Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:
RLight wrote:
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.
Not what the 2 copies of the G5X ii I had at one point showed. They were pretty much the identical and when I got my hands on the RX100 VII and compared them, it was game over. I must have been very unlucky with the G5X ii it seems...
I'll say I really enjoy the RX100's AF, and reach. Makes it apt for sports shooting.
Not just sports shooting for me. Travelling is where I love it because of the flexibility of having a sharp lens from 24mm to 200mm and an extremely reliable AF system. And the super sharp and long recording 4k video is yet another great feature. And the mic jack of course.
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.
Yeah the bokeh is surely smoother with the Canon even compared to the Sony at 200mm, I did mention that as a point in favor of the Canon..really THE one point.
It's truly a shame we can't have both in the same package.
That would be the dream for sure! I hated even more than even if the G5x ii had a great lens, again not MY experience, then Canon didnt give it a mic jack either. Really such an annoying move.
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.
If 1.8 and extra smoothness is your thing, the stick to the Canon. Not my primary use for my Sony and if for any reason I want to blur more, its a simple edit on my phone to add a tiny bit of blur (Samsung S21 Ultra) using the portrait tweak option before posting to IG so really an easy fix with takes a few seconds.
Not so easy to fix for out of focus or short range or soft lenses.
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 dont normally use APS-C either as it does not fit my needs..when I need such a camera, I go for my FF instead.
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.
Not lost, I clearly mentioned that in my comments. But like I said above, before adding to IG, its a quick edit on my phone to add a touch of blur since its a feature at least in my phone editing app that when used at the lowest setting will even out the blur and look very natural. Not good if you crank it up like so many people love to do !
I don't think the Sony's AF gets lost in the mix. I do think folks underestimate the G5X II's AF though.
I had it and it is BAD. Sure for photos of non action things, it works just fine as expected but for tracking is not even close to the Sony and even worse, for video AF is a disaster where the Sony is on point without hesitation.
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.
Sorry but the Sony is in a WHOLE different league there, I dont see how that can be argued.
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.
Once again, subject isolation is the ONE thing you can bring over as it is really the only advantage but we are talking about tiny sensors with limited blurring anyway. For someone so focused (no pun intended) in subject isolation, it seems very odd to use a 1" sensor. That would be like not on my list of cameras to grab if that was such an important thing for my use of such camera.
Lets by honest, most of us don't use 200mm everyday.
I never make such claims because I do not know what other people use or dont use. But lets play that game...how can you tell most of us dont use 200mm...how many actually HAVE 200mm to use? Are you telling me that if you had 200mm on your Canon, you would stop at 120mm 90% of the time?
Now ask Sony users with the RX100 VI and VII how often they use it.
I use it VERY often specially travelling because you can get great details of different architectures or other scenes where you would be having to crop more (on a softer lens to make it worse), when I had the G5X ii.
If you dont need 200mm, that is perfectly fine but lets not play the guessing game about who needs it or not.
And if you are? Well maybe it is a good choice, maybe it's not.
It is indeed a great choice for me, I wouldnt have sold my G5X ii and kept the Sony if it was not. No company gives me free gear thus I owe them no loyalty. Just as I didnt hesitate to sell my A9 and Sony A7R IV to buy the Canon R5 and R6, I had no issues selling the G5x ii to keep the RX100 VII. Whatever works best for me, is what I keep..do not care which brand it is.
To each its own.
Regards
I don't think you're a Sony troll by any means, and the RX100 VII is surely impressive, and, I'll say unfortunately I have had a less stellar copy of the G5X II before this one, but didn't know it till I had the one I have now. It wasn't bad, but it was just "ok".
If you're happy with the RX100 VII, I'll say great! If anyone here is happy with the G5X II, great! Are either bad cameras? Nope. The RX100 VII does leave the G5X II in the dust for AF though, absolutely. Is the G5X II garbage? Nope. Ask any G7X II shooter who has even less AF on tap so to speak which both the G7X III and G5X II do better.
BTW, regarding video AF, I don't find it problematic myself. I never had the displeasure of the first rev of the G5X II firmware though. It's nowhere near as sticky as my R though. You can relate surely.
All to say I won't smash the RX100 VII, and I wouldn't trash the G5X II either if I were you. I know we don't agree here, but I'll neither are "garbage" which you're hinting at. Don't take my word for it, they're the top 2 point and shoots DPR recommends after all.
Side note: I will say after having shot the RX100 VII for a bit, it does make the G5X II seem like a dinosaur in terms of AF. But, having had the G5X II for a while prior, I can say first impressions can be misleading. Dinosaur or not by comparison in AF, it's capable and gets the shot, without complaints so long as you don't use it for sports but I can personally relate to your strong feelings here and say, like DPR reviewers, that may have spent limited time with both, you know what? Neither are "bad". You really need to spend some time with things in some cases, not just throw it out the window. Also, about the G5X II's not-so-sharp lens? A lot of it is attributable to it's the poor NR / smearing details in JPEG. Shoot RAW, use LR, it opens things up. Canon did a less than stellar job there (SOOC) and it shows, DPR notes this in their review rightly. It's not bad for folks that don't know better, but for folks that are more discerning like yourself, yup, shoot RAW, digest yourself, and not in DPP4 (normally I recommend DPP4, not this time as you don't want Canon's NR reproduced here which DPP4 reproduces things in-camera I gather, and I was unable to shake the poor corner NR lifts either in DPP4 no matter what I did for the G5X II RAWs). Also I should add it's only recently that now that Adobe has a true color match support for DIGIC8 and newer CR3 files, which is like the past few months, that it can reproduce RAWs with decent color too. Matters as you know being both a Sony and Canon shooter.
Now don't let me persuade you from the RX100 VII. Again, I in your shoes, and you probably shoot different subjects than myself, it's probably a better fit. But I also want to clear up that first impressions can be misleading in some cases. This is one I can say. If you just held and shot both, you'd think the RX100 is king. It's not. Neither is the G5X II. It's a choice, truly.
