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

telefunk wrote:

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

Such as yourself?

2) I don't suffer fools gladly

A foolish comment if ever there was one. How can anyone know, when stuck in their own mind with its own particular perception of things external, if someone is a fool or not in relation to themselves; whatever a fool really means anyway.

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

I do not like or dislike any brand. They all have their merits and problems.

There is far more talk of the RX100 on non Sony forums than for any other brand across the range of cameras. it does get tedious.

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

Likewise. Works both ways.

I've tried both  cameras, maybe not extensively but about a 100 shots each.  I loved the G5X Mark II in many ways, maybe it was GAS, or maybe I was just not content but I returned the G5 X II, and bought a RX100 VII.  I spent a week with that camera and it was very nice. The are some features that Sony out did Canon, pure and simple, but I think the G5X II is a better buy [for me]

Sony's advantages.

• Look/feel - definitely has a premium feel
• longer zoom
• better AF

Canon advantages

• Brighter lens
• Better macro
• Better lens
• Grip/holding it in my hand
• Better touch screen integration
• Better menus
• Better colors
• Better price

So there you have it, the Canon for my needs have a longer list of advantages, and I'll be re-ordering the camera simply because it out performs other cameras at least according to the metrics that are important to me.  Ultimately, I couldn't justify spending over 1,400 dollars for a RX100 (after taxes and warranties) when I could snag a G5X II for under a grand.

Let me also finish up with this final thought.  Compact cameras are a balancing act of features and compromises, Sony chose to make compromises as did Canon, though each chose different compromises.

maflynn wrote:

I've tried both cameras, maybe not extensively but about a 100 shots each. I loved the G5X Mark II in many ways, maybe it was GAS, or maybe I was just not content but I returned the G5 X II, and bought a RX100 VII. I spent a week with that camera and it was very nice. The are some features that Sony out did Canon, pure and simple, but I think the G5X II is a better buy [for me]

Sony's advantages.

• Look/feel - definitely has a premium feel
• longer zoom
• better AF

Canon advantages

• Brighter lens
• Better macro
• Better lens
• Grip/holding it in my hand
• Better touch screen integration
• Better menus
• Better colors
• Better price

So there you have it, the Canon for my needs have a longer list of advantages, and I'll be re-ordering the camera simply because it out performs other cameras at least according to the metrics that are important to me. Ultimately, I couldn't justify spending over 1,400 dollars for a RX100 (after taxes and warranties) when I could snag a G5X II for under a grand.

Let me also finish up with this final thought. Compact cameras are a balancing act of features and compromises, Sony chose to make compromises as did Canon, though each chose different compromises.

So which do you have now??  Neither?

Lol. He bought a G5X.2, returned it, bought a Sony RX100.7, returned it, then re-buying G5X.2. Ugh. These return policies way too liberal.

I'm old enough to remember the "olden days" when you had to VISIT the camera store to see and touch the cameras. You could pretty much make a decision on the spot. Now to the present. Where did all of the camera stores go? We have to decide our choices based on advertising and reviews. The return policies have to be liberal if they want to sell cameras. The percentage of returns is probably low compared to the numbers sold. It's just good business and the returns go to discounters and refurb sites which benefits me tremendously as  I only buy used or refurbed.

So why did you not visit a real camera shop before the buy, don't like it so I'm returning it? Now the vendor has to eat it and sell it as used.

Tremendously good for you and him, not so tremendously good for users who do their research, buy new and keep, nor the retailer, nor the manufacturer who ups prices to make up for this practice.

Seriously??? You feel bad for the camera companies. ? The planet needs more worried citizens like you so the corporations don't have to suffer because the buyers are unthoughtful and unsympathetic to their plight.  It's business dude,  and it's how they make money letting buyers try and decide. Please don't lose any sleep over it.

Oh no, the evil Canon and Sony Corp! 🙀😱

Keep on buying cameras just to try them out, kid.

A lot of complaining about AF from users who probably never had to focus a camera manually by turning a ring and looking at the image back in the dark ages. Horrors. Any modern AF is faster and more accurate. Great. Low light? What normal room lighting or museum. Or a room light by a single candle? Again almost any newer camera handles low light better than back in the miserable highly restrictive days of film. How did anyone take picture back then?

Greg

Of course I will, and you keep the camera you're unhappy with, or are you so brilliant and lucky you never choose wrong. Sheeesh!

Keen to offer a more objective review than this guy does. The camera does a great job in the right hands, and is comprehensive in control as and when needed, One could wronglyfully assume it was a piece of junk reading the review from this guy, as he tends to use capital letters to emphasise what he perceives are largely over-stated but completely trivial criticisms and issues. I,m a fan of Canon and of reviews in general but not this one!!

Yep - you got that right! I must have 5000 pics over the last 4 months and have yet to use a tripod

Looks like the OP has left the building.

BigBen08 wrote:

Looks like the OP has left the building.

In despair possibly because he does seem rather intense about all this camera business,

It is difficult to understand why people go to such lengths to talk about a camera they are sending back and is going out of their life and then do not want to interact with people over the issues.

The we have the issue of people bringing an old bad review best left sleeping back to prominence just to say it is not true.

Yes, to me I'm sure all complaints are accurate, but.. it's kinda like buying a small compact car and not liking that it's not fast, powerful, lots of room etc.

To get everything awesome... it takes a more awesome kit, it's why people pay thousands for a nice DSLR with L glass.

Now I am replying to 5 month old posts. Lost track of it. Put the thread on ignore I think.:-(

RLight wrote:

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...

Hardly rightly so.

It is well over the top. The firmware rant is out of date anyway because they have issued the update which forms a chunk of the outburst aside from shirt collar stiffness in pocketability issues etc. etc. etc..

Side note, might I suggest the OP consider the EOS M200, which is due later this year,

There is no sign that the OP is anywhere near this site yet people are still talking to him.

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 whole point of these compacts is not having to slap a lens on them after taking off the other one when conditions change or different focal lengths are needed or having to put a prime on for compactness. m43 has pancake zooms so that would be a better alternative rather than the clumsy 15-45 EOS M choice. Also people must not forget the stops of stabilisation being lost with the 22mm prime over the G5X or any compact.

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.

The ultra crude stripped back controls on the M100/200 more reminiscent of my Canon SX620 HS do rather make it an eccentric alternative to posit as an alternative to G5X range. Myself I would recommend a look at all the other makes available and am never sure what to make of these attempts, considering there are no lens compatibility problems, to steer people in to a solely Canon solution in a format in which Canon themselves show little interest just because this is the Canon compact forum.