So I got a G5X Mk2 - My thoughts

My History - jump to the 3rd paragraph if you want to skip this ........ Some here may remember this - I`ve been a long term used of canon compacts dating back to the original 2Mp Digital Ixus , through the S30 to S70 and then S90 (which was really like the forerunner of the Sony RX100) , the G2, 3, 5 and 6 then the fantastic and seriously underrated G10 (IMO the best of that shape of G, better than the 11/12/16 in good light in RAW) - SX series from the 10 to the 50 as well as the S3IS etc SX210/220/700 with russian hacks to shoot RAW (remember that) .. then onto the RX100 Mk1 and Mk3 and back to Mk1 again - that fell to bits so finally got another canon kin the shape of a tatty used G7X Mk1 ..

So after having this for a year bought knowing all its foibles and workarounds , I`ve been really wanting an EVF again.  no more sonys for me, the IS is poor, handling awful, the lenses of the 24-70mm ones are superb at 24mm but get worse as you zoom to a soft 75mm regardless of aperture (the longer ones do likewise even the slow Mk1/2) but the wide end of that fast 24-70 is good ... the G7X is the total opposite , distorted down a toilet roll look at 24mm which needs loads of correction , to sharp everywhere at 100mm even at F2.8 - tip , zoom the lens to 11mm and far less correction is needed and the black edges go . Sharp lens though and functional camera .

I looked at the G5X Mk2 and borrowed one for an hour, the lens had tilted optics (soft on RH side ) and was softer overall than the G7X - not impressed for the crazy price it costs..  this camera is really what Sony would have called a "G7X-MK4" as its an extension of that family and not really a G5X series cam - I was looking for a cheap G5X Mk1 as it has the far better EVF setup and front dial and I can live with the G7X lens is has . Anyway a mint boxed used G5X Mk2 popped up at a shop at a good price (big saving over new) so thought I`d give it a go as the borrower Obv had dud optics ..

First off its a good copy with no decentering or tilt, the wide end is still down a toilet roll  but the actual distortion is less than the G7X series lens so less correction is needed in C1 ..  also in RAW in Capture one , it`s every bit as sharp as the G7X optic , has better colour and contrast too and at 120mm wideopen, less "odd areas" (those random blurry squidgy bits we see cause by Aspherical elements on parts of the image) which the G7X can suffer sometimes at longer distances at 100mm..... the ergos otherwise are much the same , its faster definitely but the smallest AF box is still way too big, this doesn`t seem to have evolved since the S90 .. I Like the grip more and the front ring even more so .. I`m convinced that the EVF is the same unit as on the Sony MK3/4/5, it works and is decent but pulling it out is as much a pain as ever - this is the deal maker of this cam over the G7X series - the IS is superb like the G7X . I wish there was a way of disabling the moving the AF point on the back screen without disabling the whole touchscreen .

Is this cam worth the £850 UK shelf price - IMO definitely not , you can get a decent Mirrorless kit for that  ..  If it had a fixed EVF, the latest  1" PDAF sensor (which is a good few years old itself now) with ISO80 and up to date AF and a larger physical lens to get that 24mm end needing less correction , then deffo  but I also find the RX100 series comically overpriced especially the slow zoom 24-200 ones .

the G5X Mk2 is a decent buy from a dealer used with warranty for £550-£600 i`d say but don`t expect much of a jump in Image quality over an old  G7X Mk1 - the lens IS better throughout but the Digic 8 JPG engine is pretty poor by todays standards in this camera, even in "Fine detail " mode , it still smudges away fine detail like canons of 15 years ago did - the M50 in the same mode does none of this so no idea why as the cam pulls excellent detail in RAW . saying all that - there isn`t an RX100 model I`d swap it for , the fast lens ones are poor at the long end and all have poor IS and ergonomics IMO , Its also unlikely canon will make a MK3 so the Mk2 as an allround stills pocket compact ends up being the best of an uninspiring bunch (and I include panasonics in that too, I tried the TZ100 and LX10 on a test)

YMMV as always

Couple of test shots in RAW in C1 ..

Hello

Nice thoughts on your G5X2.

and photographs.

