Already FULL SIZE LEAKED sample images from the G7 X!

Canon pulled better low light performance from the Sony sensor (it seems). This ISO1600 shot seems like ISO400 in other cameras.

ISO1600

As we feared, 100mm wide open is soft and have some optical flows like ghosting.

100mm f2.8

But long focal shots stopped at f5.6 are totally decent, except some fringing at the borders.

100mm f5.6

The bokeh is quite smooth but transitions are too brutal. Pleasing nonetheless.

Bokeh at wide angle

Specular highlights are round and free of onion rings. we need more shots to be sure. This ISO800 shot is DSLRish!

ISO800, look at the lonely bokeh ball at the top of the image

But apart from the soft longest focal, there's some "mildness" to the shots I dislike a little bit. Certainly the package is tempting, but I see a lot of digital sharpening, and DIGIC6 seems doing its magic with "obvious seams".

These seem to be from a pre-production model and they don't have EXIF data, but they're 20MP and have the Canon JPEG processing signature, so I believe the source they are from G7 X.

What do you think guys?

Can you explain what you mean by "seams"?

Altruisto wrote:

What do you think guys?

not bad, but certainly not convincing. I too see lots of processing, e.g. if you look from center to corner in the WA shot; it's a bit similar to what I noticed on S110, only the noise performance is better (of course, thanks to the smaller sensor).

The tele shot looks a bit soft even at f/5.6 but it may be better than an upsampled 75mm shot The soft rendering at f/2.8 100mm was to be expected, just like the G1X II; as this is mostly for portraits, you could consider it a build-in 'soft focus filter'

For a real impression what the camera can do we need to see high quality RAW images, that might take a while. The question is if you can improve the image quality with standard RAW processing (instead of fine-tuning for focal length and aperture issues); Canon JPEG output in compacts is usually pretty good. On the S110 I could make significant improvements compared to JPEG when working from RAW, but it usually required finetuning which takes too much time for general use.

***

But ... given how bad many Canon sample images are maybe this is promising Btw, the images on the G7X website looked VERY convincing, although those were much lower res. PP or even just sharpness/tone curve etc. settings are very important ...

P.S.: the close up shot (locks) looks soft with artificial sharpness in some areas, just like the RX100-1/2 'macro' shots. The noise and noise processing (sensor feature?) makes it even more apparent.

Bland and soft images are typical of Canon OOC images. One needs to tinker with the settings or use Positive Film mode - which I prefer - to get crisper images.

telefunk wrote:

My first impressions are that the images are bland and soft. Nearly desaturated. Not appealing at all.

I am hoping this is not borne out in reality as I really want this camera which ticks all the boxes for me.

Altruisto wrote:

They're full size and they give an idea about the lens quality, the low light performance the shallow depth of field and the bokeh the camera can produce.

24mm at f5.6 seems sharp from corner to corner.

24mm

Also the images can be processed very well

John McCormack wrote:

Bland and soft images are typical of Canon OOC images. One needs to tinker with the settings or use Positive Film mode - which I prefer - to get crisper images.

telefunk wrote:

My first impressions are that the images are bland and soft. Nearly desaturated. Not appealing at all.

I am hoping this is not borne out in reality as I really want this camera which ticks all the boxes for me.

Soft, yes, but bland? The pics that come out of my S90 ande SL1 are relatively vibrant compared to sony, olympus, and others.

Not horrible (except for that "wide angle bokeh"), but disappointing if this is the best it can do. Since they were "leaked", I'll wait for tests from people who know how to get the most from the settings/camera (this rules out some review sites, too) and withhold conclusions until then.

Since I find this the most interesting of the new camera announcements, October seems -far- away...

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

John McCormack wrote:

Bland and soft images are typical of Canon OOC images. One needs to tinker with the settings or use Positive Film mode - which I prefer - to get crisper images.

telefunk wrote:

My first impressions are that the images are bland and soft. Nearly desaturated. Not appealing at all.

I am hoping this is not borne out in reality as I really want this camera which ticks all the boxes for me.

Soft, yes, but bland? The pics that come out of my S90 ande SL1 are relatively vibrant compared to sony, olympus, and others.

