Choosing between Canon G7X and Canon G1X Mark II

[Zigadiboom]

Hi All,

I currently own the original G1X and am looking to upgrade to either the Mark II or G7X. I have a 7 month old baby who is starting to move around and I find that for this type of photography the original G1X to be a bit limiting in relation to the slowish aperture, focus, shot-to-shot times and close-up shots. I have learnt to work around it by shooting wide open at high ISO's reaping decent results some of the time. However on the whole I find the process a little frustrating. For other types of photography such as landscapes and portraits I have found the G1X to be quite decent. It's really about understanding its limitations and appreciating it for what it is.

What I would like to know between the Mark II and G7X is the following:

1) How does the image quality compare across the ISO range? Is the difference enough to warrant not going for the more pocketable model. Form factor is not a primary consideration but if the difference is marginal then I may consider the more pocketable option.

2) Which has better handling and operational speed(focus lock on, shot to shot time, write times shooting RAW etc)

3) Which has the better lens overall taking into consideration sharpness, aberattions, vignetting, softness etc

Also if there is anything else that is worth mentioning that is of importance then please state it.

Regards

 

[Slimpie1972]

I'm very curious about the opinions. I'm also considering one of these two camera's.

Pro G1X mk2: better low light performance, hotshoe, better handling, double ring around the lens for settings

Pro G7X: pocketable, ??????????

 

[Tom Hoots]

1) How does the image quality compare across the ISO range? Is the difference enough to warrant not going for the more pocketable model. Form factor is not a primary consideration but if the difference is marginal then I may consider the more pocketable option.

Both have "fast" lenses that will tend to keep you out of very-high ISO settings to a great extent. Both seem to have the capability to produce rather equivalent image quality. But, in "normal use," I've got to say that I have always been "flipping cartwheels down the street" happy with the G1X Mark II's image quality. The G7X, well, "not so much." Mainly, we are having some issues with just about any "automated" modes, like me with "P" mode -- where, indoors, it was very clear that it would use the fastest aperture, f/1.8, and produce pictures that really weren't in proper focus all around the frame. Here's an example:


G1X Mark II


G7X

Mainly, look at the propeller -- or actually "the nose of it" in the G7X shot, where it simply isn't in proper focus. Yes, sure, I know, "do some photography" and stop the lens down, but on the other hand, the G1X Mark II can snap off perfect shot after perfect shot, all day long.

Oh, and by the way, I'm talking about things that are a bit subtle when it comes to viewing at the small sizes here in the forum -- by all means, if you're considering spending this kind of money, download my 1920 x 1200 original files, and compare them on your computer with the viewer of your choice.

Then, I tried another pair of comparison shots, where I didn't do anything other than crop and resize the shots to get something approaching a "straight out of the camera" comparison:


G1X Mark II


G7X

The main issue here is "sharpness." I always thought that the G1X Mark II had quite a bit less in-camera sharpening than a lot of other cameras I've used, so over time I wound up turning up the sharpness in-camera as high as it would go, and I'm satisfied with it. When people were moaning about the G7X having a lack of sharpness, I just started there to begin with. Usually, I apply a small amount of unsharp mask after resizing, to optimize sharpness in my post-processing, but I didn't touch these in that way.

As you can see, the G7X shot is absolutely MASSIVELY less sharp than the G1X Mark II shot -- I've had to change my normal routine, and more than double the amount of sharpening I'm doing in post-processing.

The G7X shot also has a noticeable "reddishness" to it, while I've found in other times (outdoors), it often showed a bit of "bluishness" to it. And, the G1X Mark II shot seems to have a better contrast to it, something else I've been noticing.

So, "I have had issues" with the G7X image quality. In the end, I think it can produce fine results, but you will probably have to "work around the lens" and how the G7X uses it in some automated modes. And I'm just talking about "P" mode, not "full auto" mode. Then, we have another thread in here about how, in Aperture Priority mode, the camera chooses much faster shutter speeds than it does, say, in "P" mode -- so you just might need to go to full manual mode to truly get the results you want.

Meanwhile, I have been able to keep the G1X Mark II in "P" mode for most "normal shooting," and it just delivers consistent, excellent results, with no issues I can pick out, whatsoever.

2) Which has better handling and operational speed(focus lock on, shot to shot time, write times shooting RAW etc)

In the low-light shooting I was doing in the above shots, the G7X was clearly the faster-performing camera. Ignore what the DPReview preview has been saying, as the G7X is a very enjoyable, quick-shooting camera. It locked focus a bit faster than the G1X Mark II in these conditions, and, since I use bracketing almost all the time, the G7X is MUCH faster to shoot shot-to-shot-to-shot with bracketing. Also, the G7X's zoom lever was MUCH better to use -- it moves smoothly across the range, and you can just move right to the framing you want, while the G1X Mark II tended to "jump away" from one point to another -- it took a lot more work to get to the exact point I wanted to frame the shot with.

3) Which has the better lens overall taking into consideration sharpness, aberattions, vignetting, softness etc

Absolutely no doubt about it, the G1X Mark II's lens is absolutely excellent, while the G7X's lens appears to be a massive, massive compromise. I have both cameras, so I can use the G1X Mark II for "serious" shooting, and pop the G7X into my pocket when I just want to have a camera at hand when I'm "wandering around." But if you're buying an expensive camera for the best image quality you can get, the G1X Mark II utterly slays the G7X. I definitely have seen some chromatic aberration in the G7X shots that I definitely don't see in the G1X Mark II shots, and so on.

Also if there is anything else that is worth mentioning that is of importance then please state it.

The G7X is a very enjoyable camera to shoot with, and you can get some good results with it. If you are prepared to "do more manual photography" and to do more work in post-processing, I think you can get entirely good results with it. But the G1X Mark II can do better even if you just keep it in "P" mode or Aperture Priority mode and let it do all of the work for you -- and you won't need to do any "historic" work in post-processing to get excellent results.

In the end, you kind of "pay a price" for the G7X's "faster" lens, and the camera's automated modes can make choices that won't necessarily get the best results for you. And man, it just doesn't sharpen the results anywhere near how other cameras will. While the G1X Mark II is bigger, heavier, and a bit slower and plodding in comparison, the image quality is just plain wonderful -- the results you can easily get can speak for themselves. Here are some of my favorites:















I hope this helps -- good luck!

Tom Hoots
http://www.pbase.com/thoots
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

 

[Scott Skinner]

The g1Xmk2 has a notably better lens when you pixel peep.

That said, I've seen some nice g7x images floating around the web. If you need pocket-ability, it seems to be a darn decent choice.

 

[Zigadiboom]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and the systematic answering of my queries. I was aware from other threads that you own both the cameras and so I was happy to get a response from you demonstrating your first-hand real world experiences.

As size is not a primary concern for me I will be going for the Mark II.

As a matter of curiosity how does the optical quality of Mark II lens compare with the original G1X. If you or anyone else can reflect on this that would be helpful to know.

Thanks,

 

[Tom Hoots]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and the systematic answering of my queries. I was aware from other threads that you own both the cameras and so I was happy to get a response from you demonstrating your first-hand real world experiences.

You're quite welcome -- I'm always glad to help.

As size is not a primary concern for me I will be going for the Mark II.

I think it is the obvious choice if you just don't have to have a pocketable camera.

As a matter of curiosity how does the optical quality of Mark II lens compare with the original G1X. If you or anyone else can reflect on this that would be helpful to know.

I'm not sure about the optics exactly, but I had the original G1X, and didn't particularly like it at all. I know that other folks might not share my opinion, so mine is just one viewpoint to consider. However, one thing about it was how it really couldn't focus on things that were "relatively close up" -- though from distances that virtually any other camera could focus on easily -- without going into "macro" mode. Personally, I think the G1X Mark II's lens is at least far more versatile and useful.

Good luck!

Tom Hoots

Galleries by thoots

www.pbase.com

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

 

[damian5000]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and the systematic answering of my queries. I was aware from other threads that you own both the cameras and so I was happy to get a response from you demonstrating your first-hand real world experiences.

As size is not a primary concern for me I will be going for the Mark II.

As a matter of curiosity how does the optical quality of Mark II lens compare with the original G1X. If you or anyone else can reflect on this that would be helpful to know.

