Anyone regret buying a G9

Not a single regret whatsoever. Even better now after installing the custom grip and thumb rest.
No argument about the lighting requirements. But that works for me because 90% of my photos are daytime outside shots. However, I've owned Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony P&S cameras and the Canon G9 (IMO) is better than any other I've used. P&S cameras are not DSLRs!! Something people need to keep in mind. It seems silly to keep comparing the two and expecting otherwise.
I haven't confirmed for myself yet that the prints look better than they appear on the monitor. I suspect that is probably the case.

Stephen Scharf wrote in post #4384968
Terrific, this helps a lot as I was having trouble finding it on the Camera Quest page.

Thanks,
Stephen.

Stephen,

As a side note I thought I might mention that I also have an original classic metal Leica 35 brightline finder, considered the best by most but also of high interest to Leica collectors i.e., drives the price of a nice one into the stratosphere. Comparing the two side by side I would disagree with Stephen Gandy of Camera Quest that the Voigtlander is the best brightline finder, it is not. Perhaps Stephen has never looked through a Leica brightline finder, although I find that hard to believe. But then again the Leica is three times as expensive as the Voigtlander (and that's a used price when one can find it). But I will say the Voigtlander isn't that far behind, in fact it is really excellent, especially considering the price.

So for anyone wondering why anyone would pay $150 for a Voigtlander finder I can only say, well you need to look through one before passing judgment.

That's just a, "for what it's worth note."

Don

Raven wrote in post #4390248
Not a single regret whatsoever. Even better now after installing the custom grip and thumb rest.
No argument about the lighting requirements. But that works for me because 90% of my photos are daytime outside shots. However, I've owned Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony P&S cameras and the Canon G9 (IMO) is better than any other I've used. P&S cameras are not DSLRs!! Something people need to keep in mind. It seems silly to keep comparing the two and expecting otherwise.
I haven't confirmed for myself yet that the prints look better than they appear on the monitor. I suspect that is probably the case.

Raven,

An excellent point and one I concur with completely, and it bears repeating over and over i.e., stop comparing the G9 to a DSLR! It isn't! But it is darn good at what it does, especially in its price point.

Don

I dunno...I am beginning to be disappointed in mine. I shot with mine indoors yesterday, and the noise is just ridiculous. It's apparent even in shots taken in window light at ISO 100. I am thinking of selling mine and getting a Fuji S6000fd. Anyone interested in a very slightly used G9?

Stephen Scharf wrote in post #4392089
I dunno...I am beginning to be disappointed in mine. I shot with mine indoors yesterday, and the noise is just ridiculous. It's apparent even in shots taken in window light at ISO 100. I am thinking of selling mine and getting a Fuji S6000fd. Anyone interested in a very slightly used G9?

Stephen,

I'm not familiar with the Fuji S6000fd. Does it have the low light low noise capabilities of the so-called legendary Fuji f30/31?

Oh, and I agree with you. The G9 is not a low light camera, from my experience. I'd sure like to see Canon address that in the next iteration. It is long overdue in the G series.

Thanks,

Don

I was reading a review on the s6000 and it was pretty impressive, but not as good as the f30/31 at high ISO. But the reviewer stated most of the difference could be made up in post processing.

None of these P&S are perfect, but heck I have had some SLR that left me wanting for better as well in high ISO. For all thier hype they arent perfect either.

Stephen Scharf wrote in post #4392089
I shot with mine indoors yesterday, and the noise is just ridiculous. It's apparent even in shots taken in window light at ISO 100.

What size are you printing?

d30gaijin wrote in post #4396973
Stephen,

I'm not familiar with the Fuji S6000fd. Does it have the low light low noise capabilities of the so-called legendary Fuji f30/31?

Oh, and I agree with you. The G9 is not a low light camera, from my experience. I'd sure like to see Canon address that in the next iteration. It is long overdue in the G series.

Thanks,

Don

Don, the S6000fd is very close to having the noise qualities of the F30/F31, as it is the same sensor and processing engine. And I have two of those little Fujis, an F31fd and an F20, and their legendary low light noise capabilities is anything but so-called, it is for real. These cameras blow the doors of the G9 for noise performance (see a post I put up earlier for a comparison of the G9 with a fully auto F20).

The thing that appeals to me about the S6000 is that it has the sweet spot of resolution and noise with the 6 megapixel 6th gen SuperCCD sensor, but most importantly....it shoots in RAW. This 6 mpixel SuperCCD sensor that Fuji developed really works, and was really superior to anything on the market in it's feature size (1/1.7") for image quality.

Also, there is something Fuji does with color that is pretty dang special. Their color just looks really natural to me. I just read the G9 review in Digital Camera World (the UK publication) and they noted that the colors from the G9 are a bit flat"...though the G9 doesn't produce particularly intense colors..."☨. I would have to agree with the in my experience...they are a bit flat, and they are "off" a little bit, too, even with the RAW support in LR 1.3.

While I think the G9 can produce excellent quality images in a very limited set of conditions, I am not knocked out by it. I am more impressed with my Fujis for what they are and what they do. Their drawback is that they only shoot in JPEG and therefore suffer from clipped highlights often times if you are not careful with metering and exposure, just like about 99.9% of every other small sensor P&S.

So, if I could get very close to the sensor performance and natural color of an F31 in a camera that shoots RAW....well, I'm there, baby.

☨-Digital Camera World 66, pp. 129

mastertech01 wrote in post #4397049
I was reading a review on the s6000 and it was pretty impressive, but not as good as the f30/31 at high ISO. But the reviewer stated most of the difference could be made up in post processing.

And that works fine for me, Mastertech, since I shoot exclusively in RAW, anyway....when I can, that is. If my F31 shot in RAW, I wouldn't even own a G9.

I find the price of the S6000 most impressive as well.

Stephen,

The s6000fd sounds very interesting. I checked a couple of reviews on line and they are rated quite nicely. I like the slightly wider minimum of 28. I especially like the fact it shoots RAW, which I note from the reviews the image quality at ISO 1600 and 3200 are rather poor unless shot in RAW. The price is certainly right.

One of my first digital cameras was a Fugi of similar configuration i.e., a ZDSLR, or whatever they call them. I don't remember the model number but I remember I was impressed with its image quality and true to life color. I moved up to a true DSLR in the first Canon Rebel DSLR and soon forgot all about the nice compact little Fuji. Perhaps it's time to revisit. Only thing I am (as were the reviewers) unimpressed with is a not so good electronic viewfinder. I have one of those in my Panasonic FZ10, an otherwise dandy 4mp ZDSLR with a fabulous Leica designed lens and IS, IS being one other thing the s6000fd is missing, but that's not a show stopper in my opinion since I mainly shoot at the wide end.

I note the s6000fd is coming up on a one year anniversary so it will probably be discontinued soon and replaced with something with more features and more mp but poorer image quality. Now might definitely be the time to buy.

Don

Stephen Scharf wrote in post #4392089
I dunno...I am beginning to be disappointed in mine. I shot with mine indoors yesterday, and the noise is just ridiculous.

Stephen,

I assume you missed it, but several posts up I asked what size prints you are printing from the G-9. I have a G-9, and typically print 8 x 10s, so that means a slight crop from the native 4:3 ratio. With 8 x 10s the noise, even at 400 barely rises to the "perceptible" level. 800 it is clearly there, but is well managed with NoiseWare.

So I am wondering what size you print at, or, do you crop dramatically for the noise to become so evident?

Rad

Rad,
Haven't printed with the G9 yet, just looking at 100% views shot in daylight...noticeable noise, even on white backgrounds at ISO 100.

No regrets. Love it. High quality images.

Stephen Scharf wrote in post #4411617
Rad,
Haven't printed with the G9 yet, just looking at 100% views shot in daylight...noticeable noise, even on white backgrounds at ISO 100.

Print...