The G1X III's lens is SHARP! ...A comparison with DPRs own tool

[RLight]

I was writing something up on the R forum for a prospective RP customer trying to sway him/her to consider perhaps APS-C is good enough for travel (don't get me wrong, the RP paired with the right lens should be a good gig but APS-C gets you even smaller/lighter) and mentioned the G1X III both because I have it, but also because I personally find it finally strikes the "good enough" chord vs prior point and shoots I've used, RX100 (III in my case) series included, did not.

In the course of doing so, I stumbled upon DPR's own Compact Lens tool. Pretty cool.

To follow along, direct your browser to page 5 of the G1X III's own review, and scroll down to the compact lens tool and instead of comparing the G1X III against itself 4 times, put in something else for a lot more fun.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review/5



First up, note the distortion and lack of sharpness (and CA, but CA should go away in JPEG, which this test appears to be RAW based I gather) on the G7X wide open at 24mm. Note the Sony's lack of contrast, some detail and poor skin tone rendition (probably due to Sony's CFA for the poor skintone rendition) and the detail or noise is doing something weird in the LX100, even though this is supposed to be a lens test, there is some odd noise going on there. Winner? Well, you decide yourself. I'm not going to vote on this one as I know some folks are going to fight different ways for LX100 and RX100 here for different reasons. I'll point out you should evaluate it on sharpness, contrast and if you like your skin tones and don't like (a lot of) post processing, skin tones too.



Lets pick on a corner next.

The G1X III shows some serious CA, as does the G7X and LX100 to a lesser degree. The RX100 oddly doesn't. BTW, I don't believe for 2 seconds the RX100 has no CA under these conditions; I think in fact there is some RAW correction or otherwise occurring here for the RX100 to not show CA in a corner, wide open (nor can I find CA anywhere for the RX100 which is highly suspect). Keep in mind like the RX100, CA will go away with all 3 (or 4 if you count the already corrected RX100) cameras built-in corrections if shooting JPEG, or, your RAW processor of choice's corrections.

The contrast is an easy win for the G1X III. The sharpness here gets pretty darned close for the RX100 III though but is a hair better for the G1X III, possibly due to the contrast being substantially better (I wonder if the G1X III would be a stronger win here if it were corrected for CA like the RX100 III in this test?)



The G1X III scores a solid win here, by a wide margin across the board against the RX100 or G7X I might add. The LX100 fairs well here though and deserves kudos for a decent 2nd place considering how badly the 1" bodies did here.



Last but not least lets go back to a corner, except at 70mm.

The G1X III here wins really easily. Once again, the lack of CA on the RX100 is really a question mark.

I can re-run it a bunch of other ways but, the G1X III is on average beating the competition here in optical performance, pretty easily I might add and by a much larger margin then even I thought was happening. Quite impressive for a lens that DPR's own review quotes:

"Lens is somewhat soft, especially in comparison with ILC peers"

I respectfully disagree, using DRP's own tool. Humbug!

PS, those were all wide open, lets re-run them stopped down to f/8 for purposes of landscape performance shall we? Besides it's more tests, more data is always good.



At 24mm, pictures say a thousand words.



At 70mm, all the lenses get better, but, the G1X III resolves more detail and contrast and wins yet again.

Before some folks cry, it's pixel peeping! It's happening all over the range of the lens for these guys. Not just a corner here or center there, but rather the whole image as you note this last example is in between the center and corner.

Considering these days most cameras are limited not by how good their sensor is, but rather how good their optic is, I think this is a really strong argument for the G1X III for those seeking best in class image quality from a compact point and shoot and it got not just overlooked by virtually everyone, but perhaps even misunderstood/overlooked by DPR's own review.

 

[nolten]

Thank you for the detailed comparison! I've had my G1X3 for over a year now and its been on three major trips along side my 5D4 + 24-105 L. IMHO the G1X3 images are just as sharp and detailed in real world use as those from the 24-105, my main travel lens since 2006. I shoot raw and post process in Lightroom. I feel totally comfortable using this camera as second body when I have the 100-400 or 16-35 on the 5D or when I just want a compact instead of DSLR.

I've been using G series compacts since the G3 and they've all had really good lenses. The G10 and original G1X being wonderful compact cameras. The original G1X produced excellent images but was slow in operation. The G1X3 fixed all that. It has fast AF and response, has the excellent Canon 24 MP DPAF sensor (80D,SL2), the same 3:2 aspect ratio as my DSLRs, an excellent EVF, and excellent ergonomics. There is even a fairly compact underwater housing available for it.

When I first got mine I did side by side image tests with my original G1X and 80D with several EF-S and EF lenses. The G1X3 was better than the G1X and 15-85 mainly at the edges. Both of those lenses are better than the EF-S 18-55. Only the 16-35 f4L on the 80D tested better than the G1X3 and only at the edges. The G1X3 was just as sharp at f2.8 as f4 @ 15mm. The lens can easily be stopped down to f8 and I've used it at f11 without issue.

This camera is a 14 oz jewell. The 1D of compacts. I really don't understand why it is not way more popular. I posted some of my images over in the "post your favorite G1X3 pics" thread.

 

[telefunk]

Well yes, but you are somewhat late to the party. This has been online a long time. Plus it is really sharp only @ 75mm.

 

[nolten]

Well, the lens doesn't go to 75 mm equivalent and I suspect your opinion is based on the DPR review which the OP is disputing. My experience with the actual camera also proves otherwise at least to me. As sharp across its range as any EF-S zoom I have 10-18, 15-85, 18-55.

Late to the game? Oh, last year's camera already dismissed by arm chair photographers.

 

[particleman78]

I agree with most of the points here, the G1X III lens does appear to be sharper than other high end compacts. But the F8 comparison isn't really valid, At F8, those 1 inch sensors are getting hit by diffraction. It would be a more fair comparison would be to choose an aperature that would provide equal DOF.

 

[CMCM]

This camera is a 14 oz jewell. The 1D of compacts. I really don't understand why it is not way more popular. I posted some of my images over in the "post your favorite G1X3 pics" thread.

I tested the G1Xiii for a couple of weeks, and I really liked it a lot. The two main reasons I didn't buy it were the lesser zoom (I just wanted a bit more reach than that, perhaps up to 120) and the slower lens (I wanted a faster lens because I knew I was going to use whatever camera I got on a lot of low light (inside) shots. And considering those two factors, I just couldn't pay that price for it. To spend that much $$ on a camera I felt it had to tick more boxes. I did love the camera, though, and also found it very sharp. And I really liked the ergonomics and build.

I ended up getting the G7XII because of the f/1.8-2.8 lens, and it had a bit more zoom, and it was a more reasonable price. I do wish it had a viewfinder, though.

 

[richsfusa]

I've had the camera for over a year now. I would say the lens is on the soft side. If you look at RAW photos it is apparent right away. HOWEVER, when you process the RAW photos they sharpen up very nicely--perhaps better than the other cameras in this comparison because the APS-C sensor is so much larger than most of them--more data to work with. AND if you process the RAW photos in DXO Photo Lab the sharpness and noise and overall quality is extraordinary--much better than the camera-processed JPGs or those processed in Photoshop/Lightroom. DXO sharpens up the edges nicely too (without overdoing the center) and eliminates chromatic aberration entirely. Anyway, those are my findings. Very happy with the camera.

I think the lens they put on this camera is as good as it could be given that it is very small, sits very close to the sensor, and is, afterall, a zoom lens. They did a good job.

The DPR review of this camera was definitely a hit piece. The reviewer must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed that day. It is much better than the review suggests. They definitely missed the boat on this one. DPR itself, in its buying guides, lists the G1x III among the best to buy in several categories.

The selling feature of this camera is that it is SMALL! I don't think you will find quality this good in any other camera of its size that has a zoom lens.

 

[RLight]

This camera is a 14 oz jewell. The 1D of compacts. I really don't understand why it is not way more popular. I posted some of my images over in the "post your favorite G1X3 pics" thread.