Because your S90 is among the last cameras to use a CCD instead of SMOS sensors, and CCD were really giving "punchier" files to begin with. CMOS output can though be tweaked to get close results.

interesting

technic wrote:

Altruisto wrote:

What do you think guys?

not bad, but certainly not convincing. I too see lots of processing, e.g. if you look from center to corner in the WA shot; it's a bit similar to what I noticed on S110, only the noise performance is better (of course, thanks to the smaller sensor).

The tele shot looks a bit soft even at f/5.6 but it may be better than an upsampled 75mm shot The soft rendering at f/2.8 100mm was to be expected, just like the G1X II; as this is mostly for portraits, you could consider it a build-in 'soft focus filter'

For a real impression what the camera can do we need to see high quality RAW images, that might take a while. The question is if you can improve the image quality with standard RAW processing (instead of fine-tuning for focal length and aperture issues); Canon JPEG output in compacts is usually pretty good. On the S110 I could make significant improvements compared to JPEG when working from RAW, but it usually required finetuning which takes too much time for general use.

***

But ... given how bad many Canon sample images are maybe this is promising Btw, the images on the G7X website looked VERY convincing, although those were much lower res. PP or even just sharpness/tone curve etc. settings are very important ...

P.S.: the close up shot (locks) looks soft with artificial sharpness in some areas, just like the RX100-1/2 'macro' shots. The noise and noise processing (sensor feature?) makes it even more apparent.

Yeah, that ambitious lens had to falter somewhere. I think there are a lot of software corrections going on here for distortion, fringing, lack of sharpness, aberrations,... We prefer when the opticians do the job. When of the best compact lenses I have tried are in Nikon P7800 and Olympus XZ-2. The results were just "innately" good. G7 X had to involves compromises, but to which point? Being too ambitious is sometimes not rewarding.

We'll wait for other samples, but the "75mm at the long end" camera you referred to, could have a well corrected lens, since it's not squeezing the camera size at all price (and judging by LX7 standards).

I don't think the wide open performance at 100mm is acceptable since it's meant for portraits, as many people want more zoom, and were willing to crop those generous 20MP to get further. I remember one "ambitious" guy speaking of decent 5MP files at 200mm equivalent.

Mk7 wrote:

Can you explain what you mean by "seams"?

Sorry, English is not my mother tongue language. I meant the result of sewing. In french, "coutures apparentes" is an expression used to mean that the tweaking or manipulation is too obvious.

Lisetta1 wrote:

Not horrible (except for that "wide angle bokeh"), but disappointing if this is the best it can do. Since they were "leaked", I'll wait for tests from people who know how to get the most from the settings/camera (this rules out some review sites, too) and withhold conclusions until then.

Since I find this the most interesting of the new camera announcements, October seems -far- away...

Waiting for Optyczne.pl and Reviewed (and maybe Cameralabs too) reviews. They are the most technical

Any ideas why the G1X mkii is $100 more than the G7X?

Altruisto wrote:

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

John McCormack wrote:

Bland and soft images are typical of Canon OOC images. One needs to tinker with the settings or use Positive Film mode - which I prefer - to get crisper images.

telefunk wrote:

My first impressions are that the images are bland and soft. Nearly desaturated. Not appealing at all.

I am hoping this is not borne out in reality as I really want this camera which ticks all the boxes for me.

Soft, yes, but bland? The pics that come out of my S90 ande SL1 are relatively vibrant compared to sony, olympus, and others.

Because your S90 is among the last cameras to use a CCD instead of SMOS sensors, and CCD were really giving "punchier" files to begin with. CMOS output can though be tweaked to get close results.

Agree, that's my experience as well (using a lot of different cameras, including e.g. S80 and S110). I liked my cameras with CCD more, CMOS needs a lot of 'work' to look good (the main advantage for CMOS seems to be High ISO and high speed / video, and possibly low cost ...).

But there are differences within the Canon camera lines, I think the SL1 and a few current Rebels are more 'punchier' for JPEG output than some other recent DSLRs.

Lisetta1 wrote:

Any ideas why the G1X mkii is $100 more than the G7X?

bigger sensor, bigger camera - that usually means bigger price; although sometimes extra small is also extra expensive Plus specwise the G1X II has some extras like the optional EVF and longer zoom reach.

But maybe the prices are the same by the time G7X starts selling ...