Pull the Trigger on a G9?

Tommyboy · January 7, 2008

Here's my story:

Canon 40D and 6 lenses and various stuff. Love to tour by motorcycle. Way too much to carry. I'm considering a G9 for motorcycle touring, cocktail parties, walkabouts, etc.

I hate the fact that the lens is only 35mm equivalent. It has a CCD sensor whereas the 40D has a CMOS sensor. The big difference is what? Is the lens soft at telephoto like so many of these cameras? What about sensor size difference and high-ISO noise? If the side-by-side comparison to a 40D is to be believed, the G9 sensor is actually larger. I know these are very different cameras, just trying to quantify or get a feel for the actual results differences.

I know what I'm going to gain in size, weight, and convenience. What am I going to pay in picture quality and flexibility? How much will I miss the 28mm equivalent?

I would very much appreciate hearing from anyone who actually owns and uses the camera (Pathfinder? DoctorIt? Anyone else?). What are your impressions? Photos? Advice? Bueller?

Marc Muench · January 7, 2008

It is the best point and shoot out there but it is a point and shoot.
The sensor though not large is larger than all other point and shoots, and therefore the picture quality is better. However, it is noisy above 200iso but can be fixed with third party software like "noiseware". I have the 28mm lens adaptor which is sharp for a lens adaptor but is large in size. I tested it with the Edmond scientific chart as I do with all my lenses. I also tested the fixed lens at 200mm and it was as sharp as it should be. However, the key with this camera to maintain sharpness if blowing way up is to use the 1 stop down method as the lens is much sharper stopped one stop down from wide open. I think the manual setting is very convenient for landscape shooting with a live histogram and all. I have found the "P" mode works very well indoors and for quickies. The other option if you really want the same quality as the 40D is the new Leica M8 which costs much more

Tommyboy · January 7, 2008

Marc Muench wrote:

The other option if you really want the same quality as the 40D is the new Leica M8 which costs much more

I had actually considered that, but hadn't researched the price yet.

Thanks so much for taking the time, Marc. I appreciate the benefit of your experience.

Eeyore · January 7, 2008

Tommyboy wrote:

I had actually considered that, but hadn't researched the price yet.

Thanks so much for taking the time, Marc. I appreciate the benefit of your experience.

The M8 runs about $5.5K new.

I just placed an order for a G9. My intent is similar to yours. I've been carrying a compact point and shoot [Canon S400] and/or a megazoom [Canon S3 IS] on the bike. As you well know, accessibility is important on a bike and space is at a premium. I'm hoping the G9 can split the difference between those two and mimic some of the capabilities of a DSLR without the size or expense.

Apparently several have reached a similar conclusion. G9's are a bit scarce at present. Many of the more reputable vendors are out of stock.

Tommyboy · January 8, 2008

Eeyore wrote:

The M8 runs about $5.5K new.

I just placed an order for a G9. My intent is similar to yours. I've been carrying a compact point and shoot [Canon S400] and/or a megazoom [Canon S3 IS] on the bike. As you well know, accessibility is important on a bike and space is at a premium. I'm hoping the G9 can split the difference between those two and mimic some of the capabilities of a DSLR without the size or expense.

Apparently several have reached a similar conclusion. G9's are a bit scarce at present. Many of the more reputable vendors are out of stock.

I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that price yesterday, but then again, it's an M-series Leica. Sheesh.

I'd like to know your impressions of the camera when you get it. I did notice that my local dealer (with an online store) was out of stock, but they were committing to 2-5 day delivery.

Still wish I could figure out in advance how much I'll miss the 28mm equivalent. . . . Maybe I should just suck it up and be thankful for a 5X zoom.

pathfinder · January 8, 2008

I will second Marc's comments about the G9.

The optics seem very good to my eye - with very little chromatic aberration usually noted at 200-300% in Adobe Raw Converter.

Noise quickly becomes very apparent at ISO 200, and makes ISO 800 almost unuseable. Noisewear works well with these files, but you give up some sharpness for it.

I do most of my shooting in Av or M, have not played with P much yet. It does have an AUTO ISO that need to work with more also.

The AF is typical P&S - it will not AF and fire like a DSLR. It DOES allow manual focus, so if you can prefocus, you cna capture some action, but not with the same ability as a 40D. Like all P&S, it has great deal of DOF

The M8 is much faster handling, Range finders were always favored over SLRs for focus speed until modern AF got really good. And the M8 uses a REAL APS sensor like a 40D's size. It will offer files that rival a 1DsMkll, but a body and good lens will run nearly $6K+

In short, I like the G9 quite a bit, and have several files from the Indianapolis Auto Show from it in lower light here in this gallery - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/3969009/4

Check the exif data though, I also have other files in there as well. I shoot RAW with the G9 routinely.

