The M footprint with EF-M lenses, is completely different than Rebel + EF-S. An M6II + 18-150 is like half the bulk and weight of say even a small SL2+18-135, for example.
Both the M6II and PowerShot G5x II are tiny compared to a rebel + EF-S glass.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So I got a G5X Mk2 - My thoughts
- Thread starter Adam-T
- Start date
Both the M6II and PowerShot G5x II are tiny compared to a rebel + EF-S glass.
I think this comparison here is better:
Which has the best lens? Sony RX100 VII vs Canon G5 X II vs Canon G7 X III: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Which has the best lens? Sony RX100 VII vs Canon G5 X II vs Canon G7 X III: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
KEG
Veteran Member
As a matter of fact, so are the EOS R and the consumer RF lenses.
Was looking for that when replying to you... Thanks!
The downside to this comparison; near-infinity focus.
Macro focus and max bokeh at normal lengths should also be measured, but are not via this comparison. It's a good comparison nonetheless, just tells a one-sided picture favoring the RX100 VII where f/2.8 or larger is just fine. Outdoors.
No offense to DPR, but this is where they commit the sin of omission by failing to compare the G5X II lens against the RX100 VII lens like they did the G7X II vs G1X III. They clearly could, and thought about it, as this article is older. But chose not to.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
M4Mobility
Senior Member
Take a look at some comparisons at 85mm and 100mm
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...2&x=0.24823042542625393&y=0.09617803999826464
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...12&x=0.31409163597844586&y=0.1770503436910292
Last edited:
Juggernaut122
Leading Member
Interesting that if you step down the Canon G5xii at the same focal length and aperture the images look basically as sharp to me.
And in the two weeks I had the RX100VI, it will tell you it was not too easy to get a shot without handshake when zoomed in & I have pretty steady hands.
And the lens of the Canon g5XII ist better ? Never !
Sue Anne Rush
Veteran Member
Hello...
I am sure there is something nice to photograph on your side of the pond.Very shallow DOF so only in focus at one small area band and the leaves aren`t the kind which have lots of fine detail . it`s cold here and nothing interesting is out
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Yeah, there is Sue but couldn`t find anything "macro" on that day ..I am sure there is something nice to photograph on your side of the pond.
A couple of Full size images from Saturday , RAW in Capture one .. Click Original to pixelpeep - My tip is to expose hot to keep the sky and shadow noise down even at ISO125 as the camera has lots of highlight recovery as canons tend to ..
Roman Invasion !!
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Sue Anne Rush
Veteran Member
Hello...
Adam - these are wonderful photographs - I will visit one day...
In the meantime - Nicky T. lives out your way too over the pond.
--
Sue Anne Rush
Adam - these are wonderful photographs - I will visit one day...
In the meantime - Nicky T. lives out your way too over the pond.
Yeah, there is Sue but couldn`t find anything "macro" on that day ..I am sure there is something nice to photograph on your side of the pond.
A couple of Full size images from Saturday , RAW in Capture one .. Click Original to pixelpeep - My tip is to expose hot to keep the sky and shadow noise down even at ISO125 as the camera has lots of highlight recovery as canons tend to ..
Roman Invasion !!
--
Sue Anne Rush
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Thanks Sue - Chester isn`t far from where I live and a lot of my work shoots are centred around there
The benchmarks out there are straightforward; the Sony prioritizes resolution on the wide end, and falls off the further you zoom. The Canon prioritizes both ends of the lens with it capping out in the center of the range, much like a traditional optical design.
All to say the wide end the Sony wins. Otherwise? It's actually a draw for the 20MP 1" Sony sensors interestingly enough. The Sony just barely hits 2800 lines by 9mm (the wide end) vs Canon comes up just barely shy of 2800 at 21.6mm, we're talking maybe 20-40 lines tops both ways here per the graphs that PhotoReview did via Imatest. It's a draw with different optical formulas essentially. We are literally splitting hairs here.
Now both resolve 2500 lines per inch at their longest end though. But, that Sony is a stop slower. That's a big ouch.
I know everyone here is convinced their choice is the winner, not to inject my own 2 cents, but I got to actually play with a RX100 VII by chance this week, it's actually REALLY impressive with its autofocus. But man, it hurts clearly the buffer, bad. Touch screen implementation is also poor. JPEG colors are poor. The 1-step EVF is a nice touch, but the EVF quality itself? Poor compared to the G5X II. Ergonomics are a step down from the G5X II.
Now that autofocus though is a HUGE step up from the G5X II. It makes it look bad. It's a real shame there probably won't be a RX100 VIII or G5X III. Both could use another iteration. Pity. I wish both Canon and Sony had just gone the extra mile.
Despite my bashing the RX100 VII, I actually think it's got the "smarter" optic, I also got to play with the new iPhones side by side and the improvements in computational photography mean that you could pair say a RX100 VII with a new smartphone to get your reach and low light. I think Canon and Sony are both pandering to their audiences correctly as Canon folks abhor smartphone photography vs Sony shooters are tech-happy, but aren't as detail oriented when it comes to results or "fun". You shouldn't have to pick though. Canon would be wise to do PDAF in a PowerShot G, with a longer reach lens like the RX100 VII. Never gonna happen IMO.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I find Both lenses - G7X series and the G5X-II simply get better as you zoom especially regarding optical issues ...... Natively , they start off with the down a toilet roll / heavily distorted & CA riddled 24mm look compared to the sony fast Mk3/4/5 which at 24mm has no toilet rolling , less distortion and CA (the slow Mk6/7 lens has more than the Mk3 etc but less than the canons ) ..
