chowdhury_shahriar Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I know that camera's with higher mega pixel with same same sensor is mor prone to noise. now if you use reduce megapixel during taking a photo, is this going to increase the quality of picture? For eample you have G9 which is a 12 MP camera. what if you use 6 MP to take a shot? is this captures noise like 6 MP camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 No. What is important is the physical size of a pixel on the sensor which (among other things) determines the signal-to-noise ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chowdhury_shahriar Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 confused... explain please.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adzy Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 No, its not, because you are doing the compression in teh software layer, not the hardware. The picture taking proces sis the same for both 12/6 meg scenarios. Its the jpeg-compression process that decides how much to compress it by. In fact because you are using more compression, you might end up with more noise. BTW, the G9 is not an EOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 it is possible to reduce visible or noticeable noise by downsampling to a smaller resolution. I do it all the time, reducing my big SLR images for the web. Noise (note - this is different than compression artifacts) that's obvious and objectionable at full size 100% completely disappears at 400x600 web quality. That's an extreme case obviously, but there's a whole spectrum of processing options with varying results. Does the in-camera downsampling work as well as downsampling in post-processing, where you can control every step? Not likely. How well does the in-camera downsampling work to suppress noise? Not something I've seen in detailed camera reviews. How about you go to the camera store and run a test or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 >>if you use reduce megapixel during taking a photo, is this going to increase the quality of picture?<< No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I will say this...the G9 is producing amazing images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savas_kyprianides Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Yes, G9 does perform. What with all of the dire predictions in other forums, it's similar to the bumblebee, an insect whose physical design is thought by knowledgable people to be incapable of flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Noise is from small sensor. It can be mitigated to a very large degree buy using native ISO like 100 or what ever is the lowest setting. As ISO is increased, noise increases expodendially with small compared to large sensors all else being equal. Consider that the G9 is new and a better processor inside the camera will mitigate some of the noise. Ask some one to put up G9 pics at 100 400 and 800. See how they look. Consider all the complaints Canon got over no raw with the G7, I am sure they worked hard on the 9. I would bet it is awsome compared to other P&S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 we've been playing with it at work including some prints and they are AMAZING - you would think they were out of a 5D if you weren't told otherwise...hands down the best p/s out there especially now with the thinner body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 "In fact because you are using more compression, you might end up with more noise." Not exactly. Compression introduces compression artifacts, which are a different beast than the noise that is introduced by the sensors themselves. All things being equal, sensors with smaller photosites are more prone to introducing noise into the image, especially at high ISOs. That said, while there may be _more_ noise, the advantages of the small camera for certain types of photography may still make it worthwhile as long as you understand the camera's limits. With those in mind, I hear it is possible to produce some quite decent images with this camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Hi Chowdbury, the sensor is a small size in the G9 compared to a Dslr, therefore to get 12meg of pixels on they have to be much smaller, size often refered as `pixel pitch, they are fixed so 12meg or 6meg images can only be made the same pixel diameter. because rgey are small they cannot absorb as much light as the larger pixels on bigger sensors which can reduce dynamic range (simply the light range from bright to dark) as the sensor is generally rated at 100ISO, to get to 200,400,800 etc, the signal is amplified like music is. As it is amplified any digital noise is also amplified as well with a varying degree of signal to noise ratio. The G9 produces good pics because of improvements to software and processors. I hope that is a simple explanation. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_robinson2 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Here is a G9 test-- http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4599/camera-test-canon-powershot-g9.html --It is about as hard to find a G9 as it is to find a 40D... I had thought about a G9 as a cycle carry camera, and a friend wants a 40D to replace his 20D or keep the 20D as backup, but both seem to be out of stock in most reputable places... JoeR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Joe, supply should be better in a month or so from what I've read...anyway I would have loved to had a camera like the G9 in my cycle touring days...I actually rode across the US and Canada, carrying a heavy film slr and two lenses. I haven't handled a g9 yet, but looks like one I could be happy with as a carry-all cam, and can now dump my G2, G6, and 8080...or give to kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akajohndoe Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 The G6 had the swivel LCD, right? Neither the G7 nor the G9 have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabophoto Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 >>It is about as hard to find a G9 as it is to find a 40D... The good news is that both are available everywhere here in Germany :-) Carsten (who got his G9 on Saturday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chas_berlin Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Spent an hour w/ the G9 at a local shop tonight. Very nice, BUT the color accuracy is way off (at least at night indoors). Specifically greens/blues/purples. A green shirt repeatedly came out a mushy green w/ gray and blue tones mixed in. (No matter how the camera was set.) Purples became blue, and light purple became pink. (And yes, I realise this can be corrected in Photoshop.) I then took a Canon 850IS and took the same shots and found the color accuracy to be much, much better. Quite a surprise! I will return to try the G9 in the daylight (outdoors), but have a difficult time reconciling this lack of color accuracy. That and a good crisp, sharp, image is what photography is all about IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chas_berlin Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 BTW: I used auto WB, and then florescent WB settings. Both w/ poor results. And we ran a print to verify the LCD was accurate, and unfortunately the print matched what I saw on the LCD. Will try the camera in the daylight Sat to see if results are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_grillo Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Got my G9 as a PJ carry camera, this week, at Adorama. My little G7 is so amazing I figured this had to be even better, esp with RAW. Anecdotally, I was on a movie set with the 5D recently and missed half the shots when the dial went from "A" to something else. It got hit by my hand or something. I retired the 5D and used the G7 all the next day for 100% perfect candids -- all on SCENE mode. What a pleaure not to have to think about mechanics at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chas_berlin Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 After spending more time w/ the G9 I think it is a very nice camera (for a P&S). It has limitations in the area of color accuracy, being far from accurate across the spectrum. What greatly helped (at least indoors w/ a mixture of light sources - florescent and daylight) was going to evaluative WB. The colors were then very close to accurate. You really have to tweak the G9's WB depending on what and where you are shooting. The Auto WB was good at times, and then way off at others. Sometimes florescent WB would work (under florescents) and other times not. Both indoors and out I found the reds to be fairly off, no matter what setting the WB was on (no I didn't try tungsten outdoors. Ha ha.) Overall it really is a nice rig, and I'll probably get one. You just have to be aware that it's color is funny. Flesh tones were overly red, yet a red flower was tending towards dark pink. Go figure. The small sensor will hopefully be replaced w/ something larger in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anders hald Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Hi, this is maybe a little off topic. I'd just like to say what a great camera this is. Image quality is not DSLR and the camera takes a little getting to know, in terms of how it handles colour, focussing and how the flash functions. As do all cameras! I have owned this camera for a few months and it is BRILLIANT, great fun, great image quality for a compact and the ability to shoot RAW is fantastic. I love this camera. It's really fun to use, built really well and the battery life is great. This weekend I shot 550 jpgs at a birthdayparty, nearly all using flash, using the monitor as viefinder, without any 'powersaving' settings, just standard, all on ONE CHARGE with the battery. Amazing! If the camera meets your requirements, don't hesitate, get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_wilson1 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 CHAS & co - you are right about the colours. Lovely and rich but one has to play around with the colour modes half the time. That bloody wheel on the back needs a lock on it hey! Overall a joy to use and can't wait for the prints. But thats another question - what ratio are the images and what dimensions/ what paper should i print on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_wilson1 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 The metering is often way off - dark, backlit-confused. I may send it back for another check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now