Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
The choice to buy what you want. I respect your opinion but still feel you are in the minority and most will really like the camera. Hard to find more in a smaller package.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Just three from the G1X MK2
- Thread starter Greg Gebhardt
- Start date
I respectfully disagree about "sour grapes" and like statements. I owned a G1X and thought it was a terrific camera. I sold it because I planned to buy the MkII. But most (almost all) of the MkII photos that have been posted lack that tack sharp look that we all prize. So I think the concern, or criticism, with respect to sharpness has been fair.
I did see one photo posted yesterday that appeared very sharp. I saw another of flower that looked sad until compared to the same photo after PP, and it looked great.
So I decided to take a chance and purchase the the MkII, hoping that the pictures posted so far are an anomaly caused by various factors: 1. some blur setting I read about needs to be turned off; 2. people are taking pictures that stretch the limits of the camera with respect to minimum distance of focus and using lens wide open; and 3. new owners still getting familiar with the camera, and 4. default JPEG settings that are much too timid or blah.
I just can't believe that the Canon would allow the follow up of one of the great cameras of 2012 to be a dud. I get mine on Thursday, and I'm hoping for the best. I suspect I will increase the settings for sharpness, contrast and saturation to get the look I like.
Max@Home
Senior Member
I totally agree: the G1X 'Classic' always felt a bit sluggish, the 'Mark II' reacts a lot snappier to control/input-changes, AF is at least 1.5x as fast, and seems more reliable in lower light.
...€0.02...
Kindest regards,
Max@Home
crashpc
Veteran Member
Indeed. I often want too much. Just expected the quality will be the same as the sensor should be the same, only "cropped down" to 12 Mpx... This is not happening, results are worse. Hope everybody else will enjoy his cam...
--
Why does he do it?
--
Why does he do it?
H
howardroark
Guest
Many images you see, including these, are completely uncontrolled and left to the individual user to configure. They are not controlled tests that can be a used as a standard for comparison. Sharpening, JPEG compression, and other variations in settings and processing can dramatically change the output of this or any other camera.
You are stating some very obvious and immaterial facts in your paragraph above. Larger, older cameras for less money is a given. Those bodies are no better than the G1 X II in terms of image quality because their sensors are capable of almost identical output. In the case of a DSLR body everything depends on the lens you use. Put a bad lens on it and the sensor can only do so much to affect final image quality. And to match the zoom range of the G1 X II you're looking at a lot of size, weight, and money money money.
You are discounting those features of the G1 X II that are not part of your priorities and using that context to evaluate the camera, in which case the conclusion applies to you and you alone. The G1 X II is a compact camera with a fixed lens and a very good sensor. It can produce images similar to the original G1 X, and as that is my basis for comparison I will say that it almost matches the image quality of my 7D with a 15-85 EF-S attached. That's saying something, but it misses the much longer minimum focus distance, more limited zoom range, much larger size, greater weight, and greater expense of the 15-85. Apples/oranges, as it were.
The 7D is great, but when it goes with me I take into consideration the weight around my neck and the backpack that will likely be carried along all day. When I take the G1 X I grab it on the way out of the house with very little thought because it can be used at night, on a small tripod if necessary, and in the day for a variety of subjects and subject distances, etc. I grab my 7D if I need ultimate speed and flexibility for demanding situations.
YOU don't need the G1 X II. Chances are there are approximately ten thousand other cameras out there that YOU don't need. We knew that before you said anything because the same applies to everyone here.
Last edited:
I think you have mentioned plenty of reasons why you aren't seeing the kind of images you've been hoping to see. For instance, should I post "straight out of the camera" results, or results that I've processed with my usual editing? Or, what changes should I make to my "usual" editing bag of tricks to get the best results from the G1XM2? Trust me, I've been working on that!
At any rate, this is the "rush to judgement" I mentioned -- I think most of the shots we've seen posted so far have been "straight out of the camera" shots, and I just don't know to what extent everyone else has been working through all of the in-camera settings like I have been doing. In the end, I truly think that most folks will be able to get the image quality they want from this camera.
So, let me give you a "for instance" from my work so far. While other folks have been arm-wrestling over "glow" from macro shots at 100% magnification, I'm just trying to see if I can get proper JPEG colors out of the dang camera, and so on. And, given all of the hand-wringing over sharpness, I do think I've over-sharpened this shot a bit, but here it is nonetheless:
[ATTACH alt="G1XM2: My usual "brick house" subject. "]media_2896621[/ATTACH]
G1XM2: My usual "brick house" subject.
The first shots I posted were essentially SOOC; This is one that I've done my usual processing on. By all means, check out the full-size original, and see if it's sharp enough, not sharp enough, or too sharp.
We had a four-day interruption of our usual rainy skies, and clear blue skies are exactly what I need in order to judge color and such. So, I was making hay while the sun shines -- and now that the rain has returned for the next week or two or three or four or five or six, I'll spend some time trying to come up with my best processing choices, posting pictures, and writing about my thoughts so far.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
Tom,
Thanks for your post. If this is what people consider "over-sharpened" then put me in the over-sharpened camp. I love the sharpness, saturation and contrast. Best picture I've seen yet of from this camera. Things are looking up for the G1X II.
Andre
I haven't played with m4/3 for several years, but I have experience with Oly/Panny, and I am highly biased because of that. Olympus JPEG color can be quite good at times, but very often will have a very noticeable reddish cast to things. I got tired of brown grass, brown bushes, brown trees, and so on, when they were actually supposed to be green.
As for Panasonic, I haven't had any m4/3 cameras, but I went through the LX3, LX5, and others, and it was just a JPEG color nightmare -- I took to calling it "Color from a different planet." I'll never spend another penny on a Panasonic camera so long as I live.
Finally, it's "m4/3." 4:3 aspect ratio, and I have absolutely no desire to use 4:3 aspect ratio ever again. It's also a drawback of the original G1X. The G1XM2's multi-aspect sensor with 3:2 as the default ratio is definitely part of why I decided to go for one.
I don't know if that helps, but that's my how my personal bias goes.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
Andre,G1XM2: My usual "brick house" subject.
Thanks for your post. If this is what people consider "over-sharpened" then put me in the over-sharpened camp. I love the sharpness, saturation and contrast. Best picture I've seen yet of from this camera. Things are looking up for the G1X II.
Andre
Thanks for the kind words. This shot is exactly what I'm talking about -- after spending quite a bit of time shooting a few thousand "blue sky" shots like this, I'm finally happy with exactly what you mentioned -- "sharpness, saturation and contrast." Along with "color." This is really just the kind of image quality I'm looking for, simple as that.
The settings aren't all that much, either -- this is just "My Colors" with everything at default except for sharpness, which is up the full two steps that are available. It seems to me, so far, that the G1XM2 doesn't provide all that much sharpening "in-camera," and even going up to two steps doesn't make a very big difference, at that.
As for post-processing, I cropped and resized to my monitor-filling resolution of 1920 x 1200, and I've done a small levels adjustment and a very tiny little hue adjustment. Finally, I gave it a bit of unsharp mask before saving, and that was it. And that's what I always want to do -- get it very close in-camera, and then do a little bit of work in post-processing to get exactly what I want.
All I can tell you is that I'm really happy with the results, like this, that I've been getting.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
Mr Sincere
Forum Enthusiast
I've bought and sold more m4/3rd cameras than I'd care to admit (and also spent more time looking at DXOMark graphs than I care to admit), so I might have a somewhat informed opinion here. Short answer: the very latest m4/3 sensors are better all around than the g1x mk2 sensor. When it comes to high ISO noise though, I really wouldn't say the difference is enough to be worth mentioning. The only notable difference (as shown in DXO graphs) is in dynamic range. The g1x mk2 lags a bit there, unfortunately.
In terms of all around performance, including noise and DR, the g1x mk2 sensor is almost identical to the Panny sensor in the gx1 and g3, and pretty close to the g5 and g6.
Keep in mind though: it's the size and versatility of the lens on the g1x mk2 that sets it apart. You simply can't get a pancake 12-60mm/2.0-3.9 for m4/3.
Thanks,
The GX7 has better JPG colors than past cameras from what I've read and shoots in 4:3 / 3:2 / 16:9 / 1:1. I normally shoot in 3:2, just looks right to me and I wanted more lenses options without carrying a DSLR.
I've been waiting for the update to the GX1 and just sold my G15. I was also considering the small GM1 for a compact camera I could use my lenses with but the GX1 MII though bigger is not really when you consider the focal range and what I would have to add to the GM1 to match.
Kirk
Thanks,
I agree about the focal range and that is the one thing that has me interested in the GX1 MII, to have a smaller camera when I want to keep it simple. Every choice is a compromise in some way so just have to select the features / items most important to the intended usage..
Kirk
Thanks Tom. Sounds similar to the way I work. Like you, I'm a JPEG person. (I know it is heresy on some of these forums...but I never liked the size of those RAW files). I like a top notch JPEG engine that gets it very close. Then a little touch up in LR (cropping, levels, etc. and I'm done). That is one reason I love my Fuji XT1 - great JPEGS. Sounds like the G1X II will suit my needs by increasing the sharpness from the default. Sold my G1X and G15 in anticipation of getting the G1X II.
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
This cat just appeared at the door one day. She must have been fixed as no kittens. She actually lives in the garage and has taken up with protecting the front of my house from lizards.
crashpc
Veteran Member
I hope those will be way better, as it seems that nearly all G1X II photographers are very poor on skills (Joke).
I agree on weight and stuff. This is very different class, but while I was about to buy new G1X model, it really wasn´t valid aspect for my decision. I don´t choose my camera based on it´s class. Of course it finally always fits in some...
From what I saw, image quality is way better on (my) DSLR(s), I´m shooting my test shots right now with kit lens, and I´m afraid I don´t see that nasty things on my SL1 which I see with G1X II. Okay, it´s uncontrolled, but what do you want to control in common dark shadow/black/sky background blur so much? I know there are ways, but I also do care what happens with images OOC. Not only in very well controled benchmark. Street is very different.
All true.
Not so with my SL1 and kit lens. Maybe just different usage and taste.
Sometimes I have to decide that way. Not just big apple or small apple. Life is very random
If the output was adequate to the current cheaper DSLRs, minus that resolution, I´d need it. That´s why I´m watching all this. I´d be happy to have smaller, high quality cam. But not at all costs. Maybe next decade, when it will sound and look good to me. Who knows.
Ranlee
Senior Member
I have the GX7 and a GM1 that I purchased just to get the 12-32 lens it comes with. Panasonic color has indeed improved. I'm in the process of testing the MkII against both MFT's. So far I can only say it is holding up well in the testing. In my initial testing there is no doubt the Panasonic sensors are better, at least concerning DR. I think the Canon handles noise better (in jpeg's) but I can't say so definitively. I'm having a hard time in the lens testing since the GM1 in particular seems to default with much more sharpening and contrast than the MkII, even in raw. My intent of the testing is to keep either the GM1 or the Canon. The GX7 is a keeper no matter what. The GM1 is moving toward the auction block but it isn't there yet.
H
howardroark
Guest
Default processing with a DSLR is different than default processing on a point and shoot, and that includes the G1 X and Mark II. By controlled I mean RAW, to be perfectly clear. The SL1 with a kit lens will have almost exactly the same noise characteristics as the G1 X and Mark II. The only difference is the lens and performance provided by real AF sensors on the SL1.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum