Versus Sony RX100V

PGH423 wrote:

seb_LF wrote:

Reading most of the bad reviews on the G1X-III, and this one in particular, makes me think that Canon shoot themselves in the foot by adding too much versatility to the product.

Let me explain : this is because instead of looking at this camera as a fixed zoom lens, I do look at it like an fixe prime lens with a situational zoom for added versatility (I know, my mind is twisted that way), and then compare this to the like of the beloved Rico GR / GRII or the XF10, X70 or X100F .

For example compared to the GRII this has the added :

• 24 MP instead of 16
• EVF
• Image stabilization
• Weather sealing
• Fully articulated LCD
• And a situational optical zoom

So while a lot of people are waiting for a GR update this one looks up to the task for me (ok it is a bit bulkier though, its closer to the X100F)… and I don’t find this quite a high price tag for all those extra feature either.

Or is the optical quality at 24 mm so bad ? (there seems to be a lot of contradiction on the subject)

Considering low light capability, I don’t get it either. Everybody is focusing on the zoomed performances … (someone talk about drafting Shaq for free throw ?)

At 24mm it is brighter than any 1” sensor (except for the LX10 and I’m still crying over the lack of EVF), and with less noise at a given ISO value, at 24mm it have superior low light capability I believe, no ?

So while it does not have the versatility of a long bright zoom for portrait or action shooting, it is better than most fixed prime lens APS-C camera out there and more versatile, while nobody is pilling on their low light capability on the long end because … they do not have any. (You may prefer the X100F but looking at all my shots I find that I shoot most of them at 28mm even with the 28-300 mm of my stylus 1, so I'm more interested in 24mm than 35mm)

Then maybe this is more a question of what feature is more important for you :

• Best IQ at one focal length (the reason why the GR & co exist I believe)
• More versatile focal range (other GX, RX and the like)

What do you think ? How would that camera have been rated if it did not have any zoom capability ?

Regarding brightness at 24 mm, the G7X and G7X II can open to f 1.8.

At a shorter focal length so the G1X III with its 5.4mm aperture wide open is getting in more light than the 4.5mm of the 1" cameras.

Always a problem with this idea that a f1.8 aperture on a short focal length small sensor camera is brighter than an higher f number on a longer focal length lens.

The G1X Mk III is very much geared to match the bright prime aps-c cameras with the zoom as an extra.

I prefer the Mk II myself as it is the only one capable of real subject separation with its 62.5 mm f3.9 lens which is a very fast m43 zoom in effect and very compact all things considered but the Mk III has its niche I think.

PGH423 wrote:

KeepCalm wrote:

PGH423 wrote:

seb_LF wrote:

Reading most of the bad reviews on the G1X-III, and this one in particular, makes me think that Canon shoot themselves in the foot by adding too much versatility to the product.

Let me explain : this is because instead of looking at this camera as a fixed zoom lens, I do look at it like an fixe prime lens with a situational zoom for added versatility (I know, my mind is twisted that way), and then compare this to the like of the beloved Rico GR / GRII or the XF10, X70 or X100F .

For example compared to the GRII this has the added :

• 24 MP instead of 16
• EVF
• Image stabilization
• Weather sealing
• Fully articulated LCD
• And a situational optical zoom

So while a lot of people are waiting for a GR update this one looks up to the task for me (ok it is a bit bulkier though, its closer to the X100F)… and I don’t find this quite a high price tag for all those extra feature either.

Or is the optical quality at 24 mm so bad ? (there seems to be a lot of contradiction on the subject)

Considering low light capability, I don’t get it either. Everybody is focusing on the zoomed performances … (someone talk about drafting Shaq for free throw ?)

At 24mm it is brighter than any 1” sensor (except for the LX10 and I’m still crying over the lack of EVF), and with less noise at a given ISO value, at 24mm it have superior low light capability I believe, no ?

