I've enjoyed the top-heavy flash photos. I bought a Canon 220ex flash, and it is the perfect companion to the G7/9. To outset the lack of swivel for bounced flash, I use a Sto-fen Omni-Bounce Universal #OM-UNI diffuser.
I also just bought a G9 just to keep in the car for unplanned opportunities. I have mine set to record both RAW and JPG. However, when I upload the images to my desktop using both the G9 and provided software and using a standard card reader, no RAW files were transferred to my desktop (i have PS CS). I realized PS CS can not read the G9 RAW files, but shouldn't I at least see the files in my directory? I double checked the setting to make sure the RAW+JPG option was in the "On" mode. Any help would be appreciated.
What do you get when you dump 12MP on a tiny sensor...? Noise, noise and noise... There is even noise in ISO 80 shots in good lighting (blue skies are full of it). Higher than ISO 400 is unusable for anything but small prints.
The G9 is loaded with features, but it produces essentially the same IQ as the humble Powershot A720 IS (which is better in the corners anyway). And where do you need all these features for when creative possibilties are limited in the first place due to the huge DOF?
The idea of a (small and light) P&S camera that matches (or even rivals) the IQ of a DSLR is of course very tempting. But Canon will have to do better than giving us a stock sensor with extended features and handling. A very difficult task indeed. You only have the watch Sigma' struggle with it's DP-1...
On the positive side... with some heavy PP it may be possible to "make" something out of the G9 RAW files (at the expense of convenience).
Please Canon (and other manufacturers)... come to your senses... give us a somewhat bigger sensor and a whole lot less pixels... and maybe you can produce a winner next time
I own a G9, and I find the results when shooting Raw, and using a little post processing/noise reduction to be exceptional. I guess everyone's standard is different, but I would hope that anyone considering a G9 disregard your comments. I have heard that Canon uses the extra megapixels as compared with the G7 solely for noise reduction. If true, this would mean the G9 is atleast the same noise potential as a G7, and probably better due to the extra data being applied solely to alleviate noise.
Also, I think your statement about the G9 feature set as being "all kinds of things most people will never use" as ridiculous. Perhaps we could compare the video out put of the G9 versus your F20. I find the video to be simply stunning. Better than any other point and shoot, and the camera is very small. I have used it for capturing small segments of video as much as I have used it for still images.
You're right too, I don't think anyone would have a care in the world for putting a real flash on their point and shoot. I mean, having a flash hot shoe is just ridiculous, isn't it? What a silly feature.
I too, absolutely hate the ISO dial that the G9 possesses, but is lacking on my 5D. Hmmm... what a crappy feature addition.
Anyone taking an honest look at this camera will come to the conclusion that in the point and shoot world, there are few cameras, if any, that will match the capabilities and picture quality.
I own a G9, and I find the results when shooting Raw, and using a little post processing/noise reduction to be exceptional.
snip
Also, I think your statement about the G9 feature set as being "all kinds of things most people will never use" as ridiculous.
snip
snip
Anyone taking an honest look at this camera will come to the conclusion that in the point and shoot world, there are few cameras, if any, that will match the capabilities and picture quality.
If one pays attention and gets a good ISO400 image (there's a live histo which is very helpful in this regard), shooting in RAW--its quite good. Use a very little NR and very good. My husband has an F30 (bought by me for his particular use) and quite truthfully, I hate in camera NR--and can get better out of the G9/NR/RAW.
I like the controls available (I don't use the video)--finding them similar enough to the DSLRs to please me. Not much menu driven that I have to deal with.
Would I like the G9 to be better? Yes--primarily in low noise/high ISO--and prefer that its 28mm instead of 35mm (I bought a WA converter but have yet to use it). I added a Voigtlander VF--use it all the time, added the grip and its become 'part' of the camera. I have the Lensmate and bayonet it on or off depending how I will carry the G9--mostly off right now. With it off, the grip on and the VF slipped in or out of hotshoe--great for a small pocketable/small handbag camera for me. Because I don't like flash, rarely use in on 5D and other bodies except for commercial, I know the limitations of the G9 in quite low light, but because I can shoot at a much slower shutter speed handheld than with 5D, I find it pretty usable in that situation--unless there is movement and I plan to record that movement.
All in all--quite a capable camera, very good IQ and a good companion to the 5D (though I admit to carrying it more).
Forgot to add there are more G9 RAW converters out there--try the Bibble upgrade--quite nice though I'm a 'converted' LR user now (from Imatch, C1 or RSP and PS).
TBannor wrote:
You know, the more I read these noise complaints, the more I think a lot of folks have gotten into photography without ever having shot film.
I think you'd be right, most people have never seriously shot with film and most people get upset when they see noise at a 100% on a monitor.
If the same people had shot with film and put it on a slide table with a loupe they'd have boycotted Kodak and Fuji.
Mike40sw wrote:
I also just bought a G9 just to keep in the car for unplanned opportunities. I have mine set to record both RAW and JPG. However, when I upload the images to my desktop using both the G9 and provided software and using a standard card reader, no RAW files were transferred to my desktop (i have PS CS). I realized PS CS can not read the G9 RAW files, but shouldn't I at least see the files in my directory? I double checked the setting to make sure the RAW+JPG option was in the "On" mode. Any help would be appreciated....Show more →
The "raw" must also be set from the function menu (where you set the jpg compression, white balance, etc) as well as the main menu -- a *minor* detail that is missed by many!
Gordon Buck wrote:
The "raw" must also be set from the function menu (where you set the jpg compression, white balance, etc) as well as the main menu -- a *minor* detail that is missed by many!
Ditto! FYI, the Canon own Zoom Ex browser and DPP works on the RAW too
Hrow wrote:
OK, I'm confused. Is there a Voigtlander VF available to match the zoom of the G9?
No, external VF fit into the hot shoe. They are fixed --IOW, a 35mm works well for a 35mm composition (and, in this case a 25-28 comp because of the outside geography beyond the brightlines). I shoot primarily at 35mm--and sometimes 50 and 70 (have C1 and C2 set at those 2 FL) and can visualize pretty well for the 2 longer FLs. Its rare that I shoot beyond that --even with my DSLR. An external VF isn't for everyone, but works really well for me--and the VL has parallax error marks for closer than 4 ft.
This has been the most popular VF I've read about on several forums but some liked the 28-35 mini better http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtacc.htm
scroll down until you find the combination 28/35 mini finder.
Ron Hew wrote:
Ditto! FYI, the Canon own Zoom Ex browser and DPP works on the RAW too
Sadly DPP will not read G9's RAWs (Zoombrowser only)--only those of the DSLRs. There are quite a few RCs that now read the G9 files---ACR/LR (latest versions), Bibble, I understand that Silkypix will, RAWtherapee (?)--and I'm sure eventually that Breezebrowser will be able to also.
picnic wrote:
Sadly DPP will not read G9's RAWs (Zoombrowser only)--only those of the DSLRs. There are quite a few RCs that now read the G9 files---ACR/LR (latest versions), Bibble, I understand that Silkypix will, RAWtherapee (?)--and I'm sure eventually that Breezebrowser will be able to also.
Diane
Diane,
I think if you convert the raw file with ZoomEx into tif then transfer it to CS2 and it will work just fine.
Got it replaced and all is fine! I haven't gotten to used it much yet, since it is winter in Canada.
