Am I the only one who perceives a massive IQ advantage for the G1X III over 1-inch models?

I own a G7XII and a G9X.

I recently had the opportunity to borrow a G1X III, and I feel like it has a massive IQ advantage over the G7XII. The lens itself seems better (maybe because it covers a smaller range), and the APS-C sensor just appears to have better DR and color acuity/depth. I like the bokeh quality from the G1XIII as well.

I mean the difference between a 1-inch sensor and APS-C is massive, but I've read so many reviews panning the G1X III and suggesting something like the G5X or G7X models may be better, but I just don't see it.

I've had a G1X3 for two years and used it extensively side by side with my 5D4 and 24-105 L lens.  Their images compare very favorable.  Yes, a full frame sensor is better.  But this little camera is a 14 oz jewell.  Folks over on the EOS M forum would love a standard zoom with the G1X3' specs.  In my comparisons it beats any other Canon APS-C std zoom lens including the 15-85.

Folks here on the P&S forum poo poo the G1X3 lens because there are tiny sensor cameras with f1.8 lenses.  Its a cultural thing I think.  I've been using G series cameras and Canon DSLRs since the G3 and the 10D and the G1X3 is by far the best G I've ever had.  This is just my opinion and they vary widely.  Most of the poster who actually have one love it.

You're not crazy.

I used to own the G1X III, and now own the G5X II.

They both have the Canon colors, but the former has them better.

There's more oomph, for lack of better words, to the G1X III images, no question vs 1" sensors, even the G5X II and G7X III.

That said, I can't pocket the G1X III so I went G5X II this round.

But you're correct, the G1X III has an IQ advantage over the 1" competition.

Haven't owned any cameras with 1" sensor. But I did own the LX100 II which has a micro 4/3 sensor. A cropped one as a matter of fact. The biggest advantage is at high iso. With the G1X III I can go to iso 4000 no worries. The limit on the LX100 II is 1600 really.
And even if the aperture on the lens of the Lumix and some 1" sensor cameras is relatively faster than the one on the G1X III, users won't always be able to use the fastest aperture to get the result they want. They'd eventually have to stop down, more often than not, thus cancelling that low light shooting advantage that people talk about when comparing the G1X III to cameras with smaller sensors and larger aperture lenses. 
Yes the G1X Mark III, that very small camera, gives me the image quality and confidence I expect.

I was considering the G1Xiii and the G7Xii at the same time. It was a hard decision because I really loved the G1X ergonomics and the idea of the 1" sensor. I had it to test for a week, and it seemed good but not mind blowing, especially considering the price differences. I liked that it had a viewfinder....I really didn't want another camera without one. The image IQ was good, but still, the APSC advantage wasn't as impressive as I thought it would be.

However, there's a comparison article here on DPR that kind of changed my mind and tilted me towards the G7Xii. I actually liked what I saw from the G7Xii slightly more, and I was also wanting the f1.8 and 100mm at the long end more than I wanted the viewfinder.

I had wanted a small camera that I could use indoors in darker environments such as old building, museums, churches for an upcoming vacation.  I figured the faster G7Xii lens would perform better, and I was fairly pleased with it.  I'm not sure the G1Xiii would have done as well in that regard.

Here's the article if you haven't seen it:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8432414091/powershot-shootout-canon-s-g1-x-iii-and-g7-x-ii

In reading through this thread I think I should point out that we're talking small relative differences between all the cameras mentioned.  We're talking personal preferences and personal applications.  For example, my interpretation of the CameraLabs article that SantaMaria mentioned is that the cameras are equivalent with neither having a particular advantage or disadvantage, specifically for noise in low light all else being equal.

CMCM mentions wanting a small fixed lens compact to shoot the interiors of old churches, etc.  I personally would opt for an M camera with an EF f2.8 24mm IS or EF f2 IS 35 mm prime, if I wasn't using my full frame camera.  But now we are talking multiple lenses and more bulk.  Its all a trade off and personal preference.  I don't think there is a general right or wrong answer.

But, just for the record, I've used my G1X3 in museums and old churches and it yields excellent images.  IMHO.  

Every once in a while I use an original G1X, and think that it is still capable of making fine images, if you are not in a hurry.

