Re: Canon G9

In message <3-ydnZQtwtONRDzanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Saunders <pvs1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Chris Townsend wrote:

Could be. I've never had a compact without a viewfinder. The GR-D has
a detachable one that is very bright though it doesn't give any info
so I use the LCD for that.

The G9 viewfinder is awful. I tried using it yesterday in bright sun and I
was shocked at the difference in composition. It only shows 80% apparently,
yet it seemed to show even less than that to me! Quite impossible to frame
an image correctly. Also, with the adapter attached it obscures about 40% of
the image!

The GR-D viewfinder is excellent, with parallax lines for the 28mm lens and the 21mm adaptor.

Apart from anything else I can hold a
camera more steadily with my arms tucked into my sides then held out.

Actually, I've developed a good technique for holding a digicam steady, back
in my G3 days. I'd forgotten about it but it came back to me instinctively
once I started using the G9. Basically you use the neck strap for extra
support. With the strap around your neck you stretch out your arms until the
strap is tight. Since the strap isn't very long you can't stretch your arms
out too far, and can instead tuck your arms into your sides. Therefore you
have the best of both worlds. If anything I'd say that tensioning the strap
like this may give slightly more stability than using the viewfinder. This
is how I took my 1/2 second shot hand-held. If you have a tree or rock handy
to lean back against, or to rest your elbows on, it will be even more
stable.

Sounds a useful technique. I've not used a compact with a neck strap, just wrist loops, so I hadn't thought of that.

I've had fungal growth in some of my lenses

Somehow I've managed to avoid that even on camping trips many months
long when it has rained for weeks. I've never even bothered with
silica gel. If cameras or lenses do get wet I wipe them dry.
Otherwise I just keep them in their cases.

I must have used them excessively often in the rain then.

Or I've been lucky. And obsessive about keeping camera gear dry.

I've used waterproof housings with GPS units and found it very
difficult to use the buttons.

Even with a moulded case specifically designed to fit the model in question?

Yes. I was supplied one with a test Lowrance GPS and found it almost useless.

I use manual controls virtually all the time. I would never be happy
losing that.

Well I've had a good think about this problem and I think I've found an
acceptable solution. I've checked the exposures of a range of waterfall
photos I've taken over the years and I've calculated that most waterfall
shots were taken with light values ranging from EV 9 to 11 (usually without
rain). Three preset exposures would cover that range. The darkest daylight
conditions I've encountered (often with rain) are EV 6 to 7. So the whole
range of daylight exposures for waterfalls is EV 6 to 11, a six stop range.

Additionally, when shooting waterfalls in twilight conditions I've managed
to shoot sucessfully down to EV 0, and even EV -2, but the auto-focus ceased
to work in those conditions. It was almost pitch dark by that time and I was
just trying to see how far I could push my camera. In practice therefore,
it's unlikely I'd ever shoot darker than EV 0, maybe that's why the EV scale
is calibrated that way? Kind of like a zero degrees for light.

Anyway, while I sometimes enjoy waterfall photography during twilight, I'm
unlikely to stay out that late in the pouring rain, so my rain photography
should be covered by the EV 6 to 11 range.

So, I can preset the Manual mode and the two custom modes to three different
exposures, one stop apart. Additionally I can switch the ND filter (3 stops)
on and off to double that range to 6 stops! For example (at ISO 80):

EV Mode (Sh-Ap)
11 Manual (1/2s-5.6) ND
10 Custom1 (1s-5.6) ND
09 Custom2 (2s-5.6) ND
08 Manual (1/2s-5.6)
07 Custom1 (1s-5.6)
06 Custom2 (2s-5.6)

Those exposures will give me good depth of field, optimum aperture quality
and a nice milky blur on the water.

Additionally I can set AV mode to f5.6, the optimum aperture (f4 is good at
wide angle, but the maximum aperture at full zoom is f4.8 with soft corners,
so f5.6 will safely cover the whole zoom range), and TV mode to say 1/250th
for action shots and freezing the water. With Safety Shift on, the apertures
and shutter speeds would change if necessary, but then they revert to my
defaults for the next shot! If I really want to force the camera to use
1/250th, in spite of underexposure, then I can simply turn Safety Shift off.

P mode could be used for any other exposure requirements, by pointing the
camera at different things and locking the exposure that I want. If I'm
really desperate, I could always change the ISO to get other exposures.

And of course, I'll be auto-bracketing for HDR anyway, so that really should
cover all my options, don't you think?

Definitely.

Obviously I could set different presets when shooting subjects other than
waterfalls.


These days I mostly use the histogram for exposure. Of course with the 350D I can't check it until after I've taken the shot.

13 seconds. The new GR-D II is said to be much faster.

It's also meant to produce better images though I would worry about
cramming the extra megapixels on the same size sensor. Surely that
would mean more noise at high ISOs.

Yep, undoubtedly.

While the G9 image quality is
quite acceptable and pretty good for a compact, it really isn't in
the same class as a DSLR.

That's the same with the GR-D. I want a compact with the same quality
as a DSLR, as we used to have with film.

I think DSLRs give much better quality than film. Have you seen the grain on
a good scan of a so-called "fine grain" film like Velvia or Provia F? It's
horrendous! And to think that we're complaining about a little bit of noise
on a digital camera! The noise that we find unacceptable today is actually
much less than the best film grain! We probably didn't realise that with
film because we were never able to look at it that closely before.

Certainly 100% blowups of film were extremely rare!

Curiously I had a book out last year with a mix of film and digital images in it. Several people have picked out film images as digital because they look "unnatural", "not as detailed" and "noisy".

So even though the image quality on the G9 doesn't match the 400D, the
resolution is 50% higher than 35mm film (equivalent to about 8MP) and the
noise at ISO 80 is less than the grain on professional slide film, so it
seems to me that even though it's "just a compact", it's actually higher
quality than a good SLR loaded with pro film used to be!

In which case the GR-D should be the same. Publishers haven't caught up with this though. Generally they say an 8mp DSLR is the minimum for images equivalent to 35mm film. Mind you, one publisher did express surprise at the quality of a double page spread in the current TGO taken with my 350D and the original 18-55mm lens.

Very nice. I particularly like the second one. I'd have taken a
longer exposure at a lower ISO and tried to sit still for longer! :-)

I did that and the moon blur looks really unnatural!

Ah yes...

Yes. I'd buy one tomorrow if I had money to burn, but it's not that
much better than a 400D so it's hard to justify for me.

For me it could be worth the step up from the 350D. I didn't think the
400D offered enough to be worth the money.

The new sensor cleaning features on the 400D are well worth it though, and
the Dust Delete data works great. Even though I've got dust on my sensor
now, there's none on my photos! Just remember to take a new Dust Delete
snapshot before any important shoot.

I've rarely had problems with dust with the 350D, though it has occurred. I use a Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly for removing dust and it works really well. I also take great care when changing lenses.

But as you say, the difference between 8MP and 10MP isn't really enough to
make a difference, nor is the jump from 10MP to 12MP for me, so I'll
probably wait until the next generation.

8mp to 12mp could be a big enough jump to make it worth it for me.

I'd rather have my 350D.

Of course, no point getting it if you've already got a DSLR, but still an
interesting camera nonetheless. The R1is a viable alternative to a DSLR if
the 24-120 lens is all you need. You get the advantages of an LCD to compose
on and never any dust on the sensor. No mirror slap either.

Certainly.

I see Sigma says the DP1 compact with a 14mp sensor will be out soon.

Chris


.

Loading