Previous page Next page

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review

May 2014 | By Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShop$799.00


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
70
I own it
230
I want it
41
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 634
1234
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (2 months ago)

YAWN!

4 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (2 months ago)

Finally, an $800 camera that will allow me to take selfies.

5 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (2 months ago)

I've been waiting for Canon to include all the good features in a G series camera, and they won't. Why oh why not Canon? Each time the G series camera has one or two of these nice features put back and one or two removed. Arrrg!

- Fast and wide lens (eg 24mm and better than f/2.8)
- Full tilt and swival screen
- Optical viewfinder

Grrr...

6 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

I agree, leave ALL that stuff in the G1X, and make an S1X as the more compact version. I'd take less zoom (like 3x), no VF, no tilt screen, no hotshoe, just that nice big sensor and a great lens in a truly pocketable form.

This thing is somewhere in the middle.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 days ago)

I'm sorry. I didn't need the EVF as I hardly use it, and I hate the swing-out swivel screens. I should never have let my preferences be known.

It's all my fault.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Dailou
By Dailou (2 months ago)

..........continuation from below the need this baby fulfills and is due to canons commitment to the underwater guys and gails, they always at the time of intro have a underwater housing you can get which in comparison to underwater housings is reasonably priced. with the better wide angle, nice viewing display , fast fstop, and decent sensor size, canons good build quality, and canons commitment to providing uw housings this will be a nice small package that should get good underwater results. (see the first half of my reason i like this camera). this is why i like this camera - by the way i have been shooting with this thing for the last 2 weeks and it is pleasant to use and the results are good

0 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (2 months ago)

Do you think that 'pleasant to use' and 'results are good' is the glowing endorsement that a new Canon camera would once have drawn ? They ought to be leading the pack, but have become reactive. My cupboard is full of old Canon bodies that barely see the light of day. I use the 7D for sports events, and the 5d mk2 for underwater use and video, but thats it. The brand has been left in the dust

3 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

Canon is rich. Sony stock is junk. Define "left in the dust".

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
wkeller
By wkeller (2 months ago)

I love my Canon cams, but for $201 more locally here, you could get a "junk" A7 body that, even wrapped in a sock, would embarrass that G1X Mark Second Attempt.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

And how will you use it without a lens or two?

I think you miss the concept of an all in one point and shoot versus a system. I have a M43 system, and, on another level, the 5D MkII, and the 1D MkIII.

I don't kid myself that the three different levels are the same. I am amazed by those that keep trying to do so. On the most basic point and shoot level, the only competition is RX100 MkII versus this. The Canon wins as far as I am concerned.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Not really the Panasonic GM-1 is also smaller as the g1x. Similar price and sensor size too.

BTW you prefer to buy Canon so that some filthy rich investor will get even more dividend. That is an truly ridiculous buying reason.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Barn, Gary was just saying that people keep predicting that Canon will fade away into the sunset as its sales remain very strong. Why is that? Is it because they make cameras that don't get in the way of taking a picture and produce excellent images? Yep, that's it.

4 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

BarnET. You seem to be having difficulties with the concept of the difference between a point and shoot and an interchangeable lens system camera. When I want the latter I'll use my OMD EM1, which does not replace the G1X MkII. And as for stock, well I do feel safer buying from a company that is not downrated to almost junk status.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/01/27/sony-credit-cut-to-junk-status-as-smartphones-cannibalize-its-tv-and-pc-businesses/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (2 months ago)

You are safer investing with a company making its investors rich than one making them poor.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Who cares about the difference of ilc and compact. The gm-1 and g1x fulfill the exact same role. An take everywhere camera with high quality versatility and limited bulk. The problem is that the sensor in the g1x is anything but quality.

The em-1 is the size of an small dslr so it's just more of a burden. It's great ergonomics make up for it though. That fulfils other needs.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

"Who cares about the difference of ilc and compact?"

People who have a need for a stantalone obviously. Like me. Even though I already have a good m43 system that thrashes the GM1.

" The gm-1 and g1x fulfill the exact same role."

No they don't actually. But keep bashing.

The only real competition here is between the Canon and the Sony, and having both on my shelf at this very minute I can tell you the Sony is no competition. Mostly on colour.

I can work with the Canon sensors. Dynamic range is an issue for specific SITUATIONS, not every image, and half those choosing to use it as a stick to beat a dog here (a) don't understand that, and (b) likely never shoot RAW and make the most of the DR of WHATEVER camera they have.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

The GM1 with a 24-120 zoom lens is how big again? You think this fills that need or that fill this need, but the G1 X I or II fills no need? Nice to meet you, Center of the Universe.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Even though I already have a good m43 system that thrashes the GM1."

A m43 camera that has significantly better IQ than the GM1? Which one?

"The only real competition here is between the Canon and the Sony, and having both on my shelf at this very minute I can tell you the Sony is no competition. Mostly on colour. "

So, why do you think the GM1 with the 12-32 doesn't qualify? It has a significantly better-quality lens than the RX100 (better resolution, MUCH better OIS, less need for in-camera post correction etc.; its only downside is being somewhat slower) and the overall package is almost as small as the RX100. And the sensor is WAAAY better than that of the G1X II.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

I have the OMD EM1 with the f2.8 lens.

A system camera is not a point and shoot. The lens is slower than the G1X, with about half the focal length at the long end. It's not much cheaper than the G1X. And it's a smaller sensor. Slow lenses were the big bane of the m43 for me UNTIL that f2.8 came along. I am not about to take a step backwards.

Imaging resource also shows me a little more noise and less detail on the GM1 even by ISO 400, and I frequently shoot low light at that speed or more. For my purposes the GM1 sensor in no way performs better.

incidentally, I HAVE used Panasonic M43, and found the dynamic range worse than the Canon.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1795662.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJ7ICBHXPIPPMTNCQ/20140512/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20140512T130408Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=e5da395c68da0b7a888209c157916c4bbc726a0b61286220997addfddb867965

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"I have the OMD EM1 with the f2.8 lens. "

It's not really in the same category as the GM1 and the RX100... The latter two are (with the GM1, more or less) pocketable cameras, the EM1 in no way so, particularly not with any non-compact f/2.8 lens (particularly if you meant the Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro).

This thread only compared pocketable cameras - they are what I too referred to.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

You asked me specifically which m43 camera had better IQ than the GM1. If you don't think you'll like the answer, don't ask the question.

And my comparisons were with the G1X MkII.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"You asked me specifically which m43 camera had better IQ than the GM1. If you don't think you'll like the answer, don't ask the question. "

Yup, I should have stated I only meant P&S size category (the subject of this very thread), not large(r) ones.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

the point is that even the EM-1 doesn't thrash the Gm-1. it's likely the same sensor. albeit with no AA filter and a better processor.

about panasonic bad dynamic range that is easy. the g3 and gh2 sensor found in many panasonic left a lot to be desired. But the GX7 GM-1 and now GH-4 are actually outperforming all canon apsc sensors.

besides the G1x sensor is not really bigger 1.92x crop vs 2x

0 upvotes
Dailou
By Dailou (2 months ago)

i have this camera and like it , i was going to get the g1x but i waited for the next one and am glade i did. here is why. i am not a pixel counter or a tech guy i just love photography and am an old fart from the film days. i have a variety of cameras but each one has a niche, not much redundancy. i travel all of southeast asia and mostly do b&w street portraits and use primarily these days a leica monochrom and a m9. for the small amount of scenic or landscape projespcts i use a 4x5 and a fuji 6x17 - these cameras cover most every thing except just fun family stuff and underwater stuff i occasional am involved in. this is were this little jewl comes in. it is handy , does a good job and since i print most what i do - with this more or less 1/2 frame sensor i get pretty good results at a 13x19 prints ( sensor size matters the rest does not if you are getting a serious camera get the biggest sensor you can - not mega pixels sensor size!!!)

1 upvote
paqman
By paqman (2 months ago)

methinks if this had a nikon sticker on it dp would have gushed and not focused (sic) on its 'flaws'. :}

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Look at the Nikon 1 series. It's also hated for it's IQ

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

The strange thing about this review is that in its conclusion it compares the G1X IQ unfavourably with the RX100 but its own pictures show the opposite, in every aspect except dynamic range.

Apart from which I don't like the green faces Sony gives me (And I have owned BOTH RX100s) and I don't like their RAWS.

