dhphoto wrote:
It doesn't quite match my F31fd at 400 ISO, but I can turn the sharpness off and shoot RAW, so with work the end result will probably be better. My first attempts at reducing noise on 400 ISO images were promising. 400 ISO is quite useable.
David
David, in terms of image resolution and sharpness, how do the G9 photos compare to the F31fd photos in the 80-400 ISO range?
UCSB wrote:
David, in terms of image resolution and sharpness, how do the G9 photos compare to the F31fd photos in the 80-400 ISO range?
G9 wins, mainly due it having twice as many pixels so the sheer image is just bigger and needs less magnification. Also of course the G9 is vastly more configurable and you can turn the sharpness right down, manipulate and sharpen last which you just can't do with the F31.
My F31fd was one third the price of the G9 so you get what you pay for (as ever), it's also smaller, but the G9 is certainly the better all round camera IMHO
dhphoto wrote:
G9 wins, mainly due it having twice as many pixels so the sheer image is just bigger and needs less magnification. Also of course the G9 is vastly more configurable and you can turn the sharpness right down, manipulate and sharpen last which you just can't do with the F31.
My F31fd was one third the price of the G9 so you get what you pay for (as ever), it's also smaller, but the G9 is certainly the better all round camera IMHO
David
Do you see a continued role for your F31fd shooting in social settings at ISO 400 and 800? It is small and produces nice results ... or do you think you will just move on and use the G9 exclusively?
UCSB wrote:
Do you see a continued role for your F31fd shooting in social settings at ISO 400 and 800? It is small and produces nice results ... or do you think you will just move on and use the G9 exclusively?
To be honest I don't use any of my mini-cams much at all, except on holiday. The last thing I want to do when I'm out is take pictures when that is what I do all day I keep all my gear really well and with the low mileage I get more or less what I paid on ebay when I upgrade (which I do a lot).
I just like the technology, I'm a bit of a collector of the small cams (I have 2 F31's because I really like them and they are no longer available).
If I was going to a party I would take the Fuji as it is smaller and designed for low light, if I was going to my son's sports day I'd take the G9, as it has more reach and better good light results. I think they can exist together.
I have the F31fd and have had a G9 for 2 days. Like many users, for me the G9 is a camera to take when I either can't have or don't want the bulk of a 5D etc. Given the pixel density, my expectations as far as image quality was concerned were only moderate but I have to admit to being very impressed the the low iso output from the G9, As David says, if it had a 28mm wide end it would be near perfect (although I suspect Canon know this full well).
I will be keeping my Fuji for low light shooting as UCSB suggests. I love the F31fd but I often found it needed more input from me to get the exposure right so whenever I can, I'll be choosing the G9 as the lightweight option.
What I'd really like to see is a comparison of a simple RAW conversion from the G9 (no NoiseWare/NoiseNinja) to an F30/F31/F40, at ISO400 and ISO800. Heck, at ISO1600, too. I'm curious what the overall look of the noise would be from the G9 in an 8x10 print. I know the G9 will show more noise at 100%, but in a print the added resolution will "shrink" the noise, so it could possibly be a wash if the RAW conversion is notably better than a straight JPEG.
My G9 is about a week old, and just used it to shoot small tabletop catalog items using a small, rectangular tent and two studio strobe heads; one stobe head below the tent illuminating through the milky white plastic background, and one above and slightly to the side of the tent. Used a radio control on the hotshoe to trigger the flash. Here's what I learned:
1. G9 was easy to use, and the small size made it easy to position the camera in the small space available.
2. Large LCD was easy to see even at relatively extreme angles (camera inside tent, tilted down -- me outside the tent with arms outstretched, holding camera -- you know the drill...
3 The lens was noticeably less sharp at f/5.6, but luckily, depth-of-field was still very adequate and much sharper at f/4 - f/4.5
4. The camera's autofocus wasn't happy (even with the bright focus bean) unless I left the strobe modeling lights on -- was close enough to require G9's "Macro" focus setting.
5. The 400 watt-second power pack (with two heads), even with the power output cranked to minimum output, still required the G9's built-in ND filter (ISO 80).
6. Noticeable barrel distortion and CA (Chromatic Aberration) -- luckily the subject matter and final out size (for a web-based product accessory e-commerce catalog) made these non-issues.
7. Workflow on this job, shooting RAW for maximum image control: processed and cropped using the latest update with G9 RAW support in Adobe Lightroom, and then doing more retouching and background drop-outs using Photoshop CS2.
Normally I shoot using a Canon 5D, but small camera size and depth of field become issues with tabletop photos like this. Here's an example:
[email protected] wrote:
Normally I shoot using a Canon 5D, but small camera size and depth of field become issues with tabletop photos like this.
I know what you mean. I've been shooting some product photos with it as well. "Live View" with 100% coverage makes it easy to frame and level the shots. Live histogram is very useful. I'm still waiting on my L-plate from RRS, but in the meanwhile just substituted a B86 plate.
I too would be interested in a comparison with the Fujis. Like many here, I've got an F31fd, and while the image quality is nowhere near my 30D, even in good light, it's impressive for ISO 400-1600 for a compact. While the high ISOs get painterly, they print well...I did a 4x6 that I took in a sports bar at ISO 1600 with the Fuji and I was surprised how good the output looked. That said, I prefer the grain pattern of my old Canon A75...it's just too noisy at high ISO. If someone could shoot normal subjects with both and post the full size images so we can see the print output, it would be great!
CKrueger wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a comparison of a simple RAW conversion from the G9 (no NoiseWare/NoiseNinja) to an F30/F31/F40, at ISO400 and ISO800. Heck, at ISO1600, too. I'm curious what the overall look of the noise would be from the G9 in an 8x10 print. I know the G9 will show more noise at 100%, but in a print the added resolution will "shrink" the noise, so it could possibly be a wash if the RAW conversion is notably better than a straight JPEG.
I understand what you are wanting---but---I don't understand what this will tell you. The Fuji (I used my husband's F30 and did a number of comparison shots in low light, higher ISO) uses its own NR in camera. I shot the G9 in RAW, processed to best I could before conversion (ACR 4.2), then used Noiseware Pro---and got a better image in the end with the G9 because I could pull up the shadow detail a bit more and use a nondegrading curve before conversion--etc. Love being able to use RAW with the G9 (wouldn't have bought it otherwise quite truthfully).. I'm still demoing the NWPro since I don't ordinarily use NR plugins with the 5D (have old free Neat Image but never use it).
Rereading--I see you suspect that the G9 will print better by shrinking the noise due to resolution. Interesting--well, I'll have to try that since I have both. I'll give it a shot later this week..
I used the G9 in concert with my 5D for some product shooting (fabric) for a client where I had time, nobody watching over my shoulder. I know this isn't about DSLR vs. G9, but found it interesting that I doubt my client would see the differences in the final file. I could--esp. DR, but see why some are using this for product shooting. This was strictly for my curiosity.
picnic wrote:
Rereading--I see you suspect that the G9 will print better by shrinking the noise due to resolution. Interesting--well, I'll have to try that since I have both. I'll give it a shot later this week..
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm wondering! The F30 will print a 267ppi 8x10, but the G9 will print a 375ppi 8x10. If they had identical noise characteristics, the G9 would show less apparent noise (heck, better sharpness and less CA/bloom as well) than the F30. In reality we know the G9 has at least a bit more noise.
My questions are, will the increase in noise from the G9 be offset by the increase in resolution? And will shooting RAW on the G9 be the tipping point that makes the G9 look better?
I could definitely live with a high resolution, but noisy file, as I don't care about 100% crops, only complete pictures on screen and in prints.
quick question: How fast does it store RAW files? Back in the day I used an Olympus C-750 and each shot with TIFF took about 7 seconds to complete as the camera wrote the image to the card. During those 7 seconds the camera was essentially inoperable.
I keep all my gear really well and with the low mileage I get more or less what I paid on ebay when I upgrade (which I do a lot).