Neodp: What makes a good camera?
1. Better than the best cell phone.
2., 3., & 4. Low CA, to corner acuity, low distortion, wide/fast aperture (light transmission) across the focal range. If not just normal (prime) or better "short portrait" length then 35-100 eqiv f/1.8. Therefore APS-C sized lenses or m43 when m43 sensors improve their (bodies sensor and processing) color sensitivity and HIGHLIGHT DR. AKA OPTICS FIRST. Including AF/AE optimized/matched to the body.
5. The body/combo should be fast in every other way. Such as on time, auto-sleep, shot to shot in raw, max shutter, flash sync etc... This includes EVF and tracking improvements.
6. We have got to fix video in all it's metrics. Not as a poor after thought. No AF and stabilization noises in the video sound. Pro (mini shotgun) mic built in AND replaceable. Outstanding stabilization especially with removable system telephoto.
I am getting an A7RII within weeks, but I also know there's a trap some people are falling into now with Sony of making hideous "prints" with milky blacks and dingy whites that look like they've been shot on expired film. I saw shots yesterday from one event and spotted the Sony shots immediately for just this reason. It's a hideous trend, to my mind. "Hey, but that's dynamic range." Is it h*ll.
These don't have to be YOUR priorities, but it would help to understand that others do consider their purchases at least as much as you do. And, probably unlike either of you guys, I actually USE the camera while I let my RX100 II sit on the shelf.
Now you can dismiss all the priorities you do not like, and complain it puts an unsightly bulge in your pants pocket. But it really is a bit of a pointless game. And one of the main reasons fewer and fewer professionals I meet and work with take this site and the brand bashing of its commenters seriously any more.
I find the review is selective in what it says about battery life, not pointing out that the RX100 MkIV is actually not much better (but choosing the RX100 MkIII to Sony's benefit), and that it does not have a touch screen, which is useful for video. In Eco mode this camera's battery beats the Sony. This camera has a mic input for external video sound. The Sony does not. So you can shoot 4k video with lousy sound and camera noise on adjustments. Woohoo.
Lens might be a little soft wider, but it has a longer zoom than any of the LX100, RX100 (since version II, which I own), and certainly the Ricohs. And it IS equal or better at longer focal length and smaller aperture. The aperture is also more consistent across the zoom range than many other cameras. It gives me a decent "portrait" focal length. They don't. You can't crop much on the LX100 because it's only 12 megapixels.
I've written several posts on why this camera suits my priorities more than the Sony or Panasonic, both of which are actually brands I also own. But really, what's the point? All that happens is the brand bashers discount or downplay the priorities that are not theirs. Yes, I do prefer the form factor of this one to my RX100 MkII. I traded in a G7X toget it so I knew exactly what I was getting. I also prefer the colours I get and I prefer the more malleable Raws Canon seems to provide. The dynamic range "advantage" of Sony holds up to ISO 400 and I find (a) I almost never get a situation where it affects a shot and (b) I spend a LOT of my time above ISO 400. I find the "softness" of the lens overstated, that this review lies (or is mistaken) about no 40p video, that the concept of handheld "portable" 4k shooting is a bit of a farce (I shoot video for broadcast).
Other people in the world disagree with your assessment because they have different priorities.
I know. Shocking eh?
On video recording, according to my info (the European version at least of) the camera offers:
(Full HD) 1920 x 1080, 59.94 / 50 / 29.97 / 25 / 23.98 fps(HD) 1280 x 720, 29.97 / 25 fps(L) 640 x 480, 29.97 / 25 fpsStar Time-Lapse Movie (Full HD) 29.97 / 25 / 14.99 / 12.5 fps
The US specs I could find are:
Full HD 1920 x 1080: 59.94 fpsFull HD iFrame: 1920 x 1080: 29.97 fpsFull HD Star Time-Lapse Movie: 1920 x 1080: 14.985 fps / 29.97 fpsHD 1280 x 720: 29.97 fps640 x 480: 29.97 fpsMiniature Effect: 1280 x 720: 6 fps (5x speed) / 3 fps (10x speed) / 1.5 fps (20x speed)Miniature Effect: 640 x 480: 6 fps (5x speed) / 3 fps (10x speed) / 1.5 fps (20x speed)
I can switch between NTSC and PAL to get this full range.
The review is a little misleading. There might not be 24P but there IS certainly a choice of 25P and 23.98P ... at least on some versions of the camera.
photo perzon: So if the LX100 is $700 the G5X should be $ 350 right? No 4KSuper slow RAWsSoft lens
Fixed LCD, no touch screen, more limited zoom range, 4k but no mic input, noisy camera operations shooting video, and - at 12 megapixels - not much room to crop in on post?
Downrez a G5X to 12 megapixels and you will almost certainly see a sharpness/resolution difference, just as when you downrez 4k to HD.
LX100 is a pretty good camera, and I like my GH4, but people DO insist on comparing apples and oranges here.
All cameras are necessarily compromises. People choose based on what compromises don't get in their way so much. The brand faithful never figure this one out.
guydr: The positive comments for the G5X or G7X actually come from the owners of the cams. Where the pro sony comments come from people who dream to get the RX100m3 and m4, but can't afford it.
TFD: I fail to see the point of an $800 camera that you cannot slip into your pocket. If I want an $800 camera that does not slip into my pocket I will buy a DLSR.
Well, I think you're being ironic and it's going right over most people's heads, but it DOES fit in my jacket pocket and even one pair of my jeans, but I like loose clothes. I more often carry it on a wrist strap so that it's ready at an instant and not covered in pocket lint, and I am currently considering carrying it Daido Moriyama/tourist style, around my neck, which looks a bit geeky but is much better for instant street work.
MikeStern: It fascinates me. I am an ex canon lover, and today, I witness again the canon fanboys can not seem to acknowledge the fact that the company has been so behind doing their homework. Sony swept all the awards here while well deserving all, seems this is so hurtful for the canon boys still trying to defend by comparing details. It's time to let somethings go. It's not up to us really, it's up to the people who work harder on making better systems for us.
I appreciate DPreview once again for a very good review.
And I do hope, one day canon will come back to challenge and maybe lead the game again.
"Fanboys". You just removed your cred.
haiiyaa: Seems like a great camera that's really fun to shoot with which is the most important thing. The constant menu diving with the rx100's really isn't a enjoyable experience. The Panasonic lx100 is better in that aspect, and I having used the canon m3 for a couple of days I have no doubts the canon g5x is much better at that also. That said, 1.2 raw fps is very poor and so is the battery life.
EthanP99, the internet would go a lot more smoothly if some people realised that those who disagree with them have probably applied as much intelligence and discernment to their choices as you claim for yourself, and yet come to quite different decisions.
Timbukto: The lens is a wash, its weaker at 24mm, but it delivers sharp results at 85 and 100 which the Sony doesn't do. And the Sony at 70mm is nothing to write home about. So basically you lose out on some 24mm performance, and gain some sharper telephoto lengths. You can use the telephoto for a wide variety of purposes including portrait focal lengths or general purpose travel telephoto. It's not a Sony dominatino in terms of lens design, its clearly a thought out compromise. And perhaps if you are very lucky in lens lottery the compromise at 24mm might not be so bad depending on what you end up with.
IMO review narrative is biased...'sometimes' even beating the Sony at telephoto? Just look at the crops...Canon beats Sony at the telephoto length just as handily as the Sony beats the Canon at 24mm.
Again, it depends on one's priorities. What put me off the RX100 upgrades was the fact the lens doesn't even extend to a decent traditional "portrait" focal length. But then the fans will say: "well you can crop". These discussions always end up about shifting goalposts.
Here's an F8 sample, slightly zoomed in because I wanted to have clear building details at edge of pictures.
For a compact I am not complaining.
Fair enough,, but I think you missed my point..
AEY: If it's canon, no one complained about battery life (210). For Sony "Battery life suck" ha ha.
Most users disagree.
I carry one spare battery. I've never changed it during a day's shooting yet. But I don't keep the camera on standby all day.
MistyB: Though I've owned Sonys and Nikons in the past, I currently have a Canon 70D and a handful of lenses, and a G1X Mk II — which I've used more often since having hip replacement surgery. Still, when I first handled the G5X, I knew this was going to be my next camera. Bought it, and after a little use, decided to put the G1X up for sale.
Sure, I wish it had the JPEG quality of the Panasonic, but I rarely print out shots bigger than a postcard anymore, so for sharing shots by computer, I don't need to pixel peep. Besides, I have Photoshop, plug-ins up the wazoo, and plenty of time to play around with the shots to bring out their potential.
And the ergonomics, tilt-swivel touch screen, and view finder are so good, that this camera just brings back the fun to casual street shooting or even dimly lit night scenes. Not planning on turning pro, so at my age, this might be just the right travel camera to convince me to give up all that DSLR glass as well. No buyer's remorse here.
I'm with you. For stills shooting I own full size DSLRs. Olympus Em1 and Em5 and Panasonic in the M43 range, and a variety of compact cameras, including Sony and Fuji, for everyday carrying around. In the compact range, I very much prefer using the G1X MkII and the G5X right now.
One expects better battery life on a large camera like the A7RIII than on a compact of whatever brand. And I actually LIKE the A7RII and A7S II in many respects.
I would return it if I didn't like it. I do. And it isn't the only brand of compact I own either.
Regarding your "cons", my G5X does not shoot 24P, but it does shoot 25P full HD.
If this is the issue, buy the European version. (Or maybe install European firmware, if this works.)
nekrosoft13: nice camera, but compared to RX100IV, it far far behind. Canon step up for game or go join Kodak and Polaroid.
I own both this and the RX100 MkII . I have no desire to "upgrade" to the crippled lens on the later RX100s and in fact my RX100 II spends most of its time on the shelf