Playing with the new G9

[solarbird]

Pear on Tree (macro test)

Original is 4000x3000, ISO200, manual focus. Here's a crop of a 1215x847px section, also reduced to 640x480 because I kind of thought I'd post it via an img tag instead of an href, but I changed my mind. This is using only iPhoto and not anything smart, so these are pretty basic images and are completely unadjusted.

I'm liking the G9 very much.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Verra nice.

[solarbird]

I am liking this camera quite a bit. The non-hinged (body-integrated) LCD is not being a problem so far; being much larger than the A80's screen is helping a lot, as is it being a much brighter display.

[flit.livejournal.com]

Ooooh I LIKE this one.

[solarbird]

I think I'd crop some of the top off, and some of the left part of the frame, personally, were I doing it really for art. I just don't like the length of that stem. And at 4000x3000, that leaves me plenty of pixels for print work, yay. ^_^

[flit.livejournal.com]

The texture of the spots on the skin is luscious, though. And the skin itself. NICE macro. Is this a really spendy camera? Because I've been promising myself that if I ever get my mini painting area set up I would get myself a camera with a good macro for taking pictures of them.

[solarbird]

Depends upon your scale of spendy, which probably means yes. On the scale of compacts, it's quite spendy, at $500 street. (Listings seem to be between $470 and $600, but don't pay over $500, which I paid at local retail, Kenmore Camera. It's also new so you don't see much discounting yet.) I could only afford it because I was selling off the rather nice lenses for my old film kit, and spent the proceeds from that. On the other hand, compared to DSLRs and lens sets for them, it is rather much cheaper.

Of the compacts, it's the best I've seen, and I've looked at a decent bunch; when this review mentions distortion at widest angle, it's because they're comparing against DSLRs, not against other compacts. You'll note they have sample images at this level of a sort they don't for most other compacts, and that's because they consider this a professional's second camera. (Interestingly, they're also commonly used in medical applications, because the colour capture is correct, so they can be used in diagnostic imaging. Kenmore Camera tells me they're already selling dozens of the G9 to hospitals, and before that, they sold G7 units to the same people.)

Speaking of which, if you want a similar camera for less, you might try to get a G7, the camera this replaces. Differences: the G7 tops out at 10 megapixels (which is, quite frankly, plenty, including for me), does not offer RAW-format output (completely lossless - these are JPEGs, and the G7 is JPEG only while the G9 lets you export in RAW mode), has a bit more colour fringing - particularly purples - visible in 1:1 mode at highest resolutions, has very slightly more lens distortion all the way out, and has a bit more colour noise, particularly at ISO400. But it's still comparable overall, and both are significantly better optically than what I feel is the next best in the Canon compact line, the A650. I only saw a $20 local cost difference (and I was buying locally), but you can probably do better mail-order, particularly as the G7 is discontinued. (RefurbDepo has the G7 for $410, for example.)

(Note: The A650 is also a very nice compact camera, but is a step down from the G7 and G9; note that Cnet doesn't report geometry and colour fringing tests on it, unlike the G7 and G9; that's because it's not worth bothering, you know it has both. But it won't be enough to make most people care. I also discount the SD950 right off the top - that's the head of their point-and-shoot compact line - because it has no manual mode and is also rather slow. Also, it's not cheaper enough to consider as a lower-cost substitute. The A650 goes for $400 street, however, and that is a pretty good difference. Also, it has the swingy-out LCD door, which I like. Downsides: heavier than the G9, and slightly bigger because of the AA battery compartment, which has advantages.)

I was not impressed with Nikon's competitor in this range; the G9 is built like a tank, and the, hum, what was it... CoolPix P5100 was not. Also, it carried significantly more lens distortion, and its immediate predecessor (the P5000) test shots showed significantly more noise, and Cnet's colour stability tests were so bad across different ISO settings that they printed the test sheets, calling it some of the worst performance they've ever seen. So ... not for me.

Gah, I have to learn to answer stuff later, it's after midnight. I am dum. G'night!

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Okay, now I _hafta_ get the new 12.2MP Alpha, just to maintain parity. :-)

Here, have some texture (miniature pictures)

[solarbird]

Cutter - 1" unpainted figurine. 5mp setting (cropped to square - width is original width), ISO 400 because light is low, f5.0, 1/10th of a second shutter speed, handheld.

Cutter - 1" unpainted figurine, same settings, slightly different focal point.

[solarbird]

MY GOD

IT'S FULL OF PIXELS