The build quality seems very good, metal, heavy, solid. Reallyrightstuff makes a very nice L-bracket for it.

Lest I sound like a Canon shill, there are a few things I am disappointed by. The ability to use Canon's EOS flash system seemed like a great asset to me, but the slowness of AF in dim light, means there can be a delay between pressing the shutter, and when the flash goes off and the exposure is taken, like most other P&Ss, and this tends to minify the benefit of the EOS flash system in this case. For shooting in a studio, it would not be a problem.

I wish it would take a Camdapter style hand strap, I don't care for the neck strap or the way it is attached. The viewfinder is almost superfluous. It is not the most instinctive camera in terms of usability, but it is growing on me as I work with it.

Marc has previously discussed his interest in the use of the G9 for stitched panos. I think this may be a very interesting topic to pursue.

If Leica were to offer the M8 for a similar price to the 40D ( or if Canon were to offer a real rangefinder with an APS sensor ), I would jump on it. Until then, I guess I'll stick with the G9 for now.

Tommyboy · January 8, 2008

Thank you, PF. Some great images on your page--I love "IMA Artwork Contemplation." "Critique" made it easy to monitor the exif and I can see that you don't wander into those higher ISOs. Interesting that on the G9 the exif renders the focal length equivalence as a guess. Hmmm. . . .

All these responses are boosting my confidence and making me lean toward a purchase. The Leica M8 sure makes this decision seem a lot easier.

swintonphoto · January 8, 2008

Could always get a used version of one of Canons older slr bodies like the XT and put a small lens on it. It would be much smaller than your 40D and would probably be similar price or maybe even cheaper than a new G9. It would also give you a good backup for your 40D (Backup has come in handy for me on a number of occasions due to accidents, or wanting to have two cameras with different lenses on them).

Also, we can't expect the G9 to be as good as an SLR, but honestly unless you look at the images with a microscope you likely won't notice. Looks like a great camera. You do need to sacrifice some things for size. I wouldn't worry about it being a CCD - I have CCD's in my SLR's and love them! CCD's have a good reputation for brilliant colors.

Tommyboy · January 8, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Could always get a used version of one of Canons older slr bodies like the XT and put a small lens on it. It would be much smaller than your 40D and would probably be similar price or maybe even cheaper than a new G9.

Do you mean the XT I sold yesterday? That one?

That was my original plan, and I do need a back-up body, but I like to circulate my equipment, especially with as rapidly as technology changes. Another thought was that if I'm going to go small and save space, why not go really small. I'll carry a G9 plenty of places I wouldn't want to drag a DSLR. And finally, I find I take many pictures, and many types of pictures, with a compact camera that I don't normally take with a DSLR. I currently have an S80, but the darn thing is just too small, particularly with M/C gloves.

pathfinder · January 8, 2008

I agree, that you can put a P&S into places that it is very hard to be able to see through the viewfinder of a DSLR. That and the increased DOF of the smaller sensor really mean that it offers some options that are harder to achieve with a DSLR. I like to talk about using different tools for the tasks that they are better at.

A small DSLR - like an xTI - is still hard to see through sitting on the absolute floor, or holding way above your head, but with a P&S, duck soup. I like carrying both.

There is an underwater housing for a G9 also, that is not too expensive for a dedicated housing.

The IS in the G9 is useful also, especially with its shorter focal length lenses

CatOne · January 8, 2008

Eeyore wrote:

The M8 runs about $5.5K new.

I just placed an order for a G9. My intent is similar to yours. I've been carrying a compact point and shoot [Canon S400] and/or a megazoom [Canon S3 IS] on the bike. As you well know, accessibility is important on a bike and space is at a premium. I'm hoping the G9 can split the difference between those two and mimic some of the capabilities of a DSLR without the size or expense.

Apparently several have reached a similar conclusion. G9's are a bit scarce at present. Many of the more reputable vendors are out of stock.

The M8 is $5.5K new, PLUS 2 or 3 lenses at $2500 a pop. I can get a 35% discount on a Leica (hookup FTW) but it's still too rich for my blood. IWANTIWANTIWANT but I bought a G9 instead for an easy carry camera.

RovingEyePhoto · January 8, 2008

Tommyboy wrote:

Here's my story:

What about sensor size difference and high-ISO noise? If the side-by-side comparison to a 40D is to be believed, the G9 sensor is actually larger.

