Upgrade from a g9x II (mostly with low light and bokeh in mind)?

Hey there,

I've been very happy with my g9x II (except for dust-in-sensor issues...thank you repair guy who only charged me $150 for a fix after Canon asked for $400).  At the same time, I'm thinking about upgrading, mostly towards the end of improving low light and bokeh capability.  But if there are other benefits too, I obviously wouldn't object.  I use my cameras mostly for walking around and travel, so like to keep them light.  Video isn't a great priority, though.

Any suggestions?  I prefer the idea of staying in the Canon family, or maybe some other brand with comparable ergonomics.  Think I'll steer clear of Sony, though (not knowing if I'd ever get my g9x II repaired, I got a used RX100 IV...outstanding camera, of course, but the interface makes me hesitant to grab it when I step out the door, and I expect to sell it).

I think this means the g5x II and the g7x II would be the leading candidates for me, but I'm all ears.

Thanks

LBMT

LorneBMT wrote:

Hey there,

I've been very happy with my g9x II (except for dust-in-sensor issues...thank you repair guy who only charged me $150 for a fix after Canon asked for $400). At the same time, I'm thinking about upgrading, mostly towards the end of improving low light and bokeh capability. But if there are other benefits too, I obviously wouldn't object. I use my cameras mostly for walking around and travel, so like to keep them light. Video isn't a great priority, though.

Any suggestions? I prefer the idea of staying in the Canon family, or maybe some other brand with comparable ergonomics. Think I'll steer clear of Sony, though (not knowing if I'd ever get my g9x II repaired, I got a used RX100 IV...outstanding camera, of course, but the interface makes me hesitant to grab it when I step out the door, and I expect to sell it).

I think this means the g5x II and the g7x II would be the leading candidates for me, but I'm all ears.

Thanks

LBMT

G5X II and G7X III, or G7X II. That's about it.

The only honorable mention? M6 II + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM, or M200 + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Those are small enough to supplant the G5x II or G7X II/III. Except, all the above, G5X II, G7X III, M200 + 22mm, they're all much bigger than the G9X II.

LorneBMT wrote:

Hey there,

I've been very happy with my g9x II (except for dust-in-sensor issues...thank you repair guy who only charged me $150 for a fix after Canon asked for $400). At the same time, I'm thinking about upgrading, mostly towards the end of improving low light and bokeh capability. But if there are other benefits too, I obviously wouldn't object. I use my cameras mostly for walking around and travel, so like to keep them light. Video isn't a great priority, though.

Any suggestions? I prefer the idea of staying in the Canon family, or maybe some other brand with comparable ergonomics. Think I'll steer clear of Sony, though (not knowing if I'd ever get my g9x II repaired, I got a used RX100 IV...outstanding camera, of course, but the interface makes me hesitant to grab it when I step out the door, and I expect to sell it).

I think this means the g5x II and the g7x II would be the leading candidates for me, but I'm all ears.

Thanks

LBMT

Among the cameras mentioned, the G5X II will maximise the bokeh capability because it goes to 120mm at telephoto instead of 100 for the G7X. In similar shooting conditions, the extra 20mm will add more background and foreground separation from your subject. As for low light, I guess you can’t do much better than the G5X II. I own a G1X Mark III. It has a larger APS-C sensor, but also a slower aperture lens. Not sure wether the larger sensor would offset that limiting factor in low light situations since I’ve never used cameras with 1” sensor. Apart of that it has other advantages such as a weather resistant body.

I own a G1X Mark III. It has a larger APS-C sensor, but also a slower aperture lens. Not sure wether the larger sensor would offset that limiting factor in low light situations since I’ve never used cameras with 1” sensor. Apart of that it has other advantages such as a weather resistant body.

I've heard a lot of good things about the G1X, but hesitate because of its cost and my sense that it wouldn't be pocketable. Unfortunately, no stores I know of here in Toronto carry it, as I'd love to get a feeling for how it handles before committing to such a purchase.  Still, the weather resistance certainly gives it appeal.

Thanks for your feedback.

Another thought about my original question.

As the incentive for upgrading from the g9x II is largely to do with improving low light capability, I'm wondering about a tripod.  I've never used one, but if I did, am I right in thinking that it would allow me to compensate for the camera's limitations by using longer exposures?  Maybe I'd get a small, lightweight one to have with me on occasion.

(Or, maybe I'll continue exploring upgrades, as shiny and new certainly has its appeal.)

Thanks,

LBMT

LorneBMT wrote:

Another thought about my original question.

As the incentive for upgrading from the g9x II is largely to do with improving low light capability, I'm wondering about a tripod. I've never used one, but if I did, am I right in thinking that it would allow me to compensate for the camera's limitations by using longer exposures? Maybe I'd get a small, lightweight one to have with me on occasion.

(Or, maybe I'll continue exploring upgrades, as shiny and new certainly has its appeal.)

Thanks,

LBMT

For regular shooting I wouldn't say a tripod is required. Using a tripod means you're using really slow shutter speeds. Say you're shooting a moving crowd, people, their movements will be blurred. In nature, movement of trees due to wind will show. In my case, I invested in DXO photolab. Its deep prime engine is amazing at suppressing noise while keeping the details there in images. I really don't hesitate anymore in taking the G1X in low light situations. I also have a small table top tripod that I carry in a bag. I use it if I want to take shots with a tripod on the go or when travelling and I don't want to carry a full size tripod.

LorneBMT wrote:

I own a G1X Mark III. It has a larger APS-C sensor, but also a slower aperture lens. Not sure wether the larger sensor would offset that limiting factor in low light situations since I’ve never used cameras with 1” sensor. Apart of that it has other advantages such as a weather resistant body.

I've heard a lot of good things about the G1X, but hesitate because of its cost and my sense that it wouldn't be pocketable. Unfortunately, no stores I know of here in Toronto carry it, as I'd love to get a feeling for how it handles before committing to such a purchase. Still, the weather resistance certainly gives it appeal.

Thanks for your feedback.

Yes it wouldn't fit in a regular pocket. A larger one yes. Coat jacket. To me it handles very well, and I'm quite picky with camera ergonomics. For a reasonably pocketable camera with zoom lens, it's right up there with the G5X. But since you own a G9X, I guess the G5X ergonomics will make you feel right at home. 
You're welcome.

Chris222 - will definitely keep your endorsement of the g1x III in mind.

Swerky - I appreciate your comments about tripods as compensation for low light.  I think the idea is still in play for me because, as I think about it, most of the low light photography that interests me is of pretty still subjects (sky, landscapes) and where blur occurs with other subjects, it could be effective.

Now here's something that amuses me...after having decided I don't like the ergonomics of the used RX100 IV I got and that I would simply sell it, I found it calling to me today, and I took it out to shoot this evening along with the g9x II, and I think we might be starting to get along.  Still haven't checked out the respective image quality, so I'll be doing that.  I did see another post somewhere from someone who said he had "tried to love" RX100s, but could never quite get there.  Maybe I'll ultimately end up in the same camp.

To say this is a nice "problem" to have is an understatement of course.

Good luck!

LorneBMT wrote:

Chris222 - will definitely keep your endorsement of the g1x III in mind.

Swerky - I appreciate your comments about tripods as compensation for low light. I think the idea is still in play for me because, as I think about it, most of the low light photography that interests me is of pretty still subjects (sky, landscapes) and where blur occurs with other subjects, it could be effective.

Now here's something that amuses me...after having decided I don't like the ergonomics of the used RX100 IV I got and that I would simply sell it, I found it calling to me today, and I took it out to shoot this evening along with the g9x II, and I think we might be starting to get along. Still haven't checked out the respective image quality, so I'll be doing that. I did see another post somewhere from someone who said he had "tried to love" RX100s, but could never quite get there. Maybe I'll ultimately end up in the same camp.

To say this is a nice "problem" to have is an understatement of course.

Normally I'll say hey, if it makes you happy, the best camera is the one you have. Now where I'll overstep a bit, the G5X II uses the same sensor as the RX100IV, as does the G7X III. I'm gonna say if you are looking to "upgrade" the G5X II is a no-brainer.

I've owned the G1X III, have the G5X II, and am very familiar with the G9X II, in fact, I've thought about hunting me down one just to have something I can truly pocket. The G5X II, although you can, it's bulky. Dare I say the same applies to the G7X III.

Where I'll throw my spin on things, I've found over my usage of the G5X II, being pocketable can be overrated. I would rather with my shooting style have a G1X III or M6 II, slung, over my shoulder constantly. Now that isn't everyone's style. But, I find it both to be more powerful, and more convenient. Now, there are times you want to be discrete, G9X II or G5X II tick that box. But really, is that important, or is that my caring what others think?

LorneBMT wrote:

Another thought about my original question.

As the incentive for upgrading from the g9x II is largely to do with improving low light capability, I'm wondering about a tripod. I've never used one, but if I did, am I right in thinking that it would allow me to compensate for the camera's limitations by using longer exposures? Maybe I'd get a small, lightweight one to have with me on occasion.

(Or, maybe I'll continue exploring upgrades, as shiny and new certainly has its appeal.)

Thanks,

LBMT

I own Manfrotto Pixi and it is just wonderful to use with both EOS R and EOS M6 mk II so I think it should have zero problems with G9 X II.

KEG wrote:

I own Manfrotto Pixi and it is just wonderful to use with both EOS R and EOS M6 mk II so I think it should have zero problems with G9 X II.

Thanks.  I'll check it out!