Thanks,

I think Tom is being a bit dramatic. "Massive, massive"? Come on. Don't pixel peep and you'll never know the difference. Even pixel peeping these sample comparison shows the G7X holds up fine. The G7X considerably better performance speed wise as well.

 

[meland]

What swung the G1XII my way in this comparison was the ability to add the external EVF. I don't mind using an LCD under certain circumstances but bright sunlight isn't one of them and the EVF totally transforms the viewing / composing experience. It is a lot more more useful and accurate than the OVF on my old G11 / G12 was.

I don't have any results from a G7X but the G1X II has more than satisfied my hopes in terms of image quality and in terms of operational speed. The build quality is also fantastic. Which is nice.

I suspect that if your priority is a camera that can fit in a pocket you'll probably go for the G7X but if the EVF and the slightly larger body appeals then maybe the G1XII.

One last point, the battery life is turning out to be far better than the specs might have you believe.

 

[Tom Hoots]

What swung the G1XII my way in this comparison was the ability to add the external EVF. I don't mind using an LCD under certain circumstances but bright sunlight isn't one of them and the EVF totally transforms the viewing / composing experience. It is a lot more more useful and accurate than the OVF on my old G11 / G12 was.

Yes, indeed there is the available OVF for the G1X Mark II to consider, along with how you can also add external flashes and such. Another thing to consider is that the G1X Mark II has the means to attach filters, which the G7X lacks.

I don't have any results from a G7X but the G1X II has more than satisfied my hopes in terms of image quality and in terms of operational speed. The build quality is also fantastic. Which is nice.

Agreed with all of that. Actually, the build quality of both cameras is very, very good.

I suspect that if your priority is a camera that can fit in a pocket you'll probably go for the G7X but if the EVF and the slightly larger body appeals then maybe the G1XII.

From what I've seen so far, I would say "get the G7X if you want a pocket camera," or get the G1X Mark II if the camera just doesn't "need" to be pocketable, and then enjoy all of the benefits it offers over the G7X.

One last point, the battery life is turning out to be far better than the specs might have you believe.

I have mentioned that in my other thread, but let me repeat it here:

As I have mentioned, I "use exposure bracketing almost all of the time." I'm glad I did so in my most recent outing at the Museum of Flight, because I'm finally learning that the G7X exposes about one 1/3 step darker than the G1X Mark II does. I had them both set at -1/3 exposure compensation, as I have done with most Canon cameras over the years, but it became clear that the G7X at zero exposure compensation was most equivalent to the G1X Mark II at -1/3 EC.

At any rate, with the G1X Mark II, I have taken between 1,300 and 2,000 shots on one battery about a dozen times without exhausting a battery, and I have only managed to exhaust a battery two times -- one time with a count of 2,663, and the other with 2,358.

And about a week ago, part of my agenda was to exhaust the battery on my G7X, and I got 2,270 shots.

My experiences with most other cameras have been that around 1,200 shots, doing the very same kind of bracketing I'm still doing now, is about the best I could do. And many cameras couldn't do that many. So, there's just no doubt about it in my mind -- I'm getting essentially DOUBLE the shots on a single battery with these two cameras than I have been able to get with any other camera I've ever owned. And I have owned quite a few cameras -- I need to "update my spreadsheet," but my personal camera count is somewhere around "60" at this point.

If you haven't looked up the CIPA standard, there are really only two things about it that would have an impact on battery life:

1. Every other shot must use flash.

2. The camera's powered zoom must be extended or contracted the entire length of the zoom range BETWEEN EVERY SINGLE SHOT.

That's it. So, it really has virtually NOTHING to do with "how many shots you can take" -- it's all about using the flash, and about massively, massively using the zoom function dozens (or HUNDREDS) of times more than any normal human being would use it.

I would submit that the CIPA standard has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how human beings actually use cameras, and, unless you truly use flash every other shot, and use the full length of the zoom between every single shot, its results do not correspond in any way to any kind of "comparable" standard between different cameras. I think it is absolutely RUBBISH, and it is just lousy, stinking, lazy "reporting" for reviewers to just sit in their offices and report "bad battery life" by just quoting the CIPA standard, rather than going out and doing some kind of "normal human being" shooting and reporting what normal human beings can expect to get.


