Some G9 photos

[phule]

To make any claims that you see noise in the sky of those images is absurd and ignorant, Anthony. You only posted here to troll.

[StuartMoxham]

Looks like blotchiness cause by JPG compression that is causing most of the problems with the sky in those images. I have to say that the images look great to me. Have you made many prints from the G9 and what size do you usually print them.

[obakesan]

Hi Paulo

<P>

interesting what you say about ACR ... will DNG converter read it, and thus open it that way?

<P>

I would be interested to hear what you find if you examine the images by looking at only (say) the RED channel, and to compare the RAW image with that of the JPG. I did some examination of my olde faithful coolpix 5000 (and then also my 10 and 20D) and found interesting differences. I put that on <A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/inCameraArtifacts.html" target="_blank">this page</A>. I would be interested to know how well your images compare when examined this way.

<P>

I'm looking for a more capable camera than my 5000 for a 'hiking outfit' and the G9 is a contender. Failing that I'll have to drag my 10D and lenses along on my next trip. Finnish Lapland in December will no doubt test my batterys again.

<P>

:-)

[pbizarro]

Stuart,

 

I have made prints up to A3 size and they look good to hang on the wall.

 

Chris,

 

I do not have Photoshop to examine the channels individually, I use Elements. I read your article, and indeed your findings are interesting. Some colour channels capture less information, thus when converting to JPG some interpolation must happen while the in-camera software tries to guess what the final colours will be. If my understanding is correct, the software samples neighbouring pixels and then computes the final value for a given pixel. Obviously, this creates artefacts and the blotches you mention.

 

ACR is a more powerful converter than the Canon one. For example, to me it has a very useful feature in the exposure tabs, where it gives me indications for highlight clipping, or shadow blocking. Canon lacks this. Mind you, the Canon is not bad; however, all it will do is convert the RAW file using the same parameters and options as in-camera. It is still a lot better than in-camera JPG, because you can convert to a 16 bit TIF.

[pingo_the_great]

The G9 is, sadly, a bit noisy. Especially at iso 800 above. 1600 noise might be ok for duplicating that grainy b/w look, however, if you want a totally clean image. Shoot either at iso 80, or 100. Even 200 shows hints of noise when pixel examined. Acceptable when downsized however.

 

Here's a rather noisy iso 200 image which I took : http://pingo.blogspot.com/2007/11/aurora.html

 

The original looks cleaner but this image was put through a HDR processor which seemed to amplify the noise. It was also shot underexposed by 1 or 2 stops to capture light detail. Just posting a heavily processed image to show you guys how heavily processed photoshops / hdrs turn out with the G9, incase any of you are editing freaks like me. All in all, I still love my G9.