# Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review

May 2014 | By Jeff Keller

Review based on a production Canon PowerShot G1 X II

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

With the 'Mark II' version of the PowerShot G1 X, Canon has addressed many of the shortcomings of its predecessor. For a start, the G1 X II has a faster lens that covers a wider focal range and can shoot much closer to a subject. It also promises a faster, more sophisticated AF system, improved continuous shooting, dual control dials around the lens, and Wi-Fi with NFC. The LCD has also been redesigned: it now tilts upward 180° and downward 45° - instead of flipping out to the side - and touch functionality has been added, as well. The camera is also significantly smaller than its forebear, now looking more like an over-grown S-series, rather than an out-sized G12. Something that got sacrificed in all this was the optical viewfinder, but fear not, you can buy a tilting XGA EVF for $300. ### Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II key features • 12.8 megapixel 1.5"-type CMOS sensor • Digic 6 processor • 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens with optical IS • Dual (customizable) control rings • Tilting 3", 1.04M dot touchscreen LCD • 5.2 fps continuous shooting • Maintains same angle-of-view at 4:3 and 3:2 • Wi-Fi with NFC with remote control via smartphone • 1080/30p video recording • Optional XGA electronic viewfinder The big story remains the G1 X II's 1.5"-type sensor which is around 5.6 times larger than the one found in Canon's own PowerShot G16. The result is still a fair bit smaller than the APS-C-sized sensors used in Canon's DSLRs, but then the camera is quite a bit smaller, too. It's interesting to compare the EOS-M, which is similar in body size, to the G1 X II: the built-in lens and smaller sensor allow the PowerShot to remain much smaller than the 'M' would be, were there an equivalent lens available. While the total pixel count of 15 million is the same as on the G1 X, the G1 X Mark II only uses around 13 million (versus 14.3). The G1 X Mark II's pixel dimensions show that it's cropping from a sensor that's larger than the imaging area, allowing it to offer the same angle-of-view for both the 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratios - something that the original G1 X could not do. The 18.7 x 12.4 mm sensor size that Canon has been quoting appears to refer to the 3:2 crop area - the sensor itself is the same size as the one in the original G1 X. To find out more, read our original first look article. Another significant change on the G1 X II is in the lens department. Gone is the comparatively slow 28-112 equiv. F2.8-5.8 lens on the G1 X - replaced by a much more appealing 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens. The use of a smaller sensor area means these numbers aren't directly comparable, but the new lens is certainly brighter. Where the minimum focus distance on the G1 X was an unhelpful 20cm (and 40cm in most modes), the new lens can be just 5cm away from its subject. Canon has also improved the autofocus system, and claims that the G1 X has the 'the fastest in Canon compact camera history.' The combination of the camera's fast lens and 1.5" sensor pays big dividends, as illustrated below: The above chart shows the changes in 35mm equivalent aperture as the equivalent focal length increases. This chart allows you to see the effect of the different aperture and lens ranges, taking into account the different sensor sizes. The G1 X II starts off very well, and bumps into three other cameras (the original G1 X, Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II, and Canon Rebel with kit lens) at 28mm. That doesn't last long, as the G1 X quickly pulls away from all but the Rebel until you reach 50mm, at which point the G1 X Mark II is in a class by itself. So what does this all mean? Simply put, it means that the G1 X II allows for shallower depth-of-field than the cameras that are 'above it' on the chart. One could also make the assumption that the G1 X Mark II has the potential for better low light performance than the other cameras shown. Getting back to new features: the LCD has been redesigned and can flip up by 180 degrees (you know, for selfies) and down by 45 degrees. It's also touch-enabled, which allows for all of the controls that you'd expect from such a feature. However, this is a step backwards from the hinged, fully articulated screen on the original G1 X, that made it much more flexible. While the optical viewfinder from the G1 X is gone (and to be honest, it wasn't very good), Canon offers an XGA (1024 x768 pixel) EVF that attaches to a special connector on the hot shoe and can tilt upward 90 degrees. The bad news is that the EVF costs$300.

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

### Specs Compared

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

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

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

### Accessories

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

The EVF-DC1 ($299) is an XGA electronic viewfinder with 2.36 million dots (a 1024x 768 pixel display). As shown above, the viewfinder can tilt upward by 90 degrees. It has a built-in eye sensor, or you can turn it on via the button on its left side. While the resolution of the viewfinder is quite high, the refresh rate isn't nearly as nice as the main LCD. There will be some people who decry the loss of the G1 X's built-in viewfinder but, given how small and imprecise it was, we feel the option to include of a considerably better finder (or not, if you don't want to spend the extra), is a reasonable alternative. It does, of course, mean that you need to spend more money to get a camera with a viewfinder, but that effective price increase over the G1 X also gains the faster, more versatile lens, smaller form factor and all the camera's other improvements. Standard grip Custom grip Those with large hands may find the G1 X Mark II's grip a bit lacking. Canon offers the GR-DC1A custom grip ($29), which is more substantial. Switching the grip out just involves removing a pair of screws, swapping the pieces, and then screwing the new one back in.

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

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

 Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

 Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II 81I own it231I want it41I had itDiscuss in the forums

By (3 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.

By (3 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.

By (3 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.

By (3 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
By (3 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.

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (unknown member) (3 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".

By (3 months ago)

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

1 upvote
By (unknown member) (3 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
By (3 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
By (unknown member) (3 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
By (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 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.

By (3 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
By (unknown member) (3 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
By (unknown member) (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 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
By (3 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.

By (3 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.

By (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 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?

By (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 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
By (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 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."
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
By (3 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.

By (unknown member) (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

i like that review
Straight in the face,

1 upvote
By (3 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.

By (3 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.

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 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
By (3 months ago)

Hmm.. does this review mark the debut of the "Raw Shadow Recovery
Image comparison tool" as seen on the Image Quality page of this review? They chose 2 test scenes that I think they might have quite a bit of difficulty reproducing each time they need this for future camera reviews.

At least I didn't see this tool used in the most recent other review (nikon 3300).

Seems a lot of comments are driven by the noise characteristics, but is this the first time this demonstration of 4-5 stop shadow pulls is occuring within a tool/widget in a DPR review?

By (3 months ago)

I've never seen so many Canon haters in one place :)
I think it's only me that sees the rubbish performance of RX100-II's lens. RX-100 had the same problem. The more yo go to corners the more the lens performance deteriorates.
Plus I don't see the "terrible performance" of GX-II in RAW or JPEG on page 10.
I gave my G1X to my brother for slow (really slow) general performance. Now using a second hand GF-3 with a 14-42X which is a really nice combo.

By (3 months ago)

The corners don't look great on this lens either, at wide angle. I'm guessing that there is a fair amount of software correction of barrel distortion. Zoomed out a little bit the corners look good, though.

EDIT: Look at image 6/30 in the samples, for example, for software correction and soft corners. That is 12.5mm actual focal length. Around 30mm actual focal length, the lens seems to have a sweet spot.

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

Canon most certainly can, but they just don't wanna... Let us see for how much longer?

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

If a new high end compact with 1.5" sensor has problems in high iso, noise and DR, to clearly outperform a much smaller 1" sensor (that also "suffers" of having more mega pixels crammed in than any MFT camera) something is very very wrong…….

By (3 months ago)

And that something is 25 y/o 500nm sensor factory which is long overdue for retirement.
Their processors seem to be lagging years behind also.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Mark 2 - yet still sluggish as the Mark 1.

Sadly, I probably should stop expecting from the Canon any decent compact. Hopes were high when they have dismissed mirrorless as a temporary fad. Yet, Canon not only failed to deliver a competition worthy enthusiast-level compact, but also tried to launch its own mirrorless system. Go figure.

By (3 months ago)

By (3 months ago)

Damning results from comparing sensor tech of Canon vs Sony. The smaller Sony sensor in the RX trounces the Canon when the going gets tough.

This is disappointing.

To be honest, I find Canon a massively perplexing company. Other than the 5D3 and 1DX, maybe the 6D, their cameras are really, really, underwhelming.

The public still buy them because they trust the brand and Canon have distribution sorted, with cameras easy to find anywhere. But many people can do much, much better.

By (3 months ago)

In our country, SL1 sells for $666. Managed to deal with company willing to sell cheaper, so I had it for about$520 months ago. For that price I believe it also delivers good set of qualities. 600D sells for the same price. Only 700D is reeealy overpriced. G15/16 is expensive for the output, but it is not a toy. Magnesium body alloy... :-) So, it´s not that bad with price. It all depends on your set of needs and expectations.

By (3 months ago)

What were they thinking with the video quality? Yuch!

By (3 months ago)

Canon has always sucked WRT video IQ in their large compacts. The G1X Mk I was also a total loser in this respect - full of aliasing and moire. Absolutely rubbish.

By (3 months ago)

if you want competitive video quality Canon has the 'slightly' bigger and more expensive EOS Cine cameras for you ;-)

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

YEAR 2018 - Canon G1X Mark IV - Press Release:

'Canon is excited to inform you that the new model has increased its resolution from 12.8mp to 18mp now matching Canon's enthusiast DSLR the EOS 7D'.