Tom Hoots

Galleries by thoots

www.pbase.com

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

 

[geepondy]

About two years ago, my friend with small children was looking for advice on upgrading from a point and shoot and was pondering between the original G1X or a DSLR. I pointed her towards a DSLR (Rebel T4i at the time) and she's been very happy. She can get by with the kit 28-55 lens most of the time and can use the affordable 55-250 when she needs extra reach. With you having a small child, you haven't considered a DSLR as an option? None of these candidates hold a candle to it in terms of focus and shot to shot times compared to a DSLR. With the DSLR, you just push the shutter and take the picture, you usually don't have to take any anticipatory measures. I realize you do give up the fast lens unless you wish to spend serious glass money.

 

[Travelshooter]

Like many I'm a bit torn on this decision as well. I've owned and used many Canon's over the years from 5DMKII to T2i to G9 through G12, S90, S95 (still) and the G 1 X. Sometimes they are a primary and sometimes secondary shooter. Besides the Canon's I've shot Fuji (X Pro 1 still), m4/3 Panny's and Olympus.

Most of my photography is travel related so IQ, flexibility and portability are at the top of the scale, and I only shoot raw doing PP in LR. What I've learned along the way is that with any reasonable fast lens I don't need a flash, and 28mm is not wide enough but you can get bye with 24. I learned this by carrying a Canon 10-22 all over Asia for three shots I could have lived without.

My number one issue now is gear weight. The best camera you have is the one you have with you and that has become more important as I have reached the second half of my 60's and my kit has gotten lighter and simpler as the years have progressed. The X Pro 1 (a camera I love) is 1340 grams with the 18-55 and 55-200. I don't want to carry that much weight and a glass bag on daily tours. The G1X MKII is 553 grams (+ viewfinder) which compares to 760 grams on the neck with the X Pro 1 and 18-55, but is still a bit bulky and not pocketable size. The G7X is 304 grams. I had a G 1X which I took to Thailand for 7 weeks and found the IQ amazing despite the lens being not being wide enough and the shooting experience poor to was just plain annoying due to sluggish response time in everything, control button placement and poor viewfinder. I read that has improved on all counts.

I'm probably going to add a Sony RX100 M3 to the mix and let the wife shoot it instead of the S95, but I'm torn, like many others on the G1X MKII or G7X for myself as an additional camera for day walking tours. The additional $$ for the optional EVF is not a consideration.

 

[Tom Hoots]

What I would like to know between the Mark II and G7X is the following:
1) How does the image quality compare across the ISO range? Is the difference enough to warrant not going for the more pocketable model. Form factor is not a primary consideration but if the difference is marginal then I may consider the more pocketable option.

In other news, I just returned my G7X -- I'm sure you can find my thread about that. It is massively softer than the G1X Mark II at all focal ranges, and after working around the wide end of the aperture range, it just boiled down to how I really didn't think I could use the entire "fast and wide" part of the lens, at all. The G1X Mark II just beats the G7X in every way, when it comes to image quality.

2) Which has better handling and operational speed(focus lock on, shot to shot time, write times shooting RAW etc)

I never used RAW at all, so I can't speak about that, but otherwise, the G7X was a bit faster all around than the G1X Mark II. I really just loved the G7X as a camera to use, but I just grew 100% disappointed with its image quality.

3) Which has the better lens overall taking into consideration sharpness, aberattions, vignetting, softness etc

As I've said before, I think the G1X Mark II has delivered better image quality than any camera I've ever owned. Meanwhile, the G7X ended up being a huge disappointment. One thing you mention is "aberrations," and indeed, the G7X also had noticeable color fringing and such, which the G1X Mark II utterly lacked. I highly recommend the G1X Mark II, but will only "wish you better luck than I had" if you decide to go for a G7X.

Also if there is anything else that is worth mentioning that is of importance then please state it.

After doing a lot of research after returning my G7X, I decided to get the Sony RX100 III. I simply think that Canon was waay too ambitious with the G7X's lens, to the point that it is inferior pretty much all throughout its range. I finally "saw the light" in Sony's decision to cut back on the RX100 III's focal range, so they didn't have to compromise so much like Canon did in order to make the lens work. The RX100 III has what appears to be a massively better lens than the G7X, and better than the previous RX100 models (and I own the original RX100 model).

Pull up the DPReview review of the Sony RX10, and see the chart that shows how the G1X Mark II has the fastest "equivalent" aperture range of anything comparable to it. Pull up the Imaging Resource Comparometer, and check out the G7X versus the RX100 III, especially the "new indoor" shot at base ISO -- that's the one with the female mannequin in the green jacket. Look at the detail in the texture on the back wall, in the picture on the wall, in the mannequin's face, in the texture of the green jacket, and so on. The massive differences you see in image sharpness and detail are absolutely real. And, have a good look at the color -- given that the G7X shot has a noticeably brighter exposure than the RX100 III has, the colors are pretty similar -- the RX100 III is probably closer in color to the G7X than it is to its earlier versions. Yeah, that's JPEG color, and it sound like you want to shoot RAW, but it is encouraging that Sony's new in-camera processing is getting closer to "Canon color."

If you want a smallish camera with fantastic image quality, I sure recommend the G1X Mark II. But I really found the G7X to be a big disappointment. Wonderful piece of equipment, but with truly flawed image quality. Perhaps you could live with it by shooting RAW, and by working around issues with the wide end of the aperture range. Or, you could get a camera that just doesn't have its image quality issues. Me, I'll wait and see if Canon comes out with a G7X Mark II that features a much-improved lens.

Good luck!

Tom Hoots

Galleries by thoots

www.pbase.com

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

 

[jonrobertp]

And the big difference is the size. Do u want a pocket cam or not ? IQ is not much difference. AF the newest G is faster, and has EC in manual w manual ISO .

Both have occasional non focus. You learn to work around it. Touch AF helps.

in P mode the larger G uses higher ISO every time, whopich negates the advantage of the larger sensor quite a bit.

The smaller G keeps the ISO lower...which is a good thing.

best wishes.

J

 

[afrobeezy]

Pull up the DPReview review of the Sony RX10, and see the chart that shows how the G1X Mark II has the fastest "equivalent" aperture range of anything comparable to it. Pull up the Imaging Resource Comparometer, and check out the G7X versus the RX100 III, especially the "new indoor" shot at base ISO -- that's the one with the female mannequin in the green jacket. Look at the detail in the texture on the back wall, in the picture on the wall, in the mannequin's face, in the texture of the green jacket, and so on. The massive differences you see in image sharpness and detail are absolutely real.

Well, first you should consider that the reason you returned the G7x was that it was "soft" compared to the G1XM2. So... if you compare the G7x to the G1XM2 in the IR comparometer, the G7x fares much, much better - in particular, the buttons of the mannequin's green jacket. The buttons are literally blurry on the G1XM2 image, while the text is clearly visible on the G7x image. You should take a look for yourself.

Regarding the RX100MK3 and the G7x comparison... sure, the picture in the back is less detailed with the G7x, but if you look at the wine label, the text is clearer on the G7x. The cork in front of the wine is clearer, too. This tells me whatever extra "detail" you're seeing with the RX100MK3 is not actual detail - it's just the RX100MK3 rendering dark lines darker (which is what you're seeing with the picture in the back, as well as the wallpaper), which in some cases makes the detail actually worse (as shown in the wine label).

 

[Terry Moeller]

Thank you for your extensive review with images. It is most helpful!

 

[pete guaron]

Thanks for your comments Tom - may I just say, it's one of the best sets of comments I've ever come across on the 'net! I know you made your comments around 18 months back, but they are still relevant & helpful, and I'm about to buy one or other of the cams so it was timely for me, discovering your posting.

 

[Yannis1976]

I don't have the G1X but have a Panasonic GX7 which is a very capable camera and the G7X. I have posted several comparisons between the Panny and the Canon, and find the latter a quite capable camera given its size. If you have time and willing to read, I would be happy to post the links here.

If I were you I would also see the G7X mK2 which has corrected some of the flaws of the G7X (AF, RAW). For sharpness, just increase the aperture to F4 and more and you are done.

 

[Cyclopic Fun]

Nice comparison and most helpful. Much appreciated.

 

[Travelshooter]

FWIW, I can't imagine the Sony RX100 m4 doesn't purely smoke it.

 

[surelythisnameisfree]

Maybe for you. For me Sony ruined the Rx100 series when they reduced the reach to 70mm