Canon G5X II user review and why I'm returning it

Returning my g5x ii. I liked it more than the other cameras I've tried but I find them all universally terrible in one way or another. Maybe a g9x with dual pixel af, much sharper lens, and a smartphone level image processing chip inside might sway me.

Final thoughts:

Pros:

-Sharp lens with good range
-Good optical stabilization
-Responsive menu and touchscreen
-Okay battery life compared to other compacts

Cons:

-Crap contrast autofocus. Only works reliably in well lit conditions. Indoors it can take upwards of ten seconds, starting blurry and slowly focusing, like a newborn just opening it's eyes for the first time, and frequently fails to focus with a little exclamation mark next to the focus point. Tracking focus likes to get lost on its own. I'm not even gonna elaborate on the continuous autofocus in video. It's the same as the much maligned g7x iii.

-Underwhelming noise performance. Even at base ISO I don't like the grain at all, and gets much worse past 800. This isn't unique to canon. The rx100 is no different. All the 1" compacts have basically been regurgitating the same sony sensor for years now, with faster readouts but no image improvements. The raws between them all look the same. It's suppose to be 20MP but the resolved detail is barely better than a 12MP smartphone because the pixels always look unflatteringly small and pokey in raw images and once you denoise it to make it look smoother, there goes all the detail.

-Multi frame noise reduction sucks. My (old) Note 8 can combine upwards of 12 shots and yield a sharper, far less noisy image than the dinky 1/2.5" sensor inside is actually capable of. The g5x can take four consecutive shots and combine them to reduce noise. Too bad the result is a blurry mess that still has a lot of noise. Worse still, the screen goes black and flashes the word BUSY because the slow hamsters inside are working their darndest to composite the images, taking a good 4-5 seconds, completely locking the camera in the meantime. The rx100va also has this feature, but it's even blurrier because of the poop stabilization on the Sony. Bottom line, unless you have a tripod and lots of time to wait (why aren't you using long exposure?) the multi frame processing is stone age in these types of cameras and can't adjust for even the slightest hand movement.

-Auto lighting optimizer. It doesn't do jack. It's right there in the Q menu already enabled. It's up on top in canon's DPP software. Yet it seems to do absolutely nothing. It's suppose to up shadows and tame highlights automagically, a low-fi version of HDR, but I have to do it manually anyway because the images are still way too contrasty, even if the histogram shows no clipping.

-Poor dynamic range in video. Worse than photos. Blacks are crushed and whites are overblown. Yet again beaten by modern smartphones. Even something like the bigger canon m50 with an APSC sensor can't compete in video when looking at dynamic range. The sensor inside is far more capable than any phone, but the internal processing of that high dynamic data into a compressed and viewable video format is yet again, stone age level.

-CR3 files. Canon's proprietary raw file. It is stupid and pointless. Just another shameless bid for control, like all the other proprietary raw formats. There is no conversion software on mobile and the only app that can open it (on Android) is lightroom mobile, which requires a monthly subscription to edit CR3 files. Pretty stupid to pay for as a nonprofessional enthusiast who only occasionally edits a raw file because of bad exposure. I ended up having to convert them to DNG on the computer before transferring them to my phone to edit and share. Lovely workflow for a point and shoot.

-More raw shenanigans. You can transfer huge gigabyte sized video files but god forbid if you want to transfer a 20MB raw file. And in-camera raw processing amounts to nothing more than a brightness slider.

-Still unintuitive and unreliable bluetooth pairing and wifi transfer. I ended up doing it the manual way each time, which is way more reliable. Set the camera to wifi by pushing the wifi button. Switch to the camera's network on the phone manually, then wait for the canon app to catch up. The Canon app at least doesn't freeze or spin forever like many of the other apps do.

-Yet more transfer headaches. If you transfer a large number of images at once by selecting them on the camera, which you can easily define a range to send over, it will eventually fail after about 20 are sent. If you select them from the app on your phone, you are forced to select each picture individually (and wait for their thumbnail to load). You cannot drag and highlight multiple images or set a range like in the camera. Alternately, you can select ALL the images from that day, wasting time and creating duplicates which the app is too dumb to check for.