Swerky wrote:

Haven't owned any cameras with 1" sensor. But I did own the LX100 II which has a micro 4/3 sensor. A cropped one as a matter of fact. The biggest advantage is at high iso. With the G1X III I can go to iso 4000 no worries. ....

Well of course at the 'same' ISO a good APS-C should out perform the smaller 4/3rds sensor; especially when 100% Pixel Peeping images.

However at the same focal length the GX1 III going to be 1 to 2 stops slower at lens max aperture; i.e., with same lighting conditions with LX100 II at 1600 ISO the GX1 III will need 3200 ISO (24mm EFL f/1.7 vs f/2.8) - 6400 ISO (f/2.8 vs f/5.6).

Below are G1X III and LX100 LL JPG images I downloaded from the DPR Studio Scene Comparison tool HERE (with the low light simulation) to do a side-by- side comparison,

1-Stop Difference: GiX III 3200 ISO — LX100 1600 ISO

2-Stop Difference: G1X III 6400 ISO — LX100 1600 ISO

I have the 80D and the LX100 I. Been pondering past couple of months reading over reviews for the G1X III, and the LX100 II as to getting the G1X III or the LX100 II.

I've read over dozen reviews on each camera, downloaded several dozen JPG+RAW for each camera, and PP RAW images to do my own comparisons,

... The limit on the LX100 II is 1600 really. ...

JPG or RAW images?

Fairly well known that the Achilles' heel of Panasonic compact cameras is the in-camera JPG noise-reduction/ lens corrections. To get the optimum IQ you NEED to shoot RAW.

DxO PhotoLabs Elite Suite provides superior noise reductions and lens corrections compared to the in-camera JPG PP.

Below are some of the DPR's LX100 II low light/ high ISO RAW sample images I downloaded/ PP. (EXIF Data in image)

LX100 II 75mm EFL, f/2.8, 6400 ISO — • — G1X III @ f/5.6 = 12800 ISO

3200 ISO

1600 ISO - Low Light Option

3200 ISO Low Light Option

At 100% pixel peeping one can easily get nick picky, but with normal viewing on display, HD TV, or print 11" x 14" or less images would be fine.

IMO there's far more to a good "photograph" than edge- to-edge tack sharp; e.g., viewing Ansel Adams photographs close up with a magnifying glass.

I ended up getting the LX100 II as a update to my ordinal LX100.

IMO the LX100/ II somewhat of a 'niche' camera that will be most liked by those (like myself) that learned 'photography' using manual operation 35mm film cameras, and enjoy having the manual settings.

The other plus for (myself) the LX100 II's $200 discount. A new G1X III with two extra batteries would be $300 more.

Bottom line, it all depends how one uses the camera, and how image are to be used.

If one mostly uses images to view on a display, HD TV, and/ or share online, very unlikely one will be see difference between a G1X III image or good quality 1"-type sensor image at lower ISO's.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon_T wrote:

Swerky wrote:

Haven't owned any cameras with 1" sensor. But I did own the LX100 II which has a micro 4/3 sensor. A cropped one as a matter of fact. The biggest advantage is at high iso. With the G1X III I can go to iso 4000 no worries. ....

Well of course at the 'same' ISO a good APS-C should out perform the smaller 4/3rds sensor; especially when 100% Pixel Peeping images.

However at the same focal length the GX1 III going to be 1 to 2 stops slower at lens max aperture; i.e., with same lighting conditions with LX100 II at 1600 ISO the GX1 III will need 3200 ISO (24mm EFL f/1.7 vs f/2.8) - 6400 ISO (f/2.8 vs f/5.6).

Below are G1X III and LX100 LL JPG images I downloaded from the DPR Studio Scene Comparison tool HERE (with the low light simulation) to do a side-by- side comparison,

1-Stop Difference: GiX III 3200 ISO — LX100 1600 ISO

2-Stop Difference: G1X III 6400 ISO — LX100 1600 ISO

I have the 80D and the LX100 I. Been pondering past couple of months reading over reviews for the G1X III, and the LX100 II as to getting the G1X III or the LX100 II.

I've read over dozen reviews on each camera, downloaded several dozen JPG+RAW for each camera, and PP RAW images to do my own comparisons,

... The limit on the LX100 II is 1600 really. ...

