Canon g1 x mark 2 review

[hawat]

It looks like dc watch just posted a review of the canon g1 x2.

Loading…

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

 

[hawat]

Here is another review from gizmodo.jp

Loading…

www.gizmodo.jp

 

[flypaul]

It's a good review -using translate. Thanks for posting. The full size images look excellent.

I'm a happy G1 X owner, but this cam may well tick all the right boxes and get me to upgrade.

cheers,

Flypaul.

 

[afm]

I am sure these are great so long as you can understand Chinese. As always, Cameralabs.com will be one of the first with a full and comprehensive review.

 

[Jote]

I am sure these are great so long as you can understand Chinese.

Actually, no. Understanding Japanese would seem to be a more desirable skill for reading articles in Japanese.

 

[Mark9473]

The full size images look excellent.

Really? I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.

 

[flypaul]

The full size images look excellent.

Really? I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.

--
Mark

The f2 macro shots display very shallow depth of field - as to be expected. If you look at the following images they sharpen at f4

The dried fish shot seem good edge to edge.

That'll do it from me as I'm not one to get involved in wanky back and forth banter.

Cheers,

Flypaul.

 

[Marco Nero]

Mark9473, post: 53307097, member: 715586"]I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.
--
Mark

[/QUOTE]
Some VERY heated discussions on the Japanese forums the night before last. They were discussing how soft the Macro shots were and upon viewing some, I am prone to agree with them. The shots I saw were simple and showed a very shallow DOF. Even with this effect in place, there was a considerable softness to the images, even the areas meant to be sharp. But what I am seeing in these new images is not a natural blur to the background.
.
Below is a crop from one of the official Canon images from the G1X Mk2. It shows an artificially blurred background and you can see how the blur continues across the shoulder of the model. The image processor software produced a halo or smudge of skin tone across the contrasting area of the shoulder and it has a softening effect on the overall portrait. It looks like the effect used with the Macro shots below.
.


G1X-Mk2 - defocussed background effect.

G1X-MkII / F2.2 / 1/2,000 / +0.7EV / ISO100 / 12.5mm

G!X-MkII / F2 / 1/500 / +1.3EV / ISO100 / 12.5mm


G1X Mk1+ Closeup Filter


G1X Mk1 + Closeup Filter


G1X Mk1 + Closeup Filter


G1X Mk1 + Closeup Filter


G1X Mk1 + Closeup Filter





--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

 

[kona_moon]

...that's what the reviewer wrote in Japanese. He also noted that it is remedied by either stepping down a little (he did not mention how little) or increasing the focus distance.

 

[hawat]

I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.

--
Mark

Some VERY heated discussions on the Japanese forums the night before last. They were discussing how soft the Macro shots were and upon viewing some, I am prone to agree with them. The shots I saw were simple and showed a very shallow DOF. Even with this effect in place, there was a considerable softness to the images, even the areas meant to be sharp. But what I am seeing in these new images is not a natural blur to the background.
.
Below is a crop from one of the official Canon images from the G1X Mk2. It shows an artificially blurred background and you can see how the blur continues across the shoulder of the model. The image processor software produced a halo or smudge of skin tone across the contrasting area of the shoulder and it has a softening effect on the overall portrait. It looks like the effect used with the Macro shots below.

Are you talking about that discussion on kakaku.com? http://bbs.kakaku.com/bbs/K0000623024/#17296311

The poster of the macro picture (tundraco) is saying that at max aperture there is some kind of fog when using macro mode but when reducing it, its ok.

When not using macro mode he doesn't seem to have a problem as well. That is a bit worrying but I hope more people will show up with their own macro picture to confirm or not this problem.

 

[rpm40]

Marco,

I think you may be on to something with the background defocus setting having a negative effect on the quality of some of the samples we are seeing. That said, I think it is also quite a challenge for a compact lens with fast aperture to give sharp macro shots wide open. This is really a tall task for the lens- the same issue was heavily discussed when the rx100 was first released. Many posts popped up asking "why is my image soft when shooting at f1.8 from 2 inches?" Look how small the camera is while sporting a large sensor and fast lens, and you'll see that compromises needed to be made, especially to keep the price reasonable.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the G1Xii doesn't give the sharpest results at f2.0 in macro situations. But then, you could also ask, how sharp is the G1X at f2.0 in macro situations?

If the lens sharpens up for macros when stopped down a stop or two, its totally acceptable to me. I am more concerned about sharpness wide open at more normal working distances where a fast lens matters- ie. taking shots of people indoors, in low light.

 

[Marco Nero]

...that's what the reviewer wrote in Japanese. He also noted that it is remedied by either stepping down a little (he did not mention how little) or increasing the focus distance.

You may hove something there. Going through my G1X Macro shots, I don't think any were taken at f/2.8. Even without Closeup Filters, the typical shot I have taken seems to be around f/5.0
.
I still feel that there's something artificial going on with the backgrounds which blends into the foreground images. I would hope that this is something that can be turned off.

 

[Tonkotsu Ramen]

It's the same issue the RX100/100M2 have, soft close ups at F1.8

It goes away at or near F2.8

 

[howardroark]

...that's what the reviewer wrote in Japanese. He also noted that it is remedied by either stepping down a little (he did not mention how little) or increasing the focus distance.

If you look at true macro lenses (1:1) you'll notice they are always prime (Canon, anyway) and never wide or super-fast. Why? Zoom is a pain even without super close minimum focusing distance. Fast with zoom is an even bigger pain. When we see some shots posted with the original RAW files maybe we can draw some conclusions. I haven't seen any RAW files yet and I don't think anyone has been terribly specific about what the camera's settiings are as far as JPEG processing. And the Mark II lens starts at 12.5mm! Holy crap! I would expect it to be extremely soft wide open and at wide angle, but it really is surprisingly good.

Either way, if you can stop the camera down and get sharp macros it would still be an amazing lens. Not only that, but were these macro shots done in stable conditions? I don't see any sign of motion blur, but I also see pictures that look great despite not being tack sharp like a stopped down 100mm f/2.8 IS. Everything I've seen makes the camera look like a killer. The extra zoom range, decent macro distance, fast lens, detail, and low noise are very promising.

 

[peter_friend]

kona_moon, post: 53308454, member: 145821"]
...that's what the reviewer wrote in Japanese. He also noted that it is remedied by either stepping down a little (he did not mention how little) or increasing the focus distance.

You may hove something there. Going through my G1X Macro shots, I don't think any were taken at f/2.8. Even without Closeup Filters, the typical shot I have taken seems to be around f/5.0
.
I still feel that there's something artificial going on with the backgrounds which blends into the foreground images. I would hope that this is something that can be turned off.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

[/QUOTE]

 

[Grobb]

I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.

-- Mark

Some VERY heated discussions on the Japanese forums the night before last. They were discussing how soft the Macro shots were and upon viewing some, I am prone to agree with them. The shots I saw were simple and showed a very shallow DOF. Even with this effect in place, there was a considerable softness to the images, even the areas meant to be sharp. But what I am seeing in these new images is not a natural blur to the background.

-- Marco Nero.

Marco... I have a theory and would like your opinion. I read in one of Canons own marketing brochures that "The G1X Mark II images at 400 ISO will have the same noise as the G1X at 1600 ISO". They gave the credit to the newer processor and it's ability to reduce noise. If they are in fact using the same (or very similar) sensor as the G1X has, could the problem extend to more than just macro shooting? To me, if you increase noise reduction by 4x wouldn't that also reduce sharpness? In the original 23 images from another thread, I really did not find any of them (macros or not) that were really sharp or had fine detail in them. What do you (or anyone else) think, could that also be a contributing factor?

-- Growing old is inevitable, Growing up is optional!

 

[rpm40]

I find the flower shots all extremely soft to be honest.

-- Mark

Some VERY heated discussions on the Japanese forums the night before last. They were discussing how soft the Macro shots were and upon viewing some, I am prone to agree with them. The shots I saw were simple and showed a very shallow DOF. Even with this effect in place, there was a considerable softness to the images, even the areas meant to be sharp. But what I am seeing in these new images is not a natural blur to the background.

-- Marco Nero.

Marco... I have a theory and would like your opinion. I read in one of Canons own marketing brochures that "The G1X Mark II images at 400 ISO will have the same noise as the G1X at 1600 ISO". They gave the credit to the newer processor and it's ability to reduce noise. If they are in fact using the same (or very similar) sensor as the G1X has, could the problem extend to more than just macro shooting? To me, if you increase noise reduction by 4x wouldn't that also reduce sharpness? In the original 23 images from another thread, I really did not find any of them (macros or not) that were really sharp or had fine detail in them. What do you (or anyone else) think, could that also be a contributing factor?

-- Growing old is inevitable, Growing up is optional!

Its a possibility that some of the reduction in noise comes from a better noise reduction allowed by a more capable processor. It is also possible that some comes from a heavier use of noise reduction. I think the original G1X took a pretty conservative approach to noise reduction, which I liked, so I suppose they could think there's room to turn it up. Still, I would be shocked if they did nothing aside from increase the noise reduction- if that were the case, they could essentially reuse the old Digic and crank the NR to high.

I'm not expecting miracles from this sensor/processor combination- probably only a small improvement over the previous model- but for me, it will be more than good enough for what it is. A slight IQ improvement and a much faster lens will still make the camera a whole lot more capable in low light. Heck, Canon loves to protect it's bread and butter so they probably don't want the sensor to be too good anyway, right?

 

[hawat]

Kakaku has just posted a review as well. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to see their pictures in decent size?

http://kakaku.com/article/pr/14/03_g1xmk2/

 

[boblu]

Seems to me just keep my G16. If these are true, I will past the Mark II.

 

[howardroark]

Seems to me just keep my G16. If these are true, I will past the Mark II.

If what are true?