Reading mode: Light Dark

better glass than the one in G7 X?

Go to last post
buratino

buratino

Leading Member
Messages
914
Solutions
2
Reaction score
502
Location
Chicago, IL, US
Hi,

from our recent trip, my jpeg-only-shooter friend had a few +RAWs taken with his G7X mark I. Below is an example of how a RAW wide-angle pic looks viewed by Photos in Windows 10.

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

If I want better performance in a big sensor compact, where to look at?
 
Last edited:
Something is wrong with that particular camera. It looks like it was shot with a filter with a large ring causing severe vignetting.
 
buratino said:
Hi,

from our recent trip, my jpeg-only-shooter friend had a few +RAWs taken with his G7X mark I. Below is an example of how a RAW wide-angle pic looks viewed by Photos in Windows 10.

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

If I want better performance in a big sensor compact, where to look at?
Click to expand...
The built-in lens in the G7X was pretty decent for a 1" compact. There aren't many 1" compacts with better lenses, such as ones from Panasonic or Sony. The donut hole lens distortion can be easily correctly in proper RAW processing software.

Sony and Panasonic make 1" sensor based compacts like the G7X, such as the RX100 or the LX-10. There are M43 or APS-C sensor based compacts from Panasonic and Canon.

Moving up to the M43 or APS-C line of interchangeable lens cameras (ILC), there will be many choices but the weight and cost will be going up and the compactness will be lost.

--
Nelson
 
buratino said:
Hi,

from our recent trip, my jpeg-only-shooter friend had a few +RAWs taken with his G7X mark I. Below is an example of how a RAW wide-angle pic looks viewed by Photos in Windows 10.

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

If I want better performance in a big sensor compact, where to look at?
Click to expand...
Photos in win 10 is not a raw processor.

The vignetting you are seeing is normal output for the camera; there is nothing wrong with the lens.

A raw processor will correct the vignetting and edge distortion automatically, if it knows which camera generated the raw file .

Or, you can manually correct the vignetting and edge distortion in your chosen raw processing software program.

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.
 
Chaplain Mark said:
buratino said:
Hi,

from our recent trip, my jpeg-only-shooter friend had a few +RAWs taken with his G7X mark I. Below is an example of how a RAW wide-angle pic looks viewed by Photos in Windows 10.

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

If I want better performance in a big sensor compact, where to look at?
Click to expand...
Photos in win 10 is not a raw processor.

The vignetting you are seeing is normal output for the camera; there is nothing wrong with the lens.

A raw processor will correct the vignetting and edge distortion automatically, if it knows which camera generated the raw file .
Click to expand...
the autocorrected image

jpeg from the camera

jpeg from the camera

my interpretation is that at wide-angle settings the lens is far from its best: correction means quite a severe cropping (10% linear?), which reduces the useable area of the sensor and reduces the resolution. I got an impression that RX100 Mark I (which I sold quite a while ago) has either better lens or cheats the viewer program more efficiently because its images seem to get corrected significantly milder. I just read somewhere that G7 X lens is somewhat better than the RX100 lens. I have RX10 III, but it is not a compact, nor its files are opened with the Photos viewer, so I cannot conclude anything about true distortion. I share the observation made quite by a chance when working on the collective images from several people from the trip. Oh, for a perspective, I used to have Pana LX7 and Oly XZ-2 and I believe that the XZ-2 had the best lens of all compacts I had.
 
Last edited:
buratino said:
the autocorrected image

jpeg from the camera

jpeg from the camera

my interpretation is that at wide-angle settings the lens is far from its best: correction means quite a severe cropping (10% linear?), which reduces the useable area of the sensor and reduces the resolution. I got an impression that RX100 (which I sold quite a while ago) has either better lens or cheats the viewer program more efficiently because its images seem to get corrected significantly milder. I just read somewhere that G7 X lens is somewhat better than the RX100 lens. I have RX10 III, but it is not a compact, nor its files are opened with the Photos viewer, so I cannot conclude anything about true distortion. I share the observation made quite by a chance when working on the collective images from several people from the trip. Oh, for a perspective, I used to have Pana LX7 and Oly XZ-2 and I believe that the XZ-2 had the best lens of all compacts I had.
Click to expand...
Most modern lenses rely a lot on digital (vignetting, distortion and CA) correction in camera for OOC JPEG or in raw convertors. Some raw converter will show the heavily vignette area if one chooses to see it and some will not. The in camera processing always crops so the final output never shows.

--
Nelson
 
bullet1 said:
Most modern lenses rely a lot on digital (vignetting, distortion and CA) correction in camera for OOC JPEG or in raw convertors. Some raw converter will show the heavily vignette area if one chooses to see it and some will not. The in camera processing always crops so the final output never shows.
Click to expand...
I understand. I hope you agree that the less (mess to fix) the better for the quality of the final outcome.
 
buratino said:
Chaplain Mark said:
buratino said:
Hi,

from our recent trip, my jpeg-only-shooter friend had a few +RAWs taken with his G7X mark I. Below is an example of how a RAW wide-angle pic looks viewed by Photos in Windows 10.

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

the whole area of the sensor is not covered by the lens at its widest setting

If I want better performance in a big sensor compact, where to look at?
Click to expand...
Photos in win 10 is not a raw processor.

The vignetting you are seeing is normal output for the camera; there is nothing wrong with the lens.

A raw processor will correct the vignetting and edge distortion automatically, if it knows which camera generated the raw file .
Click to expand...
the autocorrected image

jpeg from the camera

jpeg from the camera

my interpretation is that at wide-angle settings the lens is far from its best: correction means quite a severe cropping (10% linear?), which reduces the useable area of the sensor and reduces the resolution. I got an impression that RX100 Mark I (which I sold quite a while ago) has either better lens or cheats the viewer program more efficiently because its images seem to get corrected significantly milder. I just read somewhere that G7 X lens is somewhat better than the RX100 lens. I have RX10 III, but it is not a compact, nor its files are opened with the Photos viewer, so I cannot conclude anything about true distortion. I share the observation made quite by a chance when working on the collective images from several people from the trip. Oh, for a perspective, I used to have Pana LX7 and Oly XZ-2 and I believe that the XZ-2 had the best lens of all compacts I had.
Click to expand...
First off, my perception at this point is that your initial discussion was about the G7XII; rather than the G7X; feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Secondly, I'm quite sure you will do fine with the G7XII; once you have used it for a few days, you will appreciate how fine a camera it is, all the other comparisons you mentioned notwithstanding.

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.
 
Last edited:
Chaplain Mark said:
Chaplain Mark said:
jpeg from the camera

jpeg from the camera
Click to expand...
First off, my perception at this point is that your initial discussion was about the G7XII; rather than the G7X; feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Secondly, I'm quite sure you will do fine with the G7XII; once you have used it for a few days, you will appreciate how fine a camera it is, all the other comparisons you mentioned notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Just in case, I was talking about G7 X Mark I (the corrected image has exif data). at the same time, I thought there is no lens difference between the versions. Thanks for your comments!
 
buratino said:
Chaplain Mark said:
buratino said:
jpeg from the camera

jpeg from the camera
Click to expand...
First off, my perception at this point is that your initial discussion was about the G7XII; rather than the G7X; feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Secondly, I'm quite sure you will do fine with the G7XII; once you have used it for a few days, you will appreciate how fine a camera it is, all the other comparisons you mentioned notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Just in case, I was talking about G7 X Mark I (the corrected image has exif data). at the same time, I thought there is no lens difference between the versions. Thanks for your comments!
Click to expand...
Very good, Sir, thanks..!

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.
 
One thing to bear in mind is that the RX 100 you mentioned has a 10.4 mm wide angle (28 mm-equivalent), compared to the 8.8 mm (24 mm-equivalent) in the G7 X. For a true comparison, yo'd have to zoom the Canon in to 28. In other words, Canon, gives the added wide range with a trade-off of cropping or digital enhancement in the corners.
 
buratino said:
bullet1 said:
Most modern lenses rely a lot on digital (vignetting, distortion and CA) correction in camera for OOC JPEG or in raw convertors. Some raw converter will show the heavily vignette area if one chooses to see it and some will not. The in camera processing always crops so the final output never shows.
Click to expand...
I understand. I hope you agree that the less (mess to fix) the better for the quality of the final outcome.
Click to expand...
I agree. My old G7X (sold) and current G5X exhibit the same phenomena as they share the same lens. In JPEG, that area is cropped off. My raw processor of choice, Capture One Professional, also hides that area off by default. It can be revealed if ones wants it.

You see there isn't anything one needs to worry about. Windows 10 is just not very smart about it. IrfanView, a great free photo viewer, is not showing it either.

--
Nelson
 
Last edited:
requa said:
One thing to bear in mind is that the RX 100 you mentioned has a 10.4 mm wide angle (28 mm-equivalent), compared to the 8.8 mm (24 mm-equivalent) in the G7 X. For a true comparison, yo'd have to zoom the Canon in to 28. In other words, Canon, gives the added wide range with a trade-off of cropping or digital enhancement in the corners.
Click to expand...
Great point! I did not realize that RX100 and RX100 II have a 10.4-37.1mm (28-100mm eq) F1.8-4.9 lens.

RX100 III, IV, V & VA have an 8.8-25.7 (24-70mm eq) F1.8-2.8 lens.

RX100 VI has a 9-72mm (24-200mm eq) F2.8-4.5 lens.

In comparison, the lens in Canon G7X, G7XII and G5X is a much better and usable lens, 8.8-36mm (24-100mm eq) F1.8-2.8 lens than the ones in all RX100 series, IMHO.

--
Nelson
 
Last edited:
requa said:
One thing to bear in mind is that the RX 100 you mentioned has a 10.4 mm wide angle (28 mm-equivalent), compared to the 8.8 mm (24 mm-equivalent) in the G7 X. For a true comparison, yo'd have to zoom the Canon in to 28. In other words, Canon, gives the added wide range with a trade-off of cropping or digital enhancement in the corners.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Same sized sensor but different focal length on widest end. If you want to view widest angle Raw pics try free ifranviewer or import into raw processor such as lightroom, canon's software, etc.
 
bullet1 said:
requa said:
One thing to bear in mind is that the RX 100 you mentioned has a 10.4 mm wide angle (28 mm-equivalent), compared to the 8.8 mm (24 mm-equivalent) in the G7 X. For a true comparison, yo'd have to zoom the Canon in to 28. In other words, Canon, gives the added wide range with a trade-off of cropping or digital enhancement in the corners.
Click to expand...
Great point! I did not realize that RX100 and RX100 II have a 10.4-37.1mm (28-100mm eq) F1.8-4.9 lens.

RX100 III, IV, V & VA have an 8.8-25.7 (24-70mm eq) F1.8-2.8 lens.

RX100 VI has a 9-72mm (24-200mm eq) F2.8-4.5 lens.

In comparison, the lens in Canon G7X, G7XII and G5X is a much better and usable lens, 8.8-36mm (24-100mm eq) F1.8-2.8 lens than the ones in all RX100 series, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Thank for your inputs guys!

Looks like I can live with shorter range and less ambitious speed of the lens but much less tolerant to the trade-offs of the lens design. For example, in MFT I use my most utilized lenses are tiny 12-32mm (24-64 FF) and rather bulky 12-40mm (24-80 FF) (both optically very good) shared between me and my wife on GF7 and GX85 bodies.
 
Good luck finding a 1" wide angle zoom that does not do this in a really RAW processor that cannot read the lens corrections. I would be interested if you find ones that don't. Many straight lens tests give the modern ones even even for ILCs a fail as there is so much post processing going on to get around the problems of cramming these lenses in to small places and small budgets.

I suppose the handy thing is there is so much distortion at these wide angles that straightening the vignetted image to give a better perspective fills the frame so there is no point covering the sensor.
 
NextShowForSure said:
Good luck finding a 1" wide angle zoom that does not do this in a really RAW processor that cannot read the lens corrections. I would be interested if you find ones that don't. Many straight lens tests give the modern ones even even for ILCs a fail as there is so much post processing going on to get around the problems of cramming these lenses in to small places and small budgets.

I suppose the handy thing is there is so much distortion at these wide angles that straightening the vignetted image to give a better perspective fills the frame so there is no point covering the sensor.
Click to expand...
I prefer a more modest approach to lens corrections even if it means just 28mm with higher quality vs 24mm at the expense of the quality.

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected, or at least undercorrected. Allows getting ~1 more mm wide with some useable barrel distortion. I will relook at my old pics.

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected, or at least undercorrected. Allows getting ~1 more mm wide with some useable barrel distortion. I will relook at my old pics.

out of camera jpeg

out of camera jpeg

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected

jpeg from camera

jpeg from camera

I would push Canon to get better.
 
This is not a Canon bug.

I have it too om my G7XMkII and I just repeated it with my RX100VI which does the same at 24mmeq. With both Canon CR2 and Sony ARW files, Photoshop does auto correction, while Affinity Photo loads the real RAW with dark corners, allowing the user to correct manually.
 
buratino said:
NextShowForSure said:
Good luck finding a 1" wide angle zoom that does not do this in a really RAW processor that cannot read the lens corrections. I would be interested if you find ones that don't. Many straight lens tests give the modern ones even even for ILCs a fail as there is so much post processing going on to get around the problems of cramming these lenses in to small places and small budgets.

I suppose the handy thing is there is so much distortion at these wide angles that straightening the vignetted image to give a better perspective fills the frame so there is no point covering the sensor.
Click to expand...
I prefer a more modest approach to lens corrections even if it means just 28mm with higher quality vs 24mm at the expense of the quality.

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected, or at least undercorrected. Allows getting ~1 more mm wide with some useable barrel distortion. I will relook at my old pics.

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected, or at least undercorrected. Allows getting ~1 more mm wide with some useable barrel distortion. I will relook at my old pics.

out of camera jpeg

out of camera jpeg

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected

as seen by Simple Photo Converter, i.e. uncorrected

I would push Canon to get better.

I would push Canon to get better.
Click to expand...
G7XII has a great incamera tool for raw Converter.

I use this.

Never had black edges.



RAW 24mm with built in Converter.

RAW 24mm with built in Converter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top