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

john Clinch wrote:

Swerky wrote:

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.

But isnt that true for the larger sensor as well?

the G1X mark III has an average aperture range, so it should be sharp and not have a too shallow depth of field from the get go. The quality of the lens plays a factor here as well.  In the end it’s a trade off. If you’re looking for better subject separation for portraiture, the longer focal range and faster aperture at the long end of the G5x cameras for example will be better suited than the G1x mark iii.

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

Och Elo wrote:

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 own the G9X II and the G1X III... and I like and use them both.

Obviously there is an IQ advantage for the bigger sensor, but I wouldn't call it massive.

However, the G1X III has some features that its smaller brother lacks and which make it more user-friendly: fully articulated screen, view finder, better ergonomics, possibility to use filters, etc. That's why the IQ advantage should not be the only factor to take into account.

In a more general way, I notice that most people are too obsessed with the image quality of their camera(s) instead of setting store by quality of their pictures...

CMCM wrote:

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

Actually, I just realized I said the G1Xiii had a 1" sensor, but it should have been APS-C.  And the G7Xii is a 1" sensor.  I felt the G1Xiii was good, and in particular, I remember doing some photos in digital zoom territory that I was surprised at (i.e. better than I expected).  But overall, the differences I observed didn't override my preference for longer zoom and a faster lens.  And there was also a considerable price difference at that time ($1200 for the G1Xiii)  which just seemed like way too much for it.

I felt the G1Xiii was good, and in particular, I remember doing some photos in digital zoom territory that I was surprised at (i.e. better than I expected). But overall, the differences I observed didn't override my preference for longer zoom and a faster lens. And there was also a considerable price difference at that time ($1200 for the G1Xiii) which just seemed like way too much for it.

As already stated, and from what I have seen on review sites, the G1XIII @ 70mm is better than the G7XIII@100mm. Same might apply vs the G5XII.

So then 1" is down to faster longer lens and resulting lower iso for night pics....

Chapel and library at Trinity College in Ireland a few years back with the Canon G1X Mark 3 . Pleased with images, a great compact travel camera. If I had to have just one camera, this would be it.

Trinity College Library

Chapel

SantaMaria wrote:

In a more general way, I notice that most people are too obsessed with the image quality of their camera(s) instead of setting store by quality of their pictures...

Very true. But then any pinhole box will do. I prefer a good tool.

In today's world, you can get wonderful photos from most any modern camera.  My experience and when remembering the earliest digital cameras, was that my first digital camera was horribly unimpressive and I hated it compared to my film cameras.

All that has changed for the better in the last decade or so.

So it helps to know what you're doing and you can get equally bad photo images with a cheap as well as with an expensive camera.  You can also get fantastic photos with both cheap and expensive cameras.  As they say, "It's what is behind the camera that matters most."

My recent camera purchases during the last 10 or so years has been exactly what you said:  It's about finding a good tool for YOU.  Some cameras have a better tool set than others.

I went for a G7 X III for much better pocketability and a longer range when I want to go really light. On hikes when it is possible to carry more, but I still want to go relative light, I take my M system for even better quality and greater range.