File :-(, x, )
Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
So /p/,

I've recently acquired a large sum of money, and have already decided on the gear I want to buy. But the one thing I can't decide on is which compact camera to buy.

I'd like a compact camera because I always want to have my camera with me, and my DSLR is too bulky.

I know a couple of people that have the G9, and they love it. I've used my friend's and everything works for me, except the amount of grain on ISO 800 and above.

So I ask you, /p/, is there another compact camera that doesn't suck but doesn't shit itself at high ISOs? What about the G10? Are there any sample photos out there yet?
>> Anonymous
LX3.
>> Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
>>257078

doesn't shoot raw. i need raw
>> Anonymous
>>257075
"So I ask you, /p/, is there another compact camera that doesn't suck but doesn't shit itself at high ISOs?"

No, pretty much all point and shoots are shitty at high ISO.
>> Ken Rockwell
>>257079

You don't need raw, the camera will do a better job of turning it into a jpeg than you ever will pathetic human dur hurr hurr.

But serisouly, I wonder what the high-iso performance of that new CMOS canon PnS will be like?
>> Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
Well, I googled around some, and seeing as the G10 sensor is the same size as the G9, but packs more megaschnitzels, in theory it should produce more grain. The G10 however, automagically reduces grain through software (which doesn't always work very well, and is better to do on a PC)
>> Anonymous
Get a used G7 instead.

A) it's a lot cheaper
b) has less megapixels on same size sensor
c) works with CHDK, which (AFAIK) the G9 still doesn't
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257085
>in theory it should produce more grain
>>257096
>b) has less megapixels on same size sensor
Well hell, the PowerShot G1 is only 3 megapixel. That should have no noise at all, right?

You can't judge cameras made in different years based entirely on photosite size. Sensor technology gets better with time. The noise levels on the G10 are going to be about the same as on the G9 (or even a bit lower).
>> Anonymous
>>257079
The LX3 does shoot raw. Get it or a Ricoh.

Also, they don't "shit themselves," it's just a smaller, noisier format, no different than say, 135 versus 120, or 120 versus 4x5.
>> Anonymous
>>257079
you do need raw - the problem is the Canon is full of shit, and their raw isn't a real raw for the point and shoots. Don't believe it? Pull out a calculator and do the math for how many shots should fit on a card, you'll see it dosen't work out. I considered buying a Cannon PS, so I called them and asked them what was up. They tried to bullshit me for 15 minutes with all kinds of ambiguous statements. At the end they finally admitted I was right.
You'll need raw not for now, but for the future. JPEG is a shit format, and as mem gets cheaper and cheaper there isn't going to be a reason to use it. What are you going to do 20 years from now?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257103
>Pull out a calculator and do the math for how many shots should fit on a card
Explain further please?
>> Anonymous
>>257099
Yeah, G7 and G9 are essentially the same camera though. Just different sensor and firmware.

>>257103
lol wut
>> Anonymous
>>257105
calculate how many raw images should fit on a given card. Then look at Cannon's spec's. You'll see that the number of shots that they say fit, wouldn't if they were raw.
BTW - I am not saying Canon's product isn't good in other ways. Just that they assume that they are marketing to idiots
>> Anonymous
>>257108
You know, raw files can be compressed, too.
>> Anonymous
>>257115
Or more to the point, Canon raws _are_ losslessly compressed
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257108
>Just that they assume that they are marketing to idiots
So okay, here's what happened:
1. You went in there and tried to convince them that their RAWs weren't really RAWs based on your size calculations
2. The salespeople either didn't really know and just read you the sales information, or they did understand the concept of lossless compression and tried to explain it to you
3. You interpreted this as "ambiguous bullshit statements" and stuck to your guns that the amount of RAWs you can store on a card can be calculated exactly based on sensor size and card size
4. The salesperson did some calculation of his own: "This guy is not going to listen to anything I say, and he's not going to buy this camera, and I've already wasted 15 minutes of my life on him. Fuck it, it's time for my smoke break"
5. Salesperson says "Fine, you're right, it's not really RAW"

My EOS 40D, which definitely produces "real" RAW files, produces RAWs between 10 and 15 megs. That's a pretty big difference if you're trying to calculate how many pictures can fit on a card. Canon RAW files are losslessly compressed, which means the size of the RAW depends on the content of the image because some sets of data compress better than others. But it is still really honest-to-God raw.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257144
These things really should just say "This is a virus. It will fuck up your shit and then repost itself to 4chan to catch the next stupid sonofabitch. Please rename this to 'imadumbass.exe' and double click on it"

People would still download, rename, and run it.
>> Anonymous
>>257150
In all likelihood.
>> Anonymous
You don't need raw. Ken is right.
>> Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
I didn't ask for an explanation about RAW did I? Anyway, I get off work in a few minutes and I'm getting the G9 unless you blow my mind away with something else within the next 10 minutes.
>> Anonymous
>>257182

Your mother used to be a man!
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
     File :-(, x)
>>257182
The Canon A650 IS and the Canon G9 have practically the exact same sensor. Guess which is cheaper. The G9 has the same amount of noise as the other PowerShots. The more megapixels don't help.
>> Anonymous
>>257130
hey AC, I see a lot of your posts here, and you time after time make yourself look like a bigger and bigger know-nothing DICK.
The reason I called them was I had a project that required signal processing on the files. I was transfered over to tech support not, just the call-in morons. In the end I was told that files produced by their ps cameras would not be suitable for my project. The conversation was polite, professional, but I understood that Canon was defending their turf.

>>My EOS 40D, which definitely produces "real" RAW files, produces RAWs between 10 and 15 megs.

Gee, COCKSUCKER - since when is a 40D a point and shoot???? Your other non-talents included not being able to read.

From now on whenever I see one of your post. I think instant "ASSHOLE!"
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Hey guys, what do you think of the Ricoh R8
>> Anonymous
>>257444

I have the GR 2.

The operation is so quick, reliable, and similar to my SLRs, I can get very quick shots on the street. Also, and this is a rarity among point and shoots: no discernible shutter lag, if you're in Snap, Infinity, or MF mode (though the manual focus is lame and sucks). No shutter sound, either. You can turn every unnecessary sound off, which is not something I think you can say for many point-and-shoot class cameras, again. It becomes a stealth camera. With the viewfinder, I don't have to frame using the terrible (and bright) screen. Instead, I've got big 21mm/28mm brightlines, and I can shoot as though I'm using a rangefinder, a la HCB, Winogrand, Erwitt, DAH, and the other Leica-using ilk.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>257449

thanks, i heard its not so good indoors and the noise levels are all pretty noticable at all ISOs, is that true?
any info on the ricoh R8 anyone??
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257408
>Gee, COCKSUCKER - since when is a 40D a point and shoot???? Your other non-talents included not being able to read.
That's actually central to the argument I was making there.
You said:
>their raw isn't a real raw for the point and shoots.
and I was explaining how something can be a "real raw" and yet not have a consistent file size from shot to shot. As an example, I gave my Canon non-point-and-shoot's RAW files, which vary by up to 50% from shot to shot depending on the content.

So, enlighten us: What was this math that gives you the amount of shots that could be stored on the card if they were using "real" raw? What I and>>257115are assuming is that it's something along the lines of
(Xres * Yres * bits-per-pixel)/8388608
(that last number being the number of bits in a meg)

Do you have a magic formula that takes into account the compression scheme Canon uses in its RAWs and the fact that the size of each RAW file is going to vary wildly depending on what's being shot?

Can you tell us what the "ambiguous bullshit" statements were?

Can you give any sort of argument other than an ad hominem attack?
>> Anonymous
>>257473
why do you even care? You're so convince I am worng. MOVE ON.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>257480
>why do you even care? You're so convinced I am wrong. MOVE ON.
Pic related.

Additionally, there is always the chance that I am wrong. Meese's trolling notwithstanding, one of the ways I learn things is to have other people tell me things and correct me when I'm wrong. Given that you haven't provided any sort of argument whatsoever, I'm pretty sure that's not the case here. But one never knows.

So, give me an argument. Or concede that I'm right and you're a moron. I honestly have nothing better to do on a Thursday night than sit here and argue with you.
>> Anonymous
>>257491

Hey AC, could you post one of your photos please?

Any one of them is sufficient evidence to show that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>257495
A photo from ac would prove nothing in this situationDFSFFG HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257495
How exactly would my supposed lack of artistic talent relate to an argument about compression algorithms?
>> Anonymous
>>Or concede that I'm right and you're a moron
how old are you 4?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257495
Um, well... He started it!
>> ponpo !tC/hi58lI.
stop saying grain?