NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

I need to interrupt my regular scheduled programming to write a little blurb about the new iPhone 4s. I keep reading over and over again how great the camera is in it, especially in low light, but few seem to have compared its pictures to the pictures of anything else. So while the word on the street is that the camera does as good a job as a point and shoot, and that it basically makes having a second camera kind of redundant, nobody’s really shown any substantial evidence to back that up.

I didn’t want to take the tech pundits’ words for it, so tonight I drank a PBR, put the can down next to a cool Vespa calendar, and decided to make my own little comparison. I scrounged up every camera I could get my hands on and took a picture of my PBR/Vespa scene. The list of cameras included the iPad 2, the iPhone 3, the iPhone 4s, Panasonic’s DMC-FX500, Canon’s G9, the Rebel XTi, the 40d, the 5d, and the 5d Mark II. I fitted Canon’s 24-70 f/2.8 L series lens to the dSLRs just to make for a fair comparison. I mean, the optics in a Canon L series lens are about on par with a phone’s camera, right?

I dimmed the lights in the room and created a scene with the following exposure: ISO 800, f/2.4 to 2.8, and 1/15th of a second. Basically, in layman terms, that means there was about as much light as a restaurant at night. Not a dimly lit one, and not a bright fast food place. didn’t use a flash and I shot with Auto White Balance on all the cameras. I actually took the first shots with the Apple phones, imported them into the computer to find out what their exposures were, and set the rest of the cameras to match. I’m sure there are all sorts of people who are going to argue with my methodolgy, but this isn’t really intended to be much more than a rough idea of how these these gadgets stack up against each other.

So what did I find? Well, the pundits are kinda right and kinda wrong. The iPhone 4s’ camera isn’t bad at all — in fact, it’s great (for a camera in a phone) — but I hesitate to compare it to a quality point and shoot, at least in the poor lighting conditions that illuminated my PBR/Vespa scene. Of course the 4s is way better than the iPad, and it’s also significantly better than the iPhone 3, which suffers from a soft lens and heinous color noise in low light situations. But to say it’s as good as a point and shoot is a bit of a stretch. The flash is underpowered and there are no manual controls that would otherwise let you milk a scene for the best results. There’s a fair amount of noise at ISO 800, even compared to my 3 year old Panasonic DMC FX500, and the iPhone lens just can’t compete with the more sophisticated lenses in dedicated cameras.

But — and this is a huge but — there’s something to be said about an 8 megapixel camera stuffed into a smartphone. For everyday purposes, this thing does outdo a point and shoot simply because it’s already in my pocket. And what’s more, in broad daylight, the gap between the iPhone 4s and the point and shoot cameras narrows dramatically (see below). I anticipate it’ll take two to three generations of smartphones to truly close the gap with point and shoot cameras. But meanwhile, I bet you I could make a pretty fancy looking 20×30 canvas print with my new iPhone 4s if I took a picture in well lit conditions.

Anyway, as I expected, the iPhone 4s camera came in just behind my Panasonic DMC FX500 from 2008. It got trounced by the Canon G9 from 2007.

Here are images from all the cameras, roughly resized to the size of the image from the iPad at the top. I realizing that resizing them doesn’t make for a fair comparison, but I’ll leave that to the camera review sites. Hopefully this will give some people a rough idea of how everything compares.

Some general thoughts:

• iPad 2 – The camera is basically a joke. I included it for reference only. It’s less than 1 megapixel and the noise is horrible.
• iPhone 3g – Check out the shadows on the right of the picture and you’ll see the color noise. This is hard to clean up. You can also see, when compared to the image below it, how soft the lens is.
• iPhone 4s – Pretty good, though there’s a lot of shadow noise. The good thing is there’s nowhere near as much color noise as in the images from its predecessor, which is impressive.
• Panasonic – This is the closest competitor to the iPhone 4s camera, but it’s still sharper and cleaner.
• Canons – These are in here just for reference. Notice how tight the grain is on the G9 compared to the iPhone.

