Some G7X shots from the weekend

technic · Oct 10, 2014

John TF said:
Sounds like you should be looking at the EOS-M. Reasonably portable, remarkably good lenses, APS-C IQ, cheap.

I agree that the EOS-M lenses are very good (also good for their size), and it would be nice that I could use my existing EOS lenses with it. But EOS-M has no tilt screen and no viewfinder which rules out this option for me. Also the camera is fairly slow compared to other current cameras, the native standard zoom is lacking range on both the wide and tele end and although the 22 pancake is nice that isn't a focal length I would use very often (15-18mm would be more interesting for me).

If they ever make an EOS-M3 with tilt screen, EVF and faster AF system they have my attention ;-) An up-to-date sensor (with better DR especially) would be nice as well; the current APS-C Canon sensors are in some ways hardly better than the best 1 inch and m43 sensors.

Ray Sachs · Oct 10, 2014

Enjoyed your shots. At the highest res I could open them too, I could see they were jpegs, but they look good if you're not going for 100%

I had (my wife still has) an RX100 (1st gen) and thought it's images were great but couldn't stand the shooting experience with the camera. I'm really enjoying the G7X more each time I shoot with it (and continue to refine how I have it set up) - it's got really shooter friendly controls where I always felt like I was fighting with the RX100.

I also agree with you that there's a lot of gray area between 1024 internet viewing scale and 100% pixel peeping. And the G7X is good enough for almost anything I'd be inclined to do with it. I've never been a stickler for perfect corners, though, even with higher end gear...

I shoot a Df and obviously prefer the control and the files from that camera with a good lens or two. But there's a lot to be said for a small camera with such a useful zoom range as the G7X. I was just waiting for someone to build on with the 1" sensor that I enjoyed shooting with. Now we have one and I'm likely to be using it more and more.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir

Ray

Explore Ray’s 2,013 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

John TF · Oct 10, 2014

technic said:
John TF said:

Sounds like you should be looking at the EOS-M. Reasonably portable, remarkably good lenses, APS-C IQ, cheap.

Click to expand...

I agree that the EOS-M lenses are very good (also good for their size), and it would be nice that I could use my existing EOS lenses with it. But EOS-M has no tilt screen and no viewfinder which rules out this option for me. Also the camera is fairly slow compared to other current cameras, the native standard zoom is lacking range on both the wide and tele end and although the 22 pancake is nice that isn't a focal length I would use very often (15-18mm would be more interesting for me).

If they ever make an EOS-M3 with tilt screen, EVF and faster AF system they have my attention ;-) An up-to-date sensor (with better DR especially) would be nice as well; the current APS-C Canon sensors are in some ways hardly better than the best 1 inch and m43 sensors.

Then get the M body with the superb 11-22 lens, one of the best in the business. Both should be excellent for landscape and architecture. AF is plenty fast for all but very active subjects, and even then prefocusing can be very effective. If you need wider FL range, get the new Tamron lens. Quite possibly a new body will be announced on a one-year update cycle in November, perhaps with some of the features you seek.

technic · Oct 10, 2014

damian5000 said:
For me the main interest is lower light shooting and DOF. Just saw you've mentioned it in a couple threads like it was not a major selling point. I think it's the main reason most people would be interested in "stepping up" to a $600 camera.

Would be interesting to know why people are buying these cameras. My impression was that they are often expecting a big step up in general image quality because of the much bigger sensor.

Even on these forums most users don't understand DOF control very well. I think the better DOF control of G7x etc. is mostly useful for portraits; for most other types of photography DOF control is still limited (also because of the fixed lens).

For low light photography an APS-C DSLR might be better and cheaper, but maybe that is too big for this type of customer? Are we talking about people shots in clubs, dark interiors etc.? Maybe for this type of photography that Panasonic DMC-CM1 could be an even better option ;-)

damian5000 · Oct 10, 2014

technic said:
damian5000 said:

For me the main interest is lower light shooting and DOF. Just saw you've mentioned it in a couple threads like it was not a major selling point. I think it's the main reason most people would be interested in "stepping up" to a $600 camera.

Click to expand...

Would be interesting to know why people are buying these cameras. My impression was that they are often expecting a big step up in general image quality because of the much bigger sensor.

Even on these forums most users don't understand DOF control very well. I think the better DOF control of G7x etc. is mostly useful for portraits; for most other types of photography DOF control is still limited (also because of the fixed lens).

For low light photography an APS-C DSLR might be better and cheaper, but maybe that is too big for this type of customer? Are we talking about people shots in clubs, dark interiors etc.? Maybe for this type of photography that Panasonic DMC-CM1 could be an even better option ;-)

I know for my personal uses... I require manual movie controls, and like the zoom of the GX7. Beyond that, I don't see myself investing $1000 in the CM-1. The mobile market moves too quickly - I'm paying $80 for a better phone (DG310... Yes, it will do everything you need it to. And then some.) than I did a year and a half ago for $230 (H7500+), and especially not when the G7X is half the price of CM1.

But this isn't why I feel the NEED to buy the camera. The need is driven by DOF...bokeh and the ability to catch shots in low light that don't look like total garbage. I took some shots with s120 at night and man they looked terrible. Just all mush. I ended up with one fairly decent keeper (posted a while back).

I have multiple needs - DOF bokeh, touchscreen for pulling focus quickly, manual movie controls, decent night shots, compact. It's amazing that in 2014 there's only 1 camera in the world that matches that criteria. G7X.

You bring up an interesting point I didn't consider, and that is that the general consumer will really think the 1" sensor will give them better daylight pictures than a nice 1/2.3" or 1/1.7" compact...

Steven Wandy · Oct 10, 2014

CAcreeks said:
I feel the sky is overexposed in the first shot. You stripped the EXIF so it's impossible to know if you used -EV compensation. Or maybe it just needs Curves treatment in Photoshop etc.

I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

In the second shot said:
ncsakany, post: 54541537, member: 700823"]
I took it out for a spin over the weekend and I like it quite a bit.

[/QUOTE]

ncsakany · Oct 10, 2014

damian5000 said:
You bring up an interesting point I didn't consider, and that is that the general consumer will really think the 1" sensor will give them better daylight pictures than a nice 1/2.3" or 1/1.7" compact...

In daylight, the lens matters more than the sensor, in a 1" to 1/1.7" comparison. For instance, here are some straight out of camera JPGs from the G16 that I took last fall in NYC. I think they are outstanding, considering the sensor size.

damian5000 · Oct 10, 2014

Exactly.

CAcreeks · Oct 10, 2014

Steven Wandy said:
I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

OK, that makes it 2:1, but I find the building uninteresting compared to the sky. The clouds lack texture.

Hope you don't mind ncsakany, but I did single-image HDR on it.

layers, multiply 40% opacity, merge

MarioV · Oct 10, 2014

CAcreeks said:
Steven Wandy said:

I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

Click to expand...

OK, that makes it 2:1, but I find the building uninteresting compared to the sky. The clouds lack texture.

Hope you don't mind ncsakany, but I did single-image HDR on it.

I thought the original image is better because it looks more natural and neutral to the eyes. Your shot is too strong to look at.

damian5000 · Oct 10, 2014

MarioV said:
CAcreeks said:

Steven Wandy said:

I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

Click to expand...

OK, that makes it 2:1, but I find the building uninteresting compared to the sky. The clouds lack texture.

Hope you don't mind ncsakany, but I did single-image HDR on it.

Click to expand...

I thought the original image is better because it looks more natural and neutral to the eyes. Your shot is too strong to look at.

Altruisto · Oct 11, 2014

technic said:
damian5000 said:

Better low light shots and DOF... It's not enough?

Click to expand...

I'm not making any conclusions, just wondering if people pay 2-3x more for just this.

technic said:

I have learned a lot from reading your posts here Technic, but what exactly ARE you looking for in a bigger sensor? I mean to say, surely you don't buy cameras so you can pixel peep. Do you do a lot of big prints?

Click to expand...

I sell some of my images or have them used in books, so I want good quality files as a starting point. I also want high quality to show my images on 4K TV (don't have one yet but did some tests, and I'm convinced you need really good files for best results). But I don't like carrying DSLR gear everywhere and sometimes good opportunities arise out of nowhere. Tried the S110 as a carry-always camera, but it proved just not good enough mostly because of border/corner artifacts. For my type of subject (landscape etc.) I want good -even - quality across the frame, not just in the image center.

I'm convinced a 1 inch sensor camera could provide image quality that is almost as good as my (old) 450D DSLR, except in very low light which is something I'm hardly interested in. The only problem with current 1" sensor cameras is the relatively crappy lenses and the aggressive PP that is tied to it.

For those shooting in good to medium light levels, and apart from DOF control, I have my doubts if the current 1 inch sensor cameras are much better than a good 1/1.7" sensor compact with a less compromised lens.

Get an RX10, you won't believe your eyes how good and consistent the lens it uses is.

technic · Oct 11, 2014

Altruisto said:
technic said:

damian5000 said:

Better low light shots and DOF... It's not enough?

Click to expand...

I'm not making any conclusions, just wondering if people pay 2-3x more for just this.

Altruisto said:

I have learned a lot from reading your posts here Technic, but what exactly ARE you looking for in a bigger sensor? I mean to say, surely you don't buy cameras so you can pixel peep. Do you do a lot of big prints?

Click to expand...

I sell some of my images or have them used in books, so I want good quality files as a starting point. I also want high quality to show my images on 4K TV (don't have one yet but did some tests, and I'm convinced you need really good files for best results). But I don't like carrying DSLR gear everywhere and sometimes good opportunities arise out of nowhere. Tried the S110 as a carry-always camera, but it proved just not good enough mostly because of border/corner artifacts. For my type of subject (landscape etc.) I want good -even - quality across the frame, not just in the image center.

I'm convinced a 1 inch sensor camera could provide image quality that is almost as good as my (old) 450D DSLR, except in very low light which is something I'm hardly interested in. The only problem with current 1" sensor cameras is the relatively crappy lenses and the aggressive PP that is tied to it.

For those shooting in good to medium light levels, and apart from DOF control, I have my doubts if the current 1 inch sensor cameras are much better than a good 1/1.7" sensor compact with a less compromised lens.

Click to expand...

Get an RX10, you won't believe your eyes how good and consistent the lens it uses is.

Agree RX10 has a good lens, but the camera is way too big and heavy for my taste (similar to small DSLR with standard zoom) and I don't need the 200mm equiv. reach. I have seen some negative comments about RX10 image quality, but I haven't really investigated and my impression was that those are not related to optics but probably to other problems.

I'm happy to see that Sony has some relatively good lenses for 1 inch sensor (RX100-3, RX10) although QC seems to be a bit of a problem. I hope we will see something in between those two lenses with also good optics quality (e.g. f/2.0-2.8, 24-90mm or f/2.0-4.0, 24-120mm).

CAcreeks · Oct 11, 2014

My main concern was to investigate the dynamic range of the camera, or its highlight retention in JPEG encoding. On the bright side, there was plenty of detail to recover in the clouds. I'm looking forward to the first review that is willing to discuss DR Correction, discussed on page 77 of the G7x manual:

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/3/0300016123/01/psg7x-cu-en.pdf

damian5000 said:
MarioV said:

damian5000 said:

Steven Wandy said:

I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

Click to expand...

Hope you don't mind ncsakany, but I did single-image HDR on it.

Click to expand...

I thought the original image is better because it looks more natural and neutral to the eyes. Your shot is too strong to look at.

Click to expand...

Not that I don't appreciate efforts from Ray and others, as it is of huge benefit to see what's possible with raw, I am loving seeing the great OOC jpgs. Eg, what the camera is capable of being with minimal tweaks to the images.

I think if op wanted to "Photoshop" his images he would have. No offense to CACreeks as I appreciate seeing the mod as well.

Dimac · Oct 12, 2014

MarioV said:
CAcreeks said:

Steven Wandy said:

I don't think the sky is overexposed and I think that he was exposing for the building, not the sky.

Click to expand...

OK, that makes it 2:1, but I find the building uninteresting compared to the sky. The clouds lack texture.

Hope you don't mind ncsakany, but I did single-image HDR on it.

Click to expand...

I thought the original image is better because it looks more natural and neutral to the eyes. Your shot is too strong to look at.

Altruisto · Oct 14, 2014

ncsakany said:
damian5000 said:

You bring up an interesting point I didn't consider, and that is that the general consumer will really think the 1" sensor will give them better daylight pictures than a nice 1/2.3" or 1/1.7" compact...

Click to expand...

In daylight, the lens matters more than the sensor, in a 1" to 1/1.7" comparison. For instance, here are some straight out of camera JPGs from the G16 that I took last fall in NYC. I think they are outstanding, considering the sensor size.

Dynamic range is a bit compromised. And you can't push shadows a lot otherwise you have noise. Nikon P7800 and Olympus XZ-2 have even cleaner sensors, but the limit is really the sensor size with current technology. This is not how your eyes see the scene, and shadows are not as deep in reality. The sweet spot for me between size and sensor performance is between 1 inch and m43.

--

Tarek MRAD

Explore Tarek MRAD’s 464 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

https://twitter.com/#!/tarekmrad

owning a Nikon D600 with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and a bunch of Nikon primes, a Nikon J1 but not particularly a Nikon fanboy, since I have an Olympus E-PL5, a Panasonic GX7, a Sony RX10, a Panasonic TZ60 and a Canon S110 too!

Search

Some G7X shots from the weekend

technic

Veteran Member

Ray Sachs

Forum Pro

Ray

John TF

Senior Member

technic

Veteran Member

damian5000

Senior Member

Steven Wandy

Veteran Member

ncsakany

Senior Member

damian5000

Senior Member

CAcreeks

Forum Pro

MarioV

Veteran Member

damian5000

Senior Member

Altruisto

Leading Member

technic

Veteran Member

CAcreeks

Forum Pro

Dimac

Well-known member

Altruisto

Leading Member

Tarek MRAD

Log into Facebook

Keyboard shortcuts