Those upset with Canon over its exclusion of RAW in the
PowerShot G7 will find their biggest gripe squashed in the
G9, and just in case you're interested in seeing how this uniquely designed amateur cam held up to critiques, here's the skinny. Reviewers were understandably elated to be able to capture shots in RAW and tweak till their hearts were content, but also noteworthy were the excellent results found by simply switching to Auto mode and taking a load off. It was suggested that this camera "not only makes you feel like a better photographer, but helps you become one too," referring to the wealth of functions that catered to both beginners and seasoned veterans alike. Unfortunately, there seemed to be a noticeable amount of noise when the ISO exceeded 400, and while it was built for abuse, you should know that it was deemed "one of weightiest, most brick-like compacts out there." Overall, the G9 was dubbed hard to beat, and if you're scouting a solid DSLR backup, you should certainly give the read link a bit of your attention.
posted Oct 8th 2007 2:41PM
Shouldn't the header say G9?
What's this, "here's the skinny" comment supposed to mean?
Is it some kind of y00t speak?
The G9 looks nice, but the Ricoh GX100 has a more compelling feature set.
from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skinny
"The skinny" is a slang term that refers to inside information. Similar to the "low down".
A United States Marine Corps term for information:
During world war two until the late 1960's, military orders in the Marine Corps were copied on paper that resembled the skin of an onion. It was extremly thin and fragile, and translucent in appearance.
"What's the skinny on the promotions" said the private
I'd like to see cameras that can take excellent pictures at high ISO's. That should be the next big race, not that they can take a pic at 3200 iso but more that it's not grainy. For those times you need to take hand held shots in candlelight. ^_^
I think there's already a winner in that race:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp
I think you are right. A quick google search results:
http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html
look the G9 in action on this videoblog: http://extremehd.net
The problem with all these point-and-shoot cameras is the size of the sensor. Tiny sensors = big noise at high Iso. So we'll have nice quality picture only when the manufacturer will be able to put larger sensors in small enclosures... And yes... it's unfair to compare a point-and-shoot, as high-end as it could be, to a DSLR...
The answer for such a sensor in a compact is Sigma DP1. Long wait though.
I have a G7 and it works wonders so I look forwarding to comparing the two in the near future.
Although the G9 supports RAW, I read somewhere that the RAW format may be a proprietary Canon version and may not be supported by most photo editing software. I don't personally use RAW, but someone who's excited about this feature might want to take a closer look into it...
Of course the RAW is Canon's version; there is no 'standard RAW version'.
In other news, Photoshop supports Canon RAW just fine, as do many other programs (including Photomatix), or you can use the Canon RAW converter to convert to whatever format you like.
I had a G7 - it was a really great camera, took extremely sharp and vivid pictures up to around iso 400, which is all you can really expect from this size of sensor.
The problem for me was the inbetween-ness of it - not really the image quality or flexibility of a dslr, but still far more expensive than a P&S and it's way too big to fit in a pocket. That being said, I've never seen a camera in this range with anywhere near the picture quality. I'd recommend it.
This camera pales in comparison to the S5. I just don't understand Canon's G series: you can get most of the benefit from the A series for half the price, and the S series kicks its ass up and down the street with the 12x zoom. The S series is cheaper, too, and you can still fit it in your pocket.
Except for, oh, RAW post-processing and available color gamut.
35mm is just too limiting and the Wide Angle lens for it looks ridiculous! You might as well get a E-410 or D40.