Phil Cook wrote:

> Have a look at this where a guy took one as backup to a Leica.
> [..]

I'd like to make a few comments on the above review by Nick Devlin, some of
which you may find helpful.


IN PLAY

"Awakened with single well-placed button, the G9 springs smoothly and
quietly to life, ready to capture an image in just under a second."

Yes, this is very handy if you want to grab an opportunity shot quickly. I
often missed shots while my G3 was "booting up".

"The camera focuses fairly quickly and with good accuracy."

Another feature I'm impressed with. Not as fast as a DSLR, but much faster
than I expected from a digicam. Accuracy is good too. I never trusted the
autofocus on the G3, preferring to focus manually instead, but the G9 does a
good job. I also like the fact that it doesn't always try to focus on the
nearest object. In fact, it often focuses on more distant objects, even when
shooting through foliage, which surprised me (although that's not so
convenient if you want to focus on the foliage).

"The G9's metering is superbly accurate."

Well that's a matter of opinion! I guess for Nick's type of shooting it's
okay, but for landscapes on a cloudy day, forget it! The sky was
consistently blown out with auto exposures, forcing me to set the exposure
manually or apply compensation for practically every shot.

"The real star of the show, however, is the ISO selector dial atop the left
side of the camera. The ability to vary the ISO with a single quick turn of
the dial was one of my favourite features of the G9."

....which I'll probably never use, preferring to leave it permanently set to
ISO 80!

"Being a man, I flagrantly eschewed the instruction manual"

Big mistake, there are a few new features that you really need to be aware
of, like Safety Shift for example, which is switched on by default, and can
screw up your photos if you aren't aware of what it does. It overrides your
aperture or shutter speed settings in AV and TV mode respectively, if it
deems it necessary for the correct exposure. So for example, if you choose
1/250th second in TV mode but it's too dark for the correct exposure, even
at f2.8, it will reduce the shutter speed accordingly, perhaps causing a
blurred photo (in one instance it reduced my shutter speed to 1/20th
second!). Personally I'd prefer a sharp but underexposed photo that I could
brighten later. Alternatively, using Auto ISO Shift would maintain the
correct exposure instead of reducing the shutter speed, which would at least
capture a sharp, if noisy, image. On one test it increased the ISO to 1600,
which again ruined the image (IMO).

Actually I read the manual before I even bought the camera. And what's being
a man got to do with it?

BTW, there's no printed manual, which is annoying, but there is a "short
manual" provided in four different languages! Why didn't they just provide
the entire manual in English? Apparently they've simply produced an
"European version". Lazy cheapskates!


DISPLAY ISSUES

"The only handling irritation with the G9 was the inability to keep the LCD
off at all times except when the shutter button is depressed."

See? This is what happens when you don't read the manual! Just press the
display button twice to turn it off, then go to Custom Display in the menu
and turn the other two displays off.

"The solution appeared to be to set the "quick function" button to turn the
display off. Curiously, however, the display re-activated instantly whenever
the camera was moved at all - without any controls being depressed -
obviously through some off-label use of the stabilization control or camera
orientation system."

Doesn't do that with mine. I thought that having the auto-focus set to
continuous might be to blame, but no, it's not that either. Maybe face
detection? He's obviously got something switched on that's causing this to
happen.

"This is an awful example of a "smart" technology trying to be helpful, but
achieving only immense annoyance. Canon should fix this."

Or maybe Nick should read the manual? ;-)

"No one wants to walk around with the LCD on all the time:"

I do!

Actually I don't want to "walk around" with the camera switched on
permanently, but presumably he does, since that suits his style of
photography. For me, when the camera is on I always want the LCD switched
on. So I've switched off the third display mode (display off), just leaving
the other two (the first with all details on, the second with everything off
except the grid lines - to make composition easier without all the onscreen
clutter).

"it wastes power"

Actually this is a good point. Although it uses the same battery as the
400D, it runs out much faster. While having the LCD switched on during the
preparation of a photo is partly to blame, I suspect that the motorised zoom
is the main culprit. On my first brief outing the battery became critically
low and the camera switched off a few times, although I was still able to
grab a few more shots after leaving it off for a while. On one attempt I
turned it on, attempted to zoom and the camera immediately switched off in
response, but a short while later I turned it on and took another photo,
without zooming.

So clearly using the zoom uses more power than simply taking a photo. Using
lateral thinking therefore, it may be that turning the camera off after
every shot might actually waste more battery power than leaving it switched
on, if you use the zoom repeatedly. For example, if you take a telephoto
shot, switch the camera off, walk to another spot 50 yards away, turn it
back on, then take another telephoto shot. It may use less power to simply
leave it switched on and leave the lens set to telephoto while you walk to a
different viewpoint.

In this case, it would be useful to switch the LCD off while you walk to the
new viewpoint. So I may follow Nick's example and set the quick function
button to "display off" (rather than use the third display mode, which is a
pain since I switch between the first two quite frequently and I don't want
it to turn off in between).

"and attracts unwanted attention."

Really? I'd have thought that simply pointing a camera at a complete
stranger would attract more attention than the LCD being switched on.

"The LCD should only light when the shutter is depressed slightly, and then
fade politely from view when the shot is done.

Well that's a matter of opinion, and he's entitled to it. But he's just
looking at it from the point of view of how he likes to take photos, which
is very much the traditional rangefinder approach. It probably wouldn't suit
most people, but the option would be nice.

Actually, I've tried setting the display to permanently off and I've noticed
that it still displays all the settings information when you first switch it
on. After you take a shot, and turn the review image off, it reverts to a
black screen, but as soon as you make a control adjustment, the settings
information reappears. This is useful if you really want the LCD switched
off all the time. And you can turn review off too if you're really obsessed
about saving the battery, but it really would be a good idea to check the
histogram and other details after taking each photo, unless you're sure you
can trust them.


COMPOSITION

"The way in which one physically sees the subject through the camera is a
defining element of one's photographic style. Personally, I have always
preferred viewfinder composition over SLR viewing or using a live-view
LCD."

True, but I think he's attaching too much importance to this particular
aspect.

"Ultimately, however, the inability to directly view the subject through an
accurate optical finder will likely remain the biggest impediment to compact
cameras being usable as fully professional imaging tools."

Now that's just plain silly! How could a professional photographer find a 3"
LCD "unusable"?

"That said, LCD composition is accurate,"

Exactly! That's the best thing about it! You see the entire frame. It's like
seeing the finished picture before you even take it. Personally I find I can
compose images more easily and accurately on an LCD than with a viewfinder.

"Despite the fact that I never grew to like composing on the LCD, I got
excellent results working this way - at least as good as anything I've
achieve working in my preferred mode. This continues to trouble me."

And so it should!

"I haven't the slightest desire to compose my images on a TV screen. In
fact, I actively dislike the process at both a practical and conceptual
level. The idea of interacting with the world before my eyes through the
mediating forces of a machine which disaggregates reality into a sterile
digital code and reconstitutes a small and inferior electronic simulacrum of
it inches from my face is distasteful to me."

I get the impression that Nick is just stuck in his ways and unwilling to
change. He's desperately trying to rationalise his habitual preference
through extremely contrived reasoning. Okay, so it's an electronic image,
big deal! You can still compose the photo with it. Just what is the problem
here? Seems to be a mental one, not a physical one.

"Yet, it worked with my way of seeing exceptionally well."

Of course it did! Isn't that a big clue that maybe it's time to change his
preconceptions about all this?

"I continue to hope (likely in vain) that viewfinder-based compact cameras
will come into being for my professional use, while trying to learn why this
dumbed-down view-camera mode of working was successful for me."

What's "dumbed down" about a bright, colourful 3" LCD? I think it's
fantastic, especially compared to the tiny LCDs on earlier digital cameras.


DANCING IN THE DARK

"I decided to treat the G9 just like any other camera, and work at whatever
ISO was needed for the subject. While there was undeniably noise in the
images, the G9 yielded image quality at least on par with what I would have
expected from ISO 1600 films like HP5+ pushed two stops... Many of the best
images I produced in Japan were shot at ISO 200 or higher. In all of these
settings, the G9 performed beautifully..."

"A 13x19 print elicits an immediate response from most viewers. Although
somewhat painterly, the image is free of spotty colour noise and, at viewing
distance, is pleasingly sharp. Even when pixel-peeped, the print holds-up.
This is exceptional performance from such a small and inexpensive camera,
bearing in mind the shot was taken at 1/40th of a second with a 135mm
equivalent focal length at ISO640."

Now I'm baffled. Nick is fanatical about the conceptual implications of
composing through an LCD instead of a viewfinder, yet when it comes to image
quality, he's quite happy to shoot everything on Auto at any ISO the camera
chooses.

I'm completely the opposite! I'm fanatical about image quality, and won't
use anything other than ISO 80 at the optimum apertures of f4-f5.6. From my
test images so far, I consider that ISO 400 and over are completely unusable
and even ISO 200 offends me! The differences in quality are blatantly
obvious at 100% magnification on a computer screen.

Of course, these are early days, and I haven't yet printed anything from
this camera. Given the high resolution of this camera it's quite possible
that shots with high noise will look perfectly acceptable as prints. I know
from experience that a highly sharpened image that looks terrible onscreen
can look great as a print, because you simply can't see detail that small
without additional magnification. It may be that A4 prints at ISO 1600 will
look fine, and may even be acceptable at larger sizes, so I'll reserve
judgement on this for now.

It will be interesting to test just how large different ISO images can be
printed before the noise becomes visible. And even when it does becomes
visible, it may still not be objectionable. Due to the high resolution it
may simply look like film grain, unlike lower res cameras where enlarged
grain looks horrible. I'll have to wait until I test this.

So while I think Nick is a little too obsessed about his imaginary problem
with composing on an LCD, I may be a little too obsessed with the negative
effects of high ISO noise and aperture quality. After some print testing I
may decide to allow myself some leeway with these issues, depending on the
type of image. For snaps, higher ISOs are probably fine, for action shots,
they may be necessary, but for quality landscapes I'm sure I'll stick with
ISO 80 and f4-5.6, using a tripod if necessary.


THE STEADY HAND

"The G9's imagine stabilization is the best I've ever used,"

I can't comment on that, since this is the first time I've ever used IS. But
that's comforting to hear!

"The camera's ability to capture tack sharp images at exposures down to 1/2
second with a bit of proper bracing made working with the G9 a real joy."

Actually I took a reasonably sharp image at 1/2 second yesterday. It wasn't
"tack sharp", but it was surprisingly good considering the shutter speed. I
wouldn't normally go that low with a hand-held shot, but I was
experimenting. I made a point of not using a tripod for any shots. I'm still
in the process of familiarising myself with just how slow I can go
hand-held.

"raising my ratio of critically sharp images to a higher level than with
almost any other camera I have ever used. I attribute this to the G9's IS.

But I've managed to take quite a few blurry shots with mine! (Still, it's
early days yet and I'm just experimenting.)

"To be blunt, I can't see the point of non image stabilized cameras
anymore."