I tested the G1Xiii for a couple of weeks, and I really liked it a lot. The two main reasons I didn't buy it were the lesser zoom (I just wanted a bit more reach than that, perhaps up to 120) and the slower lens (I wanted a faster lens because I knew I was going to use whatever camera I got on a lot of low light (inside) shots. And considering those two factors, I just couldn't pay that price for it. To spend that much $$ on a camera I felt it had to tick more boxes. I did love the camera, though, and also found it very sharp. And I really liked the ergonomics and build.

I ended up getting the G7XII because of the f/1.8-2.8 lens, and it had a bit more zoom, and it was a more reasonable price. I do wish it had a viewfinder, though.

You're fine. There's a product for (almost) everyone from Canon these days. The G7X II is a fine camera; my point I was driving was one twofold of 1. the lens tool 2. you do get what you pay for.

Like you, I wish they would've put a more aggressive zoom on the G1X III, more like a G1X II. Yes, it would've been bigger, and I appreciate the weight/bulk savings of the G1X III, but, I agree, 24-120 reach would've been ideal in my book too.

I will say though, the G1X III with it's less aggressive operational specs, makes it a better "personal camera" to go with my R setup. You kinda want something really minimal but potent when you've got a monster FF with you the other half the time.

 

[RLight]

Well yes, but you are somewhat late to the party. This has been online a long time. Plus it is really sharp only @ 75mm.

Glad to see you're still kicking telefunk. You ever find your nirvana in a point and shoot in the same year?

I've been loving the G1X III, just missed ILC so I rejoined that party. Just a year ago when I pointed this out, I failed to notice the lens tool, only the studio tool. I didn't realize the G1X III trashed the RX100 III, LX100 and G7X that badly a year ago. It's a bigger deal than I thought.

As I said a year ago though, the G1X III really could use a DIGIC8 for AF performance though, often that's why it's "soft", not because of it's lens. If you stick to single shot (not AI-Servo) and turn off continuous AF, it's SHARP. Ironically the G1X III's DPAF and DIGIC7 are both it's strength if you use single shot with no continuous AF, but also it's weakness if you leave the default continuous AF on, or try to use AI servo, use it only when need to, don't use it otherwise as it does result in casual AF drift akin to AFMA woes which results in lost sharpness, but not due to the lens.

 

[nolten]

I will say though, the G1X III with it's less aggressive operational specs, makes it a better "personal camera" to go with my R setup. You kinda want something really minimal but potent when you've got a monster FF with you the other half the time.

How does the G1X3's EVF compare with the R's? I like the G's EVF but not sure I'm willing to give up the view through my 5D4.

 

[RLight]

I will say though, the G1X III with it's less aggressive operational specs, makes it a better "personal camera" to go with my R setup. You kinda want something really minimal but potent when you've got a monster FF with you the other half the time.

How does the G1X3's EVF compare with the R's? I like the G's EVF but not sure I'm willing to give up the view through my 5D4.

I like the G1X III's EVF too, quite comfortable even though it's small.

The R's EVF is the best in class. Hands down.

I rather liked my OVF of my former 5DIII, but, the EVF of the R takes the cake.

Don't take my word for it though, try yourself. I do highly recommend it. It is one of the reasons I didn't downgrade to the RP when it came out as having a nice big EVF is nice.

 

[nolten]

Thanks! I saw the specs that it was bigger and higher density. I'm watching with interest how the FF mirrorless transition plays out.

And thanks again for posting your original analysis.

 

[telefunk]

Well yes, but you are somewhat late to the party. This has been online a long time. Plus it is really sharp only @ 75mm.

Glad to see you're still kicking telefunk. You ever find your nirvana in a point and shoot in the same year?

I've been loving the G1X III, just missed ILC so I rejoined that party. Just a year ago when I pointed this out, I failed to notice the lens tool, only the studio tool. I didn't realize the G1X III trashed the RX100 III, LX100 and G7X that badly a year ago. It's a bigger deal than I thought.

As I said a year ago though, the G1X III really could use a DIGIC8 for AF performance though, often that's why it's "soft", not because of it's lens. If you stick to single shot (not AI-Servo) and turn off continuous AF, it's SHARP. Ironically the G1X III's DPAF and DIGIC7 are both it's strength if you use single shot with no continuous AF, but also it's weakness if you leave the default continuous AF on, or try to use AI servo, use it only when need to, don't use it otherwise as it does result in casual AF drift akin to AFMA woes which results in lost sharpness, but not due to the lens.

Have been considering the G1X3 for a long time. But IQ is not better than RX100M3 (see Cameralabs review) and low light looks, well... not so good.

 

[telefunk]

Well, the lens doesn't go to 75 mm equivalent and I suspect your opinion is based on the DPR review which the OP is disputing. My experience with the actual camera also proves otherwise at least to me. As sharp across its range as any EF-S zoom I have 10-18, 15-85, 18-55.

Late to the game? Oh, last year's camera already dismissed by arm chair photographers.

Nope, never really judge a camera on the DPR studio scene. Mostly I use German sites real life scenes... My M6 with kit was OK-ish. The G1XM3 looks better.

 

[RLight]

Well yes, but you are somewhat late to the party. This has been online a long time. Plus it is really sharp only @ 75mm.

Glad to see you're still kicking telefunk. You ever find your nirvana in a point and shoot in the same year?

I've been loving the G1X III, just missed ILC so I rejoined that party. Just a year ago when I pointed this out, I failed to notice the lens tool, only the studio tool. I didn't realize the G1X III trashed the RX100 III, LX100 and G7X that badly a year ago. It's a bigger deal than I thought.

As I said a year ago though, the G1X III really could use a DIGIC8 for AF performance though, often that's why it's "soft", not because of it's lens. If you stick to single shot (not AI-Servo) and turn off continuous AF, it's SHARP. Ironically the G1X III's DPAF and DIGIC7 are both it's strength if you use single shot with no continuous AF, but also it's weakness if you leave the default continuous AF on, or try to use AI servo, use it only when need to, don't use it otherwise as it does result in casual AF drift akin to AFMA woes which results in lost sharpness, but not due to the lens.

Have been considering the G1X3 for a long time. But IQ is not better than RX100M3 (see Cameralabs review) and low light looks, well... not so good.

Camera labs did a bang up review on the G1X III. I was actually going to bring it up, funny you should. What I was going to mention is CL missed the points I'm about to make which you just touched on:

1. Low-light is predominantly indoors, and wide angle (at least in my shooting patterns as I'm more a candid/street shooter) where the G1X III exceeds the RX100 series in equivalence, and, is APS-C. Double wham. Sure, the RX100 and G7X excel a bit on the long end, but, that's pretty infrequently used in the dark. And when you do, usually you can move your legs, just like a prime lens to accomplish the same goal and produce much better results than had you zoomed. However, I am a big 35 shooter. Granted the G1X III is 24, but it does the same party/event photography well. If you're a big 35 shooter, think hard here, it's wider, but that's quite useful at many a venue which in hindsight is a very good thing.

2. Camera Labs and others missed the IQ difference. As I stated, the difference between the G1X III and crème of the crop 1" is subtle, but there. It exceeds them. It exceeds them enough that I pushed the button and did it. I can tell you I would not be happy with the RX100, or G7X.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped you but the LX100 II is worth a look. However, it does have a weaker lens, and less resolution (and smaller sensor impacting signal to noise ratio IE ISO performance) still. But, it does have greater equivalence. It's an alternative to the G1X III. I personally recommend the G1X III over it but it depends what you shoot. If you're doing lots of portraits, the LX is the way to go with that greater DoF. Otherwise, have a hard look at the G1X III as the LX100 / II has equivalence on it's side (and a decent lens) but not necessarily low light potential despite the equivalence advantage, or landscape potential due to the sensor on both counts and optical performance on the latter count.

 

[telefunk]

Well yes, but you are somewhat late to the party. This has been online a long time. Plus it is really sharp only @ 75mm.

Glad to see you're still kicking telefunk. You ever find your nirvana in a point and shoot in the same year?

I've been loving the G1X III, just missed ILC so I rejoined that party. Just a year ago when I pointed this out, I failed to notice the lens tool, only the studio tool. I didn't realize the G1X III trashed the RX100 III, LX100 and G7X that badly a year ago. It's a bigger deal than I thought.

As I said a year ago though, the G1X III really could use a DIGIC8 for AF performance though, often that's why it's "soft", not because of it's lens. If you stick to single shot (not AI-Servo) and turn off continuous AF, it's SHARP. Ironically the G1X III's DPAF and DIGIC7 are both it's strength if you use single shot with no continuous AF, but also it's weakness if you leave the default continuous AF on, or try to use AI servo, use it only when need to, don't use it otherwise as it does result in casual AF drift akin to AFMA woes which results in lost sharpness, but not due to the lens.

Have been considering the G1X3 for a long time. But IQ is not better than RX100M3 (see Cameralabs review) and low light looks, well... not so good.

Camera labs did a bang up review on the G1X III. I was actually going to bring it up, funny you should. What I was going to mention is CL missed the points I'm about to make which you just touched on:

1. Low-light is predominantly indoors, and wide angle (at least in my shooting patterns as I'm more a candid/street shooter) where the G1X III exceeds the RX100 series in equivalence, and, is APS-C. Double wham. Sure, the RX100 and G7X excel a bit on the long end, but, that's pretty infrequently used in the dark. And when you do, usually you can move your legs, just like a prime lens to accomplish the same goal and produce much better results than had you zoomed. However, I am a big 35 shooter. Granted the G1X III is 24, but it does the same party/event photography well. If you're a big 35 shooter, think hard here, it's wider, but that's quite useful at many a venue which in hindsight is a very good thing.

2. Camera Labs and others missed the IQ difference. As I stated, the difference between the G1X III and crème of the crop 1" is subtle, but there. It exceeds them. It exceeds them enough that I pushed the button and did it. I can tell you I would not be happy with the RX100, or G7X.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped you but the LX100 II is worth a look. However, it does have a weaker lens, and less resolution (and smaller sensor impacting signal to noise ratio IE ISO performance) still. But, it does have greater equivalence. It's an alternative to the G1X III. I personally recommend the G1X III over it but it depends what you shoot. If you're doing lots of portraits, the LX is the way to go with that greater DoF. Otherwise, have a hard look at the G1X III as the LX100 / II has equivalence on it's side (and a decent lens) but not necessarily low light potential despite the equivalence advantage, or landscape potential due to the sensor on both counts and optical performance on the latter count.

G1XM3 is way better than the G7XM2. I had quite a few of the latter and it was just amazingly noisy in dark areas or on the edges (more so than a LX5).

LX100 I had and looked at M2, but just average IQ.

A bigger sensor camera really comes into its own in low light. All cameras are quite OK in good light. Have a look at the XF10 vs G1Xm3 @ 12800 jpeg iso on the DPR comparison page. Then you understand the poor Cameralabs result...

 

[sueanne]

Excelent

Well, the lens doesn't go to 75 mm equivalent and I suspect your opinion is based on the DPR review which the OP is disputing. My experience with the actual camera also proves otherwise at least to me. As sharp across its range as any EF-S zoom I have 10-18, 15-85, 18-55.

Late to the game? Oh, last year's camera already dismissed by arm chair photographers.

 

[telefunk]

I was writing something up on the R forum for a prospective RP customer trying to sway him/her to consider perhaps APS-C is good enough for travel (don't get me wrong, the RP paired with the right lens should be a good gig but APS-C gets you even smaller/lighter) and mentioned the G1X III both because I have it, but also because I personally find it finally strikes the "good enough" chord vs prior point and shoots I've used, RX100 (III in my case) series included, did not.

In the course of doing so, I stumbled upon DPR's own Compact Lens tool. Pretty cool.

To follow along, direct your browser to page 5 of the G1X III's own review, and scroll down to the compact lens tool and instead of comparing the G1X III against itself 4 times, put in something else for a lot more fun.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review/5

First up, note the distortion and lack of sharpness (and CA, but CA should go away in JPEG, which this test appears to be RAW based I gather) on the G7X wide open at 24mm. Note the Sony's lack of contrast, some detail and poor skin tone rendition (probably due to Sony's CFA for the poor skintone rendition) and the detail or noise is doing something weird in the LX100, even though this is supposed to be a lens test, there is some odd noise going on there. Winner? Well, you decide yourself. I'm not going to vote on this one as I know some folks are going to fight different ways for LX100 and RX100 here for different reasons. I'll point out you should evaluate it on sharpness, contrast and if you like your skin tones and don't like (a lot of) post processing, skin tones too.

Lets pick on a corner next.

The G1X III shows some serious CA, as does the G7X and LX100 to a lesser degree. The RX100 oddly doesn't. BTW, I don't believe for 2 seconds the RX100 has no CA under these conditions; I think in fact there is some RAW correction or otherwise occurring here for the RX100 to not show CA in a corner, wide open (nor can I find CA anywhere for the RX100 which is highly suspect). Keep in mind like the RX100, CA will go away with all 3 (or 4 if you count the already corrected RX100) cameras built-in corrections if shooting JPEG, or, your RAW processor of choice's corrections.

The contrast is an easy win for the G1X III. The sharpness here gets pretty darned close for the RX100 III though but is a hair better for the G1X III, possibly due to the contrast being substantially better (I wonder if the G1X III would be a stronger win here if it were corrected for CA like the RX100 III in this test?)

The G1X III scores a solid win here, by a wide margin across the board against the RX100 or G7X I might add. The LX100 fairs well here though and deserves kudos for a decent 2nd place considering how badly the 1" bodies did here.

Last but not least lets go back to a corner, except at 70mm.

The G1X III here wins really easily. Once again, the lack of CA on the RX100 is really a question mark.

I can re-run it a bunch of other ways but, the G1X III is on average beating the competition here in optical performance, pretty easily I might add and by a much larger margin then even I thought was happening. Quite impressive for a lens that DPR's own review quotes:

"Lens is somewhat soft, especially in comparison with ILC peers"

I respectfully disagree, using DRP's own tool. Humbug!

PS, those were all wide open, lets re-run them stopped down to f/8 for purposes of landscape performance shall we? Besides it's more tests, more data is always good.

At 24mm, pictures say a thousand words.

At 70mm, all the lenses get better, but, the G1X III resolves more detail and contrast and wins yet again.

Before some folks cry, it's pixel peeping! It's happening all over the range of the lens for these guys. Not just a corner here or center there, but rather the whole image as you note this last example is in between the center and corner.

Considering these days most cameras are limited not by how good their sensor is, but rather how good their optic is, I think this is a really strong argument for the G1X III for those seeking best in class image quality from a compact point and shoot and it got not just overlooked by virtually everyone, but perhaps even misunderstood/overlooked by DPR's own review.

The Canon G7XII is much sharper than the G7X, but still less good than G1XIII

However Canon high iso performance falls apart when compared to fuji :-(

 

[TedR1]

G1XM3 is way better than the G7XM2. I had quite a few of the latter and it was just amazingly noisy in dark areas or on the edges (more so than a LX5).

LX100 I had and looked at M2, but just average IQ.

A bigger sensor camera really comes into its own in low light. All cameras are quite OK in good light. Have a look at the XF10 vs G1Xm3 @ 12800 jpeg iso on the DPR comparison page. Then you understand the poor Cameralabs result...

I am glad to see the subject of noise levels arise in this thread about image quality. In the competitive battles for best sharpness, fastest lens, quickest autofocus and smallest size, it can happen that noise levels are sometimes neglected, they are not one of those smack-you-in-the-face type things, that is until you look in the shadows.

I have been evaluating a G7Xmk2 recently and also researching the G1Xmk3 which is also on the short list. It seems to me the 1mk3 gets a significantly lower noise level than is found with G7mk2, in a different class.

In the DP Review of the G1Xmk3 in the conclusion the reviewer makes this statement, and it is highlighted as a caption that breaks up- the page to draw attention:

"there are cameras based on 1"-type sensors that can offer both better noise performance and depth of field control than the G1 X III"

I wonder what cameras those are? I would like one! Can somebody please let me know who makes one?

Ted in NY

 

[telefunk]

I wonder what cameras those are? I would like one! Can somebody please let me know who makes one?

Ted in NY

Just look at what the posts refer to: the Cameralabs review :-O