The G9 has landed!!!

[Lostboy77]

I went to Fry's today to pick up some computer parts and on a whim decided to ask the guy in the photography dept. when they were getting their G9s in. He gave me a knowing smirk and said we have three in the back, they just came in last night. One hour later and $499 poorer I am sitting here in my office marveling at this little gem.

After setting it up and shotting around the office here for another hour I am very happy with my decision to pic this over the (soon to be cheaper G7). The RAW file support really helps with the noise issues as I can run some noise filters in DPP, sharpen slightly, smooth tones a little and end up with a VERY respectable image. Given they are nothing compaired to my 5D and 35L together but for $500 I couldn't ask for more. Overall I am VERY pleased!!!

[JohnJ80]

Pictures please!!!

Does the camera apply the noise reduction in RAW or do you get to control that?

J.

[Nick_C]

Yeah lets see a head to head, Canon 5D vs Powershot G9 :-D

[Lostboy77]

Pictures please!!!

Does the camera apply the noise reduction in RAW or do you get to control that?

J.
I have FULL CONTROL in raw. A real blessing. I will be posting example pics tonight so stay tuned.

[Lostboy77]

Yeah lets see a head to head, Canon 5D vs Powershot G9 :-D
HAH!! that would make this camera took awful!!! :oops: Seriously though, the best results I have seen from a point and shoot.

[Nick_C]

HAH!! that would make this camera took awful!!! :oops: Seriously though, the best results I have seen from a point and shoot.

hehe yeah only kidding.

[Nick_C]

I have FULL CONTROL in raw. A real blessing. I will be posting example pics tonight so stay tuned.

Nice ;)

[NickSimcheck]

Is there a silent option? Can you turn off the focus confirm and shutter sound?

[JohnJ80]

I have FULL CONTROL in raw. A real blessing. I will be posting example pics tonight so stay tuned.

Cool. Does this mean that if I shoot in RAW at higher ISO and then use Noise Ninja to clean it up, I'd get better results than using the in camera noise reduction (which looks pretty awful, frankly).

J

[whitedime]

can anyone tell me how to remove noise in lightroom ? i have a G5 shooting in raw

[JohnJ80]

In the develop module. scroll down through the tools on the right side to the "Detail" section. Its in there.

That what you were looking for?

J

[kobe629]

Just got one too..I wasn't planning on getting one but I couldn't resist. They have a no tax sale at samys too..

[Lostboy77]

Is there a silent option? Can you turn off the focus confirm and shutter sound?
Yes

[Lostboy77]

Cool. Does this mean that if I shoot in RAW at higher ISO and then use Noise Ninja to clean it up, I'd get better results than using the in camera noise reduction (which looks pretty awful, frankly).

J
Yes

[Lostboy77]

Strait from camera JPG files. Raw converts and 100% crops comming in a few hours. First one is at ISO 100 the second is at ISO 800

[Lostboy77]

My Daughter's idea of smiling at the camera! :D

[NOsquid]

Those look great! The ISO800 is impressive.

[Ballen Photo]

Strait from camera JPG files. Raw converts and 100% crops comming in a few hours. First one is at ISO 100 the second is at ISO 800
These look GREAT! Especially the bottle of Bruschetta. The second is no slouch either for iso 800. Noise? Where? ;)
-Bruce

[Lostboy77]

Aparently this shot was actuailly shot a ISO 200 (not 100 as I stated before)

First is the JPG from camera posted before, second is a processed RAW from the same shot. I added a little saturation, contrast, & sharpness, corrected WB and finally a little noise filtering.

As you can see, I'm not a fan of over processed images.

[Lostboy77]

100 percent crops of the previous two pics.

The slight blur in the text is due to camera shake (even though IS was on) I have other shots that are noticably sharper. These examples are more for showing noise handeling and RAW processing abilities.

[Lostboy77]

Comparison of ISO 80 and ISO 800

ISO 800 has noticably more noise however is still very usable.

ISO 1600 was so bad I deleted the pictures right after I took them, Eaisily twice as much noise from 800 to 1600 as is present from 80 to 800. Very noticable even on the 3" screen on the back of the camera. Zooming in using the camera and I had a hard time telling where I was in the picture. They should have stopped the camera at 800 and made 1600 the "special seine mode."

[Lostboy77]

100% crops of the above pics.

[Lostboy77]

ISO 200 and ISO 400 crops for those who care.

I found no differenct in noise between ISO 80 and ISO 100. The only thing I could tell was a VERY slight reduction in contrast (with ISO 80 having more contrast) that could only be seen when toggeling between the two pics.