-Not truly pocketable. Coat pockets do not count unless you live in a dreary fog and cold filled wasteland, and even then you eventually have to take the coat off. The camera fits in a shirt pocket, but it bulges out and drags down your collar unless you have a nice stiff and thick shirt. It's anything but hidden or subtle. Even with cargo shorts with big pockets, it's gonna protrude and make you look very happy to see everyone. Your thigh is pushing up against the glass screen each time you move and unlike with a shirt pocket, pulling it out can require two hands as you push it upwards from the bottom with one and wiggle it with the other so the dials and controls don't get snagged inside the pocket or the opening. I always end up pulling on the chintzy plastic mode dial, which feels like it might snap off if I continue this routine daily for a couple more months.

-Chintzy build quality. Regrettable on a $900 device. Light, cheap, thin plastics everywhere. Even the rubberized texture feels cheap and unsatisfying. EVF and flash covers on top will wiggle and depress when pushed or held, which is something you are going to do constantly if you are gonna grab or hold the camera with your left hand or use both hands for stability The lens cover also likes to rattle.

I honestly could live with most of these shortcomings, but the poor autofocus that's a DOWNGRADE from their previous line and the cheap wiggly plastic body for $900 when canon's previous generation was much better built at a lower price point, are both dealbreakers. An expensive camera you want to last for years and you take everywhere should not be built like this.

I know there are idiots out there who say the autofocus will eventually be fixed with a firmware update. If it actually shows up and looks promising, THEN you should consider buying one. But only then. Not NOW. Stop paying money to be beta testers for these greedy inconsiderate companies. Thank God for return policies. It's also been over a month since release and even longer for international owners.

But more than likely, nothing is really gonna be done. To put it into context, Canon is notorious for zero firmware updates for their cameras and only the occasional update on interchangeable lens cameras to add support for new lenses they want you to buy. Canon shipped the product the way it is and it's meeting their standards and intents. The last time I heard of a camera company that released a firmware update that drastically improved autofocus performance was NEVER. The latest Ricoh GR3 has had three updates already. Autofocus is still mediocre at best. Fuji XF10 has one update. Camera is still slow and autofocus is still awful. Panasonic LX10 from 3 years ago, infamous for its bad continuous autofocus which makes videos useless and burst shooting a crapshoot, still is on 1.00 firmware. These are all digital cameras, not smartphones. They are far simpler beings. Made to spec for one function only. If a certain aspect sucks, it was completely intentional. Not a rushed job that can be fixed later with some magical software update. Canon in particular usually just releases a new camera instead of fixing an old one and wants you to pay money for it.

tl/dr

I don't know, he has supplied very specific complaints and seems to understand digital cameras quite well. Perhaps he's challenging mere lust with healthy skepticism. I would be interested to know what's on his approved list.

-Underwhelming noise performance. Even at base ISO I don't like the grain at all, and gets much worse past 800. This isn't unique to canon. The rx100 is no different. All the 1" compacts have basically been regurgitating the same sony sensor for years now, with faster readouts but no image improvements. The raws between them all look the same. It's suppose to be 20MP but the resolved detail is barely better than a 12MP smartphone because the pixels always look unflatteringly small and pokey in raw images and once you denoise it to make it look smoother, there goes all the detail.

I guess it is sensor size limitation. I have Panasonic G85, which is using 43 sensors..and the noise becomes quite unberable past 1600 (subjective opinion). So, as 1" has smaller sensor, its ISO limit should be smaller than 1600, which is maybe around 800.

riveredger wrote:

You sound like a person who would find fault with any camera.

I wouldn't assume that.

My spider senses tell me from my computer thousands of miles away, this gentleman/woman probably is correct: Contrast focus which relies not no DPAF is simply not going to deliver the same low light performance as Canon's DPAF equipped sensors.

.

Now that said, I think the OP is being a bit harsh as to frame it correctly: You'll need a Sony RX100 V or newer, to get better low light AF, which costs more, and delivers less depending which model you're comparing. And, the new RX100 VI and VII have worse low light due to a slower lens attached so they're going to be in the same boat. Really, that means the only point and shoots that will do better (in low light AF) are the G1X III and RX100 VA (the Fuji X100F is a known class trailer in AF, even though on paper it should be able to hang with hybrid AF and a fast lens + APS-C, it doesn't).