Regarding sensor size you mention above, this is something I guess I've never reasoned out between DSLRs and compacts. The 2-camera comparison you link to shows sensor size for 40D at 22.2 x 14.8mm (prox 7/8 x 5/8" if I'm figuring right) vs. the G9 at 1/1.7". What does the G9 measure mean? I can understand metric rectangles, and know what 12 vs. 10 MPs means, but not "1/1.7"". There's obviously something in the cross-platform comparison between DSLR and compact I'm missing. Is there a crop factor for the G9 comparable to the 40D's 1.6, maybe that would clear my fog?

All I can say with crystal clear confidence is that my buddy's G9 feels sized like a P&S (pocketability isn't everything), but IMHO sure shoots better than one.

ian408 · January 8, 2008

If it were your wallet I were holding, I'd have no problem throwing down
for the G9.

It really is a great little camera. I threw down

ziggy53 · January 8, 2008

jimphotog wrote:

Regarding sensor size you mention above, this is something I guess I've never reasoned out between DSLRs and compacts. The 2-camera comparison you link to shows sensor size for 40D at 22.2 x 14.8mm (prox 7/8 x 5/8" if I'm figuring right) vs. the G9 at 1/1.7". What does the G9 measure mean? I can understand metric rectangles, and know what 12 vs. 10 MPs means, but not "1/1.7"". There's obviously something in the cross-platform comparison between DSLR and compact I'm missing. Is there a crop factor for the G9 comparable to the 40D's 1.6, maybe that would clear my fog?

All I can say with crystal clear confidence is that my buddy's G9 feels sized like a P&S (pocketability isn't everything), but IMHO sure shoots better than one.

According to a link at the DPReview*, a 1/1.7" sensor measures 7.600x5.700mm, with a diagonal of 9.5mm. A "normal/standard" lens would therefore be 9.5mm for instance. The G9 sports a zoom lens with focal lengths from 7.4-44.4mm, f/2.8-4.8 (35mm film equivalent: 35-210mm).

*(http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm)

Tommyboy · January 9, 2008

ian408 wrote:

If it were your wallet I were holding, I'd have no problem throwing down
for the G9.

It really is a great little camera. I threw down

This may well be the best advice yet. Thanks, man.

Ziggy--thanks for the info on the sensor, too. You're a fountain of information.

RovingEyePhoto · January 9, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

According to a link at the DPReview*, a 1/1.7" sensor measures 7.600x5.700mm, with a diagonal of 9.5mm. A "normal/standard" lens would therefore be 9.5mm for instance. The G9 sports a zoom lens with focal lengths from 7.4-44.4mm, f/2.8-4.8 (35mm film equivalent: 35-210mm).

*(http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm)

Does this mean, then, that the the G9 sensor at 7.6x5.7mm is approximately 1/3 the real estate of the 40D sensor at 22.2x14.8mm? And into that 2/3 less space, the G9 packs 20% more pixels (12 vs. 10 MPs)? If both those are true, how in the world does the G9 produce what's known to be high IQ, or am I overstating the case, is its high IQ referring to just limited-resolution computer screens and small prints? Or has technology really come so far that roughly 4x the pixel density (1/3 the real estate and 20% more MPs) has no great effect on IQ? And if so, why aren't camera makers manufacturing much smaller and more physically-manageable and unobtrusive DSLRs with G9-type sensors (crop factors roughly 3.5x the 40D's 1.6) and accompanying crop-specific interchangeable lenses? The G-9 is marked to deliver f/2.8-4.8 (I think I'm remembering that right), so respectable crop-specific speed doesn't seem a problem. I know all ultimately boils down to matters of physics, but the admittedly oversimplified science I apply to the subject just comes no where near jiving with what seem to be real-world results.

ziggy53 · January 9, 2008

The G9 does have an incredible pixel density, such that it would have been impossible to produce just a couple of years ago.

One of the ramifications of such technology is that noise is a factor, even at relatively low ISO. In most organic shooting circumstances the noise is well controlled by a combination of in-camera noise reduction (imager chip level noise control, low-noise amplifier circuit and additional noise processing in the DIGIC III image processing engine) and the possibility of additional reduction in RAW processing.

Beyond this, you might also be able to use dedicated noise reduction software.

Based on image samples provided by members here, as well as other samples posted on the Internet, all this noise reduction not only works, but it works very well indeed.

If you want to see "really" low noise levels, you can find them on larger imagers and especially the current medium format backs (which are not optimized for high-ISO).

The point of all of this is that the Canon G9 is the best of the Canon digicams, and for good reason. It can, and often does, provide spectacular quality in a smallish package. You really should not directly compare the G9 with a dSLR because they are designed for different applications and different markets.

Used within the parameters of its design the G9 is just superb and easily worth the relatively high price tag. If you want to "pull the trigger" on the G9, I doubt that you would have many regrets unless you have expectations beyond its capabilities.

Tommyboy · January 9, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

You really should not directly compare the G9 with a dSLR because they are designed for different applications and different markets.

This is, indeed, the case—no doubt about it. I was trying to quantify image quality by comparing it to a known entity in the abstract world of forum threads, and, well, with predictable results. I'm continually humbled by just how much there is to know about digital imaging technology.

As always, thanks for your sage advice.

pathfinder · January 9, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

According to a link at the DPReview*, a 1/1.7" sensor measures 7.600x5.700mm, with a diagonal of 9.5mm. A "normal/standard" lens would therefore be 9.5mm for instance. The G9 sports a zoom lens with focal lengths from 7.4-44.4mm, f/2.8-4.8 (35mm film equivalent: 35-210mm).

*(http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm)

I knew the 1/1.7 in sensor was significantly smaller than an APS sensor, but I did not remember the metric measurements in millimeters for the 1/1.7 in sensor ( the English and metric measurements certainly don't jibe do they??)

[ 7.6 x 5.7 = 43.32 43.32/12Million = 0.00000361 area available per pixel G9

22.2 x 14.8 = 328.56 328.56/10milllion = 0.000032856 area available per pixel 40D 0r over 9x more potential area per pixel in the 40D]

Altho the G9 has more pixels than the 40D, they are much, much smaller pixel wells and, inherently noisier. Ziggy is right that Canon has done a good job with the noise in the G9, but as I said, it is really not useable at ISO>400 in my opinion.

If you try to compare pixels of a G9 at 400 ISO, and a 40D at 800 ISO, the 40D will literally stomp the G9 image into the dust and grind it up. There will be no comparison. The larger sensor with the larger pixel wells of the 40D will have vastly less color noise in the image.

The G9 is not a DSLR killer, it is a small, handheld P&S with a smaller, much noiser sensor.

That said, I have lots of images from my G9 at ISO 100 that will definitely print very nicely at 10x15 inches, or maybe even 13x19, and that really is astounding. The images I see printing from my P&S ( even my little Lumix DMC-LX1 with 8MPxls) rival many images I made from 35mm film in years past.

RovingEyePhoto · January 9, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

The G9 does have an incredible pixel density, such that it would have been impossible to produce just a couple of years ago.

One of the ramifications of such technology is that noise is a factor, even at relatively low ISO. In most organic shooting circumstances the noise is well controlled by a combination of in-camera noise reduction (imager chip level noise control, low-noise amplifier circuit and additional noise processing in the DIGIC III image processing engine) and the possibility of additional reduction in RAW processing.

Beyond this, you might also be able to use dedicated noise reduction software.

Based on image samples provided by members here, as well as other samples posted on the Internet, all this noise reduction not only works, but it works very well indeed.

If you want to see "really" low noise levels, you can find them on larger imagers and especially the current medium format backs (which are not optimized for high-ISO).

The point of all of this is that the Canon G9 is the best of the Canon digicams, and for good reason. It can, and often does, provide spectacular quality in a smallish package. You really should not directly compare the G9 with a dSLR because they are designed for different applications and different markets.

Used within the parameters of its design the G9 is just superb and easily worth the relatively high price tag. If you want to "pull the trigger" on the G9, I doubt that you would have many regrets unless you have expectations beyond its capabilities.

Thank you for the very useful response. I guess I do have the physics sort of right, with the trade-off, according to Pathfinder's later post, being in very limited practically usable ISO.

ian408 · January 9, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

I knew the 1/1.7 in sensor was significantly smaller than an APS sensor, but I did not remember the metric measurements in millimeters for the 1/1.7 in sensor ( the English and metric measurements certainly don't jibe do they??)

[ 7.6 x 5.7 = 43.32 43.32/12Million = 0.00000361 area available per pixel G9

22.2 x 14.8 = 328.56 328.56/10milllion = 0.000032856 area available per pixel 40D 0r over 9x more potential area per pixel in the 40D

71 White. 5 Minutes -- Measurebaiting

P.S. Don't forget that a sensor has I/O ports (for the sensor) and control
logic for each pixel...meaning that a pixel isn't exactly this size. If we're going
to measurebait

pathfinder · January 9, 2008

Ian, I am fully aware that my calculations do not yield the size of the pixel wells, but do relate in some reasonable way to the maximum potential size available for a pixel well. That is why I said Potential Area rather than pixel size.

My purpose was not to measurebait, as I am sure you know, but simply to demonstrate the real difference between an APS sensor pixel and a P&S pixel.

Nikon took this road with their D3 - a full frame sensor with only 12million pixels - much bigger and less noisier than full frame cameras with much higher pixel counts.

ian408 · January 9, 2008

I think it's useful to point out that different sensor sizes with similar qtys
of pixels are indicative of smaller or larger pixel sizes and that pixel size
does matter.

Not that an area calculation is bad per se. It's just not necessary IMHO (unless
you're talking to an EE who deals with chip level design).

Marc Muench · January 9, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

Ian, I am fully aware that my calculations do not yield the size of the pixel wells, but do relate in some reasonable way to the maximum potential size available for a pixel well. That is why I said Potential Area rather than pixel size.

My purpose was not to measurebait, as I am sure you know, but simply to demonstrate the real difference between an APS sensor pixel and a P&S pixel.

Nikon took this road with their D3 - a full frame sensor with only 12million pixels - much bigger and less noisier than full frame cameras with much higher pixel counts.

Jim, I thought you mentioned a key component to considering the G9 camera in one of your earlier posts. You mentioned that you were using a photoshop plugin called "noisewere". I have been using this for a bit myself and think, as you do that it does a fantastic job cleaning up the G9 image files

Shizam · January 9, 2008

So I really like my G9 within certain bounds, photos taken w/out the built in flash look fantastic and photos taken with bounce flash from 580ex/420ex look like they were shot with a SLR and the RAW option is fantastico. I also bought the water housing and took it to Hawaii and shooting photos/video underwater was great! The one caveat is high ISO sucks on it, I don't like anything over 200ISO but I'm a whiner.

Sam

pathfinder · January 9, 2008

Marc Muench wrote:

Jim, I thought you mentioned a key component to considering the G9 camera in one of your earlier posts. You mentioned that you were using a photoshop plugin called "noisewere". I have been using this for a bit myself and think, as you do that it does a fantastic job cleaning up the G9 image files

Speaking of Noiseware, Marc, do you attempt to do any fine tuning of its parameters, or do you just let it run in auto? From comments made by Andrew Rodney, I think he uses it in auto, and that is the only way I have really used it too. For small snapshots, ISO 400 might work, but 800 and higher is a waste of time.

I agree with Shizam, the ability to use the EOS flash system is valuable, but would be more so if it auto-focused faster. The built in flash does a fair job for fill flash in Av mode.

ian408 · January 10, 2008

So a question for those of you that use Noiseware.

I've tried several noise reduction programs and they seem somewhat
"clunky". Is Noiseware any easier than NoiseNinja or others to use?

pathfinder · January 10, 2008

That's kind of what I was asking Marc, Ian.

Speaking for myself, I just hit the auto button in Noiseware and sit back an watch it go to work. I should mention that I routinely use noise software on an adjustment layer so that I can also do a selection of a certain area, and then after running Noiseware, I can still adjust the Opacity slider to fine tune the final result. Takes just a minute longer to do it this way.

I also have NeatImage on my machine, but it is designed around separate files for each camera body and each ISO for fine tuning the result, and I think Noiseware is usually just as good or better and I don't have to hassle with keeping different files up to date for each camera body and ISO. I have not used NoiseNinja since I left Microsoft's side of the world about two years ago. I haven't missed it.

ian408 · January 10, 2008

Jim, that's exactly what I wanted to hear.

ziggy53 · January 10, 2008

ian408 wrote:

So a question for those of you that use Noiseware.

I've tried several noise reduction programs and they seem somewhat
"clunky". Is Noiseware any easier than NoiseNinja or others to use?

I tried all the demo versions and checked all the reviews and wound up with Neat Image as my primary noise reduction software. The demo version really doesn't do the commercial version justice.

If you download the noise profiles for your particular camera it works fairly well automatically, but the range of control is enormous when you need it.

It also works very well with scanned film images, which was another goal.

Marc Muench · January 10, 2008

ian408 wrote:

Jim, that's exactly what I wanted to hear.

I agree with Jim, especially the part about using its own layer

The main problem with any anti noise software is that it smooths intended detail, leaving you with mush:cry thus the reason for fine tuning.

Jim, I have used the sliders to change a few things but the diff is minimal, as I am still not happy unless I go back and fine tune. However, if you are using your sliders in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom correctly you will not need as much noise reduction. The luminance slider does much the very same thing

Pull the Trigger on a G9?

Comments