For the weary pro (pocket)

RLight · May 25, 2020

In a sentence, the best (all-around) pocketable camera on the market for everything except sports where others do better (which I'll cover).

.

The G5X Mark II ticks the important boxes of being powerful and pocketable but is coupled with an EVF and fast versatile lens while also providing an engaging experience with stellar ergonomics, Canon colors, and a touchscreen. You might ask, what's the catch? The catch, the tracking autofocus aka AI-Servo is only available in single-shot mode with all methods, or, single point if doing continuous burst shooting presumably because it's contrast detection, not phase detection. Said high-speed continuous shooting that you might use in sports-scenarios, is where you'd also want more than 120mm reach anyways, are the catches. Otherwise, I've found it tracks faces well, can hit my kids on the swing (when using single shot AI-servo, with decent but not perfect results, which is a hard thing to do), can shoot my cat in the dark (without a flash), is reasonably sharp, and has a decent macro mode. It should be noted this chomps batteries and has a plastic build which cuts down on bulk but I wouldn't push it in sandstorms or rain like I would on a G1X Mark III and you should buy a second battery.

.

For pro's, the list for powerful pocket cameras is short: Canon Powershot G5X Mark II, and the Sony RX100 series. Regarding the RX100 I-VA, I recommend the G5X Mark II over it due to the more versatile lens, full-functional touchscreen and better ergonomics with excellent SOOC colors. But, where I'd say to consider the Sony RX100 is for the VI or VII and you want a pocket sports shooter. 200mm, even though slower in aperture, plus the phase detect Sony AF is where that makes sense. But for anything else / you plan on shooting sports less than other things? You guessed it, G5X Mark II is the smarter choice.

.

I do recommend you read my former G1X Mark III review for comparisons of point and shoots and more about Canon's other alternative, the G1X Mark III as this commonly will pop up on people's radar that are interested in the G5X Mark II.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62431147

.

Regarding against the G1X Mark III itself I'll say it's a quality vs quantity fight. The G1X Mark III gives you only 24-72mm, but, has higher quality images that come out of it, is weather sealed, has a DSLR form factor and a swivel screen (quality-things). But, the G5X Mark II does 4K, does 24-120mm, and can pocket (quantity-things).

.

Regarding image quality: I'd rank this right smack between a G5X (Mark I) / G7X Mark II and the G1X Mark III. Against Sony? Sony may be a bit sharper, but, the G5X Mark II has more reach and better colors making for more interesting images leveling that playing field and arguably dominates it being married with Sony's own RX100 IV sensor, which tops DXO's charts for a 1" sensor. I've found SOOC color to be Canon-like, however, having said Sony sensor may have something to do with the large latitude the RAW files give (you should shoot RAW on this camera to get the most from it in my book) which really can sing if you're into post-processing. Here's a link to my Flickr album dedicated to the G5X Mark II, which I have shoot RAW on most of them and post-processed with a Canon DPP4 and Lightroom combo to preserve Canon colors, but, give more control over mid-tones...

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmMJVSmk

.

Regarding Autofocus, likewise, see the Flickr Album above as to what it can accomplish, it's no slouch despite being limited to contrast detection. In general shooting it's more than adequate. AI-servo is suprisingly very responsive but has the caveats of either single shot which can grab a candid, but not appropriate for high speed action, or, single point for said action, but keeping the focus point over the subject is a challenge making it less suitable for that sort of thing, but I've gotten impressive results tracking my kids on bikes, scooters and the like with it. I simply don't have the problems others have reported with autofocus. I do recommend setting up C mode against Program, with AI-Servo and Single shot (not continuous) so you can get candids easily with back button focus and then switch over to another mode, even Auto, for continuous shooting needs.

.

Regarding video: You can also likewise slide over to video mode for 4k (right next to the C mode), the only way you can use 4k as simply pressing the record button does 1080P in all modes except video mode itself, you must slide over to video mode for 4K. The video autofocus update Canon came out with clearly must've improved the dismal former reviews of the product as I've found the autofocus in video completely acceptable, even though it's only contrast detect, it's very responsive post-update. Sure, a G1X Mark III can do better, but, then again it can't do 4K. It really is that simple in my viewing of the material that's come out of both on my big screen TV. I'll outright say it, the 4K of the G5X Mark II outweighs the DPAF of the G1X Mark III.

.

Build:

I've owned the G1X Mark III in the past and can say this is a step down. Plastic controls, plastic EVF. But, the grip is nice, the control dial is well placed and responsive. My copy of the camera, you do have to slap down the EVF a bit harder then I'd think to stow it, but have had no reliability issues. I've had no issues running with it, it's taken some knocks in the pocket and has suffered no ill. It's about the size of a wallet, but, likewise, it's about the size of a wallet, so it may pocket better in front pockets, or cargo pockets but sometimes is a bit bulky for back pockets.

.

Suggested use:

The G5X Mark II is the sort of camera you keep on you to catch the unexpected. It's a good all-arounder as I mentioned earlier. Portraits, landscapes, night shots, candids, even sports / action. Video is good, has digital zoom, which is really useful. Whether you want something to do a bit of everything and fit in a pocket but have more power, or leave the bag and lenses at home, this is a nice break when you get tired of that larger rig you shoot for profession but want quality results. The RAW burst and Panorama modes deserve a shout out as they're good for catching things that blow up (gender reveals anyone?) or things that require a larger field of view (landscapes, interiors).

.

Closing thoughts:

I had reservations buying this due to poor reviews of autofocus, but have not had any problems, in fact I'm quite impressed for what it is especially when you either use "Auto" mode which is quite intelligent, or, C mode programmed against P with Back Button Focus, single shot, and AI-Servo. Its image quality has been what other reviewers have been able to produce, which is to say impressive when "only" straight out of camera, but, is very impressive if you shoot RAW and post process to taste (I did the latter).

The preface I originally gave about sports, is where I'm going to interrupt my outright recommendation for most folks considering this camera... If, you are a (heavy) sports shooter, consider the RX100 VI or VII. 200mm and Sony AF is tough to beat for that. Likewise, if you're a (heavy) landscape shooter, you should consider the G1X Mark III, hard to beat 24MP, APS-C and a high quality 15mm capable lens. Portrait-heavy? Have a hard look at the LX100 II with it's unbeatable equivalence. Vlogging? G7X Mark III does straight to Youtube uploads and has the coveted microphone socket which is conspicuously missing from the G5X Mark II (considering how similar the two are).

But, each of these options fails in some other way... The RX100's fail in usability, straight out of camera color, and lens "speed" when comparing the VI and VIIs against the G5X Mark II. The G1X Mark III? It can't pocket, isn't as fast with autofocus and doesn't have the same reach. LX100 II? Image quality can be somewhat of an issue in low light from the samples I've seen for whatever reason even though it has a larger format sensor to 1" and a faster lens and obviously is as pocketable as the G1X Mark III, which is to say not really. G7X III? Less lens reach, average internet benchmark sharpness scores falls short of the G5X Mark II on top of its lacks of EVF.

All to say, the G5X Mark II does everything well, but isn't an expert in a particular category, but, does this in a pocket, does this at sub-$1000, and does this with Canon's ease of use and colors. Highly recommended.

Candids (autofocus and bokeh)

Textures and patterns (sharpness)

Unexpected travels (lightweight and pocketable)

Unexpected colors (RAW processing latitude)

Flowers (macro work)

Landscapes (wide focal and sharpness, color, RAW latitude)

Animals (zoom reach)

Cat (low-light)

Swings (Autofocus)

Which road will you take?

Adam-T · Apr 7, 2022

RLight said:
I'll say after you have good C-AF, it's hard to go back to Single AF.

I`m still pretty old school and trust what I`ve locked onto myself , been doing it for decades and can feather the shutter button well enough - as I say I don`t shoot sports for work or "bird" for leisure so have no need of all that stuff, as for ridiculous FPS, may as well shoot an 8K video and clip frames thesedays (easier than rifling through hundreds of images - especially hi-rez raws) quality won`t be the same of course for birding but in journalism etc who cares

RLight said:
DIGIC8 was "the answer" for Canon in this regard. Trust me, after you have real C-AF via the Z9 or another Z offering with Z9 capabilities, you might change your tune

Doubtful , I`d like better low light single AF in clubs, venues etc where flash is needed for work which is the achilles heel of mirrorless compared to DSLRs - the Z7 is on par with the current stuff here .. but for me , Mirrorless is all about weight saving , WYSIWYG EVF and more than anything - in C&N at least - the far better quality of the standard zooms compared to DSLRs .

RLight said:
. It is truly useful for candid shooting. Yes, I did without it for years, and am doing with it sorta, on the G5X II. It can do good C-AF, in single shot. Compromises...

I`m sure that colossal "Spot" point is pretty fast in C-AF but too big to track anything at distance, I still cant believe there isn`t a real spot or at least small point in there which even the RX10 series have (and sony aren`t known for small AF points) , Pans take it down to a real spot that can`t be much bigger than a cluster of pixels, they`ve had that about 10 or 12 years . not a deal killer as I managed with the G7X one but it seems bigger than the G1X Mk1 had and of course bigger than the M50 - more like the orig EOS-M or M100

RLight said:
Canon is different in that they protect market segments like DSLRs from mirrorless etc. Hence them being last here to deploy a pop-up EVF.

Canon have always been more focussed on not competing with themselves even if it means not competing with the competition - hence the infamous cripple hammer which hit the M6-II hard (no EFCS , no built in EVF ) and software cripples in other cameras .

RLight said:
doesn't make "strong" offerings in lower end platforms like the G5X II very often. I mean it's got uncropped 4K, high FPS, aggressive lens, and costs less than an EOS RP, with the lens built-in...

then they cripple the 4K with mushy output like the M6-II`s , don`t make use of the sensors ability to do PDAF, leave off the auto-pop-out part of the EVF (though that may have been sony not selling it) and worse of all cripple the JPGs of all the fine detail which Digic-8 pulled in the M50 etc ......

BUT as I say, its still the best compromise for me in a compact , the Pan LX100-II has a better quality lens but its too short, the cam is clumsy and large and the cropped M43 sensor gains nothing over 1" (the same sensor in M43 bodies does a lot better) - the RX100 series are too compromised in areas I can`t put up with and the glass on the TZ100/200 is dreadful ,. the LX10 has no Viewfinder and the glass isn`t great there either .. the G5X mk1 is ergonomically the best with the best EVF but has old circuitry which according to DXO is behind the G7X Mk1 even and its got the inferior 24-100 G7X series lens - the G3X shot itself in the foot by having no desperately needed onboard EVF and there never was a MK2/3 update to the later sensor or CPU ......... so G5X-II it is

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

RLight · Apr 7, 2022

AdamT said:
Adam-T said:

I'll say after you have good C-AF, it's hard to go back to Single AF.

Click to expand...

