# Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review

May 2014 | By Jeff Keller

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.

 Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II 105I own it221I want it66I had itDiscuss in the forums

Another fail by the big 2 (Canon & Nikon). They are hanging onto an outdated product strategy while the ILC market is changing the rules of the game. The Fuji TX and the OMD are showing how to do high end consumer product. What does Nikon do? Release a fat burger DF without manual focus aids... Are they mad?

Disagree. Rather than another me-too ILC (which they tried), this giives a distinct advantage to mirror less systems by having a lens that is just impossible to create for a camera mount. Sure the new a6000 is a better camera, but what lens are you going to put on it that combines fast aperture, long zoom range, and pancake size?

By

I have to second tkbslc's point. This is a well spec'd camera designed for enthusiasts, not a low end compact. The problem isn't the product design; it's the crap sensor. Enthusiasts tend to notice when you wrap a outdated sensor in an $800 body. Put a Sony sensor in this thing and there would be a line around the block to buy it. 5 upvotes By DF is not relevant to this article and therefore hardly Nikons fail. 0 upvotes By A fair review indeed, if anything a bit generous given the fact that image quality and ergonomics seem worse to me than the G1 X I loved so much. I don't see the benefit to the macro setting if the images are often fuzzy, even with a small aperture. But hey, at least it has an expensive add-on EVF and wifi built in. Yay. 6 upvotes$800, fixed lens, video is only 30 fps.
The Sony A6000 with its fast PDAF and 60 fps video and exchangeable lenses, is a far FAR better choice !

now show me sony's 24-120 f/2-f/4 lens that is as compact as on the G1 X mark II. I'll wait..

The size of the camera+lens goes some length to excuse part of the lower quality/price ratio. Unless you find all fixed lens cameras above a certain sensor size as pointless (why get a RX1 and not the much more flexible A7?).

A camera is a whole package, and that includes the lens. The way some of you talk, in the days of film, if you put different film in your camera your camera suddenly became garbage. If you only, out of ALL the characteristics, focus on ones that bolster your case, you just plain look a bit weak.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
By

Your argument would be more persuasive, Gary, if the weakness was anything other than image quality. It's like arguing, "Yes, my car can't go over 5 MPH but you're ignoring the fact that it has massive cargo room, the most comfortable seats in its class, and great visibility in all directions." Maybe you don't ever need to go over 5 MPH but most people do.

Ive never seen the DP staff reply so much on the comments section :)

IMO the quality and portability of the RX100 got a big chuck of Sonys own ILCs sales. I think Canon did not want that to happen, so they keep releasing cameras like this and the EOS-M, with IQ far inferior than their DSLR.

Ps.: I dont understand why manufacturers lately are always setting mutted colors as defaults. I believe that are still a lot of photographers that use Jpegs. My OMD-EM5 got the best auto colors I`ve ever seen.

I take much pleasure visiting this site because at the end of the day, the DPR staff are as passionate about photography and photographic gear as their readership.

I had high hopes for this model, but my initial enthusiasm has been tempered by the findings in this review. Maybe a truly terrific large sensor enthusiast compact camera just isn't possible. Given the shortcomings pointed out the Silver Award seems generous.

Very fair review. If Canon addresses the issues you listed under "Cons", the Mark III will be a classic camera. This one isn't there yet, but it will replace a DSLR for travel for many still photographers.

Some things, I wonder if Canon deliberately left room for improvement in the Mark III - for example, they offer the big "custom grip"; they could have used that space for a bigger battery instead of just plastic...

By

I realized this camera was not worth the price from the first images I saw on the Internet. After reading some actual user testimonials, I decided to save $500 and got a XZ-2 instead. I'm sure glad I made that decision! I don't have any AF issues, blooming/halo affects, low DR, etc, etc... Using the DPR comparison tool, IQ is just as good and sharp up to about ISO 1600, the maximum I shoot. The XZ-2 is also much smaller/lighter and has a faster/sharper lens! I was hoping to upgrade my G12 to the G1XII, I'm glad I changed my mind in time! Maybe the G17 will get a new and improved sensor, but probably not knowing Canons history of innovation :( 4 upvotes You don't actually have comparative detail either. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53631243 3 upvotes 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. Pathetic... 2 upvotes 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. 20 upvotes The Nikon 1 V3 isn't really comparable. The whole point of a compact is to be...compact. If you need to carry around a bunch of lenses to accomplish the same thing the G1X Mark II can do with it's built-in lens, it's hardly a compact solution. 6 upvotes A constructive suggestion Richard ; give us an online log of the camera/lens/accessories that you have received from the manufacturers for review. Whether or not it will silence conspiracy theorists like @camerosity, I do not know but all of us would be better informed. Openness rules ! 3 upvotes what DPR said, and the nikon j camera is just another of the same lot... many nikon 1 cameras but the G1 X mark II is quite an update with the faster lens, wide focal range, video autofocus, touch screen, etc. 0 upvotes While such a list might be useful, it would add public pressure for DPreview to review every camera a manufacturer sends them (which the manufacturers might like but it reduces the ability of DPreview to focus on the 'more important' cameras). Even if DPreview would mark on this list whether they plan to review them, it reduces their flexibility to change their opinion later. 0 upvotes The sensor of this G1x may be pathetic but it's still beter as what aptina is making. the V3 does not have an exciting lens too. So you get an 60ish% and lead award. Nevertheless it will be fun to read. 0 upvotes "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? 0 upvotes My fault. I lost track of my Digics. 3 upvotes How can you remember a silly name like "Digic 6" ? Sony set the standard yet again with the superbly named "BIONZ X" , that I hear is a favourite with the DPR review team ! Comment edited 33 seconds after posting 1 upvote By TheCameraStore made a 9 min video on YouTube that tells you everything you need to know about the G1X MkII https://www.youtube.com/watch?<v=w68hQd7GPDM&list=UUqpOf_Nl5F4tjwlxOVS6h8A Not impressive at all. 0 upvotes I suppose Canon has a target customer in mind, I just don't think of that person being an advanced shooter. 1 upvote Its puzzling to me because an amateur needs more zoom range and a pro probably does too. What travel camera can a pro have, well, none. You have to go way down to a tiny sensor if you want zoom over 120mm???? I mean in a non slr. There is a massive gap in the market just waiting. 1 upvote "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. 2 upvotes And the award for nonsensical post of the day ... goes to ...... 28 upvotes Not this again. 12 upvotes No one cares. 13 upvotes I'd better upgrade my light meter then. Mine only requires me to specify ISO and Shutter Speed in order to give me the correct F-Stop. It doesn't ask me to specify what sized sensor/film I'm using. Comment edited 45 seconds after posting 14 upvotes By "Ignorant readers" need not have posted in the first place... 5 upvotes LOL 0 upvotes dude your comparison is wrong. The f-stop doesn't change. Sure the depth of field is effectively shifted but the lens still lets in the same amount of light at f2 as any other lens that opens to f2. 1 upvote By Technically - The f-number N is given by N = \frac{f}{D} \ where f is the focal length, and D is the diameter of the entrance pupil and is independent of the imaging area. 0 upvotes @forpetessake: 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. 0 upvotes @RichardButler: Now, that's a good way to weasel out, I smell a lawyer. Except, it's not the only place. I wish to hear how would you construe this apparently misleading statement: "replaced by a much more appealing 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 lens" 0 upvotes @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. 0 upvotes By (unknown member) "The FF equivalent lens would be 24-120mm F3.8-7.5 -- a big difference." Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture. Common practice is to give the focal length in terms of 35mm film used decades before wildly different sensor sizes in every camera. However, the aperture is primarily concerned with light throughput for EXPOSURE reasons. Figuring out the depth of field has always been left to the individual photographer. The f-stop equivalencies now being used for depth of field purposes pervert the understanding of how much light is coming through the lens, so that is a far more egregious misreprentation than tyring to put the field of view in a context people can relate to. 0 upvotes @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. Comment edited 3 minutes after posting 0 upvotes By (unknown member) Richard, Giving equivalent focal lengths at least gives the same field of view despite not taking into account the angle of view. It's actually better to stick to field-of-view crop factor like 1.6X, but whatever. Again, pictures have a disproportionate effect on humans, so when the first thing under the graph says "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." I find that confusing. The only mention of depth of field is two paragraphs down. The devil is in the details, and not stating specifically what those equivalencies mean (i.e. that they are in no way related to the light throughput typically associated with the f-stop) may confuse some. It absolutely does not say anything about light coming through, unless you're talking about total light which is meaningless because it is the light density Comment edited 1 minute after posting 0 upvotes By (unknown member) ....(actual light flux) that matters. A T-stop tells you what light is ACTUALLY getting to the sensor. No equivalencies required. Just a really confusing, useless equivalency meant for the lay person that, as such, has zero frame of reference in which to interpret what all that means. Photographers don't need such nonsense. 0 upvotes I have the G1X Mk1 and enjoyed it for travel and hiking. That's despite agreeing that there are issues with focus distance and AF (which though very accurate, gave slow between shot times). If you accepted these foibles it was a good all-rounder and nothing matched its IQ without actually going to APSC. I'm not upgrading to the Mk2 despite the improvements. One of the best things about the Mk 1 was that it was a complete stand-alone camera that needed nothing. For me, the absence of a neat built-in EVF is THE killer for the Mk 2. I hate add-on EVFs - they're expensive, easy to forget or lose and block the flash shoe in use. And it's an$1100 camera with its EVF, and at that price it's squarely in MILC territory. I decided to spend more and bought an XT1.

1 upvote

It is poosible to take pictures without a viewfinder. I've seen it done.

1 upvote

@ chiane... Quite right. So have I. In fact I've done it. But parting with one's dollars is all about choices and preferences. I prefer a built-in VF and eye-level viewing. Adds stability and tends to make a smaller, neater camera than one with an add-on EVF in the flash shoe.

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'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.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting

Thanks Richard. DPreview commented also the battery doors before, but that was when DPreview was an independent company (not an Amazon.com company).

Pretty sure that our corporate overlords don't care about battery doors :-)

Richard and iI will discuss this tomorrow.

I'll look forward to it, Jeff.

Where's the Pentax K-3 review? That's what I want to know...

Wait - what?

I did read the K-3 review, but was sorely disappointed. I thought after all that time you could have covered the battery door in a lot more detail.

I only come to the interwebs in order to check battery door comparisons (and to complain on the camera hardware forums), so I'm frankly very disappointed that this key feature analysis has been omitted from your review. In fact, because of the missing battery door comparison I don't think it's even worth wasting anyone's time reading the rest of the review.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

Barney,

"Where's the Pentax K-3 review? That's what I want to know...

Wait - what?"

Probably best for you to keep that kind of comment internal -- not a good idea to take potshots at your online readers on this forum. I happen to be both a Canon and a Pentax user, and the K-3 review delay, as well as the quality of the review itself, tarnishes DPreview's reputation, in my humble opinion.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting

@ mamiller - I'd like to think that we (by which I mean all of us) might be given a little license to laugh at ourselves, every now and then :)

But here you are taking a potshot at a very select group of users, those annoyingly shrill Pentax fanboys, not "all of us." Can you see the difference? It's one thing for forum members to sling clever barbs at other forum members and their camera systems, but it seems inappropriate for DP staff to do the same. Food for thought.

There is no denying that the camera that won best dslr of the year poll should get priority. Since this lack of interest in innovative gear has damaged your sites reputation for all enthousiasts it's better to make jokes of other things.

I laugh at the fact that finally after 4 years jeff comes up with the fact that shadow recovery of the canons sensor's is P&S like terrible. Yet this can not be found in your reviews of the

600d 650d 700d 100d. camera's that all share the same basis of this sensor. I excluded the 550D and 7D since back then there wasn't anything better out there.

The K-3 won our readers' poll due to the concerted and passionate efforts of less than 1% of our audience. Please don't take that statement to mean that we don't care about you - we do. But you're really not speaking for 'all enthusiasts' here.

The EOY polls didn't change our review plans one iota - we were simply extremely pushed for time and resources in the final quarter of last year, and the K-3 was reviewed late. We apologized at the time, and I'll apologize again now.

By (unknown member)

Barney, fly me out there and give me a place to live and I'll help you guys write reviews. :)

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).

Mike

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.

Better than average: Gold
Average: Silver
Below: Bronze

That ensures that everybody wins/gets a medal.

Agree with Richards reply. For me the G1X II is a bit of a disappointment, some wrong design compromises and because of that I have been fairly critical about it. But it sure is an interesting concept (large sensor, bright zoom, relatively small package) and despite the weakness there is a lot to like on the camera, depending on ones priorities. And we know that Canon always holds back so they can sell you an improved G1X III later on ;-)

We have to see how the RX100-3 and P8000 compare when they become available, wouldn't surprise me if one of them can get a Gold Award in this category :-)

" But do these improvements make the G1 X Mark II the large-sensor compact for enthusiasts?"

There is no other comparatively large sensor compact for enthusiasts.

What about the Ricoh GR? By all accounts, it's a superb camera with a bigger sensor. It's also much smaller and lighter.

Miker

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting

Define "large", and what class of lens you are willing to accept.

Ricoh GR (above), GXR, Coolpix A, RX100, the Sigmas, Nikon 1, even Sony NEX with a smallish lens all potentially compete.

As noted in the review, the most likely contender for the people who might typically be looking at this is the RX100.

I have the RX100 Mk II I am selling it. I have already sold the first RX100.

And no, the sensor is not comparatively large.

The Ricoh GR has the sensor size but NO ZOOM. A photographer friend of mine uses one for street photography, but it's severely limited for other uses.

Each of the cameras you mention competes in some areas, but the selling point of the G1X Mk II is that NONE of them compete in all areas.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

@GaryJP
The problem is that comparatively large sensor on the G1X Mk II is a poor performer. It actually performs worse than the RX100M2 sensor, which is less than half its size. This is truly pathetic and shows what a wasted opportunity the G1X Mk II is.

If I agreed with you I would not have sold/be selling both of my RX100s.

It only performs worse if you do not give a crap about colour. Or fetishise dynamic range at the expense of all else (it used to be pixel count, now it's DR.) It performs better in depth of field, in colour accuracy, and in high ISO / low light. And in ability to manipulate the RAWS. All of which I need more.

A camera is a bundle of things. Not just one.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

From the review:
"...if image quality is your priority and you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II (the closest competitor) is superior in terms of both still and video quality."

I have used both cameras. I have compared colour and RAWS from both. Have you?

One has to look at the parameters. There's a DR hit, but the G1X does better on detail, high ISO, low light shooting, colour, depth of field, and RAW flexibility. All of which mean more to me.

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

And note this:

"The G1 X II does still have an aperture advantage, especially at the long end of its zoom. This means there are still occasions where it can use lower ISOs than the Sony, and it can offer much more control over depth-of-field.

... the full benefits of that additional sensor size are not realized: the Canon's IMAGE QUALITY ADVANTAGE isn't proportionate with its greater bulk."

Note that it does not say the Canon has lower image quality. It does not.

It would take a very "special" eyesight to aver that the RX100 IQ in the noise comparison on the queen's head is more detailed than the G1X

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

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

Gary, the only reason I can manage to come up with for the response to the G1 X and the Mark II is that people look at it on paper, hate it, and then can't figure out why owners manage to get such amazing images from a machine they consider inferior. They buy their cheap camera with more pixels and better dynamic range, and when they see what can be done with a G1 X or Mark II they realize that having a flexible tool in the hands a good photographer will beat their camera in the hands of someone who thinks of it as a spec sheet and a single test or parameter. They can't see the value of the system so they can't possibly conceive of why that system could be useful to those who are able to use skill and adaptation to many variables (as any good photographer must do with any camera) to achieve great results.
They must assume that they are shooting as optimally with every shot as the tests they drool over, and they ignore knowing how to use their tool to its full potential.

Page 9: Where is the widget for Noise and Noise Reduction (RAW)?

IIRC, other reviews have separate widgets, or merged so JPEG or RAW can be selected.

Why do these companies continue to mess with the people who buy the products? Take away the viewfinder but if you want it we got it for bunch more bucks. If I wanted this camera that would be deal killer for me.

Maybe this is why Canon is so profitable and Sony is losing money ;-)

Page 3 concerning the LCD:
"Outdoor visibility was very good."

Page 11 concerning the LCD:
"The display has average outdoor visibility (meaning not great)"

This appears a bit contradictory to me.

Other than that, interesting review.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote

Sorry about the confusion. Page 3 was written after spending a short amount of time with the camera. I had forgotten to go back and update that section after spending more time with the G1X II.

iff:
G1X

● gets it's classic G VASS (Vari-Angle Swivel Screen) back, but capable of flipping topside rather than left-side, to allow centered face-forward self-portraits, as well as angle left/right/up/down. (not just angle up/down)

● built-in/modular evf can be vari-angle swivel left/right, not just angle-up
● keep: sensor size (but offer dual-pixel AF)
● keep: speedlight hot-shoe
● keep: strap-loops, but make them non-protruding (not stick out)
● return: top finger dial, keep thumbwheel (EOS-1)
● proper hand-grip (not tiny grips, nor addons)
● centered tripod mount inline with lens center axis
● offer wired-remote (operates/adjusts: speed/aperture/iso/focus/zoom/shutter timer/delay) one handed (touch screen wi-fi remote already there but too simple)
● lens:
keep:
○ zoom range: 24-120
○ ring controls, add one smooth ring for stepless zoom
● keep classic Canon G exposure simulation live-view
● offer multiple exposure/overlay full hdr manual control (jpeg, not just raw) not just auto

1 upvote

● offer: Canon C-log, like those found on Canon Cine C-series, allow us to grade colors and contrast in post
● offer: selective multi-ISOs (digital zone system exposure system 'live' view) not just single ISO exposures (even 2 ISO amplifiers aren't enough)
● allow: finer ISO increments up to 1/6 EV (not just 1/3 or 1/2 ev)
● keep ND filter
● allow ISOs down to: 50, 25, 12, 6
● extend exposure simulation for liveview control for longer exposures (infrared or deep ND Cine/stills) capture to at least a minute (not just 3-4 seconds); users must use wisely to prevent sensor overheating on brighter EV conditions. offer 'cancel' shutter Bulb mode.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

As usual .. Canon correctly focused and exposed colours are far richer than the washed exmor sensor.

I have seen quite some comments about focusing issues with the Canon on the forum, so all is not rosy apparently (even if some of that is 'user error').
But agree about colours, still one of the Canon strong points. But I guess this is not related to the sensor but to the firmware/software.

By

@newwsorld666, "correctly focused", besides only DPR, other sites contadict that statement. The has also been many post from users to the contrary. This is only one of the threads complaining about it. Maybe you got one of the good ones?
Odd G1X MK2 focusing quirk
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53556195

$800.00 is almost twice as much as this camera should be. You can buy for example a Oly PM2 with 2 lens kit for$370. Sure this is a great camera but a $800 dollar great camera ? NOT EVEN CLOSE! 9 upvotes You cannot even find its fast quality lense alone on m43rd with that price! You just talk 8 upvotes The problem is that current m43 sensors are so much better it will completely negate the advantage of this very impressive lens. Then there are actually faster lenses for m43. Look at the olympus 12-40mm f2.8. However these fast zooms cost a arm and a leg. 2 upvotes "The problem is that current m43 sensors are so much better" Really? I have the OMD EM1, but its dynamic range is not significantly higher than the Canon. And yes, that Olympus F2.8 is a beautiful lens, but it is expensive AND you will need the upcoming, even more expensive Olympus f2.8 telephoto zoom to get the flexibility of the G1X. I will probably buy it, finances permitting, but I am under no illusion it will be cheap. 2 upvotes 2 stops "is not significantly higher"? very funny. 1 upvote Well, I am not in the habit of putting my more expensive equipment down to the advantage of my cheaper equipment, but in actual usage, whatever DXO says, I do not bump up against those differences very often. As I've said elsewhere it's about one in a hundred photos where I find I am beyond the camera's dynamic range. I won't disagree that the Olympus is superb. In fact, until I got an EM5, and later the EM1, I did not rate M43 very highly. But one has to consider price and portability too. The G1X is a different horse for a different course. Comment edited 59 seconds after posting 2 upvotes Ok, ok. To each his own and all that. Still, for me personally 2 stops in DR is a lot. Like when I had only Panasonic GX1, DR was just enough but required very thorough metering and exposure compensation all the time to ETTR but not overexpose. Now with EM5 there's much more latitude and a room for my errors. Both highlights and shadows are easily recoverable. Stop... why am I explaining this to you? ;) You know it as well as I do. G1X would be a wonderful camera if they would give that lens to Oly or Pana to build a fixed lens m43 compact ;) Or at least if they would use latest Pana or Sony sensor. 0 upvotes$800 camera? NOT EVEN CLOSE, in Europe: more like $1200-1250 :-( 0 upvotes By I have the e-pm2. It's a bargain for the nice image quality it produces. The sensor is better than the G1Xii sensor, yes. But the kit lens is a mediocre 28-84mm equivalent, 3.5-5.6 standard kit zoom. Add any fast lens for the system, like the 20mm 1.7, 17mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8, take your pick, and there goes another$400.

The price for an E-pm2 plus any fast lens = the price of the G1Xii, more or less.

I have the original G1X (similar sensor to G1XII) and an EM1. There is no way I would say the EM1 had a better sensor. All this talk of extra dynamic range doesn't really work out in practice. Both have good highlight headroom but the Canon recovers blue out of blown skies better and the Olympus recovers reds and yellows better.

Both can recover extra shadow detail. The Canon gets some colour noise if you push it but the Olympus has little tonal separation around the black point and you get a posterisation effect if you push it, which is hard to deal with. Differences on test charts don't translate to the real world unless you are a jpeg shooter and don't drive the camera yourself.

It's easier to balance detail and noise on the Canon at 1600 "ISO" but there's not much in it.

The most obvious difference is that, shooting RAW, default colours on the Olympus are more pleasing, if not more accurate, on default Lightroom settings.

GaryJP is bang on. Experience counts a lot.

Sensor performance appears practically identical to the G1X mkI

Every APS-C sensor canon has released since the 7d is practically identical, so not suprising. All this update was for is to get that wonderful lens in there.

yes, no real improvement in Canon big sensor performance for 5-8 years (depending on how much improvement you consider relevant).

But the marketing material says it is a new and improved sensor, that is all that counts ;-)

As i said in the Powershot Forum:

I expect this review to decide. I will keep the first version: Canon Powershot G1X. The first compared to the second in Dpreview studio version is definitely better in noise department for example. It's been two years that I have the G1X and I am very satisfied.
Those who want to can see my photos in the gallery or in Ipernity: http://www.ipernity.com/home/blueman

It seems that the second version is faster. So much the better if it can be used to some photographers.
Thank you! Good luck!
Peter

By

The reason is because they have to market the camera so they can sell it in Gear Shop (conflict of interests much?) so they give every Canikon camera an award because that's how DPR makes money.Most shoppers never read the reviews and just look at the awards.

1 upvote

I would give the lens an gold award. That range speed and close focussing with those dimensions is unheard off.

The sensor boys from canon deserve a lead award. For by far worst sensor at this size. Unable to keep up with virtually everyone.

@ MIrrorless Crusader - sorry to ruin a good conspiracy theory, but as we've said countless times (and on several occasions to you directly) we're editorially independent of Amazon and GearShop, i.e. there is no relationship between the needs of retail and the opinions of editorial.

It's still a good camera, that's why.

@Barney Britton If you were truly editorially independent, you'd comment about the battery door issue.

1 upvote

If Canon had implemented a good built-in EVF, I really would buy this camera for hiking- /biking tours. Could drop the flash instead.
Sorry, Canon, no viewfinder, no buy.

Go mirrorless.
Sony nex6/a6000
Olympus em10
Panasonic gx7
Fujfilm xe1/2

All great options and more or less the same size. Well the Fuji is a bit larger but has an faster lens.

It is humanly possible to take a picture, even in sunlight, without a viewfinder.

1 upvote

@BarnET, how can you say that those mirrorless are the same size. Certainly not when you factor in a lens with even remotely similar aperture and zoom range.

1 upvote

No need for an lens with similar aperture when the sensor is at least twice as good.

And with the kit lenses they are about the same size.

What's a 1.5"-type sensor? That's a bizarre bit of writing.

Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the review.

1 upvote

What else do you call a 18.7x14mm sensor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes

Let's call it half baked sensor.

Um, I think I see the problem now.

'1.5"-type sensor' is better, actually. There's nothing in the sensor that's that size, other than an imaginary glass tube associated with a technology that's been defunct for a long time. From wikipedia:

Sensor formats of digital cameras are mostly expressed in the non-standardized "inch" system as approximately 1.5 times the length of the diagonal of the sensor. This goes back to the way image sizes of video cameras used until the late 1980s were expressed, referring to the outside diameter of the glass envelope of the video camera tube.

Huh. Interesting. I didn't know that. So they multiply the diagonal of the sensor (about 23mm) by 1.5 and get 1.5" and call that a type. Since I'm very practical and simple-minded, I would just call it a 1" sensor or a 23mm sensor, then.

I still think it's strange, but thanks for the explanation.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

@Jay Williams - it's a terrible naming system. But until anyone comes up with a better one, it's what we're stuck with.

1 upvote

That was bugging me while I was reading the review (I'm cursed), but I feel at least a little better now knowing there's actually something to it. Thanks, Richard.

If everyone uses the "inch" system than it is a standard

By

So basically you're saying the canon sensor is now a full stop behind the equivalently sized Sony sensor in terms of high ISO noise? Wow.

It still seems like a bargain to me because of the lens. Isn't that a pickle, usually it's the lens that lets down the sensor on a fixed combination.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

Well, a no-go for me because of the DR. Hope the RX100 Mk III indeed gets the rumoured 24mm WA while providing acceptable IQ (and, hopefully, at least the same video IQ as the RX10 - one can dream, can't?). If not, I'll get the Pana GM1 with the excellent 12-32 kit lens.

There's few situations where the difference between 11 stops (G1X) or 12 stops (RX100II) of dynamic range (per DXO's measurements) at base ISO makes any difference. When you're shooting at base ISO you are usually in a situation where, if the dynamic range is a challenge at all, you should be bracketing and combining (for landscapes and such). When you are stressed for DR but can't bracket, you'll pretty much always be at higher ISOs (low light handheld or with constraint on shutter speed because of moving subjects). At higher ISOs, the DR of the Canon sensor is as good or better as that of the Sony sensor.

I am all for sensor progress, but most of us just don't have to raise the shadows of our images 4 stops very often.

1 upvote

1 stop difference is HUGE, more than the number suggests.

Agree with Menneisyys, but I would also wait for the P8000. With the GM1, lack of a EVF / tilt screen is a big problem for me but if there are no better options I may buy it anyway.

Don't agree with the suggestiosn that 1-2 stops of DR is not relevant, this is a HUGE difference for landscape style photographers. HDR doesn't work well in many real life situations, why all the trouble when a better sensor can save you loads of PP work?

Thanks for the thorough and quick review. Much more useful than that supremely obnoxious kid in Hong Kong who made a video of himself trying to stuff the camera into his jeans' pocket (check out the YouTube, if you can stand it).

It sounds like the original G1X, except with close focusing. Noise and clipped highlights have never been strengths for Canon. The problem is that by placing so much emphasis on these, it makes that other thing--image quality--seem a pretty minor consideration.

No doubt this camera is worse than the Sony, if pushed 4 stops or used at ISO 12,000 but if somebody is quality conscious enough to buy a camera like this and they keep the ISO reasonable, I'd be surprised if the image quality isn't noticeably better than the Sony. My original G1X has all these faults and more but the RX100 had less detail and much softer corners. I tried a second RX100, too. Looks like nobody's gotten it right but I'll take noise over blurry corners.

I will also take noise (with a well-behaved pattern) over blurry corners, and didn't like the RX100 series for the same reason. But the G1X II full open doesn't have good corners either.
I hope Sony listened to the complaints about the RX100-1/2 lens and offers a better compromise in the RX100-3.

"Much more useful than that supremely obnoxious kid in Hong Kong [...]"

If you actually watched the video to the end, you would have known that the camera actually scored a number of positive points. Kai's overall presentation made me actually want to read the DPR's review, instead of flipping through it.

The review spends a lot of time comparing the Canon G1X-II to the Sony RX100-II. But it's unfortunate that the reviewers were so pre-occupied with Dynamic Range and Noise comparisons... that they've essentially ignored basic image quality. I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness.

Even when the cameras are normalized to the same image size, the Canon G1X-IIlooks far superior to the Sony RX100-II. This fact is plain to anyone who spends 30 seconds looking at the RAW studio comparisons at print sizes.

The review concludes that the G1X-II and RX-100 II have similar levels of image quality. But that's only true in terms of Dynamic Range (and by extension, noise). In terms of sharpness, the G1X-II is in a different league altogether.

It's true. I would dearly love to have a smaller, lighter, slicker, prettier Sony RX but under good light conditions it doesn't take photos that are as good as the G1X.

The inference is that Sony's technology is so superior it completely offsets the difference in sensor size. Unless the G1X2 is worse than my G1X, this is not the case. Now, a G1X2 with a Sony sensor would be sensational.

It's pixel level sharpness advantage is negated by the simple fact that it has about half the pixel count. Considering that and the fact that it's sensor is twice the size the extra noise in the shadows become quiet hilarious.

DR and noise are *the* advantages a larger sensor is supposed to have. Well, maybe resolution, too - but RX100 has an edge there as well.

Don't know about an edge in "sharpness". Most cameras I know let you adjust that.

Re: BarnET

"It's pixel level sharpness advantage is negated by the simple fact that it has about half the pixel count."

You are incorrect. I was specifically comparing the cameras "normalized to the same image size". If you go to the studio comparison tool in RAW mode, make sure you select the icon for "PRINT" (instead of "FULL") and it will show you the images re-sized to identical dimensions. It's the fairest way to compare cameras with different megapixel counts. And in this mode, you will see the sharpness of the G1X-II is in a totally different league from the RX100-II.

I don't see any difference at iso 100-400 beyond that the canon is gaining. But the CA of the canon lens in the corners is really terrible.

" I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness. "

Really? My impression is that they kept the resolution low in order to not expose the flaws of the heavily software-corrected lens. And what is the advantage of a physically larger lens? Small lenses can be extremely well-corrected too, it is more about the compromise between specs and physical size. I would prefer a lens of the same physical size but for a 1 inch sensor, I'm sure that could provide better optical performance.

By

Yeah, you use logarithmic scale for focale length on equivalent aperture graph. Thanks

1 upvote
By

Hmm, that sensor tech is really showing its age, the 550D was 4 years ago , the 7D even older, the G1X MK2 has basically a Chunk of this sensor (image quality / noise wise) even the Nikon P7700 & P330 with their tiny 1:1.7" devices have far better shadow recovery, I compared them to my G1X Mk1 and the EOS-M (better than the RX100 too) , Canon really need to get off their laurels and get weaving on sensors ..

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

Indeed it's a damn shame that all the hard work of the optical engineers goes down the drain. They could've done 2 things. Cut the dual pixel sensor to 1,5 inch. Or buy an Sony/Panasonic sensor

Canon is in long term testing, how far you can go with recycling sensor tech, before your customers start to really drop.

Considering a lot of people still buys their dSLRs, including models with recycled sensors, I guess they are not there yet..

On other hand, using 5 years old tech is kinda achievement (and people still buy it! :D).

It's totally unheard of in any branch of electronics. Yet they are still market leader for no apparent reason.

They reason is just good marketing. And by marketing I mean more than just advertising: They push their products to the market swiftly, hog retail space and treat dealers and store owners well. The latter is important: So many people buy based on recommendations from salespeople, it's amazing.

Oh, and as a small independent photography blog writer, I can testify that their PR agency won't loan review equipment to you if you display even the slightest bit of negativity towards their products. DPReview only gets away with it because they are so large.

I can testify that their PR agency won't loan review equipment to you if you display even the slightest bit of negativity towards their products.

Great.... That explains all those stupid praise reviews of the 1200d.
Which is by far the worst entry level DSLR of the past 3 years

Wow! I'm surprised that the video is so poor...

Thank you for the review.

I was going to give away my Powershot S95 but looking at the gallery pictures I've decided to wait some more. I also have EOS-M, the camera which many reviewers hated, which I would prefer over G1 X/II as complementary piece of gear for my DSLR.

Nice cam to look at it but I wish that all the resources spent on the development of G1 x was put at work for developing of ugly duckling - EOS M system.

By

Price is a joke. for $700 you can get a LOT of camera elsewhere. 3 upvotes Perhaps priced to compete with the$600 RX100ii or its $700 successor. 1 upvote By The only 24-120 f3.5-f7 zooms I see are pretty much that price. EF 24-105 f4 =$1150 (a little unfair)
EF-S 15-85 f3.5-f5.6, which is 24-135 f5.6-f9 = $800, clearly inferior. So yeah, that's easily$700 in glass. According to DPR, it's not much more value than that though in glass+camera. A pity.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
1 upvote

The best comparison is the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 os hsm C.
It also focusses rather close at 22 cm at 70mm.

Dof equiv. 25,5-105mm f4.2-f6. That lens is 500-550 dollar and available in all DSLR mounts.

It does have an 72mm filter and will be an much larger system. You do get the option to have a proper sensor though.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote

What "proper" sensor are you going to buy for that 17-70 for your $250 you have left over? And now you have a completely different setup. Not portable at all. Precisely what people looking at this camera are trying to avoid. 1 upvote @ mosc: that 24-105 can be purchased for$ 550-600 nowadays, and I bet your price for the 15-85 is way too high too, looking at EU pricing.

And about that 'clearly inferior' 15-85: I use one (on a 12 MP 450D) and don't consider it a top quality lens. But my images look sharper than those from the G1X II, especially for corner quality. Yes, the 15-85 is less bright but if I have to stop down anyway for decent corners there isn't much advantage left.

I considered the G1X II as a replacement for my 450D + 15-85IS (similar price level, but half the size/weight). But after seeing the online images I don't think it is worth its sky-high EU price.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3200-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B009OAOG9S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1399584452&sr=8-4&keywords=d3200
50 bucks over budget

Did they throw in video as an after thought?

1 upvote

Seems like it. You'd think Canon would be able to do better given their expertise in the Video arena

Not a Canon boy but this is a very good travel/family camera. IQ is great
(almost) I'd prefer thiner body-fixed display, shorter zoom range...

Not a bad camera. Just at this price and from a leading manufacturer I expected better.
It seems to be a repeat of the EOS M saga. Canon will need to half the price to make it sell well.

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. Hmmmmm... 4 upvotes And how small is that combination when you put a 24-120mm equivalent, F2.4-4.7 lens on it? 25 upvotes By (unknown member) Small?! Nobody here cares about how big cameras are! 0 upvotes Does it really matter? I can't put either one I'm my pocket anyway. But at least with the SLR I can carry another lens, or a wide angle, or a macro, or... I wouldn't want to carry a 24-120 f3.5-f8.0 (effective) lens anyway... The problem with the G1XII is at its size and weight its competing with more capable cameras for less money. Not much of a recipe for success IMHO. TBH Richard, if I am that concerned with a SMALL camera I will just carry my cell phone and be done with it. Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting 2 upvotes Everyone has their own priorities and it's surprising how many feel the need to make decisions on behalf of someone else. Thank you for telling me that nobody cares what size a camera is. I didn't realize that I didn't care. The SL1 gives a lot more for the money, no question. Attempting to make the 40mm lens zoom could be disappointing, though. You could carry a bunch of other lenses but still not as convenient as a camera with one lens--which is part of the appeal of the Fuji. 5 upvotes By Comparing this camera to an interchangeable lens system camera is pointless. They're totally different beasts. Comparing their costs when you figure in one with a cheap prime is even more so. 0 upvotes By (unknown member) Yeah, sarcasm dude. How many posts have I pointed out an ILC having a small body but once you put a lens on it suddenly not so small? That statement was meant to be so insanely extreme that I didn't need to put <sarcasm> behind it....guess I should have. 0 upvotes By 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. 2 upvotes By The RX100 is way behind on mid-tone noise (going by charts in this review, which show most of the detail lost to noise reduction by 1600 "ISO"). This is far more important than deep shadow noise, so why say the two sensors are close when they are not? This is, unusually for dpreview, not balanced. Not that I want to defend the G1XII as I have no interest in a camera with no viewfinder... 1 upvote @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. 13 upvotes @deep7 - The 'unrealistic' bridge example, as it were, was an actual shot taken in the real world. Not only that, the image could've benefitted from an even shorter exposure (so as to not blow out the clouds in the sky). Which would've pushed the detail under the bridge further into the noise floor. You could argue that seeing detail in the underside of the bridge is not artistically desirable, and that'd be fair. But our point remains valid. We just may not have shown it for a scene that artistically requires information to be pulled out of deep shadows. But that's not to say that such scenes don't exist. Anyone who shoots in challenging light, for example at sunrise or sunset, knows this. For such cases, the G1X/II's demonstrably lower dynamic range (in RAW) will be a limiting factor. Keep in mind also that lower RAW DR limits processing latitude for improperly exposed shots. That's relevant for some shooters. 9 upvotes Why get realistic now? I just read about the new Nikon at 400,000 ISO. Seems it beats the old one at 200,000, hands down. 0 upvotes By Richard/Rishi, thanks for your comments but I think you missed my point, not surprising because I never make things clear when I am in a hurry! I'll try again. I have had a G1X for the last two years and have had an EM1 (a camera which does very well in dynamic range comparisons). I have also looked at a lot of R100 images taken in a range of light conditions. Ok, the G1X, when using jpegs and left on default settings, tends to overexpose badly and blow highlights like a point and shoot. However, control your exposure (like any photographer who understands the basics will do) and shoot raw and you find the highlights aren't too bad at all. Better for blues than my EM1 but not for every colour. What I have seen of the RX100 is that it lags behind in highlights, quite badly in many samples (but I haven't used one). Beyond that, the midtones get very noisy very quickly, worse than the G1X or even the EM1, which is quite noisy too. 0 upvotes By So the only advantage of the RX100 is in deep shadows. This can be helpful in very high dynamic range images but, invariably, gives very flat and unnatural photographs in most cases. While it may rescue bad exposure, it doesn't compensate enough for that bad exposure. It's one advantage but not as stated in the review, which implies it's a much better sensor, even though it actually is only better in one way and worse in others. I have no axe to grind. I like many Sony, Leica, Olympus and Leica cameras, amongst others. I'm just annoyed by this weird obsession with rescuing deep shadows that is prevalent in some places, even though it may be at the expense of a balanced image. 0 upvotes It never fails. The number and metal awarded are not supported by the quite substantial and honest Negatives in the conclusion. Canon doesn't try hard enough-for$800.

Canon never fails Canon fans. /s

It's that lens, man. They could put it on a 4/3 sensor from 2005 and I'd buy it.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote

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.

1 upvote

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?

The person that knows he can buy an gm-1 for the same money. Which has more features built-in and access to an variety of lenses. While still being smaller and having an better sensor.

By

Couldn't disagree more, Gesture. First of all, it is the lower end of the market that is dying. Premium, large sensor compacts is a growth segment. Second, this camera is not targeted at buyers who want to put it in a pocket and forget it is there.

As a hiker, I want a camera that balances my needs for high IQ, low weight, and minimal bulk while not being so small that it is hard to use. This Canon should've fit the bill perfectly— and I would've been willing to pay a significant premium for it if it had. Unfortunately, the engineers in charge of Canon's sensor tech appear to have left for lunch in 2005 and not come back. At some point one assumes Canon will notice. Hopefully. Some day.

In the meantime, instead of spending $1160 (G1Xii & accessories) to avoid hiking with my beastly 5D3 system, I'm going to spend$2K for a Fuji X-T1 and lenses. Not nearly as ideal in terms of size and simplicity but the IQ is competitive with my FF gear at a fraction of the size and weight.

@BarnET to be fair the GM1 is good for fast primes and slow zooms, but if you want a fast zoom the Canon is the better choice.

1 upvote

No a fast zoom is used in low light mostly. The sensor kills the low light capability. If you need this go Fuji with the 18-55.
Or any DSLR(no canon apsc) with an fast zoom from either tamron or sigma.

Canon should just start using Sony sensors; they have fallen so far behind, its not even funny.

Not with the 70D sensor.

On the other hand it is funny that people are still buying them. It's really inspiring what marketing can do.

Doug the 70d sensor is not that impressive in terms of image quality. It's on sensor pdaf system on the other hand is cutting edge. Yet they did not put it in any camera since. Not even in the which got torched for it's pathetic AF.

Or, one might surmise the market has spoken and state of the art noise isn't much of an issue for the people buying all those Rebels. When consumers start returning their Canon cameras because there is too much noise in the shadows maybe Canon will get better sensors.

I thought the 70D was cleaner at hi ISOs as well as the af improvement. Maybe they will put the sensor in the 7D replacement.

1 upvote

By "The Final Word", I would give this camera a Tin Award. WTH?

Overall impression.
Very little progress in 2 years from it's predecessor. disappointed.
Question is why?

Didn't think there'd be much reason to upgrade my compact from a G1X and it seems there isn't.

Canon should have done better with this upgrade. Once again the sensor is lagging behind the opposition

Unless your compact is a RX100 there is a big difference. But its in image quality, not features, speed or ergonomics.

He has an g1x which has the SAME sensor as this. It's actually better since it's a bit bigger when shot at 4/3 aspect ratio.

1 upvote

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

Because they're similarly sized cameras at a similar price... Who cares if the sensor is a different size if the outside is a similar size and they cost the same...

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.

"I don't know what was Canon thinking by intentionally crippling this camera" Maybe to protect their consumer DSLR sales….?!

http://j.mp/1uBXgYY
No Richard it's barely smaller as the Sony a6000 and significantly larger as the gm-1
Your right about the lens though. That fast with that range is rather impressive.
With the gx7 sensor or an Sony m43 this would have been a killer camera.
Now it's just wasted potential.

A comparison based on just the sensor alone may perhaps put the RX100 ahead, but then there's the tilting screen the ability to focus and shoot by touch and from any angle, the relatively much wider apertures, especialy on the long side of their zooms, which produce such great bokeh and yes, even the generaly great images. That said, I just ordered a Panasonic G6! :)

1 upvote

The RX 100 mkii also has an tilty screen. The gm-1 is smaller as the g1x and can have a massive dof advantage with the 45mm f1.8. So it does not matter there is ALWAYS something better if you look elsewhere.

1 upvote

@Richard Butler:
Per DPReview's own specification pages:
a6000: 120 x 67 x 45 mm = 361800 volume
G1X Mark II: 116 x 74 x 66 mm = 566644 volume

So please explain how is the a6000 "considerably larger"?

@Banhmi, you forgot to include lens into A6000 dimensions. Quoting Richard: "The a6000 is considerably larger, even with the slower and less rangy 16-50mm lens."

1 upvote

Phillips the 16-50mm powerzoom does not extend much further. The a6000 is actually smaller if you would add an viewfinder to the canon that the Sony already has built in

By (unknown member)

Barn, you're kinda self-centered and don't really get the point of having a fixed lens camera, do you? By kinda I mean a lot.

Hmmmm

1 upvote
By (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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

"With its DR Correct feature turned off, the G1 X II captures a bit more highlight tone that its predecessor, but the Sony RX100 II wins the day. If you compare just the G1 X II and RX100 II, it appears that the Canon goes deeper into the shadows, but as you'll see on the Image Quality page, most of that is shot noise, and the Sony comes out on top."

By (unknown member)

Oh, thank goodness! I was hoping there would be a whole new test just for this camera so a different test could be proven wrong. Whew! Thanks for the clarification.

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.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
By (unknown member)

Then shouldn't the test be done in RAW? What use is this test if all you're really showing is the JPEG tone curve and how good it looks? Wouldn't that make having another test unnecessary? Why have one test to prove the first test wrong, incomplete, or useless?
And at what ISO's is the "no DR advantage" apply? All? One? Do I need to go to DxO for that information?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote

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.

By

@ howardroark
DxO? Excellent idea.
It shows clearly how "well" Canon G1X M2 compares to Nikon D800 in terms of dynamic range.

By (unknown member)

That seems to be the consensus. The point was a disagreement in numbers....but obviously that is an issue with the test here since they haven't tried pushing shadows another five stops in previous tests.
The "put the arguments to rest" comment was sarcasm, by the way. But I tell you what, a lot of people were waiting on pins and needles for anything to latch on to. 12 and counting. Way to go, haters!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
1 upvote
By

howardroark, you are truly a great Canon cheerleader. I hope Canon sends you some swag from time to time. :)

This camera is simply not competitive with other new cameras. The Sony a6000 costs \$799, and with the 24 - 75 mm lens weighs 3 oz. less. It has a EVF included, the new 24 mp APC sized sensor, 11 fps burst rate, and many other features this camera lacks.

> We're working on a test to show Raw DR.

Overdue, but eagerly anticipated.

1 upvote

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).

Mike

1 upvote
By

@ howardroark...This is the first camera that scored worse in RAW vs JPEG in the history of DPR. Also DR IS a big deal, as I and DxO confirmed. Face it, the RX100 has a MUCH better sensor, it smaller/lighter and cost less. The review pointed out almost all the flaws I spoke about in the forum, remember. The review could have gone into slow, inaccurate AF and halo effects more, blown out highlights, etc... but I think they took it easy on it. They gave it a 'Silver Award' to be nice to fanboz :-} It was a great review and one I expected!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting