Canon G9 announced

[Rainer Viertlböck]

the handling of the camera is good, after some hours of using it.
all knobs are intuitive and practical.
in raw the highlights have pretty much room for beeing recovered. i am astonished that Phil A and others write that there is just a little bit of space in the raw data for blown highlights. i dont agree here, it seems to be more or less one stop which can be restored, which is pretty good.

at all i thing till iso400 color quality is good, 800 is usable and 1600 is for b+w only.
i have not problem with grain, i was loving my ricoh gx8 also which was much much more noisy.
great tool for carrying around, the G9.
and the image quality is "professional" enough for many journalistic purposes and in is80 in daylight
for nearly everything. i am excited.
ofcourse its not a mf back and also not a 5d or 1ds* or even not a 350 or 400d,-
but therefor its decent and little.


the onliest issue seems to be that battery life could be longer.

my wishlist for the G11:
28mm at the wide end, maybe with f2 app.
moveable lcd, which could be also a 2,5".
bigger optical viewfinder would be great, also the image in the viewfinder is only around 80% of the final image, this is to less.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rainer,

Two things: would you consider using it for IR as Diane does and or how about the optional wide angle lens? not much to carry in a pinch for nice vacation kit!

Asher

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i will try IR . but my ir filters are resting in spain, so i have to wait till im back there in 2 weeks. i dont think i will go for the ww adapter. its too huge.... maybe i will try one if i see it.
and i remember that many times i have shot with my m4p together with a 35 and a 90mm lens only. 35mm is not bad ,,,,

 

[Diane Fields]

i just got the camera today. tryed it out in underground stations ... very bad weather. but the files look really good. i think i will use it only as raw camera. bought also a voightländer 35mm viewfinder to mount in the flash socket.

Ranier, I'm considering a Voightlander 35mm VF also--but have never used a Rangefinder nor an external VF for one. I understand this particular VF has 'brightlines' or framelines for 35mm. I really have to admit one of my 'nits' about using this camera is using the LCD--just very unnatural for me. I am also looking at the much smaller mini 28/35 but not having any experience with these, I'm rather just assuming that the 35mm will be better (and I've seen pictures of it mounted on the G9). Are you finding it a better shooting experience using the VF?

Diane

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i think its very nice to use the voightländer, especially if you use it for fast "snaps". but it turns of the internal flash, there is some electronic contact in the flash shoe.

regarding highlights: under tungsten light the room in the highlights is less than under daylight ..... probably because the 3channels have more uneven light.

 

[Diane Fields]

i will try IR . but my ir filters are resting in spain, so i have to wait till im back there in 2 weeks. i dont think i will go for the ww adapter. its too huge.... maybe i will try one if i see it.
and i remember that many times i have shot with my m4p together with a 35 and a 90mm lens only. 35mm is not bad ,,,,

I bought the Raynox 7000 WA converter plus the necesssary Lensmate (as opposed to the Canons). Its smaller, appears to have about the same IQ

and

but also find that I'm rarely carrying it. I do like shooting with the Lensmate attached--a nicer 2 handed shooting, but often carry it 'naked' also, finding 35mm okay most of the time. However, carrying the WA doesn't require much of a bag--I found a very inexpensive, very small bag that allows me to put the WA on the bottom, tuck the G9 sideways, stick a battery in the small front pocket and really not even be aware that I'm carrying anything, so I can see this as a good vacation kit for some.

I have done no more IR--the season for much attractive IR is past here except with a fairly long shutter speed and I probably will do less until I go further south, though may try some interior with the IR on tripod out of curiosity. There is at least one person I've run across that it is having the G9 converted to IR, but that really doesn't interest me--I'd rather do 'normal' monos as opposed to IR all the time and don't want to own 2 of these LOL.

Someone is bound to ask about the plate on the camera--I have the little Kirk L bracket on--and even if I never use it on tripod, the plate really adds just a nice amount of 'geography' on the left to make handholding nicer for me. It also doesn't make it less 'pocketable' without the Lensmate for me--since I generally carry it in my not particularly large handbag, though sometimes in a large jacket pocket.

Ranier, I don't know about the availability of 3rd party batteries there, but I have 2 extra batteries for it that I bought from Sterlingtek (I've bought BP 511 batteries there for my DSLRs for a number of years and get longer life from them than the Canon batteries) for $10.99 USD each--and being small, I just stick one in my pocket also, though I've only run close, but not out (yet) with a 4GB card. I admit I've not yet completely filled the card yet though.


Diane

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

quality is good with the raynox? you might be right with the ir. this will require a tripoid .... and than i am in a land where i can carry also bigger cameras as the 5d. anyway... is it good for ir? i just had tried mysinar e75 mf back, removed the ir filter but the results havent been good.

 

[Diane Fields]

quality is good with the raynox? you might be right with the ir. this will require a tripoid .... and than i am in a land where i can carry also bigger cameras as the 5d. anyway... is it good for ir? i just had tried mysinar e75 mf back, removed the ir filter but the results havent been good.

Do you mean IR with the 5D? Yes, its fine, but some lenses are not great for IR--have hot spots (50 f/1.4 for instance--there is a list of 'good' and bad Canon lenses for IR regarding hot spots), so if you pick your lenses, my experiments with the 5D and IR were reasonable. I need to experiment more with it also if I'm serious about shooting IR at all--I used to shoot IR with earlier cameras but haven't in a long while.

The Raynox (see this comparison http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) seems reasonable for IQ.

Diane

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

thank you for the link. so it seems the 6600 raynox would be a nice lens. i will wat a little bit, but as i know me i will go for it sooner or later.
thanks for your tips ...

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

after comparing the samples on this site
( http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) ,
i see that the clear winner of the lens adapters is the canon, at least for sharpness. 2. place has the raynox 7000 and the 6600 isnt very sharp and kontrasty, compared to the others. so i am still thinking about,- because the canon adapter adds a lot of weigth and site ..

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

shooting more with the G9 and printing first images on my epson 7800 ( easy to see that i am a fan ):

very good with raw,- at iso80 visual comparable with my 5d ( although not if pixel peeping at 100% ) .
good prints at A2 (!)
good skin colors. very usable as "street-portrait" camera.
images are good enough for publications.
menues and handling is very good. better than my 5d.

together with PhotoAcute and stacking 3 images good results till iso800.

i am excited by the camera.
i only shoot raw.

 

[Diane Fields]

after comparing the samples on this site
( http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html ) ,
i see that the clear winner of the lens adapters is the canon, at least for sharpness. 2. place has the raynox 7000 and the 6600 isnt very sharp and kontrasty, compared to the others. so i am still thinking about,- because the canon adapter adds a lot of weigth and site ..

Ranier, I bought the 7000--a compromise--smaller than the Canon but closer in IQ than the 6600. However, I have not really used it--probably could have gotten along with it--as least so far.

I was reading your post and realized I don't think I ever heard about Photoacute. I checked out their product, examples--and it looks as though it might be a worthwhile product if one shoots a lot with a small sensor camera at higher ISOs. Thanks for mentioning it.

Diane

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

Ranier, I bought the 7000--a compromise--smaller than the Canon but closer in IQ than the 6600. However, I have not really used it--probably could have gotten along with it--as least so far.

I was reading your post and realized I don't think I ever heard about Photoacute. I checked out their product, examples--and it looks as though it might be a worthwhile product if one shoots a lot with a small sensor camera at higher ISOs. Thanks for mentioning it.

Diane

yes its surprising. but although with the 5d it creates perfectly clean shadowsn ,which are at the level of my mf equipement. little bit slow the programm, but its algorythm seems pretty complicate.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

yes its surprising. but although with the 5d it creates perfectly clean shadowsn ,which are at the level of my mf equipement. little bit slow the programm, but its algorythm seems pretty complicate.

Actually, assuming you take multiple exposures, a program like Photomatix will also clean up shadow noise (by averaging). In addition, Photomatix will also allow to construct HDR files from exposure bracketed exposures. In both cases stationary subjects work best, but even handheld is possible.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rainer and Bart, have either of you experience with both Photomatix and Photoacute to be able to give us a comparative evaluation?

Asher

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

i have both and use both. photomatix is a hdr programm with sophisticated tone mapping possibilities. its not easy to use but can deliver very interesting results,- much better than photoshop cs3.

photo acute has a hdr function as well, but does not make tone mapping and does not increase the micro contrast,- it only write 16bit files which cant be tone mapped later. its strengths are layering files and decrease noise. if you give PA 3 files with different exposures ( 1 over- 1 on spot - 1 under ) it will use the best "zones" from each of this three, images overblown parts of the images will disappear as well as underexposed parts. in addition noise will be bined and highly reduced.
it can stack photos with different focus zones for increasing the depth of field.
it can use multiple exposures to increase sharpness and resolution ( it works ! )
it removes automatically in the processed files all CA ( works great too ).

boths programs are very usefull.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

i have both and use both. photomatix is a hdr programm with sophisticated tone mapping possibilities. its not easy to use but can deliver very interesting results,- much better than photoshop cs3.

Yes, although most people use it for the HDR construction and tonemapping, it also does averaging and blending of multiple exposures. That's what I wanted to point out.

it can use multiple exposures to increase sharpness and resolution ( it works ! )

How useful would you say that functionality is? Does it really make a significant enough difference (I know in theory it can, but how about in actual use)?

it removes automatically in the processed files all CA ( works great too ).

That should be a standard function in all image processing software. Good to know it works well in PA, thanks.

Bart

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

about resolution increase:
i have to use sometimes the 12-24 sigma wideangle for architecture shots,- and unfortunately it happened several times that these super wide shots have caugth a lot of attention and they got also many publications for beeing spectacular.
the12-24 sigma is the main reason i use sometimes 35mm digital cameras for architecture, nearly all other stuff i shoot with 22 or 33mp backs. but the lens is at the edges often a visible limiting factor, so it does not matter if i use a 1ds-mk3 or the 5d ( which i actually do ) for it,- because the lens isnt sharp enough even for the 5d ,- at the edges.
here PA delivers "wonders". the optical impression of this unsharper zones is much sharper and bring the shots with this lens clearly over the "double-page-barrier",- although i allways was able to postpro this shots that they could have been used - ( even side by side with my sinar shots ), - i feel saver to have here more resolution and perceived sharpness.
very specific uasage,- but thats how i use it now.

why do i use the sigma 12-24?
because its the ONLIEST super wide angle evver made for 35mm which has only moderate distortion, the little distortion it still has is a pure barrel distortion ( anout 1% @ 12mm !).- it has not moustache form- simple barrel distortion forms are easy to correct so perfect that the final images do not show any distortions. thats what i need at first for architecture.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rainer,

So both you and Nicolas Claris earn money with the Sigma zoom lens. He prints wall size pictures from the lens! Now have you looked at the Canon 14mm version II?

Asher

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

Hi Rainer,

So both you and Nicolas Claris earn money with the Sigma zoom lens. He prints wall size pictures from the lens! Now have you looked at the Canon 14mm version II?

Asher

no,- and the zoom fits better my needs. Although not knowing the 14mm ... i would be very very surprised if it would not show up moustache distortion ... as all other canon nikon zeiss leica ( R ) wide angle constructions.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

the12-24 sigma is the main reason i use sometimes 35mm digital cameras for architecture, nearly all other stuff i shoot with 22 or 33mp backs. but the lens is at the edges often a visible limiting factor, so it does not matter if i use a 1ds-mk3 or the 5d ( which i actually do ) for it,- because the lens isnt sharp enough even for the 5d ,- at the edges.
here PA delivers "wonders".

Lacking corner resolution on super-wides is an excellent use for the "super-resolution" feature, on stationary subjects. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 which needs stopping down to f/11 @16mm if I want the extreme corner projections on a 24x36mm sensor array to be good.

Bart

 

[Diane Fields]

Lacking corner resolution on super-wides is an exellent use for the "super-resolution" feature, on stationary subjects. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 which needs stopping down to f/11 @16mm if I want the extreme corner projections on a 24x36mm sensor array to be good.

Bart

Yes, I have the 12-24 also and this sounds like something to try. I've been following the conversation about this.

Diane

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, I have the 12-24 also and this sounds like something to try. I've been following the conversation about this.

They have a free (watermarked output) trial version. With large files it's going to take some processing time, and also since files have to be loaded in memory first it pays to have lots of RAM on board (although it works on more limited resouces).

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With large files it's going to take some processing time, ...

And just when I started exploring Raw file input (as converted DNG files) in PhotoAcute, it appears that the SuperRes output cannot be saved as "linear Raw" DNGs, when the output is larger than 9999 pixels in one dimension. It is caused by a silly Adobe limitation, also 'featured' in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. That means that 1Ds Mark II (and III) Raw files cannot be fully exploited, and larger MF sensor files are also stuck.

A 'work-around' is to use Raw converted and gamma adjusted TIF input, and save as TIF, but that results in a more involved workflow. Alternatively one can save the Raw imported result of a SuperRes operation as TIF, but that result will need colorbalancing and Gamma adjustment in postprocessing.

Bart

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

its time that adobe change this 9999 pixel limit. i cant import any of my larger panoramas in LR. its really a huge limitation.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So, Rainer, what do people do when they scan a huge painting? !0,000 pixels is not such a lot! That's just a 100 MP image. Are you saying this is the latest limit in the size that can be saved or can be worked with?

I have not looked at it lately but with PS 7 for sure, I couldn't save more than 2GB files so I cut the file in two parts and saved the parts separately.

So where is the current block in CS2, CS3 and Lightroom. Also what are the corresponding limitations in other packages like Lightzone, Bibble, Lightroom and so forth?

Asher

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

photoshop can handle also larger files,- but raws can just be opened if they dont exceed 9999 pixels and lightroom can not import larger files in its library.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Raw is back!

But the sensel pitch is still 1.9 micron, which means anything narrower than say f/2.8 aperture will be diffraction limited. The DIGIC III will help to keep the noise down a bit, but I can't find if it does 14-bit ADC processing.

So how much limitation are you finding, Rainer and Diane or anyother lucky G9 owners from the G9's diffraction at smaller apertures? Do you have examples?

Asher

 

[Rainer Viertlböck]

So how much limitation are you finding, Rainer and Diane or anyother lucky G9 owners from the G9's diffraction at smaller apertures? Do you have examples?

Asher

i dont find this limiting, but i am not so much "peeping" in the files with this camera as well ...

 

[Clayton Lofgren]

My G9 has found me in Morocco, but I have not found time to learn much about it. I have good intentions of spreading my wings beyond headshots, but in the meantime---

[/IMG]