And yet, I practically *never* take an unsharp image with my 400D, even
without IS. I suspect this is probably down to me being more aware of the
practical limits and never using shutter speeds I know are too slow or using
a tripod when necessary. I don't have a problem with non-IS lenses, even
telephotos, but then I am a *landscape* photographer. IS is obviously
extremely useful for hand-held shots in variable light conditions.


FROM LOW LIGHT TO NIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

"With a steady hand, the G9's IS and ISO 800, I was able to photograph the
shrine on my street corner in near total darkness. Yes, the image is
noisy -- the black sky is textured with artifacting, and the detail is much
degraded from what it would have been in the light of day. But personally, I
love the image. Much as Salgado said that grain is not a defect, but a stamp
which says, "This is a photograph", the noise in the night-time images
produced by the G9 is not a defect, but the aesthetic of the medium. I
happen to like it, a lot. And so does virtually everyone I show it to in
print."

I suspect that I wouldn't be quite so tolerant! There is a breed of ex-film
photographers who are not bothered by grain/noise, because they are so used
to it. And in certain styles of photography it's quite acceptable, but
generally not landscapes!

Looking at the settings used for that photo - f2.8, 1/2 sec, ISO 800 - my
immediate thought was "why didn't you just put the camera on a tripod?" But
of course he didn't have one. I would have though, and I'd have taken a much
better quality image as a result. I know he's a "street/people/travel"
photographer, but still, taking night shots without a tripod just smacks of
laziness to me. (But we each have different priorities.)

Actually, a note about the quality of the images shown in this review. At
the tiny sizes shown on a web page they look great, with no trace of high
ISO noise in any of them. But I'm sure they'd look a lot worse if you saw
the original images at 100%. This is something to bear in mind, you can't
judge the actual image quality from these small samples.

But again, the proof of the pudding is in the printing, so what looks
terrible on a computer screen may still look good in a print. Such a high
resolution will offset the effects of noise to a certain degree. By how
much, I don't yet know.


OVERALL IMAGE QUALITY

"On 13x19 sheets, with decent borders, the prints simply sing. The most
impressive was the black and white Motorman and Shinkansen. The printed
image displays every bit of detail expected and a sumptuous tonal range. It
is completely devoid of noise or other aberrations. The light-to-dark
transitions on the noses of the bullet trains are of a quality I would
associate with a medium format Delta 100 negative. If this print was the
product of my Mamiya 6, I would be satisfied."

Well Nick seems quite happy with the print quality!

"High contrast edges frequently display vivid colour fringing."

Yes, particularly noticeable on over-exposed skies. This is a very good
reason to make sure that the sky exposure remains within the limits of the
histogram. Even if it isn't important to the photo, ensuring that the sky
doesn't blow out minimises nasty fringing on the edges (it's particularly
bad with trees).


IT'S NOT ALL ROSES

"I would far, far prefer a manual, mechanically zoomed lens."

Wouldn't we all? But hey, this is a *compact*!

"Frankly, the trope of all digicams having retracting lenses baffles me."

It doesn't baffle me. It's a *compact*!

"Yes, it reduces size and protects the lens, but on a serious camera, which
the G9 aspires to be, a little extra bulk is much less of a problem than
having a retracted lens when a great photo presents itself."

No, I don't think the G9 does aspire to be a "serious camera". There are
plenty of serious cameras around, they're called DSLRs. The G9 is a
*compact*. Sure, it's a top of the range compact, but it's still a compact.
That's the main design criterion. And I'm happy with that. One of the main
reasons I bought it is because I *can* fit it into a pocket. The little
extra bulk of the G3 in contrast, meant that it wouldn't easily fit into a
pocket. A small but critical difference.

Sure it would be better with a serious viewfinder and a more solid, manually
zoomable lens, but then it wouldn't be compact anymore and the price would
go up to the point that it would compete with the 400D.

"The answer is a more robust and consequently larger *manual* zoom. Please
Canon. Pretty please with sugar on top. This is what the "G" needs to be a
true 'PRO-sumer' camera."

I doubt this will ever happen. It just doesn't make marketing sense. I'm
sure there are some people who would find such a camera appealing, but with
the unavoidable higher price it would compete with DSLRs and I suspect that
very few people would buy it.

"From a working perspective, the zoom control also occupies the trigger
finger, taking it off the shutter, which is sub-optimal for capturing
decisive moments."

Really? I use my index finger to control the zoom, not that I care about
decisive moments much.

"The other major deficiency is the G9's noticeable shutter-lag. While not
long by any objective measure, the delay between depression of the shutter
and actual exposure makes capturing the decisive moment rather difficult. I'm
sure that this lag is measured in fractions of a second, but it irritated me
whenever my subject was something other than a stationary landscape."

The odd thing here is that I haven't really noticed a shutter lag.
Auto-focus lag yes, but even that is pretty quick. Certainly fast enough for
my shots, but again, I'm not a "decisive moment" type of photographer.

"It also takes a moment for the G9 to display the image and/or be ready to
shoot once more. Coming from a background of high-end SLRs and
rangefinders, this palpable lack of responsiveness is a deal breaker for
me."

That's due to saving the RAW file to the card. It's actually pretty fast
compared to other digicams, and certainly not enough to bother me. I think
shooting jpegs would save time, but it's really not an issue for me.

Paul

In message <bLSdnaHm78DLfwPanZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1> writes
>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Have a look at this where a guy took one as backup to a Leica.
>> [..]
>
>I'd like to make a few comments on the above review by Nick Devlin, some of
>which you may find helpful.

Very interesting comments snipped.

I wouldn't consider the G9 because it lacks a wide angle lens. 28mm is
the minimum requirement for me.

Paul, have you looked at the Ricoh GX100, which has a 24-72mm lens?
Results I've seen look pretty good. I reviewed a Ricoh GR-D with fixed
28mm lens for TGO and the results were excellent for a compact, the best
I've seen.

Chris Townsend wrote:

> I wouldn't consider the G9 because it lacks a wide angle lens. 28mm is
> the minimum requirement for me.

Fair enough. You could buy the wide angle converter but with the extra
weight and bulk you may as well just use a DSLR instead.

Have you heard about the two new EF-S lenses, the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS?
The former covers the same range as the kit lens (29-88) but with IS, while
the latter goes from 88-400, also with IS. They're both "budget" lenses, so
they have fairly cheap build quality (and also the light weight), yet the
quality is surprisingly good according to test reports. Add to that the new
IS which claims to give a gain of 4 stops, and you have two cheap,
lightweight, good quality lenses ideal for hand-held use. Sounds like a
perfect combination for travelling light with a DSLR like the 400D, or the
new 450D.

Lens reports here:

"the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is
nothing short of amazing."
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

"Technically the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is a tiny lens with a great
performance potential. The resolution is very good across the range.
Chromatic aberrations are basically a non-issue."
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

According to CameraPriceBuster you can get the 18-55 IS for just £119 and
the 55-250 IS for £179.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod597.html
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod596.html

> Paul, have you looked at the Ricoh GX100, which has a 24-72mm lens?
> Results I've seen look pretty good.

No, thanks for pointing that one out. Definitely a contender if a wide angle
is your main priority, but of course it loses out on the long end. Much as I
like wide angles, I do consider telephoto to be generally more useful for a
"snap" camera, so I'd still prefer the G9. Another factor is the lack of an
available underwater case, which was one of my main reasons for choosing the
G9.

Other considerations are that 10MP RAW files are 15MB each (roughly 50%
larger than the Canon equivalent for the same megapixel size) compared to
12.5MB for the G9's 12MP files, and perhaps more importantly, they take 5.5
seconds to be saved to the card, compared to Canon's 2.5 seconds. Okay,
neither are a problem for landscapes, but the G9 is relatively quick
compared to the leisurely Ricoh. I don't often shoot action, but on one
occasion yesterday I accidentally pressed the shutter too soon on an action
shot and those 2.5 seconds seemed like ages while I waited to shoot again.
Fortunately I still got a decent shot, but I'd have missed it with the
Ricoh.

Another criticism is that noise is an issue on the GX100, at anything above
ISO 80. As I've pointed out, I'd never use anything higher than that for
landscapes anyway, but it's interesting that the G9 is considered to be
pretty good at higher ISOs (in spite of my dislike of them), so the GX100
must be atrocious! At least the G9 is usable with higher ISOs if necessary.
I've had a look at some sample Ricoh shots at ISO 80 and they look fine to
me, although there is some obvious shadow noise in one of them.

Although it uses the same card (SD) as the G9, it uses a different battery,
so that would be a problem for me. Fortunately the G9 uses the same battery
as the 400D, which is great, especially that I now have six of them.
Unfortunately I can't share the memory cards since the 400D uses
CompactFlash. The new 450D uses SD cards, but a different battery! Aargh!
It's a conspiracy I tell you!

To sum up my thoughts about the Ricoh, it looks a nice camera and I wouldn't
mind having one. It's a bit pricey for a compact, but how many other
compacts go as wide as 24mm? Especially at such a small size! It would make
a nice companion compact to the G9. Both are small and light and it would be
no hardship to carry both. But I don't have another £400 to spare at the
moment!

If I had to choose one though, I'd still go for the G9, it has a lot more
advantages overall IMO, and I really do prefer the long end to the wide end
these days. Apparently the image stabilisation in the Ricoh isn't too great
either, but that's not so much of an issue for a wide lens.

Paul

Phil Cook wrote:

> On the Canon 10-22 the entrance pupil is roughly where the focus ring
> is

So it's not at the end of the lens then? I thought it was.

> 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.

Right.

> A step up from the Mk I finger would be the string and
> plumb bob device [..]

A bit too much of a faff for me.

Actually, I rarely get parallax problems with my panos, but that's probably
because:

1. I don't take many of them.
2. I never do 360 degree panos, usually only 2 or 3 shots these days.
3. I try to compose panos that don't have any close foliage, so as to avoid
the parallax issue.
4. I often take medium to long telephoto panos of more distant subjects,
which pretty much eliminates the parallax issue.

In short, I'm tending to take panoramic "format" shots these days, rather
than true (i.e. wide) panoramas.

BTW, when I do shoot panos I always use a tripod (or a bean bag for
telephoto shots), never handheld, so I don't have the whole body swiveling
issue.

Actually, a quicker method of taking a pano without a tripod would be to use
a monopod. In some ways this would be like the plumb device since the
monopod would stay planted over a fixed spot, although it wouldn't rotate
around the entrance pupil, unless you used a tilt head so that you could
lean the monopod back slightly, levelling the camera with the horizon. That
might work, especially if you had a bit of string with a weight on it tied
around the lens so that it reached the ground where the monopod was placed.

Paul

A few more comments on the review by Nick Devlin,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...G9-Japan.shtml

> "No one wants to walk around with the LCD on all the time:"

Actually, I've just remembered that the 400D has a feature which would solve
this "problem". There's a sensor on the back of the 400D that automatically
turns the LCD off when you press your face to the eyepiece (very handy since
you don't want a bright LCD right next to your eye). It also switches off if
you hang the camera around your neck and leave it pressed against your body.

This would be ideal for a "walk-around" camera. Just hang it around your
neck and forget about it, when you grab the camera for a shot the display
instantly comes back on, no need to press any buttons. Pity they didn't
include that feature.

> Actually, I've tried setting the display to permanently off and I've
> noticed that it still displays all the settings information

This is basically what the 400D does before you take a photo, it just shows
the shot settings, but no image. This is probably one of the reasons why the
battery lasts so much longer in the 400D, since there's no live "video feed"
to the LCD.

> "I continue to hope (likely in vain) that viewfinder-based compact
> cameras will come into being for my professional use, while trying to
> learn why this dumbed-down view-camera mode of working was successful
> for me."

It's interesting that he refers to the LCD as a "view camera mode", since
that's effectively how you compose an image on a medium or large format
camera, except that you use a ground glass screen instead of an LCD. I
actually prefer that method of composition to looking through a viewfinder.
With my MF TLR for example, I have to look down onto the camera to compose
the image. Somehow looking in a different direction seems to make it easier
to concentrate on the composition of the image being created, without being
distracted by the rest of the scene around it. This is in direct contrast to
rangefinder users who like to see a larger image area so that they can see
what's happening outside the image.

By the way, I have one criticism which Nick didn't mention, probably because
he didn't use this feature...

What annoys me most about the G9 is the fact that the focal length of the
zoom is saved with the custom settings! Being able to save two sets of
custom settings is an extremely useful feature, for example you could save
one for landscapes and another for action. But why does it save the focal
length too? It's not like I'm going to use exactly the same focal length for
each type of shot!

For example, I had the camera set to full zoom to take an action shot, but
the settings weren't to my liking, so rather than change them I quickly
switched to Custom 2 mode, which I'd set up earlier. The lens promptly
zoomed back to wide angle, after which I had to zoom out again! Aargh! What
a waste of time and battery! And I nearly missed the shot because of it!

I could set my action custom settings to full zoom, but then what if I
wanted to capture action with the wide angle? This is really silly!

It seems that the most practical solution is to save the C1 and C2 settings
with the zoom set to wide-angle, which is the default when you switch it on.
Then if you want to use a custom setting, select it as soon as you switch
the camera on, *before* zooming. Try not to switch to a custom setting after
you've zoomed out.

Paul

In message <8vmdna8A58tlygLanZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't consider the G9 because it lacks a wide angle lens. 28mm is
>> the minimum requirement for me.
>
>Fair enough. You could buy the wide angle converter but with the extra
>weight and bulk you may as well just use a DSLR instead.

Exactly. I want a compact to carry as a back-up to an SLR and to carry
all the time so I always have a camera with me.
>
>Have you heard about the two new EF-S lenses, the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS?
>The former covers the same range as the kit lens (29-88) but with IS, while
>the latter goes from 88-400, also with IS. They're both "budget" lenses, so
>they have fairly cheap build quality (and also the light weight), yet the
>quality is surprisingly good according to test reports. Add to that the new
>IS which claims to give a gain of 4 stops, and you have two cheap,
>lightweight, good quality lenses ideal for hand-held use. Sounds like a
>perfect combination for travelling light with a DSLR like the 400D, or the
>new 450D.

I have the 18-55 IS and have the 55-250 IS on order. The 18-55 IS is
excellent and I gain about 4 stops, as Canon claims, inside with warm
hands. Outside with cold hands, a strong wind and sometimes out of
breath it's more like 2 stops. Still worth having. The results are
pretty good though to be honest not that much different to the old 18-55
lens that came with my 300D and which I used with the 350D until I got
the new lens. The old 18-55 generally got poor reviews (though Ken
Rockwell liked it) but I found it fine and so did publishers who used
images I took with it.

I am even more interested in the 55-250 IS as I've been using a Canon EF
80-200 1:4.5-5.6 II lens with the 350D and it's not ideal, though with
care I can get good images.
>
>Lens reports here:
>
>"the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is
>nothing short of amazing."
>[..]
>aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review
>
>"Technically the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is a tiny lens with a great
>performance potential. The resolution is very good across the range.
>Chromatic aberrations are basically a non-issue."
>[..]
>aps-c/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review

That confirms I want the 55-250!
>
>> Paul, have you looked at the Ricoh GX100, which has a 24-72mm lens?
>> Results I've seen look pretty good.
>
>No, thanks for pointing that one out. Definitely a contender if a wide angle
>is your main priority, but of course it loses out on the long end. Much as I
>like wide angles, I do consider telephoto to be generally more useful for a
>"snap" camera, so I'd still prefer the G9. Another factor is the lack of an
>available underwater case, which was one of my main reasons for choosing the
>G9.

I use wide angle far more than telephoto so I'd rather have 24 or 28mm
than a longer telephoto. I've never had an underwater case for any
camera. I guess one might be useful.
>
>Other considerations are that 10MP RAW files are 15MB each (roughly 50%
>larger than the Canon equivalent for the same megapixel size) compared to
>12.5MB for the G9's 12MP files, and perhaps more importantly, they take 5.5
>seconds to be saved to the card, compared to Canon's 2.5 seconds. Okay,
>neither are a problem for landscapes, but the G9 is relatively quick
>compared to the leisurely Ricoh. I don't often shoot action, but on one
>occasion yesterday I accidentally pressed the shutter too soon on an action
>shot and those 2.5 seconds seemed like ages while I waited to shoot again.
>Fortunately I still got a decent shot, but I'd have missed it with the
>Ricoh.

2.5 seconds sounds fast to me. The GR-D takes 13 seconds to write a raw
file! Definitely not a camera for action. But then neither is the fixed
28mm lens.
>
>Another criticism is that noise is an issue on the GX100, at anything above
>ISO 80. As I've pointed out, I'd never use anything higher than that for
>landscapes anyway, but it's interesting that the G9 is considered to be
>pretty good at higher ISOs (in spite of my dislike of them), so the GX100
>must be atrocious! At least the G9 is usable with higher ISOs if necessary.
>I've had a look at some sample Ricoh shots at ISO 80 and they look fine to
>me, although there is some obvious shadow noise in one of them.

I've never seen any images from a compact shot at above 400 ISO that I
consider really usable. The small sensor means noise is inevitable,
especially with high megapixels. The GR-D is excellent at ISO 64, good
at ISO 100, okay at ISO 200 and just about usable at ISO 400. At the
lower ISOs - 64 and 100 - I haven't seen anything better than the GR-D.
Of course the GX100 may not be as good.

I mostly use 100 ISO with my DSLR, occasionally 200, 400 when I must and
above that only for record shots.
>
>Although it uses the same card (SD) as the G9, it uses a different battery,
>so that would be a problem for me. Fortunately the G9 uses the same battery
>as the 400D, which is great, especially that I now have six of them.
>Unfortunately I can't share the memory cards since the 400D uses
>CompactFlash. The new 450D uses SD cards, but a different battery! Aargh!
>It's a conspiracy I tell you!

Yes, I was disappointed to learn about the 450D's cards and batteries.
That's a reason not to upgrade from the 350D. I have six 350D batteries
and about 12GB worth of Compact Flash cards.
>
>To sum up my thoughts about the Ricoh, it looks a nice camera and I wouldn't
>mind having one. It's a bit pricey for a compact, but how many other
>compacts go as wide as 24mm? Especially at such a small size! It would make
>a nice companion compact to the G9. Both are small and light and it would be
>no hardship to carry both. But I don't have another £400 to spare at the
>moment!

Neither do I which is why I haven't actually got a GX100. I really like
the way top end Ricoh compacts operate. The GR-D is so easy to use with
control wheels rather than endless menus.
>
>If I had to choose one though, I'd still go for the G9, it has a lot more
>advantages overall IMO, and I really do prefer the long end to the wide end
>these days. Apparently the image stabilisation in the Ricoh isn't too great
>either, but that's not so much of an issue for a wide lens.

I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact with a
larger sensor.

Chris

Chris Townsend wrote:

>In message <8vmdna8A58tlygLanZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d>, Paul Saunders
><pvs1> writes
>>Chris Townsend wrote:

>>Have you heard about the two new EF-S lenses, the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS?

>>Lens reports here:
>>
>>"the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is
>>nothing short of amazing."
>>[..]
>>aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review
>>
>>"Technically the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is a tiny lens with a great
>>performance potential. The resolution is very good across the range.
>>Chromatic aberrations are basically a non-issue."
>>[..]
>>aps-c/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review
>
>That confirms I want the 55-250!

I've been wondering which tele to get. I have the 17-85 IS on my 400D
and was thinking about which longer lens to get. I thought I had
settled on the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 L.

>>Other considerations are that 10MP RAW files are 15MB each (roughly 50%
>>larger than the Canon equivalent for the same megapixel size) compared to
>>12.5MB for the G9's 12MP files, and perhaps more importantly, they take 5.5
>>seconds to be saved to the card, compared to Canon's 2.5 seconds.

The actual size of the files doesn't matter these days memory cards
are plenty big enough and relatively cheap.

>2.5 seconds sounds fast to me. The GR-D takes 13 seconds to write a raw
>file! Definitely not a camera for action. But then neither is the fixed
>28mm lens.

The timings I've seen reported for the G9 are 3 seconds for a RAW file
and about 2 for a JPEG so not a lot in it, still slower than the
Minolta A2 that I used to use (that had a decent buffer so you could
click away for a few shots before it ran out) but I think could live
with a few seconds but not several as in the Ricohs.

>I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact with a
>larger sensor.

That's a bit like the MLU button on a Canon DSLR though, everybody
wants one but will they give us one?

Chris Townsend wrote:

>>> I wouldn't consider the G9 because it lacks a wide angle lens. 28mm
>>> is the minimum requirement for me.
>>
>> Fair enough. You could buy the wide angle converter but with the
>> extra weight and bulk you may as well just use a DSLR instead.
>
> Exactly. I want a compact to carry as a back-up to an SLR and to carry
> all the time so I always have a camera with me.

Same here. In fact, here's a quick anecdote:

I went over to the post office today and I took my G9 with me. I didn't take
any photos with it, but here's the point: I could have if I'd wanted to!

Fact is, I just slung it over my neck, zipped up my fleece and forgot all
about it. I wasn't really aware of it and I didn't need to use it. But on
the off chance that a Boeing 747 had crashed into the post office just
before I got there, my photos would have been all over the news by now! ;-)

It's just a question of having a camera with you on the off chance that you
need it, without being bothered by carrying it, or even being really aware
of it, just like carrying a mobile phone.

> I have the 18-55 IS and have the 55-250 IS on order.

Nice.

> The 18-55 IS is
> excellent and I gain about 4 stops, as Canon claims, inside with warm
> hands. Outside with cold hands, a strong wind and sometimes out of
> breath it's more like 2 stops. Still worth having.

Useful to know.

> I use wide angle far more than telephoto so I'd rather have 24 or 28mm
> than a longer telephoto.

Most landscape photographers do. But I've been increasingly attracted to
telephoto landscapes in recent years, and I think a telephoto is more use
generally for snapshots, since unexpectedly interesting things tend to be
further away rather than right next to you.

> I've never had an underwater case for any
> camera. I guess one might be useful.

I've wanted one for a long time. This is partly due to my admitted obsession
with waterfalls (which look at their best during heavy rain) and partly due
to the all-too-common risk that all walkers face with walking in the rain,
not to mention camping in it. I'm just sick of trying to protect my cameras
from it and want to face it with impunity! I'll be ordering the case
tomorrow (just in time for the next spell of rain). :-)

> 2.5 seconds sounds fast to me. The GR-D takes 13 seconds to write a
> raw file! Definitely not a camera for action. But then neither is the
> fixed 28mm lens.

No. 13 seconds?

> I've never seen any images from a compact shot at above 400 ISO that I
> consider really usable. The small sensor means noise is inevitable,
> especially with high megapixels.

Of course.

> I mostly use 100 ISO with my DSLR, occasionally 200, 400 when I must
> and above that only for record shots.

I go up to 400 with my 400D, if the shots aren't critically important. I've
gone up to 1600 for snaps, and they've produced decent A4 prints. It's only
a gut feeling at the moment, but I don't think the highest ISOs on the G9
are much worse than on the 400D, but I'll have to do some tests to be sure.
I think there's more to it than just good shots and record shots, I'd have
other categories in between, like action shots or portraits in which more
noise is acceptable.

> Yes, I was disappointed to learn about the 450D's cards and batteries.
> That's a reason not to upgrade from the 350D. I have six 350D
> batteries and about 12GB worth of Compact Flash cards.

Yeah. I have 8GB of Compact Flash, but on the plus side, it seems that SD-HC
are now cheaper than Compact Flash. I bought an 8GB SD-HC card for just £30
or so, including P&P. Having to buy extra batteries is a pain though, it all
adds up.

> I really like the way top end Ricoh compacts operate.

I've always like Ricoh cameras, even though I've never bought one. I
remember back in 1986 I analysed all the available SLR cameras and narrowed
my choice down to four models. One was a Nikon, one a Canon (the F1, "built
like a brick shithouse"), one an Olympus and one a Ricoh. I can't remember
the exact Ricoh model, but I ended up going for the Olympus OM3, the pro
version of the OM4, due to its light weight, small size and built in spot
meter. I might have gone for the Ricoh if I hadn't chosen that.

> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
> with a larger sensor.

Well there's always the Sony R1, and that has a 24mm zoom, but that's not
perfect either.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote:

>A few more comments on the review by Nick Devlin,
>[..]

>It's interesting that he refers to the LCD as a "view camera mode", since
>that's effectively how you compose an image on a medium or large format
>camera, except that you use a ground glass screen instead of an LCD. I
>actually prefer that method of composition to looking through a viewfinder.
>With my MF TLR for example, I have to look down onto the camera to compose
>the image. Somehow looking in a different direction seems to make it easier
>to concentrate on the composition of the image being created, without being
>distracted by the rest of the scene around it. This is in direct contrast to
>rangefinder users who like to see a larger image area so that they can see
>what's happening outside the image.

The guy is a Leica user too, so used to the "decisive moment" style
using both eyes. With a Leica you can look at the world through both
eyes very easily since the vf is on the left hand edge of the camera
holding it to your right eye gives your left eye a clear view.

In message <4_ydnVmKX-ElLQLa4p2dnAA>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>>Same here. In fact, here's a quick anecdote:
>
>I went over to the post office today and I took my G9 with me. I didn't take
>any photos with it, but here's the point: I could have if I'd wanted to!
>
>Fact is, I just slung it over my neck, zipped up my fleece and forgot all
>about it. I wasn't really aware of it and I didn't need to use it. But on
>the off chance that a Boeing 747 had crashed into the post office just
>before I got there, my photos would have been all over the news by now! ;-)
>
>It's just a question of having a camera with you on the off chance that you
>need it, without being bothered by carrying it, or even being really aware
>of it, just like carrying a mobile phone.

I've carried a compact in a pocket everywhere for years, going right
back to an Olympus XA.
>>> I use wide angle far more than telephoto so I'd rather have 24 or 28mm
>> than a longer telephoto.
>
>Most landscape photographers do. But I've been increasingly attracted to
>telephoto landscapes in recent years, and I think a telephoto is more use
>generally for snapshots, since unexpectedly interesting things tend to be
>further away rather than right next to you.

Maybe. Having been using the GR-D with its fixed 28mm lens I've had to
get used to moving in close!
>
>> I've never had an underwater case for any
>> camera. I guess one might be useful.
>
>I've wanted one for a long time. This is partly due to my admitted obsession
>with waterfalls (which look at their best during heavy rain) and partly due
>to the all-too-common risk that all walkers face with walking in the rain,
>not to mention camping in it. I'm just sick of trying to protect my cameras
>from it and want to face it with impunity! I'll be ordering the case
>tomorrow (just in time for the next spell of rain). :-)

The last time I had camera gear damaged by water was over two decades
ago when I fell in a stream I was fording and ruined a lens. I carry my
DSLR in a padded case slung across one shoulder - as I've carried SLRs
for a quarter of a century. Only in heavy rain do I put the case &
camera in my pack.

Are you talking about an underwater housing so you can use the camera in
heavy rain or even in water?
>
>> 2.5 seconds sounds fast to me. The GR-D takes 13 seconds to write a
>> raw file! Definitely not a camera for action. But then neither is the
>> fixed 28mm lens.
>
>No. 13 seconds?

13 seconds. The new GR-D II is said to be much faster.
>>> I mostly use 100 ISO with my DSLR, occasionally 200, 400 when I must
>> and above that only for record shots.
>
>I go up to 400 with my 400D, if the shots aren't critically important. I've
>gone up to 1600 for snaps, and they've produced decent A4 prints.

I've gone up to 1600 with the 350D at times. The prints are okay but I'd
only submit images taken at 1600 for publication if they were unique.
There's an image taken at 1600 on my blog for December 28. Click on the
image to enlarge it.

http://www.christownsendoutdoors.co.uk

& one taken at 400 ISO with the Ricoh GR-D for January 10 this year.

>It's only
>a gut feeling at the moment, but I don't think the highest ISOs on the G9
>are much worse than on the 400D, but I'll have to do some tests to be sure.
>I think there's more to it than just good shots and record shots, I'd have
>other categories in between, like action shots or portraits in which more
>noise is acceptable.

I guess I'm usually thinking about images for publication. If I wasn't
I'd probably take everything on a compact.
>
>> Yes, I was disappointed to learn about the 450D's cards and batteries.
>> That's a reason not to upgrade from the 350D. I have six 350D
>> batteries and about 12GB worth of Compact Flash cards.
>
>Yeah. I have 8GB of Compact Flash, but on the plus side, it seems that SD-HC
>are now cheaper than Compact Flash. I bought an 8GB SD-HC card for just £30
>or so, including P&P. Having to buy extra batteries is a pain though, it all
>adds up.

I already have 300D batteries and 350D batteries. The 450D does look
interesting though.
>
>> I really like the way top end Ricoh compacts operate.
>
>I've always like Ricoh cameras, even though I've never bought one. I
>remember back in 1986 I analysed all the available SLR cameras and narrowed
>my choice down to four models. One was a Nikon, one a Canon (the F1, "built
>like a brick shithouse"), one an Olympus and one a Ricoh. I can't remember
>the exact Ricoh model, but I ended up going for the Olympus OM3, the pro
>version of the OM4, due to its light weight, small size and built in spot
>meter. I might have gone for the Ricoh if I hadn't chosen that.

Back in 86 I was using Pentax SLRs. The first Ricoh I used was in the
late 90s - a GR1s compact, which is superb and which I still have.
>
>> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
>> with a larger sensor.
>
>Well there's always the Sony R1, and that has a 24mm zoom, but that's not
>perfect either.
>[..]

925 grams! Certainly not a compact. The Sigma DP1 with APS size sensor
has been about to appear for a few years now. It only has a 28mm lens
though.

Chris

Paul Saunders <pvs1> wrote:
> 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.

I had a long conversation with a silica gel maker who advised me that
if I wanted to dry out a wet camera I needed to put it in a sealed
container with at least the same volume of gel as the camera and
preferably twice as much in order to speed up the drying time. He then
helpfully gave me large bag to try the idea out. Although I've taken
it on a few walks, unfortunately since then I've never got the camera
or other senstive electronics wet enough to need the drying out bag
idea yet :-)

In message <fnpk60$md4$3>
Chris Malcolm <cam> wrote:

> Paul Saunders <pvs1> wrote:
>>
> I had a long conversation with a silica gel maker who advised me that
> if I wanted to dry out a wet camera I needed to put it in a sealed
> container with at least the same volume of gel as the camera and
> preferably twice as much in order to speed up the drying time. He then
> helpfully gave me large bag to try the idea out. Although I've taken
> it on a few walks, unfortunately since then I've never got the camera
> or other senstive electronics wet enough to need the drying out bag
> idea yet :-)
>

You could of course stick the camera in a vacuum desiccator.

Mike

The message <8vmdna8A58tlygLanZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d>
from "Paul Saunders" <pvs1> contains these words:

> Although it uses the same card (SD) as the G9, it uses a different battery,
> so that would be a problem for me. Fortunately the G9 uses the same battery
> as the 400D, which is great, especially that I now have six of them.
> Unfortunately I can't share the memory cards since the 400D uses
> CompactFlash. The new 450D uses SD cards, but a different battery! Aargh!
> It's a conspiracy I tell you!

(revealing depth of ignorance) ... , er, but, the link to the G9 that
you posted indicates that the G9 uses MMC cards. Are you saying that MMC
& SD cards are interchangeable?

Richard

> Although it uses the same card (SD) as the G9, it uses a different battery,
> so that would be a problem for me. Fortunately the G9 uses the same battery
> as the 400D, which is great, especially that I now have six of them.
> Unfortunately I can't share the memory cards since the 400D uses
> CompactFlash. The new 450D uses SD cards, but a different battery! Aargh!
> It's a conspiracy I tell you!

You can find adaptors which let you use SD cards in CompactFlash spaces, eg
Maplins have one at
<http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=48016&doy=search>. This would
mean if you bought some big SD cards you wouldn't need to duplicate the expense
in the CompactFlash arena. And they'd still be useable in the 450D when you buy
one of those ;-)

In article <fnpk60$md4$3>, cam
says...

> I had a long conversation with a silica gel maker who advised me that
> if I wanted to dry out a wet camera I needed to put it in a sealed
> container with at least the same volume of gel as the camera and
> preferably twice as much in order to speed up the drying time. He then
> helpfully gave me large bag to try the idea out. Although I've taken
> it on a few walks, unfortunately since then I've never got the camera
> or other senstive electronics wet enough to need the drying out bag
> idea yet :-)

Silica gel works well. Where I used to work we used hundredweights of
it. It was handy for drying out waders and wellington boots overnight.
You do need to re-activate it by cooking it in the oven for an hour or
two (I can't remember the temperature) after it's used.

Jim Ford