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

I have the G1x MkII and I'm happy with it.

However, the tone of some of the responses (by no means all) seems to go too far in attacking the OP.

To the OP: could you give more info on what you compare the G1x Mk2 with? (DSLR, and if so which one and with what lens? other premium compacts?).  My experience is that the image quality, when processing RAWs, is heads and shoulders above that of small sensors.  I'd be happy if it comes close to that of a DSLR in this package.  I wouldn't expect it to equal a larger sensor with a good prime.

The images you showed were not very attractive representations of people who I assume were close to you, and I can understand your disappointment with the results. However, the camera itself does not seem to be the problem. The images, besides the already mentioned problems with over-sharpening, also feature some very unappealing highlights on your subjects skin, which make them appear to be "wet" in spots on their faces, necks, upper chests and shoulders. These are merely burned highlights caused by very out-of-DR natural lighting ratios on the high end and, more frequently, your direct flash. If one's subjects have ever so slightly damp skin, typical of times when the summer sun is strong and shining directly on them, then the inherent un-attractiveness of direct flash is magnified in it's ill affects. This ads to the "brittle" look of the over-sharpening to give an overall poor quality look to the images. The color pallet of your images either looks correct to you, or not, but can be varied by use of Jpeg settings, or, more importantly, various settings in a raw converter like DPP or Lightroom/Camera Raw. Shoot raw, experiment and use your best judgment.

Other fixes possible: Offer a dry towel to your subjects just before shooting and/or dry appearing make-up, usually for the ladies only; this helps, but is an incomplete solution, usually to be combined with one of the following ideas. Turn your subject so that the sun is, at most, only back/top lighting their hair, if it is dark hair, and front/side light their faces with a more diffused (read here: "bigger" and more evenly lit surface area and "closer") light source which will create broader and more transparent highlights on your subjects' skin. Or, shoot in the shade. with just a dollop of front flash, keeping in mind that the sunlit background is liable to be blown out, which is, in itself, most times good, but sometimes bad. There are lots of other solutions, and, with perseverance, you can find them. Keep working at it.

Your camera is a relatively good one. Coincidentally, I just browsed through the latest issue of Consumer Reports on my local news stand, and, lo and behold, the G1X Mark II was given the highest quality rating it has ever given any camera of any type, an amazing fact. It's true that Consumer Reports may not rate cameras the same way that enthusiast web sites and magazines do, but it does indicate that from a purely mass consumer viewpoint, the camera is truly excellent, in and of itself. Regardless, you will get results from it, if you develop the commensurate skills, that will yield scarcely less quality than a typical APS-C DSLR, while being much more compact and lightweight, when aperture and lens range are considered.

Good luck.

Regards,

David

Graham Whiles wrote:

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.

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

Hi Graham Whiles, while I don`t own the camera, and I`m still an amateur, I wanted to give a quick try to the RAW images you uploaded, using Lightroom 5.4.

In my humble opinion, and with my limited editing skills, RAW processed JPEGs still look much better to me than the original JPEGs - which I find to be expected.

Even though I understand and respect the idea of shooting JPEGs, I think that for getting the most (or at least much more than from straight-out-of-camera JPEGs) out of your equipment, and G1X MK2 sure is a capable piece, processing RAW files to your liking is still needed.

What do you think?

Here's a quick RAW conversion of #1 using DPP. No NR.

boogisha wrote:

Graham Whiles wrote:

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.

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

Hi Graham Whiles, while I don`t own the camera, and I`m still an amateur, I wanted to give a quick try to the RAW images you uploaded, using Lightroom 5.4.

In my humble opinion, and with my limited editing skills, RAW processed JPEGs still look much better to me than the original JPEGs - which I find to be expected.

Even though I understand and respect the idea of shooting JPEGs, I think that for getting the most (or at least much more than from straight-out-of-camera JPEGs) out of your equipment, and G1X MK2 sure is a capable piece, processing RAW files to your liking is still needed.

What do you think?

This just shows how poor Canon's JPG engine lately is, especialy for skin, way too much NR, the newer G7X is showing similar problems.