.

The reality is when comparing say a G5X II against experiences you have with a DSLR, small APS-C MILC, or, a G1X III or RX100 VA, the G5X II and G7X III aren't in the same league for low light AF. It shouldn't be bad, but, well, there's reasons the G1X III still exists as does the Sony RX100 VA still sell alongside the RX100 VI and VII. I don't think the OP is wrong, even though the OP may be a bit, irate, and rightly so as one would think it'd be better...

Side note, might I suggest the OP consider the EOS M200, which is due later this year, which should be less expensive, about the same footprint, and, has DPAF, DIGIC8, and you can slap an EF-M 22mm f/2 STM on it? The EOS M platform is an APS-C powershot with interchangeable lenses of sorts. But, DPAF and fast optics like the 22/2 or 32/1.4, make quick work of this sort of thing for around the same price point, but a bit bigger.

The M100, although cheap enough, and should be decent paired with an EF-M 22mm, I'd wait for the DIGIC8 equipped M200, which will have double (or more) low light sensitivity.

siberstorm27 wrote:

Returning my g5x ii. I liked it more than the other cameras I've tried but I find them all universally terrible in one way or another. Maybe a g9x with dual pixel af, much sharper lens, and a smartphone level image processing chip inside might sway me.

Final thoughts:

Pros:

-Sharp lens with good range
-Good optical stabilization
-Responsive menu and touchscreen
-Okay battery life compared to other compacts

Cons:

-Crap contrast autofocus. Only works reliably in well lit conditions. Indoors it can take upwards of ten seconds, starting blurry and slowly focusing, like a newborn just opening it's eyes for the first time, and frequently fails to focus with a little exclamation mark next to the focus point. Tracking focus likes to get lost on its own. I'm not even gonna elaborate on the continuous autofocus in video. It's the same as the much maligned g7x iii.

-Underwhelming noise performance. Even at base ISO I don't like the grain at all, and gets much worse past 800. This isn't unique to canon. The rx100 is no different. All the 1" compacts have basically been regurgitating the same sony sensor for years now, with faster readouts but no image improvements. The raws between them all look the same. It's suppose to be 20MP but the resolved detail is barely better than a 12MP smartphone because the pixels always look unflatteringly small and pokey in raw images and once you denoise it to make it look smoother, there goes all the detail.

-Multi frame noise reduction sucks. My (old) Note 8 can combine upwards of 12 shots and yield a sharper, far less noisy image than the dinky 1/2.5" sensor inside is actually capable of. The g5x can take four consecutive shots and combine them to reduce noise. Too bad the result is a blurry mess that still has a lot of noise. Worse still, the screen goes black and flashes the word BUSY because the slow hamsters inside are working their darndest to composite the images, taking a good 4-5 seconds, completely locking the camera in the meantime. The rx100va also has this feature, but it's even blurrier because of the poop stabilization on the Sony. Bottom line, unless you have a tripod and lots of time to wait (why aren't you using long exposure?) the multi frame processing is stone age in these types of cameras and can't adjust for even the slightest hand movement.

-Auto lighting optimizer. It doesn't do jack. It's right there in the Q menu already enabled. It's up on top in canon's DPP software. Yet it seems to do absolutely nothing. It's suppose to up shadows and tame highlights automagically, a low-fi version of HDR, but I have to do it manually anyway because the images are still way too contrasty, even if the histogram shows no clipping.

-Poor dynamic range in video. Worse than photos. Blacks are crushed and whites are overblown. Yet again beaten by modern smartphones. Even something like the bigger canon m50 with an APSC sensor can't compete in video when looking at dynamic range. The sensor inside is far more capable than any phone, but the internal processing of that high dynamic data into a compressed and viewable video format is yet again, stone age level.

-CR3 files. Canon's proprietary raw file. It is stupid and pointless. Just another shameless bid for control, like all the other proprietary raw formats. There is no conversion software on mobile and the only app that can open it (on Android) is lightroom mobile, which requires a monthly subscription to edit CR3 files. Pretty stupid to pay for as a nonprofessional enthusiast who only occasionally edits a raw file because of bad exposure. I ended up having to convert them to DNG on the computer before transferring them to my phone to edit and share. Lovely workflow for a point and shoot.

-More raw shenanigans. You can transfer huge gigabyte sized video files but god forbid if you want to transfer a 20MB raw file. And in-camera raw processing amounts to nothing more than a brightness slider.

-Still unintuitive and unreliable bluetooth pairing and wifi transfer. I ended up doing it the manual way each time, which is way more reliable. Set the camera to wifi by pushing the wifi button. Switch to the camera's network on the phone manually, then wait for the canon app to catch up. The Canon app at least doesn't freeze or spin forever like many of the other apps do.

-Yet more transfer headaches. If you transfer a large number of images at once by selecting them on the camera, which you can easily define a range to send over, it will eventually fail after about 20 are sent. If you select them from the app on your phone, you are forced to select each picture individually (and wait for their thumbnail to load). You cannot drag and highlight multiple images or set a range like in the camera. Alternately, you can select ALL the images from that day, wasting time and creating duplicates which the app is too dumb to check for.

-Not truly pocketable. Coat pockets do not count unless you live in a dreary fog and cold filled wasteland, and even then you eventually have to take the coat off. The camera fits in a shirt pocket, but it bulges out and drags down your collar unless you have a nice stiff and thick shirt. It's anything but hidden or subtle. Even with cargo shorts with big pockets, it's gonna protrude and make you look very happy to see everyone. Your thigh is pushing up against the glass screen each time you move and unlike with a shirt pocket, pulling it out can require two hands as you push it upwards from the bottom with one and wiggle it with the other so the dials and controls don't get snagged inside the pocket or the opening. I always end up pulling on the chintzy plastic mode dial, which feels like it might snap off if I continue this routine daily for a couple more months.

-Chintzy build quality. Regrettable on a $900 device. Light, cheap, thin plastics everywhere. Even the rubberized texture feels cheap and unsatisfying. EVF and flash covers on top will wiggle and depress when pushed or held, which is something you are going to do constantly if you are gonna grab or hold the camera with your left hand or use both hands for stability The lens cover also likes to rattle.

I honestly could live with most of these shortcomings, but the poor autofocus that's a DOWNGRADE from their previous line and the cheap wiggly plastic body for $900 when canon's previous generation was much better built at a lower price point, are both dealbreakers. An expensive camera you want to last for years and you take everywhere should not be built like this.

I know there are idiots out there who say the autofocus will eventually be fixed with a firmware update. If it actually shows up and looks promising, THEN you should consider buying one. But only then. Not NOW. Stop paying money to be beta testers for these greedy inconsiderate companies. Thank God for return policies. It's also been over a month since release and even longer for international owners.

But more than likely, nothing is really gonna be done. To put it into context, Canon is notorious for zero firmware updates for their cameras and only the occasional update on interchangeable lens cameras to add support for new lenses they want you to buy. Canon shipped the product the way it is and it's meeting their standards and intents. The last time I heard of a camera company that released a firmware update that drastically improved autofocus performance was NEVER. The latest Ricoh GR3 has had three updates already. Autofocus is still mediocre at best. Fuji XF10 has one update. Camera is still slow and autofocus is still awful. Panasonic LX10 from 3 years ago, infamous for its bad continuous autofocus which makes videos useless and burst shooting a crapshoot, still is on 1.00 firmware. These are all digital cameras, not smartphones. They are far simpler beings. Made to spec for one function only. If a certain aspect sucks, it was completely intentional. Not a rushed job that can be fixed later with some magical software update. Canon in particular usually just releases a new camera instead of fixing an old one and wants you to pay money for it.

Sounds like my experience with Canons up till now, including apsc. Don't agree about the RX100 noise or grain. No way as bad.

Was really hoping this would be a contender...

Smallpox wrote:

siberstorm27 wrote:

Returning my g5x ii. I liked it more than the other cameras I've tried but I find them all universally terrible in one way or another. Maybe a g9x with dual pixel af, much sharper lens, and a smartphone level image processing chip inside might sway me.

Final thoughts:

Pros:

-Sharp lens with good range
-Good optical stabilization
-Responsive menu and touchscreen
-Okay battery life compared to other compacts

Cons:

-Crap contrast autofocus. Only works reliably in well lit conditions. Indoors it can take upwards of ten seconds, starting blurry and slowly focusing, like a newborn just opening it's eyes for the first time, and frequently fails to focus with a little exclamation mark next to the focus point. Tracking focus likes to get lost on its own. I'm not even gonna elaborate on the continuous autofocus in video. It's the same as the much maligned g7x iii.

-Underwhelming noise performance. Even at base ISO I don't like the grain at all, and gets much worse past 800. This isn't unique to canon. The rx100 is no different. All the 1" compacts have basically been regurgitating the same sony sensor for years now, with faster readouts but no image improvements. The raws between them all look the same. It's suppose to be 20MP but the resolved detail is barely better than a 12MP smartphone because the pixels always look unflatteringly small and pokey in raw images and once you denoise it to make it look smoother, there goes all the detail.

-Multi frame noise reduction sucks. My (old) Note 8 can combine upwards of 12 shots and yield a sharper, far less noisy image than the dinky 1/2.5" sensor inside is actually capable of. The g5x can take four consecutive shots and combine them to reduce noise. Too bad the result is a blurry mess that still has a lot of noise. Worse still, the screen goes black and flashes the word BUSY because the slow hamsters inside are working their darndest to composite the images, taking a good 4-5 seconds, completely locking the camera in the meantime. The rx100va also has this feature, but it's even blurrier because of the poop stabilization on the Sony. Bottom line, unless you have a tripod and lots of time to wait (why aren't you using long exposure?) the multi frame processing is stone age in these types of cameras and can't adjust for even the slightest hand movement.

-Auto lighting optimizer. It doesn't do jack. It's right there in the Q menu already enabled. It's up on top in canon's DPP software. Yet it seems to do absolutely nothing. It's suppose to up shadows and tame highlights automagically, a low-fi version of HDR, but I have to do it manually anyway because the images are still way too contrasty, even if the histogram shows no clipping.

-Poor dynamic range in video. Worse than photos. Blacks are crushed and whites are overblown. Yet again beaten by modern smartphones. Even something like the bigger canon m50 with an APSC sensor can't compete in video when looking at dynamic range. The sensor inside is far more capable than any phone, but the internal processing of that high dynamic data into a compressed and viewable video format is yet again, stone age level.

-CR3 files. Canon's proprietary raw file. It is stupid and pointless. Just another shameless bid for control, like all the other proprietary raw formats. There is no conversion software on mobile and the only app that can open it (on Android) is lightroom mobile, which requires a monthly subscription to edit CR3 files. Pretty stupid to pay for as a nonprofessional enthusiast who only occasionally edits a raw file because of bad exposure. I ended up having to convert them to DNG on the computer before transferring them to my phone to edit and share. Lovely workflow for a point and shoot.

-More raw shenanigans. You can transfer huge gigabyte sized video files but god forbid if you want to transfer a 20MB raw file. And in-camera raw processing amounts to nothing more than a brightness slider.

-Still unintuitive and unreliable bluetooth pairing and wifi transfer. I ended up doing it the manual way each time, which is way more reliable. Set the camera to wifi by pushing the wifi button. Switch to the camera's network on the phone manually, then wait for the canon app to catch up. The Canon app at least doesn't freeze or spin forever like many of the other apps do.

-Yet more transfer headaches. If you transfer a large number of images at once by selecting them on the camera, which you can easily define a range to send over, it will eventually fail after about 20 are sent. If you select them from the app on your phone, you are forced to select each picture individually (and wait for their thumbnail to load). You cannot drag and highlight multiple images or set a range like in the camera. Alternately, you can select ALL the images from that day, wasting time and creating duplicates which the app is too dumb to check for.

-Not truly pocketable. Coat pockets do not count unless you live in a dreary fog and cold filled wasteland, and even then you eventually have to take the coat off. The camera fits in a shirt pocket, but it bulges out and drags down your collar unless you have a nice stiff and thick shirt. It's anything but hidden or subtle. Even with cargo shorts with big pockets, it's gonna protrude and make you look very happy to see everyone. Your thigh is pushing up against the glass screen each time you move and unlike with a shirt pocket, pulling it out can require two hands as you push it upwards from the bottom with one and wiggle it with the other so the dials and controls don't get snagged inside the pocket or the opening. I always end up pulling on the chintzy plastic mode dial, which feels like it might snap off if I continue this routine daily for a couple more months.

-Chintzy build quality. Regrettable on a $900 device. Light, cheap, thin plastics everywhere. Even the rubberized texture feels cheap and unsatisfying. EVF and flash covers on top will wiggle and depress when pushed or held, which is something you are going to do constantly if you are gonna grab or hold the camera with your left hand or use both hands for stability The lens cover also likes to rattle.

I honestly could live with most of these shortcomings, but the poor autofocus that's a DOWNGRADE from their previous line and the cheap wiggly plastic body for $900 when canon's previous generation was much better built at a lower price point, are both dealbreakers. An expensive camera you want to last for years and you take everywhere should not be built like this.

I know there are idiots out there who say the autofocus will eventually be fixed with a firmware update. If it actually shows up and looks promising, THEN you should consider buying one. But only then. Not NOW. Stop paying money to be beta testers for these greedy inconsiderate companies. Thank God for return policies. It's also been over a month since release and even longer for international owners.

But more than likely, nothing is really gonna be done. To put it into context, Canon is notorious for zero firmware updates for their cameras and only the occasional update on interchangeable lens cameras to add support for new lenses they want you to buy. Canon shipped the product the way it is and it's meeting their standards and intents. The last time I heard of a camera company that released a firmware update that drastically improved autofocus performance was NEVER. The latest Ricoh GR3 has had three updates already. Autofocus is still mediocre at best. Fuji XF10 has one update. Camera is still slow and autofocus is still awful. Panasonic LX10 from 3 years ago, infamous for its bad continuous autofocus which makes videos useless and burst shooting a crapshoot, still is on 1.00 firmware. These are all digital cameras, not smartphones. They are far simpler beings. Made to spec for one function only. If a certain aspect sucks, it was completely intentional. Not a rushed job that can be fixed later with some magical software update. Canon in particular usually just releases a new camera instead of fixing an old one and wants you to pay money for it.

Sounds like my experience with Canons up till now, including apsc. Don't agree about the RX100 noise or grain. No way as bad.

Was really hoping this would be a contender...

The M100 with kit lens is going to share a similar fate in low light, as will any DIGIC7 or earlier EOS M with kit lens.

The G1X III, EOS M50, or an EOS M with 22 pancake will fair better. The G1X III has both a faster lens than kit EOS M with newer firmware giving it both more light raising low light sensitivity between the f-stop and better AF software. DIGIC8 (EOS M50) has another EV of light sensitivity irregardless of lens and the 22 pancake pulls in almost 4 times more light than kit lens.
.
Either a fast prime with the EOS M or a newer EOS M50, M6 II, or upcoming M200 won’t have the same hiccups. The G1X III is better, but the formerly mentioned options are much better still.

marksee wrote:

I think readers of your review should take it lightly. I have put off buying some outstanding cameras based on opinions like this. You're entitled to post your experience, but anyone considering this model should try one for themselves. I waited 4 years to buy the G3X. Slow focus, soft photos etc. etc. they wrote. Finally bought one used and am sorry I waited. Lost 4 years of using a great camera suiting my needs perfectly.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on the G3X? Its the same reason I haven't bought it yet and I am still hesitating!

a

Yes noise performance is the same as other cameras with one or other version of the Sony 15.9mm sensor. If someone's personal requirements are not met by this sensor there are plenty of alternatives available.

Nonsense. Every brand has a different appraoch to jpeg processing and Sony has by far the best. Also the Sony does not stretch its edges; So far less dirty grain on Sony.

Multiframe shooting only succesfully implemented on Casio cameras.

By far the best, far less and nonsense. No room for doubt there.

The problem with the RX100 is, whatever its total superiority over any other camera in all respects, it does gets tedious hearing about it constantly on these forums and having it pushed in such an aggressive tone as fact and never opinion.

You are on the Canon forum so a bit of humility and understanding and respect for the people who do like these cameras, however foolish in your view this seems, would not go amiss.

1) haha. Just stating what any knowlegeable photographer would have experienced

2) I don't suffer fools gladly

3) I don't paricularly like sony and don't own one any more

4) What's your problem? Not criticism allowed anymore?