[Lostboy77]

Overall Impression:

After using the G9 for just one evening in a few different environments I came to the resounding conclusion that I have finally found a point-and-shoot that fits my needs and expectations. If memory serves me right the G9 actually performs better as far as sensor noise and image contrast and saturation than the G7 (even with the smaller pixels). However It was a long time ago that I tried the G7 and it was returned after four days. I was just not happy with the results and felt that my brother's S3 IS was just as good. However I had just purchased my 5D then and very likely was overly critical of sensor noise from being totally spoiled with my EOS.

Whatever the reason may be, I was decidedly unhappy with the G7 and have gone full circle and love my new G9. The addition of RAW support, the 3" LCD, and the better handling (the grip really is better) come as bonuses on top of what I feel to be an improved camera from the inside out.

-Lost

[JohnJ80]

The RAW support does look like it makes a BIG difference. You can deal with the noise issues externally much better than the camera can.

The ISO800 on the screen -which would by about a 5x7 looks great. That exceeds my expectations significantly. At the 100% crop level the noise is there for sure and one would need to be very careful that the picture is taken properly so that the shot does not need cropping.

On the jar pictures, one can see the artifacts from the noise reduction in either case. I suspect that some of that may have come about because the edges were not as sharp as one would have liked - as you mentioned the image was a big soft to begin with.

I'm pretty impressed so far.

What is the aperture for the images? The calculations I have done seem to show that diffraction could become an issue at smaller apertures than f/5.6. This seems to be the case with the sample images on dpreview - with some of the diffraction haloing showing up in the brighter pictures. Did you see any of that yet?

J.

[GordonSBuck]

I don't know about the other G series cameras, but for my G3, I could not make a good judgment about image quality based on chimping. In fact, it seemed to me that the LCD image must not be using all the captured information. This was especially true when using RAW mode and when zooming in. I learned not to discard images based on the LCD appearance unless that chimp was really, really poor.

Gordon
http://hornerbuck.com

[Lostboy77]

The RAW support does look like it makes a BIG difference. You can deal with the noise issues externally much better than the camera can.

The ISO800 on the screen -which would by about a 5x7 looks great. That exceeds my expectations significantly. At the 100% crop level the noise is there for sure and one would need to be very careful that the picture is taken properly so that the shot does not need cropping.

On the jar pictures, one can see the artifacts from the noise reduction in either case. I suspect that some of that may have come about because the edges were not as sharp as one would have liked - as you mentioned the image was a big soft to begin with.

I'm pretty impressed so far.

What is the aperture for the images? The calculations I have done seem to show that diffraction could become an issue at smaller apertures than f/5.6. This seems to be the case with the sample images on dpreview - with some of the diffraction haloing showing up in the brighter pictures. Did you see any of that yet?

J.
As far as your statement regarding RAW support, The picture was farely well exposed to begin with and as I stated before I'm not a fan of overly prcessed images. What I did find rather exciting was that I was able to recover the majority of the over blown highlights using the raw editor. The RAW support certainly makes a difference when performing more drastic edits to the images.

Regarding the statements about lens performance. I did notice that the lens performed noticably better toward the telephoto end of the zoom range. Whether this is a result of a change in length or the fact that the apeture narrows at longer lengths is not for certain. I have yet take any shots at 35mm (equivelent) at any other apeture than 2.8 to see if there is a difference. Experience tells me that there will be.

[JohnJ80]

The diffraction issues should get worse the more you stop down the lens. If the lens becomes smaller/slower as it goes to telephoto, then that should make the diffraction effects worse.

Any photo will strongly benefit from less noise if it is exposed to the right or properly exposed. What you don't want to do is to underexpose - that makes noise problems much worse.

I would think stopping down a touch from wide open will make the lens operate in a sharper region. Works with almost all my DSLR lenses.

Very interesting. Looks like we are getting to the bottom of the G9 performance. I'm optimistic it is going to go ok. Now, where is the underwater enclosure?

J.

[HiltonP]

I still want to see side-by-side photos of RAW and JPGs (both un-processed, or at least processed exactly the same).
The debate has never been about ISO performance, it has been about RAW capability (or lack thereof).
Let's see the same RAW and JPGs side-by-side.

[GordonSBuck]

Let's see the same RAW and JPGs side-by-side.

The way to do this is to set the G9 for RAW+JPG so that a single image file contains both. The JPG image can then be extracted from the file. That JPG image will have been processed according to the G9 setup (or default) preferences for sharpness, contrast, saturation and, I assume, noise reduction. The RAW file will have had no processing so can then be processed/customized according to the photographers preferences for that specific image.

When I made a similar comparison with my Canon G3, I found that I preferred my own processing -- even semiautomatically with my own PS Actions -- to the Canon in-camera processing. Imagine that! I compared the "Canon" jpg to a BreezeBrowser extracted jpg to my own Actioned jpg.

