Canon G9 Announced

[farrukh]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/Canon/canon_g9_3q-001.jpg

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/dcp/psg9/index-e.html

[Ballen Photo]

Yes, I just saw that on Canons site. They must have been listening, because the specs say it'll shoot in RAW. ;)
-Bruce

[EORI]

They also added the battery level indicator. However, it looks like any hope of an articulated LCD screen are gone what with the 3" screen, and the lens continues to be much slower than the earlier G series cameras.

I wish Canon would introduce a software tweak that makes the G7 RAW-capable. Of course, they'd rather sell us current G7 owners the new camera, but if that's their thinking, they'll have guessed wrong again, at least with this Canon owner.

[Ballen Photo]

the lens continues to be much slower than the earlier G series cameras.But they've bumped the iso up to 1600, and I think I read that it could be extended to 3200. I "do" have to wonder how it'll hold up against noise at those iso's though.
-Bruce

[twisted pixels]

That sucks, have not had my G7 long. That is really frustrating when they do this. When is the G10 due out next month?
Actually now I think about it, it more than sucks. It is downright dissapointing because it will put people in more of a delema about buying cameras.

[EORI]

But they've bumped the iso up to 1600, and I think I read that it could be extended to 3200. I "do" have to wonder how it'll hold up against noise at those iso's though.
-Bruce

That reminds me of a trick that car companies used back in the dog days of the 1980s; to promote the "sportiness" of a car, they increase the speedometer scale without doing anything under the hood.

The current G7 has a dial that goes up to 800, yet it is barely usable at 400. The G9 is using the same type CCD sensor, so I'd be shocked if it performed any better than the G7 at high ISOs.

[ismellpain]

Too bad it didnt had the articulating LCD its too useful for me so il sadly pass the G9.

[red hot sheep]

That reminds me of a trick that car companies used back in the dog days of the 1980s; to promote the "sportiness" of a car, they increase the speedometer scale without doing anything under the hood.

The current G7 has a dial that goes up to 800, yet it is barely usable at 400. The G9 is using the same type CCD sensor, so I'd be shocked if it performed any better than the G7 at high ISOs.

And it has squeezed in 2 more megapixels which can't help...

[Andy_T]

Amazing ... everybody and his grandmother seems to be complaining about the ISO 1600 setting (and some even about Canon's wickedness in putting RAW back on the camera).

Guys, you do not HAVE to use it.
On my G2, everything above ISO 100 was hardly usable ... so I had it at ISO 50 all the time enjoying great images.
But, if it HAD to be, there was no harm in having ISO 200 and even 400 available.
I take a noisy image about a blurred one or one I don't get, any day of the week.

You don't even have to go out and buy one.
Reminds me a bit of the old saying 'If you don't have anything nice to say, then better say nothing at all'.

Best regards,
Andy

[red hot sheep]

Andy, don't get me wrong - I love the inclusion of RAW! Depending on how much these are when they come out - I may very well upgrade from my G7!

[cricketboy75]

i just bought my G7 2 months ago, so that really sucks. do you guys reckon i should upgrade to the G9?

[twisted pixels]

Amazing ... everybody and his grandmother seems to be complaining about the ISO 1600 setting (and some even about Canon's wickedness in putting RAW back on the camera).

Guys, you do not HAVE to use it.
On my G2, everything above ISO 100 was hardly usable ... so I had it at ISO 50 all the time enjoying great images.
But, if it HAD to be, there was no harm in having ISO 200 and even 400 available.
I take a noisy image about a blurred one or one I don't get, any day of the week.

You don't even have to go out and buy one.
Reminds me a bit of the old saying 'If you don't have anything nice to say, then better say nothing at all'.

Best regards,
Andy
With all due respect I don't really think anyone here is complaining too much. If anyone is, it is me. I cannot come to grips with the sales tactics used by some companies and I see one of those tactics happening with the G9. It is very confusing for prospective camera buyers.
I will stand corrected if I am wrong.
Should I not say anything when I think it is wrong?

[cricketboy75]

i agree with you twisted. canon's just trying to get more profits by ratcheting up the specs little by little. the G series is the perfect example of that. having said that though my G7 gives incredible results compared to P & Ss of just a couple of years ago...

[twisted pixels]

i just bought my G7 2 months ago, so that really sucks. do you guys reckon i should upgrade to the G9?
The G7 is a fantastic camera and don't be disheartened in any way by this new release. It is a very capable camera so dont forget the old saying that the photographer makes the image and the camera just records it, which the G7 is more than capable of doing.

[cricketboy75]

The G7 is a fantastic camera and don't be disheartened in any way by this new release. It is a very capable camera so dont forget the old saying that the photographer makes the image and the camera just records it, which the G7 is more than capable of doing.
everyone seems to tell me that and i do agree, but i'm having trouble taking good indoor shots at night. i always seem to have to fall back on my 10D. the problem with that is that i find that the people whose pictures i'm taking seem to stiffen when the SLR comes out...

[twisted pixels]

cricketboy75.
You might have to put up with a little noise to get those good action shots.
I tried doing some fast bike riding shots and with a little practice you can predict and get around the shutter lag. I assume you have the camera set to AF continuous shooting.

[cricketboy75]

yeah, good point twisted. i guess i'm hung up on trying to get the pics straight out of the camera cos i'm not a fan of post processing. maybe i should revisit that philosophy...

[alkady]

New Canon Powershot G9- Deposit only


Achieve peak performance. Capturing an impressive 12.1 Megapixels with a 1/1.7" sensor, the PowerShot G9 is the perfect partner for advancing photographers. Flexible control, RAW image recording and a versatile range of accessories set new standards in compact photography. Optical Image Stabilizer lens with SR coating
RAW mode recording and enhanced RAW Image Task for total post-shoot control
DIGIC III and iSAPS for fast response, superb image quality and advanced noise reduction
Face Detection AF/AE/FE with Face Select and Track plus Red-Eye Correction in playback
9-point AiAF and FlexiZone AF/AE including AF frame-size selection
High resolution Pure-Color LCD II with wide-viewing angle and anti-glare coating
ISO 1600 and Auto ISO Shift
Full manual control with x2 custom settings and Time Lapse movies
Optional lens and case accessories plus Canon EX Speedlite flash range* with wireless flash control



http://www.ajpurdy.co.uk/#12549X0

[alkady]

That sucks, have not had my G7 long. That is really frustrating when they do this. When is the G10 due out next month?
Actually now I think about it, it more than sucks. It is downright dissapointing because it will put people in more of a delema about buying cameras. yes because i was just about to purchase a g7 so now iam wondering what to do!

[NickSimcheck]

Blah, no CF Card slot.

I should just over it, CF is never going to come back to P&S cameras.

For got the G10 they should merge the S5 IS with a G6.

8MP, 2.5" moving screen, AA or BP-511a battery, fast glass. What they should REALLY do is put in a APS-C sensor, then you've got a heck of a camera.

[Reservoir_Dog]

Another 2mp on that tiny sensor.... Are they crazy?

[tom s]

yes, the sample pics look soft (think 135 f2.8 soft focus lens), even at low ISO...

[cricketboy75]

so, is the G9 sensor any bigger than the G7's?

[KarlMarsh]

The ISO for the G7 and the G9 are the same. Dial up to 1600, and menu setting for 3200. Really the only difference is the RAW and 12.1mp sensor. It also has a little thumb grip. Besides that the cameras are the same as far as I can tell.

I really wish they would have left it at 10mp instead of going to 12mp. A 12mp raw file is going to be over 10 mb and many over 12 mb. With the G7 you can exposure bracket and still use less disk space than a 12mp raw file. At the end of the day you gain some potential IQ by using RAW but you are still limited by the lens IQ, so net, net it will be about the same IQ. Unless you have a hard time getting your exposure right, you would be hard pressed to take a better shot with the G9 than the G7 and the G7 will use 1/4 the amount of disk space.

Of course I could be wrong and the sample shots could be noticeably better. If they are then I will still get one.:lol:

[KarlMarsh]

so, is the G9 sensor any bigger than the G7's?

Same exact size just more MP's

[cricketboy75]

Same exact size just more MP's
since that's the case, if i were looking for a G series, i'd just buy a used G7 then and spend the rest on accessories. anyone want to buy mine! :D

[JohnJ80]

I'm ok with the image quality of the G7 and this looks like everything the G7 has plus RAW. That is terrific and I will buy one as soon as it is available PLUS the waterproof enclosure (which I am sure is the same as the G7).

J

[squiress]

Amazon has it available for preorder at $499 with free shipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000V1VG5G/ref=sr_1_2/102-1366647-3882561?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1187621646&sr=8-2

Amazin price out the gate. I think I shopped high and low to get my G7 for $460. Not tempted here though. The RAW and 12MP just don't make much of a difference to me. G7 is still plenty of camera for the P&S world.

Stew

[Don1]

Everyone knows, or should know, that Canon comes out with an upgraded G series camera every year. I still use my G3 and have been hard pressed to upgrade it with any of the annual upgrades. But the G7 was a camera that had me thinking seriously about buying a new one. The two things that held me back were the lack of raw and the almost non-existent handgrip. I also like the articulated LCD on the G3. But now that the G9 has raw and apparently the handgrip has been improved, couple that with the reduced price and I am about ready to buy.

[JohnJ80]

Amazon has it available for preorder at $499 with free shipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000V1VG5G/ref=sr_1_2/102-1366647-3882561?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1187621646&sr=8-2

Amazin price out the gate. I think I shopped high and low to get my G7 for $460. Not tempted here though. The RAW and 12MP just don't make much of a difference to me. G7 is still plenty of camera for the P&S world.

Stew

The 12MP I could care less about. The RAW - is a big deal.

Thanks for the link, I pre-ordered one just a few minutes ago.

J

[squiress]

I thought I also read in the DPreview preview that some noise algorithms from the MkIII have been added to the G9 to improve the noise performance of the chip.

Stew

[EORI]

I take a noisy image about a blurred one or one I don't get, any day of the week.

That's like saying I'd rather eat dog food then go hungry. When Fujifilm is capable of producing cameras with highly usable upper ISOs, Canon should pull out the stops to do the same, particularly on a high-end p&s designed for pros and prosumers, and especially at this price point.

You don't even have to go out and buy one. Reminds me a bit of the old saying 'If you don't have anything nice to say, then better say nothing at all'.

If not for the griping and the vocal demands of consumers, there would be no G9 with RAW. If you're content with the status quo, then that's fine, but don't tell others what they should or shouldn't say on an open forum. If you'd rather not hear others' critical assessment of a new product, then you have the choice of not reading the posts.

[Jere Lee]

Is the G9 capable of raw only, or does it have to be raw plus jpeg?

[Ballen Photo]

The current G7 has a dial that goes up to 800, yet it is barely usable at 400. The G9 is using the same type CCD sensor, so I'd be shocked if it performed any better than the G7 at high ISOs.
Ah, YES! But they now have DigicIII. This little ditty gives hope of improvement; DIGIC III also powers advanced Noise Reduction Technology and Face Detection AF/AE/FE.
We'll see. ;)
-Bruce

[hodad66]

Raw makes a comeback.:D I couldn't believe what they
did to the G7!! My GF's Sony has gotten moisture inside
so this may be her replacement.

[Terrywoodenpic]

The sensor is roughly .5 mm larger on the diagonal than the G6
I have no Idea why they have increased the pixel count ... no one needs it and no one was asking for it. Rather an amateur incentive.
Nikon already get a better balance between sharpness and noise on their cameras than Canon. Increasing the pixel count will not help.
Smoothing out noise with software is not the answer in the long run. It always reduces detail and sharpness.

[Ballen Photo]

I have no Idea why they have increased the pixel count ...
Because everyone else is doing it? They're playing the numbers game to stay competitive.
I dont really think we need to second guess Canon's marketing team, as they seem to be kicking "BUTT" so far. :p
-Bruce

[rowdyred94]

Cracks me up that they're still shipping with 32MB cards. Why do they even make those anymore, and why would canon be so cheap?

[rpolitsr]

so, is the G9 sensor any bigger than the G7's?
Same exact size just more MP's

The second quote is not exact:

1/1.8” on the G7 vs. 1/1.7” on the G9
It is 5% bigger, just enough to keep about the same pixel size on both cameras.

And, as Terry said, just barely bigger than the G6 sensor.

Edit: The G6 and G7 have 1/1.8” sensors.

[JohnJ80]

That's like saying I'd rather eat dog food then go hungry. When Fujifilm is capable of producing cameras with highly usable upper ISOs, Canon should pull out the stops to do the same, particularly on a high-end p&s designed for pros and prosumers, and especially at this price point.

I suspect that will happen maybe when a camera like the Sigma DP1 (finally) gets released and demonstrates the market. When you are a market leader, you play it safe. Note too that Fujifilm made one effort at the lower pixel count/ higher IQ game and quickly abandoned it. The f31->f40-f50 (6 to 8 to 1oMP) in short order.

If not for the griping and the vocal demands of consumers, there would be no G9 with RAW. If you're content with the status quo, then that's fine, but don't tell others what they should or shouldn't say on an open forum. If you'd rather not hear others' critical assessment of a new product, then you have the choice of not reading the posts.

Concur. I think we should take heart that absolutely Canon is following these forums and listened vis a vis RAW. The are swimming up stream with this and it will bring in a lot of photographers (like me - already pre-ordered because of this) who view RAW as essential. In looking for P&S cameras, I could find precious few camera (as in none I would buy) that would provide RAW. This is terrific that they listened and did this.

I'm skeptical about the 12Mp sensor too but the G7 had a similar problem and Canon seemed to have overcome it largely with whatever "magic" is DIGIC III. I don't think they will go backwards in IQ with this (they'd be crucified if they did).

J


J

[iwannabe]

It ain't worth trading in the lint in my pocket and my G3 for a G9....that is until it breaks :D.

[squiress]

It ain't worth trading in the lint in my pocket and my G3 for a G9....that is until it breaks :D.

I still keep two G1s busy part of the time, along with the G7. Every now and again I like to work with the flip LCD :D.

This ought to make the aftermarket prices for the G7 well down in the $350 range. Might be time to get a backup. :cool:

Stew

[KarlMarsh]

Ah, YES! But they now have DigicIII. This little ditty gives hope of improvement;
We'll see. ;)
-Bruce

G7 has DigicIII as well. Canon is listing many of the features of the G7 with the G9 making them sound like something new. As far as I can tell there are only 4 differences.

1- 12.1 mp
2- Raw
3- 3" LCD
4- Thumb grip

Besides that they seem like exactly the same camera.:lol:

[squiress]

G7 has DigicIII as well. Canon is listing many of the features of the G7 with the G9 making them sound like something new. As far as I can tell there are only 4 differences.

1- 12.1 mp
2- Raw
3- 3" LCD
4- Thumb grip

Besides that they seem like exactly the same camera.:lol:

Yes, it seems to be really almost a midstep upgrade, responding primarily to the demand for RAW. Yet hard to imaging what else they could be adding to this to get back some of the G lustre. Faster lens of course and that swivel LCD. Doesn't look like either will occur, but then there's always next month when the G-10 will be announced. ;)

Stew

[JohnJ80]

The LCD is supposedly much more wider view making it easy to see from angles. I think this addresses probably 80% of the need for a swivel LCD. Also supposedly easier to see outside too.

RAW is huge.

J.

[squiress]

RAW is huge.

J.

I'd have given it more consideration if it had a faster lens and retained the little folding lens cover, but to each their own.

Stew

[JohnJ80]

My main purpose is for using this (a) outside and (b) in the water snorkeling and shooting from the water. For that, the white balance control in RAW is essential. The faster lens is a don't care.

J

[squiress]

My main purpose is for using this (a) outside and (b) in the water snorkeling and shooting from the water. For that, the white balance control in RAW is essential. The faster lens is a don't care.

J


The water part is really a neat application. You'll have to start a new picture forum and post a few when you get it all setup.

Oh, and congrats on reaching 1500 with your next post! :D

Stew

[Dragos Jianu]

have you seen the ISO200 / ISO400 samples??? JEEEESSSSUUSS reminds me of the noise characteristics of my cellphone :(

[MyG7]

The new G9 looks great, but remember its the photographer that makes the pictures great, not the camera.

[Jere Lee]

Anyone know the answer to my question way back there in this thread ? I'm surprised someone doesn't want to show their knowledge by answering, but oh, could it be noone really knows?

[JohnJ80]

The water part is really a neat application. You'll have to start a new picture forum and post a few when you get it all setup.

Oh, and congrats on reaching 1500 with your next post! :D

Stew

s/b fun. Wasn't watching the post count, but I bet 40% of them are arguing with you! :lol:

J.

[JohnJ80]

have you seen the ISO200 / ISO400 samples??? JEEEESSSSUUSS reminds me of the noise characteristics of my cellphone :(

Oh for crying out loud. Didn't you ever shoot film? ISO400 was pretty fast but it was "grainy." All we shot with was ISO100-200 for that reason. Routinely I shoot above ISO1000 on my 5D and just shake my head at that fact that I can even do that and get away with it. How soon we forget.

I looked at the samples in detail. There is some image degradation at ISO200 and quite a bit at 400. however, both will print up pretty nicely at even 11x14. ISO100 (80) is quite excellent and with a touch of USM in PS, looks terrific.

Would be very interesting to see how the lens aperture impacts the softness.

J

[squiress]

s/b fun. Wasn't watching the post count, but I bet 40% of them are arguing with you! :lol:

J.

Maybe 10% I'd believe as I only have a little over 300 ;).

Stew

[Ballen Photo]

Is the G9 capable of raw only, or does it have to be raw plus jpeg?
All I know about it is what I read here;
The addition of RAW image recording and simultaneous RAW+JPEG recording offers advanced users complete control over image processing.
Sounds like its capable of Raw only.
-Bruce

[Jere Lee]

Thanks so much for the reply, sounds like it does it either way.

[Ballen Photo]

Well, That's what I meant. Just read my previous reply, and see it wasn't very clear. :oops:
-Bruce

[KarlMarsh]

The amazing thing is that Canon actually listened to what the serious photographers wanted and added raw. The irony of this is that less than 5% of the shots taken with the G9 will be in raw format. Canon should have given us a 28mm lens at F/1.8. Thats something that every one could use not just the RAW fanatics.

[KarlMarsh]

My main purpose is for using this (a) outside and (b) in the water snorkeling and shooting from the water. For that, the white balance control in RAW is essential. The faster lens is a don't care.

J

Have you tried Photoshop Lightroom? Lightroom gives you "almost" just as much control over WB in JPEG format as you can get in RAW format. In fact as near as I can tell the only thing that LR cant do with JPEGS that it can do with RAW is recover blown highlights. RAW also give you a little bit more of a range of adjustments. All you have to do is get the exposure "close" with a JPEG, and Lightroom is all you will need to make it almost perfect.:D

[JohnJ80]

Have you tried Photoshop Lightroom? Lightroom gives you "almost" just as much control over WB in JPEG format as you can get in RAW format. In fact as near as I can tell the only thing that LR cant do with JPEGS that it can do with RAW is recover blown highlights. RAW also give you a little bit more of a range of adjustments. All you have to do is get the exposure "close" with a JPEG, and Lightroom is all you will need to make it almost perfect.:D

Yes I have and no it doesn't.

I am not able to get as good of white balance as I would like with jpg on LR. I don't find it much different from what one can do in CS3 and neither of them anywhere near as good as RAW in either.

I'm intending to use this outdoors a lot (skiing), and in the water snorkeling. Both of those are very nasty WB applications. I've spent much time with them on jpg and it just doesn't cut it at all. One really needs RAW.

J

[amoergosum]

I just checked out a couple of G9 sample pics where you
can see a good portion of blue sky.
There's defnately more noise/grain than on comparable G7 pics.

[mp29k]

I don't understand why people are griping about more megapixels on the same size sensor. If I understand it correctly, 12.1 MP is the MAX setting, and therefore you should be able to reduce the size of the pics below this maximum...

What is still unclear to me:

1. How adjustable is the megapixel (quality) setting? can you for instance adjust it to ~ 10 or ~ 8MP, or does it drop drastically from 12.1 to 5 or lower?
2. Would reducing the quality below 12.1 MP decrease the noise at higher ISO settings (i.e. 400+)?
3. Wouldn't the abilty to create an image that is 12.1 MP be a very good thing for tri-pod use at low ISO (80-200) and for time lapse shots where low light is a concern?

4. Assuming the above poster is correct that RAW is basically useless if you have lightroom, would it make more sense for me to get a G7 at a cheaper closeout price and forgoe the RAW functionality altogether?

-K

First time poster, so go easy on me if these are basic questions.

[squiress]

I don't understand why people are griping about more megapixels on the same size sensor. If I understand it correctly, 12.1 MP is the MAX setting, and therefore you should be able to reduce the size of the pics below this maximum...

What is still unclear to me:

1. How adjustable is the megapixel (quality) setting? can you for instance adjust it to ~ 10 or ~ 8MP, or does it drop drastically from 12.1 to 5 or lower?
2. Would reducing the quality below 12.1 MP decrease the noise at higher ISO settings (i.e. 400+)?
3. Wouldn't the abilty to create an image that is 12.1 MP be a very good thing for tri-pod use at low ISO (80-200) and for time lapse shots where low light is a concern?

4. Assuming the above poster is correct that RAW is basically useless if you have lightroom, would it make more sense for me to get a G7 at a cheaper closeout price and forgoe the RAW functionality altogether?

-K

First time poster, so go easy on me if these are basic questions.

There are a number of Jpeg settings for the camera to shoot a variety of pixel densities. The only RAW setting is the entire chip at 12MP. Only the new 1D series of cameras (MkIIIs) have a new sRAW that allows a 2.5 MP (one in four pixels recording) RAW.

As pixels get smaller the ability to absorb light is reduced. So cramming more pixels on the same size chip creates less efficient, noisier light gathering. JohnJ was talking about very challenging white balance conditions - underwater, and snow. RAW gives him more control to correct those issues.

The G7 without RAW is an amazing camera for the cost. Great optical zoom, huge feature set and lots of creative ability without ANY post processing at all. But if you're used to Pro or Prosumer cameras and professional or serious amateur shooting styles, you naturally like to tweak images either in the camera on in the computer. I have 5D and 20D and like to do a little post processing. The G7 was acquired to make sure I don't miss anything while I am out and about that I'd like to get a shot of. RAW is a lot less important to me. In fact I look at the G9 coming out as a great opportunity to possibly pick up a backup G7.

Stew

[JohnJ80]

Stew - I was perusing the Digilloyd blog about camera sensor sizes, lens aperatures to see where the diffraction limit shows up. Looks like the G7 is probably about f/7 and the G9 will be about f/6.

Do you have any examples shot at f/8 or so? I'd be interested to see what you think.

This means that using the G9, it would probably be best to shoot in Av mode set at f/5.6 or less (probably staying a stop above the bottom for max sharpness). Since the P&S essentially have huge DOF on every shot anyhow, then this could probably help with the sharpness of the image. Since the DOF is pretty large at any aperture then it really doesn't matter to change it much unless you are shooting really close (almost macro) or you need to go to tighter or wider aperture to deal with the shutter speed hitting an end you don't like (either too fast or too slow).

Too, if you don't push it past ISO200 (400 in a pinch) you can still print nicely at 11x14 or so.

That all make sense from your experience with the G7?

J

[KarlMarsh]

Stew - I was perusing the Digilloyd blog about camera sensor sizes, lens aperatures to see where the diffraction limit shows up. Looks like the G7 is probably about f/7 and the G9 will be about f/6.

Do you have any examples shot at f/8 or so? I'd be interested to see what you think.

This means that using the G9, it would probably be best to shoot in Av mode set at f/5.6 or less (probably staying a stop above the bottom for max sharpness). Since the P&S essentially have huge DOF on every shot anyhow, then this could probably help with the sharpness of the image. Since the DOF is pretty large at any aperture then it really doesn't matter to change it much unless you are shooting really close (almost macro) or you need to go to tighter or wider aperture to deal with the shutter speed hitting an end you don't like (either too fast or too slow).

Too, if you don't push it past ISO200 (400 in a pinch) you can still print nicely at 11x14 or so.

That all make sense from your experience with the G7?

J

Do you mean the 35mm equivalent F stops? The G7 and G9 only go from F/2.8 to F/4.8. I remember reading somewhere that F4.8 on the G7 was equivalent to F/44 on a 35mm body? Not sure exactly how that works.

BTW, with the G7 if you nail the exposure you can print a nice 11x14 at ISO 400. If the exposure is off by 1/3 stop the noise is unbearable.

Edit: Duh! My mistake. The wide open end of the range is F/4.8 in tele. It does go to F8 in both wide and tele. I just checked my Metadata browser and all of my F8 shots are sharp with no visible diffraction effects.

[squiress]

Stew - I was perusing the Digilloyd blog about camera sensor sizes, lens aperatures to see where the diffraction limit shows up. Looks like the G7 is probably about f/7 and the G9 will be about f/6.

Do you have any examples shot at f/8 or so? I'd be interested to see what you think.

This means that using the G9, it would probably be best to shoot in Av mode set at f/5.6 or less (probably staying a stop above the bottom for max sharpness). Since the P&S essentially have huge DOF on every shot anyhow, then this could probably help with the sharpness of the image. Since the DOF is pretty large at any aperture then it really doesn't matter to change it much unless you are shooting really close (almost macro) or you need to go to tighter or wider aperture to deal with the shutter speed hitting an end you don't like (either too fast or too slow).

Too, if you don't push it past ISO200 (400 in a pinch) you can still print nicely at 11x14 or so.

That all make sense from your experience with the G7?

J

John is talking about the limitations to sharpness improvement by stopping down the lens. You can only go so far before diffraction effects begin to mess up the image. Most lenses have a cutoff point where the diffraction effects don't become dominant.

I just checked the specs given the post above and the lens is limited to f/8 both in tele and wide modes, so Canon was already thinking about diffraction effects if the data you report is correct. I normally shoot in P with this camera, but will go through a few pictures to see what range I've captured. And if I can't find anything I'll shoot some. The dpreview images are limited to some sharpness testing at only f/5.6.

Interesting to look at (all my pictures are razor sharp so not a point of interest before :D)

Stew

[rpolitsr]

I don't understand why people are griping about more megapixels on the same size sensor. If I understand it correctly, 12.1 MP is the MAX setting, and therefore you should be able to reduce the size of the pics below this maximum...

The ‘image size’ setting basically determines the size of the stored file.
The camera ALWAYS use the whole sensor for the capture; all the pros and cons for a given sensor are determined from its size, the amount of pixels (thus the pixel’s size) the amount of generated noise etc. The physical conditions for the capture remains unchanged no matter the image size selected.

If you resize a 4000x3000 image down to something like 1600x1200 you probably get less apparent noise due to the lower resolution, but that is a function of post processing algorithms either inside the camera or in programs like photoshop and not changes on the sensor physical parameters.

[squiress]

John,

Setting the G7 to Av and f/8 yields very sharp images equal in every way to the same shot @ f/5.6 for those images I took on the way home this evening from the bus. I'll try some more working through tele and wide but I think the outcome will be that the f/stop range for the lens is narrow enough that diffraction effects, while possibly in the image, just don't really rear their heads that close to optimal limit.

Stew

[cricketboy75]

this might be blasphemous, but i find that the G7 shots in daylight or with a tripod are almost as good as a digital SLR. the problem is when you're trying to do low light or indoor photography, especially hand held...

[gubak1]

Hi!
My favourite PS camera is G7. Beauteful camera with many special features. I was taken many beauteful pictures with it.
Now I am excited about G9. I'm going to try it next week than I'm going to write my experiences down here.

[tom s]

that ISO400 pic looks horrible even downsampled to 1 megapixel :(

I think I'll be getting Fuji F40, the one and only high resolution compact with decent ISO800 (8megapixels on a 1/1.6'' SCCD). and I'd better be quick since Fuji is following in the Canon footsteps: flooding the market with 12megapixels noisycams :( Fuji F50 is yuck at ISO200 (12 mp on a 1/1.6'' SCCD).

RAW can't do miracles...I also have Fuji E900 which has RAW (9megapixels on a 1/1.6'' SCCD) and it's much noisier than my 2 years old Fuji F10 (6 megapixels on a 1/1.7'' SCCD).

I guess the new trend is ISO100only digicalms, like in 1999...:yawn:

[alkady]

well ive done it! I Have ordered the G9 :) i still have my S3 Is also and i also fancy the new canon PowerShot SX100 fairly cheap might buy that to throw in my bag :)

[JohnJ80]

John,

Setting the G7 to Av and f/8 yields very sharp images equal in every way to the same shot @ f/5.6 for those images I took on the way home this evening from the bus. I'll try some more working through tele and wide but I think the outcome will be that the f/stop range for the lens is narrow enough that diffraction effects, while possibly in the image, just don't really rear their heads that close to optimal limit.