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

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

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

I think the sensor size/lens combo is spectacular. Is it only me seeing this? If the sensor performance is half good and so the autofocus and controls, nothing really beats this in this market range. Yes the RX100 is far better in taking mediocre pictures.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

green faces............. man on man never heard of lightroom have you. you have an slider. the one with the purple/green colour. just move it slightly to the right.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Barn, when you have a color balance that's off a universal slider will solve one problem and cause another. Have you never USED Lightroom?

3 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

BarnET, what point of "don't like their RAWS" is causing you problems. Their RAWS are not as adjustable as those of other manufacturers, apart from which many people never touch RAW. I always process from RAW, But when I've fixed a green face at the expense of messing up every other colour in the image, I am not a happy camper.

3 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (2 months ago)

No sweep pano, no auto hdr. Meh. The future is algorithmic photography and canon is a dinosaur.

4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

LOL....and the future is smartphone photography, too. If you can't stitch an image together or do HDR without the help of a camera's processor then the machines will be in charge soon. I guess the plan is make everyone as fat and dumb as possible and then Skynet won't have much work left to do.

8 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (2 months ago)

No you should be developing your film in a dark room or you'll become fat and dumb #eyeroll#. Your jurassic attitude has a date with a meteor.

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Digital photographers are, by and large, some of the laziest and lousy photographers ever. Democrotizing photography with digital sensors only did what every other democrotizing technology has ever done, open up possibilities to a few disciplined people and tons and tons of people who have to be told to read the manual before they come to the internet asking questions. How often does anyone do a sweep panorama? How often do they take HDR shots? How often do people put a camera in green square mode and wonder why their shots look like crap? Digital convenience is great and all, but if you have to have the bleeding edge of digital manipulation built into the camera itself, you're relying on cheap photography tricks to wow your pals on facebook. At that point its more about having the latest technological toy than it is about taking a good picture.

9 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

I love panoramas. Which is why I never use sweep panorama!

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"I love panoramas. Which is why I never use sweep panorama!"

You certainly haven't seen the results of Apple's sweep panorama implementation. (Or that of Samsung. The latter is also stated to produce excellent results. I haven't played it with personally so I don't know how it compares to that of Apple.) Otherwise, I really wouldn't think you would state it's useless.

It's MUCH better than anything in-camera stitching (on iOS / WP) and, in my very thorough tests, consistently outperformed in stitching accuracy many desktop pano stitchers the latter running in automatic mode - for example, Hugin.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

"You certainly haven't seen the results of Apple's sweep panorama implementation."

Well I have. Nice toy. Not stunning photographs, particularly if anything is moving in your shot. . And the same for the Samsung which I now use having dropped iPhone.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Well I have. Nice toy. Not stunning photographs, particularly if anything is moving in your shot."

Of course it can't beat proper framing & post processing in a decent pano stitcher. It isn't meant to beat them. WRT in-camera stitching, however, Apple's / Samsung's implementations are unbeatable. They do have their place under the Sun: quick, pretty good panos without having to do any PP's but still without major stitching errors and with respectable quality, unlike with other cameras' built-in(!!!) pano mode.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

Menneisyys, I have an iPhone. It's not better than Photoshop, but thanks for playing.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Menneisyys, I have an iPhone. It's not better than Photoshop, but thanks for playing."

Can you run PS on your camera?

FYI: I've been talking about *quick* sweep panos that still have decent stitching. In that, Apple and Samsung are unbeatable and even Sony is way behind. Just check out the stitching errors of the Sony RX10 for example - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3655218?post=53489652&image=8 (linked from http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3655218 ). That wouldn't happen with an iPhone or a high-end Sammy.

I certainly know the difference of the quality a *decent* desktop tool can give compared to Apple's sweep pano. (Actually, I've posted tons of examples and comparisons of them to the forums here.) But all that requires PP.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

Mobile phone panos are like the dog playing chess. He never wins but at least he can move the pieces.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

And I've been talking about real panoramas. Yes, for the panorama equivalent of a snapshot, an iPhone is fine to grab a pano that says "I was here".

1 upvote
Monvieux
By Monvieux (2 months ago)

I've been waiting forthis combination of features and price point in a camera. I will evaluate it for myself but nonetheless, the review is inciteful and does make me think twice. It always comes down to money and marketing and perhaps Canon had to make some trade-offs to meet a certain price-point. I can't help but think the Canon is in the midst of financial worries and this model release is reflective of that....!

Thanks for all the posts, they do help a lot

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Canon only has to worry about its finances if the 60 people in the forums here are the only ones left buying cameras. Most people will look at this review, say "what's RAW?", and buy the camera because it's in a class of its own. If my G1 X wasn't so incredibly useful I'd be much more tempted to upgrade to the Mark II right away. For now I'll see what happens with the 7D Mark II, take care of other financial priorities, and then see what I think in maybe a year. If users who know something about this camera keep posting pictures and bragging about performance I may have to change my schedule.

0 upvotes
Tripeiro
By Tripeiro (2 months ago)

I doubt most people spending 850€ on an enthusiast compact don`t know what RAW is. But they will sell, the brand name alone sells, even among people that should know better.

1 upvote
ebbesen
By ebbesen (2 months ago)

People who ask "What's RAW?" shouldn't be looking at this camera; they'll probably be better served by other models.

Drop me a mail if you do change your mind and decide to go for the mark ii here. I got mine a week ago, and hate to say it, but I've more or less regretted the buy.

Having used Micro Four Thirds (GF1 + recently the GM1) as well as Fuji's X100 for the last couple of years the G1Xii has turned out to a bit of a let down.

When you're used to the speed of the Panasonics the Canon feels annoyingly slow; I have no idea what it's doing in the seconds it blacks out after a picture has been taken.

It lacks the heft of the MFTs (and of course the Fuji). To me it has the feel of a point-and-shoot, but lacks the compactness, and that's the thing that really ruins it for me. I figured this should be my carry-with-you-at-all-times camera.

The fast lens was simply too tempting; but overall the GM1 strikes me as the better camera, at least for me.

...dang, I'm a lousy salesman

5 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Really? Because I feel the same way about DSLRs and ILCs, and yet for some reason (cheap, good) people who don't have a clue about RAW love them. There are plenty of JPEG diehards even here, where you'd expect people to be more apt to shoot and edit RAW. If you own a camera that has RAW as an option, chances are you should find a use for it every now and then.....yet some people don't want to have anything to do with post processing or they don't want to fool with big RAW files.

0 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (2 months ago)

@Monvieux says the review is "inciteful" when he/she means "insightful" - let's save face and blame the spell-checker

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

Canon is not in financial difficulties. Sony is.

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (2 months ago)

Pro-Sony separatists should organize a referendum. And separate from the outdated Canon tech. Forever. And ever. Cheers! :) :) :)

1 upvote
Dimitris G
By Dimitris G (2 months ago)

"Fast lens with good focal range, capable of very shallow depth-of-field" For me these reasons are enough. It allows me to shoot: A. With low light B. To take really good portraits, something totally unique and C. Turn to 24 mm for decent landscapes. All in a compact package. Also the 8000 ISO shot of the cat is absolutely satisfying to my eyes and makes me feel confident for the night shots!

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (2 months ago)

The problems with low light is 1. noise due to the old sensor. 2. unsharpness due to not being able to focus in low light.

0 upvotes
Dimitris G
By Dimitris G (2 months ago)

I trade the problem with the combination of the very shallow depth of field and the 24 mm/f2 lens. Also this "problem", in fact is really minor, when I consider all the spontaneous comments below the samples during the camera preview which were positive about the low light performance. So not really a deal breaker to my eyes.

1 upvote
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (2 months ago)

What many myths there are alive here, expose correctly, to the right etc etc etc.
A sensor has a dynamic range , noise and even also banding = Canon.

There are no correctly exposure, there are a scene with a dynamic range and how this can be reproduced with or with out any clipping and full color resolution in high lights and where also the deepest shadows can be reproduced / visualized with low noise details and no banding = DR
Larger DR 14 stop = better=Nikon
Lower DR 11-11,5 stop is inferior = Canon old sensor tech with 12 times higher read out noise than Sony

Believe is something, dynamic range some thing else

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (2 months ago)

I think the point was only that the Canon sensors have a small DR, so you have to expose it more to avoid noise. Using a more modern sensor and you can expose less.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (2 months ago)

Still in any Sony camera still have noise problem when underexposed in luminance noise and it looks terrible, you boost shadow recovery by 50 or more, noise still there. Nothing much difference from Canon. Same applies to Nikon or Pentax or anything else. If you want to take perfect shot, you should know how to control the exposure and take just right shot so you do not need to do shadow recovery and the noise will be much less and much cleaner result.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

1Dx has 1.3 electron read noise on 90K electron pixel capacity
D800 has twice the noise (2.6) on half the pixel capacity (45K)
I'm not sure I can allow for pixel counts and get 10x, or even as much.

Plus comparing a 1.5" sensor to a much bigger one isn't exactly fair (and you need a bigger sensor to get more base-ISO DR than about 12 stops).

Also recent Canons are pretty good at DR when it really matters, at high ISO, a 6D has more DR than a D800 at all ISOs over 1,000 for example. (BTW I don't have a 6D, D800 etc. just adding some discussion. I do have a RX100 and won't get a G1X.)

P.S. The RX100s get about 12 stops vs. 11 stops for the G1X, which are both quite enough for most people (as photos that pop have about 10 stops of DR, having a stop spare to allow for post-processing is good, having two stops to allow for poor exposure is good if you're inexperienced, having 14 stops is only of great use for specialised requirements or really rubbish exposure - which does happen.)

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

All excellent points, doc.

0 upvotes
Mac McCreery
By Mac McCreery (2 months ago)

rather disappointing........I was intrigued by the mark one- I assumed that the 'two' would make leaps forward- what I really despise is the need (Canon is not alone!) to buy a separate viewfinder if that is your bag........

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
alpha90290
By alpha90290 (2 months ago)

There is youtube video that teach you how to DIY a view finder for the hot shoe. You hack saw off the view finder from a disposable camera and glue to a hot shoe cover, which you can slide into the hot shoe. it is useful for any camera that doesn't have a viewfinder but have a hot shoe.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (2 months ago)

Good review Jeff.

That said, it's a pity that the beancounters that pay your wage insist on the Silver Award. Clearly the camera doesn't deserve any gong, and especially as this will be used by your affiliate to sell more cameras.

Here amongst enthusiasts 77% is an accurate assessment, although a sad result for Canon fans. At Amazon however, the shiny DPR Silver Award logo is a big thumbs up for the masses.

Poor and transparent scruples DPR management. :/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Photographers really are just about as egomaniacal group as you can get. Is it because knowing anything about photography is somewhat rare and when others invariably want to take a good picture they come to you bowing and scraping?
People here who have never used the G1 X or Mark II have no idea what a pleasure it is to use these cameras, although I can only speak for the G1 X.
These comments are like history repeating itself. After using my own brain to analyze images, features, lens, etc. for the G1 X I bought it before the reviews were out. Best money I've ever spent on a camera. People point to DxO or DPR scores like they mean something and yet they don't have any idea what they really mean. Scores are a reflection of one set of weighted parameters. How do you score this lens on a large sensor compact body? I even tried pushing shadows on my RAW files like they've done here....guess I need to buy a color chart to get the same results, because the shadows have amaxing detail.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

@chillgreg - the G1 X II is a camera that offers a unique (and really flexible) feature set. It does an awful lot well and offers both 24mm equiv and the kind of shallow depth-of-field portrait that cameras this small can't usually offer.

It has a couple of handling quirks and doesn't stand out from its closest rival as much as its specs might lead you to expect, but it's still a very good camera. It's easy to justify its Silver Award.

For the record:

There is no connection between reviewers' pay and awards given.

Nobody from outside the dpreview editorial team ever has any input into rating, nor have they even expressed opinions.

The reviews team will discuss the award (and opinions can vary), but they are the only people who are party to that discussion and the final decision always lies with the primary reviewer.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Why would 77% be a sad result? According to DPR's explanation of their scoring system, 80% and above is to be regarded as 'outstanding'. In other words, the G1 X Mark II is just short of outstanding. No cause for sadness if you ask me.

1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (2 months ago)

It is the football team supporter mentality.

1 upvote
alpha90290
By alpha90290 (2 months ago)

Sum up the review in one sentence :-D

"Need deep pocket to buy it and large pocket to make it pocketable"

11 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

tell me the cost and size of anything that get close to a 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 for a 1.5" sensor that aliens did not bring to Earth

2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (2 months ago)

In contrary to prevailing opinions I am not dissappointed. It is still a decent improvement from Mark I: the lens alone is such a huge improvement that allows to produce better pictures and - most notably - to work with DoF. On the other hand I understand what DPR meant by comparison with RX100: the difference in picture quality is not as big as would bigger sensor indicate; it is obvious that if Sony made a compact camera with 1,5" sensor, it would clearly outperform the G1X (just like Canon´s APSC sensors are outperformed by the comeptition). However Sony does not make such camera and even if G1X is not as potent as it could be - given the specs, it still has the advantage of big sensor and bright lens. And actually it is the only compact zoom that allows to work with DoF (for portraits etc.), what no other compact zoom allows.
If there is somethig I complain aout, it is the lack of built-in viewfinder: the external EVF makes the camera much bulkier and the combo very expensive.

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

I'll buy that lens when canon attaches it to a deserving body!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

Or at least detaches it from that junk and releases it in m43. :)

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (2 months ago)

What a disappointment. Make a very nice camera with a very good lens and put an aged sensor in it with yesterdays performance. I was planning to buy it. But ... now I buy something else. Thank you DPR for this review!

The problem is only - what?

I have looked at A6000, GM1, GX7, RX100 and P5.

4 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"The problem is only - what?

I have looked at A6000, GM1, GX7, RX100 and P5."

I'm in the same boat as you. Personally, I wait for the Sony RX100 MkIII announcement. If it does deliver the rumoured 24mm WA, is released here in Europe before July and the IQ isn't messed up, I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll go for the GM1 with the 12-32 - it's not much bigger and has an excellent, albeit a bit slow, 24mm WA kit zoom.

4 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (2 months ago)

me also, but from a different point of view. I'm not looking for pocketability but for the best IQ in an all-in-one package which I enjoy using (manual controls with easy access mainly), so my other option is RX10, which has the same good sensor than RX100 II and a better lens... my only worries are not having Canon 180° tilting-tactile LCD and the weird sensibility of focus/zoom lens rings in the Sony. Size should be also worrying me, but I could live with it.

2 upvotes
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (2 months ago)

I'd go Fuji x100 or x100s personally. I don't have one yet - still use an old heavy 5d and 35mm prime or my phone. But apart from battery life (which is always an issue with small cams , especially that can't use AA eneloops or equivalent as tech improves), I can't think of any downsides for casual photography.

Big pros include viewfinder and lens, as well as nice touchy-feely manual controls. Plus one should never underestimate the difference a beautiful retro camera will make to portrait subject's comfort and thus smiles. :)

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

If Sony announces RX100 III with a 24mm, then I'll be there in a flash!

1 upvote
DouglasGottlieb
By DouglasGottlieb (2 months ago)

With you on the X100s love, but that's a fixed prime lens camera, so not the best comparison to a fixed zoom. What I'd love is an X100s with a small, fast, X20 style zoom. Hopefully the X30 will bump up to a 1 inch sensor, or the Sony RX100iii will drink its milkshake

0 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (2 months ago)

since when does the jpg and raw quality of 55% mean silver award... a wait a minute, it's canon

Nick

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

since when you have a compact camera with such a kickass lens and large sensor?
Ah wait, a minute you probably shoot only with your phone and have no idea of the value real lens.

3 upvotes
Boky
By Boky (2 months ago)

what's the point of kick ass lens when the end-result is mediocre at best?

I used to have L-glass, but sold all canon crap once I realized that canon can not achieve consistently accurate focus irrelevant of price i paid.

you psychic abilities suck by the way.

Nick

0 upvotes
infocus
By infocus (2 months ago)

I have the Mark I (love how the "Mark" moniker has been attached to the original G 1X) and the IQ is fantastic, especially in low light situations and high ISO. This is not mediocre considering its size.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (2 months ago)

nice but too late, too expensive. Rx100, A6000, GM1, GR.

4 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

I'm not sure I'd criticise it all that much on price, Canon launch prices are usually highly fictional very soon after a launch.
Graph for G1X here:
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-Powershot-Cameras/Canon-PowerShot-G1-X
Launch price £700
Four months later available for £550
Was around £400 after just over a year, and stayed at that level for quite some time.

0 upvotes
rccasgar
By rccasgar (2 months ago)

If lense makes the difference (and assuming size is not a problem for a person who is not looking for a pocketable camera), G1X Mk2 or Sony RX10?

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

Dear Sony RX100 lovers and Canon haters, the camera creativity is just as good as the lens in front of it and this camera lens put the Sony's into shame. Even more kudos for doing this with the challenge of a larger sensor. Sure if your are up for a pocketable body and average images go for the Sony. But for that my phone is good enough too.

3 upvotes
2eyesee
By 2eyesee (2 months ago)

You could at least try to state your case with a coherent supporting argument. Unfortunately you've simply chosen to present yourself as a Canon lover and Sony hater, which really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

8 upvotes
Segaman
By Segaman (2 months ago)

This forum is a canon hater forum ,does not take a brain to found out.
Most of the guys here a gear chasers, photography is more than a tool,,its creativity, and from reading most post here, its the same "rancunes" that comes out of these so called arguments.
boringggggggggggggg

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

" photography is more than a tool,,its creativity, and from reading most post here, its the same "rancunes" that comes out of these so called arguments."

As has been explained millions of times, the better the tool (technically), (technically) the better images a photog can shoot.

Of course a lot of us are disappointed by the sensor of the new G1X. That's the Achilles' heel of the camera - the single one that makes it a no-go for me.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (2 months ago)

May favourite compact is a Canon G10, I use it all the time. Unfortunately it is aged, slow and with low image quality. So, I plan to upgrade. The G1X II was my main choice. So ... Canon hater? Hmmm ... Unfortunately, Canon blew it for me. Why upgrade if I get noisy shadows? Totally meaningless.

0 upvotes
badi
By badi (2 months ago)

@armandino:
I thought the creativity is an attribute of the photographer. But as technology advances...

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

@2eyesee:
here is the coherence for you
24-120 F2.0-3.9 vs 28-100 1.8-5.9 -28mm is not wide enough-
is a world of a difference
sensor 1.5" vs 1"
is also a world of a difference. The Sony is a wonderful little camera, yet for anything more than point and shoot trails the G1X big time and it is shocking how so many do not see that. The tiny dynamic range advantage of the sony is of scarce relevance a this level.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 months ago)

@ badi
creativity is also function of degrees of freedom, and you get a lot more of that with the G1X than with RX100

0 upvotes
BPD7
By BPD7 (2 months ago)

Longtime Canon SLR user here. Also used their pocket cameras, which I never liked. Recently been using Fujifilm x100s, Sony RX100 and Fujifilm X-A1. The Canons are lacking. I won't ever go back to a point and shoot Canon. The Rx100 is so pocketable it's amazing. Why would I go to this camera when it's not as pocketable and I can get better results on the Sony?

Canon will continue to lose market share IMO.

3 upvotes
Angus Rose
By Angus Rose (2 months ago)

If the RX100 had a wide angle, closer to 24mm, I would be there in a flash!

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (2 months ago)

"Canon will continue to lose market share IMO."

Everything you said is true, except for the above statement. Canon's market share for compact cameras is on the rise again, at the expense of poor Nikon... which is losing their market share in this department so quickly it almost appears as though they are pulling out of the market altogether.

1 upvote
Chronis
By Chronis (2 months ago)

Boring boring boring....

I ve spent 000' on canon kit and glass but they ve end up a slow moving incumbent...

Id really like to see their a#@+* kicked by the likes of Sony oly and samsung

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (2 months ago)

Somehow I don't believe you ever bought that glass even if you did you'd never tried it before you bought it. For a fast action shooting pro like yourself it's a very unwise purchase. how did you slip up this time?

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

I've spent 0000s on Canon glass (well, in the teens of thousands of pounds, not sure I make it to 20K if I throw in everything else) and like the fact they've been prudent during the financial down-turn, continue to make more money (as in net Income) than all the other camera companies put together and will be around for the foreseeable future.
I do hope they release some great bodies this year, but some of the glass to come out in the last two years has been just amazing... IMHO.
Oh, and I'd like all the camera companies to do well and don't see one failing as being a good thing...

0 upvotes
Chronis
By Chronis (2 months ago)

I have the impression that both canon and nikon make their rich living out of "hostages" who are locked into their systems by releasing step wise improvements of their existing kit rather than something really innovative...

For one I really like sony to give them a run for their money... Maybe we d be around to see the day when a full frame body sells for less than 1K...

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (2 months ago)

Hm... I can get better landscapes in the same resolution from my 808.. I don't think the optics are up to par

examples

4200x2900

http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/808_pureview/2014050507384e22B5.jpg

4100x2800

https://o1elvq.bn1302.livefilestore.com/y2pzQZSthCllYkB_5U2c657LrKoHzWWqqj_iQbYPrAub5semOS05ybz1C_Y6gMQUXbhl-UQfXoypUFSkFROQ8Tdamo_A6ckoad5ERC-0QR-l7g/20140501_135107_1.jpg

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/808_pureview/2014050507384e22B5.jpg"

BTW, you have some blurring, CA and vignetting in the corners. Blurring isn't common with the 808. On mine, there's not any kind of blur in the corners, not even in extreme ones when shooting in the nonstandard 41 Mpixel mode. Neither does the 808 tested by DPR.

Have you tried swapping your 808 for another one with Nokia?

0 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (2 months ago)

Just demonstrates to me the problems with where Canon is heading and the lack of imagination in their development dept.
This is really just a minor tweak of the previous model. It would appear that any thought of having a dramatic change of direction with real imagination and foresight is just beyond them. I had, until the last 3 or so year, bought nothing but Canon cameras for more than 2 decades, but now cant really see anything in their line up that appeal at all. My 5d mk2 remains an excellent SLR, but I would love to see Canon jump out of the pack, and produce something really exciting, say, and mirror less interchangeable lens camera with a full frame sensor, that weighs about half of what an SLR weighs (e.g. something along the lines of a Sony A7R) that produces outstanding stills, and high end functional video. There is a window for them here to produce the ultimate non-SLR travel camera. They have the sensor tech.

But sadly, I cant even imagine that this is on their radar

0 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (2 months ago)

Nice camera. Should take good pictures.

0 upvotes
Segaman
By Segaman (2 months ago)

It might get a cool (not warm) review, but when you look at the picture on other forum, this is a very nice camera, the price will go down, and it will still be ahead of any other brand, cause people don't read reviews, they look at what th pictures, and that is enough for most people.
Who care if 40 fanboys don't like it, it will sell and it has a nice niche in that price range, viva la competition

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

There are enough positives, albeit inconsistent, in the the review for most of us who have actually used the camera. For example, in one part it admits the IQ is better than the RX100, but not better ENOUGH to justify the size increase.

"Overall, though, the larger sensor in the Canon is much of the reason that the camera is so much less pocketable than the Sony, yet the full benefits of that additional sensor size are not realized: the Canon's image quality advantage isn't proportionate with its greater bulk."

Add that to 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,"

So that means, less noise in a comparable lighting situation.

The issue becomes whether its greater bulk is even an issue for you.

5 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

In terms of image detail versus noise in an RX100 comparison, one can always use one's own eyes, and the DPReview tests

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

Really, one needs blinders at ANY ISO to think the RX100 Mk II is outperforming the Canon on detail there. The review fails to notice that the Canon is either using a lot less noise reduction or still capturing a sharper image even above ISO 6400. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

The one hit is on dynamic range. Only individual photographers can tell how much of a hit that is likely to be for them. My images almost never demand the full dynamic range of the camera, and if that's all people care about, it amazes me that anyone owns anything other than the Nikon D800. If you do own anything else instead, then you too agree DR is not the only issue.

3 upvotes
juvx
By juvx (2 months ago)

I cant believe it got such a high score LOL the sony a6000 better get a 90 then. LOL it spanks it in every possible category for the same size and same price....

1 upvote
Marvol
By Marvol (2 months ago)

...and a completely different category.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

"you can keep taking photos until the memory card fills up, and there's no 'lock up' delay after a burst is taken. "

Looks like the camera has no buffer at all beyond just 1 "current" picture.

So many problems in a camera that expensive... Canon should stop making cameras and just make lenses. I would pay the same money the whole camera is worth for just the lens - with m43 active mount and weather-sealed. Canon can leave the rest (the junk) to itself.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

I would even pre-order the lens. I can live with it's flaws at this size and speed.

0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (2 months ago)

Dpreview is not TIPA. And Sony is not Canon. And Apple is not Samsung. People still buy Apple. Lovely. Cheers! :)

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

"On the one hand, there's a risk is could seem confusing - the ability to toggle through three functions can make it hard to remember what the dial is going to do, next time you turn it. "

No other CINCERE way looking at it - second order of modality means bad interface squared.

0 upvotes
David Eicher
By David Eicher (2 months ago)

I am a long time Canon user. 1D MK I-IV, 5D MK I-III.
G 10, 11, 12, G1X.
For better or worse I am invested in Canon, comfortable with the menus and features, don't like using different systems at the same time. I travel a lot and quick, familiar use is valuable to me. I use DSLR for most work, a compact camera for "travel shots" or convenience.

I had a OLY OMD EM5, took pretty good shots but I just didn't get comfortable, and always wished I had SLR, I was changing lenses anyway.

I have averaged an 85% resale rate for 10 years.

I am trying out the G1X MK II to fill my role for a single carry camera with no lens changing. If I want pocket pictures I use my Phone as do most people.

Can't believe how negative the forums have gotten. I used to come on and share ideas and get advice. If I was an outsider reading this website I would think most camera gear is crap.

I still remember getting great shots with an OLY 5050 Zoom before I went to the first Rebel.

Just my 2 cents

9 upvotes
Tripeiro
By Tripeiro (2 months ago)

You should smell the coffee... Canon is getting outdated in everything and brand loyalty is pathetic.

10 upvotes
Sidath Senanayake
By Sidath Senanayake (2 months ago)

I have been a Canon user for just under 10 years and have made several memorable images with them (link below).

Then I got the RX100 and was blown away by the dynamic range that little compact was achieving, in some cases eclipsing my 5D2. I recently got an A7R and within a month I sold my 5D2.

Canon is outdated. Their old cameras still take excellent photos, but what Sony is offering now is far ahead. You should try a Sony RX100 as your compact -- you might find yourself taking a similar path to me :)

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/sidaths

11 upvotes
David Eicher
By David Eicher (2 months ago)

Nice website. Great shots (love the waterfall/rainbow) I may give the Sony a look if I am not happy with the G1XII. I am not brand loyal so much as comfortable (SLR wise)
I have seen some excellent Sony system shots the last few years.

My gallery is at http://www.eicherfoto.com

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (2 months ago)

Far ahead? In what? the pictures it produces? In reliability? In usability? In service & support? Canon's lens catalog punks Sony's, big time. And with sony's new crippled lens mount even more so. The only category Sony is 'far ahead' of canon in is gimmicks & gadgetry. Which is worth something, but sony is aiming at the techy crowd, enthusiasts & hobbits. Canon has the working pro's on lock.
I'll take sony seriously when they bring out a durable, reliable camera with a VF & fast professional glass, backed up with worldwide professional support.
Until then, Sony cameras are just... Cute.

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

Sony is ahead in raw image quality for years now. Their sensors have more dynamic range lower noise and high pixel counts as their canon counterparts. That's got nothing to do with gimmicky gadgetery.

As for lens line-ups and global professional support. Nikon uses sony sensors so just go that route It's that simple most people don't need this since it's not their livelihood.

As far as gimmickry goes. Canon has touchscrpixelWiFi not working hybrid phase detect in live view. And 1 gimmick that works the dual pixel.

So please get by our facts straight and put your L sunglasses down.

4 upvotes
Sidath Senanayake
By Sidath Senanayake (2 months ago)

@samhain: you have a point. In some cases Canon certainly offers more. I should have been more specific -- I was talking about Sony's sensor technology and the fact that they seem to be making an effort to innovate.

BarnET has it right though. If I cared for what Canon offers over Sony (wider lens support, professional services and so on) I'd go with Nikon.

I'm just an amateur who spends most of his time shooting landscapes, architecture and portraits. For that, the Sony A7r is great, and better than anything Canon offers. And, since it's smaller and lighter than a D800E, better than what Nikon offers.

If Canon overtake Sony again and I can afford it, I'll switch back. It's about the images.

If you think Sony cameras are just 'cute' you should give them a try. Your credibility as a commenter on this forum will thank you.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (2 months ago)

I love how the very first response here exemplifies the original poster's point. And I have tried the Sony cameras, dislike their inconsistent colours and dislike their relative inflexibility in RAW, so I will stick with what works better for me. The G1X SMOKES the RX100 on detail.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (2 months ago)

I can't disagree with samhain. Although I am disappointed with the Canon G1X Mk2, I still think Canon is the best choice for the professional photographer. For the moment, it still has the largest selection in choice of lenses. Tracking focus is still the fastest so far. If one need to shoot sports or a reasonable fast subject, the Canon 1DX with the EF 200-400mm f/4.0L, for example, is still the best tool for the job. It simply get the job done.

Recently, many brands like the Oly EM1 and the Fuji X-T1 are trying to get into the "pro" market but they are still short in achieving it. Tracking focus is still not there yet and one might miss the shot, thus not reliable yet. Choice of Pro lenses are limited.

As for Sony, they are still experimenting with the market with various "new innovations". It may be exciting for the hobbyist but the Pros would not gamble with it until things become more settled. Perhaps, one day.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

Actually Sony isn't ahead on Raw image quality for two reasons.
Firstly they use lossy compression on the Raw files which means on some scenes it all goes downhill a bit. They can be better at low-ISO due to extra DR but the may get bitten by the missing data.
Secondly at high ISO, where the lower DR can become critical for getting good images, the Canon 6D beats the Sony 99 for DR at all ISOs over 1000.
Not that there aren't scenes where the Sony's low-ISO DR makes it a big win, but it's not black and white...

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

If you check DxO tests (which is what so many live by) Sony overestimates ISO for most of the range. At ISO100 it's really about 100, at stated ISO 200 it's really 136, and at 400 it's really 270. So you basically get ISO100 and 200 (really 100 and 136) with a DR advantage. After that the ISO you choose will underexpose your image and have worse DR.

0 upvotes
Tripeiro
By Tripeiro (2 months ago)

With a good EVF and a modern sensor it would be worth 700/750€. As it is it is worth 550/600€ at most. But they are asking for 850€!!!! LOL

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

Because there are people who will pay that for it and limited supply. When the quantities for cameras in the supply chain builds up the price will come down to shift them. That's why Canon makes money selling Cameras, it's a business...

0 upvotes
MikeFairbanks
By MikeFairbanks (2 months ago)

I think it looks great, and if I had a ton of money I'd buy it. I'm tapped out after buying a 6D, and I'm perfectly happy with it. When I put the 40mm pancake lens on the 6D it's a pretty small setup, so I don't really need a G1x (unless it can comfortably fit into pants pockets).

A DLSR won't fit in my pocket, and that's fine. I love DSLRs and accept that one limitation (not too portable). But for a compact camera it's pants pockets or nothing. If I have to use a camera bag, then I'll bring the DSLR with a small lens.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

My X100S fits in a loose pants/shorts/jacket pocket, so I think this would too. It's tempting.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

There is a good point that it's cheaper to buy some clothes with bigger pockets than get a camera you like less.

0 upvotes
Babka08
By Babka08 (2 months ago)

This camera has a nice lens. (trying to focus on the positive)

Sony has shown what the 1" sensor can do behind a great lens with the RX10. OK, it's larger, but it's a super big range. If you dialled it back to 24-120 and chose to make the body more compact, you could very, very easily get an RX100 with a bigger bump out front. And it would kill the Canon. But they don't need to because the RX100 sells like hotcakes, and now they have the RX10, which includes an EVF, for the price of the G1XII with an external finder.

In terms of crappy Canon sensors, well, I have a 6D and it has an amazing sensor. So they can make them if they choose.

1 upvote
Sidath Senanayake
By Sidath Senanayake (2 months ago)

Agreed, the 6D is probably the best sensor that Canon make right now. But Sony's are still better (I'm an ex-Canon (and still nostalgic) shooter).

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"But they don't need to because the RX100 sells like hotcakes, and now they have the RX10, which includes an EVF, for the price of the G1XII with an external finder."

Just don't forget that many of us would happily be purchasing a small, pocketable Sony camera that has a zoom lens starting at 24mm and having the IQ of the RX10 at 24mm. For us, neither the RX10 (size, weight) nor the current two RX100's (starts at 28mm and significantly lower lens IQ than that of the RX10) are really sufficient.

Now, an RX100 with a 24mm, assuming it delivers at least as good IQ as, say, the Pana 12-32 m43 kit lens (even if you need to increase the apterture to, say, f3.5), would be a god-send. That's a camera sale for Sony - unlike with the current camera lineup, where neither the RX10 nor the RX100 are the exact thing we want.

0 upvotes
Sidath Senanayake
By Sidath Senanayake (2 months ago)

@Menneisyys: Who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

I'd love for the RX100 to go as wide as 24mm. However, I'd sacrifice that range difference for the size benefit personally. Others might go the other way.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

The 6D has better high-ISO DR than any Nikon I can come up with other than the D4s, so I think it's fine for most people, as 12 stop at low ISO is enough for almost everything most people will do.

0 upvotes
tutek
By tutek (2 months ago)

For 400-500 U.S. dollars buy it. That's his real price

3 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (2 months ago)

Canons old sensor tech and expose to the right, it means longer exposures than with other cameras, it means narrow to blown highlights.
Better with a camera/ sensor that have low read out noise , good QE and can be exposed shorter with high lights intact and also where you can lift the lower levels to visual details in the shadows with out noise and banding, that is called DR, something Canon does not have much of

6 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

Do you even own a Canon DSLR? It sounds like you don't. Canon's DR is only lacking if you shoot incorrectly and/or process incorrectly. I am shooting youth sports professionally with a 5D3 in direct sunlight. With the proper exposure and processing in LR, I'm getting rich, beautiful, well balanced images with loads of DR.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Sidath Senanayake
By Sidath Senanayake (2 months ago)

I have until a few months ago only owned Canon cameras (up to 5D2). I've made some memorable images with them (link below, if you want to judge the value of my opinion). I've recently got a Sony A7R and the sensor is just plain better.

If your tonal range fits within what the Canon sensor can capture and you expose correctly you're fine. With the Sony the same (obviously) still holds. However if you've messed up the exposure, you've got a lot more room to fix things up (esp. in the shadows). More importantly, if your scene has a lot of DR in it, the Sony just blows away the Canon sensors I've used.

I used to bracket and then manually merge high DR scenes with my Canon using Enfuse (you'll see them in my link below). With the A7R I contined the practice but found that the 0eV image was usually sufficient with some shadow/highlight work in Lightroom.

I don't bracket half as much as I used to. If you shoot landscape with large DR give a Sony a try.

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/sidaths

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (2 months ago)

JackM: "Canon's DR is only lacking if you shoot incorrectly and/or process incorrectly."

You forgot to mention the other scenario where Canon's DR may be lacking: when you have a high DR scene that extends beyond what the camera can capture.

If you don't feel you need more DR than what your Canon camera offers, that's perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean others don't run into DR limitations of current cameras. Even current cameras with quoted 13 or 14 EV of dynamic range - just ask any landscape photographer keen on shooting sunrises and sunsets.

That said, does that mean you can't use your Canon camera to shoot high DR scenes? Absolutely not; people do it all the time. Almost every shot here was taken with either a Canon DSLR or Velvia film:

http://www.rishisanyalphotography.com/2013/03/11/landscapes-portfolio/

I just worked around the medium's limitations (bracketed, etc). But does that mean I don't appreciate the extended DR & processing latitude of my new A7R? Absolutely not.

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

Mikael - One thing of interest to note is that even with a perfect sensor, shadows will be noisy. This is b/c of shot, or statistical, noise. A perfect sensor/signal-processing pathway will be 'shot-noise limited', at which point your SNR will be limited by noise inherent in the light itself. For a shot-noise limited camera, the SNR will be roughly sqrt (# of photons captured). Consider then that the SNR of 100 will be ~10, while the SNR of 10,000 will be 100.

The point is: shadows will have lower SNR than midtones/highlights, even for a perfect sensor. I simply mention this b/c it's oft overlooked in discussions of DR.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

A 6D has less DR than a A7R up to ISO 1100 then more DR above that. It has a lot less DR at base ISO and if you get a lot of poor exposures that could be an issue (although 12 stops is a fair bit). At high ISO you do run out of DR though. Also the 6D has been out a while now.

0 upvotes
Rob
By Rob (2 months ago)

Considering that there's absolutely no other option on the market with the same combination of compact size, DOF control, focal range, touchscreen focus/shutter, etc, this is the only choice for those who need such a combination.

Mine is arriving today, and I bought it knowing its strengths and weaknesses, and decided the strengths are more important to my needs. It's not perfect but it'll have to do because there are no comparable alternatives. But I'll say this--as soon as a competitor releases a comparable model that's significantly better (or Canon releases mark III and it's vastly improved), I'll be selling the mark II and upgrading.

5 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

This is true, it is unique. The only way to get better performance in your pocket is with an X100S, but only at 35mm! Enjoy your new camera.

0 upvotes
mamiller
By mamiller (2 months ago)

. . . and why would DPreview award that camera a Silver rating?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (2 months ago)

consolation prize

4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

The lens alone would cost over a grand if it was made for a DSLR or ILC. Go find all the lenses required to cover that area, match it, or come up just short. They forced it into a "macro" mode similar to other P&S cameras and they are paying for forcing people to stop it down ONE STOP to avoid some soft focus. So, assume that you have to pay over $500 for a real macro lens (because it's true) and only look at non-macro focusing distances. How many lenses do you need to find? Two at least? Each one about $500 to get similar image quality? Yeah, buy an ILC or a DSLR then a couple of good lenses and see how deep in the hole you are.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (2 months ago)

Howardroark, if you like it, buy it!

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

No he should wait.
probably on firesale soon!

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Elaka, if you don't like it then don't buy it. At least I have some experience with the sensor to inform my statements. If your only basis for comment is the schadenfreude associated with anything that might be considered a negative review then perhaps you shouldn't take it so personally when people who know better than you speak.

4 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (2 months ago)

If you don't please manufacturers you don't get any favors from them in return. DPR nowadays remind me the market analysts before the market crush, those also had high ratings on everything that tanked. The DPR scores and award have to be adjusted due to this bias.

1 upvote
Grobb
By Grobb (2 months ago)

@Howardroark, it does not matter is you spend $5,000 on 3 of the best lenses in the world. If you have a crappy, old, outdated sensor with only DxO rating of 58, low DR, and only 12.8 MP's, the lens will not give you adequate IQ. What good is a great lens without a great sensor. A great lens with a lousy sensor = a mediocre P&S at best. Why can't you understand that simple fact? I would like to see what kind of IQ it would have wit a 'Real' high efficiency sensor, like Sony and Nikon have.

0 upvotes
Grobb
By Grobb (2 months ago)

@howardroark... I think if you thought it was such a great camera, you would be upgrading your G1X mk1. Actually, I think you are smarter than that and realize the mk1 is better than the mk2 (IQ wise), but for some strange reason, you keep apologizing for the mk2, for some strange reason?! That is what I can't understand, you keep on sticking up for a camera you don't even own or plan to upgrade to. That just plain does not make any sense, unless you just like to see your name in print. Why can't you just enjoy your mk2 and give it a break already? I for one am getting tired of listening to you apologize for the mk2 and rationalizing and putting spins on what a GREAT camera it is, when it is NOT.

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

In order for some people to be right everybody else has to be wrong.

0 upvotes
FriendlyWalkabout
By FriendlyWalkabout (2 months ago)

As a rule I don't like reviewers letting their personal feelings effect the review, but as a canon guy myself I have to admit my frustrations with canon could be reflected with similar words. Why on earth would canon put all that dated crap behind the newest and best zoom lens in the compact world?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

because that's the sensor they have. for better or worse, they haven't had any major sensor progress for 5 years or so. It's been good for profits, but sad when you see Canon slip from the best sensors on the market in 2008, to worst on the market in 2014.

12 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

You don't think they were putting effort into sensor design with regards to the DP PDAF technology? All Canon would have to do is put that in every camera they make, sell it to smarphone makers, and maybe only Nikon and Sony would survive the carnage.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

The dual pixel does not offer the same level of image quality sony has got since the 16mp of 2010. So while the on sensor AF is very impressive it will not create that effect. The 70D is not higher regarded as the d7100 for photography is it. The most likely reason to buy the 70D over the D7100 is buffer depth for sports not the live view af

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (2 months ago)

Because they don't want to spend the money, purchasing a sensor from someone else. They figure this camera will never be cheap or sell in huge numbers regardless of what sensor it has.

The irony is, the market for high end compact cameras isn't that big because most people are more concerned with whether it fits in their pants pocket than the fact that the sensor is five times larger than a small, stylish camera that won't spoil the lines of their clothes.

0 upvotes
Aard Augustus
By Aard Augustus (2 months ago)

What a crying game! It's appealing but, with a closer inspection, it's not what I think it would be.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (2 months ago)

US$800 for no viewfinder and a sensor that's smaller than APS-C is a tough sell.

US$1,100 for the camera plus a viewfinder is a tougher sell.

12 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

Compared to what?

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

a6000

3 upvotes
LuckyEight
By LuckyEight (2 months ago)

a6000 but with a crappy kit lens......

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

a6000 sucks pretty bad with no lens attached.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

you can get an a6000 with an 16-50mm lens for this price. Too bad that that lens is not great.

Fujifilm XE-1 is an less impressive body with an stellar lens at the same price.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

Exactly. All these comments about price and size all ignore the lens. It's a $300 body with a $1000 lens being sold for $800.

1 upvote
KW Phua
By KW Phua (2 months ago)

G1X II with dated IQ at low ISO, but still good in performance. Others Better IQ but not so good in performance. Will wait for next generation. Thank you for saving my pocket.

1 upvote
JohnFredC
By JohnFredC (2 months ago)

So disappointing. I want to replace my aging G11, but retain its functionality (esp. the dials/swivel screen). All Canon had to do to the G series to get another purchase from me was to improve the image quality and performance but leave the camera body/controls alone. Instead, look what we get in later iterations of Gs (G15/16 most egregiously), and now, my last hope for an improved G1 X, this thing.

Compare the G1 X II with a Fuji X-A1. The latter has a plastic behemoth of a kit lens, plastic body, isn't "pocketable", but the image quality blows the G1 X II out of the water (the widget tells the tale). And the Fuji is more than $200 cheaper on the street.

I know, I know, things are not as simple as that, features and specs differ, etc, but still...

After many years of Canon cameras in all sizes going back decades, it must be that I need to wake up and understand I am no longer a Canon customer.

Are you listening, Canon? The evidence would suggest not.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
tutek
By tutek (2 months ago)

I own the G11, G1X mkII is better, no doubt, but not so much better as it is more expensive. Not worth it

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

uhh, sure.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (2 months ago)

Canon really really need to put sensors that are competitive in their cameras. It seems all their cameras are DR challenged, from compact to FF. Time to consider buying Sony sensors and just give up on making your own sensors, Canon.

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

From a technical point of view, you are probably right. However from a business point of view, Canon makes tons of profits on these cameras by spreading the R+D on sensors over so many years. They are probably down to new sensors just being cost of production at this point. Remember who is still making the most money in the camera market, sensor performance be damned.

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (2 months ago)

You are absolutely right. But you can't blame Canon for saving money by using their own sensors when people just keep buying the stuff.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

I bet they DO buy Sony 1/1.7" 12 mpix sensors for their "small" Gs and Ss. Just like everybody else. Only Sony is already on 1" in that class.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cpkuntz
By cpkuntz (2 months ago)

Sony won't sell sensors to Canon until their market share has gained and Canon's is smaller. Right now the imaging sensor partnership with Nikon is a business strategy to weaken the current market leader. Since Canon invests all of their R&D in videography equipment, their sensors are stuck in the last decade. Sony and Nikon are hoping to gain market share by offering the best image quality available. I hope it works, and forces Canon out of its complacency.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (2 months ago)

Err, no, some of the Canon compacts have had Sony sensors.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (2 months ago)

So shoot RAW to the right and recover highlights in post??

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Or shoot one camera at ISO 100, one at ISO160, and then push the SHADOWS SLIDER 4EV to show some pattern noise you would never ever otherwise see. First, you'd never push shadows 4 stops, you'd never even push the exposure more than maybe two in ACR. Yeah, I'm sure it does reveal that Canon still has pattern shadow noise. In the 12 years I've shot with Canon DSLRs only one time did I try to push exposure and notice pattern shadow noise and it was on a 5 minute long exposure that I had failed to turn Long Exposure Noise Reduction to "on".

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

They show a picture of that. You get nasty color pattern noise.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

tkbslc...the shot wasn't exposed to the right, it was exposed to the left. Look at the histogram and you see at least a stop or two on the right completely empty, and that's where most of the levels exist. The RX100II was exposed further to the right than the G1 XII, giving the shadows more detail to begin with, and then both were pushed to the right 4 EV. In effect, the Sony was pushed about 3 and the Canon was pushed 4 and that was after the Canon shadows were already compressed to the left leaving very little detail in the levels while Sony shadow details were preserved by about 2/3 of a stop.
So, to repeat: Compress Canon shadows, preserve Sony, push both by 4 stops, and low and behold Canon shows some noise, pattern noise as it happens, and Sony comes up looking like roses. Take less shadow detail from Canon and push is further. Not much of a test. Also, if you look at the picture itself the G1XII STILL LOOKS BETTER (I'd use italics if I could). This is called stacking the deck.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

@howardroark - the two cameras were brightness matched (based on JPEGs). Comparing similar positions (Brightest cloud, Space Needle and mid grey patch) in the images gives the following luminance values in the uncorrected JPEGs:

Canon (86, 52, 1), Sony (87, 52, 1)

The exposure is that dark because it had been sunnier when we first set the shot up, but they weren't so well aligned.

And yes, ~4EV is a big push (though there are times you'd want to do that), but the point is that the noise is there with a smaller push, we've just brought it up to a level that's more visible.

I do not believe our test varies particularly from common real-world usage. And I struggle to see the ways in which the G1 X II still looks better.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Based on JPEGs which are a manipulation of the RAW data processed with tone curves that are not the same. So, whatever the RAW image is, the tone curve/gamma correction can yield the same JPEG output.
If you have to push 4 EV then you exposed very incorrectly and really murdered your levels from the very beginning.
It still looks better because it has greater detail and there is not a single area in the actual shot that reveals pattern noise in the shadows. So the shadows were pushed, the chart shows pattern noise, and the actual picture shows zero ill effects and better detail to boot. Oh, and the test shots show the RX100II with a magenta hue in areas of high contrast like black lines next to white lines. An attempt to correct chromatic aberrations in the lens?
The test shows this: don't underexpose your color charts and then push the shadows 4 stops. I don't find that a very useful or scientifically strenuous technique of evaluation. It reveals a weakness for what that's worth.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

@ Since the ISO standard and camera's metering are based on JPEGs, with all the intermediate steps you mention, the demonstration (not test), is an attempt to simulate plausible real-world usage.

Oddly enough, we're not completely unaware of the points you raise. We are developing a more comprehensive, repeatable test, but this isn't it.

As it turns out, examining the Raw files, the differences between the two cameras is extremely subtle but if anything show the Canon has placed the values at higher Raw values - it's more exposed to the right than the Sony.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Shuffling out a test that has such dubious methodology and questionable relevance before you've got your process refined and, therefore, an ability to interpret the results is the height of foolishness. I can take any raw file into ACR, push a slider all the way to the right, and produce crap. Only proves I know how to make a crappy image.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

You've failed to show anything dubious about the methodology.

This is a fair, side-by-side demonstration of the differences in recoverability for ETTR Raw shooting. The point is that the RX100 II does at least as well as the G1 X II, when you wouldn't expect that to be the case. It's a key point to understanding the ways the G1 X II is and isn't better than its closest rival.

The difference it shows is not the sole differentiator between the cameras (nor do we frame it as such), but it is a practical and realistic demonstration that the G1 X II doesn't offer all the advantages that the specifications sheet suggests it might. We also point out the shallow-depth-of-field benefit it does offer, for instance.

Our job is to provide relevant information to help people make informed decisions. I believe this piece of information contributes towards that.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

One camera (G1 X II) pushed in two shots, a bridge and a train interior. Shadows pushed how many stops in those first two? The "vs. RX100II" says about 4EV. The first two say nothing. The first two also have zero context. Where are the comparison images for those two shots? Is there a single other camera review that pushes a RAW file X stops? For the second one, what other cameras besides the RX100II do we have for any kind of context and without a test showing ISO160 on the Sony is really ISO 100 then you force me to assume that base ISO of 100 on the Canon is the same as Sony's ISO 160. If that's the case, where is the conclusion that Sony can't ever actually reach its highest ISO rating? It's 2/3 of stop shy at every step?
You have provided relevant information, and you've done it in a near vacuum. And when has pushing the shadows slider in LR 4 stops become a thing? Push the exposure slider and see what happens to both. Explain the methodology, reasoning, something....

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

I used ACR to push seriously dark shadows in one of my own G1 X RAW files. I pushed the exposure slider 4EV. I pushed the fill light slider to 100. No pattern noise, no lack of shadow detail. How dark are your shadows compared to mine? If there is a one stop difference in DR between the Sony and the Canon will simply cutting back to 3 EV push eliminate the pattern noise. It looks like you took the RX100II, pushed it until it looked awful, pulled it back a bit, then used that test with the G1 XII. So show me what a 3EV push looks like. At what point is the G1 XII RAW file still usable? Can you push the RX100II 4 stops and the G1 XII 3 stops? 2 stops? Where does the pattern noise appear? Honestly, I'd like to know because in my own experiment I could not do enough to get that pattern noise to show up, and it was at ISO100 with half of the shot of glass and sky in direct sun and the other half under a thick canopy of trees.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Providing relevant information in a certain context becomes a distortion of the truth. The tiny amount of context given lends the appearance of a useful comparison, but it is only useful if I'm going to take all of my high contrast (and how far a spread is this contrast?) shots and push the shadows 4 stops. That's the only scenario where the test indicates a meaningful difference. My inability to replicate that result says maybe I need 10EV difference between highlights and shadows rather than 8EV before I do a 4EV exposure push, or something in that neighborhood (?). If I apply a little chroma nosie reduction in ACR will that pattern noise suddenly appear random? I may try that later. But maybe instead of saying "it's hard to correct" you should say "here's what happened when we tried to correct it....see for yourself."

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

The RX100 II review points out that the camera is at least 1/3rd under-sensitive (we test ISO in every review, in as much as that's possible). We don't test what Raw levels are used for capturing different tones. In this instance, the Sony uses lower Raw values to capture a given tone than the Canon does, with the same shutter speed and aperture, at base ISO. This isn't particularly relevant to most people, so we haven't included an in-depth discussion of it.

Here is just the most recent example of a pushed Raw file in a review. That's equivalent to a +3.4EV push, for comparison.

We showed some real-world examples (hence no comparison), then demonstrated the performance you might get from its closest rival. It's not realistic to expect us to test every possible camera. Instead we've shown it alongside a camera that you would expect it to beat, based on sensor size, and showed that it doesn't.

What we've done is fair and relevant.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

We provided the information that was relevant to interpret the results. We are not a scientific publication, tasked with providing information to recreate our work, because we'd quite like people to be able to read to the end of each page without dying of boredom, reading a justification of the methodology of every shot.

I'm confident that our demonstration shows what we claimed it does: that the Canon's noise floor is within the DR of the camera's JPEGs and there's little scope for processing beyond that. And that the Sony, despite its smaller sensor, can match its performance, in terms of Raw latitude.

The side-by-side demonstration is consistent with what we saw when we looked closer at our DR test results and real-world shots we'd taken.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

The G1 X II is a very nice camera with really handy lens that lets you take shallow d-o-f portraits in a way no other compact does. It's got a couple of handling issues but it's generally very good. However, the difference in IQ between it and its closest rival isn't as great as its sensor specs would lead you to expect.

Nothing you can say will make us change that opinion - we looked very carefully before saying or showing anything we did.

You're welcome to draw a different conclusion about the camera, but you've not shown any significant flaw in what we've shown. I've discussed the basis and many of the specifics. It's clear nothing I can say or show will satisfy you.

At which point I need to get on with reviewing other cameras.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Thanks for the response. I just prefer tests to have a very well-defined methodology and clear boundaries on how they can be interpreted. Then again, I also think studio test shots should be done at various apertures and focal lengths to give us the ability to do detailed comparisons between cameras. Compairing detail resolution, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, etc. would add a great deal of dimension to your tests. DxO may do similar tests but we don't get to see the real shots to see the practical differences. Our choice is tests with no results or results with no tests. Anyway, that extra ten percent to go from a B to an A would take time and money, and may not pay out. If I could go to one site to review a camera rather than four then I think that one web site would become hugely influential and profitable. What do I know?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

As I say, we're working on a more repeatable test of noise and DR - but developing and validating a rigorous methodology is not a trivial task.

Until then we have the choice of just stating our findings or trying to illustrate them, which is what we've done here (it's a demonstration of what we found as a result of looking into our existing test shots and real-world shooting).

However, it's never just an extra 10%, so we're trying to strike a balance.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Rolling out an unfinished test can be damaging or misleading. I really meant that last 10% would take about as much effort as the first 90 as effort/time/money increase more and more as finer and finer levels of detail are added. Still, if I showed you the corner of a picture and asked you to judge the whole, is that fair?
I look forward to the finished test and I'm sure it will be of use. Right now a whole page dedicated to something that compares only two cameras on the market drowns out less dramatic comparisons elsewhere or written positives on a conclusions page. Negatives tend to attract more attention (psychologically speaking as well as an unusually strong tendency on the internet) and that page might as well be done up in neon...as photographers we should know that a picture is worth a thousand words. Using that admittedly rough estimation, you've devoted about five thousand words to one negative that I have no idea how to assign a comparative level of importance to.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

This isn't an unfinished test. We will not start using a test until it's been validated.

As I say, this is a demonstration of something that we'd observed in several places during the review process.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Maybe I misinterpreted "These tests (and our test scene on the coming pages) suggest that the RX100 II's sensor is so much better than the G1 X II's that it cancels-out much of the dynamic range and high ISO noise advantages that the G1 X II's larger sensor should bring."
This page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3300/8
uses ACR "shadows" slider to 100...is that 4EV as stated in the G1 XII review? The 100% crop from the Nikon shows shadow detail after the ACR, but not color test chart to show if there is obvious pattern noise, and the original shadow crop had obvious detail as opposed to the utterly black underside of the bridge in the G1 X II review.
Inconsistent is all I'm saying. An interesting demonstration, but it seems to be a moving target or possibly just a test slowly being refined. And is the D3300 market segment so crowded that you chose not to compare it to another model directly on the review page that was either superior or inferior?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

In both instances the shadow sliders were pushed to 100% (then the resulting luminance values were compared to the amount of 'exposure' slider change required to produce the same result). As I said: 3.4EV for the Nikon example, 4EV for the Canon and Sony.

As I have also said, these examples are not comparable across reviews, that's why we are developing a formal test.

The Nikon exists in a class where there are much smaller differences between sensor sizes between it and its competitors. Sensor size (and hence performance-to-size) isn't as relevant.

We make very clear that this demonstration is one aspect of the camera's performance. We also stress that there are still some advantages to having that large sensor and bright lens (d-o-f, lower ISO in low light), brings, even if the sensor isn't cutting-edge.

However, understanding where this camera is and isn't better than its immediate rivals is the who point of the review. As such our reviews will vary with context.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

Fair enough. I'll post my own results at some point in the near future.

0 upvotes
fdfgdfgdgf
By fdfgdfgdgf (2 months ago)

i like that review
Straight in the face,

1 upvote
Toccata47
By Toccata47 (2 months ago)

This is the best review I can recall reading here. Comprehensive, insightful, filled with useful information and it doesn't read like an apology or a spec sheet, which seems to be common (and useless) recently.

I'm particularly impressed by the new testing methodologies used for demonstrating practical dynamic range ( vis a vis shadow noise). I wish every review would include similar tests. It saves a lot of time.

17 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (2 months ago)

I have never read such a negative review from Jeff Keller back in the DC Resource days. Was there a financial reason in the past? ;)

Anyway, I am glad to see such negative views on Canon sensors, particularly in the area of shadow recovery. They totally deserve this.

6 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (2 months ago)

maybe canon WANTS us to hate their enthusiast compacts and better buy DSLR-like stuff instead....the ONLY explanation ;)

2 upvotes
ludwik123
By ludwik123 (2 months ago)

In the short term it might work but in the long run that will lead to people deserting Canon for other brands.

Apple were smarter they created the Iphone to compete with their own best selling Ipod. technology moved on and they moved leading from the front.
Canon are a DSLR camera maker. they want people to stay loyal to DSLRs as long as possible .

1 upvote
Total comments: 634
1234