G16 replaced my G15: some thoughts

Henry Richardson wrote:

About 1.5 years ago I posted about my new G15:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51305420

Last week I bought a G16 so I thought I would post a bit about it too.

I really didn't need to change from the G15 to G16, but the 2 things I mentioned (speed up of AF/reduced lag time and the slightly better sensor) along with the pretty good price for the G16 here in Japan got me to get it. Also, for the last couple of months I had started checking to see if there was anything out there to replace my G15 since things move on since it came out in 2012. Then when I also saw what came out at Photokina I just didn't see anything that was compelling enough. That left the G16 with it's small, but interesting updates. It was much like when I bought the G15 last year. I looked at everything and for my uses decided that the G15 while not ideal was the best compromise. Recently I again examined all the options and ended up deciding that the G16 was the best compromise for me.

After carrying the G16 around here in Sapporo for the last few days I definitely notice the speed up and that is welcome. The G15 was reported to be faster than the G12 and now the G16 is even faster. I was generally satisfied with the speed of the G15, but that is in comparison to other digicams. Now the G16 is definitely faster so that focus and lag are closer to using a DSLR. For this sort of camera and the way I use it the speed up is welcome and adequate.

The G16 has a new BSI 1/1.7" sensor that is a bit better than the G15 sensor. Nothing dramatic, but still welcome. Carl Garrard showed full-size raw conversions using ACR. One was at ISO 80 and it was a wide dynamic range, highly detailed photo that looked quite good. He also showed an ISO 12,800 photo in very low light. I was frankly surprised at how good it looked considering the very high ISO and the small sensor. The photo didn't have lots of fine detail to look at such as hair, but the tight, small noise and no banding made me realize that in some situations that this was an ISO that I could use on the G16. Probably better than I remember ISO 1600 or 3200 on APS-C just a few years ago. The new sensor and the excellent state of raw conversion software these days really is rather surprising. The highest ISO photos I have ever shot are ISO 6400 with the A700, Canon 60D, and Olympus E-M5. With the fast G16 lens though I doubt if I would hardly ever find any need to go above ISO 1600.

Just to get an idea of how the new BSI 1/1.7" sensor does compared to the 1" sensor in the Sony RX100 and BSI 1" sensor in the Sony RX100III (probably about the same as the G7X) here are a couple of DxO measurement charts. As you can see, the differences are there, but aren't that large. By the way, what does DxO mean when they say some of the RX100III data points are smoothed? It seems that the tech is improved at a faster rate for smaller sensors.

I have no idea if there will be a G17 or what it will be. With the GX7 it seems likely that it will have a 1" sensor. Another possibility that sort of sounds attractive to me is if they just have another incremental improvement of the 1/1.7" sensor and manage to speed up the lens by half a stop. The G16 has a fov 28-140mm f1.8-2.8, but the G17 could have a fov 28-140mm f1.5-2.4. I don't know if they could do that, but considering the rather surprising fov 24-100mm f1.8-2.8 for the 1" sensor in the G7X then it seems like it may be possible. The G7X uses a lot of software correction of the lens so that is another thing that the smaller 1/1.7" sensor might need less of.

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Thanks for this!

I hadn't looked at the DXOMark cross comparisons yet but you're right, the results are indeed close (closer than I assumed). I knew what the final DXO score on the G16 was, but the other data I hadn't looked at. In real life I knew the G16 was close to the RX series cameras, and this helps to cement those findings.

I do like to use a camera around and about to see how good it will perform in real life prior to looking up all the figures. The real life performance vs measured performance is an interesting cross comparison too :). I find what seems like a major advantage from DXO scores doesn't always translate into a major advantage in real life.

Also on the contrary, DXOMark, as wonderful as they are, fail to report on color bleeding and banding in raw file data. I find both of those traits to be destructive of image quality if you are going to use higher ISO's. Sensors these days seem to exhibit less and less of either which is good, but some still do. At the first sign of banding, I consider a camera useless from that ISO speed onward, color bleeding- same thing depending on how bad it is. So if DXOMark isn't reporting on banding or bleeding, I'll mark their score way down as a result of it. To me, it's a parameter that needs to be added to the test data- usability of images is definitely something to consider!

Thanks for the post Henry! Should have my review up soon.

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)