REVscene Automotive Forum - View Single Post

Senna4ever · 02-14-2008, 12:24 AM

I like it. I considered the G9, but it was a bit too big for me, as I wanted an easily pocketable camera. The larger size, greater weight, lack of a widescreen option and the not very wide wide-end was the deal breaker for me. The 16:9 sensor coupled with the 28mm (35mm equivalent) lens cannot be beat for landscapes, and the aspect ratio is user selectable from 4:3, 3:2 & of course, 16:9. The G9 also seems to have slightly less dynamic range than the LX2, but the G9 renders fine detail better than the LX2. The LX2 suits me better for my needs. YMMV.

As for noise, anything beyond 800 ISO and above is quite noisy, but from I've seen, the G9 is no better.

02-14-2008, 12:24 AM	#4570
Senna4ever VLS Moderator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 16,351 Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts	I like it. I considered the G9, but it was a bit too big for me, as I wanted an easily pocketable camera. The larger size, greater weight, lack of a widescreen option and the not very wide wide-end was the deal breaker for me. The 16:9 sensor coupled with the 28mm (35mm equivalent) lens cannot be beat for landscapes, and the aspect ratio is user selectable from 4:3, 3:2 & of course, 16:9. The G9 also seems to have slightly less dynamic range than the LX2, but the G9 renders fine detail better than the LX2. The LX2 suits me better for my needs. YMMV. As for noise, anything beyond 800 ISO and above is quite noisy, but from I've seen, the G9 is no better. __________________ 2007 Volvo V50 Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius. R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300. R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.