Versus Sony RX100V

Plagen wrote:

FoxShutter wrote:

Plagen wrote:

FoxShutter wrote:

Plagen wrote:

FoxShutter wrote:

Plagen wrote:

FoxShutter wrote:

MarioV wrote:

One of the main reasons for choosing the G1X III is better dynamic range and tonal quality of the aps-c sensor when it comes to landscapes with foliage. If you can't see that, or is not that important to you, then by all means go with the versatile 1" sensor.

It’ll ruin all the DR and especially foliage with its noise . Try shooting RX100V (or any of them ) at ISO 80-125 and you’ll get better results !

I don't have either of the cameras but from the DPR review, the G1 XIII noise is much lower than that of the Sony camera.

And why would someone shoot these cameras at 6400 ISO for landscapes? You normally do ? Except test shots perhaps.

Because the noise level of modern sensors at the base or low ISO is pretty much insignificant.

You actually contradict your own statement here . If there is no significance so why bother ?!

So your statement the G1XIII is noisier than RX100V is doesn't have any sense from the practical point of view. And it is not correct anyway.

But going up in ISO, it is evident that the noise of Sony becomes progressively worse.

Here also . Canon gets to these higher ISOs much faster due to its slow lens: Canon Just starts at F5.6 at tele , while Sony is still at 2.8.

Your shots pretty incomplete, since they don’t show the settings but ISOs only .

ISO is all that matter for this comparison. The shots are taken at the same lighting level and at the same exposure level. It does not matter what specific combination of the shutter speed and f-number was used.

Of cause it does matter . It just shows how incompetent you are.

Yoy probably didn’t read this article , where it’s shown how Canons own G7Xii beats the G1XII exactly the same way as Sony does:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8432414091/powershot-shootout-canon-s-g1-x-iii-and-g7-x-ii
“Low light, casual portrait

This sort of situation is usually where people expect to see the benefits of a larger sensor, but this is only true if you can give it enough light. Here's a shot from the long end of the G1X III's lens in a situation where you'd need to shoot wide-open. As can be seen from the graph at the top of the page, the G7 X II has a wider equivalent aperture at this point. Let's see what that means.
Both cameras were zoomed to ~72mm, and I kept my shutter speed at 1/60 sec to account for any slight subject movement. Because the G1 X III's lens only opens to F5.6 at its maximum zoom, the ISO value hit the maximum value I'd chosen of 12800, while the G7 X II, at F2.8, called for an ISO value of 5000.

After checking the difference in exposure value for both cameras, the G1 X III required an additional 0.64 EV boost in Adobe Camera Raw, which is effectively like shooting at ISO 20000. So in this situation, the G7 X II's image is cleaner and offers slightly blurrier out-of-focus highlights in the background. Overall, the advantage of the larger sensor is essentially canceled out by the slower lens.“

And this is exactly the catch here: APSC sensor but slow lens = more depth of field and more noise in low light.

OK, I see you've learned the alphabet. Now learn to read and understand.

Here is how the DPR comparison shots are done. First, the images are taken at the same lighting level. Second, the camera A/Tv combination is set so the sensor obtains the the same level of the incoming light. The exact A and Tv values are not important for THAT comparison of noise level. That is It does not have anything to do with DOF or other things you have parroted from that article.

Guys! Someone ! Someone else who reads it , please ! Explain to this guy , maybe in more simple language than I do, that Sony doesn’t need to get to those high ISO’s as Canon in order to obtain the same or brighter exposures;hens, the final result (and that’s what’s important) is cleaner , sharper and brighter.
I am giving up !LOL