Previous page Next page

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review

May 2014 | By Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShop$749.00


Review based on a production Canon PowerShot G1 X II

One of the most exciting cameras that debuted in 2012 was Canon's PowerShot G1 X. It featured a 1.5" sensor (which is only 20% smaller than APS-C), 28-112mm lens (albeit a moderately slow one), fully articulating LCD, and optical viewfinder (a rarity at the time). The result was one of the first semi-pocketable cameras to offer image quality that rivaled that of interchangeable lens cameras. The G1 X was far from perfect: the lens' maximum aperture range of F2.8-5.8 wasn't great, AF performance and minimum focus distance were disappointing, continuous shooting rates were poor, and battery life was downright lousy.

With the 'Mark II' version of the PowerShot G1 X, Canon has addressed many of the shortcomings of its predecessor. For a start, the G1 X II has a faster lens that covers a wider focal range and can shoot much closer to a subject. It also promises a faster, more sophisticated AF system, improved continuous shooting, dual control dials around the lens, and Wi-Fi with NFC. The LCD has also been redesigned: it now tilts upward 180° and downward 45° - instead of flipping out to the side - and touch functionality has been added, as well. The camera is also significantly smaller than its forebear, now looking more like an over-grown S-series, rather than an out-sized G12. Something that got sacrificed in all this was the optical viewfinder, but fear not, you can buy a tilting XGA EVF for $300.

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II key features

  • 12.8 megapixel 1.5"-type CMOS sensor
  • Digic 6 processor
  • 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens with optical IS
  • Dual (customizable) control rings
  • Tilting 3", 1.04M dot touchscreen LCD
  • 5.2 fps continuous shooting
  • Maintains same angle-of-view at 4:3 and 3:2
  • Wi-Fi with NFC with remote control via smartphone
  • 1080/30p video recording
  • Optional XGA electronic viewfinder

The big story remains the G1 X II's 1.5"-type sensor which is around 5.6 times larger than the one found in Canon's own PowerShot G16. The result is still a fair bit smaller than the APS-C-sized sensors used in Canon's DSLRs, but then the camera is quite a bit smaller, too. It's interesting to compare the EOS-M, which is similar in body size, to the G1 X II: the built-in lens and smaller sensor allow the PowerShot to remain much smaller than the 'M' would be, were there an equivalent lens available.

While the total pixel count of 15 million is the same as on the G1 X, the G1 X Mark II only uses around 13 million (versus 14.3).

The G1 X Mark II's pixel dimensions show that it's cropping from a sensor that's larger than the imaging area, allowing it to offer the same angle-of-view for both the 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratios - something that the original G1 X could not do.

The 18.7 x 12.4 mm sensor size that Canon has been quoting appears to refer to the 3:2 crop area - the sensor itself is the same size as the one in the original G1 X. To find out more, read our original first look article.

Another significant change on the G1 X II is in the lens department. Gone is the comparatively slow 28-112 equiv. F2.8-5.8 lens on the G1 X - replaced by a much more appealing 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens. The use of a smaller sensor area means these numbers aren't directly comparable, but the new lens is certainly brighter. Where the minimum focus distance on the G1 X was an unhelpful 20cm (and 40cm in most modes), the new lens can be just 5cm away from its subject. Canon has also improved the autofocus system, and claims that the G1 X has the 'the fastest in Canon compact camera history.'

The combination of the camera's fast lens and 1.5" sensor pays big dividends, as illustrated below:

The above chart shows the changes in 35mm equivalent aperture as the equivalent focal length increases. This chart allows you to see the effect of the different aperture and lens ranges, taking into account the different sensor sizes. The G1 X II starts off very well, and bumps into three other cameras (the original G1 X, Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II, and Canon Rebel with kit lens) at 28mm. That doesn't last long, as the G1 X quickly pulls away from all but the Rebel until you reach 50mm, at which point the G1 X Mark II is in a class by itself.

So what does this all mean? Simply put, it means that the G1 X II allows for shallower depth-of-field than the cameras that are 'above it' on the chart. One could also make the assumption that the G1 X Mark II has the potential for better low light performance than the other cameras shown.

Getting back to new features: the LCD has been redesigned and can flip up by 180 degrees (you know, for selfies) and down by 45 degrees. It's also touch-enabled, which allows for all of the controls that you'd expect from such a feature. However, this is a step backwards from the hinged, fully articulated screen on the original G1 X, that made it much more flexible.

While the optical viewfinder from the G1 X is gone (and to be honest, it wasn't very good), Canon offers an XGA (1024 x768 pixel) EVF that attaches to a special connector on the hot shoe and can tilt upward 90 degrees. The bad news is that the EVF costs $300.

One final feature of note shouldn't be surprising in this day and age, and that's Wi-Fi. You can control the camera remotely and send photos to social networking sites, cloud storage, or a computer. NFC (near-field communication) is also supported, which allows you to pair the camera with compatible smartphones by tapping them together.

Specs Compared

As you've probably gathered by now, there are quite a few differences between the G1 X Mark II and its predecessor. The chart below lists the more significant ones:

  PowerShot G1 X PowerShot G1 X Mark II
Effective resolution 14.3 megapixel 12.8 megapixel
Processor Digic 5 Digic 6
Multi-aspect No Yes (3:2, 4:3)
Lens focal range 28-112mm equiv. 24-120mm equiv.
Lens maximum aperture F2.8-5.8 F2.0-3.9
Minimum focus distance (Normal mode) 40cm (W), 1.3m (T) 5cm (W), 40cm (T)
Minimum focus distance (Macro mode) 20cm (W), 85cm (T) 5cm (W), 40cm (T)
Control rings None (front control dial) 2
LCD design Fully articulating Tilting (180 up/45 down)
Touchscreen No Yes
Viewfinder Optical No (optional EVF)
Continuous shooting 2 fps 5 fps
Max video resolution 1080/24p 1080/30p
Wi-Fi No Yes (with NFC)
Battery life (CIPA) 250 shots 240 shots

With the exception of battery life and degree of LCD movement (and, for some people, the optical viewfinder), the G1 X II has much more impressive specs than its predecessor. You can see the cosmetic changes on the Body & Design page.

Accessories

There's no shortage of extras available for the G1 X Mark II. The most notable are the electronic viewfinder and custom grip.

The EVF-DC1 ($299) is an XGA electronic viewfinder with 2.36 million dots (a 1024x 768 pixel display). As shown above, the viewfinder can tilt upward by 90 degrees. It has a built-in eye sensor, or you can turn it on via the button on its left side. While the resolution of the viewfinder is quite high, the refresh rate isn't nearly as nice as the main LCD.

There will be some people who decry the loss of the G1 X's built-in viewfinder but, given how small and imprecise it was, we feel the option to include of a considerably better finder (or not, if you don't want to spend the extra), is a reasonable alternative. It does, of course, mean that you need to spend more money to get a camera with a viewfinder, but that effective price increase over the G1 X also gains the faster, more versatile lens, smaller form factor and all the camera's other improvements.

Standard grip Custom grip

Those with large hands may find the G1 X Mark II's grip a bit lacking. Canon offers the GR-DC1A custom grip ($29), which is more substantial. Switching the grip out just involves removing a pair of screws, swapping the pieces, and then screwing the new one back in.

Other accessories include an underwater housing (WP-DC53), 58mm filter adapter (FA-DC58E), lens hood (LH-DC80), and remote shutter release (RS-60E3).


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
90
I own it
227
I want it
41
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 660
1234
KZMike
By KZMike (3 days ago)

Canon hit a single with this offering. . . they could have hit a GRAND Slam [Go Mariners], if they had put together a package like the Lumix FZ1000 or Sony's RX10 with their !.5" sensor.

Sony and Panasonic put 1" sensors in their offering but with Canon's larger sensor [larger than a 4/3" sensor] one would think it would/could be the clear the WINNER!

As usual, Canon seems to be taking the 'easy route' to being routine. . .

0 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (3 days ago)

I plan on purchasing the FZ1000 after it is out a month or two. My 'luck' will likely be that within a week after making the purchase, Canon will have a G2 Z out with the 1.5" sensor. . .

0 upvotes
Nomorefilmman
By Nomorefilmman (3 weeks ago)

Interestingly, the October, 2014 issue of Consumer Reports Magazine just rated the G1X Mark II as "Our best-scoring camera ever", where it compared 16 Point-and -Shoot cameras for Image Quality, Flash Photos, Video Quality, LCD Quality, and their Viewfinder, after taking the average of scores for each category. Optional Viewfinders were not mentioned in the article.

They state that in THEIR past camera tests, the G1X "is the first to earn an Excellent score for overall image quality as well as flash photos and video", "an achievement unmatched by any SLR or mirrorless SLR-like" (in THEIR past camera tests).

THE ARTICLE DOES STATE, HOWEVER, "That doesn't mean the G1X is the perfect choice for all shooting situations". They mention several "quibbles" with it, and that consumers may have preferences for an SLR, interchangeable lens feature, a superslim camera, or waterproof camera.

So I guess it gets back to what is important to me, with the tests being simply reference info.

0 upvotes
Framer
By Framer (1 month ago)

It took me all of nine captures to quickly discover that the IQ still looks as though it's coming from a P&S. Kind of surprising considering the larger sensor...

C'est la vie!

1 upvote
Jostian
By Jostian (1 month ago)

if one compares the IQ against the Sony A6000, obviously the A6000 has the edge but whats interesting is that (assuming the A6000 is tested by DPReview using the 16 50 PZ lens which is far from great) is that the corners of the Mark II photos (even at 100 iso) are very soft in the corners compared to the 1650PZ lens which is very poorly rated for corner sharpness... so how bad is the G1X MkII lens then if its corners are far worse than the crappy 1650 PZ lens from the Sony A6000?? I am really keen on the MkII but have seen reviews moaning about the soft edges (at any FL) which is worrying...

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

Kai doesn't seem to like this camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG3NlqwKCFI

I definitely agree with him regarding the annoying placement of the rarely used wifi button. hope it can be reprogrammed to do something else.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

this guy sums it up quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68hQd7GPDM

1 upvote
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Does anyone know if G1 X Mark II have a (3nd party) add-on wide angle lens attachment?

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

you can get those on amazon and ebay. I wouldn't go for that due to IQ degradation... but if you must, just get the filter adapter that Canon sells, or make one yourself and glue it on (by knocking out the lens from a UV filter) and buy the batching wide-angle adapter.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

I'm trying to find out if G1 X Mark II has adapter plus wide converter lens (for replacing my Pana LX7).

Right now, my Pana LX7 uses "KiWi LA-52LX7 BP211 Mounting tube" plus Pana DMW - LWA 52 wide converter lens.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
igor73
By igor73 (1 month ago)

G1X Mark II has a very bad internal microphone that records a lot of audio noise even in an absolutely silent room. Initially I though that my camera is broken. I could not imagine that Canon put a crappy microphone on 800$ camera with no external microphone connector. But one can hear this noise even on sample videos at Canon's website, http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/powershot_g1x_mark_ii/ . In Morocco video the noise comes from the camera itself, not from background or wind.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

Can any MFT package rival this in size?
I mean, with a pancake zoom lens, a good one?

I figure that with all the criticism about the sensor, and if I am willing to accept this size for a "pocketable" camera (with larger sensor than RX100iii), could I also be served with an MFT instead?

Does anyone know, off the top of their head, a zoom lens that collapses to pancake size on power off, that is as bright as this one? (maybe f1.7 or so when thinking of equivalencies).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (1 month ago)

The Panasonic GM1 is smaller than this Canon and comes with a nice little 24-64mm equivalent pancake zoom lens. This lens, however, is only of the standard 3.5-5.6 aperture range. You can use the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (90mm eq.) for a bit more range and great portraits.

The GM1 has gotten a very good review on this site and others. However, to get a zoom lens with a brightness that begins to approach the Canon you'd need to move up to the much more expensive 12-35mm f/2.8 from Panasonic or 12-40mm f/2.8 from Olympus. These are a stop slower at the wide angle, but a stop brighter at the tele end. They are also much more bulky and might fit better with a somewhat bigger m43 camera.

The GM1 with some bright pancakes will be very able and compact, but loses some convenience due to lens swapping. I guess the kitlens plus Olympus 45mm f/1.8 make a good travel package for city, landscapes, portraits, museum etc.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

hmm, ok, thanks very much for the complete info.
I bicycle and skateboard, and really seek something to take long that isn't too bulky, but takes really good pics, and without me needing to carry and swap lenses.

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (1 month ago)

Why don't you go for the RX100 series from Sony then? They're way more compact than either the G1X mkII or any ILC, and still offer very good IQ...

1 upvote
shutterbud
By shutterbud (2 months ago)

I think many non FF hobbyists must be discounting Canon from their decision-making process by now. Canon's sensor technology is becoming an embarrasment. This is a real shame, since it seems to be the only significant weakness. But you would not buy a film camera that cold only take crappy film, would you?
Get it together Canon. You don't want to be the next Kodak, do you?

4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

is it really THAT bad?
I mean, not so long ago, all the Canonites were lauding the sensors as being better. I'm confused.

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (1 month ago)

Of course it's not that bad. I had a big print-up last week of various photos from the last year or so and many of the best were from the original G1X (near enough the same sensor). It's an excellent sensor, though only if you shoot RAW and process with Lightroom or Capture One. Canon processing tends to lose highlights and compress heavily, which I suspect leads to some of the criticism.

Yeah, sure, Brand X has more shadow detail and Brand Y has better highlights etc. etc. but, in the real world, the Canon sensor is more than adequate to produced brilliant photographs in a huge range of conditions. The difference these days just isn't as much as fanatics will lead you to believe!

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

I find the lower res kind of old-school and I actually like it, for the larger photosites, which in theory should reduce noise and help better pick up DR. But if it doesn't actually perform better than the rx100iii, for the same price, why bother?

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (1 month ago)

I keep reading that but never see it. As far as I can see, the rx100 does highlights badly and gets noisy quickly but I've never played with the RAW files so don't know for sure what it's potential is. From owning a G1X and downloading and scrutinising many RX100/II photos, I would not consider the RX100 for its image quality compared to a G1X, but might if I was comparing to even smaller cameras.

The resolution difference pretty much doesn't exist in the real world, but the file size difference sure does! For A2 prints, the G1X resolution involves no compromise whatsoever.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

Compact, good lens, sensor larger than mft... this can replace my APS camera!

Unfortunately, just no HDR or panorama (although we have software to piece that together on the computer instead of in-camera) - but I don't use those very often anyways. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

If I owned this, I think practicality would have me reaching for this far more often when I step out than any other camera.

1 upvote
wolfie
By wolfie (2 months ago)

Before slagging MFT, check the studio scene for the MKII against any 16mp PEN at 1600 or 3200 ISO - Canon is totally blown away.
Pity as the lens spec is exactly what I'd want but the sensor performance is not even state of art.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

yeah, I think that was mentioned somewhere, that the sensor is "old" tech. I guess it would be naive to expect Canon to introduce a product that would cannibalize their lucrative DSLR sales.
this is probably their loss-leader to get you behind a canon label, hoping you'll stick with the family when you upgrade.
I still think this is an aswesome camera to have in your pocket - when I think of all the times I debate whether I bring along my NX20 or not - this thing is easily packaged.

1 upvote
seans1969
By seans1969 (2 months ago)

I own the Mark II and also own a Panasonic GF1 which must be going on five years old. I always shoot RAW on both cameras but find I can push the GF1 files far more in post than the G1x Mark II files. So in my opinion the sensor in the GF1 is superior. I think the sensor in this camera is the only thing that lets it down and the extremely slow continuous shooting speed when shooting RAW, only about 1 fps. But that being said I still don't regret buying the mark II.

My five cents worth.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

thank you Sean, for the good, and honest, insight.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

I guess there is no HDR/Bracketing?

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

oh wait... on page 4 (controls) it says that in the Func menu bracketing is available. funky!

specs page needs to have that added.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

@DPR: in the comparison chart, why is the rx100iii not in there, instead of the outdated rx100ii, when the information is available elsewhere on the DPR website? perhaps you could correct that?

1 upvote
seans1969
By seans1969 (2 months ago)

I think because the rx100 III was reviewed after the G1X Mark II. If you look at the comparison charts in the rx100 III review the Mark II is on them.

0 upvotes
KenFL74
By KenFL74 (2 months ago)

Can this camera be operated with a wall charger? I want to use it for longer timelapses. I need it to be operating form a wall charger so I do not have to worry about battery dying in longer taking projects.

0 upvotes
Antony Dean
By Antony Dean (2 months ago)

FWIW, my Mk1 has that little spring loaded cover that allows operation off external power with a special fake battery. I noticed it just the other day. It's on the side of the camera so would be visible on product shots if Mk2 has it in the same place. G7 and G10 have one too, so I don't know why it surprised me.

0 upvotes
Jeff73
By Jeff73 (2 months ago)

I have two weeks to make a decision on a new camera. For both budget and mobility reasons I am not interested in DSLR or mirrorless. At this point, it is down to the difference between Canon G1X Mark II versus the Sony RX100 III. Based on reviews and comments, the choice seemed easy: the Sony RX 100 III. I finally looked at the side-by-side studio comparison, however, and I’m surprised to see the Canon seemly doing better (except for moire effects). My interest is mostly architectural photography, with some street, landscape, and sports mixed in. I’m not a portrait or macro guy. I like a clean intuitive interface. Any feedback out there?

0 upvotes
seans1969
By seans1969 (2 months ago)

I would go to your local camera store and compare the two side by side and take a few test shots with each before making your decision, I found the Rx100 Mark 3 a bit small and fiddley for my big hands, your experience might be different.

I'm assuming you live somewhere with a camera store locally.

0 upvotes
IvanM
By IvanM (2 months ago)

If I look at he Raw comparisons the Canon files look sharper overall than the Sony...but the extra pixels may negate the sharper look of the Canon files when compared at the same size. At higher iso's the Canon files clearly have less noise and look quite good in comparison. Still, the Sony sensor is really good when one takes into account that its a high megapixel sensor and only 1inch in size...But the Canon sensor just looks better all round even with less pixels...bigger is still better methinks...Makes one wonder how much better this Canon is than what this review makes it out to be...DP Review was quite disappointed by the 6D and yet in practice its a really good camera at a very good price....

2 upvotes
Fr3lncr
By Fr3lncr (3 months ago)

With all the praise going to the Sony RX100 MKIII, I was surprised at how much better the images were for the Canon in the studio samples.

In RAW, the Canon has sharper images and less noise at every ISO settings. And, while it is a personal preference, I prefer the Canon colours (as many others seem to as well).

In JPG, the sharpness seems to be better for the Sony whereas noise and colours are still better on the Canon.

Since I shoot in RAW, and you get an extra 50mm in the lens, and because I can pick up the G1X MKII for $130 less than the Sony right now... I can't really think of a good reason not to get the Canon over the Sony. (I don't shoot video so that isn't important to me). Guess I should try them both out first before deciding but it looks like the Canon will be my next camera.

5 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (3 months ago)

G1X MKII's sensor has almost the same size as M43, but its performance is MUCH WORSE than a 2 years old Olympus $300 E-PM2 for example.

Canon has largest market share than any of the other names, but the G1X MKII is just as bad as EOS-M...

G1X M3 may be better, otherwise, waiting for G1X M4...

BTW: It is very good on paper, SPEC wise...

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (3 months ago)

Canon must improve the products by releasing new firmware and apps. It is possible and not difficult. Easier WiFi also a must now.
Keep improving the product

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (3 months ago)

Samsung:
Galaxy Camera 2* (Zoom): 4.1mm-86.1mm Zoom Lens (WiFi only)
Max.Ap.Diam: 1.5mm (4.1/2.8) Wide
Max.Ap.Diam: 14.6mm (86.1/5.9) Tele
Horiz.AoV: 73.92° Wide
Horiz.AoV: 4.10° Tele

*older 4G/3G versions are Smartphones

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (3 months ago)

Samsung:
Galaxy K (S5) Zoom: 4.4mm-44mm Zoom Lens (WiFi Smartphone)
Max.Ap.Diam: 1.4mm (4.4/3.1) Wide
Max.Ap.Diam: 7.0mm (44/6.3) Tele
Horiz.AoV: 70.07° Wide
Horiz.AoV: 8.02° Tele

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (3 months ago)

Canon:
G1XMkII 12.5mm-62.5mm Zoom Lens
Max.Ap.Diam: 6.2mm (12.5/2.0) Wide
Max.Ap.Diam: 16.0mm (62.5/3.9) Tele
Horiz.AoV: 73.59° Wide
Horiz.AoV: 17.02° Tele

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (3 months ago)

Does any body know if Canon will release a wide angle lens converter for the G1X-M2?

Or is there any kind of 3nd party wide angle lens converter available?

1 upvote
Mike FL
By Mike FL (3 months ago)

G1 X M3 may have better low-light performance, or better to RE-INTRODUCE G1 X M1's fully articulating LCD + build-in EVF.

0 upvotes
Antony Dean
By Antony Dean (3 months ago)

I got the Mk1 G1X the day it came out (broke my G7, had been looking at the G1X and Nikon 1 variants anyway). Quick count... 24k shots and 276GB later (videos, not raws) I have few regrets - I'm going to sound like an emotive (or worse) type when I say all the technical details I don't really care about any more, and that carries on to the G1X Mk2. I used to worry a lot about corner sharpness, aperture, NR, integer ratio scaling, readout noise and on and on (and that worked out well when choosing a small sensor camera like the G7). But for anything that can take shots handheld in the full moon, the tech specs start to matter less. The main regret I do have though, is that the G1X is SLOOOOW. Painfully, frustratingly slow. Not the AF speed, or burst speed or anything, which is all fine for a P&S - but driving the thing through menus - shoot, review, quickly change something, try to get it back to "seeing" again, and so on. I've lost far too many good opportunities for shots that way.

4 upvotes
Nomorefilmman
By Nomorefilmman (3 months ago)

I've shot well over a thousand images with my Canon G1X, and compared to my Nikon SLR, the menu system seemed easier with Canon's, for me, anyway, after I purchased David D. Busch's guide: Canon Powershot G1X.

The manual helped me be aware of and understand all the various menu paths, so when I had to make a shooting change quickly, I kind of knew in my mind the choices I had without searching, and I was able to change quickly.

Before purchasing and studying the guide, the numerous choices seemed overwhelming, but once I understood the menu structures, I was able to use the menus quickly pretty much from memory.

Hope that helps.

0 upvotes
Antony Dean
By Antony Dean (3 months ago)

Yes I've noticed a similar thing after RT(F)M-ing - eg using custom settings can save MF setting and even zoom (on many G series at least). Shortcut buttons can be set (my pref is AFL on "S" button to get around movie focus hunting). There's a lot to discover (and I admit I probably haven't found it all).

But that's definitely not my complaint. It relates purely to the SPEED of operation, not the menu structure (which I find pleasingly similar going back to my IXUS330). I got the fastest SD card I could, but no reduction of "BUSY" (one of many things). It seems there's always some laggey thing happening on screen, and if you press a button during that, it gets ignored. Or press the shutter button to get it to respond, then 2 or 3 seconds later "beep" and it takes a shot and then gets stuck in that cycle...

Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice camera, beats my dSLR in IQ, about as compact front-back as any large sensor zoom camera can be, but I personally find it SLOW (er than a G7).

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (3 months ago)

I have the Busch book (the G1X doesn't even come with a printed manual; Canon must have been copying Apple). Even with Busch's tips, I find the G1X very slow. The image quality is on an SLR level, the sensor is big enough so you can crop if you need closeups, the viewfinder can be ignored but there's no denying it's slow enough to be writing one pixel at a time. I learned to live with the G1X for the images it produces. Except for the image quality, the Sonys are superior in every way.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Nomorefilmman
By Nomorefilmman (3 months ago)

I agree with AbrasiveReducer regarding the way G1X responds; for me, image quality is number 1 above all else. My G1X's images are of amazingly high quality for me, for the compact that it is.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (3 months ago)

Actually, one would expect that, given the advantage of using a sensor that is 201% the size of the RX100, the G1X mk2 would be 1EV better in regards to SNR. The results of the comparison tool do not bear this out though. If you set the G1X mk2 to ISO3200 and compare it to the RX100 mk3 at ISO1600 (1EV difference), the RX100 mk3 looks better. So while the sensor is larger, the advantage is smaller than if the two sensors had similar technology/efficiency. This is a result of Canon not spending any apparent effort to match other sensor manufacturers' sensor efficiency. This is apparent even when comparing JPEGs, despite the fact that the Sony JPEG NR engine is among the worst available.

0 upvotes
Nomorefilmman
By Nomorefilmman (3 months ago)

What I was trying to say is that regardless of the technical factors, and considering all the different type photos one would take with a camera, the Sony rx100 III test images just don't look great to me, when I compare to the Canon G1x and G1x II test images.

So in my case, image quality is number one, and I would easily choose the Canon G1x II over the Sony rx100 III.

1 upvote
Nomorefilmman
By Nomorefilmman (3 months ago)

I examined the dpreview sample images of the Canon g1x and g1x mark II, and compared them to the dpreview Sony rx100 Mark III sample images.

The Sony images are not as good as the Canon images in brightness, color, and contrast, it seems to me. They seem rather flat and lifeless to me in comparison.

I own the Canon g1x and have shot well over a thousand images of events and travel; the dpreview sample images are exactly what my images look like.

So if the Sony test images are representative of users' experiences, I myself would be thinking about the next Sony revision, if that type of smaller pocket fitting compact camera were of interest to me.

If good image quality is the objective along with reasonable compactness, I would go for the Canon g1x mark II; right now I'm quite happy with the older g1x, and would buy the mark II if I find that I really could use the mark II faster lens and new viewfinder.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (3 months ago)

I think exactly the same (apart from the fact that this "extra" size in front of RX100 series makes G1X Mk2 much more fun to use when talking about manual controls).

Mine is already ordered since 2 weeks ago and willing to receive it ASAP, as I sold my G1X Mk1 before ordering Mk2.

0 upvotes
Hinder
By Hinder (4 months ago)

I don't care for small cameras like the sosony. I don't care what features it has. I have an iPhone if I need small. Who carries a camera in their pocket anyway? My phone is smaller than the rx100 so that makes it better.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ken Heid
By Ken Heid (4 months ago)

I see a lot of post comparing the G1X to the Sony RX100 M2.

I wonder how many of them actually used both of them.

I used to be a Canon only person. I had the G1X
I picked up an RX 100 M2. I was totally impressed.

The Canon G series had only one advantage to me over the others in their class. That was the built-in viewfinder.

Now that is gone.

I sold Canon G1X and kept the RX100 M2

The G series are not pocket-able like the RX100's They don't have interchangeable lens. It was a camera that I rarely used.

Now when I am going out, I tend to grab the RX100 M2. The pictures and Videos I get are great.

Like the G1X M2, an optional EVF is available for the RX100 M2. I never got one. It is expensive and changes the camera profile.

I agree that Canon missed the mark with the optional EVF ( $300) for the G1X M2. It failed with the RX100 M2 and it will Fail with the G1x M2.

The future is the pop-up EVF on the RX100 M3.

You can keep the G1XM2. My Rx100 M3 is on pre-order.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (3 months ago)

I have used both. And, having looked at the studio samples, and the new drab outdoor gallery of the RX100 Mk3, I'd have to say you are welcome.

It is interesting how quickly the comments on that camera have gone from enthusiasm and fervor to extreme defensiveness.

Among the comments now are those that say "These pictures should not be considered relevant because ..." and "It is not fair to compare it with the G1 X MkII" because ...

The cold hard light of reality seems to be setting in.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (3 months ago)

I had both the Sonys, mk I and mk II. Loved the handling, the interface, the LCD, everything. Except the image quality, which was better than my LX 5 but nowhere near the G1X. Both Sonys had soft corners at the wide setting, with some corners better/worse than others.

I figured small cameras just weren't there yet and I heard the G1X dynamic range was poor (it is) but since the Sonys didn't cut it, I figured I'd try the G1X. The first images from the G1X were so superior to the Sonys (in detail rendering, not dynamic range) that there was no real comparison. Suddenly, the slow operation and the finder which I never used didn't seem that bad.

1 upvote
arieswar
By arieswar (4 months ago)

if i have to choose between m43 and G1X II, i'll take G1X II. But for now a G15 is good enough for me :)

3 upvotes
Nick Harman
By Nick Harman (4 months ago)

'Two hundred and forty shots isn't going to get most advanced amateurs through a day of shooting.'

If they're so advanced they could try being a bit more selective when to press the button?

Seriously though, spare batteries aren't expensive or a problem to carry. One should always have a spare anyway, it's all too easy to forget to charge up.

5 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist
By pacnwhobbyist (4 months ago)

As much as I love the G1X Mark II, this is one area that Canon made a poor judgement call. If the camera was RX100 size, then I could understand. But since it is larger than that there is no excuse not to have a larger battery. The G16 is about the same size as the G1X Mark II and has a much bigger battery. So why do they give you a big chunky battery on a $450 camera but not on an $800 one? I don't understand the logic there.

1 upvote
meland
By meland (4 months ago)

#pacnwhobbyist

Not sure where you have got some of your information.
The G1XII uses a NB12L Battery with a capacity of 1910m/Ah

The G16 uses a NB10L which has a capacity of 920m/Ah - certainly not larger or of more capacity than the one used in the G1X II

What I suspect might be happening here is the CIPA test method of measuring the number of shots with flash being used 50% of the time. Chances are that many users would not be using flash like this on a G1XII and although the respective Guide Numbers of the flashes are not stated it may be that the flash on the G1XII is more powerful, and therefore consume more power, than on the G16.

0 upvotes
etzhar
By etzhar (4 months ago)

Good point. I have bought this camera and have yet to use the flash! The low light capability is amazing!

1 upvote
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (4 months ago)

This is such bad timing for Canon!!!!

They remove the ONE thing that made the G-Series great: the viewfinder, offering one as an option and having the viewfinder increase the footprint of the camera.

Then they still haven't solved the issue of shutter lag.

Sony 100-III anyone?????

2 upvotes
meland
By meland (4 months ago)

Is the shutter lag any worse than on the Sony?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

There was no awful shutter lag on the example I tried a few weeks ago. It was good for shutter lag, not a Nikon D3s, of course.

The problems were: the not great optical quality of the lens, and even shooting raw high ISO wasn't great. Not even like a decent 2012 APSC sensored camera shooting at ISO3200 and above.

Video was nice, build quality is very nice.

Raws extracted in ACR 8.4.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Ken Heid
By Ken Heid (4 months ago)

Totally agree. I doubt very many will get the optional EVF. I never got one for my RX100 M2.

Without the viewfinder the G series lost a lot of appeal.

My Rx100 M3 is on pre-order.

1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (3 months ago)

MarcMedios, I think you should try it for yourself before speaking of shutter lag. Having tried, but not bought, one now, this is one aspect of the DPReview review that completely baffles me.

1 upvote
Jostian
By Jostian (3 months ago)

viewfinder was useless... hated that it was so inaccurate, if they had an integrated evf, great, but the ovf they had was a waste for 95% of the time...

0 upvotes
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (3 months ago)

@MarcLee - it is academic now. I tried the GX1 and found the shutter lag horrible, so I purchased the Fuji X20 which has zero lag and great optics.

0 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (3 months ago)

Ha ha ha. Good luck with that.

1 upvote
sdh
By sdh (4 months ago)

On page 7 in the Raw Improvements section they state that their RAW-processed version of a picture had "less false color" than the corresponding camera jpg. What is "false color"? I've never read that term before.

0 upvotes
Frenske
By Frenske (4 months ago)

So do I get this right. Canon created an amazing camera with a great range of functions, large sensor and an excellent fast lens with a very useful range. Canon has done everything to make this camera one of the hottest cameras on the market potentially selling millions of copies, but then why the **** they put such a mediocre sensor in it. At this price range you would expect something better!!!

5 upvotes
ChrisSwiss
By ChrisSwiss (4 months ago)

Probably because they had no better one at this point? Maybe it's time for them to call Sony...

5 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (4 months ago)

If they do I will quit Canon cameras. Dynamic range issues rarely effect me but I require good colour on every photo. And I do not like Sony's colours or their ARWs.

6 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (4 months ago)

they are reusing the sensor to death....look at the digital artifacts in all pictures......its completely obselete.......canon attempting to sell bad sensors to willing buyers....it's a bloody trap guys

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

What digital artifacts are you talking about? You're seeing things.

3 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (3 months ago)

So did u guys actually buy ur champion G1X mk2?

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Lombard59
By Lombard59 (4 months ago)

I hesitated buying a Sony RX10 or Canon G1X MII. what matters most to me is the noise and image quality. And the G1X MII is behind in both jpeg and raw. Have you seen the Comparometer of dpreview? Is that canon does not win anything about the sony. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony...ot-dsc-rx10/11. The weight is less, though. But then I look at this another widget and confuses me: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...g1-x-mark-ii/9 there is not as clear that the image quality sony. Do you understand? Is not it contradictory a link to the other? Does anyone know who is better at high ISO? eg ISO 1600, ISO 3200 .. Who makes better blurs?
In short, regardless of the sensor size and price What is better, the Sony Rx10 or Canon G1X MII?

1 upvote
rccasgar
By rccasgar (4 months ago)

I was in the same situation and finally ordered a G1X Mk2 (I was owning a G1X Mk1). It is true that maybe RX10 is sharper, but size was important for me (a good size I mean, I don't like RX100 because it's too small for enjoying it, but that's my personal feeling).

I also checked the comparometer in imagingresource.com and the difference there didn't seemed to me as much (as I'm not a PRO), so that was the point when I finally decided to go for the Canon.

And also in imagingresource.com, I checked G1X Mk2 against RX100 Mk2 (which is a very common comparison in DPREVIEW opinions, as in RX100 Mk3 preview) and I would say that I don't see that RX100 Mk2 is better than G1X Mk2... RX10 really is a little bit better on sharpness (due to its nice lens). Again, I'm noPRO.

So in my personal opinion, if comparing 2 cameras in different specialized web pages lead to different conclusions, those cameras are not very far away one from the other, so then I chose the one with the best ergonomics.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
AstroDMan
By AstroDMan (3 months ago)

Check out the studio scene on pg 10 of the Canon G1x Mk ii review, set the images to "print" to normalize them and look at the RAW performance, especially ISO 800 and beyond.

0 upvotes
Boxbrownie
By Boxbrownie (4 months ago)

Its a pity about loosing the optical finder, and a shame Canon could not have put as much effort into developing a more accurate and better OF as they have developing the LCD add-on carbuncle........er......LCD add-on viewfinder.

2 upvotes
CharlesBos
By CharlesBos (4 months ago)

The LCD screen cannot be turned into Black and White Does anyone know if this is possible with the G1X MI, when shooting RAW or JPG+RAW?

1 upvote
NoraK
By NoraK (4 months ago)

RX 100 IIIi is available for preorder. I am enjoying my Marktwo but would like something pocketable too. I have the RX III on my Amazon wish list.

5 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

FWIW: RX 100M3 is already #1 P&S best sellers on Amazon,

Canon G1XMK2 is "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590 in Camera & Photo".

Numbers are talking because people know what are they doing when buying a $800 camera.

8 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (4 months ago)

You are undoubtedly correct. I know when I go to order a product which nobody has used and even the pro-reviewers have yet to actually try out, the pre-order sales rank on Amazon tells the story of what the image quality and my satisfaction with the product will be. </sarcasm>

3 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (4 months ago)

Where do these Amazon sales rank idiots come from? Do they breed?

4 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (4 months ago)

GoPro is the best selling camera on the planet. Obviously there''s no point anyone else putting a lens and sensor together. GoPro must be the best. Except that anyone (like me) who has used a GoPro will tell you it's one of the worst user experiences ever and unless the light is perfect, it is noise city.

3 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

GaryJP and MarcLee;

If the RX100-3 is too expensive for your couple, there are lot of budget cameras to chose.

5 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (4 months ago)

Mike FL, I can't help but feel you are having a problem with certain concepts here. Plenty of money, but no desire for the RX100 Mk3.

For reasons more than adequately explained in many posts.

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

Mike FL, that's funny considering when the RX100 came out and the argument used to sell it was that it was cheaper than the G1 X so who cares if the image quality isn't as good. Smaller! Cheaper! And now the same price and not as good, but smaller!

4 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

@MarcLee (and Gary JP);

Regarding your "...problem with certain concepts here...", you have to buy RX100-3 because it is not only smaller but also cheaper (RX100-3=$798 vs G1X-MK2=$799).

BTW, where is your GaryJP? Forget GaryJP's password to log_on to post Msg?
...

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

Mike, there are people here who value image quality.

4 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (4 months ago)

Mike FL

What a fine example of why it is worth spending so little time on these forums you are.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Ken Heid
By Ken Heid (4 months ago)

MarcLee completely missed the point. I agree they sell a lot of GoPro cameras (I have a 3+ black myself) but that is a whole different type of camera.

Using that logic Cell phone are the best cameras.

The RX100M3 and the G1XM2 are going after the same market and are similarly priced. Which camera sells better does not necessarily mean that camera is better. It does tell you which camera the public prefers.

0 upvotes
Mylene_777
By Mylene_777 (4 months ago)

77%?

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

Like any other score, it's pretty pointless. They weigh all kinds of factors that may matter more or less to you. I kind of wish they would quit with scores altogether because it is a bit misleading, although I can understand rating each attribute in such a way as to give it some context with regards to the same feature on other cameras. At the same time, putting subjective criteria into a numerical value, especially when opinions can vary wildly, isn't necessarily terribly helpful....unless we can see how several people rate something and then compare those ratings to past ratings of cameras we are familiar with to get some idea of how our own opinions match those ratings.

2 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (4 months ago)

Tried the G1 X, felt very solid, nice, the dial operations were especially impressive. Took several shots outside the shop. Did a RAW review on my notebook and made a firm decision.

I then bought the Sony RX10 after that.

7 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

If you had $1,300 to blow on a camera why not buy a good one? You could have had a Canon, Nikon, or Sony DSLR or ILC with a great lens for that money instead of a 1" sensor with a lens as large as an interchangeable lens?

3 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (4 months ago)

Got several DSLRs now, we just need a second compact cam that can do great uncompressed videos over our Atomos Ninja Star. I have to admit that the videos from the RX10 is quite comparable to our 5D3.

4 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (4 months ago)

Was video quality your main driver for deciding to go for the RX10? Or was something else?

0 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (4 months ago)

The RX10 sample photos are one of the coldest photos I've seen in a while. Even RX100 - series look more pleasing.

Nick

1 upvote
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (4 months ago)

Define "cold" as that is highly subjctive. And having a very decent fast zoom range in a relatively compact package is a plus for secondaries and even on primary video takes. For the total weight, it's a plus on a steadicam rig as well.

2 upvotes
vaskko
By vaskko (4 months ago)

The progress in this line is welcome.
I'm curious about the next Sony RX10 (Mark II).

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

Canon G1 X Mark II looks good on the paper, BUT it seems being WRONGly executed.

#1: Lens sharpness.

"... At 24mm f/2 it scores 1,804 lines..., but image quality suffers as you move away from the center of the frame. The middle third of the frame only shows 1,743 lines and the outer third drops to 1,372 lines..."

As an reference, the OLD Panasonic LX7:
"...At its widest setting the lens records an impressive 2,021 lines per picture height at f/1.4..."

Both are 10MP sensor, but looks like the 2 years old LX7 has a much better lens[and/or sensors]", brighter and sharper.

I will wait G1X Mark III, or the Sony RX100 Mark III.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

1) Oh my gosh, a lens that has softer corners wide open than at the center?! That never happens! (for the record, that was dripping with sarcasm)
The LX7 didn't have the same zoom range and had a smaller sensor. These are called compromises, and I bet if you took that LX7 into low light you'd quickly be wishing for that huge sensor on the G1 X II.

3 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

howardroak,

Canon's "1,372 lines" ONLY seems to happen on a $99 camera.

In terms of "The LX7 didn't have the same zoom range", here is the SUPPER ZOOM Sony RX10:

"At 24mm f/2.8 ..the RX10 manages 2,691 lines via that but even the edges of frame approach 2,000 lines...".

You may say. Canon's G1 lens SHOULD be SUBPAR comparing to LX7's Leica Vario Summilux /Sony Rx10's Zeiss lens because the Brand Name. No argue about that.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Daniel Stehura
By Daniel Stehura (4 months ago)

12.8 megapixel........... What year is this? Slackers at Canon pumping out another under pixeled camera. Great Internet camera just don't blow up past 8x10. It's as big as a f 150 Ford truck, rather gross in Size and design. For a small Camera the Sony RX 100 II Has better image quality, Sony uses Carl Zeiss Lenses the best. Canon lenses are #3 after Nikon. I would have to have 3 beers to drink this big clunky boxy camera pretty. The Pixel count is from the year 2000!!!! What in the next 10 years they will be up to 20.2 Megapixel...... Good luck Canon for milking the pixel count for your profit taking. Nikon D800 is progressive and my 18x22 inch Epson 3880 shots are Razor sharp like a Ansel Adams print, Well Almost lol

3 upvotes
tutek
By tutek (4 months ago)

12.8mp and it still blurry

3 upvotes
Hinder
By Hinder (4 months ago)

A lot of people don't want a tiny camera, you can use a phone if you want tiny, therefore phone cameras are better than the sony. Also, phone companies honor their warranties unlike sony did on mine.

0 upvotes
socaltrevor
By socaltrevor (3 months ago)

Daniel,
consumer cameras in the year 2000 were 2 megapixel average.

0 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (4 months ago)

I had it yesterday in my hands together with RX10, and could try them a little bit. Decision is done thanks to this and I will be upgrading my G1X to G1X Mk2... it feels so great in your hands, rings on the lens are extremely useful, size and manual controls are perfect for enjoying shooting with the camera (something I don't think that happens with RX100, that's why I was evaluating RX10)...

So as I think I won't be loosing IQ with the change, and I will be enjoying several things on the new model (close focusing distance improvement, rings on the lens barrel which will make much more comfortable manual focusing, tactile LCD, faster lens, faster autofocus,...), will go for it for sure.

2 upvotes
rugosa
By rugosa (4 months ago)

I'll keep my G1X, this review doesn't make me want to go out and buy the new model. My G1X gives me great shots when I don't have my DSLR with me or when I'm diving. All cameras will clip highlights, that is what the EV adjustment is for. I shoot in Raw + JPEG at the same time just as I do with my DSLR in case I want to print a shot. No single camera will do everything perfect you just use the ones that match the way you take photos.

1 upvote
sheepr
By sheepr (4 months ago)

Never mind the outdated sensor. Many people will still buy this camera, like me because its features fit perfectly my needs for a travel compact despite its relatively lower IQ. For similar reasons I have bought the Mk I despite the slower focus and lack of macro. Is it really that difficult for Canon to deploy a modern sensor in this camera? Probably not. In a year or so I believe, Canon will release the Mk III, with an excellent sensor, and may be with the optical viewfinder and fully articulating LCD put back in. Then they will grab another $800 from me. Isn't that how Canon usually do their business?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Frenske
By Frenske (4 months ago)

Sony pay attention: this is the lens characteristics people want to see on the RX 100 Mk III: fast and wide! A slow 28-100mm is just not cutting it!

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
splendic
By splendic (4 months ago)

Yeah, but Sony wants to continue to make the RX100 pocketable, so thaaaaat's not going to happen.

0 upvotes
cainn24
By cainn24 (4 months ago)

And the comparatively massive G1X II is "cutting" into my balls when I try to pocket it.

3 upvotes
smallLebowski
By smallLebowski (4 months ago)

I'm surprised you guys don't know. It's not a secret anymore, Sony RX100Mk III specs are known already for a months or so.
1) Zeiss 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens which is wider and brighter than the previous Zeiss 28-100mm f/1.8-4.9 lens
2) 0.39″ SVGA electronic viewfinder pop-up OLED viewfinder with 1,440,000 dots.
3) Built-in ND filter
4) XAVC-S video recording just like the Sony A7s
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-hot-first-rx100m3-images-leaked/
it will have FAST AF 10fps and much more.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Ken Heid
By Ken Heid (4 months ago)

smallLebrowski said it perfectly. That is why I have the RX100M3 on pre-order.

If you were to get the EVF for the Canon it ends up $300 more than the RX100M3

If I were considering a larger camera as a second, I think I would wait to see what the RX10 M2 might be.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

No OVF or EVF, no buy. I'd rather have a good EVF and lose the LCD to be honest.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
cainn24
By cainn24 (4 months ago)

Indeed. This camera is a tragedy for that reason alone. I'm generally cautious about laying down big bucks on fixed lens compacts, but I would have thrown some of it to the wind if there had been an EVF in this puppy. The price of the add-on accessory that supposedly makes up the difference is beyond ridiculous. Great marketing though, because people will more easily part with their cash if they think they are getting something "extra" for it (think G1X II with built-in EVF at $150 more [too expensive right?] vs the add-on EVF at $300 more [somehow that's not so bad, because, you know, it's an extra thing!]). But good luck using the EVF without the G1X. Enjoy your $1100 compact.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Solar Eagle
By Solar Eagle (4 months ago)

Why not cover the new macro capability in this review? It would be nice to know what kind of magnification you get from 5cm at 24mm, since Canon isnt telling us. Even a simple mention of the MM or coverage area would have been fine.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

wouldn't macro be quoted in something like 2:1, for example?
and wouldn't you much rather be doing macro at around 60mm or so?

1 upvote
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

For "Why not cover the new macro capability in this review", and here is the review from other source:

"...Soft-focus halo effect when shooting macro images at f/2..."

And more:
"... Inconsistent autofocus accuracy. Edges never sharpen, even at narrow apertures..."

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

@Mike:
you don't shoot macro at f2. not ever if you want to capture more than a sliver of depth. it just doesn't make sense - that test is irrelevant - it's like evaluating a ferrari for it's capabilities as a dune-buggy in the mud.
testing macro at f/3.5 (or smaller) would make much more sense.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

The term macro is really being perverted when used as a synonym for close focus distance. Every lens has a minimum focus distance, and that isn't macro. They had to call it something I guess, but they should give the magnification in parenthesis along with the focus distance. Macro is 1:1 or better.

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (4 months ago)

G1 X MkII shoots macros

You're welcome

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53672739

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (3 months ago)

@GaryJP: the images I see are not full size... they are cropped!
You seem to misunderstand what macro really is.
you're welcome.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53953449

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53958301

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

Those images are very noisy. then I saw why. why are such high ISOs being used?
it is always hard to get lemons or keychains to stay still while doing long exposures.
or is it a question of getting rid of some halo effect that someone mentioned?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

No. It''s shooting hand held in low light. Just knocked them off quickly at my desk when the sun was barely out. No sustenance for your beef there I am afraid.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

not beef. concern!
because I am considering this camera.

0 upvotes
infocus
By infocus (4 months ago)

I have the original G 1X and have loved using it. I find the image quality to be very good (and I used to teach college photography, if that means anything).

I looked closely at the image comparisons between the original and the Mark II, both on DPR and Imaging-Resource. I compared low light, high ISO to see the quality. IMHO, the Mark II sometimes produces sharper detail than the original G 1X, especially on the images from Imaging-Resource. Here on DPR, I saw a mix. Sometimes the original is a bit better and sometimes the Mark II is. They are very close as the review states.

That being said, I miss the 5x optical zoom of my G11. I'm not sure about the screen. I do like the fully articulating viewer.

0 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (4 months ago)

I had high hopes for this camera but unfortunately no 60p video and with the upcoming announcement of the Sony RX100 M3, I'm gonna wait.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

thanks for the heads up - I had no idea an rx100m3 was coming out. however, due to the smaller sensor size, it would need a much faster lens to compete with this f2 coupled to a larger sensor - but with an aperture wider than f/2 it would face considetable challenges as a zoom lens. I don't think that is going to happen with such a zoom range - but with Sony you never know.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (4 months ago)

Timmbits;

From what I can see that you do NOT have any ideal about the performances of RX100M2 and Canon G1X-MK2, Sensors, Glass, or IQs...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

Mike, he has a very good handle on it. Some people like yourself hear what supports their opinion and ignore everything else. Unless you're doing focus stacking of about 10 shots with a G1 X II wide open the f/2 soft focus/halo is of no consequence because you should be shooting stopped down at least a couple of stops from wide open. Perhaps Canon should include that little warning in a firmware update or require f/4 or higher in "macro" mode.

2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (4 months ago)

I shoot both. My choice in most situations of G1X Mk2 is based on hands on experience. But even if I did not, there's some info here.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53631243

Or indeed in the review, the part about noise, which shows the queen's head detail far superior

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii/9

0 upvotes
LiSkynden
By LiSkynden (4 months ago)

"the kens element is so big that it cant have an auto lens cap" ... someone said when G1X was released.
Does this mean the lens is now smaller?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii/images/versus-g1x-front.jpg

... or was it just a load of BS, like i thought?

0 upvotes
LiSkynden
By LiSkynden (4 months ago)

*the LENS element

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 months ago)

you actually care about that?

1 upvote
Total comments: 660
1234