I've been using the G9 in RAW with Lightroom 1.2 and have been very impressed, the quality at 200 ISO or below is as good as my 10D was, with an average lens on.
This was taken in bright, bright light and had way too much contrast, but I managed to pull everything back quite well. It's not a great shot but it shows what RAW can do. There was almost nothing in the highlights or the shadows before the processing.
The G9 is great! I have worked through my initial startup issues with the camera and I am getting great results. Essentially, I needed to carefully tune my post processing approach. As David said, shooting RAW and processing in ACR/4.2 is a good start. In addition, careful white balance (against a reference), noise reduction (NIK Dfine 2.0), sharpening (PhotoKit Sharpener), and a little careful color work (Alien Skin Exposure 2) have given me some great results. I’m happy even with my ISO 400 output. My G9 has already created some family images that will be treasured for years to come.
I can highly recommend the G9 … if you are willing to step up to careful post processing.
For the Fuji F31fd shooters: I shot a family function with the G9 and F31fd. Same shots on both cameras and the G9 results were much nicer. The G9 images were nice enough to meet my quality expectations.
kapytalyst wrote:
A mint used DSC-R1 will cost about $700 and there isn't anything (yet) on the planet that can touch the image quality for that price.
I have both R1 G9 (and 1d3) and I agree completely. The only thing the G9 has over the R1 (and that's why I bought one) is pocketability. Even thought larger, for discrete shooting the R1's swivel screen puts it ahead of the G9. While the G9 has raw, I'm finding (LR 1.2) that the R1 delivers a better image (the G9 might be improved in the next formally supported release). Sony discontinuing the R1 line is a big disappointment.
dhphoto wrote:
This was taken in bright, bright light and had way too much contrast, but I managed to pull everything back quite well. It's not a great shot but it shows what RAW can do. There was almost nothing in the highlights or the shadows before the processing.
David
David, try and knock the brightness down a tad with the G9 built-in ND filter next time.
Savas K wrote:
David, try and knock the brightness down a tad with the G9 built-in ND filter next time.
Not sure you fully get the purpose of the ND filter, it will decrease the overall exposure not just the highlights and would therefore be pointless. It has no effect on image contrast, which the problem here.
What I could have done, had I had the time to test would have been to use some flash to fill in the shadows and bring the overall exposure down so I was exposing for the skin and let the flash bring up the shadows a little, therefore lowering the contrast, or turned my son so his hair was lit instead.
why would I want a G9 the thing has more mega pixels than my Mark III? If thesse cameras were truly oriented with the professional wanting a pocket camera they would design them to supplement the existing DSLRS I am ready for the megapixel race to end thats for sure....
If I am going to carry a small camera I am usually interested in smaller prints or websnapshots. I would rather have an exceptional sensor of 4 or 6 megapixels capable of good high isos and plenty of dynamic range than a noisy one of 12mp's
I get the feeling that the EOS line and the powershot line are not ran by the same heads.
I'm with Nathan - I want this megapixel war to end and the IQ/sensor war to start.
I've been interested in the DP1 for a long time. However, it seems to be moving at the speed of a glacier in getting to market.
They just keep stacking stupid features upon features into the top end P&S and then they use the same crappy tiny sensors. It is getting to the point on some of these cameras that you almost need a "desktop" in the camera to deal with all the features. I just want a camera that has excellent image quality, some sort of IS and a decent lens. I'd even pass on the IS.
JohnJ80 wrote:
I'm with Nathan - I want this megapixel war to end and the IQ/sensor war to start.
snip
They just keep stacking stupid features upon features into the top end P&S and then they use the same crappy tiny sensors. It is getting to the point on some of these cameras that you almost need a "desktop" in the camera to deal with all the features. I just want a camera that has excellent image quality, some sort of IS and a decent lens. I'd even pass on the IS.
J.
Not defending the G9, but for now , as I understand it, it would be very difficult to keep the size AND use a larger sensor (which is what equates for this point in time to a 'better' sensor). I would have been happy with less pixels, but it is what it is. BTW--I don't think it has anything featurewise that the 400D and 40D line have save the built in ND filter (well it can 'frame' for the 3:2 format if you want--can't really think of anything bells and whistles wise that different. It has "My Colors' as opposed to Picture Styles--I shoot RAW, most neutral that I can---and plan to use it primarily for mono shooting--well processing to mono and keep it mostly on b/w display for a visual aid). My major complaint is a not really viable VF (has parallax error to the point that its not really much use many times--I really dislike using an LCD for shooting) and that it is only 35mm as oppposed to 28mm. .
For what its worth, I bought the G9--first small sensor cam I've had since the original G1--long long gone. What I do like about it is that its controls are very similar to my 5D's--and I use it similarly. I shoot in RAW, understand its compromises--and actually printed on 11 x 17 (to fit natively without uprez or down) both a 5D and G9 shot of the same subject (nothing fancy, just one that has lots of detail, both shot at lowest ISO, on tripod, yada yada) and was much more pleased than I would have imagined with the G9 shot. If you didn't have them next to each other, (having processed each to the best in LR and tweaked a bit in PS --BTW I got chastised a bit for using acronyms in another forum so hope others don't mind here--and capture sharpened and output sharpened with PKS) I expect most people (if you don't get a loupe out and go over it) would be pleased with the print.
I would be foolish to state that I didn't prefer the 5D print, but I was much happier than I would have imagined with the G9 print. It has its limits IMO, but the best I could decide on overall of the small cams. The 3 others I considered have a much TOO small form for me to use comfortably (Leica/Panny and Ricoh). Still, I won't use it for 'serious' shooting--but am carrying it by itself in situations I didn't carry a DSLR--and carrying it with the 5D as supplementary (b/w, macro--possble IR).
