forpetessake: "24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens"
When manufacturers lie it's call an advertisement. But of all sites DPR should know better than repeating the lies and leading the ignorant readers astray. The lens is 12.5-62.5mm F2.0-3.9, not the stated equivalent. The FF equivalent lens would be 24-120mm F3.8-7.5 -- a big difference.
IGNORANT READERS NEED NOT TO REPLY.
@howardroark: Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture. I think we can agree on that.
Equally, equivalent focal length is equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture is equivalent aperture.
forpetesake is simply pointing out that you have to be careful when mixing them (as is often done).
Both sets of information tell you something useful. Equivalent focal length tells you something about angle-of-view in a way that's easier to interpret than actual focal length, since it takes into effect the sensor size.
Equivalent aperture does exactly the same thing - allows like-for-like comparisons across sensor sizes (something that's particularly valuable in this sector of the market, where multiple sizes are used). It tells you about depth-of-field *and* useful things about how much light is coming through the lens. It doesn't tell you the *same* thing as the f/ number, but that just means it's important to be specific about which terms are being used.
JackM: So shoot RAW to the right and recover highlights in post??
You've failed to show anything dubious about the methodology.
This is a fair, side-by-side demonstration of the differences in recoverability for ETTR Raw shooting. The point is that the RX100 II does at least as well as the G1 X II, when you wouldn't expect that to be the case. It's a key point to understanding the ways the G1 X II is and isn't better than its closest rival.
The difference it shows is not the *sole* differentiator between the cameras (nor do we frame it as such), but it is a practical and realistic demonstration that the G1 X II doesn't offer all the advantages that the specifications sheet suggests it might. We also point out the shallow-depth-of-field benefit it does offer, for instance.
Our job is to provide relevant information to help people make informed decisions. I believe this piece of information contributes towards that.
@forpetessake - it's not weaselling out, it's a standard, accepted and accurate way of describing such things.
The second example you give is incorrect and I'll change it.
@ Since the ISO standard and camera's metering are based on JPEGs, with all the intermediate steps you mention, the demonstration (not test), is an attempt to simulate plausible real-world usage.
Oddly enough, we're not completely unaware of the points you raise. We are developing a more comprehensive, repeatable *test*, but this isn't it.
As it turns out, examining the Raw files, the differences between the two cameras is extremely subtle but if anything show the Canon has placed the values at higher Raw values - it's *more* exposed to the right than the Sony.
If we'd said it was a 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 equivalent lens, then that would risk being misleading (though most people would understand)
What we wrote is that it's a 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9, which is both correct and **an absolutely standard way of describing a lens, used by almost everybody**.
It is a 24-120mm equivalent lens. It is an F2.0-3.9 lens.
You can argue it isn't a 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 equivalent lens, but that isn't what we've written.
@howardroark - the two cameras were brightness matched (based on JPEGs). Comparing similar positions (Brightest cloud, Space Needle and mid grey patch) in the images gives the following luminance values in the uncorrected JPEGs:
Canon (86, 52, 1), Sony (87, 52, 1)
The exposure is that dark because it had been sunnier when we first set the shot up, but they weren't so well aligned.
And yes, ~4EV is a big push (though there are times you'd want to do that), but the point is that the noise is there with a smaller push, we've just brought it up to a level that's more visible.
I do not believe our test varies particularly from common real-world usage. And I struggle to see the ways in which the G1 X II *still looks better*.
Betico: I'm happy to read the Jeff's reviews. He writes clear and to the point. I miss his comments about the battery door on his DPreview reviews. On his former website he never missed a comment regarding the bottom of the camera. His comments about the battery doors were very helpful. I guess DPreview does not allow him to write these comments now.
I'll look forward to it, Jeff.
quiquae: "The G1 X II's noise performance is likely to be down to its use of the Digic 6 processor that brought fairly strong noise reduction to the EOS 5D Mark III."
Since when did 5D3 start using DIGIC 6?
My fault. I lost track of my Digics.
camerosity: Really, dpreview?? You completely ignore the Nikon 1 V3, released BEFORE this thing, and you review the Canon first?
How much is Canon been paying you?
Canon G1X et al is a fixed zoom point and shoot. Yawn.
Nikon 1 V3 is a mirrorless SLR camera with adapters for nearly every lens mount out there...
And you ignore it.
Full marks for managing to jump to so many conclusions, based on so little evidence. Zero marks for the accuracy of those conclusions.
We haven't yet received a production Nikon V3 - it's expected later this week.
I'm sure he'll appreciate your comment (he's not in the office at the moment).
I'll see if we can relax our vigorous anti-battery-door-discussion restrictions, in future.
mamiller: Interesting camera and review. I'm surprised the camera received a "Silver" award when the conclusion gives it generally average marks and identifies some major shortcomings.
Jeff, some edits for you:
In the opening paragraph, you write: "The result was one of the first semi-pocketable cameras to offering image quality that rivaled that of interchangeable lens cameras." S/b "to offer."
In the conclusion summary, you write: "It's well-built body offers three dials, and numerous controls can be customized." S/b "Its" (not it is).
Both those should now be fixed - thanks for pointing them out.
In terms of the award, the G1 X II is a really good camera. The downsides to it are enough to stop it getting our top award but they're mainly disappointments that it doesn't live up to its full potential. It still offers a combination of large sensor and really good lens, even if that sensor isn't good enough to let it crush all its rivals. There's essentially no comparably-sized camera that can match it for depth-of-field control, for instance.
Jay Williams: What's a 1.5"-type sensor? That's a bizarre bit of writing.
Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the review.
@Jay Williams - it's a terrible naming system. But until anyone comes up with a better one, it's what we're stuck with.
Retzius: So this camera is $800 and the viewfinder is $300 and the lens hood is $30.
I am left with a $1130 point and shoot with a small sensor thats still not pocketable.
Or I could get a Canon SL1 for $450 and the 40mm f2.8 for $150.
I now have a $600 interchange lens SLR with a built in viewfinder, large sensor, the ability to change lenses and its still not pocketable but it is small.
And guess what? The SL1 with lens weighs LESS at 500g than the point and shoot at 530g.
And how small is that combination when you put a 24-120mm equivalent, F2.4-4.7 lens on it?
deep7: This extreme shadow noise test, especially compared to the Sony RX100, seems bizarre. If you have to pull your shadows by four stops, you've basically stuffed up your exposure! The bridge example, in particular, is totally unrealistic. I have the original G1X and have never, ever seen this sort of noisy shadow effect, even though the exposure compensation dial lives in the negative region (Canon really want you to overexpose every photo, for some reason).
Highlight recovery with the original G1X is pretty useful too, as it works very well on blues, bringing skies back to life which you were sure were just going to be white or grey. If the two G1X models have the same sensor, dynamic range is not a problem at all.
@deep7 - wanting to include more dynamic range than the manufacturer would include in a JPEG doesn't suggest you've stuffed up your exposure at all - it suggests you've exposed to protect highlights in a moderate to high contrast situation and want to make a nicely balanced image.
Ultimately that's what the camera's DR modes are attempting to do (effectively reducing exposure by 1 or 2EV, then pulling the shadows back up). The problems being that the G1 X II's noise floor is already within the range it's trying to incorporate in its JPEGs, so the DR modes exaggerate that.
Retzius: This camera just looks and feels so retro, and not in a good way...
The trend clearly shows that the small point and shoot is dying because of the camera phone. Why Canon would think the even larger, bulkier, and harder to carry LARGE point and shoot (which btw in Canon's world cost as much as a interchangeable lens mirrorless camera with better performance) would still be a desirable camera is beyond me.
Fair point. Who would want a camera with most of the features and capabilities of a Canon Rebel (the world's best-selling DSLRs), in a smaller package with a brighter, rangier lens for less money?
Photato: I don't know why people keep comparing this Canon to the Sony RX100. Different sensor size, different overall size and different zoom range.When compared to ILC cameras, then this Canon G1XII is not so impressive.For the same money people can get a much better package getting a Sony A6000, is like.... no comparison.I don't know what was Canon thinking by intentionally crippling this camera in features that wouldn't cost anything to implement, my ancient Canon Pro1 has features this camera doesn't have and lets not get started comparing it to what a smartphone can do these days.Unless Canon is happy to charge much less of the suggested price is my guess, but I don't see this camera selling well.Another camera for the landfill in a few years.Sony A6000 is much more interesting option for about the same price.
The a6000 is considerably larger, even with the slower and less rangy 16-50mm lens.
Although the G1X II and RX100 II have different sensor sizes, they're both trying to address a similar need: the high-end all-in-one zoom compact.
In principle, the Canon should beat the RX100 II hands-down in terms of image quality (since the trade off you're making is a larger, slightly more expensive camera, to gain the larger sensor). However, the fact that the sensor isn't significantly better than the Sony's, despite being twice the size, means that you don't get the full benefit of that trade-off. Which is a useful piece of information for anyone looking for such a camera.
(unknown member): Finally! Put the arguments to rest!Dynamic range improved matching the D800 range but favoring shadows, exceeding RX100II by a good margin. I don't get the whole shadow noise thing, since cranking up the shadows that high is naturally going to greatly exaggerate the noise....this is why we're supposed to expose to the right, right? And you don't think Sony processes its RAW files to reduce noise? Once again, Sony's fatal flaw is that it's a Sony.Anyway, thanks for the review, guys and gals.
We're working on a test to show Raw DR. For now its effect demonstrated on the image quality page.
We should make clearer in this review that the dynamic range shown is the JPEG dynamic range and tonal response.
The *tone curve* of the G1 X II's JPEGs incorporates the same tonal range as the D800 - that's not to say the two cameras have the same dynamic range. This is a decision the manufacturers make about how punchy they want to make their JPEGs look.
The D800 (and RX100 II for that matter), are capturing data well below what is incorporated in the JPEGs. This means there's much more latitude for processing, if you want to incorporate more tonal range into your images.
The G1 X II's noise floor is around the point that the JPEGs reach near black, on most other modern cameras, there's more (often much more) information to be had, if you need it.
The effect of this becomes even more apparent if you turn the DR modes on (*essentially* reducing exposure to protect highlights) more noise is brought into the image. Add the shadow adjust feature too and it's then emphasised.
The G1 X II has no DR advantage over the RX100 II.
Zvonimir Tosic: Excellent DPR. Now we have to believe what you thought you believe that you heard during the presentation, an information which cannot be found in the official information.I guess you also believed that Pentax mentioned you, or you thought so, in some unofficial talks over the interrupting phone communication that the AF-C works with the SR on, and you hurried to test it and show to everyone, despite the fact it is nowhere mentioned in the official manuals, and in fact, discouraged.Any chance you have thought you have heard Santa really lives on the North Pole, but you believe you have been misinformed about it by Mr Grinch?
@Zvonimir Tosic. I appreciate you don't like our findings about the K-3's autofocus, however I'm confident that we performed the tests fairly.
You not wanting to believe our findings doesn't suddenly mean that everything written on the site is a result of a misunderstanding or incompetence.
wb2trf: It would be interesting to see if the correction values matched any other commercially available lens, as a kind of fingerprint of another manufacturer's design left inside the lens.
I guess that the other implication is that the camera menus don't give you the choice of turning off lens correction, as, for example Sony does. If that choice were present, then this sleuthing approach to detecting its presence would be unnecessary.
@LeicaBOSS - that's my point - the camera and the company's software don't make the corrections optional (because it would mean throwing away one of the aspects of the lens design). Only third-party s/w lets you do that (or, in some cases, doesn't even interpret the corrections at all).
I was just responding to @wb2trf's statement that Sony let you turn lens corrections off in the camera's menu.