ampguy
Veteran
yes
yes
The e550 has raw, and uses a 1/1.7" large sensor.
Good deals for Canon JPG shooters are the A80 4MP or 5MP A95 Canon models, which is about the peak for Canon's P&S line. Downhill from there.
yes
The e550 has raw, and uses a 1/1.7" large sensor.
Good deals for Canon JPG shooters are the A80 4MP or 5MP A95 Canon models, which is about the peak for Canon's P&S line. Downhill from there.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The G9 is an excellent little digital camera for what it is and for what you pay for it.
It is not an M8, and it is not Canon's answer to the M8.
most dslrs can run circles around the G9 but this little black rectangle has a certain vibe or elan that make one put it in their pocket and take it out and use it and feel good about it and the photos it produces.
It will become a classic and people will still mention it years from now when much better cameras of its kind can be bought.
It is not an M8, and it is not Canon's answer to the M8.
most dslrs can run circles around the G9 but this little black rectangle has a certain vibe or elan that make one put it in their pocket and take it out and use it and feel good about it and the photos it produces.
It will become a classic and people will still mention it years from now when much better cameras of its kind can be bought.
Tuolumne
Veteran
It is the answer to the question, "What would a modern, digital rangefinder-like camera be, if it were designed from the ground up with no nod to legacy products."
/T
narsuitus
Well-known
The Canon G9 may or may not be better than the Leica M8. Conversely, the Leica M8 may or may not be better than the Canon G9. Either way, it does not matter to me because neither is my ideal digital non-SLR camera.
My ideal would be a digital version of the Leica M6 or the Nikon SP rangefinders that produces images like the Fuji S5 DSLR but since they do not exist, I have been using a Canon G5 while I waited.
Leica disappointed me by producing a series of high-priced mediocre digital cameras.
Nikon disappointed me by not producing a digital rangefinder.
Canon disappointed me with their newer G cameras by eliminating some of the features that I liked in their G5 (such as swing/twist LCD, f/2 lens, and CompactFlash memory cards).
My ideal would be a digital version of the Leica M6 or the Nikon SP rangefinders that produces images like the Fuji S5 DSLR but since they do not exist, I have been using a Canon G5 while I waited.
Leica disappointed me by producing a series of high-priced mediocre digital cameras.
Nikon disappointed me by not producing a digital rangefinder.
Canon disappointed me with their newer G cameras by eliminating some of the features that I liked in their G5 (such as swing/twist LCD, f/2 lens, and CompactFlash memory cards).
JohnL
Very confused
G9 picture quality is in the same league as any other 10-12 MP digital camera except for three factors, IMHO: (1) you have to keep the ISO pretty low for large prints, although for 6x4" you can go all the way up to 1600 and do the noise reduction in post; (2) the dynamic range is somewhat less than that of the best large-sensor digitals, and (3) it does not offer Adobe RGB, only sRGB. I cannot make a specific comparison to the IQ of the M8 as I do not have one.
Highway 61
Revisited
Leica never produced a "series of high-priced mediocre digital cameras". Leica marketed a series of compact digital cameras which Panasonic produced by just adding the red dot and the Leica logo on the Panasonic cameras.
Good for Leica if some folks got happy at paying top dollars for a red dot and nothing else.
Some of these Panasonics are of quite good yet not exceptional "value for money", and yes this value for money ratio gets very poor once you think of their prices under the Leica brand.
Good for Leica if some folks got happy at paying top dollars for a red dot and nothing else.
Some of these Panasonics are of quite good yet not exceptional "value for money", and yes this value for money ratio gets very poor once you think of their prices under the Leica brand.
kevin m
Veteran
Oh, for goodness sake, my daughter is only seven and she can see the difference in image quality between a print made from a small-sensor digicam and and APS-C or larger sensor. If someone can't, it's because they're being willfully obtuse, or they need their vision checked.
Argue about the "does is matter" all you want, but the "does is exist" is not debatable.
Argue about the "does is matter" all you want, but the "does is exist" is not debatable.
Nh3
Well-known
Simply the fact of comparing G9 to M8 and there being articles on it in websites with overt Leica love (Michael Richmann of luminous landscapes is an avid Leica fan and user) is a clear enough indication that even if G9 might not reach the image quality of M8 because its limited to its lens and smaller sensor, it still beats M8 on pretty much everything else.
The small "difference" in image quality is not worth $4500 IMO.
The small "difference" in image quality is not worth $4500 IMO.
Highway 61
Revisited
I'm not too sure if RFF would exist if these very two categories weren't the main basic components of its crowd, so, why to complain.
Some may even be the two at once. You never know.
BillP
Rangefinder General
Hear hear!
Let me make this suggestion. The G9 is currently the top of the Canon digi p/s pile. There are features about it that makes it appeal to the same people who have, or want, an M8. These include, but are not limited to, "rangefinder-like" handling, a direct vision viewfinder and "build quality".
Where the wheels come off the wagon is that the M8 and the G9 are built on a different scale, at a different price point. They are apples and oranges. Anyone buying a G9 and expecting it to have the IQ of an M8 is either a) Going to be disappointed, and say so b) Going to be disappointed and not say so c) be unable to tell the difference.
I venture to suggest that in the case of c), good luck to them. An M8 is wasted on them.
Regards,
Bill
kevin m
Veteran
I love small sensor digicams. I get shots with my Pana/Leica LX-01 and Ricoh GX100 that I couldn't get with a DSLR or an M for the chief reason that those small cameras are most likely to be on my person at all times, and a bigger kit isn't. So image quality in that case is a moot point, because the larger camera wouldn't have been there to get the image at all.
But damn, when it is, there's no contest. Shoot the same scene with a Canon G9 and a 40d; if you can't tell the difference, sell the 40d and take a family vacation.
Here's a "good enough" shot from the Ricoh. I was hiking in a swamp with the camera in my cargo pocket.
But damn, when it is, there's no contest. Shoot the same scene with a Canon G9 and a 40d; if you can't tell the difference, sell the 40d and take a family vacation.
Here's a "good enough" shot from the Ricoh. I was hiking in a swamp with the camera in my cargo pocket.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Yeah, I was under the influence of a few margaritas when I wrote that last night and insane seemed quaint at the time haha. But you are correct, the G9 is noisier, has lower dynamic range than the m8 and as thus has a DIFFERENT print quality than the m8. Image quality-wise in a purely on paper comparison it's not even a matchup, however for some particular applications it is a dandy camera and the prints i saw from it worked quite well for the project. I certainly wasn't thinking about the image quality when looking at the body of work, so I suppose that says something for the right tool for the right job.
Nh3
Well-known
"Worlds apart" is like an image shot with a large format camera vs. a holga. The difference between M8 and G9 is "marginal", but you can prove me wrong by posting an example of the two pictures shot by these two cameras.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
i highly doubt significant differences would be evident on a screen... for such a comparison to be meaningful, someone would have to post two shots of the same screen taken in raw, image files adjusted the same way and then printed...
then again that's just an exercise in geekery... bottom line is that for most, the G9's image quality in print and certainly 'on screen' is probably adequate (as is probably true for many of today's higher end P&S digitals)... however, i suspect that people who get the M8 aren't interested in absolute best image quality but rather the ergonomics, user interface. RF focusing and ability to use M lenses...
Tuolumne
Veteran
The G9 is the "rangefinder" of the digital era
The G9 is the "rangefinder" of the digital era
You forgot: ergonomics, low-light shooting capabilities (hand holdable at 1 sec exposures), macro ability (truly outstanding), weight, compactness, shutter noise (completely silent), white balance capabilities (including auto-custom at the push of a button), jpg quality,, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few others.
When the Leica rangefinder first came on the scene it, too, was criticized for the quality of its then "miniature" 35mm format. The same is happening to the small sensor digitals of today. Only when you add up all of the things the G9 can do, most of them begin to sound like things people praised rangefinders for. Hence, the G9 is the "rangefinder" for the digital age, including the limitations of its miniature 1/1.7" format sensor.
/T
The G9 is the "rangefinder" of the digital era
You forgot: ergonomics, low-light shooting capabilities (hand holdable at 1 sec exposures), macro ability (truly outstanding), weight, compactness, shutter noise (completely silent), white balance capabilities (including auto-custom at the push of a button), jpg quality,, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few others.
When the Leica rangefinder first came on the scene it, too, was criticized for the quality of its then "miniature" 35mm format. The same is happening to the small sensor digitals of today. Only when you add up all of the things the G9 can do, most of them begin to sound like things people praised rangefinders for. Hence, the G9 is the "rangefinder" for the digital age, including the limitations of its miniature 1/1.7" format sensor.
/T
Nh3
Well-known
This is a quote from now famous article on LL which started this debate: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml
So apart from the interchangeability of lenses (although with crop factor) and a larger sensor M8 provides absolutely no other incentives over a G9... And I can also even go further and declare the G9 a better camera in overall performance and flexibility.
I'm not trying to be mean to M8 users, its just my opinion from a practical-no-nonsense photographer point of view.
So apart from the interchangeability of lenses (although with crop factor) and a larger sensor M8 provides absolutely no other incentives over a G9... And I can also even go further and declare the G9 a better camera in overall performance and flexibility.
I'm not trying to be mean to M8 users, its just my opinion from a practical-no-nonsense photographer point of view.
Tuolumne
Veteran
The lack of interchangeable lenses on the G9 is a benefit. Lower weight and bulk to have to worry about. 35mm-210mm always at you finger tips. If you insist on more, you can get the wide angle and telephoto adapters that take the range from about 23mm to 450mm (in 35mm format terms). And you get the added benefit of feeling like a real pro, carrying around extra gear.
/T
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I hope Canon G9 owners do not get the idea of doing a victory dance around Leica M8 owners.