AdamT wrote:

My History - jump to the 3rd paragraph if you want to skip this ........ Some here may remember this - I`ve been a long term used of canon compacts dating back to the original 2Mp Digital Ixus , through the S30 to S70 and then S90 (which was really like the forerunner of the Sony RX100) , the G2, 3, 5 and 6 then the fantastic and seriously underrated G10 (IMO the best of that shape of G, better than the 11/12/16 in good light in RAW) - SX series from the 10 to the 50 as well as the S3IS etc SX210/220/700 with russian hacks to shoot RAW (remember that) .. then onto the RX100 Mk1 and Mk3 and back to Mk1 again - that fell to bits so finally got another canon kin the shape of a tatty used G7X Mk1 ..

So after having this for a year bought knowing all its foibles and workarounds , I`ve been really wanting an EVF again. no more sonys for me, the IS is poor, handling awful, the lenses of the 24-70mm ones are superb at 24mm but get worse as you zoom to a soft 75mm regardless of aperture (the longer ones do likewise even the slow Mk1/2) but the wide end of that fast 24-70 is good ... the G7X is the total opposite , distorted down a toilet roll look at 24mm which needs loads of correction , to sharp everywhere at 100mm even at F2.8 - tip , zoom the lens to 11mm and far less correction is needed and the black edges go . Sharp lens though and functional camera .

I looked at the G5X Mk2 and borrowed one for an hour, the lens had tilted optics (soft on RH side ) and was softer overall than the G7X - not impressed for the crazy price it costs.. this camera is really what Sony would have called a "G7X-MK4" as its an extension of that family and not really a G5X series cam - I was looking for a cheap G5X Mk1 as it has the far better EVF setup and front dial and I can live with the G7X lens is has . Anyway a mint boxed used G5X Mk2 popped up at a shop at a good price (big saving over new) so thought I`d give it a go as the borrower Obv had dud optics ..

First off its a good copy with no decentering or tilt, the wide end is still down a toilet roll but the actual distortion is less than the G7X series lens so less correction is needed in C1 .. also in RAW in Capture one , it`s every bit as sharp as the G7X optic , has better colour and contrast too and at 120mm wideopen, less "odd areas" (those random blurry squidgy bits we see cause by Aspherical elements on parts of the image) which the G7X can suffer sometimes at longer distances at 100mm..... the ergos otherwise are much the same , its faster definitely but the smallest AF box is still way too big, this doesn`t seem to have evolved since the S90 .. I Like the grip more and the front ring even more so .. I`m convinced that the EVF is the same unit as on the Sony MK3/4/5, it works and is decent but pulling it out is as much a pain as ever - this is the deal maker of this cam over the G7X series - the IS is superb like the G7X . I wish there was a way of disabling the moving the AF point on the back screen without disabling the whole touchscreen .

Is this cam worth the £850 UK shelf price - IMO definitely not , you can get a decent Mirrorless kit for that .. If it had a fixed EVF, the latest 1" PDAF sensor (which is a good few years old itself now) with ISO80 and up to date AF and a larger physical lens to get that 24mm end needing less correction , then deffo but I also find the RX100 series comically overpriced especially the slow zoom 24-200 ones .

the G5X Mk2 is a decent buy from a dealer used with warranty for £550-£600 i`d say but don`t expect much of a jump in Image quality over an old G7X Mk1 - the lens IS better throughout but the Digic 8 JPG engine is pretty poor by todays standards in this camera, even in "Fine detail " mode , it still smudges away fine detail like canons of 15 years ago did - the M50 in the same mode does none of this so no idea why as the cam pulls excellent detail in RAW . saying all that - there isn`t an RX100 model I`d swap it for , the fast lens ones are poor at the long end and all have poor IS and ergonomics IMO , Its also unlikely canon will make a MK3 so the Mk2 as an allround stills pocket compact ends up being the best of an uninspiring bunch (and I include panasonics in that too, I tried the TZ100 and LX10 on a test)

YMMV as always

Couple of test shots in RAW in C1 ..

Sue Anne Rush wrote:

Hello

Nice thoughts on your G5X2.

and photographs.

Thanks a lot Sue

Zooming the lens a touch removes most of the toilet roll / distortion , far more than it does with the G7X or the 1" panasonics I`ve encountered - less distortion means less edge corruption - this is why the Sony Mk3/4/5/5a win at 24mm, there is no toilet rolling and less distortion than any of the canons but at the cost of a very soft and not so long end at infinity even at F4 . I prefer the canon option of the wide end having the compromise but a sharp much longer long end even at F2.8 and all distances even in the G7X series lens and the G5X-II optic is even better for this

Some Examples with descriptions for each

Zooming to 12.5mm (33mm) removes all the issues totally - only cropped to 16:9 to display widescreen the corners are just as good in the 3:2 version ....... no Corrections , Capture one - F4

The lens definitely performs better at 24mm F1.8 than the G7X optic and not that far off the Sony 24-75 in the MK3/2/5 as that lens likes to be stopped down also ..

Resized to 12Mp but you get the idea - F1.8 allows not too dark interiors to be shot at base ISO darker would make use of the superb OIS

Sonys have ISO80 as a pulled ISO which even Capture one recognises and corrects for nd gives APS_C like clean skies but limits highlight recovery , sadly canon don`t have extended low ISOs so you end up with ISO125 and noisy skies & shadows at base ISO (125 is no better on Sonys)  .. of course you can do it manually with +2/3 of a stop and pull back to get the same ..

12Mp resize but again you get the idea, skies and shadows as clean as ISO64 on the big RX10 Mk3 due to overexposing and pulling back in RAW - I do wish the cam had ISO64 to do this automatically , it would help JPG shooters too

and lastly the croppability of the long end - 120mm F4 100% Crop in RAW in haze but you get the drift ..  No complaints there and the lens is sharp edge to edge on the full image even at infinity where I found Sony and Panasonic failed

There were Picture Quality settings (I think that is what it is called) on the G7Xii where you could adjust the edge and shadow sharpness setting, etc... I remember there being optimal settings on the G7xii for this. The G5xii also has these settings, but I have not been able to find any posts that recommend any particular setting as giving better images - I would love to know which works best.

Juggernaut122 wrote:

There were Picture Quality settings (I think that is what it is called) on the G7Xii where you could adjust the edge and shadow sharpness setting, etc... I remember there being optimal settings on the G7xii for this. The G5xii also has these settings, but I have not been able to find any posts that recommend any particular setting as giving better images - I would love to know which works best.

I set this up on the M50 and it gave amazing detail - better than Sony's best with little reason to shoot RAW for much in the way of fine detail gain but canon sadly haven`t replicated this in the G5X-II and have done their usual trick of slapping crude noise reduction all over the place at base ISO which not only smears fine detail away but leaves speckly skies too if any kind of lighting optimiser is chosen. may as well use a phone than this cameras JPG engine from what I`ve seen so far --- RAW is of course the answer

This is the "Fine detail" selection which Marco Nero recommended for the later M bodies which works very well in the M50 . in the G5X-II it gives haloes , crude detail killing NR and flat colours .... the RAW version of the same image seen in the OP (I shot RAW + JPG) is in another ballpark . far from a deal killer for me as I rarely shoot JPG but it`d have been nice to see the detail retaining JPG engine from the later EOS_M cams here . It`d be interesting to try any settings people find retains more

AdamT wrote:

Juggernaut122 wrote:

There were Picture Quality settings (I think that is what it is called) on the G7Xii where you could adjust the edge and shadow sharpness setting, etc... I remember there being optimal settings on the G7xii for this. The G5xii also has these settings, but I have not been able to find any posts that recommend any particular setting as giving better images - I would love to know which works best.

I set this up on the M50 and it gave amazing detail - better than Sony's best with little reason to shoot RAW for much in the way of fine detail gain but canon sadly haven`t replicated this in the G5X-II and have done their usual trick of slapping crude noise reduction all over the place at base ISO which not only smears fine detail away but leaves speckly skies too if any kind of lighting optimiser is chosen. may as well use a phone than this cameras JPG engine from what I`ve seen so far --- RAW is of course the answer

This is the "Fine detail" selection which Marco Nero recommended for the later M bodies which works very well in the M50 . in the G5X-II it gives haloes , crude detail killing NR and flat colours .... the RAW version of the same image seen in the OP (I shot RAW + JPG) is in another ballpark . far from a deal killer for me as I rarely shoot JPG but it`d have been nice to see the detail retaining JPG engine from the later EOS_M cams here . It`d be interesting to try any settings people find retains more

I concur... In fact the recent LR advancements with color matching make it "the answer" to Canon's base ISO NR smearing, which you can't turn off even with NR set to zero in DPP4. LR doesn't have the problem though...

Note the texture retention on the trees in the foreground, and on the ground. This drove me absolutely mad with base ISO smearing away fine details. Lightroom, now that Adobe has their act together nearly 2 years later, 4, excuse me, has it right.

I'd say the latest Lightroom shifts the balance of power here a bit. It still doesn't make the the 1" G5X II challenge say my G1X Mark III or EOS M's (APS-C), but it's nice to have a cure, for needless loss of IQ that was there in the RAWs all along. It's a step towards higher IQ, and making the G5X II more relevant.

The trouble with 1" is the lack of differentiation from smartphone quality at times. Shooting RAW with the G5X II and using a good post processor makes a difference here where the shot above, you can't do with an iPhone, in terms of color and detail retention. Just not possible. Physics at work here of having a larger sensor, larger lens.

The first copy is DPP4, NR set to zero, btw. Second is LR, also no NR. These are base ISO (125), NR is not necessary.

AdamT wrote:

Zooming the lens a touch removes most of the toilet roll / distortion , far more than it does with the G7X or the 1" panasonics I`ve encountered - less distortion means less edge corruption - this is why the Sony Mk3/4/5/5a win at 24mm, there is no toilet rolling and less distortion than any of the canons but at the cost of a very soft and not so long end at infinity even at F4 . I prefer the canon option of the wide end having the compromise but a sharp much longer long end even at F2.8 and all distances even in the G7X series lens and the G5X-II optic is even better for this

Some Examples with descriptions for each

Zooming to 12.5mm (33mm) removes all the issues totally - only cropped to 16:9 to display widescreen the corners are just as good in the 3:2 version ....... no Corrections , Capture one - F4

The lens definitely performs better at 24mm F1.8 than the G7X optic and not that far off the Sony 24-75 in the MK3/2/5 as that lens likes to be stopped down also ..

Resized to 12Mp but you get the idea - F1.8 allows not too dark interiors to be shot at base ISO darker would make use of the superb OIS

Sonys have ISO80 as a pulled ISO which even Capture one recognises and corrects for nd gives APS_C like clean skies but limits highlight recovery , sadly canon don`t have extended low ISOs so you end up with ISO125 and noisy skies & shadows at base ISO (125 is no better on Sonys) .. of course you can do it manually with +2/3 of a stop and pull back to get the same ..

12Mp resize but again you get the idea, skies and shadows as clean as ISO64 on the big RX10 Mk3 due to overexposing and pulling back in RAW - I do wish the cam had ISO64 to do this automatically , it would help JPG shooters too

and lastly the croppability of the long end - 120mm F4 100% Crop in RAW in haze but you get the drift .. No complaints there and the lens is sharp edge to edge on the full image even at infinity where I found Sony and Panasonic failed

I never really had a gripe about "toilet roll" at 8.8mm (24mm) on the G5X II. Just make sure if you don't need f/1.8, stop down to f/3.5-4 to both grab DoF for landscapes you'd take at 24mm anyways, and pickup some resolution... Imatests on the link below showing relative apertures vs focal lengths vs resolution delivered on the G5X II...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/compact-fixed-lens-cameras/canon-powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/

Now granted, the inversion of fisheye optics at 24mm can create odd artifacts with bokeh. Again, if you don't need f/1.8, don't use it. Kills both birds with one stone.

When you need f/1.8, you need f/1.8 though...

This is stunning from a 1" sensor. And a smartphone cannot touch the colors and detail retained in these circumstances with a 10ft pole. Toilet roll issues aside, f/1.8 is f/1.8 in terms of light gathering capability. It's why you'd shoot a G5X II over say a RX100 VI. And it shows with indoor / low light shooting

The trouble with 1" is the lack of differentiation from smartphone quality at times.