The main things that I learned from my comparisons were:
- the in-camera jpg is pretty good and is usually good enough
- the in-camera jpg is easy
- I preferred my own images as processed from RAW
- RAW offers by far the best options for dynamic range or recovering from incorrect exposure (yeah, yeah, I know, get the exposure right, etc., etc.)
- I preferred Neat Image customized noise filtering to whatever is used internally within the G3. Granted, the G3 noise filter is ca 2002 and Neat Image is more recent. Also, G3 files at ISO 400 still have a lot of noise.

So I use RAW almost all the time.

Gordon
http://hornerbuck.com

[HiltonP]

Gordon, I agree 100%, hense my call for RAW -vs- JPG comparisons rather than ISO100 -vs- ISO800 comparisons. No-one has really quibbled about the G7 / G9's ISO performance, we all know it is better than most p&s's, but not as good as DSLRs. Where there was heated debate was the lack of RAW on the G7, and how much better the camera would have been if it had been included. Well, now with the G9 we can do that comparison (exactly as you noted) via a RAW + JPG setting. The two files should then be post-processed in exactly the same manner, and compared. Then we can see what we may have (or have not) been missing on the G7.

I have to confess to being slightly amused by the seeming lack of RAW / JPG comparisons following the release of the G9. There was such a hoopla made about its omission on the G7, but since the release of the G9 there has been this deafening silence.

[alkady]

OMG I cant wait to see mine arrive too :)i bought one the day they were anounced but from the web so will take a few days :S

[Lostboy77]

Quite frankly, I found the need for a RAW .vs JPG "editing" comparison to be unnessary because of the fact that there have already been so many of these done with the same result over and over again. RAW files give you more flexability and control when editing. RAW helps in every case regardless of which camera is used. Now given the RAW files from my 5D look better than the RAW files from an XTi, but that is a given due to the sensor technology.

What I was trying to point out was that even though the G9 has a 12.1 MP crammed into a 1/1.7 size sensor, that it was still suprisingly clean and still usable up to ISO 800. This was ment as a demostration for all thoes that were "complaining" about Canon uping the resolution at the sacrafice of sensor noise.

If you want to read about the benefits of RAW over JPG there are already tons of threads here regarding that subject. The case is no different with this camera.

[simmo2006]

Hi Lostboy and all

Well. I picked up my G9 today from Park Cameras in Burgess Hill and I have had a quick play and it seems a very nice piece of gear - tomorrow will be the test when I get down to the beach in Brighton and take some pix to compare with my 20D and 400D shots. Certainly I am convinced that RAW is the right way to go so, we shall see.
On the critical side, why do Canon have to put four different language very basic instruction books in the box and also include a continental mains lead each for continental 2 pin and UK 3 pin outlets.

Cheers all.

Simmo2006

[WityWot]

Quite frankly, I found the need for a RAW .vs JPG "editing" comparison to be unnessary because of the fact that there have already been so many of these done with the same result over and over again. RAW files give you more flexability and control when editing. RAW helps in every case regardless of which camera is used. Now given the RAW files from my 5D look better than the RAW files from an XTi, but that is a given due to the sensor technology.

What I was trying to point out was that even though the G9 has a 12.1 MP crammed into a 1/1.7 size sensor, that it was still suprisingly clean and still usable up to ISO 800. This was ment as a demostration for all thoes that were "complaining" about Canon uping the resolution at the sacrafice of sensor noise.

If you want to read about the benefits of RAW over JPG there are already tons of threads here regarding that subject. The case is no different with this
camera.



Thanks for all the info so far!!!

Just trying to find a buyer for my G7 now.

[nswelton]

Good stuff! I just got my G9 and have posted some pictures as well as a mini-review here:

http://www.dreamtimeimages.com/blog/2007/09/10/canon-g9-review/

For those who don't think RAW is all that useful, so be it. Your shooting habits don't make it that useful, and that's fine. Others of us have shooting habits that create a make-it-or-break-it deal. That's fine too.

For me, I like the better color rendition, the fact that I don't blow out colors when I do white balance correction, and the fact that I can batch process lots of images with the same parameters.

I shoot weddings and shot one the other day in JPEG mode with my 5d, and then edited it in ACR in CS3. The result was nowhere near as good as when I shoot in RAW and process in ACR. I couldn't recover details from shadows, I lost my highlights, and I couldn't get the skin tones proper when I was color correcting. Bottom line: if you think RAW is a necessity, well, it's a necessity. For me it is.