Oh, forgot to mention--and the reason I actually started this post--it does have quite usable IS--surprised me. I can handhold to a degree I can't with my DSLR--don't know why, but it works surprisingly well (I'm saying 1/8s as opposed to my 1/30s with DSLR). As to lenses--one of the reasons I considered the Panny and Leica but the lens didn't seem to make up for other things I didn't like--and IQ didn't seem to improve.
Addendum--forgot to mention that the DR is much limited as opposed to DSLRs (at least the 5D) and of course detail due to sensor/pixel size is less--but the viewer, unless he/she is a photographer and viewing critically, probably won't notice that unless they are side by side--and even then--well, who knows. For a small cam, it does a surprisingly good job. One can deal with the DR in various ways (bracket, etc.) if one chooses to go that far.
I've had a G9 for about a month. Image quality is exceptional, head and shoulders above any small format camera I've ever owned. Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom can read the RAW files. Canon has produced what is, in my humble opinion, a new standard to which all others will be compared, regardless of brand or price.
dhphoto wrote:
Not sure you fully get the purpose of the ND filter, it will decrease the overall exposure not just the highlights and would therefore be pointless. It has no effect on image contrast, which the problem here.
David
Here are pointless results using the ND filter on the G7:
The sun was killer in these scenes, but the ND knocked things down suffiently to obtain a decent in-camera jpeg. No post processing, save for size reduction and sharpening.
You can use tools for other than what they were expressly designed for. In this case, to knock the overall brightness down, including excessive highlights, so that you can open up the shadows a little bit. This saves mucho time spent in front of the computer similar to the extent you had described.
Savas K wrote:
Here are pointless results using the ND filter on the G7:
...
The sun was killer in these scenes, but the ND knocked things down suffiently to obtain a decent in-camera jpeg. No post processing, save for size reduction and sharpening.
You can use tools for other than what they were expressly designed for. In this case, to knock the overall brightness down, including excessive highlights, so that you can open up the shadows a little bit. This saves mucho time spent in front of the computer similar to the extent you had described.
The ND filter did not let you open up the shadows, unless you were at the maximum shutter speed of the camera. Maybe you don't understand this? Reducing the overall brightness of the scene does not open up the shadows.
Now, what WOULD let you open up the shadows is shooting in RAW, assuming that on the G9 the RAW can capture more dynamic range than the JPEG format.
Saying that the ND filter can "knock the overall brightness down", and "open up the shadows a bit", you're implying that the ND filter can somehow increase dynamic range. Which of course it can't... The only thing the built-in ND filter can do is reduce shutter speed. The neutral density filter on the G9 has no effect on contrast or range.
I think you have the built-in ND filter confused with a graduated ND filter. An add-on graduated ND filter allows you to tone down a bright sky, to better balance the scene. Research neutral density filters, then graduated neutral density filters. There is a big difference, and only graduated ND filters accomplish what you're talking about. And unfortunately the G9's ND filter is not graduated (Hey Canon, there's a great idea for you!)
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Savas K wrote:
You can use tools for other than what they were expressly designed for. In this case, to knock the overall brightness down, including excessive highlights, so that you can open up the shadows a little bit. This saves mucho time spent in front of the computer similar to the extent you had described.
If either the ISO, the shutter speed or aperture is maxed out, then ND will move it back into the operational range of the camera. Additionally, as you approach the edges of the envelope of the performance range, you are going to start getting nonlinear behaviour (i.e. clipping) out of the sensor. If you can bring that all back more into the center of the sensor's performance, you will get better results. One way to do that is with the ND filter.
JohnJ80 wrote:
If either the ISO, the shutter speed or aperture is maxed out, then ND will move it back into the operational range of the camera. Additionally, as you approach the edges of the envelope of the performance range, you are going to start getting nonlinear behaviour (i.e. clipping) out of the sensor. If you can bring that all back more into the center of the sensor's performance, you will get better results. One way to do that is with the ND filter.
J.
I agree with you, except for the first part of your analysis. The ND filter only really helps when the shutter speed is maxed out.
If you're after some motion blur but the scene is too bright and your aperture is maxed out at 8, it's great too. It's a 4 stop ND filter, so it does really do something...
jvarszegi wrote:
I agree with you, except for the first part of your analysis. The ND filter only really helps when the shutter speed is maxed out.
It makes no difference. If there are too many photons on the pixels sites - however they get there, the pixel/sensor can be nonlinear. That can happen because of ISO, shutter or aperture issues.
Savas K wrote:
Here are pointless results using the ND filter on the G7:
The sun was killer in these scenes, but the ND knocked things down suffiently to obtain a decent in-camera jpeg. No post processing, save for size reduction and sharpening.
You can use tools for other than what they were expressly designed for. In this case, to knock the overall brightness down, including excessive highlights, so that you can open up the shadows a little bit. This saves mucho time spent in front of the computer similar to the extent you had described.
I'm afraid you really don't get this.
The ND filter ONLY reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor, it does nothing else. It has no other effect on a picture, it doesn't lower contrast or have magical properties that will make pictures better, it is the digital equivalent of putting a neutral grey filter over the lens which can be useful in very bright conditions like light sand or snow when the top shutter speed can't cope, or when you purposely want to cut the light or for some other reason - to use studio flash for example, that is just too powerful even on it's lowest setting. It honestly doesn't work in the way you think.
My post was to show that even with a file that was beyond the dynamic range of the G9, with RAW and some reasonable post processing you can still produce an acceptable result, even with so many stops of dynamic range.
The G9 is quite the best compact I've owned, I just wish it had a wider wide.