In JPG there`s little between 1" M43 and APS_C as well , the NR they load up at base ISO kills detail but even 1" sensors have far more detail in RAW even than the biggest phone sensors because phone sensors are stops noisier even at base ...... prob with the G1X-3 is that it gives up all its APS_C advantage with that very slow short lens (which isn`t marvellous optically wideopen either)

Shooting RAW with the G5X II and using a good post processor makes a difference here where the shot above, you can't do with an iPhone, in terms of color and detail retention. Just not possible. Physics at work here of having a larger sensor, larger lens.

capture one pulls out amazing details from the 1" brigade and overexposing and pulling back in RAW gives back the clean skies which the likes of the RX10 Mk3 & 4 get with ISO64

This is stunning from a 1" sensor. And a smartphone cannot touch the colors and detail retained in these circumstances with a 10ft pole. Toilet roll issues aside, f/1.8 is f/1.8 in terms of light gathering capability. It's why you'd shoot a G5X II over say a RX100 VI. And it shows with indoor / low light shooting

the lens de-toilet-rolls very quickly as you zoom, far quicker than the G7X optic , its gone as is most of the distortion by 12mm - there is less distortion than the G7X too and less other mess like CA etc . the more I use the G5X-II the more and more improvements over the G7X series lens I`m finding and like that lens, it gets better and better as you zoom . it`s superb at 120mm F2.8 at all distances, in fairness the G7X lens was very good at 100mm F2.8 - the Sonys start off good at 24mm and get worse and worse as you zoom from my Experience with the MK1, MK3 and a trial of the Mk6

G5X-II on walkabout - 100% Crops or fullsize Developed in Capture one with only Distortion correction

Vignetting added my me in Photoshop after for effect

Lens crops well at 120mm Infinity

Vignetting added my me in Photoshop after for effect

Hello Adam...

AdamT wrote:

This is stunning from a 1" sensor. And a smartphone cannot touch the colors and detail retained in these circumstances with a 10ft pole. Toilet roll issues aside, f/1.8 is f/1.8 in terms of light gathering capability. It's why you'd shoot a G5X II over say a RX100 VI. And it shows with indoor / low light shooting

the lens de-toilet-rolls very quickly as you zoom, far quicker than the G7X optic , its gone as is most of the distortion by 12mm - there is less distortion than the G7X too and less other mess like CA etc . the more I use the G5X-II the more and more improvements over the G7X series lens I`m finding and like that lens, it gets better and better as you zoom . it`s superb at 120mm F2.8 at all distances, in fairness the G7X lens was very good at 100mm F2.8 - the Sonys start off good at 24mm and get worse and worse as you zoom from my Experience with the MK1, MK3 and a trial of the Mk6

G5X-II on walkabout - 100% Crops or fullsize Developed in Capture one with only Distortion correction

Vignetting added my me in Photoshop after for effect

Lens crops well at 120mm Infinity

Vignetting added my me in Photoshop after for effect

These are beautiful photographs - thank you for sharing.

Vignetting added my me in Photoshop after for effect

These are beautiful photographs - thank you for sharing.

Thanks  a lot Sue 

The only 'compact' I had recently that had really good IQ was the Canon G1x MK III, but it was too big for the pocket, it was pretty heavy, and produced pretty much identical IQ to my SL1 with it's kit lens.

Which isn`t very promising considering the SL1 was basically a 600D (an 11yr old camera) which the MK1 G1X was based on and like the 100D (SL1) still stacks up today .

The G1X series are strange, the Mk1 was basically a 650D`s live view mode in a compact with the 18Mp sensor cropped to 14Mp with a 28-110mm F2.8-5.6 - I had one eight years from launch and it was superb IMO was the best compromise lens wise as it may have been slow and not 24mm but was sharp throughout across the frame with the least distortion and you always got 14Mp - the Mk2 went for a slightly faster 24-120, lost the OVF and toughness and the glass was very underdesigned so compromised as it was 12Mp at the wide end due to the extreme toilet rolling and wasn`t sharp at the long end . the Mk3 seems to have gone for the "Stuff an EOS-M5 into a G5X body and make a real pancake from the 15-45 M Kit lens with a faster but far more distorted wide end" concept - optically from what I seem it hits middle ground without the reach or issues of the Mk2 but with more issues than the Mk1 and is a lot shorter and just as slow ..