I also decided to to check things out in daylight, the results of which are below. Realizing that the only real competitors in my closet were the Canon G9, the Panasonic and the iPhone 3, I left the iPad and dSLRs out. The results were still pretty much the same, though (as expected) the gap in image quality between the cameras narrowed dramatically. The G9 still stands on its own, but the difference between the iPhone 4s and the Panasonic is very narrow. There’s less chroma noise in the 4s, though its grain is really ugly. I found the white balance to be pretty good on the iPhone. Go ahead and click on that below image if you want the full res version.

I was intrigued by how the iPhone stood up to the Panasonic in daylight, so I decided to just take a picture outside to get an idea of what regular snapshot actually looks like. Pretty good, particularly on the web. Again, clicking below will get you a high res version.

But I was a little disappointed by the amount of noise present in the sky, which you can see below at a 100% crop. Otherwise, the lens performed well and is pretty sharp.

Anyway, all in all, not a bad little camera. The iPhone 4s is not a replacement for a point and shoot, but it’s pretty close if you have a cheap one or an old one and you shoot pictures primarily during the day. If you are traveling and want a good camera for your trips, consider investing in a good, modern point and shoot.

Now, enough pixel peeping. Back to the fun stuff: people getting married!

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

I’m back in the States for a few weeks right now for a bunch of fun jobs — a wedding in Estes Park, a wedding in Vail, about a half dozen portraits, and two engagement sessions. I’m headed back to Europe in just a week and a half for the rest of winter and spring, and then we fly back here in mid-May. Fun to be home, already missing Norway, and beyond psyched for the summer in Colorado. Funny how all that works.

2012 is going to be a blast, with fantastic weddings and super cool clients throughout Colorado, the Bahamas, and Mexico. I’m totally excited.

I’ll get some new work up here soon, but meanwhile, swing on over to my sports photography blog to check out more details on this cool 2-page spread that just appeared in Photography Monthly, one of the largest camera magazines in the UK.

Stay tuned!

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

Just an update from that last Sigma post a few days ago. Today I got the latest issue of Rangefinder Magazine, which is basically the magazine for portrait and wedding photography. I was flipping through the pages and… hey… there’s one of my photos in the latest ad. This one’s kinda cool because I can read the ad copy. Sigma is using these ads in camera magazines worldwide for the next three years, and while I now which photos will run, I don’t know when they’ll run or where they’ll run. So it’s like finding an easter egg when one shows up.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

Here’s something exciting — my first image is in print for the Sigma Our World advertising campaign I shot in late 2008. This was part of the 2009 corporate calendar, and it features a shot of pro climber Ethan Pringle on Anaconda, a heinous 5.13+ trad line on Lumpy Ridge that’s only seen a handful of ascents.

Ethan hung out in Estes for a few days scouting some lines in the middle of a pretty ridiculous 2008 sending spree. He’s a certifiable badass and one of the world’s best all around climbers. He’s climbed 5.15a sport (Realization), solid 5.14 trad (Cobra Crack), onsighted 5.14, bouldered VImpossible, and, well, you get the picture. He’s super inspiring to watch charge, and he’s a lot of fun to hang out with.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

5d Mark II Review

Part I

sorry for my bad typing right now — ive got a finger injury and it’s a lot easier to ignore grammar and punctuation. but what follows is my 5d mark ii review. fyi, ignore the date stamp in the url. this was written dec 20, 2008. if you want to see more of the gear i use, check out my amazon store. if you’re interested, amazon’s got the body only here and the kit with the 24-105 IS in stock as of 12/28/08, at regular retail prices. I have noticed the kits go in and out of stock (from Amazon itself) several times a day, but you can get it while it’s hot.

now that that’s out of the way, let me issue a disclaimer: i’m a long-time canon user, but for no particular reason other than i started with canon at a young age. i have no allegiance one way or another to nikon or canon, so this 5d mark ii review isn’t going to be tainted by that.
anyway, onward ho.

i had been super excited about the arrival or the 5d mark ii and its much-heralded 2 to 3 stop noise advantage over the original 5d, which i’ve been using professionally since its release 3 years ago (and, by the way, can be had for a song on amazon right now). so naturally the first thing i did last night when it came as to do some high-iso comparisons with my workhorse mark i bodies. and guess what? i was sorely disappointed. this thing does NOT live up to the hype, imho. i will likely be branded a heretic by many, but so what. the 5d mark ii is a marginal improvement *at best* over the original 5d when it comes to high-iso performance. i might go so far as to say its massive file sizes will only serve to clog my workflow and create problems, rather than solve them. but i will hold off on clinging to that statement until i shoot more with this new body.

i shoot RAW only, sort, and then edit in lightroom. i make wedding albums with spreads up to 30″ wide, and i make canvasses up to 40×60. i have done this with spectacular results in all lighting conditions with my original 5d. so the question is: do i need more resolution? doubtful. i was really looking for better AF accuracy and low light iso capabilities.

for this review i decided to upres the 5d files to the same dimensions as the 5d mark II files. this is about noise on the second generation body and if i were to downres the 5d mark ii files, i’d be crunching some of the noise out. and besides, when i do make albums, i often upres the mark i files anyway to make spreads. so i think it’s fair to present the images this way as it’s a close approximation of real world use.

so without any further ado, i present to you my thermostat. this was the first test i did last night. the room was lit with natural window light and i shot at av with a canon 50mm at f/2, raw. one is the 5d at 3200 and the other is the 5d mark ii at 6400. these are center crops from full res images, by the way. they’re about 1600 pixels wide out of a 4200 pixel wide 5d mark i file and a 5600 pixel wide 5d mark ii file. both were processed in lightroom with out any fiddling other than luminance and color noise reduction set at 20. go ahead, open up the file and take a guess which one is which.

i happen to think the bottom one looks better, though it’s ever so slightly less sharp. the top image has some banding in it. tight film-like grain, but an awful lot of it. i choose the lower one.

the top image is the 5d mark ii at 6400. i was expecting its images at 6400 to rival the 5d at iso 1600 or even iso 1000. i didn’t expect them to look worse than the mark i at 3200. i think iso for iso they’re about the same, with the 5d ii having perhaps a 1/3 to 1/2 stop advantage.

sure, it’s 21 mp instead of 13 mp, but we will address that later.

anyway, this morning i decided to do more comparisons. so i present the inside of my closet. iso 800, 1600 and 3200. the fourth image below is iso 6400, H1 and H2 on the mark ii. i shot the following with the canon 50mm f/1.4 at f/8. it’s not an L lens, but stopped down that far it might as well be.

oh, and let me be as explicit as possible: these images are the same pixel dimensions because the mark i images are upscaled to the same size as the mark ii images.

draw whatever conclusions you wish. mine are:

1) the 5d mark II does not live up to its hype
2) at any given ISO the mark ii doesn’t look that much better to me on the screen
3) H1 is silly
4) H2 is stupid

other thoughts…

first, i have been reading reports that adobe really screwed up with its 5d mark ii raw module in lightroom and ps. that may be true. it also may be true that canon’s dpp renders a far better jpeg. but switching workflow to the outdated, old school dpp is not feasible, especially when it means losing the localized editing abilities and other huge benefits of lightroom. so if it’s adobe’s fault, i say to adobe: rewrite your raw converter.

second, i have a feeling that a lot of the reviews i’ve seen were done with jpegs and in-camera noise reduction. that’s nice and all, but it’s not how i or many of my colleagues do our work. i shoot in raw and edit in LR like thousands of other people. i do not use in camera noise reduction on jpegs. so that might be why i have been seeing some amazing looking high-iso images elsewhere. if that’s the truth, and if dpp really does a better job compared to acr, then maybe canon has written some excellent hardware and software based noise reduction algorithms. care to share with adobe, canon?

third, i rarely see large crops of high-iso images. i often see small crops (ie, 200px by 200px) and that’s just not a big enough crop to see banding and weird noise patterns. i also wind up seeing high iso images compressed for web use, with an accompanying statement like “omg this camera is soooooo cool.” well, great, that’s just completely unhelpful.

fourth, all this completely ignores what these files will look like spread across a 30″ album spread. that’s my next step. many 5d mark ii users are saying the noise patterns and characteristics look infinitely better in large prints compared to the 5d. so i am going to get a bunch done and report back.

fifth, and last, measuring the usefulness of this camera will also require me to assess the rumored autofocus improvements (the camera does seem more accurate, but i have done nothing to really test this) as well to determine the viability of incorporating its video capabilities into my business.

********** UPDATE *************

i am getting a far nicer noise level from the sraw files. observe the following 100 percent crops. the raw was downsized in these shots. shot at iso 6400 with an 85mm 1.2L II, at 1/80th at f/1.2.

btw, i see the infamous black dot phenomenon in the RAW file but not the sRAW file. hmmm…

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

Today was a pretty cool day! FedEx pulled up with a bunch of boxes containing a huge assortment of lenses from Sigma Photo, one of the biggest camera and lens companies in the world. I recently signed a contract with Sigma to shoot an advertising campaign with the lenses that will run worldwide for three years. They want me to shoot travel and lifestyle, outdoor sports, and nature with the lenses, and then they’ll choose their favorite images and run them in magazines in a dozen countries, from Asia to Europe to North America. We have a tight timeframe to get to work on the project, since the nature photography segment is due in about two weeks, so it’s going to be busy. The lenses I’ve received, from a super wide angle 12-24mm, to a 500mm bazooka, are awesome, and perfectly suited to the various shoots. Sigma makes a collection of available light lenses that would be perfect for weddings, and that would integrate with my wedding photography quite well. I’ve pitched a second wedding-related ad campaign to them; we’ll see how ti turns out. I wish I could post some of the pictures from my first assignment, but I have to get approval from Sigma to post them on my blog. As a result, there will be a time lapse as this project unfolds. Nevertheless, stay tuned! It’s gonna be exciting.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

Radiopoppers. I now have five of them, and they are awesome. What follows is a field-test user review from Brandy and Tony’s awesome Bahamas wedding. A slideshow of their day will come later this week!

To sum it up, I think Radiopoppers are the best thing to happen to flash photography since the invention of the flash.

For those who don’t yet know, Radiopoppers are little flash gadgets that combine ETTL with the radiowave goodness of the trusty Pocket Wizard. That’s pretty amazing. Until now it’s been basically impossible to have reliable ETTL off-camera flashes.

When I first started with off-camera flash photography, I’d use my ST-E2 infared trigger and put my 550EX and 580EX flashes on slave mode. Basically I had fully automatic ETTL flash. It was point and shoot, and it was oh-so-easy. This setup was awesome, or so I thought. I loved having spot-on flash exposures every time, but I soon grew annoyed. I couldn’t shoot outdoors at all, since the bright sunlight usually interfered with the infared sensors on the flashes. I was creatively stifled because I couldn’t hide the flashes behind rocks, behind people, behind walls — the infared beam only works with line of sight. If I wanted to shoot wide angle, I’d have to basically put the flashes way off to the side, and usually that just didn’t work. To be out of the frame, they’d have to be at such extreme angles that the infared beam couldn’t get to them. I mean, try using a master-slave IR setup with a fisheye. Impossible, unless you don’t mind having a flash, a flare and a light stand in your image.

Inside, and in the right conditions, the ST-E2 was marvelous. I loved shooting weddings in tents or white rooms, where the IR beam just bounced all over everywhere. But it never was all that reliable, so I eventually stopped using the combination and just used my ST-E2 as a very expensive autofocus assist beam.

Then I discovered Pocketwizards. I loved them because I could put my flashes everywhere. They were reliable. I could hide a flash behind a rock if I was shooting a bouldering image, like this one:

I could hide flashes behind dancing couples during weddings, like here, to produce a nice rim light, like here:

The PWs unlocked a lot of hidden creativity, and I could even use them in conjunction with my ST-E2 (so I could trigger the flashes but still use the ST-E2′s autofocus assist).

But with this reliability came a few huge limitations. First, when you use a Pocketwizard, you have to have your flash on manual mode. This is fine if you’re shooting in a controlled environment, but I found it could be difficult when shooting something like a wedding, which is an organic, free-flowing, sometimes chaotic event with rapidly changing lighting conditions. Wedding photographers don’t really have the time to run around and change the outputs on three separate units all the time.

More importantly, the Pocketwizards can’t do high speed sync. On my 5d cameras, the fastest shutter speed I could shoot at outdoors was 1/200th of a second. If I was at ISO 50, the lowest setting on my camera, I would need to be shooting around f/11. That means that unless it was almost dark out, it was basically impossible to get the beautiful, smooth bokeh I love from my 135 f/2 or my 200 f/2.8 or my 85 f/1.2. My images would have to have a totally uncluttered background to have the look I wanted. Sometimes that’s just impossible.

So then along came the Radiopopper. When I first heard about them I thought they were some sort of cruel joke, but no, they’re real. I have five of them and just used them for the first time in the Bahamas, at a destination wedding at the Atlantis Resort. I was astounded. Here’s one of the first frames I captured with them — there were two flashes going off at once. This frame was taken outside in extremely dark conditions.

I get automatic flash exposure, I can dial up or down the flash output from my camera, I can change the flash ratios from my camera, I can hide the flashes behind rocks, behind people, or behind walls for cool lighting effects, and I can shoot with huge apertures to get that awesome low depth of field — all in broad daylight. I even dropped one of my transmitters in a swimming pool, fished it out, dried if off, and it worked perfectly. What more could I ask for?

Check this out — a shot done with two flashes, fully automatic. Very nice! I actually used radios to dial down the right hand flash — all from my STE-II on the camera.

Basically, the Radiopoppers sense some sort of electronic signal made by the infared beam, convert it to a radio wave, and send it to the receiver. The receiver converts the radio wave back into an infared beam and sends it to the IR receptor on the flash via a little fiberoptic cable that you have to tape onto the front of the flash. Brilliant.

And get this: here’s a shot done with two flashes, outside, broad daylight, shot at 135mm @ f/2.0.

Like everything in life, nothing is perfect, but these things are an excellent solution that I will be using at basically every wedding and social event from now on.

The first problem I experienced was that there was some sort of sync issue whereby the flashes weren’t being triggered reliably. I, of course, didn’t read the instructions — but once I did, I realized that it was the result of the fact that there are many different flash and camera manufacturers out there, and that I needed to adjust the Radiopoppers to work with my system. I pushed three buttons and fixed it. So that’s not really an issue with the Radiopoppers. Then there were the occasional misfires, where I’d get way too much flash juice. That’s an unfortunate byproduct of the actual ETTL system. It happens without the RPs, too.

There were two minor issues with the RPs themselves. First, I didn’t like having to attach the fiber optic cable to my slave flashes with gaffer’s tape. It was a little problematic in the Bahamas, where the hot air seemed to loosen the stickiness of the tape. Now I’ve got goop all over my flash. I wish there were a way to somehow attach the fiberoptic cable better (perhaps a little plastic clip that I could attach to the flash that would hold the cable in place strongly – hint, hint!). Anyway, I am now over having sticky stuff on my flash, and I’m such a convert that I now think that the fiberoptic cable will be permanently attached since I’ll be using the Radiopoppers so much, so no biggie.

I also didn’t like having to screw the battery case onto the back of the unit. It’s a pain to have to find a screwdriver to get the batteries in and out (I wound up using a steak knife), and, if you drop the unit in the pool, you’re not going to have that much time to find your steak knife, unscrew the back plate and remove the battery before the circuits fry. But of course, if the unit can survive a splash in the pool, what difference does it make?

All in all, I give the Radiopoppers a 9.75 out of 10. Certainly one of the best pieces of photo-related equipment to come out in a long time. I think they’re going to permanently change my approach to event photography, and like I said before, these might be the best thing to happen to flash photography since the invention of the flash.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

In March I hit up Vegas for the 2008 WPPI wedding photographer convention, which made Sin City even weirder than it was before all us 12,000 photo geeks showed up. (12,000! That’s not a typo!). I cruised out there with John Heisel, enduring lots of stormy weather and perhaps the mankiest hotel room on earth in Cedar City, UT.

The convention was definitely an eye-opener — lots of inspiring talks by some of the movers and shakers in the industry, an out-of-control tradeshow the size of several football fields, lots of random photo shoots, and, of course, partys! Woohoo!

The convention took place at the Paris hotel and casino — the domed ceiling is actually painted like the city skyline, complete with clouds. The elevators up to the guest rooms had movie ads on them, so I took some self portraits with Jack Black, et al. I’m a dork. Sorry.

In that last post I mentioned I got to check out all the vendor booths at the trade show, and I signed up with a new online proofing service, changed around the album lineup a little, pestered the Canon reps about new cameras, started carrying Finao albums, got some new canvas prints made for some local hotels, picked up all sorts of camera stuff, blah blah blah. It was fun.

Toward the end, I cruised out on the Strip with a bunch of other Colorado wedding photographers, one of whom dressed up as a bride (kudos to Kammi at http://elegant-image.com!). We also had Brynn Hyatt along — she was in the cool blue dress. I brought my wireless flash setup (the same kind I use at weddings — pocket-sized and portable) and came up with some cool shots. Never done this kind of posed, faux wedding stuff before, but it was kind of fun. Also a bit of a scene, but whatever.

Check out the last shot, taken by my friend Kevin Bergthold — he borrowed my little flash transmitter and snapped a cool pic of me breakdancing. (Note: I don’t actually breakdance. I only pretend to. I’d love to learn.)

Word to the wise: if you ever see someone dressed up as a bride in a really weird place, without a husband, and surrounded by six to ten photographers, she’s probably NOT a bride.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

Back in Cali kickin it with the crew. Miss it here. Good times, great friends. Toots got his first chance to visit one of our favorite places on earth, the stunning mountaintop boulder field at Lizard’s Mouth, home to the best moderate sandstone bouldering anywhere. And actually thanks to our buddy Bernd, a bunch of new hard lines have gone up in the last year.

Here we are on one of them, an unnamed route overlooking the ocean. We spent sunset here taking pictures.

If you want to know how it’s done, I used a really fast prime lens at f/1.4 coupled with a single flash bouncing off a gold reflector disk. Reflector was pointing up from ground level, flash was triggered via a PocketWizard. Very low ISO (100) allowed me to get the dark blue sky at 125th of a second. It also let me have a very noiseless image. I passed off the camera later on and Bernd grabbed it to take the last two shots, one of Steve and one of me.

Quite possibly the highlight of the day was seeing Alicia’s parents’ chihuahua Rosie wearing Bernd’s kid’s diaper. Finn, Bernd and Hjortis’ little infant, was nice and warm and had a spare diaper. Rosie was freezing and had nothing. So… What happens when you have a spare diaper and a freezing chihuahua? Diaper Dog. It’s was the only solution.

NOTE: the images in this feed have been downsized or removed for copyright reasons. To see them in their unmodified state, please view the original post by clicking here.

I just got Canon’s new G9, and it rocks! Hooray! I don’t have much to compare this to since I don’t have any other point and shoots — this is my first one since 2001, when I got a 2 megapixel digital Elph — and this is 12 megapixels. But what I am used to is my 1dII and my Canon 5d, of which the latter is a gold standard when it comes to low-noise shooting. My lens collection consists solely of L-series glass — primarily primes — so my standards are way high.

Real fast, the G9 has been updated with the G10, which is super cheap right now (updated 12/08) on Amazon.

Since you’re reading this, you presumably already know everything about the G9. If not, in a nutshell it’s got:

An image stabilized lens, equivalent to a 35 to 210 (f/2.8 to f/4.8)
12 megapixel sensor
3 inch LCD display
Digic III sensor
RAW capture mode
The ability to work with remote flashes

The last two features are what interested me in this camera. I’ve been looking for a point and shoot that has RAW mode, and all this stuff about the G7 not ‘needing’ RAW is to me a big load of hooey. I shoot everything in RAW and I batch process them in the Adobe Camera RAW, which lets me tweak my images so they have the best color rendition, saturation and range. JPEGs don’t cut it, so I’ve been waiting for this thing. Since I’m a Canon guy with Canon flashes, I also wanted one that would work with my STE-II or 580EX flashes.

First, the camera’s ergonomics suck when you’ve got a 580EX attached to it. You pretty much have to walk around holding the camera by the flash. Observe:

Will I ever use the camera with an external flash? Absolutely. With an STE-II? Maybe. With a PW? Very infrequently, but at least I can if I need to. Each of those three options increasingly nullifies the point of having a point and shoot, but I digress.

Let’s just skip right to the important stuff. The RAW write speed is decent. Nothing to phone home about, but it’s definitely useable. It takes 1 to 3 seconds to write a RAW file, depending on the card speed and the ISO (or so it seems). Recognizing that this is not a DSLR, I’m fine with that.

And the other important question is: how do the images look? I’m just going to post some full-size images after RAW processing, and you can see for yourself. All images were taken with my new G9 and my old 5d with the trusty 70-200 f/2.8L IS zoom. All the images were exposed the same in manual, at 1/200th and f/6.3. I just changed the flash output (wireless 580ex from a Pocket Wizard) and shot at the following ISO settings: 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. The images were all processed in Canon’s (IMHO ridiculously useless) RAW converter and saved to highest quality JPEG. I applied no sharpening and no noise reduction, and then I made them 100% crops in Photoshop.

Here we go at ISO 100:

Basically I think according to the above test, the G9 holds its own until ISO 1600, at which point it totally sucks and is completely unusable. But that little lens is surprisingly sharp, and the noise control is very good at ISO 800 and below in good light. That’s pretty dope for a point and shoot.

Now, for an UPDATE thanks to some feedback: note that the above test was performed in the best of circumstances. Great light and good exposure. Now a pretty harsh test with low ambient light and no flash. I’m not comparing the two cameras, I’m just using the 5d as a baseline. By the way, everything in the below test was shot at f/2.8. That means wide open for the G9 and stopped WAAAY down for the 5d (it’s a 35mm f/1.4).

At ISO 200, pretty good.

At ISO 400, the differences appear:

At 800 they are really apparent:

Clearly the G9 doesn’t work that well in poor conditions, but hey, I still think I can pull out some good pictures — especially with a good flash attached. Now I’m not a professional gear reviewer, so take my words with a grain of salt, but I’m pleasantly surprised and pretty happy with the G9. I might even use it professionally for weddings! I’ve thought about mounting it in the rafters and making time-lapse videos of the reception (yes, it has that feature too) and giving them to the bride and groom. That could be super fun! Or maybe I can mount it to a tripod and have guests take photos of themselves. Or maybe I could … Anyway, point is, the camera is way cool, and I’m psyched on it.

Here’s the link to it on Amazon.com: