For The Advanced Photographers

[Anton]

I have just been told about this relatively new camera from Canon and thought I would share it with you. It starts off with their European Press Release, followed by the link to the full details on the camera.

"Amstelveen, The Netherlands, 20 August, 2007 - Canon today launches its new flagship compact for advanced photographers – the 12.1 Megapixel PowerShot G9. The successor to the PowerShot G7 – recently named EISA European Advanced Compact Camera 2007-2008 – the PowerShot G9 incorporates improvements driven by market feedback with a range of user-oriented enhancements, including RAW image capture*"

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082005canong9.asp

Interested in other members' thoughts. I love the idea of a point and shoot with RAW capabilities.

[mayres]

My best friend has the G6 and this looks like a nice improvement, except that it doesn't have the movable viewer that comes out and rotates like the older models - which is a GREAT feature. The BIG negative for me in point and shoot cameras thus far is that you cannot get good bokeh. I'm hoping at some point they will improve the software features to approximate SLR lenses in this respect. mike

[pikevi]

Thanks Anton.

May be I should have waited!

But then I am not an advanced photographer .... so not much is lost.

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

I don't think you will ever get good bokeh, BECAUSE they are compacts. The miniaturization of everything means a very large depth of field and it is hard to get an out of focus background at all, let alone a nice appealing one.

I am waiting for the Sigma DP1 that will have a large SLR sized chip in a compact camera. Still will have the lens limitations, and even worse because the large chip means it won't have a zoom.

[Anton]

The fact the Canon PowerShot G9 does 12.2 Mp RAW images is what got my attention. I personally would prefer a Canon D40 (or better) for my Canon stable, but as a cheaper substitute in the mean time ..............

[Bolero]

I'm not an expert but have the 9MP S9500 and would happily trade mine in for the G9. That would be a terrific camera to own.

[ogus]

Anton, it all depends on what you do with RAW files. RAW is amazing because it retains the original color information that you can digitally process your pictures the way people used to develop their films. If you are going to just convert RAW to JPEG after point and shoot, there's no point of considering a camera with RAW capability. If you have your own style of processing RAW, it will give you your trademark picture style.

Some may not agree with the way you process tho, I have had Cynthia telling me my pictures are tad bit too artistic for her taste because the way I process my RAW. However, RAW and digital processing give you an original look to your pictures that people take a look at your pictures and soon know it's yours.

I have 3 DSLR cameras and I hardly ever shoot in JPEG. 3 cameras from 3 different companies have 3 distinct color expression but the feel of my pictures do match each other because of the way I process.

However sometimes, digitally processing and converting RAW to JPEG are something that takes pretty long time and becomes a burden when you have let's say 100 or more pictures taken..

Canon G series are known for their great picture taking capabilities, I am sure the new one is even better.

Sigma DP-1 is not on market yet but that's another possibility, new Panasonic is having good reviews among people and so on.. so you may want to see the different color expression before you decide. It maybe just me but I am not really a Canon fan.. hehe..

[Anton]

I am a Canon man, always have been. I used to process my own E6 trannies (actually started when it used to be E3) and also c41 color neg, but those days are long gone now, and I must say, I don't miss the odor of the darkroom.

But, having said that, darkroom work gives you better insight into the digital
process and handling images.

I print on an Epson StylusPro 4800 17" printer and more than happy with my results. As yet I haven't used RAW due to the nature of my profession and the digital cameras my equipment uses, but looking at getting into it.

More than likely I will handle the RAW images in Apple's Aperture, it got the jump on Adobe's LightRoom and from what I have heard from colleagues has more features and is a lot quicker.

[ogus]

Because I don't have Mac.. I am using Adobe's LightRoom and there's another one called Darkroom..

it's going to be lovely.. RAW is quiet addictive.. I would love to see your beautiful pictures soon!

[Anton]

OGUS, you can see some of my images on my Web site: Anton Drew, Photographer.

I have a range of images there, a lot taken on film in my Canon EOS 650s, but my orchids were photographed on my P&S Olympus FE210.

[ogus]

They are lovely.. I have given up using films because of the cost.. I admire film pictures!

http://ogus.new21.net/zb41/zboard.php?id=photostory

Here's my little photo site.. haven't been doing much photograph lately tho. The initial loading may take some time..

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

The biggest advantage in my opinion of raw is the greatly increased dynamic range. When you convert to jpg, you will choose which part of the dynamic range you need, or you can even compress the range into the jpg range, and get the benefit of detail in the shadows and the bright areas. One of the advantages of additional dynamic range is that I am not so worried about getting the exposure just perfect, as I can work with what would normally be an over exposed shot or an underexposed shot, since the the data is there, just need to shift the result up or down.

[Anton]

That sounds great Cynthia.

Now in the ol days.......
We used to partially develop and image, take it out of the developer, wash it off with running water (pre drought worrying days) then pour a little developer on the highlight (as in a bright stained glass window) and move it around that area with your fingers, and when it came up enough, wash it off again, then lay it back into the developer leaving it still until the whole image came up.

This not only brought up the image in the highlight area, but also aded a bit of extra contrast to it as well.

THEN, they brough out the papers in which you could change contrast using filters in the enlarger, that way you could add contrast to a washed out area using a Grade 4-5, by burning in, then hold back another using a Grade 1-2 again by burning in, then give the whole image a quick Grade 3 touch.

Gee I am glad we have digital. (sigh) But at least I know how to use it properly too from my old darkroom days.

[ogus]

Fuji S?pro series and Sigma SD series are known for the vastly wide dynamic range.. Cynthia don't you just love SPP with Sigma?

I am thinking about getting the new Nikon D3. Full frame is something I can't wait to use. Used Canon 5D great camera but was about 2% missing. 1DS series were rather bit too much. However one thing that makes me hesitate to get a new camerca is that the lens! urgg.. Sometimes I hope I own a camera shop so I can try using some of those lenses.. hehe.. my dream is to have those 600 mm zoomers..

[BillC]

Anton, checked out the Canon and it appears to be a high quality machine in the compact range. The bigest plus for me is the real-image zoom optical viewfinder with dioptre correction. I have a Nikon compact with the normal viewing screen, but if I am out in the sunshine it is very difficult to see detail on the screen even just studying composition for the shot. Thus for me, to compose a pic and ensure sharp focus plus the depth of field I want, the optical viewfinder wins every time. The series of pics included in the site are very good but no info. if they are jpeg or raw and how much editing has taken place. It must have a large plus for the raw capacity, but what is the cost difference between the compact and a pro slr? If it is not large and the prospective buyer was intending serious photography, then I think the slr is the best bet.

Bill

[Anton]

Bill, they vary between US$400 to $600 from what I have seen.

I just Googled Canon G9 and looked at a few sites, especially Canon.com, the home site. There is a fair bit of info there.

I am ringing the Pro Photo shop here to price them and the Canon 40D to se what the diffference is, mainly for the reason you mentioned. As I have a stable of EF lenses already, if there is only $200 to $300 difference, then the 40D is the way to go for me.

It is touted as the Point n Shoot compact camera for pros if you need to get that quick shot without getting the Big gear out.

[BillC]

Anton, saw the new avatar and fell off the chair in convulsions. Good way to approach the purchase of the camera; looking forward to the shots you will post.

Bill

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

I have been led to believe from the Sigma DP Review forum that the small chips in the small cameras produce a great deal more nois