167

Canon PowerShot G7 X III review: the compact camera that lets you broadcast to the world

Image quality

Since the G7 X III uses what is almost certainly the same sensor in most modern Sony RX cameras (save for the VII), so image quality differences will largely be related to lens quality.

Key takeaways

  • Raw detail capture and noise are as good as the best of the G7 X III's peers, if not better
  • JPEGs have vibrant colors, as we'd expect from a Canon camera
  • Sharpening in JPEGs has improved over previous G7 X models, though noise reduction is still a bit too high, especially at high ISOs
  • The G7 X III's lens is quite soft at wide-angle, but sharpens up nicely as the focal length increases

Studio test scene

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 performance

We've taken a look at the G7 X III's performance near the telephoto end of its lens, where it's sharpest, and found that the camera is competitive with its peers. In Raw images, the G7 X III captures a good amount of fine detail: even more than the the similar Sony DSC-RX100 V (or at least our copy of it). Noise levels are on par with the G7 X III's peers at the highest sensitivities, though we doubt most people will be shooting above ISO 6400 on these cameras.

For detail on the G7 X Mark III's dynamic range, check out our PowerShot G5 X II review. Since it uses the same sensor, the results should be identical. You will be able to brighten shadows (to a point) without having to worry too much about noise.

JPEG performance

If there's one thing that most people can agree on, it's that Canon cameras produce really vibrant, pleasing color. The company has definitely upped its game when it comes to JPEG sharpening compared to its predecessor, illustrated here. Noise reduction is still a bit too strong, sacrificing some of the ultra-fine detail that the camera is capturing.

The PowerShot G7 X III wipes away chroma noise at higher ISOs, while leaving some grain in the image, so not all detail is lost.


Lens performance

While we wrote an extensive article comparing the G7 X III's lens against that of the G5 X II and Sony RX100 VII, here's a quick summary:

At its wide end, the G7 X III's lens is very soft, though it's considerably better if you stop down to around F4, save for the corners. Once you get to the middle of the focal range, things improve greatly, in both the center and corners of the frame – even wide-open – though the Sony RX100 VII's stellar lens still outperforms its peers, but it's significantly slower and the camera is much more expensive.

See our G7 X III vs G5 X II vs RX100 VII
lens shootout

9
I own it
32
I want it
11
I had it
Discuss in the forums
View Comments (167)

Comments

All (167)
Most popular (11)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (8)
Oldest first
kivis
kivis

Posting directly to Flickr? pretty cool.

5 days ago
buratino
buratino

Comparing 4 1" cameras in the table DPR uses real F-numbers:
"Max aperture F1.8 - F2.8 F1.8 - F2.8 F1.8 - F2.8 F1.8- F2.8 F1.4 - F2.8"

Comparing them in the graph, DPR uses equivalent F-numbers!

Using equivalence would be meaningful to a degree if they would try to include other format cameras into the comparison. Otherwise, it's just the stubbornness of DPR.

OK, leave the equivalent graph but include one with their native F-numbers.

As a result, further confusion will go on with endless explanations and debates.

2 weeks ago
srados

Hi Dpreview.
Why a silver version got a silver award and black version got a gold award?
https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g7xiii

?

3 weeks ago
flip 21
flip 21

In a couple of years no one will buy these compact cameras. Cellphones, like the Iphone 11 pro are spanking mirrorless cameras, and these ones are the first to fall, like camcorders did. They have much better image, better processor, better LCDs, 4K 60, IBIS, sharper image, Mic inputs, they are lighter, and more compact. Canon keeps holding back tech, until it is too late. RIP Canon... :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZx8LNUTxvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOI8NqeSQIY&feature=emb_logo

3 weeks ago*
AllFlawed

More cross format gloating over the woes of the camera industry from a smartphone fan. Probably not really understanding what photography means to the traditional camera user. I do not think your emoticon really hides your glee at the prospect of an anodyne fully automated computerised featureless touch screen slab taking over and destroying any choice for others.

We are not in a couple pf years time and this is a current gear review.
No controls, no EVF. If you like a little robot to take your pictures for you fine.
Most of us own smartphones so why we have to have all this stuff repeated to us and if your iPhone suits your needs do you really need to be here.

Using a dedicated camera with all its controls is an entirely different experience to using a smartphone. I doubt many people reading this review have any interest in these endless smartphone sales pitches, usually focused on iPhone, with confident predictions of the future which are invariably over time totally worthless.

3 weeks ago
flip 21
flip 21

Oh my god... It is really sad, when someone just can't face the truth... Smart phones sell much more than cameras, cameras will continue to drop in sales, namely because of Canon expensive crap... See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6irorkXCLyw

3 weeks ago*
AllFlawed

When people start talking about the 'truth', especially through a youtube link pointing at a single point in the contradictory babble of youtube, coupled with crude hyperbole to describe equipment you know there is a fixed mind set and no real discussion possible.

3 weeks ago
flip 21
flip 21

Now you have hurt my feelings :(. I hate smart phones, I just hate them, they are anti-social devices... I just don't wanna be forced to buy one. I always loved cameras, but right now I'm embarrassed...I'm the proud owner of one of the best mirroless cameras around, but I fear the future. Canon should take a stand, and what Canon is doing is holding back tech... No wonder people stop buying cameras, when the leader of the market is releasing worse cameras than competition, year, after year... That said, Sony cameras are still being spanked by these devices made for making phone calls... in the end, the IQ is what counts, who cares if it is all in auto...

