> jesen84 said on
12-30-2008 at
08:18:
Thank you for posting. This was a great review.
> DC180 said on
12-29-2008 at
03:26:
Urrrrgh what an ugly looking camera and for that price. WTF.
> live604 said on
11-27-2008 at
03:41:
this is the best compact digital camera. word.
> vancouver57 said on
11-23-2008 at
07:26:
This is an excellent review! I'm watching it about a year after I got my G9. Best digital camera I've ever had, both for still shots and videos.
> jdcontrol said on
10-29-2008 at
23:12:
Could someone please give me an opinion on the 'TC-DC58C Tele Converter Lens' for this G9?thanks
> fa6e said on
10-22-2008 at
14:31:
I've bought one (:thanx
> bambangpamungkas said on
10-14-2008 at
00:32:
hi gordon, cant wait your post for G10 :D
> NZblind said on
10-09-2008 at
23:26:
haha, those photos were from Queenstown.
> lqbe said on
10-04-2008 at
04:12:
thank you! very helpful
> markjohnno said on
08-30-2008 at
11:47:
Hi Gordon,I'm thinking of getting a G( but have heard of problems with dust on sensor/lensmalthough on one review the guy said the sensor and lens were factory sealed..what do you think??.cheersmajohnno
> chewbuggars said on
08-27-2008 at
01:24:
wow so you must need a lot of memory cards. thanks again. :)
> TruePoindexter said on
08-26-2008 at
07:10:
Not at all - glad it helped! RAW is fun to play with and once you store some preset routines for your camera it really doesn't take that much time to do the post processing. I think the pictures come out slightly better in general and you can rescue pictures that would otherwise have been lost causes. Another downside of RAW that I forgot to mention is the file size. Just as an example on my camera shooting a 12mp JPEG comes out to 4mb. Shooting a RAW image takes up 14mb - 3x the size.
> chewbuggars said on
08-26-2008 at
06:36:
hey thanks a lot. i thought it was something really bad. i am kind of a point and shoot kind of guy so it won't really matter to me but who knows maybe i would like the post work and learn from it. maybe later i'll get one that supports RAW. once again thanks; i thought no one would answer :)
> TruePoindexter said on
08-26-2008 at
05:30:
RAW is uncompressed data as is from the sensor. After when you're back at home you have to post process the image to generate a picture so over all it's a lot akin to shooting with film and developing later. The main advantage is that you can do so much more to adjust a RAW image right down to white balance. Point & Shoot users won't care (or will even dislike it because of the required post work) but enthusiast users almost demand it as fervently as they demand manual control.
> chewbuggars said on
08-17-2008 at
01:50:
what is RAW?
> botezuma said on
08-16-2008 at
17:24:
how's the video please? is it comparable to a camcorder like the Canon FS100?:) thanks very much.
> mortiraw said on
08-11-2008 at
23:10:
got one and i love it quite a bit
> Andreacdtv said on
08-10-2008 at
19:22:
Great review, I just ordered one. Thank you.
> maureenOWW said on
08-10-2008 at
16:34:
Aye I've been looking at that, it's looking very nice, of course the problem is the horrific noise of the LX2 (your review was the main reason I didn't buy an LX2, in fact). Unless the new sensor is something special then I'll probably hold out for what Canon are offering. On a different subject, the Nikon D40 is currently £207 from Amazon in the UK - with the cashback. Say hi to your gorgeous missus for me, she's the real reason I visit your website daily.
> cameralabs said on
08-09-2008 at
01:18:
If Canon doesn't deliver the goods on the next one, you may want to consider the new Panasonic LX3...