JPG or RAW images?

Fairly well known that the Achilles' heel of Panasonic compact cameras is the in-camera JPG noise-reduction/ lens corrections. To get the optimum IQ you NEED to shoot RAW.

DxO PhotoLabs Elite Suite provides superior noise reductions and lens corrections compared to the in-camera JPG PP.

Below are some of the DPR's LX100 II low light/ high ISO RAW sample images I downloaded/ PP. (EXIF Data in image)

LX100 II 75mm EFL, f/2.8, 6400 ISO — • — G1X III @ f/5.6 = 12800 ISO

3200 ISO

1600 ISO - Low Light Option

3200 ISO Low Light Option

At 100% pixel peeping one can easily get nick picky, but with normal viewing on display, HD TV, or print 11" x 14" or less images would be fine.

IMO there's far more to a good "photograph" than edge- to-edge tack sharp; e.g., viewing Ansel Adams photographs close up with a magnifying glass.

I ended up getting the LX100 II as a update to my ordinal LX100.

IMO the LX100/ II somewhat of a 'niche' camera that will be most liked by those (like myself) that learned 'photography' using manual operation 35mm film cameras, and enjoy having the manual settings.

The other plus for (myself) the LX100 II's $200 discount. A new G1X III with two extra batteries would be $300 more.

Bottom line, it all depends how one uses the camera, and how image are to be used.

If one mostly uses images to view on a display, HD TV, and/ or share online, very unlikely one will be see difference between a G1X III image or good quality 1"-type sensor image at lower ISO's.

Cheers,
Jon

That's some extensive study. 
Yes when I was mentioning high iso, I was referring to jpeg as I'm not looking to spend more time than I want editing on a machine. I did quite enjoy using the LX100 II, but I felt that it limited me in that area mostly. EVF on the G1X Mark III is better as well. Brighter, more comfortable for the eye. The field sequential evf on the Lumix is sometimes distracting. But the main thing with the camera is that I experienced manufacturing issues. Sometimes the zoom mechanism would jam in colder weather. By that I mean around 15 degrees Celsius. And I noticed a hair had slipped inside the lens element. That meant the successor of the original camera was plagued with the same lens build issue. For that I decided to sell it as I judged it wouldn't be a reliable tool.
Good luck with yours. Hope you won't see anything like that.

I have both the G1x and G1X111.  The latter is my favorite hiking camera. It is all that I need: Compact, lightweight, water and dust resistant, and takes very good photos.

I bought it as soon as it came out and have no regrets. Well, just one regret. Last week I watched it roll into three feet of water. It's as dead as a hammer. Glad I hung on to the original G1X! It is a fine camera and will now be my hiking kit.

If I actually get to travel from California to Texas this fall to see my grandsons, the four year old will enjoy taking the G1X111 apart and inspecting its insides with his Papa!

nolten wrote:

In reading through this thread I think I should point out that we're talking small relative differences between all the cameras mentioned. We're talking personal preferences and personal applications. For example, my interpretation of the CameraLabs article that SantaMaria mentioned is that the cameras are equivalent with neither having a particular advantage or disadvantage, specifically for noise in low light all else being equal.

CMCM mentions wanting a small fixed lens compact to shoot the interiors of old churches, etc. ...

In my reading of CMCM's post he wanted a pocketable compact for general purpose camera that had a fast enough aperture for taking interiors of old churches, etc. 'My' preference for a pocketable general purpose/ travel camera is the ZS100 (25-250mm EFL); may take along the LX100 if I think I'll need the faster lens/ larger sensor.

... I personally would opt for an M camera with an EF f2.8 24mm IS or EF f2 IS 35 mm prime, ...

Are you forgetting the APS-C 1.6 crop factor? A 24mm lens would have a 38.4mm EFL; iMO not really wide enough for building interiors, museums, exhibits, etc.

ZS100 1600 ISO, 25mm EFL

... But now we are talking multiple lenses and more bulk. Its all a trade off and personal preference. I don't think there is a general right or wrong answer.

Agree. For myself rather than spending the $$$ and carrying around (be there, done that 20 years ago) multiple primes, I prefer a good quality zoom, i.e., 16-35mm f/4 L on my 6D or
6D II.

