Very poor image quality from G1x MK 2 (in my opinion!)

I would value people's opinion here on the image quality of the G1X. I'm posting examples of images taken on my relatively new G1X MK 2. I bought the camera a couple of months ago and didn't have time to use it an awful lot until my annual holiday which I returned from a couple of weeks ago. In recent years I've left my DSLR gear at home preferring the lightness and flexibility of a smaller compact camera. The G1X replaced a G15, in the last few years I've also had a G9, G10 an S95 and I have the use of an S120 which my daughter has. The photographs

My perception of image quality is that it is not good. This is only my assessment based upon my own images from my G1X and by no means is it a general statement for all G1X images. On SOOC JPEGS they look way over sharpened and the sharpness in the images looks so obviously manufactured rather being actual clarity. When magnified any fine detail is completely smudged and obliterated. I am posting a couple of samples in this thread of SOOC JPEGS. I'm also posting a dropbox link to the original JPEG files and also the .cr2 RAW files if anyone is interested to download them.

I generally shot in RAW and it would seem that RAW files don’t fare much better. Also below is a screen shot of a .cr2 raw file in the DPP edit window zoomed to 200%. The image looks patchy and has no clarity at all. Sharpening RAW images renders very similar JPEGs to those that come direct from the camera. The finished results look like the product of some cheap P & S camera, certainly not the results one would expect from a premium high end compact. I can’t begin to express how disappointed I am with this camera. I had high hopes that have been completely quashed.

So for those that own the camera what do you make of image quality, my images posted below and general performance?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mzk61s7tl1cv6ku/AADGnfw3cQVKFpePJBCEoPzoa?dl=0

Many thanks in advance of folk reading this post and offering any thoughts/advice/opinions/help !

I am not sure that I share your opinion.  I looked at the images closely and they look pretty good to me. I see plenty of detail and the images look very natural.  Well, the 200% zoom does look blotchy, but every picture degrades a fair bit at 200%.

Have you tried Lightroom?  I think the free trial lasts for 30 days and I do believe it does better than DPP.  Especially when it comes to sharpening images. That said, I am not sure it will get you to where you want to be.

Best of luck with your camera!

I don't care for DPP.  The default sharpening is too strong and I think NR is a bit heavy also.  Try this in DPP - import the raw file and backoff the sharpening to #1.  Zero out fineness and threshold and in NR back off luminance to #1 and see how that looks to you.  For me, that comes pretty close to the default LR output with 20 luminance NR added since there is none to begin with.

Similarily, the OOC jpg's are also too sharp in my opinion.  If you are not shooting RAW you can use custom colors to turn that down and also you can and should (again in my opinion) turn NR to the lowest level.  Unfortunately, doing so will not affect jpg output when shooting both Raw and Jpg.  Canon could use a swift kick in the ass for continuing that nonsense.  There is no reason I can see that jpg preferences shouldn't be implemented even when Raw and jpg are both being shot.

Anyway, try that with DPP and see if you think its better.

They look good to me. 2nd picture, I can see eyelash detail, count the stitching in her clothes, almost count pores. Unless your printing Big posters, you shouldn't see that looking through a shower door effect, which I have also noticed on mine. It does look best at ISO 100, you have the sweet spot on the aperture. Background looks good, great hair detail, Try printing one to see how it looks. I cropped a photo to 1/10 and printed it on a 4x6, so looking at a section if it was 40" by 60" print, it was soft, but viewing at 4~5' looking pretty good, many folks went Wow! 8x12's look great, 12x18's very good.

I've never shot Sooo many shots at 3200 ISO ever, Amazed how good they look, but still,,, I always try to keep it at ISO 100, tripod if needed.

Perfect, No, but so far I'm happy with the G1X II.

Zac

I have the earlier version of your camera, the G1X Mk1. I too thought my images were not up to my expectations. They were a little soft straight out of the camera. However, I have had this conception before with other cameras. I sharpen with PS CS5 and find the results fine. As for your posted images, they look great to me. Fine hair detail, etc. Maybe color saturation is a little weak which should be able to adjust in custom colors. You might look at your cameras custom colors settings to see how it is presently set. I must disagree with your evaluation. Seems you are expecting too much. One of the best things about the G1X MK1 is that it does not have that lens self scratching protective shutter on the end of the lens. That is why I have it rather than another of the G series. G1X MK 2 may not have the removable lens cover, I don't know about that. Enjoy that camera.

Well here is what I am getting, and this is straight from the camera, no post processing applied whatsoever.

