Why not gx1 series with sony m4/3 sensor (same of Oly)?

[OzarkAggie]

Closest analysis is DxOMark. Note the physical size of the sensor. Looks like a different beast.

 

[wolfie]

Why worry about a G1X model with a m4/3 sensor when the current G1X already has a bigger sensor than a m4/3's one?? I have the G1X mkII and there is nothing wrong with its sensor, IQ is stellar.
--
Jostian

Fractionally bigger lest you get too carried away, and then the 16mp sensors on m43 score ahead on resolution and dynamic range - so why cripple a good lens and body with last generation sensor
Frankly I'd be in for a GX1 if had 16mp and faster fps and WR sealing. It would be a great outdoor camera with that lens

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

12mp is enough, its was a newly developed sensor (not a last gen one...) 12mp gives one larger photosites for better low light... so not getting carried away, just being realistic! why worry about a M4/3's sensor from the outset, when there are APS-C options.

--
Jostian

Yes that crappy 16MP sensor is no improvement at all ...

The lens deserves better!

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

 

[crashpc]

Wolfie in some way you're right, but there is more to it. JPEG rendering of G1X II is not that great. ISO 100 RAW after moire reduction is very close to "competitive". Then you propably compare fixed lens to a compact zoom lens. After that obvious sacrifice, you're supposed to get worse. On the sensor side, it's pretty good, but unfortunately sensor is not only thing what makes a photo.

 

[Jostian]

Why worry about a G1X model with a m4/3 sensor when the current G1X already has a bigger sensor than a m4/3's one?? I have the G1X mkII and there is nothing wrong with its sensor, IQ is stellar.
--
Jostian

Fractionally bigger lest you get too carried away, and then the 16mp sensors on m43 score ahead on resolution and dynamic range - so why cripple a good lens and body with last generation sensor
Frankly I'd be in for a GX1 if had 16mp and faster fps and WR sealing. It would be a great outdoor camera with that lens

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

12mp is enough, its was a newly developed sensor (not a last gen one...) 12mp gives one larger photosites for better low light... so not getting carried away, just being realistic! why worry about a M4/3's sensor from the outset, when there are APS-C options.

--
Jostian

Yes that crappy 16MP sensor is no improvement at all ...

so you take my reply in relation to the new vs old (Canon) sensor and use it vs the 16 M4/3 sensor...mmm, and I never said anything against the M4/3 sensor, just dont think one would choose it over an APS-C sensor (in general).

And seriously, the sudio test scene aint the end all and be all i.t.o IQ, and yes the PEN does well, the M4/3's sensor is great but I for one don't see why Canon or anyone else would downgrade from an APS-C size to a M4/3 rd sensor?

The lens deserves better!

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

--
Jostian

 

[crashpc]

And seriously, the sudio test scene aint the end all and be all i.t.o IQ, and yes the PEN does well, the M4/3's sensor is great but I for one don't see why Canon or anyone else would downgrade from an APS-C size to a M4/3 rd sensor?

The lens deserves better!

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

--
Jostian

In this case it´s quite obvious. This is exactly why I didn´t buy G1X or G1X II, and rather ended up with EOS M and bunch of primes.

 

[Jostian]

And seriously, the sudio test scene aint the end all and be all i.t.o IQ, and yes the PEN does well, the M4/3's sensor is great but I for one don't see why Canon or anyone else would downgrade from an APS-C size to a M4/3 rd sensor?

The lens deserves better!

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

--
Jostian

In this case it´s quite obvious. This is exactly why I didn´t buy G1X or G1X II, and rather ended up with EOS M and bunch of primes.

Fine, Eos M is great little cam but for us that want a fixed lens compact, with a nice fast lens etc the G1X MkII is a treat. here's a 6400 shot which came out really great, see the photo here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3879223

With SOOC like this I'm not disappointed.

--
Jostian

 

[OzarkAggie]

That's a great shot regardless of the ISO.

 

[maple]

Haven't posted here for years. I used to when Pro 2 was speculated. But this thread got my attention.

I liked both G1X a lot for its respectable sensor size and lens specs in a compact and ergonomically balanced form. To me, cameras fall roughly into three categories in terms of portability: pocket, compact and DSLR large. Once camera gets too large to be pocketed comfortably, it’d better get all the way to a size that allows optimum ergonomics, higher IQ and more capable lens, while still convenient to be kept handy. And that’s Canon G1X.

I once had a Pro 1, and have been waiting for its replacement. It never came. I later bought a G10 pretending it to be Pro 1’s successor, but sold it quickly - my IQ threshold got higher all too soon. G1X is to me the closest Canon ever gets to Pro 2. But still I didn’t buy it, simply because it’s crippled by a sensor that’s tested inferior (though not necessarily by so much in use). Why? Cost, or pride?

I would definitely go for a G1X III if it comes with one of the higher scoring sensors. Reality is, however, that only when Canon can’t produce the sensor themselves will they look to outsourcing. IQ seems of secondary concern. Hope they change that.

--
Maple

 

[Jostian]

That's a great shot regardless of the ISO.

 

[Mark9473]

I would definitely go for a G1X III if it comes with one of the higher scoring sensors. Reality is, however, that only when Canon can’t produce the sensor themselves will they look to outsourcing. IQ seems of secondary concern. Hope they change that.

I think you have a misunderstanding on the IQ. The only thing that the DxO score highlights is that at the lowest ISO settings, the Canon sensor does not have as wide a dynamic range as a contemporary Sony sensor. Above ISO 400 there is no more difference.

You would only need this very high DR at the lowest ISO when you want to do single-image HDR and need to bring up the shadows by several stops. Personally I prefer a more natural look.

3-shot panorama stitched in PSE.



--
Mark

 

[OzarkAggie]

You would only need this very high DR at the lowest ISO when you want to do single-image HDR and need to bring up the shadows by several stops. Personally I prefer a more natural look.




Mark

Actually you can see the difference without "HDR" processing in both shadow and midtone gradients. The fact is our eyes see more stops or EVs than a camera can capture so the closer it gets the better. The easy way to see the difference is by comparing RAW captures with jpegs on a wide gamut monitor.

You can like the contrast that dark shadows provide, but that doesn't make it "natural" if our eyes can see more detail.

Here's an image that held a lot more detail in the shadows but I choose to keep it dark so it would contrast with the flowers. It's not natural, it's style.

Sedum in summer

For 40 years I've been faithful to Canon. 5 models sitting on a shelf. I don't think there will be a sixth.

--
It's not the camera...

 

[Mark9473]

You make some good points Aggie. My explanation was certainly a bit simplistic.

 

[crashpc]

In this case it´s quite obvious. This is exactly why I didn´t buy G1X or G1X II, and rather ended up with EOS M and bunch of primes.

Fine, Eos M is great little cam but for us that want a fixed lens compact, with a nice fast lens etc the G1X MkII is a treat. here's a 6400 shot which came out really great, see the photo here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3879223

With SOOC like this I'm not disappointed.

 

[OzarkAggie]

In this case it´s quite obvious. This is exactly why I didn´t buy G1X or G1X II, and rather ended up with EOS M and bunch of primes.

Fine, Eos M is great little cam but for us that want a fixed lens compact, with a nice fast lens etc the G1X MkII is a treat. here's a 6400 shot which came out really great, see the photo here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3879223

With SOOC like this I'm not disappointed.

 

[maple]

Beautiful image, well rendered for a high HD scene. Just that a sensor with greater DR would do even better. BTW, it was shot at ISO 100.

It’s in the low ISO range that photos are taken most often thus DR matters most. Who would bump up ISO when there’s enough light? Within the ISO range where there’s meaningful DR difference between sensors, it’s always good to have more latitude at your disposal.

I shoot landscape a lot, and find myself more often challenged by the lack of DR than not. But then I use a Sigma camera that supposedly has mediocre DR and I end up having to resort to HDR really a lot. I don’t think Canon sensor is better in that respect, though it probably handles contrast smarter to cope with DR deficiency in absolute terms.

 

[crashpc]

Huh, where did you get that? It's absolutely untrue. Full sized sensor with good lens wipes floor with G1X....

 

[OzarkAggie]

Huh, where did you get that? It's absolutely untrue. Full sized sensor with good lens wipes floor with G1X....

Start with Noise and plug in the G1X and the Mark II into the adjoining panels.

Do the same with Dynamic Range .

Resolution is rated the same G1X at 2400 lph by the DPR reviewers.

Keep in mind that DPR uses a very sharp 50 mm when testing Canon DSLRs. That's as good as it gets.

The bad news - for you - is the M has the same crap sensor.

The good news is that you may have just learned something about comparative analyse.

 

[Jostian]

In this case it´s quite obvious. This is exactly why I didn´t buy G1X or G1X II, and rather ended up with EOS M and bunch of primes.

Fine, Eos M is great little cam but for us that want a fixed lens compact, with a nice fast lens etc the G1X MkII is a treat. here's a 6400 shot which came out really great, see the photo here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3879223

With SOOC like this I'm not disappointed.

--
Jostian

Yes, the camera is not really bad, and some objects look good even at high ISO speeds. But

For people like me (wanting black box with basic settings and best sensor) there are better choices.

Not in a fixed lens compact.

Too bad that they didn´t put original 18Mpx sensor in there, and little bit sharper lens....

Dunno why you keep comparing interchangeable lens camera with the G1X II?? the lens on the G1X II is great, read reviews, as a FIXED lens (that what we are talking about, not ILC's) camera the G1X II is awesome, your obsession with MPs is noted, nothing wrong with 12MP unless you intent doing heavy cropping which again has nothing to do with IQ, amazing that every review loves the IQ of the G1X II...and while you at it why not add weather sealing, an EVF, longer zoom etc etc... for what it is (high end fixed lens compact) the G1X II is a great piece of kit.

--
Jostian

 

[Adam-T]

The Original G1X Launched in Feb 2012 (when I got mine) at the time offered a large chunk of 600D sensor attached to an optically superb if rather slow lens which wasn`t compromised with a good macro ability or trying to be too wide so it stayed sharp edge to edge wideopen through the range (unike the fast Fisheyes the G1X Mk2 and the GX7 were crippled with) ...

Hokay by todays standards, it`s slow (in all respects) and odd but in its day it was faster to AF in low light than the original Fuji X100 (the other silent large sensor shooter) had better IQ at lower ISOs , zoomed, had IS and was reliable . I didn`t look back after replacing my X100 with one and still have it ....

the Mk2 however regressed sensor resolution from 14Mp to 12Mp when it should have gone UP to 18 or 20, removed the dedicated dial in exchange for blank lens rings when everyone else was ADDING more dedicated dials and removed the Viewfinder when they should have replaced it with an EVF and replaced the superb swivel LCD with a Naff Fuji type Flip (even oly had added a swivel to the EM5-2) ..

Canon have made a bit of a mess of their compact range , the G1X Mk2 ought to have been more of the same not a different camera - the G7X was a great idea but not sure about the G3X and G5X

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[wolfie]

Why worry about a G1X model with a m4/3 sensor when the current G1X already has a bigger sensor than a m4/3's one?? I have the G1X mkII and there is nothing wrong with its sensor, IQ is stellar.
--
Jostian

Fractionally bigger lest you get too carried away, and then the 16mp sensors on m43 score ahead on resolution and dynamic range - so why cripple a good lens and body with last generation sensor
Frankly I'd be in for a GX1 if had 16mp and faster fps and WR sealing. It would be a great outdoor camera with that lens

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

12mp is enough, its was a newly developed sensor (not a last gen one...) 12mp gives one larger photosites for better low light... so not getting carried away, just being realistic! why worry about a M4/3's sensor from the outset, when there are APS-C options.

--
Jostian

Yes that crappy 16MP sensor is no improvement at all ...

so you take my reply in relation to the new vs old (Canon) sensor and use it vs the 16 M4/3 sensor...mmm, and I never said anything against the M4/3 sensor, just dont think one would choose it over an APS-C sensor (in general).

And seriously, the sudio test scene aint the end all and be all i.t.o IQ, and yes the PEN does well, the M4/3's sensor is great but I for one don't see why Canon or anyone else would downgrade from an APS-C size to a M4/3 rd sensor?

The lens deserves better!

--
Shoot the Light fantastic

--
Jostian

The canon sensor is only 8% bigger (crop factor is 1.92 v 2.0 for M43)- probably not even visually detectable to 99.9% of humans. And 12mp does not translate into bigger pixels either.

--
Shoot the Light fantastic