3 weeks ago
Augustin Man
Augustin Man

I agree with you, with only one, single exception, with the future guaranteed by the laws of physics: the super/mega zoom cameras!

2 weeks ago
flip 21
flip 21

yes, you are right :) I just hope brands wake up, and start puting the same tech/processors found on the Iphone, and such on mirroless cameras. It would be awesome, because they have such a better hardware....

2 weeks ago
GlobalGuyUSA

Reviews are TERRIBLE on Amazon. 2.5 stars out of 5..?

Canon needs to stop buying ads for this cam on DPReview.

And DPReview needs to tell us what the real problems are here.

3 weeks ago*
GlobalGuyUSA

It appears that Auto-Focus is terrible on this product.

= Instant Death, if true.

3 weeks ago
pacnwhobbyist

All except one review on there are pre-firmware update. The one post firmware update give it 4 stars saying that the AF performance in video equals that of the Mark II. Which was okay but not stellar, and that jibes with what they said in the review. I really don’t think there’s any hidden gremlins in this camera beyond that. I do think they could stand to lower the price a little, but that’s just me.

3 weeks ago
GlobalGuyUSA

The SONY RX100 VII seems to have stellar reviews. Any thoughts on that one? I really can't stand Canon's terrible AF, even with the firmware updates, it seems its still lackluster.

SONY isn't my usual brand, but I'm looking for a travel P&S, and it might be the one.

3 weeks ago
AllFlawed

@GlobalGuyUSA
Because Sony throw money at the problem and some people can throw money at their hobby so the RX100 VII wins but how many can do that? Professional reviewers probably get it free so no skin off their noses.
The focus is not terrible on the Canon's just not the best you can get. Every fault gets hyperbolised by word of mouth to extremes on these sites.

2 weeks ago*
Spiffus

". . . Reviews are TERRIBLE on Amazon. 2.5 stars out of 5..?"

You state the worse of two ratings. I just viewed them. The low score you reference is built on 20 respondents. 20. Above that offering is a another with a rating of 4.4 out of 5 with 339 reviews. Same Canon. The "Stellar" Sony you mention above had ratings of 3.9 out of 5 with 19 respondents, and a 4.4 from a group of 34 people. So, in review: 339 Canon reviews (sales) versus 34 Sony reviews (sales). Which one may ultimately be more "stellar"?

2 weeks ago
turvyT

The camera sounds good in words, the sample gallery is nasty, what a bunch of ineffectual and irrelevant snaps.

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

I have a theory why this camera only got a silver medal and fewer than 200 comments. Canon has created the ultimate information distribution device—a potent political weapon—and it makes people very nervous.
If you assembled three or four talented visual artists who were united in the cause of liberty or social justice or saving the whatevers and gave each of them one of these cameras they could inflict serious damage on the oligarchs and the patriarchs and the plutocrats.
They look like vacation cameras meaning a crusading photographer could work completely under the radar but Canon's imaging excellence means the results would be so spectacular their message would always get attention.
Combine that with communication features that allow the photographer to instantly distribute images and videos around the world and you have a real problem on your hands, if you've got your boot heel on the throat of the working man and woman.
So yeah. Great camera, just don't point that thing at me.

3 weeks ago*
Scrollop

"Canon's imaging excellence means the results would be so spectacular their message would always get attention. "

What a mild trolling you've attempted there, sir.

Or, perhaps, you forgot a /s?

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

My point is that in the past if you wanted to produce professional level stills and video you needed gigantic, conspicuous equipment. Even a GH 3 or GH4 would attract unwelcome scrutiny from nervous officials.
Now we have Canon delivering this modest little slingshot of a camera just at the time it is needed by the Davids of the world.

3 weeks ago
Mr Bolton

@MrBrightSide Fight the POWER!!

Not sarcasm, this is a good point.

3 weeks ago
Akpinxit

I was looking forward for wider review of cameras for children , and this one is disappointing ...

3 weeks ago
Shelley Morris
Shelley Morris

Jeff Keller! You are a beauty ! Thanks for share

3 weeks ago
Karl Huber

The image quality is very, very pedestrian.

3 weeks ago
n3eg
n3eg

"Broadcast to the world" ??? It has a built-in 1 kilowatt pirate radio transmitter?

3 weeks ago
Pphotosweden
Pphotosweden

Is that the way u usually get online?

3 weeks ago
Mr Bolton

That would be pretty rad!!

3 weeks ago
Rotodpreview

I'm big on Sony, but only their Zeiss based cameras. I have an RX10 as my travel camera and wow is that thing incredible. Picture quality, color contrast, sharpness, and ability to make the best of what light is available. I'm have a recent picture blown up to 24x36 on metal. I expect it will be phenomenal!

3 weeks ago
Mariano Pacifico

"...aimed at smartphone camera upgraders..."
Smartphones are killing compact cameras. Obviously smartphone photographers are not upgrading discrete serious enthusiasts possibly and a back-up for professionals

3 weeks ago
edophoto

Its a pity they don't put a viewfinder on this model.

3 weeks ago
rmexpress22

I always thought about replacing my G16 to have a good, powerful, pocketable camera. So I got bigger pockets with the M6 and kit lens.

These 1" sensor cameras all perform fairly well and about the same depending on their lenses. If you're not sure which to get, flip a coin.

3 weeks ago
Lightright
Lightright

Canon has such a weird way of segmenting their products like this one. M200 would have been a perfect vlogging camera if it has mic jack and YT streaming. They can justify the price to be around $600 and it would still be a bestseller. It has a bigger sensor with dual pixel AF and if equipped with a basic kit lens, it should definitely have that appeal to vloggers. That extra zoom lens is just a waste of feature for money if this is targeted to vloggers. Between G5XIII and G7XIII for just overall photography, the former one is a better choice which has an EVF and an extended zoom range.

3 weeks ago
VENTURE-STAR

The camera is too expensive for what it offers. The genuine batteries are a rip-off and if past problems are anything to go by, the dust sealing around the lens elements may be unsatisfactory. For less money, you can buy something like a Nikon D5600 with an 18-140 zoom. Okay, the Canon is smaller, it has a fast built-in lens and 4K that may be acceptable. But if you must have a good compact camera for stills, take a look at a Sony.

3 weeks ago
scotthunter

Forget this and the Sony RX100. Get the G1X III as it’s moisture and dust sealed, it also has a fully retracting lens, and the sensor is MUCH bigger. You can also flip the screen fully sideways, and it has a proper top mounted EVF (none of this pop-up nonsense).

3 weeks ago
KoolKool

oh hell no, dslr, no!

3 weeks ago
AllFlawed

The G1X III has a tiny 8mm maximum aperture. Large sensors need a larger hole to look through and the G1X III maximum aperture is smaller than the maximum in their 1" cameras.

3 weeks ago
scotthunter

It’s still better IQ in good light though than any 1-inch compact, and if you use a tripod for landscapes you can afford to use slower shutter speeds. You also have an increase in resolution and the benefit of dust and moisture sealing.

3 weeks ago
Gesture

Good work, Jeff. Thanks,

3 weeks ago
themountainphotographer
themountainphotographer

I had a play with the .CR3 files. The shadows when pushed 5 stops look impressive for a 1” sensor.

3 weeks ago
pacnwhobbyist

Such a weird time. All the pundits say these cameras are done for but Canon has held firm with the original MSRP of this camera since it was released last summer so it must be selling pretty well, even in light of all the initial negative reviews. I do think that $750 is a lot ask for camera with a relatively small sensor. You could argue that an M200 at $500 (currently) is a better deal but you cannot get a pancake 24-100 F1.8-F2.8 lens in the M mount (although that would be awesome). Everything has trade-offs I suppose.

3 weeks ago
jackspra
jackspra

Preferred the gallery to the new xpro one.

3 weeks ago
NYCman530

One thing puzzled me when checking out the comparison graph. According to DP Review, the Canon G7X lll and the G5X ll displayed a significantly worse low light performance on the graph than the Sony RX100 VII, which has a slower lens and the same size sensor of 1 inch. Any explanation for that?

3 weeks ago
cbphoto123
cbphoto123

...@Rishi Sanyal (DPR) put a nice spin on the reasoning a couple months back:

"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... our compact camera scoring system doesn't take into account: the benefit of the brighter lens"

Translation: Our methodology is incomplete-incorrect...so by default, the Sony once again must score higher.

3 weeks ago*
Benjamin Jehne

Just look at the RAWs, there you see, that they're all very equal.

3 weeks ago
perry rhodan
perry rhodan

@cbphoto123: it is sad but entirely true. Scoring and evaluation on DPR is entirely useless. Even worse, it is misleading in many ways. Compare it to the research value of the casual blogger. But hey, it is (almost) free.

And Im sure it is not done on purpose. However it is a very strong influencer channel.

3 weeks ago*
NYCman530

I shoot mostly Raw, so I guess it would be redundant to take it under consideration. Just wasn't sure whether they based the low light results on Raw or JPegs. Thanks for the responses, folks!

3 weeks ago
Frage

Feels very disturbing to watch when the vlogger does not look to the lens but to the screen. I couldn't concentrate to a single word of what he said.

3 weeks ago
Dr_Jon

Interestingly the older cameras that had a flip-down screen tend to look more natural, as looking down a little is a natural thing to do during conversation. Of course that has issues with tripods, etc.

3 weeks ago
scotthunter

No thanks, will stick with my G1X III. After moving to APS-C I won't go back to a 1 inch sensor. Not enough resolution for landscapes, poorer handling at higher ISOs and dynamic range isn't as good. The G7X series also lacks weather sealing.

3 weeks ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

Deciding that I wanted weather sealing was quite limiting in my quest for a high-quality compact camera. In the end, I settled for the G1 X III too and I am mostly happy with it.

3 weeks ago
mcshan

The G1X III didn't work out for me. The camera wasn't good in low light. The larger sensor can't make up for the slow lens. Same with my X Vario. Zoomed out in low light and forget it. I am having much more luck with the G5X II. My older RX100 IV trumped the G1X III in low light every time. I should note I seldom print larger than 12 X 18 from small point and shoots.

Spider, enjoy your III just the same. I do love Canon colors.
Edit: about low light. I tried my Fuji X-T20 with the pricey 23 1.4 and it was okay to good in low light. I used the Pan-Leica 15 1.7 on the M4/3 Pan GX85 and have been blown away at night especially black and white. I have printed three 20 X 30! No zoom but printed larger (Mpix and Whitewall) and wow. I expected the Fuji to be better but no. I have added the Pan 12-35 2.8 II (really a 70mm zoom) to the M4/3. I am loving those results so far. These are expensive but I am old, long retired and can do this. Enjoy your cameras no matter which.

3 weeks ago*
KoolKool

a fine camera, canon!
but limitation of charging usb-c.....took me off

3 weeks ago
aris14
aris14

Still no phone integrated...

4 weeks ago
scotthunter

Yes there is, you download the Canon Camera Connect app and transfer photos via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.

3 weeks ago
dansclic

Soft lens makes good smartphone better choice than this canon, how is it possible in 2019 to make soft lenses ? On a 750 usd caméra ?

4 weeks ago
Dr_Jon

Compact camera zoom lenses are almost always softer wide open and shut down, but way sharper than using a cell-phone and then stretching the image to zoom.
(I have a Sony RX100V BTW, it's best between f/4.5 and 5.6, less good wide-open, plus diffraction softening gets you at slower apertures.)

3 weeks ago*
Benjamin Jehne

Maybe it's because the over aggressive sharpening of smartphones?! If you want it like that, you can tune it in the menu.

3 weeks ago
blackcoffee17

"on the G7 X II one could have the control dial around the lens be 'clicky' or 'not clicky' with the flip of a switch. That's gone on the Mark III"

Typical Canon. Add something useful and then remove it later.

4 weeks ago
webber15

Small detail I know...but...not a single image which shows the rear of the camera??

4 weeks ago
Jeff Keller
Jeff Keller

I added a better photo of it on the body page - hope it's helpful!

4 weeks ago
webber15

Ta...

2 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

No Phase Detect AF or Dual Pixel AF is no, no for every youtuber. Also none from youtubers stream directly to youtube! Stream to you tube is function for journalist not for youtubers!!! So this camera is epic fail!
Also Canon's are from few that does not have clean HDMI out which is needed for live stream or external recording.

4 weeks ago
Anders_K

This Mark III just reeks of a sales push with minimal investment into a camera line upgrade. Nobody's to blame, Canon's compact camera departments have to fight for the survival of their jobs. It's tough times for the guys working there.
Consumers are only happy choosers.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Everyone will be happy with market push with minimal investment but most probably with this model Canon will get no no. RX100/RX10 duo is just very strong.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

And actually this camera competes to RX100 m3/m4 + they have EVF.

4 weeks ago
deluk

Several of the YT-ers that I follow do stream direct to YT especially for Q&A's so they can interact with viewers. Quality is usually poor, they often use phones, but if this does stream effectively it will be another good thing for live vlogging.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Could be if it have PDAF/DPAF, so most smartphones will have better focus. And with live stream and you tube compression no real benefit of 1" sensor. Maybe just real zoom could be useful if needed.

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

It does seem like any of the YouTube streams I've ever seen were done by big companies. But maybe we're just not cool enough to know when kids are YouTube streaming.
The other question is, of course, what about those people who stream from their webcams, I get the sense that there's a lot of action in that part of the internet, could this camera carve off some of that business?

4 weeks ago
Mary Chambers

Looks interesting.

4 weeks ago
cosinaphile
cosinaphile

canon and nikons concurrent unwillingness to put a serviceable EVF in the corner position .... not a crappy field sequential one Panasonic tries to push . or a absurdly tiny one [ panasonic again or one that is a pop up contraption like sony [ and canon copycats]

i can promise you that if canon or nikon ever wraps their heads around a 21 to 70
1 inch sensor cam with a decent evf [ corner at a fair price point they will own that segment .... make it attractive ... and make it affordable

own it .... so of course they will never doe it

4 weeks ago*
steelhead3

With that stacked sensor, this Canon camera is its most sophisticated.

4 weeks ago
ZeroGravitas

that star trail mode looks pretty cool

4 weeks ago
ChrisSouth

Cannot compete with smartphone without GPS.

4 weeks ago
Jeff Keller
Jeff Keller

You can use the Canon app to send location data to the camera on the fly, however.

4 weeks ago
YuryVilin

Can't come up with valid argument? Just make one up, nobody will notice. Right?

4 weeks ago
Groot

Cannot compete with a phone , perios.
Until they move to a more sophisticated software, it's just not there.

3 weeks ago
Dr_Jon

It will be interesting to show some images shot at 100mm with cropped phone images giving the same view from the same spot...

3 weeks ago
kitsnet

It will be interesting to see some videos shot with a smartphone in a waterproof housing at the depth of 30 meters.

3 weeks ago*
desertsp

One has to assume that the phone to camera gps pairing is unreliable.

It seems like Canon has plenty of physical room in the camera to include a gps chip anyways. See: https://www.gpsworld.com/origingps-launches-nano-spider-for-wearables-watches/

3 weeks ago
Groot

Kitsnet, you know what? I'm not gonna argue with that. I agree, if you are interested in photography/filmography 30 meters under the water, a phone will not be good enough.

3 weeks ago
JE River

Will there ever be a day when we can just use millimeters for ALL sensor sizes instead of confusing fractions from an age of archaic imaging? Even 35mm is still misleading.

"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." - Abe Simpson

4 weeks ago
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

It's not really a metric vs imperial distinction: the 'x"-type' system doesn't relate to a measurement of the sensor itself. It's a naming system related back to a long-defunct TV camera technology.

The bigger issue is consistently having access the correct data at the time of launch and familiarising people with the idea of sensor area in sqmm, when no other site is using that terminology.

4 weeks ago
JE River

I got that, which is why 35mm is still confusing, as it relates to film width including the non-imaging edges. Camera industry has a hard time getting rid of old habits or traditions, eh?

It's almost as bad as buying a 2x4, which isn't actually 2"x4". haha

I can only conclude that us humans are rather silly creatures who love inflicting unnecessary complexities upon ourselves.

4 weeks ago
steviewa

For most people who buy this sensor size is just something that will confuse the hell out of them just (same as equivalence) like it does in phones, all they are interested in is if it suits their needs eg 4k, slow mo or what ever they need, in this case easy unloading to you tube will be a big draw

4 weeks ago
JE River

Marketing probably loves it -- making things sound bigger than they are. 1/2.3" sounds a lot more impressive than 6mm. LOL

4 weeks ago*
davev8
davev8

the 2X4 was 2X4 before it was planed ...if you buy it just sawn it will be 2X4

4 weeks ago
AllFlawed

You wonder what sensor size Sony would have used if that marketable 1" name was not to hand and it was purely based on the optimum size for digital compacts. The same could be said of 'full' frame also.

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Reporting just the surface area is the worst of all possible options because it doesn't tell you anything about the aspect ratio. And if you're a photographer, that's a hugely important consideration. A wide aspect ratio can be a big selling point if you shoot lots of landscapes, or conversely if you shoot in lots of big tall objects you might want a format that tends toward square.
In my life I've seen 4:3 sensors, 3:2 sensors and 16:9 sensors. But if all you reported was the surface area, a 12 mp sensor could be 1 pixel high and 12 million pixels wide and I wouldn't know it until I got it the camera home.

But if you want confusing, stick with 35mm film. Stills cameras run film through the gate horizontally so the image area is 24x36. Movie cameras run it through vertically so the image area is 24.89×18.66 or 22×16 depending on the mechanicals in the camera.

4 weeks ago*
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

In fairness, the current system doesn't tell you anything about aspect ratio, either. Only 'Four Thirds' (itself derived from the silly "-type naming scheme) implies anything about aspect ratio.

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Excellent point.

4 weeks ago
Lightright
Lightright

For me, a simpler naming scheme would be the crop factor instead. By assigning FF as 1x, apsc would be 1.5x, 1-inch would be 2.7x and so on and so forth as if you are assigning CD or DVD speeds back then.

4 weeks ago
davev8
davev8

Lightright,,,,but the crop factor don't tel you the aspect ratio like m43 crop factor is X2 but that don't tel you it has a different aspect ratio to FF....now i am going out on a limb here but folk cold just learn what the differences are between sensor sizes...i mean a child has learnt the differences between 26 letters of the alphabet by 4 years old (or 72 letters if you are Thia) and can put them in the correct order ,,,so come on guys its not rocket surgery

4 weeks ago
Lightright
Lightright

Davev8, aspect ratio would matter more with videographers more than the photographers. Besides, most cameras let you set how a video is shot anyway whether it be in 4:3, 16:9 or any other standard formats available. The thing with crop factor is that it gives you an idea about the size of the sensor without having to do with what units of measurement is used (imperial vs. metric), thus avoiding inconvenience with conversion and it is easier to tell its size relative to a full frame.

4 weeks ago
DrewRick

Pretty common in medium format, 6x6, 6X7, 6x9 are common format names that tell you everything you need to know. 645 and the digital 4433 are a bit more ambiguous but still contain the relevant information. I don't see why 36x24, 24x16, or 17x13 should be so hard to understand. All it takes is for one major publication to start using it consistently. How about it, Richard, some clarity for your audience?

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

If you're still worried about sensor size, you need to take your mind out of 1997 when that, along with pixel count was a big deal.
However it's 2019 and Apple and the other phone makers have pretty conclusively called bulls--- on the idea that the size of your sensor is all that matters.
Ponder this: the sensor in an iphone11 is less than a quarter inch on the long side—7/32" by 11/64" to be precise and can make stunning images.
As a matter of fact why hasn't anyone done a comparison between the pictures from a D1x and an iPhone?

4 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

It’s not all that matters, but it does have implications. The iPhone can only produce good images when it has enough time to shoot all the frames that it needs to stack together, whereas a larger sensor allows the use of a lens with a larger entrance pupil, enabling the collection of more light within the same time frame.

But also, even without attributing much importance to the quality implications of different sensor sizes, knowing the size allows one to reason in true focal lengths instead of 35mm equivalents, thanks to the beautiful formula:

AOV = 2 · atan(D / (2 · f)) (for rectilinear lenses)

Hence, we could forget 35mm altogether. It’s not just about worrying, it’s about being liberated.

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

I would love to forget about 35mm equivalents altogether and discuss field of view instead. People who try to equate one camera to another are the most irritating aspect of this website because those people make sure that every discussion eventually turns back around to their weird obsession.

3 weeks ago
davev8
davev8

so i have a FF lens with a field of view of 84 degrees ....what's the FOV if i fit it on a APS-c camera ?????

3 weeks ago
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

No davev8, you're not allowed to compare or consider different systems alongside one another. They're different things used for different reasons and you're just confusing people with your weird obsession.

3 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

If, on the other hand, the question that you want answered is “what focal length will give me an AOV of 84° on an APS-C sensor, the answer is 16mm: https://www.google.com/search?q=sqrt%28%2824mm%29**2+%2B+%2816mm%29**2%29+%2F+%282+*+tan%2884+degree+%2F+2%29%29+in+mm

Notice how there is no need to refer to 35mm dimensions at all in this formula.

3 weeks ago*
davev8
davev8

well it looks like this AOV thing confuses folk ..spider-mario yes i know a FOV of 84 degrees is 24mm on FF... you say and i quote>>>>>, on the other hand, the question that you want answered is “what focal length will give me an AOV of 84° on an APS-C sensor, the answer is 16mm<<<<<< errr no that's not what i was asking if you read again ..... i not look at you link but i know using equivalence a 24mm or 84 degrees on FF is equiv of the top of my head to about 38mm in the canon world on a APS-c body

3 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

> errr no that's not what i was asking if you read again .....

I know that, it was more of a hypothetical situation. If you read the first of my two consecutive comments, you will see that I did answer the one you wrote. (But I, on the other hand, did not get an answer to “Why do you ask?”.)

> i know using equivalence a 24mm or 84 degrees on FF is equiv of the top of my head to about 38mm in the canon world on a APS-c body

Nope, it’s the other way around. A smaller sensor uses a shorter focal length (converges light more) to cover the same field of view.

(And my links are just links to calculations on Google that show how to reach the results I give.)

3 weeks ago*
davev8
davev8

i may not have made myself that clear at some point ....its way past my bedtime let me get this straight ....are you saying a 24mm on APS-c won't give the same field of view as a 38mm lens on FF?

3 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

No, I am saying that 24mm on FF does not give the same field of view as 38mm on APS-C. Your previous comment swapped them around (it is getting late, indeed).

3 weeks ago*
dlb41
dlb41

All I ever wanted was a 2 1/4" square sensor to put into my Yashica-Mat. Leave everything else the same.
What's with all this computational nonsense? 😕

3 weeks ago
davev8
davev8

we properly to PC here for me to say i must have had a blond moment later

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

No. It's not PC. Just say "I screwed up." Equivalence, as we can see from the endless frumphing and harrumphing it elicits, is a snare and a delusion.
The only person here who makes a lick of sense is dlb41 because the Yashica-Mat was a fantastic camera and it is a crime that no one has managed to solder together enough imaging chips to make a properly-sized sensor for that camera.

3 weeks ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

What is delusional about equivalence?

3 weeks ago
davev8
davev8

nothing.is delusional about equivalence..many use it all the time ..i spent over 30 years using film so know instinctively what results say a 50mm F2 lens will give me ...if i want the same results with say APS-c body its irrefutable that i need an equivalent lens...its not delusional its a physical fact of life so i know i need a (approximately as lenses don't fall exact in real life) a 30 to 35mm F1.4 ish ...now where the problem arises some think its a willy waving competition and get upset when you point out some facts

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

What's delusional is that the equivalence people try to extrapolate their nonsense to other areas of the camera operation and claim that f/stops also obey their rules.
Unfortunately, in their public pronouncements, they but rarely explain that comparing a picture from a m4/3 camera at f/1.8 with what you get out of a full-frame camera at f/3.6, the m4/3 picture will inevitably have less resolution and far more aberrations than the full framer because of the wider f/stop.
Their ideas about "total light" are also absurd because light is not pancake batter that you pour onto your sensor to an even depth. You want variation in light, not sameness.

3 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

Sure, images from large sensors + large lenses tend to be sharper for a few reasons. On the other hand, I cannot make any sense of your paragraph about total light. What you want is not just variation in light, but variation that is correlated with the actual scene rather than noise, and you get that by collecting more light per image area because photon noise grows as a function of the square root of the signal. What is absurd about that?

3 weeks ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

Would you perhaps like to look at the pictures on https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso to see that it works in practice, and to read “Physics of Digital Photography” (ISBN 978-0-7503-1243-1, chapter 5 “Image quality”, section 2 “Cross-format comparisons”) to read more about why that is the case?

3 weeks ago*
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

You are correct that what you want is variation in the light. But the equivalence people don't believe that. They say that you need something called "total light" which they define as a quantity of light that is some number of stops above what an incident or properly used spot meter would tell you to use..
The problem is they never say how many stops or they equivocate and say it depends. They also won't say what it depends on.
It's a classic example of someone who took an otherwise unremarkable phenomenon and turned it into a whole belief system and is using it to try to get people to abandon science and follow him instead.

3 weeks ago*
spider-mario
spider-mario

They actually do say how many: it’s “as many as you can afford without introducing too much motion blur and without clipping the highlights that you care about”, and that’s called “exposing to the right” (ETTR). The book I cited earlier (“Physics of Digital Photography”) has a section on that (5.8.3 “Exposing to the right”), in which it does say what the approach depends on. It basically identifies two broad classes of situations:

Situation 1: you can afford to expose more because light is in abundance or you are photographing a static subject using a tripod. In that case: do it (without clipping).

Situation 2: you are restricted in exposure (because you are shooting action or hand-held in low light). Then, at least increase the ISO setting as much as you can (again, without clipping the highlights) to minimize read noise relative to the signal.

So, yes, if you were expecting something like “expose 3 stops more”, you’re going to be disappointed. But there is a process to decide.

3 weeks ago*
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

And you are the only equivalence proponent I've ever seen refer to an actual book. Which means you are worth listening to.
However, the equivalence leadership, not at all. Their references are all either other to forum posts or to Wikipedia—in other words they claim to be scientists but they don't even obey the basic rules of scientific inquiry. Statistical validation? It's their kryptonite.
Bottom line: Except for you and one other guy whose name escapes me, these equivalence pushers have no special insight. They've never programmed a camera operating system or spent one minute with the engineers who create cameras—they're just old men trying to relive their glory days by playacting at being experts and they think they've found their way in via "equivalence."
It would be fine if they kept to themselves in the echo chamber of what has now become the (Pseudo) Science and Technology forum but they think it's OK to peddle their nonsense in the beginner forum.

3 weeks ago*
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Also, that expose to the right technique, not only is it not equivalence photography, it's not even their idea.
They stole that from the late Michael Reichmann who actually was an expert and spent time with real engineers. Exposing to the right was born out discussions with Thomas Knoll. https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/

3 weeks ago
spider-mario
spider-mario

So, from what I gather, your problem is more with the equivalence “community” (that sounds a bit odd when I type it out) than with the concept of equivalence itself?

Thanks for that luminous-landscape.com link, it is rather interesting. However, it is odd to see the author insist that much on the number of encoding levels, which are not the actual main reason for using ETTR: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

3 weeks ago*
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Excellent point.

3 weeks ago
Seanzzxx

Genuine question: aside from the extreme edge cases that we can all amuse ourselves trying to imagine, who is actually going to need 24 frames over 25 or 30 frames on this device? 1%? Actually, I'd wager it's considerably less. That goes for almost all cameras, mind you. 24 frames is an acquisition format for Cinema. It's like complaining that this camera doesn't have ProRes codec support.

4 weeks ago
Rob-in-Alberta

i get it, like how many serious vloggers are buying this camera?

and how many would even know what frame rates are. i really don’t know the answer. but i would guess more than 1% but maybe not much more

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Or 23.976 for that matter or 29.97. The real answer is that if you're only going to shoot with this camera and never use other footage, it's no big deal in my experience.
But let's say you get ambitious and want to mix shots from your phone and your camera, some editing programs have trouble handling more than one frame rate in a project so it's good to have options.
And then, of course, there's the "cinematic" look of 24fps which is important for some people.
Bottom line: it's a little bit of everything.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Sometimes you just need more options to clear out flickering from light sources for example.

4 weeks ago
DrewRick

It always makes me how people argue in favor of fewer features, especially those that wouldn't cost the manufacturer a single cent to include.

4 weeks ago
DrewRick

It always *baffles* me - autocorrect and no edit button here

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Actually it will cost them to spend time to remove it!

4 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

That flicker thing is very real. I was shooting on a tour bus and while it was plugged into the auditorium power, it was fine, no flicker. But when the driver unplugged from the venue and switched over to the bus power system, the flicker was insane and we couldn't get it out of the video.

4 weeks ago
Adrian Tung
Adrian Tung

You deal with flickering via shutter speed, not video frame rate, which are two entirely different things.

3 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Yeah, but can you set 1/25 speed on 30fps or on 50fps? Just for example.

3 weeks ago
Adrian Tung
Adrian Tung

Don't know about this camera in particular, but plenty of cameras allow it either in manual mode or shutter priority mode. The only device I've personally handled that *didn't* allow it are the GoPros (Hero 7 and 8, to be specific).

3 weeks ago*
Video-vs-photo

Adrian just calculate it. One is 1/25 from second other is 30 frames per second which is frame every 1/30 from second. So you can not shoot with 30fps and have exposure 1/25. Or you will simple duplicate the frames.

3 weeks ago
Adrian Tung
Adrian Tung

Ah, ok, I misread your original statement. Technically, some cameras allow you to use a shutter speed slower than the video frame rate. Why or how that looks, I have no idea, but that's a thing.

But on the other hand, if the purpose of adjusting shutter speed is to eliminate flicker, then why 1/25s for a 30fps video? Use 1/50s instead.

3 weeks ago
MrBrightSide
MrBrightSide

Why do you need flexibility on shutter speed? Because sometimes power isn't transmitted at exactly 50hz or 60hz. Or possibly the clock in your camera is a little off. Or the anti-flicker setting is whacked.
And did you know that in Europe, they don't use the 180° rule? They shoot at 172.8°?
There are a lot of weird things that happen with electricity and video, especially when you're using generators. Once you've been out there and doing things for a while, you'll realize everything you know is wrong.

3 weeks ago*
redtailboas

@DrewRick, I've made them aware several times about the lack of an edit button in mobile, but to no avail. They prefer to remain gimped in mobile. Thankfully they at least finally listened in the forum part of the site. Comments still a no-go.

3 weeks ago
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

redtailboas - We don't 'prefer to remain' less functional on mobile, we just haven't had the dev resources to upgrade the mobile commenting function yet.

We're aware of the problem and have it on our list of things to address.

3 weeks ago
redtailboas

Come on. It's been many months... Any serious developer would have it done in a day. Literally.

3 weeks ago*
yazcui

DPAF would have made the most sense as an upgrade feature from the mk II. Maybe it's just not possible at this size?

4 weeks ago
Battersea

That was my biggest disappointment with this version. I was really hoping for it. (But they use a Sony sensor so :( )

4 weeks ago*
ZeroGravitas

It’s a Sony sensor, so not possible:(

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Of course it is possible PDAF is not Sony's invention! This is again Canon crippling in move.........

4 weeks ago*
yazcui

Well if it's Sony's sensor then they could have at least used sony's phase detect autofocus.

3 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Exactly, as every smartphone camera that use Sony sensor!

3 weeks ago
CaNikonianite
CaNikonianite

It seems the only ones the G7XIII disappointed are vloggers. I can live with that.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Actually not true.

4 weeks ago
CaNikonianite
CaNikonianite

whatever you say.

3 weeks ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Dear Canon,

Please licence the G7XIII menus and touch functionality to Sony to make an RX100VIIA. Thank you.

Dear Sony,

Please poach some UI developers from Google or Apple to fix your touch implementation and menu jungle. Thank you.

4 weeks ago
Stigg

I've used all of the Sonys past the NEX series up to the A7r2 and have not had any issue using the menus of all of those cameras. I find all digital camera menus take a little time to adjust to and no one is vastly better than the others.

3 weeks ago
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

It's not "oh god I can't control my camera ahhhhhh." I'm asking Sony to make a more pleasant and responsive controls interface.

They sure could line up menu options in more logical fashion. On the A7R4, if you want to change the refresh rate on the finder, it is on Tab 2. If you want to change the finder display quality, it is on Tab 5.

They could also allow for touch in menus and the function screen, allowing for much quicker changes of settings.

Even better would be allowing users of tiny cameras like the RX100 series to tap an icon on the LCD screen to change ISO and other settings, as there are limited buttons and dials.

3 weeks ago
Anders_K

If G7X at all -- get the M2 instead for nearly half the bucks.
They'd have to flog me into vlogging... ;-)

4 weeks ago
Horshack

Regarding the soft lens performance at the wide-end (24mm), I see some inconsistencies in the cityscape aperture series test shots. The f/2 shot has noticeable shake vs f/1.8 even though it was shot at 1/640 - perhaps it's an IS issue. Stranger still is how the extreme edge performance varies - it appears sharpest at f/1.8, soft at f/2, sharp again at f/2.8, then soft at f/4 and f/5.6. I created animated GIFs to demonstrate:

G7XIII 24mm, Center crop aperture animation:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-54ZQWhX/0/ab79f1b3/O/i-54ZQWhX.gif

G7XIII 24mm, Edge crop aperture animation:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZWQ7vfX/0/0b99baad/O/i-ZWQ7vfX.gif

4 weeks ago
Kevin DiOssi

This animation is hopefully brought to the attention of the DPReview staff. Clearly the test images are flawed from some sort of interference.

4 weeks ago
Richard Butler
Richard Butler

I agree, it looks like shake in that F2 shot. It doesn't stop you interpreting the correct trend, but I'll see if any duplicates were shot. If not then I don't know how practical it'll be to re-shoot it.

4 weeks ago
Horshack

@Richard, The edge performance doesn't follow trend and might also be related to IS. If you do reshoot these you might want to turn IS off - perhaps the camera's IS implementation isn't properly sensing tripod mounting.

4 weeks ago
Video-vs-photo

Of course it will make much sense to be re-shoot it. We need to have correct data for comparison. This is the whole purpose of review I believe.

4 weeks ago
vaughanB
vaughanB

I must be old fashioned, but I would trade flakey live video streaming for an EVF/OVF any day

4 weeks ago
Hachu21

That's a good thing because the G5X II does exactly that! ;)

4 weeks ago
Wanderer23

Tempting to pick up as a quick/easy vlogging camera even though I don't vlog. haha

4 weeks ago*
Video-vs-photo

Without PDAF/DPAF will not be very "quick and easy" vlog "experience".

4 weeks ago
Dr_Jon

It's always safer to shoot quite wide (and a 1" camera uses very low focal lengths even at only a little bit of a wide FoV) to get a lot of DoF, stop it down instead of using the ND and use manual focus. My RX100V has PDAF and while it's good I wouldn't trust it for video I simply had to have come out okay.

3 weeks ago
kolyy

"Continuous AF not available in burst mode" (in What we don't (like))

I guess you mean subject tracking, as explained in the text? It's clearly stated that C-AF is available at 8.3fps.

4 weeks ago
Jeff Keller
Jeff Keller

Will reword, thanks!

4 weeks ago
Retzius
Retzius

This camera really was a missed opportunity for Canon.

4 weeks ago
CaNikonianite
CaNikonianite

Explain yourself.

4 weeks ago
yazcui

81% ? Amazon/b&h reviews say otherwise.

4 weeks ago
piratejabez

Very different scoring methods. Each has value.

That said, I'm very interested to hear more about AF performance, given so many complaints in customer reviews. A lot of them (on Amazon) read like they may be written by the same person, so there might be shenanigans going on, but even so it looks like a common theme.

4 weeks ago*
justmeMN

"Pleasing JPEG color" - a hallmark of Canon cameras.

4 weeks ago