Here is 100% Crop, does that look like poor image quality to you?

Way are you viewing the images at 200%. I can no value at all for that. Looking at the original-size images, they look good and sharp to me.

Graham Whiles wrote:

Also below is a screen shot of a .cr2 raw file in the DPP edit window zoomed to 200%. The image looks patchy and has no clarity at all.

Ranlee wrote:

I don't care for DPP. The default sharpening is too strong and I think NR is a bit heavy also. Try this in DPP - import the raw file and backoff the sharpening to #1. Zero out fineness and threshold and in NR back off luminance to #1 and see how that looks to you. For me, that comes pretty close to the default LR output with 20 luminance NR added since there is none to begin with.

Similarily, the OOC jpg's are also too sharp in my opinion. If you are not shooting RAW you can use custom colors to turn that down and also you can and should (again in my opinion) turn NR to the lowest level. Unfortunately, doing so will not affect jpg output when shooting both Raw and Jpg. Canon could use a swift kick in the ass for continuing that nonsense. There is no reason I can see that jpg preferences shouldn't be implemented even when Raw and jpg are both being shot.

Anyway, try that with DPP and see if you think its better.

Thank you for confirming me that preventing JPEGs from custom settings when shot together with RAW is a general nonsense of Canon cameras. Owing an SX50, as I tried for the first time to shoot like this I was disappointed in the JPEG quality degradation; now I use JPEG for selecting my best shots only and it's a shame, because the JPEG engine is otherwise very good on that camera.

All the best,

Augustin

lanefAU wrote:

Well here is what I am getting, and this is straight from the camera, no post processing applied whatsoever.

Here is 100% Crop, does that look like poor image quality to you?

That looks good but his portrait look poor. Portrait and landscape are something very different. His portrait looks dissapointing for such an expensive camera, way too much NR which cause loss of fine detail, but maybe it's just wrong settings I don't know, don't have the camera.

skyform wrote:

lanefAU wrote:

Well here is what I am getting, and this is straight from the camera, no post processing applied whatsoever.

Here is 100% Crop, does that look like poor image quality to you?

That looks good but his portrait look poor. Portrait and landscape are something very different.

I know that, but the camera to register fine clean details is the same.

His portrait looks dissapointing for such an expensive camera, way too much NR which cause loss of fine detail, but maybe it's just wrong settings I don't know, don't have the camera.

As been pointed out, viewing at 200% is not a criteria for image analysis.

lanefAU wrote:

skyform wrote:

lanefAU wrote:

Well here is what I am getting, and this is straight from the camera, no post processing applied whatsoever.

Here is 100% Crop, does that look like poor image quality to you?

That looks good but his portrait look poor. Portrait and landscape are something very different.

I know that, but the camera to register fine clean details is the same.

His portrait looks dissapointing for such an expensive camera, way too much NR which cause loss of fine detail, but maybe it's just wrong settings I don't know, don't have the camera.

As been pointed out, viewing at 200% is not a criteria for image analysis.

I was not viewing at 200%, I was viewing and juddging the two samples at 100% and it's dissapointing for such a large sensor and the price. I'm pretty sure that this kind of sensor could and should show more fine detail as the examples, NR is far too agressive but maybe it wasn't set to the lowest setting.

I don't understand why don't this kind of cameras have a function where you can completely turn off the NR and not just set it to the lowest setting.

I can do this with my XZ-10 and I was surprised by the resaults with NR turned off, it beats cameras like S95, P340, LF1... in many situations, even though they have bigger sensors but you can't turn off NR on them and the result of this is loss of fine detail.

skyform wrote:

lanefAU wrote:

skyform wrote:

lanefAU wrote:

Well here is what I am getting, and this is straight from the camera, no post processing applied whatsoever.

Here is 100% Crop, does that look like poor image quality to you?

That looks good but his portrait look poor. Portrait and landscape are something very different.

I know that, but the camera to register fine clean details is the same.

His portrait looks dissapointing for such an expensive camera, way too much NR which cause loss of fine detail, but maybe it's just wrong settings I don't know, don't have the camera.

As been pointed out, viewing at 200% is not a criteria for image analysis.

I was not viewing at 200%, I took a look at the two samples at 100% and it's dissapointing for such a large sensor and the price. I'm pretty sure that this kind of sensor could and should show more fine detail as the examples, NR is far too agressive but maybe it wasn't set to the lowest setting.

I don't understand why don't this kind of cameras have a function where you can completely turn off the NR and not just set it to the lowest setting.

I can do this with my XZ-10 and I was surprised by the resaults with NR turned off, it beats cameras like S95, P340, LF1... in many situations, even though they have bigger sensors but you can't turn off NR on them and the result of this is loss of fine detail.

I have not shot any RAW photos because usually I shoot raw only on my D800. But, I don't know why you are experiencing loss of details, all the photos I have taken with this camera can yield good details.

Here is another 100% crop, it is quite good for a compact to me.

Augustin Man wrote:

Ranlee wrote:

I don't care for DPP. The default sharpening is too strong and I think NR is a bit heavy also. Try this in DPP - import the raw file and backoff the sharpening to #1. Zero out fineness and threshold and in NR back off luminance to #1 and see how that looks to you. For me, that comes pretty close to the default LR output with 20 luminance NR added since there is none to begin with.

Similarily, the OOC jpg's are also too sharp in my opinion. If you are not shooting RAW you can use custom colors to turn that down and also you can and should (again in my opinion) turn NR to the lowest level. Unfortunately, doing so will not affect jpg output when shooting both Raw and Jpg. Canon could use a swift kick in the ass for continuing that nonsense. There is no reason I can see that jpg preferences shouldn't be implemented even when Raw and jpg are both being shot.

Anyway, try that with DPP and see if you think its better.

Thank you for confirming me that preventing JPEGs from custom settings when shot together with RAW is a general nonsense of Canon cameras. Owing an SX50, as I tried for the first time to shoot like this I was disappointed in the JPEG quality degradation; now I use JPEG for selecting my best shots only and it's a shame, because the JPEG engine is otherwise very good on that camera.

All the best,

Augustin

You're welcome.  The logic (or better yet, the lack thereof) has bugged me for years.  My GX7 and the LX7 I used to have manage just fine with both Raw and custom jpg's.

There is something about your conclusion, and there is something which isn´t really problem. I found that lower quality in JPG can be seen, I didn´t like it when I saw first images, and I was about put down for my observations just because I don´t own this cam. Now we can see that there are actual owners who see the same.

But I must fight for G1X II in raw, because its ouptup for this class (compact cam with fixed lens) is awesome. You might really want too much from it. I know it´s not cheap, but it is different class with different set of advantages and flaws, and for what it is, it makes very good images in right hand.

From what I´ve seen, "far portrait shot" at ISO 320 is about right image quality wise.

You are not going to get better with small zoom lens on this kind of sensor for this kind of money. This is perfectly fine and you have nothing to "cry" about. If you need better for your money, get a DSLR, put some prime lens on it, and you´ll get better image quality. But I guess you didn´t choose that way FOR A REASON... Otherwise you taught great lessonl here, it was not cheap experience, but it needed to be done "to you".

Graham Whiles wrote:

I would value people's opinion here on the image quality of the G1X. I'm posting examples of images taken on my relatively new G1X MK 2. I bought the camera a couple of months ago and didn't have time to use it an awful lot until my annual holiday which I returned from a couple of weeks ago. In recent years I've left my DSLR gear at home preferring the lightness and flexibility of a smaller compact camera. The G1X replaced a G15, in the last few years I've also had a G9, G10 an S95 and I have the use of an S120 which my daughter has. The photographs

My perception of image quality is that it is not good. This is only my assessment based upon my own images from my G1X and by no means is it a general statement for all G1X images. On SOOC JPEGS they look way over sharpened and the sharpness in the images looks so obviously manufactured rather being actual clarity. When magnified any fine detail is completely smudged and obliterated. I am posting a couple of samples in this thread of SOOC JPEGS. I'm also posting a dropbox link to the original JPEG files and also the .cr2 RAW files if anyone is interested to download them.

I generally shot in RAW and it would seem that RAW files don’t fare much better. Also below is a screen shot of a .cr2 raw file in the DPP edit window zoomed to 200%. The image looks patchy and has no clarity at all. Sharpening RAW images renders very similar JPEGs to those that come direct from the camera. The finished results look like the product of some cheap P & S camera, certainly not the results one would expect from a premium high end compact. I can’t begin to express how disappointed I am with this camera. I had high hopes that have been completely quashed.

So for those that own the camera what do you make of image quality, my images posted below and general performance?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mzk61s7tl1cv6ku/AADGnfw3cQVKFpePJBCEoPzoa?dl=0

Many thanks in advance of folk reading this post and offering any thoughts/advice/opinions/help !