Stew

Hi Stew,

Here's the article (an excellent one, btw):
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/DigicamDiffraction/index.html

Just swagging numbers out (too lazy) I'd put the G7's max aperture (for diffracton purposes) to be about f7.1 or so. The G9 would lose about a stop on that. That explains why f/8 works ok.

There is little advantage to making a lens that stops down more on either of these, after, oh, about f/4-5.6 or so you kind of gain no benefit from DOF issues either way. The only reason at that point is to reduce light but you can also use the ND filter or higher shutter speed (got plenty of that).

J

[squiress]

Hi Stew,

Here's the article (an excellent one, btw):
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/DigicamDiffraction/index.html

Just swagging numbers out (too lazy) I'd put the G7's max aperture (for diffracton purposes) to be about f7.1 or so. The G9 would lose about a stop on that. That explains why f/8 works ok.

There is little advantage to making a lens that stops down more on either of these, after, oh, about f/4-5.6 or so you kind of gain no benefit from DOF issues either way. The only reason at that point is to reduce light but you can also use the ND filter or higher shutter speed (got plenty of that).

J

Thanks for the article. Happy to send you some images, but I pixel peeped them pretty good and really didn't see any difference in sharpness.

Stew

[JohnJ80]

I'm thinking that worrying about apertures greater than f/5.6 don't really matter anyhow on this camera. I starting thinking with my dslr mentality that that would be a big problem but this is not such an issue with these small sensors.

Probably not worth worrying about it.

I do wish they would quit pushing the MP issue on these tiny sensors. There is no technical reason to go there but it just makes the whole thing more difficult for IQ. I really would like them to increase the sensor size instead. That, however, will never happen because, IIRC, the sensor cost is 55% of the cost of the camera in general.

The Sigma DP1 does look interesting.

J

[squiress]

I'm thinking that worrying about apertures greater than f/5.6 don't really matter anyhow on this camera. I starting thinking with my dslr mentality that that would be a big problem but this is not such an issue with these small sensors.

Probably not worth worrying about it.

I do wish they would quit pushing the MP issue on these tiny sensors. There is no technical reason to go there but it just makes the whole thing more difficult for IQ. I really would like them to increase the sensor size instead. That, however, will never happen because, IIRC, the sensor cost is 55% of the cost of the camera in general.

The Sigma DP1 does look interesting.

J

A little bit of an aside, but did you see the dpreview preview on the 1Ds MkIII? The pictures of their improvement in chip pixel light gathering by increasing microlens size and minimizing space between pixels is pretty cool.

My neighbor was drooling over the Sigma chip and upcoming camera for months. I thought its reception has been rather underwhelming.

Stew

[mattjs]

Other than RAW (which I know is hugely important to some people) it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade. If you don't need RAW, could be a great time to pick up a G7.

[cricketboy75]

yup, gotta agree with you mattjs. looks like if you don't use RAW, the G7 would be more than enough and a lot cheaper too! should be able to pick up good used ones on eBay soon.

i went for a bike ride on saturday and there wasn't much difference between pics on my G7 and my 10D! in fact, there were times the G7 did better just cos it was more accesible...

[JohnJ80]

A little bit of an aside, but did you see the dpreview preview on the 1Ds MkIII? The pictures of their improvement in chip pixel light gathering by increasing microlens size and minimizing space between pixels is pretty cool.

My neighbor was drooling over the Sigma chip and upcoming camera for months. I thought its reception has been rather underwhelming.

Stew

I didn't see that one in particular but I've heard what they have done.

If the Sigma DP1 is the camera your neighbor is looking at, it looks great to me. I don't really care all that much about the body, but a full size sensor with a decent lens in front of it is very appealing. I think that camera would do more for the rangefinder market - which really doesn't exist in digital except at $5K for the Leica one (which seems pretty underwhelming).

I'd really like a bullet proof tough camera like that with NO mirror and a very decent rangefinder. That would be a fantastic camera especially if it accepted some interchangeable lenes (even if it didn't but had a good zoom).

J

[Sparky98]

Does anyone know if the sensor size can be increased any and still be covered by the image circle of the present lens? It would be great to have a larger sensor but that could mean a larger lens and pretty soon you end up with a full size 35mm camera. Maybe it is time for one of the companies to get really retro and produce a full sized 35mm range finder camera and we will all be back where we first started.

I was hoping to buy a 30D this year to go along with my G3 but Canon is introducing the 40D so I can get the 40D and have it for a year or so before the 50D comes out. Usually I am the guy that goes out and buys something and then the next day it goes on sale or the new model is released. I can understand the frustration of someone that just bought the G7 and now here comes the G9 but hey, stuff happens.

[JohnJ80]

Generally, the sensor size sets the size of everything else in the camera. I'm sure that the 1/1.7 sensor is matched perfectly the image circle size. Otherwise, that would add tons more cost to the camera.

IC's tend not to get larger but you just get to pack more into them - like here going from 10MP to 12MP.

J

[CincyShooter]

Holy LCD!

[scd]

Does anyone know if it would be cheaper to buy in US or Japan?

Also, does anyone know how do you attack a filter in front of the lens? do you need some add on contraption?

[MikeCaine]

Does anyone know if it would be cheaper to buy in US or Japan?


I'm off to the US next month and it's tempting to go into B&H and pick up a 40D and G9. Anyone know it it's still called the 40D in the US or will it have some silly (sorry!) Americanised model name?

[squiress]

I didn't see that one in particular but I've heard what they have done.

If the Sigma DP1 is the camera your neighbor is looking at, it looks great to me. I don't really care all that much about the body, but a full size sensor with a decent lens in front of it is very appealing. I think that camera would do more for the rangefinder market - which really doesn't exist in digital except at $5K for the Leica one (which seems pretty underwhelming).

I'd really like a bullet proof tough camera like that with NO mirror and a very decent rangefinder. That would be a fantastic camera especially if it accepted some interchangeable lenes (even if it didn't but had a good zoom).

J

Not the camera, the chip. He was looking at the Sigma DSLR with this same three layer chip. It's the chip that I think has earned some underwhelming reviews.

I like the simplicity of the DP1. I would look carefully at the chip within it though, because that might be its weakpoint.

Stew

[cateyez]

im new to photography kinda stuffs also not a master but.......
I want to ask a single question to those who r disappointed with G9 arrival, who already have their lovely G7.....
1. HAVE YOU GUYS AVAIL ALL THE FEATURES OF G7?(BOUGHT MY G7 SOME 8 MONTHS
BACK AND TILL NOW I'M EXPLORING THIS CAMERA)

2. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT 10MP IN G7 NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

3. RAW IS THE ONLY THING YOU MISS AND I STRONGLY AGREE( BUT WHAT HAPPEN IF
RAW HACK FOR G7 COMES)

4. IS THAT 3 INCH LCD A MATTER FOR YOU?

[MyG7]

The G9 looks very nice, but I have to say the G7 (that I bought hardly used and in mint condition on eBay 3 months ago) is plenty of camera for me. I can live without the 3" screen, and the additional 2mp. When I had my S3, I used the RAW hack and it was pretty awesome. Yes RAW on the G7 would be great too. I am keeping my fingers crossed that a hack will be developed for it as well. But with the G9 having RAW, this may not make it a priority. Either way I will be happy with my G7.

im new to photography kinda stuffs also not a master but.......
I want to ask a single question to those who r disappointed with G9 arrival, who already have their lovely G7.....
1. HAVE YOU GUYS AVAIL ALL THE FEATURES OF G7?(BOUGHT MY G7 SOME 8 MONTHS
BACK AND TILL NOW I'M EXPLORING THIS CAMERA)

2. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT 10MP IN G7 NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

3. RAW IS THE ONLY THING YOU MISS AND I STRONGLY AGREE( BUT WHAT HAPPEN IF
RAW HACK FOR G7 COMES)

4. IS THAT 3 INCH LCD A MATTER FOR YOU?

[JohnJ80]

I have a G9 pre-ordered but I'm still contemplating buying a fujifilm F31FD instead. The G7 has issues with dynamic range and noise. They appear to be worse on the G7 plus because of the sensor higher density, it looks like diffraction issues might be a problem on the G9 at tighter apertures than f/5.0

The G7 with RAW would do it - that would have taken the rest of the issues out for me. The problem with all of these small sensors and then the foolish push to higher megapixel density just whacks the image quality.

What would really have been great is if the G9 were actually an 8MP camera with RAW in the same sensor size with DIGIC III.

J.

[cateyez]

so, same here im very happy with my G7 ;p , both of you are right.... :)

[Croasdail]

I used to stay away from RAW myself feeling it is a waste of space. But then I started using Aperture from Apple and all of a sudden my RAW images were not just a little better then my JPEGs, they were hugely better. And the work flow is seemless, I can't tell workflow wise if I am managing RAW or JPEG image. Now this is not intended as a RAW or Aperture advertisement... but using the right tools, you really do see a huge difference. After learning and living the difference, I have pretty much moved all my shooting to RAW. And I shoot between 5k and 10K images a week. I wouldn't use a camera that can't do RAW anymore. Even a P/S. Hence I skipped the G7. The G9 is much more interesting.

[cricketboy75]

im new to photography kinda stuffs also not a master but.......
I want to ask a single question to those who r disappointed with G9 arrival, who already have their lovely G7.....
1. HAVE YOU GUYS AVAIL ALL THE FEATURES OF G7?(BOUGHT MY G7 SOME 8 MONTHS
BACK AND TILL NOW I'M EXPLORING THIS CAMERA)

2. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT 10MP IN G7 NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

3. RAW IS THE ONLY THING YOU MISS AND I STRONGLY AGREE( BUT WHAT HAPPEN IF
RAW HACK FOR G7 COMES)

4. IS THAT 3 INCH LCD A MATTER FOR YOU?
like the rest of you guys, i'm happy with my G7 too, especially in good lighting. it lets me down in low light though, unless i use a tripod and low ISO. i'm not disappointed with the G9 being out, except that it meas my G7 is now worth less used and i could have bought it new even cheaper - considering i only bought it 2 months ago! but all in all, very happ with the G7 when i can't be bothered taking my 10D around...

[aawil]

I've found that the G7 threw me into the deep end of the pool. It blows highlights far too often in auto mode. I hate to say it but I really like to point and shoot. With raw support at least I should be able to fix things later if needs be. So I'll probably sell the g7 in favor of the g9.

[mattjs]

It might not shoot RAW in auto mode. As I recall I don't think RAW was an option in auto mode on my G3. Though I think it was in P mode. With your G7, try using P mode (or better yet AV) and set Exposure Compensation to -2/3rds. P functions just like auto but with the option to change a few settings (or not). I've been happy with -2/3rds in all the semi-auto modes. The problem is even if the G7 had RAW, if the highlights are blown it wouldn't help you recover them. When they're blown, there's just no data to recover.

[GordonSBuck]

I doubt that the G9 will shoot RAW in full auto mode. None of the other G series cameras shoot RAW in full auto -- neither do the DSLRs.

Gordon Buck
http://hornerbuck.com

[rpolitsr]

You can not select RAW in the ‘basic modes’ (Auto included) of the RebelXT (350D) DSLR.
I’m almost sure the G9 will shot RAW in the creative modes only. (P, M, Tv, Av)

[EORI]

With the G7s live histogram, there's no excuse for unintentionally blowing out the highlights. There's a reason the G7 has manual control. If a simple p&s to be used in Auto mode is all you need, then there are far cheaper alternatives in the Canon line.

[JohnJ80]

With the G7s live histogram, there's no excuse for unintentionally blowing out the highlights. There's a reason the G7 has manual control. If a simple p&s to be used in Auto mode is all you need, then there are far cheaper alternatives in the Canon line.

The problem is that the dynamic range is pretty low for a digital camera. If you don't blow the highlights, then you lose detail in the shadows. If you don't lose detail in the shadows then you blow the highlights.

The G7 does suffer - actually, greatly suffers - from a loss of dynamic range as the ISO goes up. I think the G9 will have the same problem but probably to a slight degree worse because the more dense sensor. The G9 will also suffer more from diffraction issues at apertures above f/5.6 that will also cause a loss of detail.

All that, has nothing to do with RAW.

The advantage of RAW is that you can reposition the image exposure in the available dynamic range and bring back the detail in overexposed highlights (provided they are not blown) or detail in the shadow (provided it is not too underexposed). You can't do that with jpg to anywhere near the same degree because jpg loses detail in its compression.

J

[GordonSBuck]

Not everyone accepts the premise that the dynamic range of digital cameras -- especially the more recent ones -- is a significant limitation. Although in years past the dynamic range of digital was said to be somewhat like transparency film but somewhat less than color negative film and still less than B/W film, that generality seems to be, uh, fading.

[Savas K]

I jumped ship to G9. Partly because I owned the G7 as an early adopter. Recall how maligned the G7 was in the photography press? Lots of photographers who ignored the criticism love the G7. I am hoping lightening will strike twice with it's raw capable counterpart. Time will tell.

[JohnJ80]

Hi Savas,

Except for the fact that you hardly ever hear owners of cameras describe them as dog meat..... Not quite an objective group.

j

[sdg]

I started on the G2 and loved it ... when the g7 came out I almost bought it till i saw 2 failings for me:

1. No RAW
2. No swivel LCD

I chased down a G6 on ebay instead and have been happy as buggery. I like shooting markets in SE Asia and the swivel screen lets you take pics without being obtrusive. That was one of the best features of the G2

My wishlist for a great G series would be:

: 10 MP
: RAW
: 3" swivel LCD
: Optical View
: Wider lens capable
: Faster write speed to memory

oh ... it comes in black :>

The G9 seems nice and a little improved on the G7 but I nay wait till my wishes return on the G12 ;-P

btw .... u can see pics of the G2 / G6 & Nikon on the pics pages here: http://travels.ianlap.net

Cheers

[DavidW]

I don't think we'll see a return to swivel screens in the relatively small format of the G series. Screens are getting larger, and there just isn't the room in the camera body to make a large swivel screen without making the camera itself larger.

I think everyone is agreed that the return of RAW on the G9 is a good thing. We'll have to see what direction the G series goes in the future.



David

[cjm]

With the addition of RAW this camera I plan to add to my gear before even the 40D to replace my trusty 20D. The addition or RAW and all the rest makes this one valuable P&S camera that ALL photographers should have, even if they have a 1Ds MKIII!

[JohnJ80]

I don't think we'll see a return to swivel screens in the relatively small format of the G series. Screens are getting larger, and there just isn't the room in the camera body to make a large swivel screen without making the camera itself larger.

I think everyone is agreed that the return of RAW on the G9 is a good thing. We'll have to see what direction the G series goes in the future.



David

I think after this, it is unlikely that Canon will not put RAW in a G series in the future. I'd bet they've learned their lesson on that one.

J.

[dithiolium]

G7 - Canon took out RAW and changed to SD card
G9 - Canon brought back RAW and left it at SD/MMC.

I tried out the G9 yesterday, nice cos it uses same battery as my 400D (NB-2LH), hot shoe and stuff.
However it would be better if they introduced a CF/SD combo slot. PnS users have lotsa SD cards, DSLR users have lotsa CF cards - best of both worlds.
Oh and a better grip will help steal sales from P5100.

[JohnJ80]

Except for the fact that a CF card slot will take up TONS of room in such a small body.

Also, haven't some of the other dslr makers gone over to SD too?

J

[MDJAK]

Good day, ladies and gents. I don't inhabit this portion of the forum very often, if at all, but today I bought the G9 as a supplement to the rest of my gear, basically when I don't feel like carrying a huge bag around.

I attended a POTN meet a few weeks back in Albany of the wedding forum participants. Twenty of us showed. One gentleman, Jamie Wechsler had the G9 and was using it with off camera 580 ex attached with a cord. It was a great camera and gave excellent results. I was sold. I paid $440 at Circuit City, not one of my favorite stores, but seemed like a good price.

Here he is using it, with another one of us nuts behind him.
http://www.pbase.com/mdjak/image/88439321.jpg

Thanks for letting me participate here.
mark

[Collin85]

Thanks for letting me participate here.

... get the hell out! :lol:

Seriously, how's the G9? If you've tried a 580 on it, please tell.

[MDJAK]

... get the hell out! :lol:

Seriously, how's the G9? If you've tried a 580 on it, please tell.


:(

I will get the 580 on it shortly. For now, take this.

http://www.pbase.com/image/88950298.jpg

[BottomBracket]

Welcome to the G side Mark! Now we can do some serious street photography :) By the way, I am not a fan of frontal flash in the G series cams, I almost never use it except for the occasional fill in flash.

[MDJAK]

Welcome to the G side Mark! Now we can do some serious street photography :) By the way, I am not a fan of frontal flash in the G series cams, I almost never use it except for the occasional fill in flash.

Thanks, Pio. I'm ready to meet you again any time. I'm dying to shoot with you. But I'll have to have the Mark III, you know that. The G will be a mere supplement. Especially now that I've added the 14L to my armamentarium. :)

me