So while it does not have the versatility of a long bright zoom for portrait or action shooting, it is better than most fixed prime lens APS-C camera out there and more versatile, while nobody is pilling on their low light capability on the long end because … they do not have any. (You may prefer the X100F but looking at all my shots I find that I shoot most of them at 28mm even with the 28-300 mm of my stylus 1, so I'm more interested in 24mm than 35mm)

Then maybe this is more a question of what feature is more important for you :

• Best IQ at one focal length (the reason why the GR & co exist I believe)
• More versatile focal range (other GX, RX and the like)

What do you think ? How would that camera have been rated if it did not have any zoom capability ?

Regarding brightness at 24 mm, the G7X and G7X II can open to f 1.8.

At a shorter focal length so the G1X III with its 5.4mm aperture wide open is getting in more light than the 4.5mm of the 1" cameras.

Always a problem with this idea that a f1.8 aperture on a short focal length small sensor camera is brighter than an higher f number on a longer focal length lens.

The G1X Mk III is very much geared to match the bright prime aps-c cameras with the zoom as an extra.

I prefer the Mk II myself as it is the only one capable of real subject separation with its 62.5 mm f3.9 lens which is a very fast m43 zoom in effect and very compact all things considered but the Mk III has its niche I think.

That's an interesting point. I'm just beginning to get the technical knowledge for this kind of discussion but I thought aperture equivalents mattered only for depth of field and not exposure settings. So the G1X III would need a higher ISO if shot wide open at 24 mm at the same shutter speed than the G7X II, right?

No a faster shutter speed could be used as it is a faster lens. Small sensor cameras can have faster lenses because they use shorter focal lengths for the same field of view meaning a narrower aperture for the same f number. But that faster shutter speed will be letting in less light because the smaller sensor needs less light with its smaller area but that reflects in the total output of the sensor as the light flux per unit area will be the same on both sensors.

It only becomes a problem when you are struggling with slow shutter speeds but the larger aperture lets in more light so the higher ISO will not be a problem with the larger sensor and provided you can get enough light to expose the sensor surface the aps-c sensor has 2.6x the light energy falling on it so should be better than the 1" sensor.

People tend to focus entirely on the extreme operational edges of these cameras but in normal situations where the light is adequate the properly exposed G1X III sensor has over twice the light power kicking off the whole process irrespective of aperture or shutter speed. I think this idea that large sensors come in to their own at high ISOs obscures the fact that at low ISOs where possible the larger sensor is receiving much more light power to initiate the whole conversion process to the image through the electronics. The noise generated because of the larger sensor size is apparently a minor issue.

I would welcome any comment on this and I am not against 1" sensors as they give good performance for size but I think this f number is aperture makes people underestimate the power of the G1x III for general use.

KeepCalm wrote:

PGH423 wrote:

KeepCalm wrote:

PGH423 wrote:

seb_LF wrote:

Reading most of the bad reviews on the G1X-III, and this one in particular, makes me think that Canon shoot themselves in the foot by adding too much versatility to the product.

Let me explain : this is because instead of looking at this camera as a fixed zoom lens, I do look at it like an fixe prime lens with a situational zoom for added versatility (I know, my mind is twisted that way), and then compare this to the like of the beloved Rico GR / GRII or the XF10, X70 or X100F .

For example compared to the GRII this has the added :

• 24 MP instead of 16
• EVF
• Image stabilization
• Weather sealing
• Fully articulated LCD
• And a situational optical zoom

So while a lot of people are waiting for a GR update this one looks up to the task for me (ok it is a bit bulkier though, its closer to the X100F)… and I don’t find this quite a high price tag for all those extra feature either.

Or is the optical quality at 24 mm so bad ? (there seems to be a lot of contradiction on the subject)

Considering low light capability, I don’t get it either. Everybody is focusing on the zoomed performances … (someone talk about drafting Shaq for free throw ?)

At 24mm it is brighter than any 1” sensor (except for the LX10 and I’m still crying over the lack of EVF), and with less noise at a given ISO value, at 24mm it have superior low light capability I believe, no ?

So while it does not have the versatility of a long bright zoom for portrait or action shooting, it is better than most fixed prime lens APS-C camera out there and more versatile, while nobody is pilling on their low light capability on the long end because … they do not have any. (You may prefer the X100F but looking at all my shots I find that I shoot most of them at 28mm even with the 28-300 mm of my stylus 1, so I'm more interested in 24mm than 35mm)

Then maybe this is more a question of what feature is more important for you :

• Best IQ at one focal length (the reason why the GR & co exist I believe)
• More versatile focal range (other GX, RX and the like)

What do you think ? How would that camera have been rated if it did not have any zoom capability ?

Regarding brightness at 24 mm, the G7X and G7X II can open to f 1.8.

At a shorter focal length so the G1X III with its 5.4mm aperture wide open is getting in more light than the 4.5mm of the 1" cameras.

Always a problem with this idea that a f1.8 aperture on a short focal length small sensor camera is brighter than an higher f number on a longer focal length lens.

The G1X Mk III is very much geared to match the bright prime aps-c cameras with the zoom as an extra.

I prefer the Mk II myself as it is the only one capable of real subject separation with its 62.5 mm f3.9 lens which is a very fast m43 zoom in effect and very compact all things considered but the Mk III has its niche I think.

That's an interesting point. I'm just beginning to get the technical knowledge for this kind of discussion but I thought aperture equivalents mattered only for depth of field and not exposure settings. So the G1X III would need a higher ISO if shot wide open at 24 mm at the same shutter speed than the G7X II, right?

No a faster shutter speed could be used as it is a faster lens. Small sensor cameras can have faster lenses because they use shorter focal lengths for the same field of view meaning a narrower aperture for the same f number. But that faster shutter speed will be letting in less light because the smaller sensor needs less light with its smaller area but that reflects in the total output of the sensor as the light flux per unit area will be the same on both sensors.

It only becomes a problem when you are struggling with slow shutter speeds but the larger aperture lets in more light so the higher ISO will not be a problem with the larger sensor and provided you can get enough light to expose the sensor surface the aps-c sensor has 2.6x the light energy falling on it so should be better than the 1" sensor.

People tend to focus entirely on the extreme operational edges of these cameras but in normal situations where the light is adequate the properly exposed G1X III sensor has over twice the light power kicking off the whole process irrespective of aperture or shutter speed. I think this idea that large sensors come in to their own at high ISOs obscures the fact that at low ISOs where possible the larger sensor is receiving much more light power to initiate the whole conversion process to the image through the electronics. The noise generated because of the larger sensor size is apparently a minor issue.

I would welcome any comment on this and I am not against 1" sensors as they give good performance for size but I think this f number is aperture makes people underestimate the power of the G1x III for general use.

I think it’s a brilliant post. Should be made a sticky.

Plagen wrote:

KeepCalm wrote:

PGH423 wrote:

KeepCalm wrote:

PGH423 wrote:

seb_LF wrote:

Reading most of the bad reviews on the G1X-III, and this one in particular, makes me think that Canon shoot themselves in the foot by adding too much versatility to the product.

Let me explain : this is because instead of looking at this camera as a fixed zoom lens, I do look at it like an fixe prime lens with a situational zoom for added versatility (I know, my mind is twisted that way), and then compare this to the like of the beloved Rico GR / GRII or the XF10, X70 or X100F .

For example compared to the GRII this has the added :

• 24 MP instead of 16
• EVF
• Image stabilization
• Weather sealing
• Fully articulated LCD
• And a situational optical zoom

So while a lot of people are waiting for a GR update this one looks up to the task for me (ok it is a bit bulkier though, its closer to the X100F)… and I don’t find this quite a high price tag for all those extra feature either.

Or is the optical quality at 24 mm so bad ? (there seems to be a lot of contradiction on the subject)

Considering low light capability, I don’t get it either. Everybody is focusing on the zoomed performances … (someone talk about drafting Shaq for free throw ?)

At 24mm it is brighter than any 1” sensor (except for the LX10 and I’m still crying over the lack of EVF), and with less noise at a given ISO value, at 24mm it have superior low light capability I believe, no ?

So while it does not have the versatility of a long bright zoom for portrait or action shooting, it is better than most fixed prime lens APS-C camera out there and more versatile, while nobody is pilling on their low light capability on the long end because … they do not have any. (You may prefer the X100F but looking at all my shots I find that I shoot most of them at 28mm even with the 28-300 mm of my stylus 1, so I'm more interested in 24mm than 35mm)

Then maybe this is more a question of what feature is more important for you :

• Best IQ at one focal length (the reason why the GR & co exist I believe)
• More versatile focal range (other GX, RX and the like)

What do you think ? How would that camera have been rated if it did not have any zoom capability ?

Regarding brightness at 24 mm, the G7X and G7X II can open to f 1.8.

At a shorter focal length so the G1X III with its 5.4mm aperture wide open is getting in more light than the 4.5mm of the 1" cameras.

Always a problem with this idea that a f1.8 aperture on a short focal length small sensor camera is brighter than an higher f number on a longer focal length lens.

The G1X Mk III is very much geared to match the bright prime aps-c cameras with the zoom as an extra.

I prefer the Mk II myself as it is the only one capable of real subject separation with its 62.5 mm f3.9 lens which is a very fast m43 zoom in effect and very compact all things considered but the Mk III has its niche I think.

That's an interesting point. I'm just beginning to get the technical knowledge for this kind of discussion but I thought aperture equivalents mattered only for depth of field and not exposure settings. So the G1X III would need a higher ISO if shot wide open at 24 mm at the same shutter speed than the G7X II, right?

No a faster shutter speed could be used as it is a faster lens. Small sensor cameras can have faster lenses because they use shorter focal lengths for the same field of view meaning a narrower aperture for the same f number. But that faster shutter speed will be letting in less light because the smaller sensor needs less light with its smaller area but that reflects in the total output of the sensor as the light flux per unit area will be the same on both sensors.

It only becomes a problem when you are struggling with slow shutter speeds but the larger aperture lets in more light so the higher ISO will not be a problem with the larger sensor and provided you can get enough light to expose the sensor surface the aps-c sensor has 2.6x the light energy falling on it so should be better than the 1" sensor.

People tend to focus entirely on the extreme operational edges of these cameras but in normal situations where the light is adequate the properly exposed G1X III sensor has over twice the light power kicking off the whole process irrespective of aperture or shutter speed. I think this idea that large sensors come in to their own at high ISOs obscures the fact that at low ISOs where possible the larger sensor is receiving much more light power to initiate the whole conversion process to the image through the electronics. The noise generated because of the larger sensor size is apparently a minor issue.

I would welcome any comment on this and I am not against 1" sensors as they give good performance for size but I think this f number is aperture makes people underestimate the power of the G1x III for general use.

I think it’s a brilliant post. Should be made a sticky.

Thanks Plagen. I appreciate the kind comment.

mouzhik wrote:

"I would welcome any comment on this and I am not against 1" sensors as they give good performance for size but I think this f number is aperture makes people underestimate the power of the G1x III for general use."

+1

Well, it's un understatement in my opinion.

But the simple truth is almost always naked and ugly: most people who slam the G1X III don't own it and/ or don't know it.

Disclaimer: I don't mind 1" sensors neither, I have just acquired the G9X II, it's an amazing little camera and it fits in my pockets!..;-)

I have the G9X Mk I and it is a lovely little camera. Very discrete but powerful and with the neutral looking brown one you can blend in with the mass of smartphone users in social situations.