I'm looking at ditching the Canon A590 I started with and picking up a used Canon G9 or G10.
There's a megapixel bump which is nice for cropping and the overall image quality looks better. The G series also comes with RAW which I've found does make a difference. I'll be happy with a G9 but the G10 comes with better handgrip, battery life, faster shutter, and a wider angle at the sacrifice of some zoom. Downside, the G10 is a fat muthafucka.
I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality especially in low light than be a megapixel whore. The other thing is the G9 is more pocket sized than the G10. The only bitch is I like the G10's wider angle and better battery life.
On 2009-10-31 12:47:54 -0700, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> said:
> I'm looking at ditching the Canon A590 I started with and picking up a used > Canon G9 or G10.
> There's a megapixel bump which is nice for cropping and the overall image > quality looks better. The G series also comes with RAW which I've found does > make a difference. I'll be happy with a G9 but the G10 comes with better > handgrip, battery life, faster shutter, and a wider angle at the sacrifice > of some zoom. Downside, the G10 is a fat muthafucka.
> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality especially > in low light than be a megapixel whore. The other thing is the G9 is more > pocket sized than the G10. The only bitch is I like the G10's wider angle > and better battery life.
> Wildcard: what about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3?
I can't speak for the G9 or G10, but I just picked up a G11 and I am more than happy with the performance and features.
I'm looking for native RAW for lifting out the detail thing. I've built DNG profiles for CHDK but it's a PITA. Any G9+ camera is better.
The G9 has the slight edge for me but the G11 sounds great. I've spent enough money already so am not going to stretch there. But the better (???) sensor and longer battery life should keep you happy.
If Canon can improve the noise and make the thing a bit smaller in a later rev of the G series I'll probably pick one up but I might be in the market for an SLR around then anyway.
> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality > especially in low light than be a megapixel whore.
I just discovered (again) DxO Mark and compared the G9 and G10 with a 20D. Ouch. The G9 has a /slight/ edge over the G10 but neither come close to the 20D. They're /acceptable/ at 100-200 ISO but 400 is pushing it.
I read a bunch of comments and looked at rough comparison photos and got the feeling the G9 had the /slight/ edge over the G10. These results seem to confirm that it beats the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX3.
Plenty of people claimed the G10 and LX3 were better but I haven't seen anything convincing. If there is any difference between the G9 and G10 it looks like it's confined to the quality of onboard JPEG processing.
>> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality >> especially in low light than be a megapixel whore.
> I just discovered (again) DxO Mark and compared the G9 and G10 with a 20D. > Ouch. The G9 has a /slight/ edge over the G10 but neither come close to > the > 20D. They're /acceptable/ at 100-200 ISO but 400 is pushing it.
> I read a bunch of comments and looked at rough comparison photos and got > the > feeling the G9 had the /slight/ edge over the G10. These results seem to > confirm that it beats the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX3.
> Plenty of people claimed the G10 and LX3 were better but I haven't seen > anything convincing. If there is any difference between the G9 and G10 it > looks like it's confined to the quality of onboard JPEG processing.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:51:27 +0000, Charles E Hardwidge wrote: >> I can't speak for the G9 or G10, but I just picked up a G11 and I am >> more than happy with the performance and features.
> I'm looking for native RAW for lifting out the detail thing. I've built > DNG profiles for CHDK but it's a PITA. Any G9+ camera is better.
> The G9 has the slight edge for me but the G11 sounds great. I've spent > enough money already so am not going to stretch there. But the better > (???) sensor and longer battery life should keep you happy.
> If Canon can improve the noise and make the thing a bit smaller in a > later rev of the G series I'll probably pick one up but I might be in > the market for an SLR around then anyway.
If you want a small G11, why not try the Powershot S90?
> If you want a small G11, why not try the Powershot S90?
I set a budget and a new camera knocks it over and isn't worth the marginal difference. Plus, I want something smallish *with* an optical viewfinder. Otherwise, the S90 is a good suggestion.
*sigh*
I just bought a G9 off EBay. Not the brightest thing I've ever done. If this works out it will tick all my boxes for now. I'll just have to offload the A590 on some willing victim. (Unintended irony alert.)
> > I just bought a G9 off EBay. Not the brightest thing > > I've ever done. If this works out it will tick all my > > boxes for now. I'll just have to offload the A590 on > > some willing victim. (Unintended irony alert.)
> Well, for a camera that cost me $100 new, my A590 has served > me very well, particularly with CHDK. Of course, a G9, or > maybe even a G11, would be nice too. :-)
> By the way, could you explain how I could process the CHDK > raw files from the A590? What (free, PC) photo editor do > you use to edit those files and produce the final jpegs?
I used CHDK's DNG further tuned with my own custom colour matrix calculated from a Macbeth chart shot under daylight and tungsten. I hacked the code to support improved colourmatrix1 and add colormatrix2 but ran into some hassles with the compiler so never finished that project.
The other way is to create a DNG profile with Adobe DNG editor. Again, that needs a Macbeth chart shot under daylight and tungsten. You just plonk in the images, it does its magic, and spits out a DNG profile you can use with any application that accepts DNG profiles.
I used CHDK DNG with Lightroom and Photoshop but I've read other people have had good results with CHDK raw and 'Raw Therapee' and Lightbox. Any program that accepts DNG profiles should work as well.
It's going to be a headache to pick up the CHDK code and DNG profile project again but I could have another look after G9 comes through and I've got some spare time. I've also got some profiles kicking around and could send one to you. They're only about 25K so are email friendly.
The profiles are colour accurate but the reds are a bitch. I never managed to nail reds properly under all lighting conditions. The hue and saturation was a bit off. You wouldn't notice it normally but I'm a bit anal about these things. Plus, I just got fed up pissing around.
Being able to process raw is a definite plus with the A590. Almost any noise correction is better in Photoshop and fixes the issues with the noisy sensor and over-aggressive noise processing. The other thing is you can fix blown highlights and get great cloud detail on a bright day.
> On 2009-10-31 12:47:54 -0700, "Charles E Hardwidge" > <bo...@invalid.invalid> said:
>> I'm looking at ditching the Canon A590 I started with and picking up a >> used >> Canon G9 or G10.
>> There's a megapixel bump which is nice for cropping and the overall image >> quality looks better. The G series also comes with RAW which I've found >> does >> make a difference. I'll be happy with a G9 but the G10 comes with better >> handgrip, battery life, faster shutter, and a wider angle at the >> sacrifice >> of some zoom. Downside, the G10 is a fat muthafucka.
>> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality >> especially >> in low light than be a megapixel whore. The other thing is the G9 is more >> pocket sized than the G10. The only bitch is I like the G10's wider angle >> and better battery life.
>> Wildcard: what about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3?
> I can't speak for the G9 or G10, but I just picked up a G11 and I am more > than happy with the performance and features.
>>> I'm looking at ditching the Canon A590 I started with and picking up a used >>> Canon G9 or G10.
>>> There's a megapixel bump which is nice for cropping and the overall image >>> quality looks better. The G series also comes with RAW which I've found does >>> make a difference. I'll be happy with a G9 but the G10 comes with better >>> handgrip, battery life, faster shutter, and a wider angle at the sacrifice >>> of some zoom. Downside, the G10 is a fat muthafucka.
>>> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality especially >>> in low light than be a megapixel whore. The other thing is the G9 is more >>> pocket sized than the G10. The only bitch is I like the G10's wider angle >>> and better battery life.
>>> Wildcard: what about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3?
>> I can't speak for the G9 or G10, but I just picked up a G11 and I am >> more than happy with the performance and features.
That is how it came out of the G11, I got better results from my D300. In my defense, this was my first outing with the G11, and I was still in familiarization mode.
> I'm looking at ditching the Canon A590 I started with and picking up a > used > Canon G9 or G10.
> There's a megapixel bump which is nice for cropping and the overall image > quality looks better. The G series also comes with RAW which I've found > does > make a difference. I'll be happy with a G9 but the G10 comes with better > handgrip, battery life, faster shutter, and a wider angle at the sacrifice > of some zoom. Downside, the G10 is a fat muthafucka.
> I'm leaning towards the G9. I'd rather have better image quality > especially > in low light than be a megapixel whore. The other thing is the G9 is more > pocket sized than the G10. The only bitch is I like the G10's wider angle > and better battery life.
> Wildcard: what about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3?
> -- > Charles E Hardwidge
i have a G9 and my advice is simple..if you need to go beyond iso 100 , then AVOID the G series..they are nasty nasty nasty at higher iso's. build quality is good, iq sucks...and dont even mention blown highlights...unless you want to HDR any photo you take that has a teeny bit of sunny sky in it.
> i have a G9 and my advice is simple..if you need to go beyond iso 100 , > then AVOID the G series..they are nasty nasty nasty at higher iso's. > build quality is good, iq sucks...and dont even mention blown > highlights...unless you want to HDR any photo you take that has a teeny > bit of sunny sky in it.
The G9 was a step up from the A590 but has similar issues. That sucks but I'll have to learn how to work with or around that.
I've got no problems with using a tripod to do multiple shots to raise the quality or bracketed shots to increase the dynamic range. Creative judgements are another thing but it's possible to work with noise than fight against it. I've now moved a little deeper into post-processing workflow and signal processing to if there's any innovations buried in there.
Heck, I might even find some time in there to take a photo. ;-)
|