I`m still pretty old school and trust what I`ve locked onto myself , been doing it for decades and can feather the shutter button well enough - as I say I don`t shoot sports for work or "bird" for leisure so have no need of all that stuff, as for ridiculous FPS, may as well shoot an 8K video and clip frames thesedays (easier than rifling through hundreds of images - especially hi-rez raws) quality won`t be the same of course for birding but in journalism etc who cares

I get it; old habits die hard and the trailblazers before us didn't have the technology and did fine. I shot single-AF for nearly 2 decades. It doesn't take long to adapt, but, it's sorta like having good video output out of a DSLR/MILC, once you get a camera capable of good video, than you become hooked. It'll get there for Nikon too outside of the Z9. With how well Nikon has been doing with the Z9 lately, they should be fine which was a chief concern of mine as a Canon shooter; should Nikon not make it for whatever reason, I'm completely at Canon's mercy, which they are, well, sluggards compared to Nikon when it comes to things like sensor or processor technology. Two most costly parts of the camera I might add.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

DIGIC8 was "the answer" for Canon in this regard. Trust me, after you have real C-AF via the Z9 or another Z offering with Z9 capabilities, you might change your tune

Click to expand...

Doubtful , I`d like better low light single AF in clubs, venues etc where flash is needed for work which is the achilles heel of mirrorless compared to DSLRs - the Z7 is on par with the current stuff here .. but for me , Mirrorless is all about weight saving , WYSIWYG EVF and more than anything - in C&N at least - the far better quality of the standard zooms compared to DSLRs .

Not trying to sway you to the Canon R, but even my lowly R handles things like clubs, with ease. So long as you have a f/2.8 or faster lens mounted as on-chip AF needs light to operate. The R5/6/3 does even better. But yes, traditionally DSLRs required for this sort of work. I gather the Z9 handles these situations well, but maybe not; I've read some patents to the effect of lens corrections and NR being baked into AF calculations. That's a lot of software to write if you think about it. That's Nikon's Achilles heel; software development. But clubs are a single use case, hardly a reason to swap platforms if you ask me. Nikon will get there... It's just a matter of software, but software too takes time and is a work of labor I can assure you for being a bunch of 1s and 0s, those 1s and 0s are hard stuff and just because a competitor did something, doesn't mean you can borrow it; you have to write your own version written to your environment as the devil is in those details...

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

. It is truly useful for candid shooting. Yes, I did without it for years, and am doing with it sorta, on the G5X II. It can do good C-AF, in single shot. Compromises...

Click to expand...

I`m sure that colossal "Spot" point is pretty fast in C-AF but too big to track anything at distance, I still cant believe there isn`t a real spot or at least small point in there which even the RX10 series have (and sony aren`t known for small AF points) , Pans take it down to a real spot that can`t be much bigger than a cluster of pixels, they`ve had that about 10 or 12 years . not a deal killer as I managed with the G7X one but it seems bigger than the G1X Mk1 had and of course bigger than the M50 - more like the orig EOS-M or M100

I gather this is due to Contrast Detection usage. DIGIC8 is capable of 143 AF points natively with tracking at 14FPS. The implication that Canon can "fix it", probably isn't true. A new PDAF/DPAF sensor is required to "fix it". That in turn though becomes Canon's Achilles heel

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

Canon is different in that they protect market segments like DSLRs from mirrorless etc. Hence them being last here to deploy a pop-up EVF.

Click to expand...

Canon have always been more focussed on not competing with themselves even if it means not competing with the competition - hence the infamous cripple hammer which hit the M6-II hard (no EFCS , no built in EVF ) and software cripples in other cameras .

The lack of EFCS on the M6 II I gather has more to do with it's 14FPS capability. But it's true, lacking true EFCS does hurt the M6 II in certain circumstances, and, not having another alternative to the M6 II with it, with the 90D sensor, hurts. Be curious to see where the M system goes, if anywhere. I'm not sure it's dead-dead as the M50 is still "the" best seller in many places. It may not be a margin mover, but it's certainly a volume mover.

This is a good segue for a G1X IV; Canon could do a leaf-shutter with a fixed lens, and, make that fixed lens more aggressive ala G1X II / G5X II at the same time. Solves all the problems in one shot. It wouldn't pocket though with a lens that aggressive on APS-C though. Probably never happen given the market right now but Canon makes their own 90D sensor which could be slapped in here so this is something do-able ironically vs the G5X II or III, is dependent upon Sony, who is trying to keep up and shutting down their own lines while they're at it.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

doesn't make "strong" offerings in lower end platforms like the G5X II very often. I mean it's got uncropped 4K, high FPS, aggressive lens, and costs less than an EOS RP, with the lens built-in...

Click to expand...

then they cripple the 4K with mushy output like the M6-II`s , don`t make use of the sensors ability to do PDAF, leave off the auto-pop-out part of the EVF (though that may have been sony not selling it) and worse of all cripple the JPGs of all the fine detail which Digic-8 pulled in the M50 etc ......

4K being mushy on the M6 II has more to do with pixel binning utilized to provide "4K" which is really 2.8K which is then containerized in 4K format. Better than 1080P, but not true 4K.

Now the 4K in the G5X II isn't binned, but, Canon's JPEG engine which comes into play with all their video, needs help. As we've discussed with shooting RAW, the same applies, things like smeared details at base ISO or overly aggressive NR at high ISOs applies in video, except we can't fix it. And it's CDAF, not DPAF/PDAF so sometimes it hunts. Doesn't hunt much for a CDAF implementation, but it's no match for PDAF/DPAF.

Adam-T said:
BUT as I say, its still the best compromise for me in a compact , the Pan LX100-II has a better quality lens but its too short, the cam is clumsy and large and the cropped M43 sensor gains nothing over 1" (the same sensor in M43 bodies does a lot better) - the RX100 series are too compromised in areas I can`t put up with and the glass on the TZ100/200 is dreadful ,. the LX10 has no Viewfinder and the glass isn`t great there either .. the G5X mk1 is ergonomically the best with the best EVF but has old circuitry which according to DXO is behind the G7X Mk1 even and its got the inferior 24-100 G7X series lens - the G3X shot itself in the foot by having no desperately needed onboard EVF and there never was a MK2/3 update to the later sensor or CPU ......... so G5X-II it is

That's what's interesting, comparatively my former G1X III with a larger sensor, or the LX100 also with a larger sensor and faster glass still, should blow the G5X II out of the water in low light, they don't. Is that due to DIGIC8 + that Sony RX100 IV sensor? I think that's plausible that the older sensors and processing are holding those implementations back as on paper, that 80D sensor or G9 sensor should lay waste to the RX100 IV sensor in low light, especially with a faster lens ala LX100.

.

Adam-T · Apr 7, 2022

RLight said:
sorta like having good video output out of a DSLR/MILC, once you get a camera capable of good video, than you become hooked.

Again, I simply never shoot video so its ability is irrelevant .

RLight said:
mercy, which they are, well, sluggards compared to Nikon when it comes to things like sensor or processor technology. Two most costly parts of the camera I might add.

This is true - I ran Canon DSLRs from Day one right up to my 1DS-3 and Ls coming to the end of their useful working life and Canon never replaced the model at all , the 5DS was awful so I got a D800E and never looked back . if they`d made a 42Mp 1DS Mk4 with a sensor as good as the one in the D800E I`d likely have stuck with them and replaced my worn out glass .

RLight said:
Not trying to sway you to the Canon R, but even my lowly R handles things like clubs, with ease. So long as you have a f/2.8 or faster lens mounted as on-chip AF needs light to operate.The R5/6/3 does even better.

I tried an R5 with the 24-105 F4L belonging to another photog in one and it still struggled like the Z7 Nothing like a cam with light sniffing AF like the D850 or D6 - AF assist makes a big difference , Faster glass even more so I guess - I`ve not had anything faster than F4 on the Z7 as my fast primes are screw drive so are manual focus on the Z adapter - not that I use primes much for work and never for leisure .

RLight said:
you think about it. That's Nikon's Achilles heel; software development. But clubs are a single use case, hardly a reason to swap platforms if you ask me.

I have the D850 for that and TBH for the amount I do even my old D3 will handle it , the D850 has been barely touched since getting the Z7 as its bigger heavier and the glass isn`t as good . so no swapping back to the DSLR platform main use for me ..

RLight said:
Nikon will get there... It's just a matter of software, but software too takes time and is a work of labor

yeah there was an update for the Z7 Mk1 which made amazing difference to the AF bring it up to (and some say exceeding) Mk2 levels , funnily enough the Mk2 hasn`t had one, I think its Nikon protecting sales ,

RLight said:
I gather this is due to Contrast Detection usage. DIGIC8 is capable of 143 AF points natively with tracking at 14FPS

I get the feeling that "Digic 8 " was utterly wasted on the G5X-II and G7X-III , making no use of its AF ability due to CDAF or the fine detail JPG engine which the M bodies have due to the canon cripple hammer .

RLight said:
The lack of EFCS on the M6 II I gather has more to do with it's 14FPS capability.

its down to the cripple hammer, the D90 is the same camera in a DSLR and it has EFCS - the 14FPS thing is easy to side step , just have it turn off EFCS at that speed - in fact Auto-shutter with EFCS coming in during the shock areas like Panasonic etc do would be even better

RLight said:
having another alternative to the M6 II with it, with the 90D sensor, hurts. Be curious to see where the M system goes, if anywhere. I'm not sure it's dead-dead as the M50 is still "the" best seller in many places. It may not be a margin mover, but it's certainly a volume mover.

Canon have never known what to do with M - they`re not prepared to invest in glass for it but not to kill it off either . the 11-22 should be a kit option because the 15-45 is dreadful in all but the best rare copies and the 18-55 has gone (and was also hard to get a good copy in but when you did - it WAS good - at 18Mp at least)

RLight said:
This is a good segue for a G1X IV; Canon could do a leaf-shutter with a fixed lens, and, make that fixed lens more aggressive ala G1X II / G5X II at the same time.

yeah - prob is cost, Canon really like to price Gouge the G1X line , from the Mk2 onwards anyway - the Mk1 was only £620 even at launch and was a better camera than the Mk2 overall - the Mk3 is a crazy price for what is at best a flattened M5 + tweaked 15-45 .. a Mk4 with a decent lens and the M6-II guts would cost the earth but likely worth it if they could for once put the damn Cripple hammer away

RLight said:
Now the 4K in the G5X II isn't binned, but, Canon's JPEG engine which comes into play with all their video, needs help. As we've discussed with shooting RAW, the same applies, things like smeared details at base ISO or overly aggressive NR at high ISOs applies in video, except we can't fix it. And it's CDAF, not DPAF/PDAF so sometimes it hunts. Doesn't hunt much for a CDAF implementation, but it's no match for PDAF/DPAF.

Ahh is that it - I thought ti was doing the same trick as the M6-II . even worse then if NR is killing it as its fixable - leave off the NR !! - silly canon .......

RLight said:
That's what's interesting, comparatively my former G1X III with a larger sensor, or the LX100 also with a larger sensor and faster glass still, should blow the G5X II out of the water in low light, they don't. Is that due to DIGIC8 + that Sony RX100 IV sensor?

IMO its down to the sensor & pipline in the G1X-III being the old M5 one (not up to M50 noise levels at all ISOs) coupled with a very slow lens - for some reason the LX100-II despite seemedly having the guts of the GX9 hasn`t got GX9 pixel level low noise even at low ISOs , maybe the Amplifiers aren`t as good or the camera generates more heat but at 100% the GX9 is notably cleaner .

RLight said:
implementations back as on paper, that 80D sensor or G9 sensor should lay waste to the RX100 IV sensor in low light, especially with a faster lens ala LX100.

the G9 has a better sensor again than the GX9/LX100-II - In RAW at pixel level its not far behind the likes of the Sony A6400 and actually marginally cleaner than the M50 at ISO3200 at pixel level (bin down the 24Mp M50 to 20Mp and they`re pretty much the same .. what the M50 had advantage wise was far better colour depth , the G9 was good for M43 (the older 20Mp sensor was more like 1" for this ) but the M50s updated 24Mp sensor was better again ... yeah - theres a lot more to sensors than high ISO noise - my pet peeve with canon is low ISO noise, you have to overexpose and pull back in RAW to get clean skies and shadows , I found the 24Mp onwards Ms are notorious for this as are all the GX series cams made after the 600D based G1X Mk1 . I was amazed at the amount of noise in ISO100 skies in the M100 for instance . you can see it in the RAW M6-II and G1X-III samples on here - overexpose by 2/3 and the pull back and the issue goes away ..... These are my findings anyway .. Canons tend to have excellent highlight recovery even on the 1"ers so work aroundable

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

RLight · Apr 7, 2022

AdamT said:
Adam-T said:

sorta like having good video output out of a DSLR/MILC, once you get a camera capable of good video, than you become hooked.

Click to expand...

Again, I simply never shoot video so its ability is irrelevant .

Adam-T said:

mercy, which they are, well, sluggards compared to Nikon when it comes to things like sensor or processor technology. Two most costly parts of the camera I might add.

Click to expand...

This is true - I ran Canon DSLRs from Day one right up to my 1DS-3 and Ls coming to the end of their useful working life and Canon never replaced the model at all , the 5DS was awful so I got a D800E and never looked back . if they`d made a 42Mp 1DS Mk4 with a sensor as good as the one in the D800E I`d likely have stuck with them and replaced my worn out glass .

Adam-T said:

Not trying to sway you to the Canon R, but even my lowly R handles things like clubs, with ease. So long as you have a f/2.8 or faster lens mounted as on-chip AF needs light to operate.The R5/6/3 does even better.

Click to expand...

I tried an R5 with the 24-105 F4L belonging to another photog in one and it still struggled like the Z7 Nothing like a cam with light sniffing AF like the D850 or D6 - AF assist makes a big difference , Faster glass even more so I guess - I`ve not had anything faster than F4 on the Z7 as my fast primes are screw drive so are manual focus on the Z adapter - not that I use primes much for work and never for leisure .

Now this is true, my R doesn't do well in poor light with f/4. You need f/2.8 or faster. My RF 28-70 f/2L doesn't break a sweat obviously just because it's F/2. Good point and touché.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

you think about it. That's Nikon's Achilles heel; software development. But clubs are a single use case, hardly a reason to swap platforms if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I have the D850 for that and TBH for the amount I do even my old D3 will handle it , the D850 has been barely touched since getting the Z7 as its bigger heavier and the glass isn`t as good . so no swapping back to the DSLR platform main use for me ..

Adam-T said:

Nikon will get there... It's just a matter of software, but software too takes time and is a work of labor

Click to expand...

yeah there was an update for the Z7 Mk1 which made amazing difference to the AF bring it up to (and some say exceeding) Mk2 levels , funnily enough the Mk2 hasn`t had one, I think its Nikon protecting sales ,

Adam-T said:

I gather this is due to Contrast Detection usage. DIGIC8 is capable of 143 AF points natively with tracking at 14FPS

Click to expand...

I get the feeling that "Digic 8 " was utterly wasted on the G5X-II and G7X-III , making no use of its AF ability due to CDAF or the fine detail JPG engine which the M bodies have due to the canon cripple hammer .

Yes, DIGIC7 arguably was good enough, except they needed the extra oomph for 4K processing. Thats the real reason it showed up, not that Autofocus needed it for extra calculations, but, it is there and does help vs say the G7X Mark II, which wasn't bad, but yes, the G7x III and G5X II are (a bit) better due to more oomph.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

The lack of EFCS on the M6 II I gather has more to do with it's 14FPS capability.

Click to expand...

its down to the cripple hammer, the D90 is the same camera in a DSLR and it has EFCS - the 14FPS thing is easy to side step , just have it turn off EFCS at that speed - in fact Auto-shutter with EFCS coming in during the shock areas like Panasonic etc do would be even better

Adam-T said:

having another alternative to the M6 II with it, with the 90D sensor, hurts. Be curious to see where the M system goes, if anywhere. I'm not sure it's dead-dead as the M50 is still "the" best seller in many places. It may not be a margin mover, but it's certainly a volume mover.

Click to expand...

Canon have never known what to do with M - they`re not prepared to invest in glass for it but not to kill it off either . the 11-22 should be a kit option because the 15-45 is dreadful in all but the best rare copies and the 18-55 has gone (and was also hard to get a good copy in but when you did - it WAS good - at 18Mp at least)

Indeed. But the M platform is selling due to cost. And that 15-45 is a "cheap" lens both to produce I gather, and in price point. 11-22 although may be cheap to produce too, it punches well above it's weight and price; again, internal protection.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

This is a good segue for a G1X IV; Canon could do a leaf-shutter with a fixed lens, and, make that fixed lens more aggressive ala G1X II / G5X II at the same time.

Click to expand...

yeah - prob is cost, Canon really like to price Gouge the G1X line , from the Mk2 onwards anyway - the Mk1 was only £620 even at launch and was a better camera than the Mk2 overall - the Mk3 is a crazy price for what is at best a flattened M5 + tweaked 15-45 .. a Mk4 with a decent lens and the M6-II guts would cost the earth but likely worth it if they could for once put the damn Cripple hammer away

M6 II guts is cheaper than you think; all Canon fabs. I've heard the cost on these is like, 300-400 USD? Trust me, that's the one thing they could do despite all the crazy supply shortages. The catch? Everyone including Canon is exciting APS-C. Except Fuji. Pro-amateur stuff like the G5X II, Sony A6600, 16-55 f/2.8G, aren't selling well as Sony themselves has halted all APS-C, which is telling of the market conditions. The only reason they'd do a G1X Mark IV, is if they had spare 90D sensors and the throughput to make the lenses, and thought they could make a profit. Those 90D sensors may have gotten repurposed for the upcoming R7 though, or already burned through on 90Ds and M6 II's already in the supply chain. Probably.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

Now the 4K in the G5X II isn't binned, but, Canon's JPEG engine which comes into play with all their video, needs help. As we've discussed with shooting RAW, the same applies, things like smeared details at base ISO or overly aggressive NR at high ISOs applies in video, except we can't fix it. And it's CDAF, not DPAF/PDAF so sometimes it hunts. Doesn't hunt much for a CDAF implementation, but it's no match for PDAF/DPAF.

Click to expand...

Ahh is that it - I thought ti was doing the same trick as the M6-II . even worse then if NR is killing it as its fixable - leave off the NR !! - silly canon .......

Canon's anal-retentive with being overbearing with noise reduction. They prefer to err on the side of being noise free at the expense of lost efficiency, as I gather they feel it gives soccer mom/dad best results. They're right btw, see the discussion about JPEG engines on the other forum. Folks who will never touch a RAW, are better served with cleaner shots with detail left on the table. Too bad we can't have both, oh wait we can, if Canon would invest more resources into the subject. Again though, they don't pass down their firmware upgrades; they give it to new models as a built-in incentive. Even if they fixed it, you'd have to buy the G1X Mark IV, G5X Mark III, if they ever made one, or both.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

That's what's interesting, comparatively my former G1X III with a larger sensor, or the LX100 also with a larger sensor and faster glass still, should blow the G5X II out of the water in low light, they don't. Is that due to DIGIC8 + that Sony RX100 IV sensor?

Click to expand...

IMO its down to the sensor & pipline in the G1X-III being the old M5 one (not up to M50 noise levels at all ISOs) coupled with a very slow lens - for some reason the LX100-II despite seemedly having the guts of the GX9 hasn`t got GX9 pixel level low noise even at low ISOs , maybe the Amplifiers aren`t as good or the camera generates more heat but at 100% the GX9 is notably cleaner .

That could be it. Never thought about basic amplification. It matters for being "dumb", it sure ain't. The whole digital world is analog at some point in time. Pun not intended, but funny.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

implementations back as on paper, that 80D sensor or G9 sensor should lay waste to the RX100 IV sensor in low light, especially with a faster lens ala LX100.

Click to expand...

the G9 has a better sensor again than the GX9/LX100-II - In RAW at pixel level its not far behind the likes of the Sony A6400 and actually marginally cleaner than the M50 at ISO3200 at pixel level (bin down the 24Mp M50 to 20Mp and they`re pretty much the same .. what the M50 had advantage wise was far better colour depth , the G9 was good for M43 (the older 20Mp sensor was more like 1" for this ) but the M50s updated 24Mp sensor was better again ... yeah - theres a lot more to sensors than high ISO noise - my pet peeve with canon is low ISO noise, you have to overexpose and pull back in RAW to get clean skies and shadows , I found the 24Mp onwards Ms are notorious for this as are all the GX series cams made after the 600D based G1X Mk1 . I was amazed at the amount of noise in ISO100 skies in the M100 for instance . you can see it in the RAW M6-II and G1X-III samples on here - overexpose by 2/3 and the pull back and the issue goes away ..... These are my findings anyway .. Canons tend to have excellent highlight recovery even on the 1"ers so work aroundable

This is another Canon preference; they prefer their exposure, soccer mom/dad status. Again, look who's buying these. And pros, advanced amateurs like ourselves know to use highlight tone priority, alter our exposure and adjust in RAW... Again, Canon could correct it, and should if only to stay competitive with smartphones, but again, you'd have to buy the next Canon to get it...

RLight · Apr 8, 2022

Thought I'd give the scene mode a shot...

The trees in the foreground don't render the best at f/1.8. The stars and sky however do.

Mario Thebank · Apr 8, 2022

woww! so beautiful

RLight · Apr 8, 2022

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513738[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-W, NR set to 0. Large Size

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513740[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-A, NR set to 0. Large Size

Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Some folks prefer AWB-A, others prefer AWB-W.

Medium size, is plenty for most applications, and the files are small compared to large JPEGs. 1-2MB vs 8-12MB.

The selfie was done by a 6yr old; auto mode, untrained hands. The G5x II is REALLY good in auto for those who would consider themselves a novice to photography. Good Image stabilization, good autofocus and auto exposure go a long ways, in auto…

Adam-T · Apr 9, 2022

RLight said:
Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Firstly great shot by the young`un

. yeah the IS is superb on this cam .. it IS a canon though so it should be

Re JPG engine - Depends on what you need of course - there isn`t much in the way of fine detail in those kind of shots anyway so the JPG engine is going to lose far less .... ideal for the "phone with a fast stabilized long zoom" kind of images but keep RAW for the "I don`t want to lug a MILC or DSLR" ones such as landscapes, for cropping etc

RAW - Capture one

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

MAC · Apr 9, 2022

This camera is noisy at mid-iso but included with dxo PL5 - which I highly recommend - I can't stand dpp for noise redux and LR isn't much better whereas PL5 is class leading and would be a must have for me if I ever buy a 1 inch sensor

RLight said:
[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513738[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-W, NR set to 0. Large Size

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513740[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-A, NR set to 0. Large Size

Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Some folks prefer AWB-A, others prefer AWB-W.

Medium size, is plenty for most applications, and the files are small compared to large JPEGs. 1-2MB vs 8-12MB.

The selfie was done by a 6yr old; auto mode, untrained hands. The G5x II is REALLY good in auto for those who would consider themselves a novice to photography. Good Image stabilization, good autofocus and auto exposure go a long ways, in auto…

Sue Anne Rush · Apr 9, 2022

Hello...

MAC said:
This camera is noisy at mid-iso but included with dxo PL5 - which I highly recommend - I can't stand dpp for noise redux and LR isn't much better whereas PL5 is class leading and would be a must have for me if I ever buy a 1 inch sensor

MAC said:

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513738[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-W, NR set to 0. Large Size

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513740[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-A, NR set to 0. Large Size

Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Some folks prefer AWB-A, others prefer AWB-W.

Medium size, is plenty for most applications, and the files are small compared to large JPEGs. 1-2MB vs 8-12MB.

The selfie was done by a 6yr old; auto mode, untrained hands. The G5x II is REALLY good in auto for those who would consider themselves a novice to photography. Good Image stabilization, good autofocus and auto exposure go a long ways, in auto…

Click to expand...

Excellent photographs - thank you for sharing.

--
Sue Anne Rush

RLight · Apr 9, 2022

MAC said:
This camera is noisy at mid-iso but included with dxo PL5 - which I highly recommend - I can't stand dpp for noise redux and LR isn't much better whereas PL5 is class leading and would be a must have for me if I ever buy a 1 inch sensor

I may give it a shot when my LR subscription is up for grabs. I was less impressed last round I gave it a go, but like LR, sure, it deserves a second chance.

Did PL5 come out this past year? I tried DXO PL a little over a year ago via the trial. Dunno if they permit redos on the trials though. Don’t know if it was 4 or 5 back then.

MAC said:
MAC said:

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513738[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-W, NR set to 0. Large Size

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513740[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-A, NR set to 0. Large Size

Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Some folks prefer AWB-A, others prefer AWB-W.

Medium size, is plenty for most applications, and the files are small compared to large JPEGs. 1-2MB vs 8-12MB.

The selfie was done by a 6yr old; auto mode, untrained hands. The G5x II is REALLY good in auto for those who would consider themselves a novice to photography. Good Image stabilization, good autofocus and auto exposure go a long ways, in auto…

Click to expand...

MAC · Apr 9, 2022

RLight said:
MAC said:

This camera is noisy at mid-iso but included with dxo PL5 - which I highly recommend - I can't stand dpp for noise redux and LR isn't much better whereas PL5 is class leading and would be a must have for me if I ever buy a 1 inch sensor

Click to expand...

I may give it a shot when my LR subscription is up for grabs. I was less impressed last round I gave it a go, but like LR, sure, it deserves a second chance.

Did PL5 come out this past year?

DxO PhotoLab 5 Elite -- I got my version 5.0 at end of October. Then they keep updating version 5 -- we're up to version 5.2 -- and it is really good

RLight said:
I tried DXO PL a little over a year ago via the trial. Dunno if they permit redos on the trials though. Don’t know if it was 4 or 5 back then.

it was version 4 until October 2021

the mid to high iso's you'll be at with this camera would really benefit with the dxo deep prime -- class leading noise redux.

also I like dxo's class leading distortion corrections

and it works on files right in their own folders -- which I really like versus that LR catalogue nonsense which has caused me issues over the years

RLight said:
RLight said:

RLight said:

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513738[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Auto" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-W, NR set to 0. Large Size

[ATTACH alt="SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size"]2513740[/ATTACH]
SOOC JPEG - "Fine Detail" Picture Style, AWB-A; Medium Size

Converted from RAW in DPP4 - Fine Detail, AWB-A, NR set to 0. Large Size

Just a demonstration that straight out of camera JPEGs from the G5x II are just fine. And, yes, editing RAWs can help, but not as much as you might think in some cases.

Some folks prefer AWB-A, others prefer AWB-W.

Medium size, is plenty for most applications, and the files are small compared to large JPEGs. 1-2MB vs 8-12MB.

The selfie was done by a 6yr old; auto mode, untrained hands. The G5x II is REALLY good in auto for those who would consider themselves a novice to photography. Good Image stabilization, good autofocus and auto exposure go a long ways, in auto…

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RLight · Dec 1, 2022

As crazy as it may sound, I've made a decision to dial all my photographic gear down. Only the G5X II will remain.

Why?

One part is where I am in life, timing of things and location. The other part is gear and what's appropriate and available.

The other is the realization that accumulating camera gear is much like many other obsessions, as Proverbs 27:20 says, the eyes of man are never satisfied. It took me having everything I wanted, or thought I wanted, to realize having an R3, RF 28-70 f/2L, and I could've bought whatever RF lenses I desired, to figure out that really I just needed something capable of documenting my family and I'd achieved that perhaps long ago without knowing it. The accumulation of stuff, big stuff, expensive stuff, actually gets in the way of life.

Over time, it's true, gear has evolved to meet my needs too. The G5X II itself didn't exist prior to 2019 I believe. And the only point and shoot that I can say would do the job, is the G1X Mark III which didn't exist before late 2017, but the G5X II does it a touch better at the moment, I think. Before the G1X Mark III and G5X Mark II, yes, I would say perhaps the M50 (original) with say a 22mm f/2 and 18-150 was the best bet. But before that? Perhaps a Rebel SL1 with a 24mm f/2.8 and stock 18-55 lens, telephoto lens (55-250 IS STM). Before that the options were still evolving to meet the needs correctly that is, and the high bar I have of image quality and autofocus.

Regarding the M platform. Although capable, I wasn't using the glass, or wanting to carry it frankly. The system also had a couple hiccups, namely AF misses / shutter shock. AF misses before the M6 Mark II, including the M50 Mark II, and shutter shock of the M6 II. The G5X II just hits the target, consistently. Step down in IQ, but step up in simplicity, and repeatability / consistency of output. It's also a fast zoom, something Canon kept away from the M, sadly, and where I live (fast zooms).

I do hope Canon does update the G5X Mark II or G1X Mark III, or both in the same platform, and maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'm going to focus on the simple things in life. Maybe even refine my photographic skills for a while in this season.

I might do a review on the R3, and process the RAWs I have in my archive from the M6 II, but otherwise, the season of accumulating for me is over. I hope this blurb helps other people realize that having what you want, may not be the answer. I say this on a forum that is centered on accumulating camera gear ironically... Ask yourself what do you (really) need?

MAC · Dec 1, 2022

RLight said:
As crazy as it may sound, I've made a decision to dial all my photographic gear down. Only the G5X II will remain.

Why?

One part is where I am in life, timing of things and location. The other part is gear and what's appropriate and available.

The other is the realization that accumulating camera gear is much like many other obsessions, as Proverbs 27:20 says, the eyes of man are never satisfied. It took me having everything I wanted, or thought I wanted, to realize having an R3, RF 28-70 f/2L, and I could've bought whatever RF lenses I desired, to figure out that really I just needed something capable of documenting my family and I'd achieved that perhaps long ago without knowing it. The accumulation of stuff, big stuff, expensive stuff, actually gets in the way of life.

Over time, it's true, gear has evolved to meet my needs too. The G5X II itself didn't exist prior to 2019 I believe. And the only point and shoot that I can say would do the job, is the G1X Mark III which didn't exist before late 2017, but the G5X II does it a touch better at the moment, I think. Before the G1X Mark III and G5X Mark II, yes, I would say perhaps the M50 (original) with say a 22mm f/2 and 18-150 was the best bet. But before that? Perhaps a Rebel SL1 with a 24mm f/2.8 and stock 18-55 lens, telephoto lens (55-250 IS STM). Before that the options were still evolving to meet the needs correctly that is, and the high bar I have of image quality and autofocus.

Regarding the M platform. Although capable, I wasn't using the glass, or wanting to carry it frankly. The system also had a couple hiccups, namely AF misses / shutter shock. AF misses before the M6 Mark II, including the M50 Mark II, and shutter shock of the M6 II. The G5X II just hits the target, consistently. Step down in IQ, but step up in simplicity, and repeatability / consistency of output. It's also a fast zoom, something Canon kept away from the M, sadly, and where I live (fast zooms).

I do hope Canon does update the G5X Mark II or G1X Mark III, or both in the same platform, and maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'm going to focus on the simple things in life. Maybe even refine my photographic skills for a while in this season.

I might do a review on the R3, and process the RAWs I have in my archive from the M6 II, but otherwise, the season of accumulating for me is over. I hope this blurb helps other people realize that having what you want, may not be the answer. I say this on a forum that is centered on accumulating camera gear ironically... Ask yourself what do you (really) need?

sorry it didn't work out

maybe rebuild down the road

for me it is about small and powerful

KEG · Dec 7, 2022

That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

MAC · Dec 7, 2022

KEG said:
That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

your gear is very capable vs rather capable

his g5xII is less capable but easy to carry when hauling around 5 kids - one doesn't need to spend more than $10K like he did to figure that out

he's wrong about the m6II - he never listened or spent the time to learn to shoot it - it is very consistent when I use spot and manually track - the noise is low when I use dxo PL which he refused to use

snaps is what he gets now - which is better than spending greater than $10K on the snaps and content he was shooting without event income

KEG · Dec 7, 2022

MAC said:
KEG said:

That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

Click to expand...

your gear is very capable vs rather capable

his g5xII is less capable but easy to carry when hauling around 5 kids - one doesn't need to spend more than $10K like he did to figure that out

well, I have 4 of those also.

MAC said:
he's wrong about the m6II - he never listened or spent the time to learn to shoot it - it is very consistent when I use spot and manually track - the noise is low when I use dxo PL which he refused to use

Just getting started with PL which has slight issue with M1 and ventura at the moment but it is looking good.

MAC said:
snaps is what he gets now - which is better than spending greater than $10K on the snaps and content he was shooting without event income

MAC · Dec 7, 2022

KEG said:
MAC said:

KEG said:

That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

Click to expand...

your gear is very capable vs rather capable

his g5xII is less capable but easy to carry when hauling around 5 kids - one doesn't need to spend more than $10K like he did to figure that out

Click to expand...

well, I have 4 of those also.

got it - but you've made good value proposition choices for your content

KEG said:
KEG said:

he's wrong about the m6II - he never listened or spent the time to learn to shoot it - it is very consistent when I use spot and manually track - the noise is low when I use dxo PL which he refused to use

Click to expand...

Just getting started with PL which has slight issue with M1 and ventura at the moment but it is looking good.

once working the way you want it, you'll love it - I shot some iso 12,800 shots with m6II and deep prime and can't believe the results

KEG said:
KEG said:

snaps is what he gets now - which is better than spending greater than $10K on the snaps and content he was shooting without event income

Click to expand...

RLight · Dec 7, 2022

KEG said:
That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

I'm reconsidering keeping the R3 btw... Took it out during my 3rd child's Bday, it certainly has its uses and carries a punch. The G5X II could've done the job too though.

KEG · Dec 7, 2022

RLight said:
KEG said:

That is kind of the reasoning behind the gear I have, none of it is bleeding edge and most of it rather inexpensive but also rather capable.

Click to expand...

I'm reconsidering keeping the R3 btw... Took it out during my 3rd child's Bday, it certainly has its uses and carries a punch. The G5X II could've done the job too though.

I would def keep it and 28-70, don't you just need something lightweight like 24-105L?

For the weary pro (pocket)

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts