Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II real-world gallery

Earlier in this thread I asked those critical of the G1Xii image quality to provide realistic alternatives. I've been trying to answer that question as well and this is *my* best alternative:

Sony A6000 with Zeiss-designed 16-70mm f/4 lens (24-105 equivalent).

weight: 22.9 oz (body+lens) vs 21 oz (G1Xii+evf), an insignificant difference. For comparison, my 5D3 + 25-105 f/4L is 57.1 oz, around 2.5x heavier than either set up.

bulk: With the lens, the A6000 is about twice as deep as a G1Xii with lens retracted. Other dimensions are pretty close.

cost (US$): $1650 for body+lens vs $1160 for G1Xii+EVF+lens hood+filter holder. For me, cost is not the primary factor in my decision.

FWIW, my primary use case is landscape photography involving longer day hikes w/ significant elevation gain. If I'm going to hike 12 miles and ascend 5000 ft to get a shot, the extra bulk of the a6000 would seem easily justified by increased IQ and resolution. We'll see how both cameras actually test out.

Apr 11, 2014permalink

rfsIII

But how does the IQ compare to 4x5 Fuji Provia shot with a Linhof Master Technika?

Apr 10, 2014permalink

Wye Photography

If you pop over to imaging-resource and look at the G1X Mk I and MkII files, the MkII is actually noisier than the MkI.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

Nomorefilmman

Hi Wye Photo,
I compared the 2 cameras like you did, and assuming the tests were done the same way, it shows the Mark II definitely noisier to me, to my disappointment!
I own the G1X Mark I, and am very well satisfied with the sharpness of the images. I was hoping the Mark II would be as good or better!
Am looking forward to the DPReview in-depth Mark II tests to confirm the Imageing-Resource tests.

May 4, 2014permalink

ThePartaker

Hi Jeff,
Thank you so much for processing the image of the statue and IMG_0130 into IMG_0130.acr. you did a great job on them, and this show some of what this sensor and lens combination can do.
Can you put IMG_0130 back up so we can see the comparison between them?This is a good example of what can be achieved beyond the JPEG and is rarely shown so clearly.

Canon seem to have done a good job matching such a small lens to the sensor, but it does not seem to be a new sensor, is it the same as the old GX1?
Thanks for all your hard work - you clearly seem to be enjoying this camera - think I will be buying it - look forward to the full review.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

If memory serves, the original 0130 was processed with DPP and was not an out-of-camera JPG.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

Ozi Jim

I was lucky enough to have the canon rep for my store lend me one overnight.
I didn't have to long to play with it but found it very enjoyable to shoot with (aside form a couple of ergonomic gripes-that mobile button is in a horrible position.)
For those expecting SLR quality should probably buy, I dunno, an SLR, but this little guy is an admirable performer for what it is. Reality is if you want a smaller camera you have to give something up be it zoom, IQ, etc.
For half of what I paid for my 550D + 17-40L it offers 80% of the quality/functionality.
Not a bad equation in my opinion.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

Joseph Mama

WHY? The sensor is 1.5 inches which is actually bigger than a 4/3rds and nearly the size of an APS-C. Its 225% the size of the mighty RX100 which is well known for doing a great job. Why should it NOT provide SLR quality?

Apr 16, 2014permalink

Jaythomasni

Lens - No Color depth. Low Color resolution or color purity. Low contrast. Low sharpness. More Fuji or Samsung color than canon. Greenish pink rendition due to lens coating.
Sensor - Highlights always washed out or blown. any bright object indoor or outdoor quickly become white blob. Retains Shadow details Though. Highlights gone. DR performance not balanced.

If canon can make this lens to L standards as they did with Pro-1. It should overcome some of the sensor size and DR limitation and give an overall excellent package at a price point. Mediocre glass and sensor..Mediocre JAC pic quality.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

pacnwhobbyist

What is your baseline comparison? In other words, if the Canon is all the terrible things you say it is, what $800 camera outperforms the Canon in all the areas you mention above?

Apr 9, 2014permalink

pacnwhobbyist

To clarify...I meant what's on the market right now.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

Wye Photography

I find the lens on my G1X MKI is superb.

Default metering as described by Jaythomasni, it needs human intervention by dialling in exposure compensation. One should learn to use that big round dial marked -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, problem solved.

The glass and sensor is definitely not mediocre. I bought my G1X for £300, excellent piece of kit. Sure, I would update the interface because it feels cheap and dated. Apart from that, a great camera.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

I agree. This camera was everything I was hoping for, except the IQ is not. Images are just a bit better than the G15.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

Beat Traveller

Image #6 is hilarious, good work.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Hi everyone, now that ACR 8.4 is out, I reconverted the 'torture tunnel' shot and also tried my hand at the ISO 8000 indoor statue photo. Wide-open macro shot still to come.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Terrific!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

The 'torture tunnel' shot is much improved. This really highlights how difficult it is to draw broad conclusions from a handful of shots that might catch your eye for some reason or other.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

lacikuss

Great pictures! Can you up the contrast automatically?

Apr 8, 2014permalink

BLongborough

Extraordinary. 799 USD on amazon.com, 799 GBP on amazon.co.uk.

How do these ridiculous exchange rates work?

Apr 8, 2014permalink

vladimir vanek

It's the same sort of business as Apple's rates per GB...

Apr 8, 2014permalink

justmeMN

It's a nice camera, but it costs more than an SL1/100D or a T3i/600D.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

vapentaxuser

This is true. However neither camera is as compact or offers a collapsible 24-120mm F2-F3.9 lens.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

yabokkie

the lens works as a 24-120mm f/3.8-7.3.
while for the (in)famous EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6IS,
it can do the work as a 24-137mm f/5.6-9.

note:
I think 15-85 is over priced.
I don't know G1X2's lens much than the spec.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

Arn

What's infamous about the EF-S 15-85? It's one of the greatest EF-S lenses. One he** of a lens for sure. But a fact about the G1X II is that it's got a sweet lens for the size of the camera (as long as performance of the lens is adequate). If you start doing FF equivalent conversions, you might as well bring micro43 lenses and compact cameras into the comparison. I.e. trying to tell you - forget the pointless calculations and take SIZE into the equation. The G1X II is smaller than just the 15-85 lens.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Yab, those equivalent f stops are only for DoF, not light.

Apr 11, 2014permalink

George Veltchev

Fantastic IQ ... truly !

Apr 8, 2014permalink

carlos roncatti

Its very nice to see the usual suspects from Jeff, i miss them over dcresource (no longer exists), i think its good to see how diferrent cameras shoot the same scenes..

Apr 8, 2014permalink

peacefrog33756

A little disappointed. Was looking forward to better DR, detail. Seems to me the overall IQ is just a tad behind the first G1X.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

bobbarber

I like Jeff's samples too, because 1) there's a point to them (purple fringing tunnel, detail in ChinaTown, etc.), and 2) they're (mostly) shot on sunny days, which is what I (and I suspect most of us) do too.

These samples look good. I don't see a lot of D.R. advantage to the larger sensor, to be honest. Areas that I would expect to be blown out on a smaller sensor camera are blown out on this camera. The ISO 3200 portrait is a nice result. C.A. is corrected in all images, but you can see a few halos here and there, no biggie. Also, the corners are slightly degraded on wide angle, but don't look too bad.

This is a nice camera, but IMHO it's J.A.C. (just another camera). Not that there's anything wrong with that. Most of my cameras fit that description. But it's not a distinctive product. It seems like it could almost be sold without a Canon badge, just a black and white bar code.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

Menneisyys

Wowz!!! You already have two MkII's! DPR, please publish the final review before July! I want to purchase a new enthusiast "compact" before going on Holiday (this July) and still hesitate between this and the RX10. (And the rumoured P8000, of course.)

Apr 8, 2014permalink

I'm working on the review now, so if it's not published by July, then something horrible has happened.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Menneisyys

Great news!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

ThePartaker

So looking forward to the review.

Apr 9, 2014permalink

rccasgar

Some days I think "I will upgrade my G1X and go for he G1X Mk2"... some others I think "I have to give it a try to the RX10"...

There's a lot of people having such a good remarks on RX100 M2 that sometimes I think... RX10 should be even better with such a ZEISS lens...

Willing to have a full review on G1X Mk2 in order to take a decision...

Apr 8, 2014permalink

just for your case: i´ve had several RX10...IMHO, they do not match the RX100s IQ....I suppose a 24-200mm lens is too much of compromise compared to a 28-100mm.... This said, I try to find ANY cam with at lest 24-100mm with a very good IQ (lenswise)....I suppose, these 24mm are just too bad for the lens as a whole.....

Apr 8, 2014permalink

fdfgdfgdgf

Compact cam IQ
Next cam please....

Apr 8, 2014permalink

For me, DR is just too much compact-like (i.e., bad/low...too often "just white)" instead of APSC-like. And why? Because they do not WANT to! It would be no problem to take their best APSC and downgrade it to 1.5", but THAT would cut/destroy their low- and midrange DSLR Business. It´s ALL about marketings!! :(

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Sergey Borachev

What do you expect? when even their flagship 5DIII has ordinary DR?

It's really nice to have a big sensor in a small body, but unfortunately it's a Canon sensor.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

ok, maybe i´m just spoiled by my nikon, sony, and fuji cams :D

Apr 8, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

You're spoiled by not knowing what you're talking about.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

IvanM

Jeff, had a look at two samples, large scenes, and the images looks soft with some double edges here and there...is it the 'default' jpeg processing? Because if it is its not really helpful...perhaps fewer images, shot and processed properly will have more value...as it is now the quality looks pretty soft viewed at 100% and its difficult to determine if its the camera or the operator...

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Markol

Let me just say that I think Jeff should do all the samples in the future. It's been years since I last saw such useful samples on this stie. Kudos, Jeff!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Blargen flargen...bleep bloop!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

To translate: just like every lens the edges are a little soft wide open at certain focal lengths, but overall it's not perfect enough to keep people from condemning it for not behaving like an $800 lens instead of an $800 camera.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

JEROME NOLAS

Looks very promising, certainly great travel or universal camera!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

qwertyasdf

Correct me if i'm wrong, the largest aperture used in this set is F3.2?

Apr 8, 2014permalink

More photos still to come!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

In a German very short and personal review it's said that IQ was great AS LONG AS you do not shoot wide open. I do not know it, but maybe here, they did not WANT to show bad images.....?

Apr 8, 2014permalink

qwertyasdf

Thanks Jeff!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

deep7

It's not that bad at all, considering the compromises made with the lens spec (i.e. more ambitious than the original G1X and not as crisp across the frame in some shots). The sensor seems the same quality, which is excellent. Without a built-in viewfinder, I still won't be buying it but, for those who can get by, it looks like a decent package. Roll on that review!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Cheng Bao

When I saw the series photo of stanford U, I think these must be jeff's work, and it seems I guessed correctly.

No school guards hush you out of their property this time?

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Nope, no security. If anyone should've been busted that day it should be all the wedding photographers shooting there without permission! (not that you should need it in the first place)

Apr 8, 2014permalink

pacnwhobbyist

First of all I think image quality from this camera is excellent. I have analyzed and scrutinized the sample photos 6 ways from Sunday and I find very little to criticize. While not worlds apart, they are a bit better than the Sony RX100 II at closer inspection. Especially the ISO3200 shot.

However, one thing I have noticed from the pictures from this camera vs. the RX100 II...the RX100 II's photos seem to "pop" a little more than the Canon's. The color and contrast are a little more dramatic from the Sony. That might be in part due to the Zeiss lens. The Canon still has nice (and very accurate) colors and I can see how a lot of people would find that more appealing over the Sony. But, me personally, I can't help but like the look of the RX100 II's photos a little better. Maybe I might change my mind once I see more of what the G1X Mark II can do.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

I agree! And RX100 is much more portable.
Maybe tweaking the settings on GX1mkII could help achive better images.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

Mike FL

It would be more helpful to add some low-light/high-ISO samples; Such as for IMG_0090, instead of 6sec/ISO100 by using:
- 1/2sec//iso3200,
- 1/4sec/iso6400, and
- 1/8sec/iso12800

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

nevada5

I was always impressed with the IQ right up to the edges with my G1X. Image #0135, the corners make me wonder what's going on here???

Apr 8, 2014permalink

bobbarber

Software correction.

On a camera with a lens this size with these specs, it was predictable. At wide angle, they are stretching the heck out of an image circle which likely does not even fill the frame.

If you could see the uncorrected pre-raw image, it might look something like a fisheye lens with black corners.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

spatz

My last Canon was a Powershot G2! I seriously thought I would give this a try, tempted by the large sensor and 24mm wide angle lens, and the promise of great dynamic range given the large pixels. Unfortunately, the image quality does not look like an improvement over my RX100, the lens is soft, and the sensor appears to have limited DR despite the low pixel count.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

deep7

If it's anything like the original G1X, the jpeg engine slaughters highlights and RAW files have way more latitude. Don't judge too soon!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

boblu

THE MARTK 2 DOES HAS highliht/washout problems and very soft lens. To me these samples are closed to G15/G16. Nothing amazing.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

linzybel

I'm looking forward to seeing more landscapes when the sun is low, and more portraits in dramatic light.

Thank you and keep 'em coming.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

PicOne

Muuussshhh

Apr 8, 2014permalink

camerosity

How about a real world sample gallery from the Nikon 1 V3?? Cmon dpreview, stop flaunting your overt bias toward Canon and against Nikon!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Richard Butler

Our use of cameras is biased towards those we have. Until Nikon sends us a camera, it's quite hard to shoot a gallery with it.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

You're using LOGIC?

Apr 9, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Hi Jeff . . . this is Dark Cobra from your old site. I was glad to see you return to Stanford and San Francisco for many of these shots and we are very used to many of these scenes from your old site. In general the images are at best "alright". I don't see anything that WoW's me at all to be honest. The bridge night scene is good as is the Stanford "tunnel of doom" shot which renders excellent shadow and light detail balance. The sharpness of most of these images could be better. I was thinking about getting this camera but I'm SO glad I resisted and picked up the incredible Fuji X100S. Take care of yourself Jeff!

Apr 8, 2014permalink

TrojMacReady

Agreed, love the return of the well known SF scenes, good for comparison purposes!

And it revealed a lot of edge halos from excessive edge sharpening with a large radius, yet mushy low contrast detail, already at base ISO.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

Thanks guys. Unfortunately this won't be a trend - I just happened to be there over the weekend and thought "what the heck".

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Seems a pretty decent camera. But I think that 100% crop images are very soft and grainy (reminded my old S100), not much detail as I hoped for a camera with this sensor. RX100 is smaller, cheaper and has better 100% crop details, and more mega pixels to crop the image.
Even with the crappy image from the studio scene from dpreview, I bought a RX100. Not one of my shots are like the studio scenes, real life pictures are much much better. I was thinking of buying a GXmkII, but now I`ve changed my mind.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

I am selling my RX100 Mk II for the G1X Mk II.

Clearly that varying mileage. The original G1X was marred for me only by limited close up ability and speed. This one solves that. And I don't get on with Sony colours, particularly in skin tones.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

I have to agree with you my friend, RX100 colors on auto mode or P mode standard are awful!
I dont shoot raw or post processing, so after some trials, I set on P mode Landscape all the time, and I got the best colors ever from all the cameras I`ve had, much richer than my old S100 and T5i, even the skin tones.
Give it a shot! Lol.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

I mostly shoot aperture priority raw. They still suck. And I find their colours are less flexible in raw processing than most brands I have tried. They still beat my old Fuji though, I'll give them that.

Apr 8, 2014*permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Image processing is good, but the lens does not excite.
Leica's lens in X-Vario, or Ricoh's lens in the GR, are both miles ahead of this camera.
But, I believe, if Canon wanted to implement a really good lens, the package would cost twice as much. It would be worthwhile, though. It would be good Canon comes out with a kick-@ss enthusiast camera, not another budget 'zoom': they have plenty of budget cameras already.

Apr 7, 2014*permalink

badi

but for being a "kick-@ass enthusiast" ... it should have a better lens too. I also think in this price tag, there was a lot room for better quality in this regard.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Different strokes, I guess. The lens is what draws me to this camera. 24-120mm f/2-3.9...those are some amazing specs if the lens performs. I read posts that say "for that cost, you could get 'x' instead. 'X' doesn't exist. Not at this size and weight. I've looked. The RX100II seems closest but I haven't seen anything from that camera that suggests it offers higher IQ. An A6000? With what lens(es)? An X100s? Not the same concept. It's great to sit and criticize and if this camera has obvious engineering flaws I'll join in; but the fact that it falls short when compared to someone's physics-defying fantasy camera is meaningless.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Revenant

According to Canon's information brochure, the G1 X MkII lens is actually the most complex compact camera lens that Canon has ever made. Making the lens as compact as it is, and with those specs, isn't easy. It even required different manufacturing equipment than usual, so it probably is quite costly to make.
It's easy to say that the lens should be better for the asking price, when not knowing what technical challenges had to be overcome to make it.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

Jaythomasni

True. lens is lacking. An L grade miniature lens as they did with Pro-1 would be the answer. Price hovering 1K. If it can deliver that L sharpness ,contrast and color in this form factor . It will sell. Balancing acts mediocre results. People want the ultimate no matter what.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

mcshan

@Zvon..The X Vario DOES have an amazing lens. Truth be told it should as the camera cost $2800. It is quite a camera. I hear and read great things about the GR as well. Even allowing for the usual high Leica markup I would think Canon would have to charge $1400 to use glass close to the X Vario. I can only guess Canon currently wants to catch the enthusiast market and avoid competing with their own system cameras. Just a guess.

For what it is the Mark II looks good.

Apr 9, 2014*permalink

utomo99

I also want to see the sample in low light.
Such as Cafe or candle light dinner.
I see that the Dr is not good enough, I don't know if canon can tweak it little bit by using firmware update or not.
Canon need to improve it before real review

Apr 7, 2014permalink

ScratchDisk

Syncing @ 1/2000th - off camera flash in bright but underexposed ambient - the pics. Pretty please . . .

Apr 7, 2014permalink

mcshan

I can't tell from just these samples but I curious if image quality will be that much better than the original G1X? Slightly worse?

I have the original and was always pleased with it as a simple carry around travel camera with some zoom. It will be fun to learn what Canon has changed.

Apr 7, 2014*permalink

CAcreeks

Same, based on the I-R.com comparometer.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

mcshan

Thank you CA. I have not been to that site in some time and will check it out.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

aramgrg

Amazing results. If I am not mistaken, equivalent FF with pixel size should be around 42mp. I want an FF 40 mp with this kind of low light performance.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Thematic

LOL

Uh no. Your math is 100% wrong. Things don't add up like that. Nice try.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Storky

Yes, they pretty much do add up this way.

Apr 26, 2014permalink

Michael Ma

I would have killed for this camera when I was buying Powershots 10 years ago.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Archiver

Absolutely. My first camera was the 4mp Canon S45 in 2002. 35mm f2.8 eq. lens with 4x zoom and 320x240 15fps video. It took some lovely photos but was pretty slow. This is the kind of camera I wish I had back then.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

JapanAntoine

Thanks but would like to see more shots in dark situations, with ISO pumped up, or portrait shots with wide aperture, to evaluate the bokeh.
Thank you!

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Bill Bentley

Agreed. I'd like to see the night city skyline shot at f8-f11 too. Looks a bit soft at f4-f5.6 to me, although the bridge shot isn't too bad. Decrease Av, increase ISO, increase Tv.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

https://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/sets/72157642734832515/

Have you seen these, Bill?

Apr 7, 2014permalink

JapanAntoine

Thanks for the link.
It's becoming a tough call, with that new Sony RX100 mkIII and the rumored Fuji X30...

May 21, 2014permalink

Mikael Risedal

there is nothing new with this camera, same old sensor tech, inferior color resolution and dynamic range compared to modern sensors from Sony,Toshiba,Panasonic, Aptina etc

Apr 7, 2014permalink

AngryCorgi

Aptina? Why did you toss that in there? Aptina sensors are actually WORSE than Canon sensors across the board.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

I've been away from here for a year, I come back and there is nothing new with Risedal's obsessive Canon bashing.

Apr 7, 2014*permalink

I totally share your frustration with Canon's lack of innovation with sensor tech—particularly dynamic range—but my expectations were set accordingly. Certainly you didn't think that Canon would debut significant new sensor tech in a PowerShot camera.

That said, if we can get close to [Canon] DSLR performance out of a camera this size with what is for me a spectacular lens then that is certainly something new and exciting. I wonder if your frustration isn't affecting your judgement.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

qianp2k

The same rhetoric of Canon bashing from the same guy over and over again.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

The Davinator

They keep falling further and further behind. At least there are good choices from other brands until Canon can figure their stuff out.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

I've seen some G1X II macro shots at wide open apertures that look really soft. I was hoping to see some similar shots here to help clarify whether this was operator error or a characteristic of this camera.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

rpm40

When shooting this big sensor/small lens combo at close macro distances wide open, softness wouldn't surprise me. You see the same with the rx100.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

AngryCorgi

I keep seeing strange pixelated halo-like artifacts near the edges in photos...must be the software correcting the distortion, but the artifacts are pretty strong. I guess the lens has a lot of distortion or fringing that's being corrected. This is a very unimpressive camera so far.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Thematic

Agree with Mikael Risedal - even IMG_0043 has a blurry water color look to it. Very poor for the money.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

In the upper right hand corner the white portions of the image seem to have an odd halo around them. Is that what you are referring to?

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Thematic

didn't notice that either - just every picture has a smeary look to it

I guess I am used to better processing from APSC cameras and MicroFourthirds cameras that cost the same amount of money.

This just looks like the prints would turn out sub par.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

edu T

Actually, it's pretty simple: everything above and beyond the rows of shoes, that is, the upper fourth of IMG_0043, was behind a display window. Blur & haloes explained?

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Totally missed that. Yes, that could certainly be what I was seeing.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

You should look more carefully at the image rather than looking for any aberration and instantly attributing it to the camera. You found fault in the area at the far end of the DoF and behind thick green glass. Nope, the G1 X II can't fix the issues caused by cheap glass obscuring and blurring objects.

Apr 8, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Given the size and weight, the quality looks very good. I wonder how the G1X2 compares with the Ricoh and the Coolpix. I'll bet the difference isn't all that much and here's a camera where you don't have to bring or buy anything else to avoid being stuck with a 28mm or 35mm lens.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

rccasgar

Willing to see a review comparing it against Sony RX10...

Apr 7, 2014permalink

JapanAntoine

and against the Fuji X100s, to have a comparison against both a more and a less versatile camera, with one supposedly higher IQ and the other supposedly lower... if the specs logic goes as planned!

Apr 7, 2014permalink

Mikael Risedal

what the camera can do?

IMG_0130.dpp
blown high lights, no color resolution in the shadows , inferior DR
Crappy dynamic range

Apr 7, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

This has never been Canon's strong suite, even with SLRs. Usually not a problem if shot in raw. But a better solution would be to buy a Fuji and a bunch of lenses. Much better DR, lots more to carry and twice the price.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

photoguy622

That's an extreme example for any camera. That would probably be the G1X at its worst, and that very savable shooting RAW, I imagine.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

As soon as I can get ahold of a version of ACR that supports the camera, I will reprocess it with the hope of better results.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

I paused on that image too. Canon is the king of limited dynamic range for sure but this is a tough situation for any camera. I think a LR conversion with a little clarity will address the shadows. The highlights don't look completely recoverable.

Apr 7, 2014permalink

dagobah

Actually, that pic is marked as "Converted with Digital Photo Professional" so I assume it's already been converted from RAW, with highlights/shadows improved as much as possible. Jeff, is that the case? Thanks.

Apr 7, 2014*permalink