All Canons exceed in one interesting aspect that's known and often lamented, but seldom conceded in enthusiast circles: The Canon brand gets an approving nod from family, friends, and clients almost always without question, whereas with Sony cameras a certain amount of "convincing" must go on. If the approval of others is a concern, the rule across the marketplace seems to be always buy Canon or Nikon. Broadly speaking, consumers are frivolous and actually do seek approval from others for their "big" purchases.

I have tested rx100 V yesterday, I own mark II so far. The af and shutter response are both incredible. Only one missing thing, exposure metering, this is utterly slow and fails often. mirrorless needs heuristic algorithm here, If I am in same environment the exposure is quite close to previous photo - there is the place to start testing of right exp level. Or just add one single pixel photodiode to measure it quicker. For me the problem could be fixed with software upgrade, SONY pls listen, I send copy to you also. Sometimes we turn lens towards dark clothing or floor and when we rise camera towards subject it overexposes the photo.

I stopped by DPR's office unannounced the other day, and something big was definitely afoot in those hallowed offices when I arrived. I actually never made it inside. Evidently, some kind of heated debate was going on, because when the elevator doors opened on their floor, I immediately heard angry shouting, and tremendous crashing noises. Then a guy bleeding from the forehead ran past, just as a flying RX100 clocked him viciously, right in the back of the head! His hands clutched the air as he teetered face-forward towards the floor! Fighting to remain conscious, he moaned, "Eff you, and your retarded views of the enthusiast camera market!" Then, a woman screamed, and I heard another man shouting, somewhere down the hall. Then, the elevator bell chimed with indifference, and the doors slid closed. I descended back to the lobby, and I stood there, bewildered. The palm-decked, marble lobby was awash with the pleasant, midday sun. Then, I spotted lovely Helen, across the atrium.

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II... "Rebel" without a cause?

Is the manual out for the G1 X III yet? ????

I mainly am trying to figure out if it can take a picture while taking a video.

Because if it can't I'm out. Not spending $1200 on a camera that can't do a photographic function available on every iphone.

The sony is a "non-starter" because 1" sensor and it can't take an external flash. I can live with aps-c (or even 1") with a flash. Without a flash they are just different levels of bad in low light.

I incline towards the Canon. Better feel in the hands, bigger sensor. Even looks like a camera, instead of black box with a piece of glass attached. The Canon looks like it has some soul, the black box doesn’t 😉

Smartphone with small sensors can produce good image. Compact Cameras with much larger sensor not much significant different than the image produced by smart phone. Cameras manufacturers need to work harder to make cameras produce much better images

Small problem. Smartphones usually do NOT fit in your pocket and the rear LCD is almost impossible to compose with the sun shining on it. So, my Sony works great. My RX-100 III stays in my pocket, focuses damn fast, has zoom, and a VIEWFINDER with diopter adjustment. It is simply a better camera! Yeah, and it easily fits in my SHIRT pocket. Gotta love Payson, Arizona weather!!!

This comparison is an epic battle of an elephant vs whale.

Or, to put it differently, measurebating at its worst.

My RX100mkII fought (and lost to) not a camera with bigger sensor or a better lens... Its place (of the "always-in-my-pocket" camera) was taken by a smartphone (first LG V10, now Huawei Mate 9). If only its controls were less lethargic, start-up time shorter, and connectivity better, it might stand a chance, but -- alas.

But keep arguing about sensor sizes, guys, it's mighty entertaining!

The Canon shows a very good spec sheet in most accounts, but its bulkier design is of quite dubious taste for a small camera with the high viewfinder. It doesn't compare well with the Sony, with its handsome and really pocketable minute size and weight. The Sony features are superior, even though without a touchscreen LCD ( at least for me, a useless feature since I'm an essentially VF shooter).

To all armchair critic technical people. I'm an established advertising/commercial photographer and look here on DPREVIEW, now & then, to see what's up in the way of gear. It ceases to amaze me at all of the nit picking that goes on about minimal technical nuances of one camera versus another. I'm always amazed that you really have that much extra time to waste on writing about these trivial technial tidbits. I used to be an assistant to a world famous photographer. He didn't know an 85mm from a 105mm lens. He called them the little long lens & the medium long lens. But...he made beautiful images. It didn't matter what body or lens he used, it was just a tool to him that he used. So for God's sake, stop kvetching about every little possible technical element. Pick up a a decent camera with a sharp lens and go shoot. I can't think of anothhter craft where people go on & on nitpicking about their tools. A few upgraded camera features will NOT improve your creative talent.

Gender specific?
The Canon looks like a boy's camera, and the Sony looks like a girl's camera.

As a proud RX100 III owner, I believe the article should have addressed the control and handling issue. The RX100 series are an engineering marvel, but they really lack in the physical control department, where the G1X III seem to excel.

I guess the lack of 4K has something to do with Dual Pixel AF. Either sensor output or CPU processing power is not enough to use that in a combo. I like the Canon style of body design more though.

Is the sensor size graphic wrong? It shows the G1Xm3 and then below a 1.5 inch sensor? I think the big box is full frame or APS -H not the G1Xm3? Maybe I am wrong. An M43 size would be nice too.

Almost perfect, except for that lens. I won't be buying one.

Well, from the perspective of a UK photographer, we have lovely big jacket pockets 10 months of the year; and those rare days we don’t wear a jacket, then the camera goes into the same ‘man bag’ as the phone, keys, wallet, tobacco (yep!) and the leatherman. In other words – both of these are portable.

The RX100v will tuck into the speedos nicely, but 1” sensor and the ergonomics of a bar of soap don’t appeal. The G1Xiii looks like a serious camera (apsc sensor, manual dials, weather-proofing, proper grip for hand-held shooting, etc.)

I’m looking forward to the full review of the G1Xiii, and to trying it out in the shops. Promising!

part 1 No question the RX100 fits in smaller pockets. I have had one since they came out. I want better images but still a pocketable or will fit in my cargo shorts, a sport coat, g/f's evening purse or light jacket. If it fits in cargo short for during the day which the Fuji x100F, Ricoh GRII & Canon GX1mkIII do they are pocketable. I have all 3 of and a Canon coming. If the APS-C does give me what I am looking for in better IQ I will have to determine which is the winner. So far the Ricoh GRII is a simplistic little lightweight and affordable gem. I like the way you have 28mm but can crop to 35mm & 47mm that is a nice feature. I also like the Fuji a bit larger and heavier but it is a real camera however very limited with a 35mm equivilent lens. You can get a $300 28mm or 50mm conversion lens but jeez just use your a6500 if that is the case. I just got it but it appears to be a very serious camera but seems to have a learning curve and I will have to remember much of all that or not.

I agree with the thought about fiddly cameras. I owned the RX100 and later the newest version, fiddly they are and add on grip a must.

I loved the G series (up thru the 15) camera for walking around and before I entered pixel peeping world. With that experience producing very acceptable images I know the G 1X Mark III will be great...if you aren't endlessly making comparisons to satisfy the quest for best in show. Look at me, I've ended up with an RX-1.

In the digital age, I personally see little sense in buying a non-interchangeable lens camera unless it has a decent zoom range, say 24-200mm. Just my personal opinion. For a small range zoom, my iPhone 8+ works fine except for dark scenes. The pluses of having the internet to email such photos makes up for most flaws. I would not buy either of the cameras discussed in this thread. The Canon is not what I would call compact and the other is too expensive given its capabilities.

Can someone explain to me why I would buy either one of these over, say a GM-5 and three compact primes?

Tedolph

Two very different cameras. Some overlap but many differences.

The Canon G1 X III should be compared to other APS-C compacts, Fujifilm X100F, Ricoh GR II and (discontinued) Nikon Coolpix A. The Canon totally "outzooms" all of them.

Enjoy the throne while it lasts sony. If panasonic release LX200, it will be tougher.

Enjoyed the writing style. Cheers

Why do you continue to not include 4K on consumer cameras Canon?

This is not a shoot-out. It is a spec comparison - don’t waste your time.

Real compact VS. Quality compact

What genius, comparing two cameras without discussing image quality....

Would people in the real world compare these 2 when shopping for a camera?
There are so many features that don't overlap.

"But beware: even though larger sensors typically perform better in low light and blurry background applications, that won't necessarily be the case in this comparison... because of the..."

because of the...?

for pete's sake - clarify.

guys, what a strange paragraph around their low-light performance!

> Because of their size difference, the RX100 V's lens is equivalent
> to a F4.9-7.6 on full-frame; the Canon is equivalent to F4.5-9.
> So it's really likely to be a wash in both the subject isolation
> and low light departments: the Sony is a little better on the
> long end, and the Canon is a tiny fraction better on the wide end.

I thought that f1.8 is f1.8 as it is just a *ratio* and in terms of the light capturing will mean exactly the same both on 1/2.3" and FF. So actually sony should capture more light than canon both on wide (1.8 vs 2.8) and long ends (2.8 vs 5.6) - this means you will be able to use shorter shutter speeds or lower ISOs with Sony.

What this FF equivalence might be useful for, is only to assume what will the depth of field be like, to have more or less precise understanding of the background blur on certain mm's, but not the light performance.

Welcome the competition but smaller size won. The RX100 fit in a pocket nicely, just like a phone.

I hate to be that guy who asks people to shut up... but everyone who comes on here year after year to say they don't want touchscreens is passing up a perfectly good opportunity to save their breath.

You can simply turn it off. The digitiser layer which enables touch on a screen is worth a pittance - they go on eBay for less than $10 for older smartphones.

There is almost literally ($10) no downside for any of you, there is a huge downside for those of us who have learnt to exploit it's many benefits.

Is the Canon trully a “compact”? Could it fit in even a large jacket pocket? Its form factor lends itself more to the “bridge camera” category.

That's an odd comparison considering one has a tiny sensor and the other has an APS-C sensor. Apples and Oranges.

I don't get the argument that the Sony is smaller and therefore the better buy. I mean, who actually carries a £1000 compact camera in their jeans pocket, just in case the opportunity arises to take a photo? I have a compact camera, and if I'm heading out somewhere to take photographs, I'll take my camera (in a protective case), put it in a small backpack along with my tripod, and off I go. For everything else, my iPhone 7 does the job.