Diff is that neither the Mk1 or even the Mk2 + EVF cost anywhere near the £1200 the Mk3 costs

I had an LX100 after that, that really didn't impress me....

cropping the outdated 16Mp sensor to 12Mp didn`t do that camera any favours, the Mk2 with the 20MP cropped to 17 fares better and the lens is better than any of the Sony or Canon options but its far from pocketable and not cheap

'upgrading' cameras.
What's always interesting to me is how a new camera comes out, people rave about the IQ, the final photos are 'stellar'... then a newer camera comes out and suddenly last years camera's IQ is unusable lol

exactly - not only that but most of the time they`re comparing JPG engines which are far from extracting the most from the camera or lens ....

Funny thing is that today, cameras are compared and found only to be "usable" if they can handle ISOs which hardly anyone would use with P&S tracking shooting at frame rates no one really needs outside professional sports ..

Take an ISO100 JPG from your SL1/100D and one from a M50 Mk2 both with the kit lens on the default settings people use and I bet all the difference you`ll see even peeping is that the 100D`s 18-55VR is a damn sight better lens than the M50`s 15- 45   .. yeah shoot in RAW and in harsh lighting and the differences are seen but your average target buyers of those two cameras wouldn`t do that

AdamT wrote:

The trouble with 1" is the lack of differentiation from smartphone quality at times.

In JPG there`s little between 1" M43 and APS_C as well , the NR they load up at base ISO kills detail but even 1" sensors have far more detail in RAW even than the biggest phone sensors because phone sensors are stops noisier even at base ...... prob with the G1X-3 is that it gives up all its APS_C advantage with that very slow short lens (which isn`t marvellous optically wideopen either)

I'll respectfully disagree. It resolves alot more detail, benchmarks and my own two eyes can tell me that. Color rendering is another big one. It's also alot smaller than say an SL1/2/3 with kit attached, or even EOS M with 15-45 attached. And weather sealed, leaf shutter too. Big boons, shutter shock ain't a thing, high speed sync is making flash photography more interesting with the built-in flash, which I use on the G1X III.

The G5X II has alot going for it, good lens, reach with it, fast readout, pop-up EVF. But it does take a hit on color fidelity being both 1" and a Sony 1" (not a Canon CFA), but again, faster readout speeds make it stellar for 4K for example.

Without getting wordy, the G1X III does 24-70 better, the G5X II however can do 24-120, and 4K, and does it with f/1.8 on a Sony 1" which is pretty potent for low light with DIGIC8 which again, potent for NR logic.

Each has it's merits and there are days I wish I had both, but that's madness to have 2 PowerShot G's....

Don't take my word for it. That's why I post albums so you can see for yourself...

G1X Mark III

https://flic.kr/s/aHskB9GUZR

G5X Mark II

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmMJVSmk

Also, I've owned/own both. So I can speak to this with authority, not as a spectator/arm chair general.

It's too bad Canon won't do a G1X Mark IV with a G5X II aggressive lens, with a 90D sensor in it. Sure it's be bigger, but I didn't find the G1X Mark II to be too large, for example.

Shooting RAW with the G5X II and using a good post processor makes a difference here where the shot above, you can't do with an iPhone, in terms of color and detail retention. Just not possible. Physics at work here of having a larger sensor, larger lens.

capture one pulls out amazing details from the 1" brigade and overexposing and pulling back in RAW gives back the clean skies which the likes of the RX10 Mk3 & 4 get with ISO64

Don't take my word for it. That's why I post albums so you can see for yourself...

G1X Mark III

Thanks for sharing - So long as you`re happy with it, that' s all that matters

the JPGs on your G5X-II folder are like the ones I got , noisy and mushy whereas the G1X-3 ones are merely just mushy - No idea what canon is doing with their JPG engines in these G cams but they`re falling way behind the EOS-Ms and the likes of Sony. unless there are Sweet spot settings (I tried fine detail) , I`d may as well use my phone as the JPG engine unless 100-120mm F2.8 is required - the G5X-II , like the G7X series are in another ball park in RAW ..

G5X-II in Capture one RAW