By (3 months ago)

Also in 2018: "A huge step in video mode is made and you can now select 50/60fps in 1080p. Furthermore, Canon has a long term plan to create a new superior APS-C sensor and is expected to reach the market within ten years"

By (3 months ago)

ten years?
Bit optimistic don't you think?

By (3 months ago)

It seems like Canon's sensor technology has NO noticeable improvement in recent years.

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

Certainly a true observation in respect of IQ. Now EOS SLRs with Sony sensors…. That really would dominate the market!!!!.....0.01% likelihood though.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Where is the finder ?

By (3 months ago)

Gone! Fully articulating LCD? Gone!

They may come back as NEW features for MK3 (?).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
By (3 months ago)

The finder is in the same place as the one in the RX100 :-)

By (3 months ago)

Apart from faster lens / dof difference... the GM1 with kit lens runs circles around it in studio IQ scene. Smaller sensor, more pixels, much smaller package, same price... go figure.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

Not sure where you compare prices - in Europe the GM 11 with 12-32 sells for less than € 600 and the G1 X II for € 850.
You can easily buy a second good GM 1 lens for the same cost.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Yeah right... except the GM1 kit lens only goes up to 64mm!

By (3 months ago)

the studio scene was not shot with the 12-32 kit-lens, but with the 45/1.8

although the 12-32 is not that bad, it is much slower than the canon lens and suffers from softness at 12mm

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

@ oluv:
good point about the lens used for the studio shots; this is a common problem with the studio shots that can give very wrong impressions (after all, most cameras are purchased and used with their kit lens).

My impression from looking at online landscape style shots (e.g. from Cameralabs) is that the GM1 kitzoom is better at WA than the G1X II, especially the outer corners. I would love to see a controlled comparison though ...

Regarding the 'much slower': yes, but as a landscape photographer I would never use the Canon full open, the corners look horrible IMHO (not just blurred, very unpleasant rendering). What value is that bright, big and expensive lens if you have to stop it down for good corners?

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

"although the 12-32 is not that bad, it is much slower than the canon lens and suffers from softness at 12mm"

It's not at all soft at 12mm compared to other Sony NEX or m4/3 (the two most important "mini" mounts - I'm not considering "large" mounts like those of Nikon / Canon DSLR's: after all, it's the compact cameras that the G1X Mk II directly competes with) kit and/or non-pro lens starting at 24mm equiv; for example, the Oly 12-50 or the Sony 16-50 PZ. It's only the pro-grade, MUCH bigger, MUCH weightier, MUCH more expensive Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro M.Zuiko Digital ED that can beat it.

I've even posted a proof of all this (screenshots done by me from http://slrgear.com ):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/sets/72157644160376998/

By (3 months ago)

@technic:
The point of a faster lens is flexibility. If you're in a situation where sharp corners don't matter or you want to less deep DOF, you have that option.

On the GM1, there is no option for 12-60mm f/2-3.9 lens, with or without sharp corners wide open.

Even if you're stopping down an f/2 lens to f/2.8, it's still faster than the GM1's lens at f/3.5... This isn't rocket science.

I don't get why you spend so much time railing against this camera when it's really not for you.

By (3 months ago)

Uhmm...isn't that ISO shoe kinda like Sony's?

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Hope Canon will release dedicated WA and TA as well as G1 X Mark II accepts Filter Adapter FA-DC58E.

By (3 months ago)

Why not 4/3 sensor? Only for 2.5% difference.
;(

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Because Canon is a company like Sony. They stay out of other company's technology, it's kind of arrogant.

By (3 months ago)

Why, would you like to change the lens?

By (3 months ago)

Almost the same sensor size. No need to change anything else

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

The current 16mp m4/3 sensor would have been great. It's old enough to be cheap, available in sub-$300 bodies, but it still produces great results. Too bad, as others have said, it would never happen. 1 upvote By (3 months ago) That is the em-5 Sony sensor. Not the best available but still light years ahead of this. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) No Filter. Buy adapter, then it's 58mm 1 upvote By (3 months ago) Filter diameter? 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) Kinda disappointing... but it's a Canon, so Silver Award anyway? ;-) I actually used to be a big fan of the Canon G1 and then the G5, but this doesn't seem to have a great sensor and the touch screen is a poor excuse for not having either an optical finder or, better, an EVF. Actually, I think the touch screen is great for video (as an alternative to pulling focus), but this camera does mediocre video -- is Canon just trying to attract cell phone users who want some DoF control? The G1X is supported by CHDK, so hopefully the Mark II will be, and that would be a plus. Then again, I can buy a very full-featured CHDK-supported "lesser" PowerShot for under$100. In sum, it's been a while since I've been excited by any of the G family members, and this is no exception.

By (3 months ago)

Being the second generation of the G1X, I am very disappointed with this "upgrade" model. I am expecting a much better compact camera from Canon.

Having handled the camera recently, I must say I agree with almost all the points highlighted by DPR. I am using the G12 at the moment for casual photography and I think I will keep that for a while.

For about the same price, one can get the Oly EP-5 or maybe save some money with the Lumix GF6. Though it may not be as "compact", I think the overall feel and quality is much better. Once fitted with the upcoming Leica 15mm f/1.8, it will be almost "perfect" with the option to change lens if one wanted to. Price has never being an issue with me if the quality is close to "perfect" but I am not getting that with the G1X Mk2.

Hmm! ......maybe the Ricoh GR is not that bad as a carry everywhere camera despite it has just a fixed lens and that is very pocketable as well.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

I have a GR (P7700 and RX100) it fails to focus, fails to turn on, often prevents changing flash on/off, and the exposure compensation gets changed by accident all the time. You can't zoom in on a photo in review and it has no preview. In review there are 3-4 buttons in review that do the same thing and they can't be changed. It is hardly a decent action/kids/pets point and shoot (confirmed in most online reviews), but I've gotten some amazing 5,000ISO handheld street shots out of it. It struggles to focus and my 300HS continues to be the best all around point and shoot including video. Oh, that also locks up and I have to reset it once a month.

The GR is oddly long, but certainly not as bulky as the G1XmII or P7700. I like that the P7700 can use a flash but it doesn't meter or white balance well with either an sb400 or sb600. Turning the flash on and off on an RX100 is futile and it is a dust magnet.

By (3 months ago)

...Obviously I've spent a ton of money on gear over the years searching for a great point and shoot and am left wanting my Coolpix 950 back! Even a D800's liveview was incredibly disappointing.

By (3 months ago)

PSS ...and changing between video and photos in the GR in the dark is nearly impossible. Even once changed the buttons are so sensitive that my videos always stop recording after 3sec. Even being aware of the issue I've lost many key moments and that happened again last week. The RX100 can't show you a photo and video in review without having to change 'folders' Then the P7700 shutter won't work if you are touching one of the buttons by accident. PROGRESS Sorry for ranting.

By (3 months ago)

What do you mean by putting "can" word in the cons list?

By (3 months ago)

All the talk has gone to simple the pattern noise when raising shadows significantly. I am betting most of us would make use of the significant DOF control and focal range options this lens and sensor give more than we would raise shadows 5 stops. This camera is still an amazing feat of engineering given the lens they crammed into it.

Sony RX100 II may match it in noise, but you can't do real subject isolation or zoom out to 24mm.

By (3 months ago)

the G1X II may be better on a few points, but there is an RX100-3 around the corner with 24mm and DOF control that is much closer to the G1X II - in a much smaller package and supposedly including an EVF, for 30% lower price (EU pricing, with cost of EVF included).

By (3 months ago)

technic, and the RX100 Mk III *may* have significantly better video IQ too.

(I REALLY hope it gets full sensor oversampling, as is done in the RX10. And, of course, I secretly hope for 4K too.)

By (3 months ago)

Menneisyys, real 4K video in such a small camera would probably cook the sensor, not much chance IMHO. RX10 quality video would be veyr nice and is more likely. 4K video at slow framerate (more like timelapse, as used in a few other recent cameras) would be an interesting possibility.

By (3 months ago)

"Menneisyys, real 4K video in such a small camera would probably cook the sensor, not much chance IMHO"

Not necessarily - the 13/16/20 Mpixel new (and older - see Note 3) cameraphone flagships can shoot 4K video pretty well at least for some minutes (for example, the Note3 has a five-minute restriction). The Note 3 uses line skipping while shooting video but, apart from the aliasing caused by this, the resulting image is still excellent.

That is, at least for some 2-3 minutes, the new camera could be able to properly shoot 4K@30.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Well I prefer to talk about products that exists. When the Sony is officially launched, I will compare it to the G1X mk2.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

Agreed. Wouldn't it be nice if Canon used Sony sensors like the one in the OM-D E-M5? Or... Wouldn't it be nice if we could get an m.Zuiko or leica f2.0 to f3.9 pancake lens? At the moment, the difference in sensor performance is overpowered by the advantageous aperture. Canon is not looking over it's shoulder at the RX100 folks.

By (3 months ago)

nm

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

@gmke,

FWIW, Olympus OM-D EM-1 sensor is made by Panasonic, not Sony. It is better than Sony sensor on OM-D EM-5.

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

I think that depends on which criteria you are measuring. Unless you take the overall DXO score (where the difference is within margin of error) and regard that as meaningful.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

I am not sure who makes sensor in EM-1 or EM-10. The fact that a Panasonic part number is visible on the die makes life interesting, and most think it is a damning piece of evidence. If you work for a semiconductor manufacturer, you know how easy it is to make parts for someone else. It's a photo exposure process, remember? And you CAN "photoshop." If the sensors are not manufactured on a Sony property or with Sony's assistance, then hurrah, Panasonic's history of making awful sensors has changed. They are suddenly able to clone the best technology on the business. What counts is not who makes the parts, but the results. It is a problem of what to believe because Panasonic did not and IS NOT investing in new sensor fabrication technologies. They are dumping a controlling interest in their sensor fabrication facilities. So it is a stretch to believe that they suddenly have a competitive product and are getting out of the business at the same time.

By (3 months ago)

Well the gx7 is confirmed to house an Panasonic sensor. And I have owned the g3 which had the old 16mp pana.
The difference in IQ is night and day and visible in all shots under all circumstances. The g3 performs better in IR though. Which was quiet an surprise.

By (3 months ago)

Jeff: Um, bad news guys: Canon's new enthusiast flagship is being obliterated in sensor performance by the similarly sized m43 cameras.

Richard: Again? *Sigh* Ok lets compare it against the comparatively paltry 1 inch sensor of the RX100 instead.

Jeff: Um, bad news guys: The RX100 is obliterating Canon's new enthusiast flagship in sensor performance.

Barney: No. The RX100 is cramming 20mp onto that thing, the G1X II is only 12mp on a much larger surface area. You've fluffed your tests again Jeff. Go back and do it again mate.

Jeff: I ran them twenty-three times Barney. I requested 7 replacement units from Canon.

Richard: Well there's only one thing for it. We pretend it never existed. You know, like we did for the EOSM. No one will notice if we don't put out a review.

Barney: Wait! I've got it! Why don't we cut and paste "Very good image quality" from one of the previous Canon reviews and just plonk it in the "Pros"?

Richard: Our archives go back that far?

By (3 months ago)

It's interesting how having an in-house sensor division can actually put a camera maker at a disadvantage...

If Olympus or Pentax or Nikon had made this camera, it would have had a (much better) Sony sensor in it.

If Panasonic had made it, it would have a Panasonic sensor -- which fortunately are pretty good these days. Since Canon made it, well, you know the rest...

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

I think some of these comments are a bit harsh. I don't care about ISO 6400, and I am very distracted by the fast aperture that further reduces the camera's dependence on deeper ISO's. We didn't get a RAW panel this time, so just comparing with NR set to low demonstrates very respectable but not class-leading performance out to ISO 3200. It's an Even-Steven game when the aperture bestows a 1.5 stop advantage in front of a sensor that MAYBE has a 0.5 stop disadvantage. The f3.5 aperture on the standard entry-level DSLR stinks by comparison, every day of the week!

By (3 months ago)

From the first preview, it was rather obvious that sensor alone is not a problem with this camera. But its lens.
With a better lens, even a mediocre sensor would raise the level of enjoyment and overall results. Then it might have been a camera that is a well-deserved update.

Unfortunately, they have decided for a bigger sensor and poorer lens, and that hardly exceeds results we get from a slightly smaller sensor coupled with a better lens and imaging engine. If there ever was a camera that clearly illustrates what compromises engineers must face, and then choose wrongly pressured by marketing "decisions" (large sensor, large sensor), this is the school-book example.

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

Agree, this is a camera for the crowd that mostly looks at specs, theoretical advantages and test chart shots (from only the center of the image), the 'corners don't matter' photographers. What value is a bright lens if you have to stop down 2 stops for reasonably sharp corners?

Let's hope the RX100-3 and P8000 strike a better compromise between sensor size and lens quality.

By (3 months ago)

Just looking at the daylight RAW comparison to the Sony RX100 II and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sure looks like the Canon is the clear equal (or better) and also at high ISOs. Regardless, the G1 XII looks like a good very good camera and shoots quite well (maybe less so in video, but that's not a concern for me) by all I can see. Fully deserving of the Silver it earned.

By (3 months ago)

That's what happens when you use your eyes instead of relying on stats and the comments of shills for other brands.

By (3 months ago)

It's funny but I also do tend to rely on MY eyes to evaluate images. People that rely on stats to assess images should become statisticians and stay out of photography and imaging! Hit LIKE if you agree and lets swamp dumb comments like the above with lots of common sense!

By (3 months ago)

That silver award HAS to be for the camera DPR hoped this would be, instead of the one they actually tested.

By (3 months ago)

"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.

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."

and this is based on the RX100M2 before the RX100M3 is announced in about a week with a significantly faster lens and other improvements. Did Canon make a mistake by not giving the camera a better sensor??? http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m2

By (3 months ago)

By not giving or by not even having one to give? The base ISO DR, ie, base ISO read noise is something where Canon sensors lack most. Their QE however hasn't really lagged but there might be the politics on which process size (and thus process line) to produce the sensor.

By (3 months ago)

Yes, that DPR quote is exactly what I have been stating on the Canon forum as a major disadvantage of the G1X II, with very hostile replies every time from the fanboys. I guess the DPR team are now also officially Canon bashing trolls?

We don't know yet what optics quality the RX100-3 will have, but if they improved from the RX100-2 it looks like a MUCH better compromise (except maybe for those who really want 120mm).

By (3 months ago)

Just about every one of your posts is about the next great camera we're sure to see (in a few months). You hyped the G1Xii, then quickly jumped on the still imaginary P8000 bandwagon, and now it's the rx100 m3?

Slow your roll, Jenny! :P There are plenty of real, existing cameras to enjoy.

By (3 months ago)

Anyone who is expecting a giant leap in sensor performance in the RX100 mkIII or P8000 (if it's real) are setting themselves up for disappointment...

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

What part of: "the Canon's image quality advantage" is so hard for you to grasp?

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

The most useless and pointless upgrade to date!

By (3 months ago)

Have you seen the specs on the lens? How is that pointless?

By (3 months ago)

The lens spec is impressive, its performance (wide open) in practice less so and the camera is let down by an aged sensor. It is real life performance that counts, not the spec. I guess it is still an attractive upgrade for some G1X users, but the total package isn't very convincing.

1 upvote
By (unknown member) (3 months ago)

No, this camera is not impressive to people who only see some of these reviews. Most people here who whine about all this stuff are JPEG shooters only, in which case pushing shadows 4 STOPS is going to yield some really wonderful results on even a 1D X or D800....also roughly the same DR at that point from a $100 camera all the way up to a$4000 camera. So, shoot RAW and don't drag the shadows slider 4 EV. Who does that?

By (3 months ago)

Nice camera.

But...

The 100D just run smoke rings around it.

Much cheaper too.

.

By (3 months ago)

Hows that search for a 15-70mm f2-4 pancake for your 100D coming along?

By (3 months ago)

No need to fall in equivalency madness with pretty anything. We buy whole products, not lenses or sensors. If it would have better sensor, I'd sacrifice some of my needs . While it doesn't have it, I likely get SL1 and sacrifice on lens range, because SL1 gives me better bang for the buck, even If I really wanted G1X II..

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

I have to second tkbslc's point. This is a well spec'd camera designed for enthusiasts, not a low end compact. The problem isn't the product design; it's the crap sensor. Enthusiasts tend to notice when you wrap a outdated sensor in an $800 body. Put a Sony sensor in this thing and there would be a line around the block to buy it. 5 upvotes By (3 months ago) DF is not relevant to this article and therefore hardly Nikons fail. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) A fair review indeed, if anything a bit generous given the fact that image quality and ergonomics seem worse to me than the G1 X I loved so much. I don't see the benefit to the macro setting if the images are often fuzzy, even with a small aperture. But hey, at least it has an expensive add-on EVF and wifi built in. Yay. 6 upvotes By (3 months ago)$800, fixed lens, video is only 30 fps.
The Sony A6000 with its fast PDAF and 60 fps video and exchangeable lenses, is a far FAR better choice !

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

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

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

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

By (3 months ago)

I realized this camera was not worth the price from the first images I saw on the Internet. After reading some actual user testimonials, I decided to save $500 and got a XZ-2 instead. I'm sure glad I made that decision! I don't have any AF issues, blooming/halo affects, low DR, etc, etc... Using the DPR comparison tool, IQ is just as good and sharp up to about ISO 1600, the maximum I shoot. The XZ-2 is also much smaller/lighter and has a faster/sharper lens! I was hoping to upgrade my G12 to the G1XII, I'm glad I changed my mind in time! Maybe the G17 will get a new and improved sensor, but probably not knowing Canons history of innovation :( 4 upvotes By (3 months ago) You don't actually have comparative detail either. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53631243 3 upvotes By (3 months ago) Really, dpreview?? You completely ignore the Nikon 1 V3, released BEFORE this thing, and you review the Canon first? How much is Canon been paying you? Canon G1X et al is a fixed zoom point and shoot. Yawn. Nikon 1 V3 is a mirrorless SLR camera with adapters for nearly every lens mount out there... And you ignore it. Pathetic... 2 upvotes By (3 months ago) Full marks for managing to jump to so many conclusions, based on so little evidence. Zero marks for the accuracy of those conclusions. We haven't yet received a production Nikon V3 - it's expected later this week. 20 upvotes By (3 months ago) The Nikon 1 V3 isn't really comparable. The whole point of a compact is to be...compact. If you need to carry around a bunch of lenses to accomplish the same thing the G1X Mark II can do with it's built-in lens, it's hardly a compact solution. 6 upvotes By (3 months ago) A constructive suggestion Richard ; give us an online log of the camera/lens/accessories that you have received from the manufacturers for review. Whether or not it will silence conspiracy theorists like @camerosity, I do not know but all of us would be better informed. Openness rules ! 3 upvotes By (3 months ago) what DPR said, and the nikon j camera is just another of the same lot... many nikon 1 cameras but the G1 X mark II is quite an update with the faster lens, wide focal range, video autofocus, touch screen, etc. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) While such a list might be useful, it would add public pressure for DPreview to review every camera a manufacturer sends them (which the manufacturers might like but it reduces the ability of DPreview to focus on the 'more important' cameras). Even if DPreview would mark on this list whether they plan to review them, it reduces their flexibility to change their opinion later. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) The sensor of this G1x may be pathetic but it's still beter as what aptina is making. the V3 does not have an exciting lens too. So you get an 60ish% and lead award. Nevertheless it will be fun to read. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) "The G1 X II's noise performance is likely to be down to its use of the Digic 6 processor that brought fairly strong noise reduction to the EOS 5D Mark III." Since when did 5D3 start using DIGIC 6? 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) My fault. I lost track of my Digics. 3 upvotes By (3 months ago) How can you remember a silly name like "Digic 6" ? Sony set the standard yet again with the superbly named "BIONZ X" , that I hear is a favourite with the DPR review team ! Comment edited 33 seconds after posting 1 upvote By (3 months ago) TheCameraStore made a 9 min video on YouTube that tells you everything you need to know about the G1X MkII https://www.youtube.com/watch?<v=w68hQd7GPDM&list=UUqpOf_Nl5F4tjwlxOVS6h8A Not impressive at all. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) I suppose Canon has a target customer in mind, I just don't think of that person being an advanced shooter. 1 upvote By (3 months ago) Its puzzling to me because an amateur needs more zoom range and a pro probably does too. What travel camera can a pro have, well, none. You have to go way down to a tiny sensor if you want zoom over 120mm???? I mean in a non slr. There is a massive gap in the market just waiting. 1 upvote By (3 months ago) "24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens" When manufacturers lie it's call an advertisement. But of all sites DPR should know better than repeating the lies and leading the ignorant readers astray. The lens is 12.5-62.5mm F2.0-3.9, not the stated equivalent. The FF equivalent lens would be 24-120mm F3.8-7.5 -- a big difference. IGNORANT READERS NEED NOT TO REPLY. 2 upvotes By (3 months ago) And the award for nonsensical post of the day ... goes to ...... 28 upvotes By (3 months ago) Not this again. 12 upvotes By (3 months ago) No one cares. 13 upvotes By (3 months ago) I'd better upgrade my light meter then. Mine only requires me to specify ISO and Shutter Speed in order to give me the correct F-Stop. It doesn't ask me to specify what sized sensor/film I'm using. Comment edited 45 seconds after posting 14 upvotes By (3 months ago) "Ignorant readers" need not have posted in the first place... 5 upvotes By (3 months ago) LOL 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) dude your comparison is wrong. The f-stop doesn't change. Sure the depth of field is effectively shifted but the lens still lets in the same amount of light at f2 as any other lens that opens to f2. 1 upvote By (3 months ago) Technically - The f-number N is given by N = \frac{f}{D} \ where f is the focal length, and D is the diameter of the entrance pupil and is independent of the imaging area. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) @forpetessake: If we'd said it was a 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 equivalent lens, then that would risk being misleading (though most people would understand) What we wrote is that it's a 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9, which is both correct and an absolutely standard way of describing a lens, used by almost everybody. It is a 24-120mm equivalent lens. It is an F2.0-3.9 lens. You can argue it isn't a 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 equivalent lens, but that isn't what we've written. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) @RichardButler: Now, that's a good way to weasel out, I smell a lawyer. Except, it's not the only place. I wish to hear how would you construe this apparently misleading statement: "replaced by a much more appealing 24-120mm F2.0-3.9 lens" 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) @forpetessake - it's not weaselling out, it's a standard, accepted and accurate way of describing such things. The second example you give is incorrect and I'll change it. 0 upvotes By (unknown member) (3 months ago) "The FF equivalent lens would be 24-120mm F3.8-7.5 -- a big difference." Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture. Common practice is to give the focal length in terms of 35mm film used decades before wildly different sensor sizes in every camera. However, the aperture is primarily concerned with light throughput for EXPOSURE reasons. Figuring out the depth of field has always been left to the individual photographer. The f-stop equivalencies now being used for depth of field purposes pervert the understanding of how much light is coming through the lens, so that is a far more egregious misreprentation than tyring to put the field of view in a context people can relate to. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) @howardroark: Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture. I think we can agree on that. Equally, equivalent focal length is equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture is equivalent aperture. forpetesake is simply pointing out that you have to be careful when mixing them (as is often done). Both sets of information tell you something useful. Equivalent focal length tells you something about angle-of-view in a way that's easier to interpret than actual focal length, since it takes into effect the sensor size. Equivalent aperture does exactly the same thing - allows like-for-like comparisons across sensor sizes (something that's particularly valuable in this sector of the market, where multiple sizes are used). It tells you about depth-of-field and useful things about how much light is coming through the lens. It doesn't tell you the same thing as the f/ number, but that just means it's important to be specific about which terms are being used. Comment edited 3 minutes after posting 0 upvotes By (unknown member) (3 months ago) Richard, Giving equivalent focal lengths at least gives the same field of view despite not taking into account the angle of view. It's actually better to stick to field-of-view crop factor like 1.6X, but whatever. Again, pictures have a disproportionate effect on humans, so when the first thing under the graph says "The above chart shows the changes in 35mm equivalent aperture as the equivalent focal length increases. This chart allows you to see the effect of the different aperture and lens ranges, taking into account the different sensor sizes." I find that confusing. The only mention of depth of field is two paragraphs down. The devil is in the details, and not stating specifically what those equivalencies mean (i.e. that they are in no way related to the light throughput typically associated with the f-stop) may confuse some. It absolutely does not say anything about light coming through, unless you're talking about total light which is meaningless because it is the light density Comment edited 1 minute after posting 0 upvotes By (unknown member) (3 months ago) ....(actual light flux) that matters. A T-stop tells you what light is ACTUALLY getting to the sensor. No equivalencies required. Just a really confusing, useless equivalency meant for the lay person that, as such, has zero frame of reference in which to interpret what all that means. Photographers don't need such nonsense. 0 upvotes By (3 months ago) I have the G1X Mk1 and enjoyed it for travel and hiking. That's despite agreeing that there are issues with focus distance and AF (which though very accurate, gave slow between shot times). If you accepted these foibles it was a good all-rounder and nothing matched its IQ without actually going to APSC. I'm not upgrading to the Mk2 despite the improvements. One of the best things about the Mk 1 was that it was a complete stand-alone camera that needed nothing. For me, the absence of a neat built-in EVF is THE killer for the Mk 2. I hate add-on EVFs - they're expensive, easy to forget or lose and block the flash shoe in use. And it's an$1100 camera with its EVF, and at that price it's squarely in MILC territory. I decided to spend more and bought an XT1.

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

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

1 upvote
By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

I'm happy to read the Jeff's reviews. He writes clear and to the point. I miss his comments about the battery door on his DPreview reviews. On his former website he never missed a comment regarding the bottom of the camera. His comments about the battery doors were very helpful. I guess DPreview does not allow him to write these comments now.

By (3 months ago)

I'm sure he'll appreciate your comment (he's not in the office at the moment).

I'll see if we can relax our vigorous anti-battery-door-discussion restrictions, in future.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

Richard and iI will discuss this tomorrow.

By (3 months ago)

I'll look forward to it, Jeff.

By (3 months ago)

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

Wait - what?

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

Barney,

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

Wait - what?"

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

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

By (3 months ago)

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

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

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