I find the canon lenses just get better from thereon - the G7X series from about 35mm , the G5X Mk2 from 28mm (about 10mm actual focal length) have lost the tunnel effect and most of the distortion - at 75mm the Sony Mk3/4/5 are soft at "70mm" F4 at infinity, though not as soft as the old MK1/2 lens anywhere , the canon lenses as I say get better and better and are great even at full zoom at F2.8, right across the frame in the case of the G5X-II @ 120 ..
I wasn`t knocked out with the Sony Mk6/7 lens which wasn`t as good as the Mk3/4/5 optic up to about 35mm and hard to hold steady at 200mm unless high shutter speeds were attained (Poor OIS) and wasn`t fantastic for sharpness at distance, also the one I tried (a Mk6) wasn`t great at the EDGES at the long end - I found this very disappointing for the hysterically high UK shelf price of this camera given the breathtaking performance of the RX10 Mk3/4`s fast 24-600 ..... OK its a lot better than a Pan TZ100 or TZ200 but at twice the price it ought to be ..
I don`t care about test charts, I never shoot the things for leisure so only go by real life scenes and lenses perform differently at test chart range to real life so this is how I found the cameras' lenses in the real . I always shoot RAW and use capture one which allows you to add as much distortion correction as you want or need as in some scenes you can get away with a lot less preserving edge detail at 24mm. I`m mightily impressed with both the canon lenses at the longer end of things and the G5X MK2`s optic has less optical issues throughout - both have superb IS systems onboard .
I did like the RX100 Mk3 (they`re rather affordable used too) but my leisure photography involves a lot of compressed landscapes and street scenes and I found the 70mm end soft for that and the camera none too ergonomic , the G5X-II is Kinda like what I`d expected a true RX100 Mk6 to be (apart from AF etc) , LIke a Mk5 but more of it instead of the "Lets make a Decent TZ100" type cam the Mk6 turned out to be - may be they should have called that the RX50 or RX100X
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Last edited:
stomrunner
Leading Member
Why don't you think Canon will make a mark iii? Is this line of cameras dead?
Luis Gabriel Photography
Senior Member
You must have a defective RX100 because mine is VERY easy to shoot at 200mm without any handshake issues (I have the VII but its pretty much the same for this matter).
When Canon announced the G5X 2 I was intrigued because I wanted more than 70mm range but with EVF but I was very disappointed with it. Not only the AF pales in comparison to the RX100 VII but also the lens was all across less sharp and of course the Sony has extra advantages like better 4k video and the mic which now I use often.
One thing I would say in favor of the Canon is that if your primary goal is taking static pose portraits with blurry backdrops with a small camera, the Canon may be a better choice as it will create smoother bokeh with its faster lens. Other than that, the vii is the superior camera.
And before I am called a Sony fanb0y, I moved from Sony to Canon R5 for my professional work as I found the R5 to be amazing..my favorite all time camera. But when it comes to the RX100 VII there is simply no comparison (same for the rx10 iv).
We need more competition to get better prices.
Last edited:
Juggernaut122
Leading Member
Don't know if mine was defective or not, but the image stabilization was definitely not impressive at all with the Sony.
Depends on what you use the camera for. You are also forgetting that the G5xii will be much better than the RX100 VI in low light situations. Frankly I tested my G5xii with my D7200 Nikon DSLR with my worse lense 18-300 zoom and with the RX100 vi and the G5xii took better indoor low light pictures than my DSLR using that slow lens - and the RX100 vi.
I tested them both for about 2 weeks, and except in bright light where I wanted more zoom the G5xii was better for my uses in every way. I don't usually use the continuous autofocus, so that was not an issue for me.
I really have difficulty understanding how someone could ignore the low light advantage of the G5xii but I guess if you don't use it that way then it doesn't matter. I don't really notice the difference in bright light and the low-light was no comparison.
But that is just my experience.
Thanks
Luis Gabriel Photography
Senior Member
I am not forgetting anything. The difference in noise levels are easily fixed with a little cleaning as it is not that dramatic. And if posting on IG, even less of an issue.
Now the differences between 120mm and 200mm and the differences in overall sharpness of the Sony lens vs the Canon lens, now that is a different story.
You cant even crop the Canon 120mm to "200mm" since its already softer so that is another no no.
Now if your main goal is using it for indoors in low light then sure, get the faster Canon or an RX100 V or even a small APS-C with a prime for much better higher iso.
Also the faster lens is good but the so so Autofocus and so so lens sharpness..well the extra fstop advantage wont help much if your lens is already soft and you dont get accurate focus to begin with.
Like wise I really have difficulty understanding how someone could ignore the terrible Autofocus (specially for video, just awful), soft lens and soft 4k video quality and ignore the benefits of the extra range of a 200mm. As a travel camera, I can get closeup details of architecture and wide shots knowing that both will have plenty of detail where the G5X will have only 120mm of a softer lens and lets not even discuss the even worse 24mm performance.
But indeed, if you dont use it that way, it may not be a problem for you.
Regards
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum