So I got a G5X Mk2 - My thoughts

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Juggernaut122 wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Juggernaut122 wrote:

Pitman100 wrote:

I think this comparison here is better:

Which has the best lens? Sony RX100 VII vs Canon G5 X II vs Canon G7 X III: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Interesting that if you step down the Canon G5xii at the same focal length and aperture the images look basically as sharp to me.
And in the two weeks I had the RX100VI, it will tell you it was not too easy to get a shot without handshake when zoomed in & I have pretty steady hands.

You must have a defective RX100 because mine is VERY easy to shoot at 200mm without any handshake issues (I have the VII but its pretty much the same for this matter).
When Canon announced the G5X 2 I was intrigued because I wanted more than 70mm range but with EVF but I was very disappointed with it. Not only the AF pales in comparison to the RX100 VII but also the lens was all across less sharp and of course the Sony has extra advantages like better 4k video and the mic which now I use often.

One thing I would say in favor of the Canon is that if your primary goal is taking static pose portraits with blurry backdrops with a small camera, the Canon may be a better choice as it will create smoother bokeh with its faster lens. Other than that, the vii is the superior camera.
And before I am called a Sony fanb0y, I moved from Sony to Canon R5 for my professional work as I found the R5 to be amazing..my favorite all time camera. But when it comes to the RX100 VII there is simply no comparison (same for the rx10 iv).
We need more competition to get better prices.

Don't know if mine was defective or not, but the image stabilization was definitely not impressive at all with the Sony.
Depends on what you use the camera for. You are also forgetting that the G5xii will be much better than the RX100 VI in low light situations. Frankly I tested my G5xii with my D7200 Nikon DSLR with my worse lense 18-300 zoom and with the RX100 vi and the G5xii took better indoor low light pictures than my DSLR using that slow lens - and the RX100 vi.
I tested them both for about 2 weeks, and except in bright light where I wanted more zoom the G5xii was better for my uses in every way. I don't usually use the continuous autofocus, so that was not an issue for me.
I really have difficulty understanding how someone could ignore the low light advantage of the G5xii but I guess if you don't use it that way then it doesn't matter. I don't really notice the difference in bright light and the low-light was no comparison.
But that is just my experience.

Thanks

I am not forgetting anything. The difference in noise levels are easily fixed with a little cleaning as it is not that dramatic. And if posting on IG, even less of an issue.
Now the differences between 120mm and 200mm and the differences in overall sharpness of the Sony lens vs the Canon lens, now that is a different story.
You cant even crop the Canon 120mm to "200mm" since its already softer so that is another no no.
Now if your main goal is using it for indoors in low light then sure, get the faster Canon or an RX100 V or even a small APS-C with a prime for much better higher iso.
Also the faster lens is good but the so so Autofocus and so so lens sharpness..well the extra fstop advantage wont help much if your lens is already soft and you dont get accurate focus to begin with.

Like wise I really have difficulty understanding how someone could ignore the terrible Autofocus (specially for video, just awful), soft lens and soft 4k video quality and ignore the benefits of the extra range of a 200mm. As a travel camera, I can get closeup details of architecture and wide shots knowing that both will have plenty of detail where the G5X will have only 120mm of a softer lens and lets not even discuss the even worse 24mm performance.
But indeed, if you dont use it that way, it may not be a problem for you.
Regards

Luis,

The RX100 VII scores approx 2810 lines per in at 9mm (24) @ f/3.2, its peak. By 72mm (200), it falls to 2500 lines. Essentially the lens design favors the wide end for sharpness.

The G5X II by contrast peaks at 2750 lines around 21.6 @ f/4 (middle on both), but at 44mm (120) @ f/3.5, it's scoring 2700 lines. The lens design favors a balanced approach with the mid-range being it's peak.

Neither are "poor" lenses.

I'll say I really enjoy the RX100's AF, and reach. Makes it apt for sports shooting.

Likewise, I really enjoy the colors, handling, and extra stop not only for light, but moreso for bokeh, indoors of the G5X II. Think portraits. 200mm can't help in close quarters to produce bokeh. And after all, a stop of light is a stop of light, it does help but the Sony 1" handles low light well, be it if I'm stopped to f/2.8 or f/1.8. I can see RX100 VII shooters reasonably happy at f/2.8. F/1.8 is cleaner obviously.

It's truly a shame we can't have both in the same package.

I'll say after having shot both, ironically it's the DoF advantage of the G5X II, not in light gathering, but in subject isolation, where it gives shots more "pop". Just like my RF 28-70 f/2L does (moreso). But I don't always feel like carrying "Goliath" around... I use f/1.8 on the wide end, a lot, indoors, and outdoors a lot. I'll even use the ND-filter to get f/1.8, in bright lit situations. Crazy? Nope. When you want f/1.8, you want f/1.8.

Regarding APS-C... Too big. Even the tiny M, aside from the 22 pancake itself, none of those options are pocketable. Even the 22 pancake, I'd say no, it's not. Small though...

I think it really gets lost in this and that, that f/1.8-2.8 of the G5X II is useful for bokeh, subject isolation. I don't think the Sony's AF gets lost in the mix. I do think folks underestimate the G5X II's AF though. Throw it in plain ol "Auto" and it actually gives fantastic results as the camera will decide if the subject warrants tracking or not, and when thrown in high FPS, you get best of both worlds. Again though, not sports worthy, but worthy of even chasing my kids. Most point and shoots and heck, DSLRs/MILCs, have trouble here.

The other element that gets lost, that I think DPR maybe should point out, the RX100 VII, does well in low light despite it's stop-loss of light. It is missed though, yes, but it's not a show stopper. Subject isolation though? That's actually a bigger ticket on the G5X II at focal lengths you'll actually commonly use. Lets by honest, most of us don't use 200mm everyday. And if you are? Well maybe it is a good choice, maybe it's not.