A Bit Disappointed with the G5X

I picked up a G5X after Xmas as an upgrade to my G12. The G12 has been my trusted travel companion when I don't want to lug around my DSLR gear.  I have to say I am a little disappointed. It has all the features I wanted and the OVF is great. But the the lens and noise performance is not what I had hoped.

Looking at the same RAW images taken on both cameras,  the lens resolution seems to be around the same,  so that there appears to be no benefit in having almost twice as many pixels,  the G5X lens is definitely soft,  particularly at the wide end.

There is slightly more noise on the G5X than the G12 also.

Maybe I will forgoe the OVF and stick with the G12 or give the G1X a try.

How are others who are upgrading Don older G cameras funding it?

I would find it really strange that G12`s 1/1.7" sensor (with its 10 MP and an f/2.8-f/4.5 lens, and yes, I know 4.5 is at 140 mm equivalent) is giving a better image quality than a G5X`s 1" one (with its f/1.8-f/2.8 lens, and 20 MP). Maybe, but just huge maybe in a really good light (as G12 has a CCD sensor which some consider sharper), but as soon as shooting conditions get out of "ideal" zone, G5X`s light gathering abilities should win hands down (because of both the sensor size and lens speed).

That said, if you`re comparing both images at 100%, then I think you`re simply doing the wrong thing. One of the ideas of higher resolution cameras is not (just) to allow for bigger print sizes (or viewing at higher resolution screens) - while you can do that, of course (but usually without much noticeable improvement in quality), the biggest gain is in having a better image at the same (physical) size as before (but with more mega-pixels now, thus a possibility for more data/details, and a better image).

I can`t say I don`t know the feeling - coming from a 3.2 MP CCD camera (Canon A75) to a 12.1 MP CMOS one (Canon IXUS 220HS) I was shocked with the decrease in image quality... when looking both at 100% But what happened is that camera market made a shift in the meantime, blowing up mega-pixels and changing its philosophy - and yes, actually printing the same sized image was now at least the same, or usually better, with that important difference that shots which were impossible to make (because of difficult/missing light) with A75 were now more or less easily achievable with IXUS 220HS.

p.s. Ok, I re-read your post, and being a dSLR user, I guess you don`t need me to tell you about the stuff I previously wrote (I`ll leave it as it may come of some use to others)... But then, I must say that I`m really surprised by your disappointment - could you post some images (even better - RAW files), helping us to see where/why your expectations failed?

I`m interested because I have G7X (sharing the same sensor/lens combo with G5X), and I`m nothing short of impressed with it`s capabilities so far (and all the data inside the RAW file)... but yes, I understand that not everyone has the same needs/views

redsars wrote:

I picked up a G5X after Xmas as an upgrade to my G12. The G12 has been my trusted travel companion when I don't want to lug around my DSLR gear. I have to say I am a little disappointed. It has all the features I wanted and the OVF is great. But the the lens and noise performance is not what I had hoped.

Looking at the same RAW images taken on both cameras, the lens resolution seems to be around the same, so that there appears to be no benefit in having almost twice as many pixels, the G5X lens is definitely soft, particularly at the wide end.

There's a reason that the corrected G5X and G7X images look soft at the wide end: the original image suffers from heavy barrel distortion and vignetting. The image needs a lot of stretching to correct it, which softens it:

Uncorrected image shows strong barrel distortion and vignetting. The projected image circle doesn't cover the full sensor area.

boogisha wrote:

I would find it really strange that G12`s 1/1.7" sensor (with its 10 MP and an f/2.8-f/4.5 lens, and yes, I know 4.5 is at 140 mm equivalent) is giving a better image quality than a G5X`s 1" one (with its f/1.8-f/2.8 lens, and 20 MP). Maybe, but just huge maybe in a really good light (as G12 has a CCD sensor which some consider sharper), but as soon as shooting conditions get out of "ideal" zone, G5X`s light gathering abilities should win hands down (because of both the sensor size and lens speed).

