Hi guys!
I am a bit of a camera noob having only had "point and shoot" cameras before. I did play around with the settings a bit but nothing that would make me consider myself a seasoned pro, although I am not opposed to learning more. I have recently moved to Africa and have quite a well paid job. As my old camera has now broken and I am going to be here for the forseeable future, I would like to invest in a new camera. Carnival is coming up and I will be travelling the region a bit visiting islands as well as perhaps taking pics of wildlife on safaris etc plus city and landscape snapping too.
After doing some research and reading forums like this one, I had decided on the Canon G9X. However, I saw a post where a member called Tom Hoots answers another members questions about a G7X and a G1X MK II and I am now considering the latter.
I prefer the G9X to the G7X as it is essentially the same camera but the G7X has slightly better aperture. The sensor is the same though and the lens too. The G9X is smaller and lighter however with longer battery life. Whilst the pictures for the G7X may be slightly better, as a cost to quality ratio, I don't think I can justify the extra cost.
The G1X MKII has the same aperture as the G9X but a larger sensor and appears to take better photos, albeit at the cost of being larger and heavier. My question is, for a noob, would it be worth paying the exta money for the G1X MKII in terms of cost - quality ratio? Do the benefits of the latter really justify the considerable price difference? If they do, I don't mind paying the exta but I do not want to pay so much more for an ever so slight benefit.
Any extra input I haven't thought of would be much appreciated too.
Thanks in advance and I look forward to your replies
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.