[WityWot]

Good stuff! I just got my G9 and have posted some pictures as well as a mini-review here:

http://www.dreamtimeimages.com/blog/2007/09/10/canon-g9-review/

For those who don't think RAW is all that useful, so be it. Your shooting habits don't make it that useful, and that's fine. Others of us have shooting habits that create a make-it-or-break-it deal. That's fine too.

For me, I like the better color rendition, the fact that I don't blow out colors when I do white balance correction, and the fact that I can batch process lots of images with the same parameters.

I shoot weddings and shot one the other day in JPEG mode with my 5d, and then edited it in ACR in CS3. The result was nowhere near as good as when I shoot in RAW and process in ACR. I couldn't recover details from shadows, I lost my highlights, and I couldn't get the skin tones proper when I was color correcting. Bottom line: if you think RAW is a necessity, well, it's a necessity. For me it is.


What do you think OR what does anybody think a reasonable selling price for a Like New G7 would be. I want a G9 BAD and I wanna sell my G7 soon.:(

[jacobsen1]

Damn, just when I had convinced myself I didn't need/want a G9, you have to post these promising pics...

[JohnJ80]

Well, now with the G9 we can do that comparison (exactly as you noted) via a RAW + JPG setting. The two files should then be post-processed in exactly the same manner, and compared. Then we can see what we may have (or have not) been missing on the G7.

I have to confess to being slightly amused by the seeming lack of RAW / JPG comparisons following the release of the G9. There was such a hoopla made about its omission on the G7, but since the release of the G9 there has been this deafening silence.

Actually, the RAW+jpg brings little to this comparison. When you open the RAW file, whatever RAW converter you use will make a guess, or use a preset, to open the file - processing gets done. There is no way to presume a standard between them. So, this does nothing. The only comparison you could make would be between the JPG and the RAW and to see what the in camera processing did and then what you could do to the RAW in comparison. The difference will come in what you select the processing to be and how you choose to deal with the RAW data.

Come to think of it, that is the whole purpose of RAW.


J.

[nswelton]

Ahh, I posted an update with more pics. Check it out again.

http://www.dreamtimeimages.com/blog/2007/09/10/canon-g9-review/

[HiltonP]

Quite frankly, I found the need for a RAW .vs JPG "editing" comparison to be unnessary because of the fact that there have already been so many of these done with the same result over and over again. RAW files give you more flexability and control when editing. RAW helps in every case regardless of which camera is used. Now given the RAW files from my 5D look better than the RAW files from an XTi, but that is a given due to the sensor technology.

What I was trying to point out was that even though the G9 has a 12.1 MP crammed into a 1/1.7 size sensor, that it was still suprisingly clean and still usable up to ISO 800. This was ment as a demostration for all thoes that were "complaining" about Canon uping the resolution at the sacrafice of sensor noise.

If you want to read about the benefits of RAW over JPG there are already tons of threads here regarding that subject. The case is no different with this camera.

I cannot agree . . . Yes, there are plenty of RAW -vs- JPG comparisons out there, but they are for other cameras, most of whom are DSLRs. I have found none for the G9, and it is the G9 which we are discussing here.

I therefore repeat my call for side-by-side comparison of a G9's RAW and JPG file. If the benefit of RAW is "that" noticeable then let us see it for ourselves.

[jacobsen1]

Agreed, and also it will show if there was any validity to everyone's screams when they took it out... Is it back to shut people up, or because it really is better?

[JohnJ80]

Are you debating the advantages of RAW over JPG in general or on the G9?

If so, the advantages of RAW over JPG have been proven time and time and time again. Do a google search. Better yet, go play with it in photoshop and see for yourself. It is really quite obvious.

As for the G9 specifically, we are starting to figure that one out right now. Looks like we are seeing the benefit of RAW and the ability to PP out of the camera over the in camera processing already. I've been following all of these links and it seems apparent to me that the noise can be handled much more effectively with RAW and external noise processing that in camera. But, we all need to look at these and make our own choices.

Much of this is also a matter of personal taste. Some, who may not spend as much time perfecting images, the noise and other issues may not bother. Some of us who are considerably more picky, it makes a big difference.

J.

[JohnJ80]

Very helpful. Thanks for those.

These look much better at ISO200 and up than the samples that dpreview has posted that are straight out of the camera jpgs.

J.

[donatroth]

On the critical side, why do Canon have to put four different language very basic instruction books in the box ...

I guess for not English speaking folks ...? :cool:

[Pauly_G]

On the critical side, why do Canon have to put four different language very basic instruction books in the box and also include a continental mains lead each for continental 2 pin and UK 3 pin outlets.




It was the same with the G7, and to be quite honest the continental mains lead (in addition to a UK lead) is a bonus as it means I don't have to faff around with an adaptor when travelling within continental Europe.