That said, if you`re comparing both images at 100%, then I think you`re simply doing the wrong thing. One of the ideas of higher resolution cameras is not (just) to allow for bigger print sizes (or viewing at higher resolution screens) - while you can do that, of course (but usually without much noticeable improvement in quality), the biggest gain is in having a better image at the same (physical) size as before (but with more mega-pixels now, thus a possibility for more data/details, and a better image).

I can`t say I don`t know the feeling - coming from a 3.2 MP CCD camera (Canon A75) to a 12.1 MP CMOS one (Canon IXUS 220HS) I was shocked with the decrease in image quality... when looking both at 100% But what happened is that camera market made a shift in the meantime, blowing up mega-pixels and changing its philosophy - and yes, actually printing the same sized image was now at least the same, or usually better, with that important difference that shots which were impossible to make (because of difficult/missing light) with A75 were now more or less easily achievable with IXUS 220HS.

p.s.Ok, I re-read your post, and being a dSLR user, I guess you don`t need me to tell you about the stuff I previously wrote (I`ll leave it as it may come of some use to others)... But then, I must say that I`m really surprised by your disappointment - could you post some images (even better - RAW files), helping us to see where/why your expectations failed?

I`m interested because I have G7X (sharing the same sensor/lens combo with G5X), and I`m nothing short of impressed with it`s capabilities so far (and all the data inside the RAW file)... but yes, I understand that not everyone has the same needs/views

I don't think that the sensor is at issue with the G5X as outlined by the OP; it's the lens that's the problem.

Jim

Jim wrote:

I don't think that the sensor is at issue with the G5X as outlined by the OP; it's the lens that's the problem.

I was talking about sensor/lens as a combo that works together, providing the image you get in the end. We shouldn`t discuss them apart as we are not shooting them apart.

While G5 X`s lens is probably (not to say - certainly) more compromised than G12`s one (as it needs to cover decently bigger sensor area in a similar, compact package), its overall output as a result of both sensor/lens combination (and 20 MP RAW) should win over G12 in most of shooting situations (probably not all, but close to it, and not if viewing both images at 100%, as previously explained).

I imagine G12 might, just might produce sharper/better images when both cameras are shot at their wide(st) ends (most noticeably in the image corners), and with a lot of light in the scene - but as soon as you start zooming in or amount of light starts decreasing, G5 X should be a pretty clear winner. And we shouldn`t forget that G12 starts at 28 mm (equivalent), so it should be even closer with 28 mm on G5 X (in comparison to 24 mm, like the image Digital Nigel posted).

That`s why I`m interested in discussing concrete RAW examples from both cameras, getting to see why redsars (original poster) formed an opinion like that. In the end, might be that he got a defective G5 X unit...?

I think there is probably a consensus that G5 X`s lens is more compromised (I never owned G12, but it could make sense), but even so I don`t think the overall result (RAW image) should be worse than G12`s one - it should even be much better nonetheless, except (maybe) in a few situations where G5 X`s lens is pushed to the limit, and that`s what I`m interested in.

If redsars  finds G12 output to be better than (or up to par with) G5 X in a majority of situations, then it seems like something is wrong there, don`t you think?

Digital Nigel wrote:

redsars wrote:

I picked up a G5X after Xmas as an upgrade to my G12. The G12 has been my trusted travel companion when I don't want to lug around my DSLR gear. I have to say I am a little disappointed. It has all the features I wanted and the OVF is great. But the the lens and noise performance is not what I had hoped.

Looking at the same RAW images taken on both cameras, the lens resolution seems to be around the same, so that there appears to be no benefit in having almost twice as many pixels, the G5X lens is definitely soft, particularly at the wide end.

There's a reason that the corrected G5X and G7X images look soft at the wide end: the original image suffers from heavy barrel distortion and vignetting. The image needs a lot of stretching to correct it, which softens it:

Uncorrected image shows strong barrel distortion and vignetting. The projected image circle doesn't cover the full sensor area.

My I ask where was that photo taken? 

lanefAU wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

redsars wrote:

I picked up a G5X after Xmas as an upgrade to my G12. The G12 has been my trusted travel companion when I don't want to lug around my DSLR gear. I have to say I am a little disappointed. It has all the features I wanted and the OVF is great. But the the lens and noise performance is not what I had hoped.

Looking at the same RAW images taken on both cameras, the lens resolution seems to be around the same, so that there appears to be no benefit in having almost twice as many pixels, the G5X lens is definitely soft, particularly at the wide end.

There's a reason that the corrected G5X and G7X images look soft at the wide end: the original image suffers from heavy barrel distortion and vignetting. The image needs a lot of stretching to correct it, which softens it:

Uncorrected image shows strong barrel distortion and vignetting. The projected image circle doesn't cover the full sensor area.

My I ask where was that photo taken?

Varadero, Cuba. More in:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157663285759165

or for more sets from the same trip last month:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/collections/72157662076870009/

In good light CCD sensors were awesome indeed.

When I heard about the arrival of a G5X, I thought GREAT, finally a real serious upate for the traditinal G compact . when I then read that it was using the Horribly compromised optic from the G7X , well that was the end of that ........

What a Waste Canon ! it`s one thing sticking a lens like that on a cam the size of an S90 but the G5X deserved - no, DEMANDED a no compromise lens, sadly canon decided to cut corners hoping no one would notice.

Ahh well, back to the big bulky G1X

meland wrote:

AdamT wrote:

When I heard about the arrival of a G5X, I thought GREAT, finally a real serious upate for the traditinal G compact . when I then read that it was using the Horribly compromised optic from the G7X , well that was the end of that ........

What a Waste Canon ! it`s one thing sticking a lens like that on a cam the size of an S90 but the G5X deserved - no, DEMANDED a no compromise lens, sadly canon decided to cut corners hoping no one would notice.

Ahh well, back to the big bulky G1X

A "no compromise lens" with similar specifications / price might have made it totally unattractive to most potential users, certainly in terms of size. The cynics may say they should have done better and accuse Canon of cutting corners (probably without any experience of the compromises required in lens design); the pragmatists might argue that the product meets their needs at a price they are prepared to pay.

This G7X compromised lens nonsense is just that... nonsense. All of these cameras are compromised to some degree. Every few days there's a new experienced photographer coming from DSLR posting to praise G7X IQ.

Greynerd wrote:

I wonder if the G9X which is not pushing zoom or aperture may in fact be be the classier act. I hope Cameralabs put the G5X and G9X images side by side when they test the latter.

I wouldn't have bought the G5X if it had been the "classier act" with the more limited (in range and aperture) lens.

j-p

NWT wrote:

Sony is limited because it does not spend money to design or produce its lens.

Sony reduced the zoom range in the later RX100 models, compared to the earlier ones, in order to improve image quality, particularly at the wide end. Canon went for a more ambitious zoom range, at the expense of IQ at the wide end. Both are understandable decisions, and no-one should be surprised that a wider zoom lens is more compromised. My personal preference is for Canon's wider zoom range in a compact package, because when I want high quality wide angle shots, I have other cameras that do that better anyway.

Where Canon really cut corners was in the electronics, where it skimped on the buffer size, so burst mode is very slow, particularly with RAW shots, and a number of RAM-intensive nifty features that Sony does very well are missing altogether, such as in-camera panorama, various multi-frame NR options and good HDR. Sony also managed to squeeze in an EVF without making the body any bigger.

boogisha wrote:

Jim wrote:

I don't think that the sensor is at issue with the G5X as outlined by the OP; it's the lens that's the problem.

I was talking about sensor/lens as a combo that works together, providing the image you get in the end. We shouldn`t discuss them apart as we are not shooting them apart.

Sure you can. That's like saying you shouldn't discuss an engine and transmission separately in a car because you use them both together. It doesn't work that way. The lens and sensor are separate components that have their respective characteristics, good or bad, and should be judged accordingly.

Jim