G1X Mark III or G5X Mark II

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
MyM6II Senior Member • Posts: 1,259
Re: Don't let a bad egg shape your opinion...

RLight wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

RLight wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

I went with the G7 X Mark III for even better pocketability and slightly sharper than the G5XII, especially at the long end (85/100mm). (have had both.) I am very happy with that decision. ๐Ÿ˜ƒ

The G7X Mark III is a fine camera, sure, and certainly more pocketable.

However most folks don't compare it because it lacks an EVF outright against a G1X Mark III, but they do compare the G5X Mark II for that reason.

But, regarding the optics, I've compared them on multiple sites and found the G5X Mark II in fact "wins" that battle... Not by much though, very close...

I have done some research too, and I came to the opposite conclusion. The G7 X Mark III wins. On some fl’s and F-stops the G5II is a little better, but in more cases the G7XIII is better. So overall the G7xIII “wins”. But it is a close battle. The G5Xii in DPR examples seems to act just like the one I had. Not better, not worse. Both bad copies. Nah.





And even DPR's own tool shows how close, with the G5X Mark II squeaking out a win, but it's a win:



IR has both in their comparometer (you'll need to select both from the drop-down)



Point and Shoots suffer (quite a bit of) copy variance which DPR themselves has noted between it's copies of G7X's and RX100's, I don't have the times they've cited it, but I recall seeing it over the years on their RX100 and G series reviews. IMO, it's more likely you got a "bad" copy of the G5X Mark II and a "good" copy of the G7X Mark III.

I don’t think so. Some tests on other sites shows the same. Also in some of the links you posted.! ๐Ÿ˜‰

The 3rd thing I did with my G5X mark II, was benchtest it against a 13x19 printed ISO chart. Mine was a "good" copy. There's been folks on this forum that have had to return their G5X Mark II, particularly one I remember in fact telling the gentlemen to do because it was adversely impacting his night photography (which is usually wide open, where bad copies can't hide behind stopping down) significantly.

Don't let a bad egg shape your opinion of the optics, is all I'm saying here. And on paper, the G5X Mark II's optic is "sharper" then the G7X Mark III. That's not surprising really as the G7X Mark III optic is the same one Canon originally designed, 6 years ago. The optic in the G5X Mark II has the benefits of more modern substrates/materials which I'm told have been evolving recently in fact plus more modern designs.

Nah. The lens is better in in the Mark III than the previous versions. Canon must have optimised it:


BTW, I've had a, not "bad", but poor copy of some lenses before, and it is a turnoff (my first copy of the EF-M 55-200mm was a lesser-quality). My 2nd copy of the lens, which happened after I sold off the M the first time and rebought it later, was superb. Would've never discovered how much of a joy that lens is, had I not given it a second chance. Just happened to come in a 2-lens kit I intended to split from the M50 (+15-45 and 55-200). I did split off the 15-45 though and kept the 55-200 till I totally sold the M system, again. But that lens is awesome, despite my first interactions with it being poor.

Wow! That's a pretty stunning difference between the Mark II and Mark III (G7X).

This could be newer materials and/or fully automated assembly (which Canon has been working to convert everything to except the REALLY big L lenses) taking over. That can't be just copy variance, especially for the center performance, in RAW, to be that much better between the two.

DPR and PR.au can't both be right here. At 25.2mm, the G7X Mark III is scoring 2400 lines wide open vs about 2450 on the G5X Mark II.

(LOL) Ok. You found one place in the graph where the G5 X has a better score (slightly).

That fits right in with what I already said above:

"On some flโ€™s and F-stops the G5II is a little better, but in more cases the G7XIII is better. So overall the G7xIII โ€œwinsโ€. "

Now. Let's take another look.

At 21.6mm (G7x at 20.2mm) the G5X MII is scoring 2400 lines wide open vs 2600 on the G7X MIII.

The G7 X Mark III needs a scale that goes higher, to 3000, because it peaks at around 2950 at 20.2mm f/4 vs G5X Mark II only needs a scale that goes to 2800 because it never measures higher than 2750.

Also on the Resolution vs ISO graph the G7 X Mark III needs a bigger scale because it measures higher (better).

But, the comparison tool (DPR) does show the opposite to your point at 100mm.

I can only guess copy variance here... Which truth told it's close enough on those Imatests to be just that. But that'd mean these probably aren't automated in production. This would make sense though with some of the folks here that have gotten "bad" copies of the G5X Mark II.

Either way, good stuff. Going to "steal" your thoughts here about the G7X differences as I hadn't noticed them previously. I do still feel there's more here going on as DPR and PR can't both be right unless it's copy variance.


I think this might be a copy variance thing... PCmag is backing up PR.au's claims too...

Kidding ??? At PR.au the G7X III wins.

But I think you are right about PCmag got a bad copy of the G7 X Mark III. Something is fishy with that review. The G7X Mark II beat the G5XII at that site. And the Mark III should be even a little bit better




The G5X Mark II, is beating the G7X Mark III at all focal lengths, not by a lot, but winning.

Personally I think you may have gotten a bad egg, like others have here which is another problem entirely to your point as it's a problem, but not a new one in the point and shoot industry (P&S copy variance being higher than ILC copy variance).

So yes. I stand by my original statement. The G7 X III wins when you take all measurements into account. The G5 has some pros though, for those who need them: EVF and a little longer reach at the expense of a slightly softer lens (in average)(often normal for a longer zoom range) and a little bigger and heavier (not as pocketable). Anymore discussion about that is useless, because of personal preferences. It is two very good and nice cameras.

As I think you already have guessed; my personal vote goes to the G7 X Mark III, because of better pocketability. Slightly sharper lens and a metal lens ring. (It just feels more solid and better built.) And I like the silver finish. To me it has to be really pocketable when I need it, if not an APS-C camera (eg. M-series) is a much better choice with better IQ and interchangable lenses.

 MyM6II's gear list:MyM6II's gear list
Canon G7 X III Canon EOS M6 II
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow