246

Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II review

Image quality

Out-of-camera JPEG.
Built-in lens @40mm equiv. | ISO 125 | F4 | 1/1250 sec
Photo by Jeff Keller

Though the sensor in the G5 X Mark II won't hold many surprises, we were excited to take a closer look at its all-new lens. See how the overall image quality of the camera stacks up with a variety of tests.

Key takeaways:

  • Raw image quality from the G5 X II is very good, on par with contemporaries
  • Default JPEG sharpening has been tweaked, looking better at low ISO values, but still smearing some detail unnecessarily
  • High ISO noise reduction remains a weak point
  • The lens on the G5 X II looks to be pretty good, considering the combination of size, zoom range and aperture brightness it offers

Our test scene is designed to simulate a variety of textures, colors and detail types you'll encounter in the real world. It also has two illumination modes to see the effect of different lighting conditions.

Please note that since it was originally printed, the portraits included in our test chart have faded. As such, they should not be used to draw comparisons between the color output of different cameras. We are aware of the issue and we are working on a solution.

Raw detail and noise

It's true that the G5 X Mark II has a new sensor relative to its predecessor, with a 'stacked' design that increases readout speed, but detail capture is generally similar compared to all the other models here. In fact, any more obvious differences are likely to come down to the lenses, differences that are easier to observe by looking at some far corners of the frame (at least at these relatively close working distances). Reducing the exposure for all cameras again shows very similar noise performance among them.

JPEG performance

Switching over to JPEG mode is where we can start to tease out greater differences between these cameras. Compared to the older G7 X II, Canon has tweaked its default sharpening somewhat, with the new model better holding onto fine detail, though the G7 X II was a bit softer in Raw, and that could be a contributing factor. The G5 X II is also still not a match for the Sony, nor the Panasonic. There's also still some overshoot, visible at edges, due to large radius sharpening. It wasn't so long ago that Canon's default color output was frequently praised as being more pleasing than the likes of what Sony and Panasonic could do, but that's no longer really the case; all cameras here are showing nice deep reds and yellows, with good, but not over-the-top saturation. Our one nit-picky critique would be that we'd generally like to see both the Canon and Sony options shift their greens a bit to the warmer side, as we see on the Panasonic LX 100 II, and make their yellows more 'golden,' as we've seen on recent Nikon ILC's.

Despite putting up solid performance in our studio test scene, we noticed that the G5 X II's noise reduction was a little heavy-handed, even at lower ISO values - like on our subject's face here.
ISO 160 | 1/400 sec | F2.5
Photo by Rishi Sanyal

High ISO noise reduction isn't the Canon's forte, unfortunately. As the ISO values climb, the Canon leaves behind a ton of luminance noise, which of course some users won't mind. The bigger issue is that the G5 X Mark II leaves behind this level of noise while giving virtually no detail benefit, and in the real world, this translates to some seriously 'mushy' looking images. And despite the similar levels of Raw noise we saw earlier between the 1"-sensor compacts and Panasonic's LX100 II, it must be said that Panasonic's detail retention is looking pretty good. All these cameras start to look pretty smudgy by the time you reach ISO 12800, which we'd probably save for emergencies.

Dynamic Range

Our ISO invariance test looks at how much noise a camera is adding by assessing the difference between underexposing at base ISO and increasing the brightness in post vs. shooting at a higher ISO. As with most modern cameras and modern sensors, the G5 X II shows only a virtually no noise penalty for shooting ISO 125 and pushing ~3.7 stops versus shooting the same image at ISO 1600 . This suggests that it's adding very little noise to its own files. This means that, for Raw shooters, there's some scope to underexpose your image using a lower ISO setting, which will protect highlights, and then brighten the whole image later.

Our exposure latitude test takes a look at shadow noise and how it is impacted by pushing increasingly-underexposed image, essentially lifting increasingly deep shadows to see how usable they are. The G5 X II is receiving 1/3EV less light than the Sony RX100 VII, but shows slightly cleaner shadows.


Lens performance

The G5 X Mark II comes with an all-new lens - it's an ambitious one, which maintains the fast F1.8-2.8 maximum aperture range of the previous G5 X, but now reaches to a 120mm equiv. maximum focal length, versus 100mm equiv. on the older lens. So, let's take a look and see if it's any good.

We can immediately see that the center of the frame shows a detail benefit from stopping down at this focal length. Performance in the far corners shows only slight improvement as you stop the lens down at 24mm, with plenty of fringing still present. As we zoom in, we start to see corners and edges of the frame improving a bit more noticeably when the lens is stopped down, relative to the lens at wide-angle, though the center of the frame sees a less tangible benefit. At the long end of the zoom, stopping down likewise improves things slightly, though more-so at the edges of the frame than the center.

In the end, the lens on the G5 X II - at least this copy we're testing - looks pretty good, considering its size, as well as the zoom range and aperture brightness it offers. Just don't expect as much of an improvement by stopping down as you might on other cameras.

In our initial comparisons, it looks like the G5 X II's lens is ever-so-slightly softer than the shorter lens on the G7 X Mark III, regardless of aperture or zoom setting. It also looks like the RX100 VII's lens outperforms the G5 X II's lens as well across comparable focal lengths, though of course, with much smaller maximum apertures: stay tuned for a more in-depth comparison between the three in a separate article.

Distortion correction

Crops from the lower left corner of the image. With no corrections (left) and full corrections from Adobe (right).

As you can see, extensive correction is being applied, giving a relatively soft final image, even when stopped-down

F1.4 F4

Let's take a quick look at distortion correction on the G5 X II. One area of concern some people may have with these compacts is the degree of 'baked-in' distortion corrections - the G5 X II, like most compacts of this type, has some pretty extreme corrections done at the wide end of its zoom range.

However, as you can see in lower-left crop of a scene at 24mm, there's not much (if any) image quality impact for final images, because it doesn't look like the camera is really capturing enough detail to provide sharp corners at wide-angle settings regardless of whether the corrections are enabled or not.

45
I own it
83
I want it
11
I had it
Discuss in the forums
View Comments (246)

Comments

All (246)
Most popular (15)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (20)
Oldest first
argumon

Using the compare tool to compare the G5Xm2 with the LX10, for high-ISO RAW it looks like the G5Xm2 shows significant less noise. From the pictures, I would say that the noise level of the LX10 at ISO1600 better matches the G5Xm2 at ISO3200, than having both on ISO3200.
It is hard to believe, that one of two similar spec'ed cameras differ that much in noise performance. Both ISO3200 are shot at f/4.0, but the Canon at 1/2500, the Panasonic at 1/1250. Not sure what that means, could anyone pls explain? Thx

1 week ago
Lucas_
Lucas_

Does this Canon uses Sony's the famous 1" sensor from the RX100 xx ... series?

3 weeks ago
aegarcia

I read elsewhere the comment that camera makers of 1" cameras are targeting the same consumers. False. Canon with the G5x iii is targeting consumers with $800 to spend while Sony with RX100 vii have consumers who have $1200 to spend. I for one do not even bother looking up the features of a $5000 cameras because not having that kind of money for a camera I would just be wasting my time. As I said before, comparison must be apples with apples. Its common sense that for $1200 one gets a better AF system than if one only had $500.

3 weeks ago
Christos Cloud

If you look at the features of a $5000 camera and later you find some of them at a $800 camera, this would be some important information.

3 days ago
perry rhodan
perry rhodan

Im at a loss here. This canon is substantially better in IQ compared to any RX100(x). By a very larger margin. Its miles better. It completely trounced the Sony's. Mind you I have the RXIV. Recently sold the g5x(1) because of the so-so lens and lack of speed. Still find it stupid the canon lost the hotshoe, fully articulating screen and the sturdy EVF. But the IQ is certainly there. GAS, 😁

In the comparing DPR bars the sony RX100IV JPEG is better then this canon. While the RAWS are equal. Serious?

3 weeks ago*
mferencz

Phone cameras haven't made this extinct yet?

4 weeks ago
Lucas_
Lucas_

Naahhh!!

3 weeks ago
LoneTree1

Panasonic LX100 II has better image quality, it looks like.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

..and isn't pocketable.
..and has less zoom.
..and is a different product segment.

A cheap mirrorless and good prime are better than the LX100, but that would also be missing the point.

4 weeks ago
LoneTree1

A cheap mirrorless and good prime are better than just about every P&S I can think of.

4 weeks ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Except for size, which is the whole point of compact cameras. Also, that good prime is worthless if the user needs zoom.

4 weeks ago
tbcass
tbcass

"Autofocus tracking unavailable while shooting bursts"

Interesting. The only time I find AF tracking useful is when shooting bursts. Sony should put a lens like this on an RX100 model.

1 month ago*
fpink3

The last image of the camera on page 3 shows that the vanes covering the lens are thin and vulnerable. If these vanes are like the similar ones on my G7X, the vanes will bend. It happens if you keep the camera in a travel bag thinking it's protected if "closed up". The similar vanes on my G7X bind and don't open and close properly because they are metal and are now slightly bent. My Sony RX100 has vanes that are more recessed. I've handled this camera (and my RX100 II) MUCH more than the Canon and never had a problem. DP Review really needs to look at functional design details like this. It's a serious flaw that renders the camera unusable (at least when the vanes don't fully open).

1 month ago
larkhon

I'm not sure how DPReview could review durability (and still deliver reviews only a few days after release). It is also highly dependent on how people are using their camera.

I'd say this is quite the same as with the iPhone's bendgate: a phone shouldn't bend in a backpocket but is sitting on your phone a standard use case? Those vanes are supposed to protect the lens from dust, and 'save' the lens, should the worse occur.
Now if a manufacturer is doing things better, it's a shame Canon is not doing the same. And I've heard about it happening to other people as well.

3 weeks ago
pbug56

Viewfinder gone. Articulating screen gone. The latter, in particular, means I'll never give a second thought about buying it. That screen lets me do a lot of things I can't physically due with my G5x or G11. What does Canon have against these screens?

1 month ago
Carey Rose
Carey Rose

The viewfinder is there, just retractable.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

An articulating screen would be impossible to fit into this form factor, and using it on such a tiny camera would be frustrating.

Canon (rightly) surmised that there is almost no market for large body 1" cameras with limited zoom, so they used the product name for an RX100 clone.

4 weeks ago
maniquet

« there are a wealth of options for the Movie Record button, decidedly fewer for the 'star' button » I haven’t found no way to assing a fonction of my choice to those two buttons. Anybody can help?

1 month ago
requa
requa

On the last screen of the wrench menu, choose Custom Functions (C.Fn), then go to screen 4 of that menu, press Set, then choose the button to be modified.

3 weeks ago
maniquet

Tanks

3 weeks ago
Gesture

Yes, at $600, might be of some interest.

1 month ago
tkbslc

It's a compact, so just wait 18 months or so.

1 month ago
jam005

Doesn't hit the mark. Increase the size of the display Canon.

1 month ago
foxfire_71

I have a Question about the G5X II jpeg image Quality (at the final scoring bars). In the review it is written that the jpeg quality of the G5X II has improved over the G7X II and if I read the text at image quality it looks like the jpegs should be sharper/better than previous models.

Hoever if I compare the scoring bars of the G5X II with the G7X II for the jpeg image quality It shows that the G7X II (2016) gets a better score (very small but still). Do I miss something?

1 month ago
Stig Nygaard
Stig Nygaard

Probably that G7XII was reviewed in 2016 and G5XII in 2019. The scores are to be seen relatively to the standard/expections at the time of the review, so scores from 2016 and 2019 can not be directly compared.

1 month ago
PedroMZ

pop up viewfinder slows down the process of street photography . If you leave it up I take it that the camera remains on and thus drains the battery. It is also one more thing that can fail. Surely a built in one is better even if it means the camera is 1cm taller.

1 month ago
NextShowForSure

Why do you assume the camera cannot be turned off with the EVF up? I doubt if they would disable the on/off button or standby mode just because the EVF is up.
I agree that it is a pity that canon did not stick to the old design but probably they had to go with the tide here.
I have just bought the old Mk I as the pleasant handling outweighs the micro image analysis and speed for my particular needs and I rarely use RAW. I believe they are keeping the old Mk I running in production which is good. it would be nice if they could get the new sensor and processor in the old body but it is not going to happen.
These major course changes in design are difficult to come to terms with as with the G1X III.

1 month ago*
Clayton1985

@PedroMZ... it is built in and I don't want 1cm taller and I doubt many people considering the G5XII do either. If you want a bigger camera then your choices are virtually unlimited.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Not every camera has to be 100% dedicated to street photography. A pop-up EVF is great for adding the feature while still allowing the camera to be pocketable.

1 month ago
tkbslc

Shoot from the hip using the LCD.

Besides, you gotta wait for the lens to extend anyway.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Just to add to this: I've played with the G5Xii in a store and viewfinder has nothing to do with on/off.

4 weeks ago
PedroMZ

Yes I read that today,unlike the EVF of the RX100. I still think it would be better built in as the previous one was,as, if you leave it up it is bound to snag.

4 weeks ago*
requa
requa

The chart on age 2 says no Intervalometer and page 3 says star time-lapse is the only way to get time-lapse video. There actually is a time-lapse movie option that appears on the first screen of the shooting menu when in video mode, with three timing options available. This is described on page 170 on the English language user guide. I have not tested it yet.

1 month ago*
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

I'll look into that as soon as I get into the office tomorrow.

1 month ago
requa
requa

Did you have a chance to confirm this?

3 weeks ago
Joseph K Boston
Joseph K Boston

It looks really great!

Then I remember that for the same price I can have a Ricoh GRIII...

I know it's kinda apples and oranges, but the GRIII is a niche camera that performs exceptionally well where it counts, while the G5X II seems just adequate in more areas.

1 month ago
maflynn

I'd say the Ricoh GRIII is definitely comparing apples and oranges. I mean why not compare the G5X II against a sony Alpha at this point. I've played with the G5X and its a nice little camera that is a nice all around travel camera imo

1 month ago
DarnGoodPhotos

It's such a weird comparison to draw, why even make it?

1 month ago
Joseph K Boston
Joseph K Boston

It's a comparison sheerly made on value for money. I'm not convinced that the Canon is a good value for its cost.

1 month ago
DarnGoodPhotos

Yes, a weird comparison.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

"Adequate" seems...well..adequate when you're talking about fitting a full-featured mirrorless camera in your pocket. The GRIII is tailored to very narrow use while the G5Xii houses a zoom lens, viewfinder, etc. For someone who wants a more well-rounded camera, the GRIII would have less to offer and less value.

4 weeks ago
MKiisseli

On paper this is the best "pocket camera". Canon did it right here, pushing the boundaries. Learn from them Sony. It also can be hand-holded unlike Sony.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

It's still not better than the Sony because the Sony AF is absolutely amazing, even at 200mm. It's no problem to add a grip to the Sony.
The best thing about the Canon is the faster lens, but you give up 80mm of reach. The review clearly states that the RX100 lens outperforms the Canon as does the sensor (though I think the sensors are both okay). As I said prior, the AF of the Sony is much better while the Canon relies only on contrast, which limits tracking. Video on the Sony is also superior. RX100 VI and VII are the elephants in the room and tough to top. Expensive? You get what you pay for and Sony is still king in this segment. The ergonomics and menus of the Sony take an hour or two to adapt to and I added a grip to mine. So far no one has made a better pocket camera.

1 month ago
Ernesto-CH

Don't agree. I've replaced my Sony RX 100 last week by the Canon. The build quality of the Sony is really bad. I had the mark III and got a lot of problems. The service was more than poor. Usability of a Sony is never comparable with the Canon. I'm Fuji owner and only using a camera for still. Therefore the Canon is the better, cheaper solution if you need a compact beside the DSLR or DSLM. A zoom range of 24-120mm was exactly what I'm looking for. The most interesting picture in the review ist the comparison of the lenses and aperture. There is a hugh difference between rhe Sony and the Canon. I agree on the AF statements but for still it's not an issue in my opinion.

1 month ago*
NextShowForSure

@MrHollywood
You get what you pay for is of necessity the Sony mantra nowadays in their struggle to contain costs and is lapped up eagerly by their well funded user group eager to buy the latest offerings but unfortunately you get what you can afford is the reality for most of us. Whats for the King and the common folk almost exemplifies Sony against the competition nowadays. Of course a great heap of his old redundant hand me downs are available if you can fathom out what they actually do and do not do.

1 month ago*
larkhon

"The best thing about the Canon is the faster lens, but you give up 80mm of reach."

if we play this game, by buying the Sony we loose 160mm compared to TZ200

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

The game is the AF.
The Sony focuses with uncanny accuracy and speed and the competition is well behind. The rest is fairly pointless if your shots are not in focus.
The tiny Sony has DSLR level AF. If you don't need that, you can likely do well with one of the lesser models.

1 month ago
larkhon

"The game is the AF."

This is BS. To me it's like Apple products, if one says it's overpriced someone will say no, it's 2mm slicker than any other products and the SSD can transfer at 3.5gbps and they won't care if, for the same price, one can buy a workstation or a gaming rig.

In how many situations a picture can be taken by RX100 VI but not by another product? are all of them starting to misfocus on a static landscape? should we be afraid if our children start to move?
If someone is into sports, or anything that requires that kind of AF, will they buy a camera that will show its limits past ISO1600-3200, with all the options we have?
That's exactly the thing, since they can't improve IQ just yet, they send their users on the quest for AF. I'm already buying popcorn for the RX100 VIII, when they'll improve the sensor again, and all the RX100 VI/VII who spent $1200+ will explain how they don't need better IQ because their camera is still ahead of competition.

1 month ago*
Benjamin Jehne

@MrHollywood Hmm, for me Canon is a totally different camera than the Sony. I know how good the VI is, but it is a nice weather camera, but useless in low light. And something that suprises me a lot, the RAW files of the Canon are better controlled at higher ISOs than those of the Sony.

The Canon also is way better to hold, even with a grip attached to the Sony.

I wanted to buy the Sony, but the Canon is the better package for my photography.

1 month ago
NextShowForSure

@MrHollywood
The only element in the Sony game is AF.
The problem competing with the RX100 is it like fighting a many headed hydra. Want it cheap then there is the RX100 I but if that was fit for purpose why is there a 8th version of the camera and any single issue with a Canon or Panasonic there is always a particular mark of the Sony cited that can do better or represent value for money at that level but for heaven's sake we can't buy all of them. Then this whole philosophy of must have a new one as what was fine a year ago is now unusable is just pure nonsensical marketing puff.

1 month ago*
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

1) The comment about the AF is dead wrong. How many pictures can be taken with the RX100 that can't be taken with the Canon? If you plan to be on the move and shoot any action, the answer is A LOT. I'd put it on the same level as comparing the AF on my Nikon Df to my Nikon D810 or D850, which was in another league. DPR isn't lying when they rave about the RX100 VII AF. It's amazing and useful.
2) The RAW files of the cameras are very close and I prefer the color output of the Sony, which more closely matches my Nikon gear. You're on fantasy island if you think the Canon is better. I wouldn't use either above ISO 1600 if I could help it.
3) I own cameras that are ideal for different tasks. For hiking, travel, sailing and family, the RX100 VI or VII are the top of the game. All of those things require the best possible AF modules and Sony understands that. For any kind of serious work, ALL of these cameras are toys. That's when I'm going to shoot with a FX camera and top tier glass.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Regarding ergonomics:

The RX100 VII is smaller and quirky to use. But it's much more pocketable than the Canon, if that's among your needs.
I put a Small Rig on mine and now it handles like a baby DSLR with a nice wood grip. My wife wanted a perfect travel camera that could fit in her purse and so I removed the grip. But I prefer it with the grip, which also has a small cage to protect the camera.

So the little Sony's versatility from an ergonomic standpoint is actually going to be better for some shooters.
On the other hand, the Sony's menus and controls can be tough for people who don't adapt easily. Not everyone is tech-crazy like I am and so I always suggest trying the camera out before buying regardless of what reviews claim.

1 month ago
NextShowForSure

@MrHollywood
On the move and shoot any action; Fantasy Island; toys; Top tier FX glass. Serious work; plus don't adapt easily for any problems there may be with the Sony as you pile on the pressure.
This is just an everyday camera at a lower price point than the current Sony and is just never going to be really understood by a top level guy throwing money at the hobby.
i have a G5X Mk I so I would hate to know what you think of that looking down from your top tier but it works for me.

1 month ago*
Benjamin Jehne

@MrHollywood
The Sony is smaller, thats why they only get 24-70mm F1.8-2.8 in a VA. Thats why those two cameras are not in the same category for me. The Canon has the size of a E-PM1 (Pen Mini) without a lens attached.
You really have to chose, what you want, the size or the range.

Now the thing with the AF. I don't shot sports or action, just landscape, street etc. so the AF works as it should. If you shoot sport, you need a better AF, but the AF of the Canon works like that one of the RX100IV.

The higher ISOs are better controlled, you might not need it, other do.

So thats why you ended up with the RX100 VII and other buy the Canon. Like I said, those cameras are really different.

1 month ago*
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

The ISO is almost identical on the Canon vs. Sony. Anyone can see that via the samples. Sony's latest color science is very close to Nikon standards. DPreview says the Sony holds more detail and less chroma noise at high ISOs vs. the Canon, so I have no idea where you got the idea that the Canon is better. It's not.
Yes, if you don't shoot stuff that moves much, the Canon will be fine. I never said the Canon was a bad camera, just not as good as the Sony overall. You get what you pay for.

1 month ago
larkhon

Well, I'm guessing we took a look at the studio scene tool from DPR. I'm not sure the details are lost on ISO or if the lens is just generally softer, but as far as noise is concerned, I'm seeing less on the Canon side.

"You get what you pay for"

No, one buys the right tool for the right job. Price is not related to how much it delivers but how much people are willing to spend for that product. Previous owners of RX100 are used to the pricing extravangance. Pros looking for a compact camera for holidays will be seduced by the AF and the price will seem peanuts to them.
I'm pretty sure for most buyers, it will be like buying a huge SUV, they're sure they need the space for the 2 times per year they go on holidays, hell they might even go offroad one day, but 99% they will drive it in the city, have to park it, etc... but hey, you drive the top car, you get what you pay for.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Again, ISO range and results will be largely the same. Using DXO's NR software will produce results that would be tough to tell apart. You can download samples and see for yourself. These sensors aren't very good for low light work. Period.
As for SUV's...yup, I drive a Mercedes SUV. This summer we've been out to the Mojave Desert 3 times. Next month we'll be heading out to take photos at the Amboy Crater, a dead volcano in the desert. Mountain driving? I take my AMG. Good tools are pretty useful, cars and cameras both.
Seduced by AF??? LOL! You're absolutely right. Photographers have been seduced by sharp images for a long time. Controlling DOF at 200mm or tracking things that move is also kinda useful. There's nothing ostensibly "good" about weaker AF. When reviews call the RX100 VII the best travel & family camera ever made, are they all lying? BTW, I was bashing the tiny Sony for the price and small sensor not long ago. I changed my tune after I tried one.

1 month ago
larkhon

"Using DXO's NR software will produce results that would be tough to tell apart."
Of course... and we don't need a sharp lens because we can also add sharpness.

"Controlling DOF at 200mm"
What exactly are you controlling with a 1" sensor? as opposed to what?

I'd wait to read a few more reviews but my criticism was less about the RX100 VII than about the VI, which I tried and didn't find to be the best. Moving away from the product itself I'd criticize Sony for milking their customers, bringing once again two expensive models in a raw, the new one fixing the shortcoming of the older one.
And finally, I don't see how relevant the Sony is when talking about this G5x II. AF alone is not making for the f-stop difference, nor would I recommend the Canon to someone who would need that extra range.

PS: I'm not saying driving a SUV is stupid, that would backfire on me too. One has to consider their needs before buying something, that's all.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

I'll address you comments as follows:

1) The Canon and Sony sensors, relative to ISO noise handling, are the same. They take different approaches with the JPEG engines, but the Canon has zero inherent advantage. They're both nicely tweaked 1" sensors. I think the Sony has a small edge, but not enough to matter in practical shooting.

2) With it's strong advantage in reach, the Sony actually produces fairly reasonable bokeh at 200mm at F4.5, more so than the Canon. The Sony also has zero AF issues at the long end.

3) Sony listens to customers and makes adjustments quickly. There are only TWO models with the 24-200mm Zeiss optics and I'm not upgrading to the VII since the VI never misses focus and I don't need a audio jack. I'll wait for the VIII version and see what that has. Sony isn't forcing anyone to buy anything.

My problem with Canon is that they're too reserved, too guarded. I'd like them to take Sony's torch away and build something even better than the VII.

1 month ago
larkhon

"With it's strong advantage in reach, the Sony actually produces fairly reasonable bokeh at 200mm at F4.5, more so than the Canon."

well, obviously the Canon will have more DOF control until 120mm, and then the difference in bokeh won't be big if compared to TZ100 or TZ200, while offering more reach. And I would expect a bigger sensor if we really talk about DOF control. That's why I find this part irrelevant.

"VI never misses focus"

Once again, I don't share your findings.

"I'd like them to take Sony's torch away"

Well, I don't see any 24-100/120mm f1.8-2.8 camera from Sony but since they were released at the same time people tend to overlook the slow lens and compare RX100 VI/VII instead of VA.
Back then they released the G3x and forced Sony to react with a beautiful RX10 III. And then released RX10 IV with better AF. Maybe by releasing RX100 VI they needed to kill the competition from Panasonic and once again were too fast to release their camera...

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

If you "don't share my findings with the AF" then you also don't share ANYONES findings. DPreview and virtually every other review site has been in love with the AF on the VA, VI and now the new VII.

As I said, I'm shooting D850, D5 etc. I've also got D5300 and a few other small cams. The Sony is the only true pocket camera that can hang with a DSLR for AF. That's fact is confirmed everywhere. It's really not up for debate as there are tests to prove it.

Sony's high price puts them in a somewhat different segment. The VI and VII are pretty expensive. Only people who want the best small camera to augment their pro gear or those seeking the absolute best travel cam will bite.

As I said, I'd love to see Canon or Nikon jump in and top Sony. It's annoying that they just sell downgraded crippled cameras for lower prices and let Sony have the best overall model. It's also bad business. But as good as the Sony is, I'm not leaving Nikon as my main gear.

1 month ago
larkhon

"It's really not up for debate as there are tests to prove it."

Of course, reviews have tested those cameras in any possible situation and there is absolutely no way someone could find it any flaws (and of course they released RX100 VII just because they wanted to do an even better camera, not because there was room for improvement).
That being said, there's a chance that stabilization was at fault for me (or that I had a faulty unit, who knows), but I assumed 1/60s was more than enough to shoot at 200mm eq.

"Only people who want the best small camera to augment their pro gear "

This is getting better and better.

"It's also bad business."

Look at the G7x II, it has worse AF and IQ than the RX100 V but it sold well and is appreciated from vloggers. Look at M50, not the best camera, cheap, but it's n°1 in Japan and sells well in other countries. Canon wants the most people to buy their cameras. It has worked for years, despite their tendency to cripple lower models...

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

The AF on the RX100 VI is so good that an experienced shooter can expect a 100% hit rate. My wife used it to shoot a 3 day rally for medicare-for-all and returned with over 300 shots and ONE was out of focus. She does have some experience and good technique. No other camera we've tried has handed over such a success rate.

If you could not get a sharp result 1/60 at 200mm, you either have poor technique or a bad camera. I suggest studying up on technique.

As a working professional, I do see what colleagues work with and th RX100 series is a popular toy camera for those who want the best. The Zeiss lens and AF make it worth the money, though the 1" sensor will remain a limitation for these small models.

1 month ago
larkhon

"If you could not get a sharp result 1/60 at 200mm, you either have poor technique or a bad camera. I suggest studying up on technique."

You might be twisting my words, I'm not saying I didn't get a sharp result, I'm saying it gave a worse hit rate than lesser cameras (hence I cannot call it the king). If a lesser camera, here the TZ200, manages a higher hit rate, on at least 30 concerts in various places with worse lighting, using the same settings, surely it is an issue with the user...
I've had RX100, RX100 III, RX10 III and several Sony mirrorless cameras, so the issue does not lie with the brand, it's not like I don't know how the menus work or have no experience with them.
It's not like the camera is bad, face recognition worked way better, the camera is faster to operate with (which helps with the action, although I wished there was a memory for the last zoom position), it's sharper too.

1 month ago*
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Honestly I think both product lines are great.

As an RX100Mk3 owner, I like how Canon fit more reach and better physical/digital controls in their camera. The 24-70mm equivalent lens on my RX100 is pretty limited, and picking up 70% more reach without losing the ND filter or the wide aperture is amazing! My RX100 struggles in low light at f/2.8, so I would have a tough time imagining the VII's f/4.5 aperture in similar conditions. If you don't need fast AF tracking (e.g. usually shooting still subjects or moderate action), this is a great pocket travel camera. And the Canon UI is head and shoulders ahead of Sony's offerings (such a small body cries out for touch selection of exposure controls).

On the other hand, the RX100Mk7's autofocus really is a killer feature. I have an A6400 and the new tracking and eye AF modes mean that you no longer have to think about AF-S vs AF-C, focus points, etc. You just track and shoot, which is great for a small form factor. (continued)

4 weeks ago*
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

(continued) So if you usually shoot in the sun, the RX100VII is really a "do-everything" camera. It's basically an A6400 + 18-135mm lens (my favorite travel combo) in a pocketable form factor with terrible low light performance and depth of field. I could see myself leaving all my gear in the hotel and just bringing a VII on an excursion without giving anything up, which is amazing. The Sony also feels much better built than the Canon, which I would expect for the higher price tag.

I'll likely be looking to pick up one of these ultracompacts by Black Friday next year, and it will be interesting to see where prices stabilize for each camera. Either way, we should all be happy to have so many viable options, and hopefully Canon will push Sony to release an RX100 with a fast 24-1XXmm equivalent lens!

4 weeks ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Yup. Well said.

And contrary to what a few people claim, I'm NOT a Sony fan. I'm a Nikon guy for the most part. But Sony simply has the better camera for most situations in the RX100 VI and VII.
Canon, Ricoh, Nikon and other brands have continued to under-engineer their cameras, which is seriously annoying!
I know Nikon or Canon can do better than Sony for a compact, but it has yet to happen.

4 weeks ago
mxx
mxx

Often a camera is labelled as not suited for family photography because of inadequate focusing. But which family members are so impossible to freeze because of bad focusing? Even with manual focusing I've always found it easy to focus on my grandparents, my parents, my siblings, my uncles and aunts, etc. Only a few lively young children presented problems, and a good hiding easily fixes that.

1 month ago*
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

" Only a few lively young children presented problems, and a good hiding easily fixes that."

? What is 'a good hiding'. And if you're going to try to convince us you don't need AF for toddlers / children, well, you can try, but...

"Even with manual focusing I've always found it easy to focus on my grandparents, my parents, my siblings, my uncles and aunts"

Not if you want to capture candid moments. Even the 1.5 seconds it takes me to adjust aperture on a Sony camera is enough to change the nice expression that made me want to raise the camera up to take a shot to begin with changes into a different, boring one. Manually focusing completely kills the candid moment.

Perhaps you have a very patient family who will stand around with patience holding a posed smile. That's not the typical use-case we consider when we think of 'family photography'. Generally, family photography, particularly with kids, is erratic; the less you fumble w/ the camera, the easier it is to snap the moment.

1 month ago
mcshan

MXX...I agree. In the future maybe point out a camera isn't great for "fast" or simply "moving children". This camera would be fine for my extended family. We are all beyond the breeding age.

1 month ago
NextShowForSure

I find with my grandchildren you can get the knack of anticipating when they bounce and freeze for that instance before rushing off in a different direction.

1 month ago
GoldMark

Nice camera, but i fear the smartephones will be the end of this category of cams.

Regards Bernhard
https://deramateurphotograph.de/

1 month ago
pacnwhobbyist

You’re probably right. In a few years time the floor will probably be APSC.

1 month ago
GoldMark

I think APSC, MFT will survive as sonsor formats.

Regards Bernhard
https://deramateurphotograph.de/

1 month ago
Benjamin Jehne

This camera replaces easily a mFT. It's image quality is far better than what you get from a smartphone. Especially with this lens it's so damn versatile.

1 month ago
Edgar_in_Indy
Edgar_in_Indy

I think you're right about smartphones competing with 1" cameras. I've been using the Google Pixel derived "gcam" camera app on my old LG V20, and I've been amazed at some of the results I've gotten when using good photography technique.

My LG V20 has an ultra wide and standard wide lens, but lacks a telephoto. If my next phone includes a telephoto camera module, I may end up leaving my 1" camera at home most of the time.

3 weeks ago
toni2

Canon G5 X mkII With EVF? Why not with a shabby "optional EVF" as Canon M6 mkII?

1 month ago*
richd6275

there's nothing shabby about the clip on EVF it works well

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

It ruins the form factor of the camera and uses up the hot shoe for fill flash. It's nearly 2020 and a external EVF is a really dated idea.

1 month ago
jam005

EVF is the excuse for cameras that have poor and horrible touch displays such as Sony. 99% of Consumers don't need an EVF to take a photo. The primary reason, smartphones are the cameras of choice. As Samsung as stated "It's the display stupid".

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Spoken like someone who doesn't make money with their cameras and has no training.
I don't know a single photographer who'd buy a camera without a viewfinder. The single exception would be the Ricoh GR series, which occupy a very narrow niche that's important to some shooters.
Bringing up smartphones as some sort of reasoning to drop the advantages of the EVF is redonkulous. One of the primary advantages of the mirrorless designs over DSLRs is the EVF, which allows you to see your exposure, composition and settings even in bright light.
Inexperienced amateurs are the primary market for finderless cameras.

1 month ago
poohduck

Shooting outdoors, as I often am, I'd be lost without evf. The other advantage of evf that I haven't seen acknowledged anywhere, is the extra stability. Holding a camera in front of your face = two fairly shaky points of contact. Holding the camera against your head = pretty solid. Also much easier to track a moving subject.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Exactly. Proper hand-holding technique is key and it's a chuckle and half when people defend a camera with no viewfinder. There are times and places where using the rear LCD can work, but having BOTH is far better.

The main reason why Canon can sell a camera without a finder is ignorance. Anyone who actually studies photography knows why a viewfinder is key and cannot be replaced by a rear LCD.

1 month ago
poohduck

yes, I have a viewfinder that works at all angles. It's great when I'm in a crowd - I can hold it at arms length overhead and take a shot. Although in sunlight I'm struggling to see the level line. I also use it for low shots - it saves lying on the ground. Whenever I can though, it's the evf.

1 month ago*
dansclic

180 shots .... a near ideal travel camera ? Are you serious?

1 month ago
Ernesto-CH

Do you remember the time of analog film? We had 24 or 36 pictures. Today people is taking too much picture instead creating photos. If I have to shot more than 100 picture a day, it's something special. A second accu is small and light. It will give you a full day.

1 month ago
CANON_PANASONIC_ENDUSER

Solution is charging by USB from a small Li ion batterypack.

1 month ago
synyan

That's how Canon make money. One battery NB-13L costs more than $50.

1 month ago
Franz Weber
Franz Weber

Problem is that most battery packs won’t work with this camera as it will only charge with the PD standard. Even my wall chargers cannot charge my G5XII.

1 month ago
Benjamin Jehne

@Franz Weber
Just buy a small usb charger. Zhat will work with every powerbank.

1 month ago
ravi pratap

Just a few bucks more M50 is waiting to be lapped ?

1 month ago
Ernesto-CH

But it's much bigger if you want the same zoom range and apperture. Which is not available as far as I know.

1 month ago
GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware

I just returned this camera. I had convinced myself that I needed a pocketable alternative for traveling on short trips, when taking my XT-3 seemed like too much to carry. Basically a wrist camera that still had good image quality. So I shot 100-ish photos, and the image quality was fine and about what I expected. But what I realized is that the camera is just to fidigity and sensitive for my tastes. I like to take my time and compose shots, and decided that in order to overcome that, it would need to be on a monopod to get the stable feel that I enjoy. And if I'm carrying a monopod, what's the point of a pocketable camera? Absolutely a matter of taste.

On the plus side, the camera was well built except for the plastic lens ring. Not a big deal, and I really liked that it could be assigned the image aspect ratio function for P/A/S/M modes. Between that and the dedicated zoom lever, there was complete direct control over image composition.

Oh well, I tried to like it.

1 month ago
AbrasiveReducer

Interesting. Since decent ergonomics are usually one of Canon's strengths, what was "to fidgity and sensitive" about the camera?

1 month ago
GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware

The wrap around presentation of many options on the screen was annoying. A set of options would be displayed in rows on the screen, and you could only use the left/right sides of the four-way rocker, not the up/down to jump rows. Touch was available, but sometimes the icons were too small to accurately touch.

The dial around the rocker was way too loose and easily passed my intended target.

The touchscreen sensitivity only had two settings, standard and "more sensitive." Even on standard, it was too easy to make wrong selections.

Once turned on, the touch-and-drag autofocus option couldn't be disabled. At least I couldn't figure it out. Even though it said "Disabled" in the menu setting, it still allowed dragging.

The spot metering is permanently fixed to the center of view, not the autofocus point.

Just a few. Running out of characters. I did read the manual cover-to-cover. Wasn't included in the box, by the way. Had to download.

1 month ago
JL Auch

Bury the lead guys...

1 month ago
Barney Britton
1 month ago
dpfan32

I thought: finally a sharp lens.
And then I looked up the price of this camera at Amazon.

Forget it.....
There is for example the Fuji X-T20 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 at a similar price. Not to mention all the mFT alternatives.

G5X 749 EUR (original price, now much lower)
G5X Mark II 929 EUR

This is a ridiculous price jump.

1 month ago*
dansclic

Totally agree
For 600 usd you now can get a xt20 with the small 15-45
This one inch sensor camera is far too expensive

1 month ago
synyan

I own bunch of Fuji's. XTs and G5 are in diff use. The 1-inch camera can put into pocket, while XT20 couldn't.

1 month ago
dpfan32

It will be difficult to put the G or the RX in jeans pockets. At least what I'm wearing it was very uncomfortable to put my old RX100 (I) anywhere in my pockets. I realized that I have to carry a small bag anyway. So a slightly larger mirrorless is no more an obstacle.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

X-T20 can't fit in a pocket. You're paying for the miniaturization.

4 weeks ago
ric h

In comparison with the Panasonic ZS100, which got the same overall score of 82%, its review mentions that it had, "..a great autofocus system..". However, that camera scored lower in Metering & Autofocus than the G5X II. Why is that?

1 month ago
Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle

Those Pany cameras are not very sharp. I have a ZS50, and the lens is mediocre. From what I've read, the ZS100 and ZS200 are not so hot, either. It's a shame because otherwise, they are very nice cameras.

1 month ago
ric h

Well, when it comes to optics, the ZS100 scores higher than the Canon.

1 month ago
Canasonic

I disagree, I checked the ZS100 against the G5X II in the DP Review comparator and the ZS100 lens is nowhere near as sharp.

1 month ago
ric h

Ok, I'm just going by the Scoring section in the conclusion and adding the ZS100 as a comparison. If you do that, and move between the 2 cameras, you can see that the Pany scores higher in the Optics section. Is that just because it has more range?

But, my original question is still, why did one camera with "great autofocus" gets a lower score than another where the autofocus came into question? Just trying to get an explanation for that.

1 month ago
larkhon

TZ100 was not so sharp (but can be fixed adding a little sharpness in PP) but TZ200 is better and give more reach. To me, sharpness doesn't really matter for this kind of camera, as there always will be affordable mirrorless alternatives that will provide better resolution, so in the end for me it comes to convenience. Either long reach or better low light performance, something I cannot get otherwise for this size/price/weight ratio.

1 month ago
NYCman530

Under scoring, the usual comparison link was missing.

1 month ago
Photoman
Photoman

Cons: "Photographers that need the best autofocus for action or family photography, as well as video shooters who may want a stronger feature set and better video quality."

That sounds really bad. Sounds like a RX100 sounds like a better option.

1 month ago
TN Args
TN Args

It's just their clumsy way of saying that if you want the *ultimate* in those two areas, this camera is not it.

If you are reading the quote as saying the camera is poor in those areas, or won't meet most needs, then they need to re-word what they wrote to avoid giving that wrong impression to people.

1 month ago
cbphoto123
cbphoto123

@TN Args.. "..they need to re-word what they wrote to avoid giving that wrong impression to people."....or that is their actual intention.

1 month ago
pollup

"but if you're a parent who wants to capture action ... you might consider other options." -> this opinion seems to confirm it's not very good for family photography.

1 month ago
zkz5
zkz5

Is there any further explanation about "Picky about USB chargers" this in the "what we don't like" list?

Does it require a USB-PD charger with a certain minimum power level? Text in the "Body, controls and handling" section sort-of indicates that.

1 month ago
Franz Weber
Franz Weber

Yes, unfortunately none of my USB chargers at home or in my car can charge this camera.

1 month ago
zkz5
zkz5

I figured it required USB-PD based on what I read in the review. I guess I'm suggesting that the minimum power level be tested, or wondering why on Earth Canon failed to document this. There are only certain discrete power levels defined by the USB-PD standard.

1 month ago
KoolKool

too bad, i prefer mark i design! ;(

1 month ago
Suilven
Suilven

Me too, I prefer the fixed EVF, and now it's cheaper :-)

1 month ago
abruzzopat

Looks like a great option for still photographers looking for a compact camera under $1K

1 month ago
Wingsfan
Wingsfan

This doesn't really break any new ground, but I do like the fact you get a pretty fast ( f1.8-2.8) lens with a 5x zoom. If the autofocus was a little better and the video capability a little more stout, I would love to purchase this to compliment my RX100 M6 (RX for the longer focal lengths, G5x for lower light, and indoors), and have a fantastic, tiny 2 camera travel system I could take anywhere. When traveling as a family, sometimes even m-43 is too big of a system to bring along.
As a side note, I wonder if Panasonic will ever update the lx10?

1 month ago
dpfan32

But the price is too heavy. Imagine what you could get in the mFT world for that.

1 month ago
Edgar_in_Indy
Edgar_in_Indy

For low light, the LX10 with its f1.4 lens is still champ among 1" cameras.

3 weeks ago
Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle

Sounds like the Sony RX100 is still king in this market segment.

1 month ago
writelight

It depends what you're looking for. For me, I don't care about video. I do care about low light performance, an actual usable interface and touchscreen, attractive color rendition and comfortable ergonomics. In these, the Sony fails miserably and is ridiculously more expensive. IMHO, of course.

1 month ago
Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle

Makes sense. Although, I wouldn't expect the low-light performance to be much different if you shoot RAW. Sensor size is the same. TBH, a 1" sensor isn't really going to cut it in low light, but these kinds of cameras are good when the light is good.

1 month ago
writelight

I agree, to an extent, though the f stop difference can be an advantage in certain conditions. I did, however, fail to mention the Sony's superior AF performance. I probably will be affected less as fast tracking won't be a significant need for me.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

I own the RX100 VI and there are three major takeaways:

1) The 24-200mm lens is VERY good, ultra sharp.
2) The AF is beyond good, almost uncanny.
3) Colors and overall look is not that far off from my Nikon D850.
4) Ergonomics are cured by adding a grip.
5) Menus are clunky, but anyone with a hour to spare can learn them.
6) I'm not a video guy, but good lord, the video IQ is stunning.

And the RX100 M7 version adds even better AF! Honestly, the Canon does not compete, though it's a nice camera. Sony's goal was to lead this segment. So far they're doing exactly that.

1 month ago
Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle

@Hollywood
Agree 100%.

1 month ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

@Iron Eagle: the sensor would not make a significant difference in low-light performance, but the lens clearly would. Have a look at the aperture chart here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g5-x-mark-ii-review/2

1 month ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

Okay, maybe not “clearly” (that chart not starting at 0 is somewhat misleading). But there is still some difference, especially compared to the VI and VII.

1 month ago
larkhon

again MrHollywood, the VI can't keep up as well as TZ200 with people moving on a stage with lighting. To me, if they're asking almost twice as much they should just be better every single time in any situation. I wouldn't consider the VII as even better, I'd say it makes the RX100 become what it needed to be to be the leader.

1 month ago
Karroly

"Canon has decided that 24p video recording is unnecessary"
Frankly, 24ps recording is an "advanced video feature" for me that I do not care about.
The vast majority of users interested by this camera will watch their videos on a 60fps monitor or 50/60fps TV. So what are the advantages of viewing a 24fps video on such a display device, considering that the video player may "struggle" to make a good frame rate conversion ?

1 month ago
pollup

The advantage is the cinematic look. It's the same reason movies are still being shot at 24fps.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Yup. Dropping 24 FPS was not a good idea.

1 month ago
writelight

"Cinematic look" Perhaps for the naive.

1 month ago
Karroly

I have taken a look at the X-A7 specs published by DPR in their camera section. Weirdly, the 24fps mode is listed for both 4K and 2K...

1 month ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

Even assuming that cinematic look is 1. something to care about (especially for something that you would shoot with a pocket camera) and 2. due to the framerate (at least https://wipster.io/blog/debunking-the-180-degree-shutter-rule disagrees): would 24 vs. 25 or 30 make that much of a difference? At least, 30 evenly divides the native framerate of most screens in use (even TVs: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/5230 ), so they can simply display each frame a constant number of times and call it a day.

My personal opinion is that 24fps is a relic of the past and we shouldn’t cling to it in a cargo cult fashion.

1 month ago*
Karroly

spider-mario,
I totaly agree with you. 25fps is too close to 24fps to not have the same "cinematic look".
However, for 24fps aficionados who will be satisfied by 25fps, if all TV sets usually play back 25fps videos without frame rate conversion, or at least just by doubling the frame rate at 50fps, some cameras are crippled according to the region they are sold, so 25/50fps settings cannot be available in countries using 60Hz as their AC power frequency...

1 month ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

Ow. :( Legacy everywhere…

Any chance they might be satisfied by 30fps too?

1 month ago
TN Args
TN Args

Dear DPR:

"....the G5 X Mark II cannot compete with the best of its peers when it comes to autofocus and video."

"its peers" means at the same price point, right?

Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges, like comparing a Canon RP with a Sony A7RIV, right? Just because they have the same size sensor and vaguely similar size, does not a peer make.

Please clarify.

1 month ago*
Minos82

Well the price point has to be adjusted because it cannot compete. Otherwise, who would buy it?

1 month ago
TN Args
TN Args

@Minos82, that is astoundingly backward thinking.

1 month ago
Minos82

That is brilliant understanding of the AF weaknesses.

1 month ago
badi

well, doesn't really matter if canon couldn't mach the AF and cut the price as a consequence or they targeted a price point and had to cut some stuff. In the end We have a 900$ 1"sensor camera with a 24-120/1.8-2.8 lens competing against a 1200$ camera with a 24-200/2.8-4.5 lens - but better AF, video and viewfinder.

While the price difference is big, both are expensive cameras that are targeting the same audience. Frankly most of the people who would buy a $900 compact will not have too deep regrets if they spend $300 more.

But the lens difference and the AF difference make the cameras quite different beasts.

1 month ago
pollup

Peers is more than just a price point, the main thing is that they target the same type of consumers. That camera and the RX100 vii definitely target the same consumers.

However in your example of Canon RP vs A7riv, the targeted consumers are very different, one camera is for amateurs (entry level) and one is for professional use, and the price points are completely different, we're not talking about a 30% increase in price like here which many people could consider, but a 250% increase in price.

1 month ago
George1958

"....the G5 X Mark II cannot compete with the best of its peers when it comes to autofocus and video."

Perhaps true if you only look at specs. A Ferrari has better specs than a Ford Focus but both can only travel at the national speed limit.

This canon can do the same as other brand family members in a real world situation. Ideas about competitiveness are notional and the food stuff off marketing departments and the opium of gear heads.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

This Canon is hoping to steal some customers away from Sony. But it really can't compete except by offering a lower price point. The Sony does almost everything better...better lens, MUCH better AF, video. The Sony ends up being worth the extra money.
But I'd love to see something better than my RX100 VI (besides the VII).

1 month ago
George1958

The idea of better is never seen in practical applications. Take a bunch of photographs with either and you won’t see better in the output. It really is a case of the emperors new cloths. If Sony or canon can more money out of you or sell you the mirage of superiority they will.

1 month ago
MrHollywood
MrHollywood

Sorry, George, but that's not an educated comment. I own quite a few cameras, from the amazing Nikon D850 to the Fuji X100f. Variances in low light ability, corner sharpness and overall operational speed DO make a difference. The Canon has inferior AF compared to the Sony. In fact, the Sony is the only small camera I've owned with AF on par with my DSLRs. Better AF does make a difference. The IQ of the Canon and Sony are very close, but the AF advantages for the Sony are very real, especially if you shoot anything that moves.

1 month ago
George1958

But it is an educated comment, like you I own a stunning array of different cameras and different formats. However I like you I don’t have a bias for Sony gear . It’s very very good gear but what does that tell you when most brands are very good.
The end game is not specs but the images you take. Plenty of awards, competitions and magnum photos are taken on all brands of cameras. The evidence is out there to see. If Sony was as much as the game changer a few people like to think it is , you would see it I. The images. It’s funny how top photographers continue to succeed with supposedly inferior gear isn’t it.

1 month ago
larkhon

Shall we talk about ISO performance at ISO 3200? it seems the Canon is softer (I'm guessing the lens is at fault) but gives a cleaner image than all the 1" sensored cameras to date.

1 month ago
beavertown
beavertown

When will Canon fabricate their own 1" and stop relying on Sony's sensors ?

1 month ago
Karroly

Good sense of humor... ;-)

1 month ago
Combatmedic870

Sony makes the best sensors. Canon could have chose the rx100 mk5 or mk6 sensor. But they chose the mk4s. Sonys sensor Dept is independent of their camera Dept.

1 month ago
spencerda

I have recently picked up the camera and I’m trying to get back into photography after a bit of a layoff. Use to shoot and print Raw. I’ll still shoot Raw but like to include JPEG also now that the JPEG engines are so much better than they used to be .

Hoping to get advice as to what might be the best settings for a JPEGs to get the most out of the files.

David

1 month ago
Karroly

Best settings are very personal, as it is a matter of taste. If this camera features the new sharpening settings (which includes strength, fineness and threshold) and if, like me, you prefer a natural look, I suggest you to try the "Neutral" or "Faithfull" Picture Style, but with the "Fine detail" sharpening settings (4,1,1). You can also try a contrast and color saturation of -1. Reducing color saturation a little bit also reduces the level of chroma noise at high ISO.

1 month ago
spencerda

Karroly,

Thank you for the suggestions.
I could have worded my question a bit more accurately.
With JPEG files fun to play with some of the color settings but would like to keep them as malleable as possible.

My concern from what I read is the sharpening algorithms with canon are not very good.

Wonder if I’m better off turning sharpening down to minimum and tweaking in Photoshop ?

1 month ago
Platinumkid
Platinumkid

All we need is this lens on the Sony RX mk7 and voila - the PERFECT CAMERA the one funny YouTuber is dreaming of. Only problem is, he will be unable to color-grade well :)

1 month ago
Kharan
Kharan

Kasey's color-grading skills shall not be questioned! His inviting green skin and magenta highlights are at the forefront of cinematic artistry 🤣

1 month ago
thx1138
thx1138

The only things I see the G5 mk II has over the Sony RX100 VI/VII, is superior noise control (RAW), the noise is much better at ISO 3200 with smaller grain and less colour noise, the lens is nice and fast and fairly good all over the frame and it has a grip. The Sony AF and video quality and features are a lot better. Canon's new cripple theme for 2019 is 24p, sure let's give them 4K but how can we gimp it as we really hate you not buying a C100 instead. However for a general carry anywhere walkabout camera for anything but video or action it's a very viable alternative.

A shame there isn't more competition in this segment. Wake up Nikon and Panasonic needs a LX100III ASAP.

1 month ago
mcshan

Or RX100 VIIA with a slightly short but faster lens.

1 month ago
FRANCISQUAN

"Thanks to a pop-up electronic viewfinder and higher-quality lens, Canon's G5 X Mark II is a tempting step up from the already-good G7 X Mark III if you don't (NEED) that camera's specialist vlogging (FEEATURES?)."

1 month ago*
Carey Rose
Carey Rose

Thanks for the catch. You're hired!

1 month ago
ovatab

when standing face down on the lens does the camera push itself up and down when zoomed in/out with remote shooting app?

1 month ago
6BQ5

I never thought of something like this. Makes me want to try it on my Sony RX10!

:D

1 month ago
Karroly

Why ? Is your car jack broken ?

1 month ago
photoneer

Thanks DPR for the good review. Just wondering though why the score in the conclusion for 'Low light/high ISO performance' is so low given the fast lens and good high ISO performance in your test scene?

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

That portion of the score is calculated from a number of sub-items, which include noise reduction and detail retention in high ISO JPEGs. Here the G5X II scored fairly low due to poor noise reduction.

You make a fair point though that our compact camera scoring system doesn't take into account: the benefit of the brighter lens.

1 month ago
photoneer

Thanks Rishi for the reply. I guess from your studio scene I'm not seeing the poor noise reduction though, maybe I'm doing it wrong:-) If I select JPEG and ISO3200 then move the box around the image the noise and detail retention looks very good and comparable with the Sony, etc

1 month ago
argumon

Yes, I found it significantly better then the LX10 in the test scene, at least on par with the LX100-II which is bigger. So for the LX10, the G5 X II could be an upgrade, especially as the LX10 lacks the viewfinder and it's autofocus also is not great despite of DFD.

1 month ago
keeponkeepingon

> JPEGs.

So the low score is solely based on something most folks here totally don't care about?

1 month ago
mkrsmano

Guys, I think that the "Low light / high ISO performance" specifically between G5 X Mark II and RX100 VII should be corrected. You stated in both reviews how Canon has a brigther lens and Sony "slow" one, yet the comparison bar clearly gives preference to the Sony. This is very misleading. Pls act upon it.

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

"So the low score is solely based on something most folks here totally don't care about?"

We assume that if you're stepping up to one of these from your smartphone, you actually care about images at the pixel level, or in other words magnified (a proxy for a larger print).

Because at the image level, you'll be just fine with a smartphone. Except for the high zoom ratios.

"You stated in both reviews how Canon has a brigther lens and Sony "slow" one, yet the comparison bar clearly gives preference to the Sony. This is very misleading. Pls act upon it."

I understand your point, and it's a good one. We'll discuss this, we need to balance both the JPEG NR performance and the lens' brightness over the focal range for compact cameras. Not simple, but doable. Thanks for the feedback.

1 month ago
Impulses

" but if you're an enthusiast that wants a significant upgrade in image and video quality over your smartphone, you might consider other options. " -Rishi

Not to pick on Rishi, but how about writing about that very comparison? (I know he's written some articles where he's compared phones and cameras in the context of HDR and/or fake DoF effects) Where do things stand when it comes to IQ vs 1" or APS-C once phone's computational tricks are taken into account? How about video? How about video IS?

I know some enthusiasts might crucify me for even talking about this but Rishi opened the window, there *are* some people (enthusiasts and otherwise) cross shopping cameras of all sorts against $700+ phones and trying to figure out whether to get a cheaper phone and a decent camera or vice versa.

There's a whole bunch of practical and ergonomics arguments that are best left to individual shoppers, but there's a basic comparison here that's not often explored.

1 month ago
Impulses

Even amongst enthusiasts I'm often seeing the debate on whether X has "caught up" thru processing/stacking tricks to larger sensor cameras or not, just a thought!

1 month ago
ozturert

If smartphone phrase about image quality is correct, then that can be said for all 1" cameras but somehow Rishi "forgets" to write the same thing in RX100 VII conclusion.

1 month ago
monky

I second this. The image quality that today's smartphones are capable of is astounding, if one is willing to work to access it. Pixel phones now shoot RAW in HDR+/Night Sight (i.e., their "stacked frame" modes now output single DNG files with incredible DR - even more than the JPGs that you see in most tests/comparisons). I'd like to see the DNG output from those modes in terms of dynamic range and overall image quality compared to a range of sensor sizes - 1" up to "full frame".

(Note I personally don't care about "fake bokeh" modes in this context - IMO those comparisons are meaningful between competing phones, but not so much phone vs cameras).

My feeling is that 1" sensors are no longer justified from an output quality perspective. They're now trying to differentiate themselves from cell phones through features like optical zooms, faster lenses, autofocus systems, and ergonomics, which, as you say, are trade-offs up to each individual buyer and their use cases.

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

I didn't 'forget' to write the same thing in the RX100 VII conclusion. The RX100 VII offers superior autofocus and video quality / video AF you will not get from your phone. For example watch this 4K HLG HDR video shot on the RX100, decisive AF and enough dynamic range to make a pleasing HDR viewing experience (please view it on an HDR capable smartphone).

The G5X II doesn't offer either of these things, hence its proposition value over a good smartphone camera, for a parent wanting to shoot action photos / video of their kids, is low.

1 month ago*
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

Impulses - thanks for the suggestion, and I completely agree that sort of content would be valuable. We're working to allocate resources to do exactly these sorts of relevant comparisons in the near future.

1 month ago
Dr_Jon

But the lack of the ND in the RX100VII has surely to be a really large black mark for video too... (and why I haven't moved on from my V).

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

Dr_Jon, yes, and we make it a point to mention this. However, and this is just my opinion, the lack of a ND filter I can fix (MagFilter attachment, for example, worked very well for me), but lack of zebras, lack of HLG / log, lack of usable video AF - these aren't fixable.

Furthermore, I'd argue that casual shooters won't care about the judder caused by high shutter speeds. And the ones who do can use the filter solution I suggest above.

(That said, it's very unfortunate the RX100 VI/VII are missing ND filters; using the MagFilter is certainly nowhere near as simple as just having a built-in filter)

1 month ago*
Dr_Jon

Lensmate also have a filter solution for RX100 VI/VII, when no filter is fitted it adds 3mm to the lens length and avoids magnets (which can still be annoying sometimes).

1 month ago*
keeponkeepingon

> , lack of usable video AF

Oh bother, that's really overstating the case and showing your user bias (we like what we use).

1 month ago
Dr_Jon

Also the definition of "usable video AF" is different for family shots and something that's only happening once. The bar for the latter is still not really reached by anything if it's an important event.

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

"> , lack of usable video AF

Oh bother, that's really overstating the case and showing your user bias."

No, it's not. I would not use video AF on the G5X II. Or, I would (b/c it's impossible to manually continually refocus on moving subjects), I'd just have footage that's out of focus half the time.

"Also the definition of "usable video AF" is different for family shots and something that's only happening once. The bar for the latter is still not really reached by anything if it's an important event."

Yes, actually, the bar is met by cameras like the RX100 VII, & the latest Sony cameras. Canon DPAF on higher-end cameras comes close but its subject tracking isn't as reliable, requiring you to re-tap your subject everytime DPAF loses it (happens less frequently on Sony).

Did you watch the RX100 VII video I linked to above? Compare that to the similar soccer video I shot w/ the G5X II. The difference in AF is night and day.

1 month ago
Rishi Sanyal
Rishi Sanyal

"Lensmate also have a filter solution for RX100 VI/VII, when no filter is fitted it adds 3mm to the lens length and avoids magnets (which can still be annoying sometimes)."

Yes, I've seen that as well, but the MagFilter adds almost nothing to your camera, and I don't see any annoyance to the filter attachment that snaps on magnetically. The nice thing about the magnetic setup is that you never have to worry about torque on the lens, since you screw/unscrew filters with the entire attachment off of the lens.

And it takes a split second to pop off the entire filter assembly and slip it into your pocket when you want to revert to shooting stills without the ND filter.

1 month ago
mpb002

The G5X II stands out primarily due to its upgraded, fast lens. This is a photographers camera, who primarily like still images. I don’t think a novice or non-photographer would really get the most out of this camera. The Sony might be better for just casual snap-shooters who also want good video.

1 month ago
SammyToronto

Any reason why the comparison tool is not enabled on the conclusion page? It's quite handy to compare the different aspect of a given camera's performance against its competition so I hope you're not doing away with that feature!

1 month ago
Carey Rose
Carey Rose

That's odd, I can see it on my end. Let me check in with the staff and see what we can come up with.

1 month ago
SammyToronto

@Carey Rose Thanks! FWIW, I tried again after restarting my Chrome browser and also on Edge, but the toggle that turns on the comparison tool still doesn't show on either.

1 month ago
SammyToronto

Update: no sure if something was fixed but I do see the comparison tool toggle now, thanks!

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Small error: The G7Xii is listed as having an EVF of OLED instead of None in the comparison chart.

1 month ago
Carey Rose
Carey Rose

Thanks for the catch, I'll address that now.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

This is a tempting upgrade from my RX100iii. It offers amount twice the reach at a similar range of apertures and similar sharpness. I handled one in a store, and the touch functionality is a nice improvement as is the exposure comp dial.. On the downside, this camera definitely feels cheaper in the hand.

If you don't need amazing AF, >120mm, or video, the G5Xii would seem to be the best stills 1" sensor camera.

1 month ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

This feels like a great 2020 black Friday pickup at $700.

1 month ago
Lightright
Lightright

Canon finally updating their sensors to 2019 just by looking at this model's exposure performance. It's AF tracking may not be on par with Sony RX100 VII but it is capable and compact enough for portrait, landscape and telephoto shots that gives you much more options to your general shooting experience than what your smartphone offers. It's a bit pricey (and so is the RX100 VII either) but if they bring this down to $700, this is surely a winner.

1 month ago
darlot

I like this a lot, I shot my RX100 V a lot but this one seems to have a better lens, better handling and noise.

1 month ago*
white shadow

I do a lot of travel and street photography and is looking for a really good alternative to my Oly TG4 which is my current favourite. The faster and slightly longer lens is an advantage but it is unfortunately not dustproof and weatherproof. The larger sensor may have an advantage but not by much. The TG4 images are surprisingly very good despite its much smaller sensor. The TG4 also has an excellent closeup or macro mode and a very useful light composite mode for night photography which is not found in many other compact cameras.

It is a tough question whether I should go for this camera or just go for the M6 Mk2.

1 month ago*
Suilven
Suilven

I came within a whisker of upgrading to one of the Canon 1" compacts from my TG3 but just couldn't go through with it. Funnily enough I then visited friends and their kids soaked me and my camera with water pistols, making my best photo of the trip!

1 month ago
Total: 64, showing: 1 – 50
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »