goodlookinminga
Active member
thinking of getting one do you think its a good buy now its around the £400 mark
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
g1x mark 2
- Thread starter goodlookinminga
- Start date
Well, I think some of this might have something to do with how people "have lost their freaking minds," as I have called it, about cameras lately -- how so many people are doing apparently NOTHING but looking at everything at 100%.
As one who actually goes out and buys new cameras, then actually goes out to take quality pictures with them, and then actually posts those pictures to the forum, I always have to weed through the many requests to "post original, full-resolution versions" of my pictures. And given a few things, I really just don't do that. For example:
1. We only get a limited amount of space from DPReview to save pictures in -- I would rather post a lot of "final result" pictures, rather than a handful of enormous, untouched pictures.
2. I will never, EVER be able to produce pictures in the kind of controlled, comparable manner that sites such as DPReview post their test shots in. Personally, I find the pictures in the Imaging Resource's "Compar-O-Meter" comparison tool to be the most useful -- if you need low-ISO shots or high-ISO shots, you can get a very good gist of how different cameras compare by taking advantage of those photos.
Personally, I do a little pixel-peeping at Imaging Resource's pages when cameras first come out, but after that, I don't pay much attention to it. I certainly don't "use" any of my pictures at a "100% size" in actual reality -- and I really wonder if any of the folks who place such a priority on 100% pixel-peeping make any actual use of photos at 100% in real life, either.
For me, I have one of the now-rare 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors, and that's the highest resolution I'm ever going to use, at least at this point in technology. I could crop even tighter to save at 1920 x 1080 for my big-screen TV sets, but I usually just view my 1920 x 1200 shots on them. Otherwise, I'm looking at my pictures on tablets or smartphones, and again it's not going to make much of a difference if I save my pictures at any higher resolutions.
So, again, it boils down to "What do you do with your images" to me -- how can anyone actually even USE pictures from modern, high-resolution cameras at 100%? The only thing I can think of would be to print them at ENORMOUS, wall-filling sizes. Perhaps some folks do that, but I sure don't. And that's why I crop and resize to my monitor's 1920 x 1200 resolution, because that's truly the best size and resolution I'm ever going to see them in.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
crashpc
Veteran Member
That´s also an opinion... 
What I saw is that this cam is capable of even better image quality output. When viewing downsized images at ISO around 1000, it´s not that bad. The message was that it can be way better. Not that it is bad...
What I saw is that this cam is capable of even better image quality output. When viewing downsized images at ISO around 1000, it´s not that bad. The message was that it can be way better. Not that it is bad...
Tom, I understand that, It was just in reply to a poster that found your images partcularly noise free so I just wanted to give an explanation to how that could be - not critique of your way of presenting images which I find perfectly sensible.Well, I think some of this might have something to do with how people "have lost their freaking minds," as I have called it, about cameras lately -- how so many people are doing apparently NOTHING but looking at everything at 100%.
As one who actually goes out and buys new cameras, then actually goes out to take quality pictures with them, and then actually posts those pictures to the forum, I always have to weed through the many requests to "post original, full-resolution versions" of my pictures. And given a few things, I really just don't do that. For example:
1. We only get a limited amount of space from DPReview to save pictures in -- I would rather post a lot of "final result" pictures, rather than a handful of enormous, untouched pictures.
2. I will never, EVER be able to produce pictures in the kind of controlled, comparable manner that sites such as DPReview post their test shots in. Personally, I find the pictures in the Imaging Resource's "Compar-O-Meter" comparison tool to be the most useful -- if you need low-ISO shots or high-ISO shots, you can get a very good gist of how different cameras compare by taking advantage of those photos.
Personally, I do a little pixel-peeping at Imaging Resource's pages when cameras first come out, but after that, I don't pay much attention to it. I certainly don't "use" any of my pictures at a "100% size" in actual reality -- and I really wonder if any of the folks who place such a priority on 100% pixel-peeping make any actual use of photos at 100% in real life, either.
For me, I have one of the now-rare 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors, and that's the highest resolution I'm ever going to use, at least at this point in technology. I could crop even tighter to save at 1920 x 1080 for my big-screen TV sets, but I usually just view my 1920 x 1200 shots on them. Otherwise, I'm looking at my pictures on tablets or smartphones, and again it's not going to make much of a difference if I save my pictures at any higher resolutions.
So, again, it boils down to "What do you do with your images" to me -- how can anyone actually even USE pictures from modern, high-resolution cameras at 100%? The only thing I can think of would be to print them at ENORMOUS, wall-filling sizes. Perhaps some folks do that, but I sure don't. And that's why I crop and resize to my monitor's 1920 x 1200 resolution, because that's truly the best size and resolution I'm ever going to see them in.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
Scott Skinner
Senior Member
Post up some of your pictures that have noise. The mk2 is very capable, maybe you did get a bum one? I would be surprised if that was the case, but you never know.
Here is one of my examples at iso 400 with 1/4 shutter. My experience is that the longer shutter speeds usually result in more noise (at a given iso), but I think the result here is very acceptable.
MinAZ
Veteran Member
I'll admit, I was completely unaware about the differences between P and A. So this would certainly be a good reason to use P in certain circumstances, especially since you can control aperture in P mode.
MinAZ
Veteran Member
Okay, I do have to search through a lot of photos to find a picture that is both taken with a G1 X II and is noisy because the Mark II is not my main camera, and of course not all the pictures it takes are noisy (if they were, I'd have sent it back a long time ago).
For now, here is one example of a noisy ISO 200 image, although I will be the first to admit maybe not the best example. You can see noise in the shaded areas at 100%. I know many other cameras will struggle with this scene anyway so I'm not saying that the G1 X II is uniquely bad in this regard.
For now, here is one example of a noisy ISO 200 image, although I will be the first to admit maybe not the best example. You can see noise in the shaded areas at 100%. I know many other cameras will struggle with this scene anyway so I'm not saying that the G1 X II is uniquely bad in this regard.
Scott Skinner
Senior Member
I see a little noise in the picture, but you have a huge range in this picture. From bright white to some fairly dark (relatively speaking) area. Not really bad in my opinion.
I think the sensor did well.
I think the sensor did well.
No worries or any negatives intended towards you at all -- I just took advantage of the opportunity your post provided in order to vent on the issue a bit. ;-)
Tom Hoots
http://www.pbase.com/thoots
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums
Last edited:
M
meland
Guest
I certainly concur with this post. There seems to be an enormous reality gap between what some in this forum do with cameras (not just this one - any camera) and what they were designed for.
Over the years I have had many discussions with photo journalists about their reviews of certain models and and as result of that you come to realise that they are just people with their own likes and dislikes. Are they representative of you or me? Not necessarily. There are also no qualifications required to review a camera, no standards. It was often only by taking them to meet the designers and engineers in Japan that built these devices that they suddenly gained any understanding about what was involved in producing a camera and the sudden reminder that ultimately these are devices for photographers to make pictures (rather than for anal obsessives to make test charts, measure noise performance, and endless commentaries on why a camera is crap on forums).
With the internet the whole 'reviewing' process has shifted into the clutches of specification top trumpers. The constant obsession with finding the 'perfect' camera (whatever that is). You never will since the goalposts keep moving.
Use these products for what they were designed to do and you will more than likely be delighted.
+1 +1 +1 +1 !!!
Also the endless, photograhpically meaningless pixel peeping with cameras whose sensors were never designed to support such microscopic inspection. FF? Fine, if that's your gig. But G7 X or G1X Mark II? No way. They are excellent cameras, not microscopes. Pushing them beyond their design limits only creates misinformation.
But unfortunately, as Tom points out, this behavior, repeated again and again, definitely influences forum attitudes, standards, and evaluations.
G
Greynerd
Guest
For a lot of people anything which does not have the dynamic range of the human eye and the processing power of the human brain is going to be found wanting in every respect.
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
Not so sure about your price but I still consider the G1X MK2 as my favorite of ANY non-DSLR. I am getting images that still amaze me every time I use it.
goodlookinminga
Active member
thanks im going to get 1 i think .. the price is a import off ebay dont know how risky that is but its £200 than in the uk
Last edited:
papybenenuts
Forum Enthusiast
superb fotos
very sharp
i like yhe colors
the only problem for me with the G1X m2 is the lack of viewfinder
very sharp
i like yhe colors
the only problem for me with the G1X m2 is the lack of viewfinder
M
meland
Guest
The optional EVF is very good though.
Last edited:
telefunk
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,652
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,619
Hi Tom, The G1XII seriously interests me because of its larger size, zoom range and sensor size. I'm not worried about the IQ as much as reliability of focus in different situations.
I had the G7X, but it failed to focus correctly on a number of occasions. Many people on Amazon have complained about G1XII focussing issues in broad daylight. For example in portrait shooting, the camera would focus not on the face but on the background or strands of hair in front. Also hunting around or false positives in low light...
Can you (or Dale, our moderator who loves his G1XII) comment about focus reliability? And is battery life as bad as claimed?
Thx!
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
Take your time and get to know it. It will produce some stunning images. My poor DSLR and Leica equipment lives in the closet now. Kinda sad.
I am 100%, absolutely, positively, utterly MYSTIFIED about reports of focus problems with both the G1X Mark II and the G7X. I have both, and I have had ZERO problems with focusing, at least in "normal" shooting.
I have posted a bunch of low-light shots from the Museum of Flight in Seattle in this thread, and I certainly didn't have any problems at all focusing on any of those subjects. I probably have had a few situations wherein I'm using the center point focus (single rectangular box in the middle of the frame), and I haven't achieved focus because there was really nothing but a plain, blank wall in the middle of the scene -- and no cameras I've ever owned have been able to focus on a plain, blank wall. So, you presumably know the routine -- point at something with some actual contrast that the focus will lock on, then recompose on the framing you want, and move along with your life. I don't consider that a "problem" at all -- that's just how the focusing system works, how it needs some kind of contrasting area in a scene to focus upon.
There may be some problems with "macro" focusing -- I don't get a gist that the G1X Mark II is the best tool if macro work is really important to you. But once again, I wouldn't say that a lot of cameras do much of a better job than the G1X Mark II does, either.
But again, "in broad daylight?" I consider that "normal" shooting, and I just haven't had any problems at all. I'm not really a "portrait" shooter, though, so I'm not taking what are essentially close-up shots (from a distance) of faces and such. All I can say is that I haven't had ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL, and I certainly haven't seen any "hunting for focus" or anything like that at all. I swear, it all just sounds to me like these people have forgotten how to focus on something with a camera! I utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly have no idea what on Earth they could possibly be talking about!
As for battery life, I have ranted on and on and on about that, as well. If you haven't read my posts before, there are only two procedures in the CIPA standard that really have anything to do with battery life:
1. The flash must be used on EVERY OTHER SHOT.
2. The entire range of a zoom lens must be traveled through BETWEEN EVERY SINGLE SHOT.
That's it -- nothing else really has anything to do with battery life. So, do you run the full length of your zoom between every single shot? Of course you don't. And really, the bigger drain on battery life is using the flash, so how often do you use the flash? For half of your shots? Personally, I virtually don't use the flash at all -- I probably haven't taken more than about 50 flash shots over the past 15 years with all of the digital cameras I've ever owned.
I use exposure bracketing almost all of the time, because I like to have different exposures to choose from when it comes time to process my shots. And I just absolutely, utterly cannot just stand there and take one shot, and consider it "perfect" -- I usually take two or three bracketed sets of shots for every subject I shoot, and often more than that, if I feel I didn't get my camera straight enough, or if things in the background got in the way, and so on.
So, I take lots of shots. I have come home from shooting sessions with my G1X Mark II, and just dozens of times I've had shot counts between, say, 1,500 and 2,000 shots -- without exhausting the battery. I have only been able to manage to exhaust a battery on two different occasions -- once when I got 2,663 shots (yes, that is two thousand, six hundred, sixty-three shots on one battery charge), and the other when I got 2,358 shots.
Now, perhaps you don't shoot like that, but to put my numbers into perspective, I've been shooting the same way as I do now, with bracketing and taking lots of shots, for years and years and years. And over the past 15 years, I've gone through about 60 different cameras. And about the best I have ever been able to do with any of the other cameras I've owned has been about 1,200 shots per battery charge -- I am absolutely, positively getting at least TWICE AS MANY SHOTS PER BATTERY CHARGE with the G1X Mark II than I have with any other camera I've ever owned. Except, that is, for my new G7X, with which I've only been able to exhaust a battery on one occasions so far, when I got 2,270 shots.
So, the CIPA standard is relevant to you if you use the flash on every other shot you take, and if you go through your camera's entire zoom range between every single shot you take. Otherwise, I would argue that it is nothing less than MISLEADING, especially if you're not a heavy user of the flash. Thus, I would recommend that you should "try it," and see what kind of battery life you get. Again, unless you're a heavy flash user, I'll bet that you'll be very satisfied with the battery life you'll get from the G1X Mark II.
In the end, I'm not saying what I've said here because I'm some kind of "fan boy" or whatever -- this is all just honest, truthful accounts of my experience with this camera. Unlike the reviewers, I don't just sit here and repeat the same-old CIPA standard nonsense, and I have gone out and shot just a lot of "normal" things with my G1X Mark II. And I just couldn't recommend it more highly. I truly am happier with its image quality than I have been with any other camera I've ever owned, and I'm getting DOUBLE the battery life than I've gotten with any other camera I've ever owned. So, yes, I'm pretty happy with it.
Tom Hoots
Galleries by thoots
www.pbase.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum