Just a quickie. I notice that Canon have reinstated the RAW feature into
their new 12MP G9. With a 6x optical zoom and 3 stop image stabilisation,
this might actually be the compact I've been looking for. It even has the
all-important underwater case option, making it ideal for serious rain
photography. Not a bad price either. Sample pics look good.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/

Paul

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/

No-one interested? Having thought a lot more about this, I've decided to opt
for this camera before getting a new monitor. Much as I'd like a new
monitor, I can live without one for a little while longer, but I have some
good reasons for getting this camera ASAP.

I've wanted a good compact for years but although I've seen many with good
features, they always seem to have some flaw that puts me off, like
excessive noise, or a long delay saving a RAW file, or excessively large RAW
files, or something else. The G9 seems to be the only one that's *almost*
perfect for my requirements, and I've always liked the G series, having
started my digital adventures with the G3.

On the negative side, it doesn't do widescreen video, which would have been
nice, but that's not my main reason for buying a camera. Also it doesn't go
wider than 35mm, but that's common to most compacts, and I can always stitch
a 2x2 matrix of shots if I really need a wider angle, or just take a
panorama. The most obvious disadvantage is that the quality isn't as good as
a DSLR, but I wouldn't expect it to be, it's only a compact, and my primary
reason for getting one is for general snaps and being able to carry a camera
with me at all times. However, having said that, a close examination of a
bunch of sample images shows that the quality is surprisingly good for a
12MP compact, and the only obvious noise, in the sky, can easily be removed
with a bit of selective processing in Photoshop.

Samples:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page21.asp

The big selling point for me though, is the optional underwater case,
something the G series never had until the G7, but that didn't have RAW. Not
too expensive either, compared to previous cases (the S70 case was £230 I
think). Cheapest I've found is Amazon, £297 for the camera and £125 for the
case (from the used and new section).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-PowerS... 41N8H3S66RWB

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-WP-DC2... 341N8H3S66RWB

Here are some better photos of the underwater case. It's actually heavier
than the camera (case 460g, camera 370g, total 830g)
http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d...c21/index.html

I've often said that I wanted a good "rain camera" and this looks like it,
not too expensive, heavy or bulky. Of course, I'm not talking about a bit of
drizzle or the odd shower, I'm talking serious rain, when it buckets down
all day and fills the rivers to overflowing, creating spectacular
waterfalls. I've often photographed such scenes in the past with my film
cameras, and although I didn't like them getting wet, they were completely
manual so they never stopped working. However with digital I've always been
really paranoid. I've had problems with humidity causing card errors even
whilst protecting the camera from the rain, and that was pretty gentle
stuff. With an underwater case I can go out in torrential downpours with
impunity!

In case anyone hasn't been watching the weather forecasts lately, this is
the perfect time to buy such a camera and case! Like most people I suppose,
I have a New Year's resolution of going out walking more and getting fit,
blah de blah, but as usual, the typical British weather isn't cooperating,
making it hard to motivate myself. This camera could be just the motivation
I need. Rather than trying to avoid the rain, I'd actually make a point of
going out in the rain to get the best waterfall shots! I've never been that
bothered about personally getting a bit wet, it my expensive DSLR gear that
I'm really paranoid about.

I'll probably order it next week, so expect some *very* wet shots in the
near future!

Of course, knowing Murphy, it'll probably stop raining once I've bought
it... :-(

Paul

Hi Paul,

> really paranoid. I've had problems with humidity causing card errors even
> whilst protecting the camera from the rain, and that was pretty gentle
> stuff. With an underwater case I can go out in torrential downpours with
> impunity!

Certainly it looks like a good camera. Though would the underwater case
still stop humidity warnings?

My Pentax K10 holds up really well in bad weather. It is fully sealed
(the main reason I bought it over the competition) and I have used it
in some truly horrendous rain, sometimes all day, without any ill
effect. I usually use some 35mm film primes as my Sigma isn't wather
proof. But many of the Pentax series of lenses are sealed to match the
K10 body.

My main problem at the moment is protecting my video cameras!

> going out in the rain to get the best waterfall shots! I've never been that
> bothered about personally getting a bit wet, it my expensive DSLR gear that
> I'm really paranoid about.

My thoughts exactly. My only issue with bad weather photography is rain
on the lens. I keep meaning to investigate whether a rain spinning
device that can be bought for video cameras will work with a stills
camera.

Sorry I idn't get back to you about hooking up for a trip to the
Wellington Bomber wreck. I've had a lot of work on recently so haven't
been able to think about a possible date yet. But if you were still up
for it that would be cool.

Simon

Simon Wyndham wrote:

> Certainly it looks like a good camera. Though would the underwater
> case still stop humidity warnings?

I've never seen a humidity warning from a digital camera, but like I said, I
have had some card errors whilst trying to save a RAW file after taking an
image. I've been able to recover the images though.

> My Pentax K10 holds up really well in bad weather. It is fully sealed
> (the main reason I bought it over the competition) and I have used it
> in some truly horrendous rain, sometimes all day, without any ill
> effect.

Trouble is my Canon 400D isn't weather sealed.

> I usually use some 35mm film primes as my Sigma isn't wather
> proof. But many of the Pentax series of lenses are sealed to match the
> K10 body.

I've had problems with SLR lenses developing fungal infections over the
years, which is why I don't want to risk it with my new gear.

> My main problem at the moment is protecting my video cameras!

So they aren't sealed?

>> going out in the rain to get the best waterfall shots! I've never
>> been that bothered about personally getting a bit wet, it my
>> expensive DSLR gear that I'm really paranoid about.
>
> My thoughts exactly. My only issue with bad weather photography is
> rain on the lens.

That's my secondary issue, after worrying about the camera and lenses! But
yes, you're right, assuming the gear is rain proof, the rain on the lens is
a real pain in the arse. The problem with waterfalls is that a huge amount
of water shoots out horizonally from the falls, so even if you protect
yourself from the vertical rain above, you get splattered with the
horizontal spray!

Of course, the best solution is to shoot the fall from side on, so that you
aren't in the line of fire, but sometimes that just isn't practical. My
solution in the past, with film SLRs, has been to prepare the camera with my
back to the spray, then turn and press the shutter instantly before the lens
got covered in spray. If using a tripod then it was necessary to protect the
front of the camera with something, wipe the lens, then remove the
protection and press the shutter release instantly. Good fun, but a bit of a
lottery.

I realise that I'll still have this problem with an underwater case, but at
least it removes my primary concern for the camera's well-being. The main
problem is having a sufficient supply of tissues or dry cloths to clean
plastic in front of the lens with. I've run out of those in the past and had
nothing dry left to wipe the lens.

> I keep meaning to investigate whether a rain
> spinning device that can be bought for video cameras will work with a
> stills camera.

What's that? Never heard of it?

> Sorry I idn't get back to you about hooking up for a trip to the
> Wellington Bomber wreck.

No problem. In fact, earlier today I found an email of yours that I
apparently never replied to. Sorry about that! I've had so many emails over
the years, mixed in with so many newsletters and spam, that I've just been
overwhelmed. I'm trying to sort it out though.

> I've had a lot of work on recently so haven't
> been able to think about a possible date yet. But if you were still up
> for it that would be cool.

Yeah, I'm still up for it, or any other walks in the Beacons if you're
interested. In fact, if you wait a couple of weeks until I get the G9, I
wouldn't even care about the weather!

Paul

Hi Paul

> I've had problems with SLR lenses developing fungal infections over the
> years, which is why I don't want to risk it with my new gear.

Yea, that's understandable. I try not to make a habit of using the
camera in terrible weather if I can help it. I tend to keep a stack of
sillicon gel packs in my gear bags to help with moisture. This is why
I usually use my old Pentax lenses in bad weather.

> So they aren't sealed?

My XDCAM can take quite a bit of a soaking (though I usually cover it
if I can!), but it isn't sealed specifically. Most ENG lenses are
designed to cope with bad conditions. But they can be very susceptible
to steaming up in the rain when taking them in and out of bags. As you
mention above, constant use in such conditions could lead to rot. And
on a 10k lens that really is something to be avoided! :-)

> solution in the past, with film SLRs, has been to prepare the camera with my
> back to the spray, then turn and press the shutter instantly before the lens
> got covered in spray. If using a tripod then it was necessary to protect the

This has generally tended to be my tactic too. With video cameras,
depending on the focal length I have had fairly decent success at
protecting the lens with large flags on a matte box. I took the XDCAM
up to Ystradfelte once (never again with that equipment without the
help of a crew!) The mattebox side flags really helped with the
horizontal spray depending on the angle of the shot.

> What's that? Never heard of it?

http://www.spintec.co.il/
[url down]

I know of a few guys that have used it and think that it is very good,
and completely clears the lens. But I haven't seen a stills camera
equivilent. This particular design method is patented I think.

> apparently never replied to. Sorry about that! I've had so many emails over

No problem. I often have a hard time keeping up with emails myself.

> Yeah, I'm still up for it, or any other walks in the Beacons if you're
> interested. In fact, if you wait a couple of weeks until I get the G9, I
> wouldn't even care about the weather!

That would be good. I should have some spare time coming up in a few
weeks so we'll have to revisit this closer to the time.

Simon

Simon Wyndham wrote:

>> I've had problems with SLR lenses developing fungal infections over
>> the years, which is why I don't want to risk it with my new gear.
>
> Yea, that's understandable. I try not to make a habit of using the
> camera in terrible weather if I can help it. I tend to keep a stack of
> sillicon gel packs in my gear bags to help with moisture. This is why
> I usually use my old Pentax lenses in bad weather.

I use silica gel too. My main concern is on camping trips when it rains for
days and humidity stays high. It's not so bad on a day walk where you can
dry out the gear as soon as you get home.

>> So they aren't sealed?
>
> My XDCAM can take quite a bit of a soaking (though I usually cover it
> if I can!), but it isn't sealed specifically. Most ENG lenses are
> designed to cope with bad conditions. But they can be very susceptible
> to steaming up in the rain when taking them in and out of bags. As you
> mention above, constant use in such conditions could lead to rot. And
> on a 10k lens that really is something to be avoided! :-)

Absolutely! I've never spent that much on a lens, but even so, you have to
take care of the equipment you've got.

>> solution in the past, with film SLRs, has been to prepare the camera
>> with my back to the spray, then turn and press the shutter instantly
>> before the lens got covered in spray. If using a tripod then it was
>> necessary to protect the
>
> This has generally tended to be my tactic too. With video cameras,
> depending on the focal length I have had fairly decent success at
> protecting the lens with large flags on a matte box. I took the XDCAM
> up to Ystradfelte once (never again with that equipment without the
> help of a crew!) The mattebox side flags really helped with the
> horizontal spray depending on the angle of the shot.

A key factor in photographing waterfalls in heavy rain is to shoot from the
side if possible. Full frontal shots are just asking for trouble!

>> What's that? Never heard of it?
>
> [..]
> [..]
>
> I know of a few guys that have used it and think that it is very good,
> and completely clears the lens. But I haven't seen a stills camera
> equivilent. This particular design method is patented I think.

Fascinating. Bill suggested smearing fairy liquid or something onto plasic
in front of the lens on the outside of the underwater case I'm planning to
buy, to prevent raindrops attaching. Any ideas about this sort of thing? I
just thought of rigging up some kind of hood, but it obviously wouldn't work
for direct spray.

>> Yeah, I'm still up for it, or any other walks in the Beacons if
>> you're interested. In fact, if you wait a couple of weeks until I
>> get the G9, I wouldn't even care about the weather!
>
> That would be good. I should have some spare time coming up in a few
> weeks so we'll have to revisit this closer to the time.

Okay, I'll look forward to it. I should be ordering the G9 in a few days but
I might not be able to get the underwater case immediately. The longer you
can wait the better, unless it stop raining of course! (fat chance!)

Paul

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1> wrote in message
news:nz2d
> Just a quickie. I notice that Canon have reinstated the RAW feature into
> their new 12MP G9.

Keep us informed on your purchase, Paul.

I'm in the market for a new compact too.

Dave

Dave Newton wrote:

> Keep us informed on your purchase, Paul.

Just had it a few days ago. First impressions are very good. I might knock
up a web page about it soon with some sample pics.

> I'm in the market for a new compact too.

Well I'd certainly recommend the G9. Check out all these reviews:
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/canon-powershot-g9/

Arguably it's the best digicam currently available, depending on your
personal definition of "best", but it pretty much fits my definition, which
is why I bought it (after years of agonising over other good digicams that
always had some flaw that put me off).

It's not perfect of course, no camera is, and it's obviously not as good as
a DSLR, but as a digicam it's hard to beat. The pros suit my needs and the
cons I can live with. I'll provide more info after some more tests and some
more practice with it.

Paul

"> Well I'd certainly recommend the G9. Check out all these reviews:
> [..]

Read lots of reviews - all good!

> It's not perfect of course, no camera is, and it's obviously not as good
> as a DSLR, but as a digicam it's hard to beat.

And there's the problem! I currently lug my D2X everywhere and am looking
for a lightweight option for everyday use. I don't expect it to match the
D2X of course but I need it to get somewhere close. Noise would be a big,
big problem. I use my images for stock (that's another e-mail you never
replied to :-) ) and they have to be well nigh perfect.

I'll await your review.

Dave

Dave Newton wrote:

>"> Well I'd certainly recommend the G9. Check out all these reviews:
>
>Read lots of reviews - all good!
>>And there's the problem! I currently lug my D2X everywhere and am looking
>for a lightweight option for everyday use. I don't expect it to match the
>D2X of course but I need it to get somewhere close. Noise would be a big,
>big problem. I use my images for stock (that's another e-mail you never
>replied to :-) ) and they have to be well nigh perfect.
>
>I'll await your review.

Have a look at this where a guy took one as backup to a Leica.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...G9-Japan.shtml

Guess which camera got used most...

Also from that article a link to useful accesories like grip
enhancements and a cable release adaptor http://kleptography.com/rf/

Now if the G9 had a lens that went to an equivalent 28mm at the wide
end I'd buy like a shot.

Dave Newton wrote:

>> It's not perfect of course, no camera is, and it's obviously not as
>> good as a DSLR, but as a digicam it's hard to beat.
>
> And there's the problem! I currently lug my D2X everywhere and am
> looking for a lightweight option for everyday use.

Same here, plus other uses which I'll go into more detail about later.

> I don't expect it
> to match the D2X of course but I need it to get somewhere close.
> Noise would be a big, big problem.

Well the good news is that it isn't, provided you stick to using ISO 80. I'd
say the noise at ISO 80 is roughly comparable to my 400D at ISO 200, whereas
my 400D at ISO 400 is noticeably worse than the G9 at ISO 80.

> I use my images for stock (that's
> another e-mail you never replied to :-) ) and they have to be well
> nigh perfect.

Sorry, I'll get back to you on that.

Paul

Phil Cook wrote:

> Now if the G9 had a lens that went to an equivalent 28mm at the wide
> end I'd buy like a shot.

Yes, that's one of the flaws that I've decided to live with. There are very
few digicams with a 28mm lens which limits your options considerably. On the
plus side, it does go to 210mm which is rather nice.

I rationalise it this way. When I'm out on a photoshoot I'll be taking all
my wide shots with my 400D, so that won't be an issue. I'll mainly be using
the G9 for trips where the photography isn't so important (bad weather etc.)
so I'll mainly be taking snaps, and I find that I rarely take very wide
snaps. On a quick stroll yesterday I found myself zooming in for practically
every shot.

If I really do need to take a wider shot, then I can always take multiple
shots and stitch them. It's more hassle, but it is a solution if I
desperately need something wider. Conversely you can't zoom in more than
your telephoto will allow.

And of course, you could buy the wide angle converter for it, which will
give you a (somewhat distorted) 26mm, but then you'd be adding a lot of
weight and bulk, at which point it's no longer a pocket camera and you may
as well just take your DSLR.

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote:

>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Now if the G9 had a lens that went to an equivalent 28mm at the wide
>> end I'd buy like a shot.
>
>Yes, that's one of the flaws that I've decided to live with. There are very
>few digicams with a 28mm lens which limits your options considerably. On the
>plus side, it does go to 210mm which is rather nice.

>If I really do need to take a wider shot, then I can always take multiple
>shots and stitch them. It's more hassle, but it is a solution if I
>desperately need something wider.

I wonder where is the entrance pupil when at the wide end of the zoom?
I sometimes use the Mk I finger as a pivot point for quick wide
panoramas with my 10-22 on my 400D. I could probably get the
equivalent of a 28 by taking two or three verticals at 35.

Phil Cook wrote:

> I wonder where is the entrance pupil when at the wide end of the zoom?

At the end of the lens? It's at its shortest when it's wide.

> I sometimes use the Mk I finger as a pivot point for quick wide
> panoramas with my 10-22 on my 400D.

Not sure I follow about your use of the finger.

Needless to say the tripod hole isn't aligned with the lens.

> I could probably get the
> equivalent of a 28 by taking two or three verticals at 35.

Indeed, or you could just take two horizontal shots for a short pano if you
just want the extra width without the height. I'm getting rather fond of
doing that, going for a roughly 2.4:1 ratio, the same as my proper panoramic
camera, and also the standard for anamorphic widescreen. There must be a
reason why they've settled on that ratio. I reckon it's because it's just
wide enough to be panoramic without losing too much height. Longer panos are
too skinny IMO.

Also interesting to note is that Photobox offer panoramic prints in two
sizes, 12x5 and 20x8. The first is 2.4:1, the second is 2.5:1. Pity they
aren't identical, but there's definitely something standard about that size.
Two A4s end to end are 2.8:1 by the way.

If you want a much wider shot, it's easy enough to take a 2x2 matrix and
stitch them. The G9 makes this very easy to do since there's an optional
grid on the LCD, which divides the screen into 9 squares (with lines on the
thirds). All you have to do is decide where you want the centre of the image
to be, then take four shots, aligning the centre with each of the four
corner squares for a neat 1/3rd overlap horizontally and vertically. This
would give an image equivalent to roughly an 18mm lens, not allowing for the
necessary cropping. After cropping it may be around 21mm or so.

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote:

>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> I wonder where is the entrance pupil when at the wide end of the zoom?
>
>At the end of the lens? It's at its shortest when it's wide.

The centre of the entrance pupil is the point about which when you
rotate the camera you get no paralax problems.

>> I sometimes use the Mk I finger as a pivot point for quick wide
>> panoramas with my 10-22 on my 400D.
>
>Not sure I follow about your use of the finger.

On the Canon 10-22 the entrance pupil is roughly where the focus ring
is so if I hold the camera in my right hand and rest the lens on my
left index finger I have a kind of floppy tripod and panoramic mount.
Which gives much better results than just swiveling my head and
shoulders. A step up from the Mk I finger would be the string and
plumb bob device http://www.philohome.com/tripod/shooting.htm