PGH423 wrote:
FoxShutter wrote:
telefunk wrote:
Clayton1985 wrote:
What I struggled with in deciding to get the G5X over the G1X Mark III was the realization that assuming the same shutter speed a shot like this would have been taken with an ISO about 1 1/3 stops lower with similar noise and detail. I'm sure the differences in the lenses would be a factor but I still couldn't justify the difference in cost. I realize that I'm giving up some dynamic range in certain scenarios like when both cameras would have been shot at base ISO but don't think that would happen often enough to justify the big price difference.
The DPR shooutout between the G1XIII and G7XII agrees with you
And that’s what I’ve been trying to explain to a number of ppl here throughout this thread , for several days already
I think most here knew this already. You don't buy the G1X III for low light shooting.
A more accurate statement would be, "You don't buy the G1X III for low light action shooting."
A "slow" camera is more than adequate for shooting in low light when you can use a slow shutter. Let's quantify this:
When at the much maligned slow end, the G1X III keeps up with the faster G7X II (an excellent pocketable camera to be sure) at lower ISO's.
However, when the G7X II needs a shutter speed where ISO 3200 is required, the G1X III struggles more at ISO 12,800 with more colour noise and less detail. Remember though, these differences are at 100% and a usable photo can still be made when viewed at sensible sizes.
So, although you lose at low light action, you gain at DR and tonality at base ISO with the G1X III.

