Re: A Bit Disappointed with the G5X
1
Jim wrote:
I don't think that the sensor is at issue with the G5X as outlined by the OP; it's the lens that's the problem.
I was talking about sensor/lens as a combo that works together, providing the image you get in the end. We shouldn`t discuss them apart as we are not shooting them apart.
While G5 X`s lens is probably (not to say - certainly) more compromised than G12`s one (as it needs to cover decently bigger sensor area in a similar, compact package), its overall output as a result of both sensor/lens combination (and 20 MP RAW) should win over G12 in most of shooting situations (probably not all, but close to it, and not if viewing both images at 100%, as previously explained).
I imagine G12 might, just might produce sharper/better images when both cameras are shot at their wide(st) ends (most noticeably in the image corners), and with a lot of light in the scene - but as soon as you start zooming in or amount of light starts decreasing, G5 X should be a pretty clear winner. And we shouldn`t forget that G12 starts at 28 mm (equivalent), so it should be even closer with 28 mm on G5 X (in comparison to 24 mm, like the image Digital Nigel posted).
That`s why I`m interested in discussing concrete RAW examples from both cameras, getting to see why redsars (original poster) formed an opinion like that. In the end, might be that he got a defective G5 X unit...?
I think there is probably a consensus that G5 X`s lens is more compromised (I never owned G12, but it could make sense), but even so I don`t think the overall result (RAW image) should be worse than G12`s one - it should even be much better nonetheless, except (maybe) in a few situations where G5 X`s lens is pushed to the limit, and that`s what I`m interested in.
If redsars finds G12 output to be better than (or up to par with) G5 X in a majority of situations, then it seems like something is wrong there, don`t you think?