I agree that it doesn't makes much sense to compare details of a blurred shot, and it is more like comparing IS vs no IS. While the tester might need to rephrase his point but I think the his point is valid. Every camera has a low light limit, and from his testing G9's appeared to be lower than F31fd's for still subjects.
bias_hjorth wrote:
Thanks for the test although to me this is more of a how slow can you go with each camera rather than a test of image quality since F31 iso 800 and 1600 shot are shaken and blurred.
"As you can see, the G9 resolves far more detail at the hand holding limit, even with the grainy output at ISO 800. The good news is, even though there is visible noise at 100%, "
How can you test image quality in this case when the F31 shot is shaken and blurred?
Because I shoot mostly still subjects (and in dark light with a P&S, if I'm shooting people, I'll probably just use the flash, since it's likely a snapshot, not an artistic outing), and I rarely carry a pocket tripod when I have my P&S. If I'm out for solely photographic purposes, I have my 30D with me. What's important to me is this: which camera can I get a usable shot with in the lowest light. IS / lens speed / ISO all are a part of that equation. The fact is, the G9 is better at getting me the shots I want in the light I need.
Take this for example...walking home after the football game, with no tripod, just the G9 in my pocket, and I took this shot at ISO 100, because I was able to semi-brace the camera (but not real securely), and this is at 0.8 seconds....no POSSIBLE way this shot is sharp with the F31 at ISO 100...I'd need probably 400 or 800,and at that point, the image quality is nowhere near the G9. (I also prefer the G9's noise characteristic...the F31's is too painterly and processed in my opinion, but that's personal preference).
Right...but the pictures are all linked from my website, so if your firewall is blocking my website, the pictures will be blocked.
All I know is, they are still there, I can see them at home and at work (and my server is located in California, so if I can see them it's no different than anyone else), and everyone else can see them, so I'm betting on a firewall blockage.
Well, ISO for ISO, the F31 was better from a pure noise perspective (though I never liked the Fuji's noise characteristic...it looks too processed to me.) The faster lens and IS, though, allow for hand holding still subjects at much lower ISOs with the G9, which makes a huge difference in the shots you can get in those situations. (Plus the controls are a LOT better on the G9.) The F31 is certainly a more pocketable camera...it's significantly smaller.
The main user of the F30 is my wife and I don't think she'll approve a G9 size camera. I am still looking for a similar sized P&S, with the same high ISO performance but with a wider lens and IS.
Yakim Peled wrote:
The main user of the F30 is my wife and I don't think she'll approve a G9 size camera. I am still looking for a similar sized P&S, with the same high ISO performance but with a wider lens and IS.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I'd like a slightly smaller (flatter) camera myself, preferably with a larger sensor, but it has to shoot raw and have a good control layout!
Jordan, nice practical comparison. Definitely worth including such threads in this board, since it relates directly to the search by DSLR users for compatible, complementary, pocketable cameras to ALWAYS have with us.
paulhodson wrote:
Still have a feeling that a small (?) Canon DSLR (perhaps secondhand so less worry about damage/loss etc) plus the 18-55 kit lens would make a reasonable compromise for a P&S and give hugely better results
And yes - I do realise it is still a lot bigger -
I had 400D and found it too large as an always-with-me camera. Now I have been carrying G9 in my briefcase for a few months, and a pocket tripod as well. The G9 is quite heavy, but nevertheless small enough to keep in a pocket of my jacket or trousers.
Images from G9 in less-than-daylight conditions are not equally brilliant as from 400D, but with G9 speeds like 1/4 s and ISO 200 work decently for handholding in low light. With a DSLR and IS, I need about 1/13 s for handheld images at close-to-normal focal lengths. Not surpring at all - it approximately matches the difference in true focal length.
This is the BEST place to put your post since many DSLR Canon owners look into the G9 for their PS camera.
Ignor the complainers.
:0)
I know I did
But I wouldn't be one to recommend the G7 or G9 for low light photography. It works well as a wide to mid telephoto when I have the 100-400 on the 1D.
John
brainiac wrote:
Interesting test. Thanks a lot. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to which camera is going to be better for shooting people in low light?
brainiac wrote:
Interesting test. Thanks a lot. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to which camera is going to be better for shooting people in low light?