... But, just for the record, I've used my G1X3 in museums and old churches and it yields excellent images. IMHO.

The ZS100 RAW images are good enough for general purpose images, and have the 250mm EFL.

ZS100, 250mm EFL, 800 ISO

Cheers,
Jon

Swerky wrote:

...That's some extensive study.

Thanks. Being that I have the 80D I was Initially excited about the G1X III.

For myself for the price of the G1X III,or any other 'high end' enthusiast compact I would want at least a f/4.0 max aperture.

With the G1X III lens it not just the f/5.6 at the 72mm EFL, its the rather rapid max aperture decreasing as the focal length increases.

Not just for low light conditions, but also when you want a shallow DOF as possible.

... Yes when I was mentioning high iso, I was referring to jpeg as I'm not looking to spend more time than I want editing on a machine. ...

Understand; there's always a leaning curve with any process. Does not take me any longer to PP a RAW vs doing the same amount of corrections/ tweaks to a JPG image.

... I did quite enjoy using the LX100 II, but I felt that it limited me in that area mostly. EVF on the G1X Mark III is better as well. Brighter, more comfortable for the eye. The field sequential evf on the Lumix is sometimes distracting. ...

Yes the LX100 II's EVF is one of it's Cons. As noted in all the LX100 II reviews I read, Panasonic should use a better EVF for the price and being a "II" release.

... But the main thing with the camera is that I experienced manufacturing issues. Sometimes the zoom mechanism would jam in colder weather. By that I mean around 15 degrees Celsius. ...

That would be discouraging. I've used my LX100 at nights taking pics of Christmas decorations 30 - 40 degrees F without any problems.

... And I noticed a hair had slipped inside the lens element. That meant the successor of the original camera was plagued with the same lens build issue. For that I decided to sell it as I judged it wouldn't be a reliable tool. ...

According to the DPR and several other reviews noted that they contacted Panasonic and asked if any improvements were made to the LX100 II's lens to mitigate the original LX100 lens dust intrusion problems.

Panasonic's reply was:
"... we have a countermeasure to prevent the dust ingress with the LX100M2. There will no longer be a gap when the lens barrel is moving."

... Good luck with yours. Hope you won't see anything like that.

Thanks.

Had my LX100 MK1 for three years; no sensor dust or lens functioning issues.

As I noted spent couple months comparing G1X III and the LX100 II, and the end overall for 'myself' the LX100 II ticked-off more of the items I wanted in a enthusiast compact camera, along with that the G1X III with two extra batteries would cost US$300 more, and Panasonic's promo of a free 3-Year Extended Warranty.

Cheers,
Jon

We agree there are lots of great choices out there.  My main kit has been a 5D# with 24-105 f4 L and 100-400 which have suited all my travel needs wonderfully for over 14 years.  I'm now on a 5D4 which would still be my first choice for once in a lifetime travel.  Accessory cameras have been a number of XXDs and G series and a couple Ss.  All have  yielded wonderful, irreplaceable images.  The 5D4 and G1X3 are both so good at their jobs that I don't feel the need for further upgrades.  Happy days.

john Clinch wrote:

Swerky wrote:

Haven't owned any cameras with 1" sensor. But I did own the LX100 II which has a micro 4/3 sensor. A cropped one as a matter of fact. The biggest advantage is at high iso. With the G1X III I can go to iso 4000 no worries. The limit on the LX100 II is 1600 really.
And even if the aperture on the lens of the Lumix and some 1" sensor cameras is relatively faster than the one on the G1X III, users won't always be able to use the fastest aperture to get the result they want. They'd eventually have to stop down, more often than not, thus cancelling that low light shooting advantage that people talk about when comparing the G1X III to cameras with smaller sensors and larger aperture lenses.

Why will they have to stop down? I'm confused

Because wide open, the lens will give a shallow depth of field in many situations, a result photographers don't always want. Also stopping down may improve the sharpness of the lens. But if stopping down would ultimately mean increasing ISO, then I guess it's better to leave it wide open, if that doesn't affect on the desired depth of field.

Yes the G1X Mark III, that very small camera, gives me the image quality and confidence I expect.