Replacing My G12: G7X MkII, G1X Mk II or ?

You're welcome.  I really would like a camera with a hotshoe but was so disappointed with the G1X III.  I just don't want to go back to a compact camera with a slow lens under any circumstances.  As you mention though, it doesn't seem likely we will see a new powershot offering for at least the next several months.

John McCormack wrote:

Appreciate your quickly and informative reply.

geepondy wrote:

I replaced my G15 with a G7X because the G5X wasn't available at the time but do miss the ability to use an external flash. The The G5X EVF (I use one at work) is of course much nicer then the poor G15 OVF but that is less of a concern for me personally. Had the G5X been available at the time I upgraded, that would have been the natural progression for me. The G5X (along with G7X I and G3X) is not a particularly quick camera but if you compare to the G15, it's not bad. It actually focuses quicker but has sluggish shot to shot times. The non-existent raw burst mode was also not a factor for me.

Having said that, after now owning the G7X II which is light years faster, it would be hard for me to go back to the G7X/G5X. Also, one thing the G15 does excel at over the newer GX offerings is the macro and close up focusing. For that reason alone, I did not sell it and for work use where I sometimes do close up photography of PCB boards, I actually prefer it over the available G5X.

We share a similar thought between the G5X and G7X models. I was anticipating the G5X as the camera to replace the G15 with a faster RAW shot to shot time. For that to be nearly the same that was :(. The thought was that the G5X-II would integrate what was done in the G7X-II at some point. Oh well...

Agree about the macro.  The DOF was very useful in that format.

And still waiting...

I had the S95, G9x mark II and G1x mark II and still have the G7x mark III and G12. FWIW here are my thoughts:

G1x mark II: The best image quality of the bunch by a long way in terms of detail, noise (lack of!) and gradation. And that is despite having fewer pixels than the G9x ii and G7x III. It has an excellent fast lens and every feature you could possibly need - if not all that you might want!It has a hot shoe that takes a flash or the optional EVF. I had the EVF but I hardly ever used it because of the trouble of getting it out of my bag or pocket and attaching it. It is, however, a very good EVF, with much more resolution than the rear screen. If you want an EVF (and they are useful in bright sunlight) I'd advise looking for a camera that has one built in. Its 1.5" sensor is intermediate between APS-C and micro 4/3 and is huge compared to the 1" and 1/1.7" sensors in the others. This gives it much more ability to render out of focus backgrounds than any other camera here. Drawbacks are a slow frame rate in RAW and it is too big and heavy for a pocket camera.

G7x mark III: The fastest frame rate of the lot and lacking only a hot shoe and EVF in the feature department. Surprisingly, at its wide end the lens is softer in the corners than the slower lens of the G9x II. It is also surprisingly larger, heavier and less pocketable than the G9x II. One would not think 100g and a few fractions of inches could make such a difference. At low ISO (up to about 1000 ASA) the old G12 and S95 match its noise performance and (to my eye) deliver marginally nicer looking images.

G9x mark II: Along with the older S95 the most pocketable. A respectably fast burst rate and feature set, with IQ a little better than the G7x III at the wide end and hardly any worse at the long end, though of course it is a slower lens with a narrower range of focal lengths.

G12: Considering the tiny size of its sensor it competes surprisingly well against the other cameras here. It has the most traditional controls (dials and buttons for everything). It has a hot shoe (like the G1x mark II, but lacking in the G9x II and G7x II) and is the only camera here with a fully articulating screen, though it is not touch sensitive as on the later G- cameras. I think it is the nicest to use, and the older CCD technology shows less noise in expanses of colour such as blue skies and red cars than the newer CMOS designs, despite their larger size and features like BSI and stacked sensors. That is true up to around ISO 800. Beyond that images get rather noisy. The biggest drawback for me is the size and weight. At a little over 400 grams and boxy in shape It is only easily pocketable in an overcoat in winter!

S95: This is basically a simplified G12 in a slim, light (<200g) easily pocketable body. Like the near-identically sized G9x II it is a camera that is no trouble to have with you all the time. The IQ is identical to that of the G12. Among the simplifications is the single central focus point but that is no problem if you were brought up with film cameras where there was no choice but to focus (with the aid of a split prism or micro-prism) and recompose.

All five cameras can produce beautiful images. The older cameras get noisy at high ISO and shoot low-res video by 2019's standards, but if you don't intend to shoot in really dark conditions they will do the job. The main differentiators between the three more modern cameras are size and weight, sensor size, frame rate and lens. But they come at a much higher price than a second hand S95 or G12 and if you do not need the high-ISO, extra pixels and modern features thenthey are not going to give you significantly better images.

If IQ Is your top priority then the G1x II is far and away the best choice. Ignore all those stupid reviews that complain about the fiddly twin rings on the lens and the lack of DR. All they show is that the reviewers didn't take the time to get familiar with the controls and don't know how to expose properly within a camera's limitations.

For pocket-ability the G9x II and S95 are tied, but the later cameras is the winner because of its greater versatility.

For me the G7x iii is the best compromise between IQ, focal length, lens speed, frame rate, features and pocket-ability. It is temporarily a pain that none of my post-processing tools supports the new CR3 format yet. If you work with JPEGs that won't be an issue. Otherwise you can convert the CR3s to DNG with Adobe's converter and then import them into the post-processor of your choice. You can do some RAW processing in the camera, but what you can do is very limited. Or you can use Canon's DPP. It does a good job, but on my averagely-powerful laptop DPP is just too slow.

I have never used the G1x mark III. With its limited lens (f/2.8 max, narrower range of focal lengths) it did not appeal and, perhaps it ought not to matter, but think it looks rather silly, whereas the G1x mark II looks modern and classy. In its favour the mark III weighs significantly less than the mark II and it has the EVF built in. I think you just have to handle one to decide if it suits you. You cannot decide on the basis of tech specs and other people's opinions.

Of course to add to the confusion, there are always Fuji, Sony and Ricoh to consider, amongst others.

I hope this helps.

EDIT:

Whoops. Just noticed that the originalpost was March 2018.  Still, this might be helpful to someone else.

ianxponent wrote:

After a year and a half, I'm still happy with my choice of the G1X Mk II. Your discussion provides a great comparison of the cameras in question and I trust it will be useful to others. On a sad note, my G12 sustained damage in a fall so it will probably go on ebay as a parts only item. It was on a tripod in windy conditions and a gust blew it over and it hit solid rock forcefully. The screen no longer operates when in picture taking mode but does work in review mode. The pictures taken appear OK but I haven't studied them too closely.

Thank you for the thumbs-up

Failure of the articulating screen on the G12 is common. Canon charged me 50 Euros to replace the screen on  mine, and that was several years ago. Back then it was worth it but now it would be totally uneconomical to go that route (even if it is still available) when second hand G12's in excellent order sell for very little. The best way forward might be to replace the failed screen with a working one from another G12 that has failed in some other way.

This does show the foolishness of camera reviews that unconditionally mark the lack of a tilting screen as a disadvantage of any camera they review. It is simply a feature. Whether it is a plus or minus depends on which matters more to the photographer, convenience or robustness.