Canon G1 X Mark II First Impressions Review

Always wanted this camera but it was overpriced to me. I had the original G1x and loved the quality of the images but it was a flawed camera, much improved in the mark 2 version. Just bought it for the reduced price of £449 which is a bargain price. I use m4/3 and to just buy the Olympus 12mm f2 lens would cost me over £500, with the Canon G1X ii I have the equivalent of 24-120 with F2 at the wide end and with beautiful bokeh. Makes perfect sense to me. The reported flaws in this mark ii version will not bother me and I'll probably get the viewfinder as I use the VF-4 on my E-P5 Olympus which works better in bright light. I like to travel light these days and the G1X ii will get a lot more use than my DSLR or m4/3 cameras.

It's time for this camera to be updated.

For $700, I'm not impressed. It has a large 1.5" sensor that *should* be good in low light, yet it has a high noise floor and bad autofocus in low light, which effectively hamstrings it.

The shoot wide open program preference is kinda silly too.

Bottom line is to wait for Mk. III, which will likely have a newer Sony sensor. Or just go ahead and get a competing product with a smaller sensor.

A fixed lens, full frame sensor, camera like this for landscaping, Night photography, panoramic, macro etc., from canon – may be a dream?

In the eff. aperture-focal length chart, where would a 4/3 sensor + kit lens, e.g. the Olympus EM-10, sit?

" The camera is also significantly smaller than its forebear"

It's heavier. wider and deeper. Not as tall, but then there's no VF.

I’m with JP on this one. I own it (rather than reading Spec lists) and I also bought the EVF. Together, allbeit a bit on the pricey side, makes for one heck of a kit. It has absolutely every feature you could want, the Hybrid auto is brill and oh yes the Image quality is superb… isnt that what its all about.

I recently purchased a G1X MarkII after my original G1X failed. I have not fully explored all the features but the upgrade in features is considerable. The main initial difference noticed is the battery. Less than half the size and more than twice the capacity.

@DPR:
it would be awesome, to see a head-to-head comparison,
between the G1Xii and the LX100.
(ditto for G7X versus RX100iii)

The DPreview reviewer published video quality comment for the review of the Canon Powershot G1 X MK II states "Low resolution video with strong moiré" and is in direct contrast to the Consumer Reports test of the same camera. CR test results of this same camera state "Video quality is excellent, better than most models" and also from the same CR test is the comment that the camera "is the first advanced model we've tested that had excellent image quality across the board: photos taken without a flash, flash photos, and video. What makes this significant is not just that it scored so high in all three categories, but that it scored higher overall than all our tested SLRs and mirror less models."

Is it possible something was defective in the camera used for the DPreview test? CR is world renowned for the stringent and demanding quality of it's excellent testing procedures. Wy such an opposite result for the same Canon G1 X MK II camera from two highly reputable organizations?

At that focal length is the test-scene shot?

Remembering my Fuji X-S1, which was very good with portraits, but fuzzy on the long end, I realise the uselessness of this test scene, if it only shows the lens at one given focal length.
Indeed, it may be showing the camera at it's best, at it's worse, or somewhere between, and this would be the case for most, but completely random from one model to another, whether it's showing it at it's best or worse.

@dpr: btw... for a test scene, try and keep the objects in the same position, will you? (I see the bottle has been rotated, and not all items seem to appear in the same spot from camera to camera.

I give this camera a 10/10. I am astounded at the results I got from this camera. I rented this camera for a concert and the photo detail and color and the camera's versatility exceeded my expectations. Even after I cropped the RAW files way down the detail was completely realistic and near perfect. I shot RAW, Super Fine, AWB, manually@ISO 2000, 1/250 sec and used the zoom to 120mm (so I couldn't open up the aperture as wide as I wanted) and the photos showed no lack of brightness at all. The concert lighting/ brightness/colors were constantly changing but the camera handled all of it remarkably well. My regular is a 20D and Sigma f2.8 50-150mm lens for concerts/hockey games and the the G1X MKII equaled or exceeded the photo quality and versatility of my 20D. And the G1X MKII was easy to get acquainted with. I had one day to learn how to use this camera and didn't have any problems. Please view my G1X MKII photos here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/24052589@N07/?saved=1

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

C'est la vie!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that is gone.

I sold Canon G1X and kept the RX100 M2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is such bad timing for Canon!!!!

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

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

Sony 100-III anyone?????