FartIng: i bought and returned the G15 for a G1X - Why?Articulated screen, larger sensor, but I found the G15 still has awful noise on photographs and HD video above 800 ISO (like the G12 I had before that).
The only awful thing now I find about the G1X - Macro close up photography is impossible which is heartbreaking.
Now I use my Nokia Lumia 920-which seems to take better photos than the G1X!
Do you really suppose anybody can take you seriously here when you claim 920's 1/3"-sized sensor takes better pictures than APS-C ?
Rachotilko: I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:a, high ISO,b, fast lensc, efficient image stabilization.
In case you have b) or c), you don't need a).
In the ideal world, all of us would get a)-z). But in this world it is pretty expensive to do a), and if b) provides the same benefits with lower cost, I am glad that b) exists.
Stephen_C: Given the RX100 and the G1X, why does this camera exist? The RX100 has pocketable with great IQ nailed perfectly. The G1X is larger with an articulating screen. The G15 is large with a small sensor and no articulating screen. Also, giving the G15 a gold and the RX100 a silver looks very much like favoritism.
This camera has better IQ on than RX100 in some situations (such as shooting @ tele end or closeups)
I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:a, high ISO,b, fast lensc, efficient image stabilization.
Unbelievable, the herd mentality experiment has got out of control ! I just hope this RX100-obsessed mob will tame itself soon.
Anyway, I want to thank the DPR team for a nice G15 review !
Grobb: In the studio scene comparison shots the FZ150 look MUCH sharper and clearer to my eye in both JPEG and RAW to my eye. Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing?
FZ150's shot was taken at f/3.5, FZ200's at f/2.8
Could be that the constant range brought with itself some compromises. But it'd be interesting to see FZ200's image taken at f/3.5
New batch of small sensor cameras (with bright lens and BSI-CMOS 1/1.7") has advantage when shooting at above 60mm eq - the faster lens kick in. Their lens designs seem to perform well in wide range of scenarios (including closeups or telephoto).
The "invention" - on the other hand - can use the advantage of the larger sensor when shooting wideangles (below 50mm eq) but the lens sharpness drops (quite a lot) for close-ups.
Summary.For shooting wideangle distant shots (such as family shots or sunsets), RX100 is a definite low-light king. In other scenarios (portraits, concerts), high quality bright lens still have some edge.
Rachotilko: Guys, stop the RX100 BS, please !
With its f/4.9 at tele end, it has to resort to ISO1600 when these small-sensor marvels can use ISO400 to keep the same shutter time for the same scene.
This ISO1600 vs IS0400 handicap can not be offset by the advantage provided by its larger sensor.
So: enjoy your "invention", and let the rest of us enjoy the fast lens.
@iudex:Tak predsa sme to tu rozprúdili ...Áno, ISO1000 je limit, ale s G15 a podobnými strojčekmi najnovšej generácie (XZ-2, P7700) si vystačíš s odosť nižšími hodnotami.
peevee1: High ISO looks worse than Nikon P7700, but better than Fuji X10, which is commendable.Look at the globe for clear difference in readability.
RX100 is of course much better.
concerts ? parties ? ... Bright lens allow you to use it in not so good light as well
Well, depends on focal length. At tele end (100mm) it's f2.5 vs f4.9. That translates to 2 stops in lens speed, ie. comparing ISO800 vs ISO3200.
iudex: When comparing RAWs at ISO1600, G15 delivers decent quality, no other competitor is noticeably better. Unlike many others I do not see the omission of articulated screen as a big problem; it enabled to make the G15 thinner and more pocketable.
I was comparing the low-light capabilities at focal length 100mm eq.
G15 is f2.8 at 140mm eq., so I presume it is around f2.4 @100mm
RX100 focal length maxes at 100mm, with max aperture f4.9
S100 has prohibitively slow lens at tele end. So there is a substantial usability gap between G15 and S100, despite similar sensors.
You should compare RX100's ISO1600 with G15's ISO400. That is the difference between f2.5 and f4.9
It is completelly irrelevant what f-number was chosen by DPR when they did the studio shots. What I was refering to is that in the low-light scenario, you may choose f2.4 with these fast-lensed small sensor compacts, even at tele end.
With RX100, you cannot go faster than f4.9 at tele end. This has obvious implications to shutter speed & ISO choices.
gl2k: Even at ISO 100 there is a visible amount of grain in RAW mode. ouch.
But ISO800 from BSI-CMOS is substantially better than ISO800 from CCD.
Guys, stop the RX100 BS, please !
Rachotilko: I posted this three days ago in the 'XZ-2 samples' article's comments section, but I think it's relevant here as well:
XZ2 vs RX100 == f2.4 vs f4.9 == ISO400 vs ISO1600= massive XZ-2 IQ win at 100mm !!!
I doubt that is the case. ISO100 images from Sony look quite a lot better. Assuming DPR takes the studio shots with cameras tripoded, focusing of the two RX100's shots (with ISO100 and IS01600) is the same.
The only explanation why RX100's ISO1600 shot is so poor is the excessive noise & NR taking place.
@mosc: The most commonly used prime is 50mm f/1.8. When used on APS-C (by far its most common application), it makes FOV equivalent to 75mm.
On the other hand, your assumption (that the 28mm eq is the most used prime) is quite absurd, as it requires 18mm lens on APS-C. Not quite most common I would say
I posted this three days ago in the 'XZ-2 samples' article's comments section, but I think it's relevant here as well:
XZ2 vs RX100 = = f2.4 vs f4.9 = = ISO400 vs ISO1600= massive XZ-2 IQ win at tele-end !!!