Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
A few shots from the G9 full size linked below. Let me know what you think. These were not really thought out and were basically a sort of Polaroid at the end of a shoot, I was on a ladder so a bit lazy to adjust what should have been fixed a bit here and there.  Unsharpened from raw converted in acr. Full Size Right click and save as http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Sam … 83logo.jpg http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Sam … 78logo.jpg an over exposed test shot which I saved a bit just to see the latitude of the raw files, it was blown about 1 1/2 stops over. http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Sam … 68logo.jpg ![https://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples/G9_samples/IMAGES/1_g9_0583logo.jpg]() ![https://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples/G9_samples/IMAGES/1_g9_0578logo.jpg]() ![https://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples/G9_samples/IMAGES/1_g9_0568logo.jpg]() ![https://www.stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/IMAGES/1_img_2320.jpg]() original ![https://www.stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/HTML/THUMBNAILS/img_2320.jpg]() raw http://www.stepheneastwood.com/crap/del … G_2320.CR2 And yes, had I been shooting specifically with the G9 I would have 1. Lowered the lighting power considerably, (at least two stops if not 3) and 2. paid more attention to colors/settings for the jpg instead of not worrying about it and adjusting the raw. Oh and I did blur the background a bit, here is one without the blur ![https://www.stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/THUMBNAILS/1_img_2320dof.jpg]() As you can see on the previous page the ones shot on the 1ds3 the background is out of focus so its not as pronounced what the pattern is, and that is how it should be, as the pattern is not ideal 1ds3 version ![https://www.stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/THUMBNAILS/1_2h1x9205.jpg]() StephenEastwood wrote:
raws The one I did and another closer for some detail.
I will state that since I was not directly shooting with the G9 I did not adjust it for the best in camera settings, no custom WB or shift in parameters at all, just manual mode and daylight so it looked good, parameters were default basically, I shoot jpg plus raw full size 12MP, if I had been shooting with this more specifically, I would have likely made adjustments, (if the jpg was needed, like a live shoot to printer demo) and I certainly would not have been so lazy as to not feel like lowering the lights way down to get it more in range, and would have shot them at as wide an aperture as I could at full zoom, which I think is like 4.5 or so at 210mm equivalent. Instead I was lazy to go over and turn all the packs down and then back up for my camera 
right click and save as.
http://stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ … G_2328.CR2
http://stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ … G_2333.CR2
![https://stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/HTML/THUMBNAILS/img_2328.jpg]()
![https://stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/HTML/THUMBNAILS/img_2333.jpg]()
I may stick up one from the G9 in the blue setting.
the retouched one ![https://stepheneastwood.com/crap/delete/ang_temp_color/IMAGES/1_img_2328.jpg]() And I would still love to hear input on this thread
https://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=249297
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
imageman1
Posts: 247
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Can I officially sit at your knee
Photographer
BendingLight
Posts: 245
Red Bank, New Jersey, US
I think this confirms that YOU could make great images by smacking a dull screwdriver with a ball peen hammer against a slab of concrete..... as for the rest of us....
Photographer
Kristen Weaver
Posts: 1590
Orlando, Florida, US
BendingLight wrote:
I think this confirms that YOU could make great images by smacking a dull screwdriver with a ball peen hammer against a slab of concrete awesome.
Photographer
3hirty-One Photographic
Posts: 52
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
the G9 is an amazing piece of hardware, it does make it easier to make an image, but your production, creativity and vision is beautiful!
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
BendingLight wrote:
I think this confirms that YOU could make great images by smacking a dull screwdriver with a ball peen hammer against a slab of concrete..... as for the rest of us.... Anyone could do it, it takes a bit of balls to say let me try with the little camera around my neck, but it is really really cute hanging there 
Its kind of showing that for print, (and I just ran off some 60x90inch prints and they look very good, I would say for up close, real close like 6 inch inspection stay to no larger than a 60x90 and shoot at 80iso, but for something that accounts for a viewable distance you could run a billboard off it easily even if cropped.)
Overall, I would put it very near the level of 35mm slide film, shooting raw offers some latitude and control but not as much as a full DSLR since the chip is very small, but still very decent maybe a full stop over and under. So needs a bit more care than a DSLR with decent exposure for optimal results, but still forgiving if you are not trying to run a poster and pixel peep at 8 inches away 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
3hirty-One Photographic wrote:
the G9 is an amazing piece of hardware, it does make it easier to make an image, but your production, creativity and vision is beautiful! Thanks, but that is a subjective thing, some may disagree, but objectively the camera is capable of producing quality results and well worth the money for any photographer as a basic carry around anywhere camera. Not to mention the ability to use the entire ettl system, regular hot shoe flashes, wireless transmitters, and the availability of waterproof housing and wide and tele lenses if needed.
And I would say its obvious these were not retouched to a national beauty ad standard, more or less a fast retouch to a more camera capture real stadard to not over touch or alter the camera detail too much.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
3hirty-One Photographic
Posts: 52
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
most people can not appreciate what the canon g series cameras are. I sell cameras, and hear all the time people questioning the price of the g series. It does have a very small nitch market. I would love to have a g3 or g4 to do some IR with!
Photographer
Rya Nell
Posts: 539
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Interesting... my attempts at studio with the G9 haven't been all that great! But this gives me inspiration to try it again. I love a lot of things about the G9 but I don't feel completely comforttable with it yet...
You know, the G9 looks a lot more "respectable" with a lensmate adapter on it. I'm using one to mount filters, and it makes my G9 look like a sleek little compact dslr. It definitely is enough to impress my "non-camera" friends at parties.
I'll give the g9 a go this weekend if I have a chance...
Thanks for posting Stephen.
Photographer
Nathan Appel II
Posts: 311
Santa Maria, California, US
Thanks for sharing Stephen! My only bummer is high iso noise, but that's a fact with all digi point and shoots. I also have a G9, but can't wait for the new Sigma DP1 to come out~
Nate
Photographer
Nathan Appel II
Posts: 311
Santa Maria, California, US
imageman1 wrote:
Can I officially sit at your knee ok, that's kind of ghey...
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
Nathan Appel II wrote:
Thanks for sharing Stephen! My only bummer is high iso noise, but that's a fact with all digi point and shoots. I also have a G9, but can't wait for the new Sigma DP1 to come out~
Nate cool, but very wide angle and the biggest issue is its only a 5MP sensor, the detail is seemingly better but its still only going to show 5million blades of grass in a field of 10.
Plus the 32-210mm is too short for what I would like so short is just very not my style. And I rarely go above 100iso 200 if its like an emergency but prefer to stick to 80. My idea of low light is moving the head down
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Holix
Posts: 855
Los Angeles, California, US
Nathan Appel II wrote:
Thanks for sharing Stephen! My only bummer is high iso noise, but that's a fact with all digi point and shoots. I also have a G9, but can't wait for the new Sigma DP1 to come out~
Nate You can get it...for $799.99
March 25, 2008
Looks awesome for a point and shoot.
Photographer
Nathan Appel II
Posts: 311
Santa Maria, California, US
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
cool, but very wide angle and the biggest issue is its only a 5MP sensor, the detail is seemingly better but its still only going to show 5million blades of grass in a field of 10.
Plus the 32-210mm is too short for what I would like so short is just very not my style. And I rarely go above 100iso 200 if its like an emergency but prefer to stick to 80. My idea of low light is moving the head down
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com This one: http://www.sigma-dp1.com/
it's a 14mp sensor I believe, but I agree with the 5 million blades statement  Fixed lens wide angle, maybe not so good for beauty in general. My shooting lends itself to available light quite often, so the bigger sensor is a plus, but still nowhere near my outdated 5D
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Nathan Appel II wrote:
This one: http://www.sigma-dp1.com/
it's a 14mp sensor I believe, but I agree with the 5 million blades statement Fixed lens wide angle, maybe not so good for beauty in general. My shooting lends itself to available light quite often, so the bigger sensor is a plus, but still nowhere near my outdated 5D Yes, not a beauty lens LOL
But the 14 is like the dslr 14, its not 14 bits(as in pixels not bit depth) of detail so its not the same for large print sizes, great for smaller and by that I mean like 30x40 or less up close inspection or viewing distance dependent, much larger. But I am so pixel conscious now that even using 22 on a 1ds3 makes me feel like I should have used my P45
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Ken Williams Photo
Posts: 3067
Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, US
You really are awesome Stephen.
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
A few shots from the G9 full size linked below. Thanks for posting. I am thinking about getting this camera.
The noise though, ouch!
How is the shutter lag comparing to a DSLR?
Photographer
Rya Nell
Posts: 539
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
worth a try, what are you using normally when not a G9?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com I shoot mainly canon 20D and 5D. So G9 was a natural addition for me. I think part of my frustration with the G9 comes from the large depth of field, which makes it hard to isolate the subject from the background (except for macro shots). I'm finding I really have to put a lot of effort in composition to get decent images.
Got to admit that my eyes are on the Sigma DP1. Based on the SD14 reviews, the sensor is going to be kick a$$. Early impressions on dpreview were pretty good. But I don't think it can entirely replace the G9 either. There may be room for both on my shelf...
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Fotticelli wrote:
Thanks for posting. I am thinking about getting this camera.
The noise though, ouch!
How is the shutter lag comparing to a DSLR? Slow! its not a dslr replacement in terms of use but rather in terms of results within its limits.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Model
Audra Isadora
Posts: 362
New York, New York, US
hahah when i first saw the title of this thread, out of the corner of my eye it looked like it said
"panty shot"
hahaha sorry....
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Nello Ryan wrote:
Got to admit that my eyes are on the Sigma DP1. Based on the SD14 reviews, the sensor is going to be kick a$$. Early impressions on dpreview were pretty good. But I don't think it can entirely replace the G9 either. There may be room for both on my shelf... with a 28mm your talking depth of field forever. LOL
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Rya Nell
Posts: 539
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Fotticelli wrote:
Thanks for posting. I am thinking about getting this camera.
The noise though, ouch!
How is the shutter lag comparing to a DSLR? Slow compared to dslr, but fast compared to many compact digi-cams.
I find the shutter lag to be quite tolerable and I can't recall ever really missing a shot because of it. But, yeah. Not as good as a dslr which is to be expected.
Dude, the noise isn't that bad. Especially at low iso and especially compared to the alternative compacts. What does suck is the low dynamic range.
Photographer
Rya Nell
Posts: 539
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
with a 28mm your talking depth of field forever. LOL
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com Yeah, probably not the greatest DOF there either. I'll have to do some math to compare them. The sensor size is significantly bigger on the DP1 which should help decrease DOF too... But even if DOF is a wash, I'm also hoping for better dynamic range...
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
Slow! its not a dslr replacement in terms of use but rather in terms of results within its limits.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com All I want is a decent, small camera that I can carry with me, leave in the car. Every other year I buy a point-and-shoot with the intention of putting up with the shutter lag but end up not using them.
Is a point-and-shoot that takes a picture when you press the button too much to ask from current technology?
Photographer
Nathan Appel II
Posts: 311
Santa Maria, California, US
Fotticelli wrote:
All I want is a decent, small camera that I can carry with me, leave in the car. Every other year I buy a point-and-shoot with the intention of putting up with the shutter lag but end up not using them.
Is a point-and-shoot that takes a picture when you press the button too much to ask from current technology? The G9 is more than capable. I wouldn't leave it in a car though.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Shutter lag is faster if your not using teh screen, viewfinder is so small I think you will use the screen and live with the lag, I don't find it a problem, can catch hair flying when needed, just takes a bit of getting use too. Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
FMfoto
Posts: 1577
Los Angeles, California, US
![https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/F16FOTO/nurse_0912web600.jpg]() other than retouching eyes and stray hair on her face... it looked like this out of the G9!
Photographer
Mike Yamin
Posts: 843
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Stephen, would you mind sharing the lighting setup you used for those shots? Is there any more info you can give about the PP? You make it seem so easy.
By the way, that Sigma looks awesome, but the lens would be pretty limiting... I think I'd rather take something like my D50. A very specialized product, especially considering the price.
Photographer
The Divine Emily Fine
Posts: 20454
Owings Mills, Maryland, US
You turn me on like nothin' else, Stephen.
Photographer
ride5000
Posts: 112
Lincoln, Rhode Island, US
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
I just bought a Canon A570 IS P&S. I haven't used it yet.
Photographer
Rya Nell
Posts: 539
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I just bought a Canon A570 IS P&S. I haven't used it yet. You didn't want a cam with a hotshoe? I suppose you don't plan on using it with any
studio lights?
EDIT:
Oh, just looked at your port. Looks like you're a natural light kind of guy. My bad.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Mike Yamin wrote:
Stephen, would you mind sharing the lighting setup you used for those shots? Is there any more info you can give about the PP? You make it seem so easy.
By the way, that Sigma looks awesome, but the lens would be pretty limiting... I think I'd rather take something like my D50. A very specialized product, especially considering the price. the d50 is not in the category as its a dslr at which point a 1ds3 is just as manageable, this is a point and shoot thread.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Stephen, I think you should shooting like me.
It'll make it a lot easier for me to say I'm like Stephen Eastwood.
thanks!
Photographer
Andrew Attah
Posts: 1699
London, England, United Kingdom
StephenEastwood wrote:
I found the switch
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com You have Joey like powers; "Once I just looked at a girl's bra and it popped open"
Photographer
The Drunken Beagle
Posts: 437
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Nello Ryan wrote:
You didn't want a cam with a hotshoe? I suppose you don't plan on using it with any
studio lights?
EDIT:
Oh, just looked at your port. Looks like you're a natural light kind of guy. My bad. The built-in flash will still fire optical slaves.
|
Fixed lens wide angle, maybe not so good for beauty in general. My shooting lends itself to available light quite often, so the bigger sensor is a plus, but still nowhere near my outdated 5D 