Cheers

Paul

[HiltonP]

Are you debating the advantages of RAW over JPG in general or on the G9?

If so, the advantages of RAW over JPG have been proven time and time and time again. Do a google search. Better yet, go play with it in photoshop and see for yourself. It is really quite obvious.


J,

What is it about my sentences . . .

"There are plenty of RAW -vs- JPG comparisons out there, but they are for other cameras, most of whom are DSLRs. I have found none for the G9, and it is the G9 which we are discussing here. I therefore repeat my call for side-by-side comparison of a G9's RAW and JPG file"

. . . that you didn't understand? :confused:

I understand everything there is to know about the pros and cons of RAW, I have been processing RAW files for years. The benefits of RAW on APS-C sized sensors, or larger, are not up for debate here. What is being called for is a comparsion of RAW -vs- JPG on the small sensor/high resolution point 'n shoot cameras. On these sized sensors the advantage of RAW is not as much of "a given" as on the larger sensors.

Yes, in "theory" it should be a good thing, but some of us would like to see it for ourselves. If it is such a clear benefit in the G9 then it should not be a problem to demonstrate it here.

[GordonSBuck]

What is being called for is a comparsion of RAW -vs- JPG on the small sensor/high resolution point 'n shoot cameras.

Looks like PopPhoto has a review on the G9 that includes some tests of jpg and RAW; however, it doesn't seem to really offer all the details that have been debated here. Also, Adobe has just released a new version of ACR but it doesn't include the G9. So we still have to wait a while.

Gordon
http://hornerbuck.com

[JohnJ80]

J,

What is it about my sentences . . .

"There are plenty of RAW -vs- JPG comparisons out there, but they are for other cameras, most of whom are DSLRs. I have found none for the G9, and it is the G9 which we are discussing here. I therefore repeat my call for side-by-side comparison of a G9's RAW and JPG file"

. . . that you didn't understand? :confused:

I understand everything there is to know about the pros and cons of RAW, I have been processing RAW files for years. The benefits of RAW on APS-C sized sensors, or larger, are not up for debate here. What is being called for is a comparsion of RAW -vs- JPG on the small sensor/high resolution point 'n shoot cameras. On these sized sensors the advantage of RAW is not as much of "a given" as on the larger sensors.

Yes, in "theory" it should be a good thing, but some of us would like to see it for ourselves. If it is such a clear benefit in the G9 then it should not be a problem to demonstrate it here.

Sorry - speed wobble on my part. But your sentences are sort of longish. ;) Since you know all there is to know about RAW files, I defer to your opinion. I know much about RAW, but certainly not all.

I agree with seeing them side by side. Put the camera on a tripod in controlled conditions with known exposure - shoot jpg frame. repeat with RAW frame.

j.

[tgara]

Hi, noob here.

Thanks for the reviews and comments. I'm considering getting a G9 as a complement to my Rebel XT. One thing I particularly like about the G9 is that it takes the same battery as my Rebel, and my 430EX flash will work with it. The posted images confirm my decision that the G9 is a good choice for the advanced point and shoot camera that I've been looking for.

[Lostboy77]

Hi, noob here.

Thanks for the reviews and comments. I'm considering getting a G9 as a complement to my Rebel XT. One thing I particularly like about the G9 is that it takes the same battery as my Rebel, and my 430EX flash will work with it. The posted images confirm my decision that the G9 is a good choice for the advanced point and shoot camera that I've been looking for.
Agreed, you will be very happy with your choice, it makes an excelent pair with an XTi as you stated. I had an XTi when I first tried out the G7. Ended up returning the G7 as part of my move up to the 5D. The G9 is certainly a keeper.

[scrumpy]

J,

What is it about my sentences . . .

"There are plenty of RAW -vs- JPG comparisons out there, but they are for other cameras, most of whom are DSLRs. I have found none for the G9, and it is the G9 which we are discussing here. I therefore repeat my call for side-by-side comparison of a G9's RAW and JPG file"

. . . that you didn't understand? :confused:

I understand everything there is to know about the pros and cons of RAW, I have been processing RAW files for years. The benefits of RAW on APS-C sized sensors, or larger, are not up for debate here. What is being called for is a comparsion of RAW -vs- JPG on the small sensor/high resolution point 'n shoot cameras. On these sized sensors the advantage of RAW is not as much of "a given" as on the larger sensors.

Yes, in "theory" it should be a good thing, but some of us would like to see it for ourselves. If it is such a clear benefit in the G9 then it should not be a problem to demonstrate it here.

Perhaps you should go buy one.

[WityWot]

I didn't buy the G9 for the 3inch screen But I tell you what, I like it!!!

What I like about it is when I'm messing with the settings for shutter speed and aperture, using the thumb wheel and seeing the BIG numbers and letters is a PLUS!!!

Just hope it does NOT eat up extra battery.


The G9 can now communicate with external flashes. Don't quite remember if the G7 could BUT, I know now by holding down the flash button on the G9 a new menu pops up giving you added power / flash options. COOL.

I turned the power up using that menu to Level 3+ and thought I destroyed my flash!! :lol: It was so bright and the picture was ALL WAY overexposed.

[WityWot]

What I want CANON to do is make a MORE powerful Teleconverter. :)

[Michael Bottoms]

nice quality in a point and shoot...

[Jonathan H]

Can anybody comment on the shutter lag in the G7, G9 or both? Specifically, I'm looking for a real-feel comparison to a decent SLR such as the 20D/30D.

Do you feel the shutter lag is quick enough that you could capture, say a golf or baseball swing?

All input appreciated. Thanks!

[sootyvrs]

Can anybody comment on the shutter lag in the G7, G9 or both? Specifically, I'm looking for a real-feel comparison to a decent SLR such as the 20D/30D.

Do you feel the shutter lag is quick enough that you could capture, say a golf or baseball swing?

All input appreciated. Thanks!

Shutter lag is very nticable on my G7 and I assume the G9 will be the same. No comparison to a D-SLR.

You have to learn a new technique called predictive shooting ;)

[Lostboy77]

Shutter lag is very nticable on my G7 and I assume the G9 will be the same. No comparison to a D-SLR.

You have to learn a new technique called predictive shooting ;)
With both the G7 and G9 I found that I could eleminate the majority of the shutter lag by turning off the display and using the viewfinder. I understand that this is not ideal however the "sound' that the camera makes is accurate as to when the picture is taken (there is even a seperate sound for the opening and closing of the shutter. Given it is not as fast as any SLR but is much better than using the rear display.

[JohnJ80]

You can also, I presume, reduce shutter lag further by pre-focusing (half press of shutter button). That said, the performance won't be the same, or that close to, that of a dSLR (of course).

J.

[WityWot]

You will be able to get good shots of a Swing.

What I did notice with my G7 is that it captures about 7 frames pretty quick and Pretty good but then after that the Lag comes in and I just let off and set up again.

[grantphotos]

Thanks for the info. I was trying to decide betwen the G9 and the S5. It would be as a wide option when I am using a long lens on my XTi. I was using a S3, till I let a friend borrow it and they dropped it. Looks like that was actually something good, since now I can step up to a G9.

Would you say IQ is better with the G9 compared to a S5? With RAW and 12 megapixels, it should be.

Anyone have any landscapes to share shot with the G9?

[Lostboy77]

Thanks for the info. I was trying to decide betwen the G9 and the S5. It would be as a wide option when I am using a long lens on my XTi. I was using a S3, till I let a friend borrow it and they dropped it. Looks like that was actually something good, since now I can step up to a G9.

Would you say IQ is better with the G9 compared to a S5? With RAW and 12 megapixels, it should be.

Anyone have any landscapes to share shot with the G9?
YES!!! Hands down. I've used both and difference is noticable. Another thing to remember is that not only is the MP count higher with the G9 but the sensor area is also larger (1/1.7 compaired to 1/2.5). About the only thing the S3/5 IS has over the rest of the PowerShots is that they can optically zoom while recording video. If you are going to be using it primarily for video get the S5 otherwise get the G9.

[I Simonius]

Yeah lets see a head to head, Canon 5D vs Powershot G9 :-D

yes please!

[JohnJ80]

Actually, the 12Mp is probably detrimental to the image quality rather than enhancing it.

J.

[Savas K]

My G9 just landed today. So far, I am liking it. I used the G7 since inception and found that camera to be addicting.

[Lostboy77]

Actually, the 12Mp is probably detrimental to the image quality rather than enhancing it.

J.
So far I have found that the new sensor is both less noisy and "richer" in color. This may actuailly be processing though as I always felt that the G7 pics looked over processed. And sense it only put out JPG files you were stuck with it.

[JohnJ80]

So far I have found that the new sensor is both less noisy and "richer" in color. This may actuailly be processing though as I always felt that the G7 pics looked over processed. And sense it only put out JPG files you were stuck with it.

I doubt the sensor is better - the semiconductor noise and density issues argue against it.

I'd agree that the processing is better and mostly likely being able to do the noise reduction out of the camera (RAW) is a BIG advantage (32 or 64 bit CPU running at 2GHz vs internal ASIC or uC in the camera).

J

[Lostboy77]

I doubt the sensor is better - the semiconductor noise and density issues argue against it.

I'd agree that the processing is better and mostly likely being able to do the noise reduction out of the camera (RAW) is a BIG advantage (32 or 64 bit CPU running at 2GHz vs internal ASIC or uC in the camera).

J
I read an article, not sure where it is of course now, where is said that Sony (who I believe is the manufacture of the sensor) stated that their new batch of 12 MP CCD sensors for ditigal cameras carry new electronics that on the chip cause lower noise with richer color rendering. Most of the noise in an image is caused by interference by the power supply.

Consider the step up in resolution from the 30D to the 40D. By improving the technology in the sensor itself, Canon was able to increase the resolution (more MP) without increasing sensor noise. I see no reason why other manufactures can't do the same. If what your saying is true than the G6 should have less noise than the G7, however this is simply not true.

Remember that in the SLR market Canon manufactures thier own sensors but in the P&S segment, they have the same sensors that everyone else uses (for the most part). There are two other cameras (non Canon) that I know of that carry the exact same sensor as the G9.

[Coastwatch203]

G'day Lostboy77,
I'm looking at getting the Canon Powershot G9 as well, however can you advise me on a possible problem regarding the cameras RAW editing software.I read the following review from a guy that had brought one it reads, -

"There is a fairly major problem with the G9:-

1.The software provided with it is disk v32 with Zoombrowser, which will read the RAW files but will not convert them into JPEG or TIFF.

2.I own a 1Ds, a 1Ds MkII and a 400D, thus have all the relevant EOS viewer and digital photo professional software that came with these cameras, BUT none of these programmes will read the RAW format from the G9!

3. CS2 does not read the G9 RAW format

What is the point of having a RAW format on the G9 if Canon do not provide the software to manipulate and decode it - Zoombrowser just comes up with the helpful error message "cannot edit RAW files or videos" or some such nonsense - if you can't edit them, why have them??

One of the main reasons i want this camera is its ability to shoot RAW,- but if there is a problem and CS2 cant read the format it may change my decision to buy it.

Hope you can advise on this dilemma!

[juejaimon]

no affiliation with them other than a customer... looking glass in berkeley has them in stock... 2 more as of last night... the screen is hugh! :D

[JohnJ80]

One cannot truly know the answer to the sensor question because of the overlay of the image processing and the noise reduction software internal to the chip.

In looking at the images at higher ISO that come out of the G9 as jpg, there is no doubt there is very heavy noise reduction taking place. You can see it clearly in a muddying of the fine detail at 100% crops in the darker areas of the image.

There is little noise in the power supply of a battery operated system (like next to none). There can be noise driven by the other electronics in the camera for sure. However, a property of semiconductors is inherent noise and is an almost physical property of the device. This gets worse as the device geometry and the transistor gets smaller (if I recall my college texts accurately). You can think of it like this - a photon of light hitting a sensor site causes an electrical perturbation. The semiconductor noise phenomena also causes an electrical perturbation. If you have many more photons hitting the site then these tend to highly swamp out the baseline semiconductor noise (called signal to noise ratio). When the sites are larger, the advantage is to the photons. When the sites are smaller the impact of the semi noise is larger.

Because of this, while there can be some improvements in the semiconductor itself, there are laws of physics issues with making the sensor too dense.

Canon has clearly upped the noise reduction strongly on the G7 and G9. Noise reduction trades the little noise speckles for the fine edge detail - it is a tradeoff. Go play with noise ninja on one of your images and you will see what I mean. There is no free lunch here.

What I believe Canon has done, from what I have read, is take those extra pixels and use them in a way that the pixels adjoining the noisy one are used to deal with the noise. You can almost think of it like combining pixels to one larger pixel. However, in doing that, you are really going back to larger 'virtual' pixel sites again.

To your comment on the G7 vs G6 vs G9 images - there are far too many variables to be able to say for sure that the sensors are the main issue - image processor, lens etc... are all in the way. That said, the G6 I had and the Pro1 I do have, provide startling good images for a P&S when used properly. I would expect to see not much difference in the G9 than either of those two cameras which are several years older. The P&S push to higher MP is really coming into a region of marketing only and little added value.

J.

[JohnJ80]

G'day Lostboy77,
I'm looking at getting the Canon Powershot G9 as well, however can you advise me on a possible problem regarding the cameras RAW editing software.I read the following review from a guy that had brought one it reads, -

"There is a fairly major problem with the G9:-

1.The software provided with it is disk v32 with Zoombrowser, which will read the RAW files but will not convert them into JPEG or TIFF.

2.I own a 1Ds, a 1Ds MkII and a 400D, thus have all the relevant EOS viewer and digital photo professional software that came with these cameras, BUT none of these programmes will read the RAW format from the G9!

3. CS2 does not read the G9 RAW format

What is the point of having a RAW format on the G9 if Canon do not provide the software to manipulate and decode it - Zoombrowser just comes up with the helpful error message "cannot edit RAW files or videos" or some such nonsense - if you can't edit them, why have them??

One of the main reasons i want this camera is its ability to shoot RAW,- but if there is a problem and CS2 cant read the format it may change my decision to buy it.

Hope you can advise on this dilemma!

Many users are reporting that the Lightroom 1.2 update, while not officially supporting the G9 RAW format, will handle the format.

Typically, when a new RAW format shows up from Canon, Adobe usually supports it within about 60 days to 90 days at the outside.

J.

[Coastwatch203]

Thanks for the heads up on the G9's RAW format issues JohnJ80.
The G9 sounded like a great supplement to my DSLR's, but when i read the issues i thought Crikey!
I have lightroom 1.2, still tend to use Bridge more, but sounds like i shouldn't have too many probs with the G9, CS2 and RAW edditing after all.
Thanks for the answer.:)

[thitipong]

congratulations

[JohnJ80]

Thanks for the heads up on the G9's RAW format issues JohnJ80.
The G9 sounded like a great supplement to my DSLR's, but when i read the issues i thought Crikey!
I have lightroom 1.2, still tend to use Bridge more, but sounds like i shouldn't have too many probs with the G9, CS2 and RAW edditing after all.
Thanks for the answer.:)

Bear in mind, I don't own a G9, but in my research, I found quite a number of users that claim to use this as I described. Even then, the worst case would be inconvenience for about 60-90 days until official 3rd party support is released. Otherwise, you would be able to get the RAW files out with the provided Canon s/w.

J

[Lostboy77]

G'day Lostboy77,
I'm looking at getting the Canon Powershot G9 as well, however can you advise me on a possible problem regarding the cameras RAW editing software.I read the following review from a guy that had brought one it reads, -

"There is a fairly major problem with the G9:-

1.The software provided with it is disk v32 with Zoombrowser, which will read the RAW files but will not convert them into JPEG or TIFF.

2.I own a 1Ds, a 1Ds MkII and a 400D, thus have all the relevant EOS viewer and digital photo professional software that came with these cameras, BUT none of these programmes will read the RAW format from the G9!

3. CS2 does not read the G9 RAW format

What is the point of having a RAW format on the G9 if Canon do not provide the software to manipulate and decode it - Zoombrowser just comes up with the helpful error message "cannot edit RAW files or videos" or some such nonsense - if you can't edit them, why have them??

One of the main reasons i want this camera is its ability to shoot RAW,- but if there is a problem and CS2 cant read the format it may change my decision to buy it.

Hope you can advise on this dilemma!
The new updates for Lightroom and Camera support the G9 RAW format (even though you won't find it anywhere in the documentation). It works fine though and all supported plugins work with it as well. Hope this is what you were looking for.

[Coastwatch203]

Thanks to both JohnJ80 and Lostboy77 for the info!
-Cheers, Mark

[rpolitsr]

What is the point of having a RAW format on the G9 if Canon do not provide the software to manipulate and decode it - Zoombrowser just comes up with the helpful error message "cannot edit RAW files or videos" or some such nonsense - if you can't edit them, why have them??

It seems that he attempted to use the editing tools for .jpg images with the G9 RAW files.

Inside ZoomBrowser, you must right click the image and select Processing RAW Images… that opens RAW Image Task.

I am sure the RAW Image Task supplied with the G9 will process G9 RAW files.

ZoomBrowser is not the best software around, but do not blame it unnecessarily.

[DavidW]

CS2 does not read the G9 RAW format
Camera Raw 3, the version in Photoshop CS2, won't be getting any more updates. 3.7 is the last version.

At the moment, Adobe are keeping the camera support the same in Lightroom 1.x and Camera Raw 4.x (at the moment, x=2). Many say that these latest versions support the G9, though as it's not officially announced, it should be regarded as beta grade support. The next releases are likely to bring official G9 support.


So far as Photoshop CS2 goes, you have three options. You can do the RAW processing in Lightroom before doing any work in Photoshop, you can use the latest DNG converter to create a DNG and feed that to Camera Raw 3, or you can upgrade to Photoshop CS3 so that you can use Camera Raw 4.

I would suggest upgrading to CS3; I think there's a lot of new features that are worthwhile - but that's the option that costs money.



David

[Coastwatch203]

Thanks David, yeah i guess i will have to do the update to CS3 soon.
- Thanks for your input!
Cheers,
Mark

[juejaimon]

Thanks for the heads up.