<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2009 Vegas Weddings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/</link>
	<description>Just my waste of time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:53:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/comment-page-1/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gtluke.com/?p=539#comment-246</guid>
		<description>I had the G9 during summer 08, and while it was very liberating to have a P&amp;S size camera with logical manual controls (freaking LOVE that ISO mechanical dial...why don&#039;t DSLR&#039;s have that?), I though the image quality was pretty shitty.

Granted, Im spoiled by the FX nikon sensor, but it was enough difference to make be sell it and keep lugging around big metal dslr around on all my family trips and stuff.   It wasn&#039;t even the ISO noise that did it for me.  It was more the dynamic range and highlight clipping, as often all my &quot;kiddie trips&quot; are out in the sun and daylight.   I can tell in an instant which pics I took came out of the G9 because the brightest parts of any picture are harsh transition between color and blownout detail.   It also seemed to have very little wiggle room on exposure on the raw file compared to the nikon FX.   

On my D3 files, I can get away with insane amounts of exposure , fill, and highlight recovery in Adobe Lightroom.  Stupid amounts...like +,- 3 stops and get an acceptable file.   The G9 raw files you could adjust exposure maybe .5stops before noise and clipping was out of control and the file was poop.

not to mention the lens wasn&#039;t wide enough for my style.   I can walk around with a damn fisheye on my D90 and be happy, in general use, I don&#039;t want a 35-300mm lens like the G9 has.  

G11 is supposed to be less MP, better quality, higher ISO, cleaner files.  Also the lens is a bit wider...I think 25-200mm or so.

maybe two of the things I disliked about the G9 would be improved enough to give it another try.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had the G9 during summer 08, and while it was very liberating to have a P&amp;S size camera with logical manual controls (freaking LOVE that ISO mechanical dial&#8230;why don&#8217;t DSLR&#8217;s have that?), I though the image quality was pretty shitty.</p>
<p>Granted, Im spoiled by the FX nikon sensor, but it was enough difference to make be sell it and keep lugging around big metal dslr around on all my family trips and stuff.   It wasn&#8217;t even the ISO noise that did it for me.  It was more the dynamic range and highlight clipping, as often all my &#8220;kiddie trips&#8221; are out in the sun and daylight.   I can tell in an instant which pics I took came out of the G9 because the brightest parts of any picture are harsh transition between color and blownout detail.   It also seemed to have very little wiggle room on exposure on the raw file compared to the nikon FX.   </p>
<p>On my D3 files, I can get away with insane amounts of exposure , fill, and highlight recovery in Adobe Lightroom.  Stupid amounts&#8230;like +,- 3 stops and get an acceptable file.   The G9 raw files you could adjust exposure maybe .5stops before noise and clipping was out of control and the file was poop.</p>
<p>not to mention the lens wasn&#8217;t wide enough for my style.   I can walk around with a damn fisheye on my D90 and be happy, in general use, I don&#8217;t want a 35-300mm lens like the G9 has.  </p>
<p>G11 is supposed to be less MP, better quality, higher ISO, cleaner files.  Also the lens is a bit wider&#8230;I think 25-200mm or so.</p>
<p>maybe two of the things I disliked about the G9 would be improved enough to give it another try.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig (lithium, not SBR)</title>
		<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/comment-page-1/#comment-245</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig (lithium, not SBR)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gtluke.com/?p=539#comment-245</guid>
		<description>Just a little FYI:  I just bought the Canon G11 to supplement my larger camera for my trip to Costa Rica.  I played with the S90 and G11 in store, and side by side I just felt like the G11 was less of a toy.  Yes, it is slightly larger, but the difference is negligible, and it offered better zoom capabilities.  I am thoroughly satisfied with my G11 purchase, and in fact, have hardly even taken out my big camera while down here (except for a few excursions around the resort while my wife was doing &quot;chick stuff&quot;).  I am hardly a photog by any means, but I am quickly learning... My big camera is a very old Canon EOS 10D body with a 25-70mm f2.8, a 14mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 with image stabilization and  2x extender.  All glass is by canon. 

Just figured I&#039;d offer a little hands on experience with the tiny Canon cameras to you Nikon junkies</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a little FYI:  I just bought the Canon G11 to supplement my larger camera for my trip to Costa Rica.  I played with the S90 and G11 in store, and side by side I just felt like the G11 was less of a toy.  Yes, it is slightly larger, but the difference is negligible, and it offered better zoom capabilities.  I am thoroughly satisfied with my G11 purchase, and in fact, have hardly even taken out my big camera while down here (except for a few excursions around the resort while my wife was doing &#8220;chick stuff&#8221;).  I am hardly a photog by any means, but I am quickly learning&#8230; My big camera is a very old Canon EOS 10D body with a 25-70mm f2.8, a 14mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 with image stabilization and  2x extender.  All glass is by canon. </p>
<p>Just figured I&#8217;d offer a little hands on experience with the tiny Canon cameras to you Nikon junkies</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gtluke</title>
		<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/comment-page-1/#comment-244</link>
		<dc:creator>gtluke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gtluke.com/?p=539#comment-244</guid>
		<description>The s90 does look like a better buy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The s90 does look like a better buy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rene</title>
		<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/comment-page-1/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator>Rene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gtluke.com/?p=539#comment-242</guid>
		<description>I believe the Canon S90 uses the same sensor as the G11, and it still allows for manual control. It&#039;s a smaller P&amp;S with the same basic features.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the Canon S90 uses the same sensor as the G11, and it still allows for manual control. It&#8217;s a smaller P&amp;S with the same basic features.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://gtluke.com/uncategorized/2009-vegas-weddings/comment-page-1/#comment-241</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gtluke.com/?p=539#comment-241</guid>
		<description>Canon G11 is the smaller P&amp;S that we need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Canon G11 is the smaller P&amp;S that we need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

