photoshop.
My relationship with my M8 is still at the initial infatuation stage (I've only owned it for three weeks). However, there is no sign at all of that "video-like" quality I so dislike. And whilst it can't match the sheer resolving power of my 16 megapixel 1DS2, in many ways I prefer the appearance of the M8's images. They really do look like prints from film and not mosaics of coloured pixels. I believe that to some extent this is due to the out of the camera sharpness of images from the M8. Canon RAW images are quite soft (even when captured with good lenses) so need to be subjected to quite a lot of sharpening. Even when sharpening tools are used with some degree of sensitivity I find that this results in a less than natural appearance. I have found that I rarely need to apply any sharpening to M8 images.
But more importantly, the M8 has prompted me to think much harder about the scene before me before pressing the shutter. With either of the Canons I could be confident of their abilty to produce a well exposed, in-focus image in almost any circumstance so I (wrongly) tended to leave the decision making to the "expert". However, no camera can interpret a scene so the use of a camera which requires rather more input from the user than the Canons forces the photographer to consider what he or she is trying to achieve in a bit more detail. And as a result of breaking my bad habit of allowing the camera to make decisions for me I usually end up with images from my M8 that I am more satisfied with.
Reformed Canon user confesses.
I too have both a G9 and an M8. I bought the former because I wanted a competent camera with RAW and manual controls that I could take anywhere. I have to say that I was pleased and surprised by the quality of some of the images I managed to produce from it. I could always tell the difference between G9 images and those from my 1DS2 - but the difference in image quality was in no way proportionate to the difference in price! That said, many of the images I produced had a somewhat "video" look about them which I was never able fully to remove with Photoshop.
My relationship with my M8 is still at the initial infatuation stage (I've only owned it for three weeks). However, there is no sign at all of that "video-like" quality I so dislike. And whilst it can't match the sheer resolving power of my 16 megapixel 1DS2, in many ways I prefer the appearance of the M8's images. They really do look like prints from film and not mosaics of coloured pixels. I believe that to some extent this is due to the out of the camera sharpness of images from the M8. Canon RAW images are quite soft (even when captured with good lenses) so need to be subjected to quite a lot of sharpening. Even when sharpening tools are used with some degree of sensitivity I find that this results in a less than natural appearance. I have found that I rarely need to apply any sharpening to M8 images.
But more importantly, the M8 has prompted me to think much harder about the scene before me before pressing the shutter. With either of the Canons I could be confident of their abilty to produce a well exposed, in-focus image in almost any circumstance so I (wrongly) tended to leave the decision making to the "expert". However, no camera can interpret a scene so the use of a camera which requires rather more input from the user than the Canons forces the photographer to consider what he or she is trying to achieve in a bit more detail. And as a result of breaking my bad habit of allowing the camera to make decisions for me I usually end up with images from my M8 that I am more satisfied with.
Highway 61
Revisited
At last, something obvious, sensible, not brand-biased - thanks ! Well, I agree 100% with all what is written above.
I am a bit concerned with that video look of my G9 pictures, too, and just found that setting (using the FUNC button, then go to "Colors settings" and chose "C" for customized) :
- contrast -1
- saturation -1
- sharpness -1
helps a lot to get that video look away.
I always use the G9 in Av mode, with the flash off ; I use the weight-centered light metering (not the matricial) and first lock the AF and the exposure, then re-compose and depress the shutter. No camera has to decide of this for you, should it be able to...
amateriat
We're all light!
Whew...even I wouldn't slam the G9 (let alone the better dSLRs) like that. Granted, film is my preferred medium, but I've shot plenty of digital as well, and borrowed a few upper-end dSLRs which, while not preferred by me on account of size/weight and, well, being an SLR, were quick-on-the-trigger enough to satisfy my reflexes most of the time. And the G9, for its category, is really nice in many respects, but it's not a good fit for me, 'tis all.I had a look at the G9. It's a toy. My Canon Vt de luxe has a better finder, and it is about 50 years old - and my Leica M6 finder is much better than the old Canon's RF. The G9 delivers an image quality that is surprisingly low, much lower than a good average amateur negative film.
As I don't have the money for an M8 and dislike the image quality of the Epson - is there an equivalent to the M8's image quality at all that is not a DSLR? And that has "zero or less" shutter lag? The usual digital shutter lag would kill all my images. Some of these expensive digital cameras have a shutter lag that is so bad you need to place very fresh fruit in your still life images and can be glad if the apples don't decay before the shutter opens.
- Barrett
Tuolumne
Veteran
I just got my G9 from J&R. It's hard to find. Most of my usual online haunts were out. Ordered and delivered in less than 12 hours. Wow! (I do live in NJ just across the GWB, though). My first reaction: Double Wow!! - this is going to be a fun camera to use. Alot of the reviews give an inordinate amount of space complaining about the optical view finder. Forget about that. I don't even know why Canon bothered to put it in. It will never satisfy the needs of someone who truly wants to use it. Everyone else will just use the big video screen which is wonderful. Pixel peeping - real pixels - my lcd monitor. Shot at full zoom. First photo - iso 800; second photo iso 80. Proves nothing, but like I said - a fun camera to use. I'll relate more thoughts after I give it more play time.
/T
/T
Attachments
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Tuolumne
Veteran
If I didn't have my R-D1 I would definitely want the M8. A digital range finder is just a great photographic tool. I know alot of people are reluctant to buy the R-D1 because it has been discontinued, has long term service issues, has a reputation for being a bit shoddily built, etc. Fortunately, I am very happy with my R-D1, and I believe it can still hold its own in image quality with a, what?, 5 year old, 6 MP sensor. Still, the G9 is, as you say, a no-brainer at its price point and with its capabilities. I'm glad I have both (well, an R-D1, in any case).
I think the most heretical thing is not whether the G9 is better than the M8 (it isn't in terms of being a pure picture taking machine), but rather the strong probability that the way forward in the evolution of the digital rangefinder is something more along the lines of the G9 than an M9, whenever that may come. The next generation main stream digital "rangefinder" will be a highly specialized, highly integrated affair like the G9. It could come as soon as the G10. The M9 will be a very expensive, very high quality side branch on the rangefinder evolutionary tree. Remember, when rangefinders first appeared they were "miniature" cameras with far lower quality than the MF and 4x5 and larger cameras of the day. They succeeded despite that. That is what will happen with these palmable, highly integrated "rangefinders" of the future.
/T
I think the most heretical thing is not whether the G9 is better than the M8 (it isn't in terms of being a pure picture taking machine), but rather the strong probability that the way forward in the evolution of the digital rangefinder is something more along the lines of the G9 than an M9, whenever that may come. The next generation main stream digital "rangefinder" will be a highly specialized, highly integrated affair like the G9. It could come as soon as the G10. The M9 will be a very expensive, very high quality side branch on the rangefinder evolutionary tree. Remember, when rangefinders first appeared they were "miniature" cameras with far lower quality than the MF and 4x5 and larger cameras of the day. They succeeded despite that. That is what will happen with these palmable, highly integrated "rangefinders" of the future.
/T
Last edited:
Paul T.
Veteran
Owning a G9 certainly makes me long for my old R-D1.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Heresy. Or is the thought of images being more fun or serious according to people's perception of brand names heresy?
Perhaps pricing will educate us.
kevin m
Veteran
Of course. But that's not necessarily a limitation. It's an opportunity to shoot with everything in focus; something that's rarely possible with 35mm format cameras.
If you need shallow DOF, keep a film camera handy. They're certainly cheap enough!
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
PeterL
--
I have ordered a GX-100 and I've been doing a lot of informal portraits lately. It'll be interesting to see how it works out. I'll have to pay more attention to the background, that's for sure.
If you need shallow DOF, keep a film camera handy. They're certainly cheap enough!
I was just about to buy a 4x5 camera with an f1.4 lens for that :-D
Peter.
kevin m
Veteran
You're right. I've gotten so used to just throwing the background out of focus with fast lenses on 35mm cameras that the limitless DOF of the small sensor cameras is a challenge. It's also pretty cool, too, when you make good use of it!
ampguy
Veteran
not necessarily
not necessarily
the 1/1.6 and 1/1/8 sensor sizes used in the Fuji F30/31/40 series, and Canon A650 and G9 have very little noise, especially at lower ISO settings.
I don't need raw, so I much prefer the Fujis to the Canon G9, but even with the canon A550 with its tiny 1/2.5 sensor, one can get Summicron 35/2 like bokeh and DOF. There's an example on my blog from a week ago.
not necessarily
the 1/1.6 and 1/1/8 sensor sizes used in the Fuji F30/31/40 series, and Canon A650 and G9 have very little noise, especially at lower ISO settings.
I don't need raw, so I much prefer the Fujis to the Canon G9, but even with the canon A550 with its tiny 1/2.5 sensor, one can get Summicron 35/2 like bokeh and DOF. There's an example on my blog from a week ago.
But if you do they have a lot of noise due to the small sensor