Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II Review

I think this camera should be compared to other with similar size and weight. My RX100M3 fits in my pants but its heavier and takes a lot more room than the excellent Panasonic LF1, Canon S95, and Fuji XQ2. . The additional weight of the RX100M3 size pulls shorts down to one side versus a lighter camera. These were truly pocketable and great cameras. Actually the Ricoh GR feels a lot less like a brick in my pocket than the RX100M3, so there more to this story not fully explored in reviews. I ordered the G9X2 from Canon refurb just now. We will see, but I am optimistic it will be a superior to the LF1, Canon S120, and XQ2 cameras which were perfect size and weight.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

jimjulian

The key feature: incredibly small size, shoots raw. It's always with me.

When it's in your hand, you get it. So portable. Of course there will be limitations, that's why I have other cameras.

I waited for the Mark II which fixed the reported overall slowness, and I could not be happier. I recently salvaged a major family event because I had it with me and was able to take hundreds of high-quality photos and some videos for my extended family's enjoyment.

This camera replaced my Canon S110, and I've sold prints using that tiny camera. It was always with me, but had the tiny sensor, and pre-S120, it was somewhat slow to operate. This model again has Made in Japan build quality, excellent operation, RAW, but adds NFC assisted WiFi, 1" sensor, etc.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Such a good point that is not given enough credit or thought in these discussions or review.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

Esign

Again, are you sure that you have changed the soft default sharpness setting? It could be hard to find. I've not had any issues with Canon sharpness then.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

LaurenceSvirchev

I'm a Canon user so I have no axe to grind with regard to other brands. But really, a range of 28-84mm is pathetic given Canon's technology. I can't think of a reason to buy such a camera and the amount of publicity given to it is just marketing junk.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

samsaamsaaam

My conclusion:
Good for: people that love Canon that will defend them to the end
Not so good for: shooters that appreciate features developed after 2010

Dec 19, 2017permalink

I am curious if you think there is more capable camera with equal or less size and weight? I own the RX100M3 and love it, but carried my Panasonic LF1 much more because the size and weight made a huge difference when you dont want to feel a brick in your pocket, maybe in the summer wearing light shorts. Try a day with cameras of these two sizes. But if you know of a better one this small, I am sincerely interested.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

james s. kennedy

I’ll stick with my Panasonic ZS100.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

I love Panasonic and bought a ZS100, but it was heavier and larger than my RX100M3. My Panny LF1 was with my more due to its lighter smaller size. I would forget its there. Cant forget a ZS100 is in your pocket. Its just about convenience versus performance for all of us. There is a place for smaller for me. I also have the FZ1000 when I want reach and dont mind size.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

whatever the reason for the lens softness ...be it lousy design or poor qual. control

it is beyond unacceptable in a camera maker of the stature of canon

yeah i said that ..... it seems they think that their customers are stupid ... dont read about the technical aspects of a purchase and or buy for devotional reasons
maKER WORSHIP.... and or just buying the market leader cause they know their
limitations as a consumer and buy based on popularity ... a sad but ever increasing
consumer fall back position

some mixture of the above

it seems to be something canon has no issue with .... it is a common and recurring problem with their 1 inch sensor compacts and has stopped me several times from taking another canon plunge

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

The lens works fine for me.

LOL!!!

Dec 18, 2017permalink

well that is the nature of poor quality control ... even a well-designed lens can be expressed as a lousy one .... I'm glad you did not suffer the less desirable end of this bell curve ... but that does nothing to change the reality of at least 3 iterations of the canon 1-inch compacts

forgive me if I do not join you in laughter

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

escapewheel

I'm wondering if sample variation plays a role in the comments related to lens softness. I had the original G9X (same lens as the Mk II), and found it to be equally as sharp as either of the RX100's I've owned, and better than the G7X. The real selling point of the G9X I and II, to me, is the size... it's the only 1" camera that fits comfortably into a pocket. Also, the colors from the Canon compacts seem closer to what I see than anything from Sony or Panasonic. Doesn't mean that the others aren't good, or even better in some ways, but the G9X is the best compact I've ever owned. Despite the review, I'll be getting the Mk II in the near future.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

I think not enough is made about how small and light this camera is.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

Joseph K Boston

I loved my S95, it's still going (gave it to a friend after I updated my equipment). Ticked all the boxes, good lens, decent in low light, handled nicely, and it was fun and engaging, which is important for a camera in my opinion.

However, this update seems somewhat lackluster. Great, it has a good sensor. Lots of compacts do. The lens is mediocre and limited (28-84mm? That's a kit lens range for crying out loud). The rear control dial has been removed (if one shoots in cold weather frequently, like myself, the touchscreens become frustrating with gloves). I loved Canon compacts for years, in fact I started my photography journey back in 2006 with a Powershot S3 IS...but lately Canon is leaving much to be desired. Bring back the S line and make them Sony killers!

Dec 18, 2017permalink

HeyItsJoel

I agree. 28mm at the wide end is a bit weak.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

it is a fact that all the enthusiest s cameras the s 90 s95 s100 s110 s120 had very good lenses and a consistency in quality control that canon no longer deems important .... it cant be considered accidental .... its happened over 3 gens now .... so seems policy .

let canon prove me wrong with their next model iteration .....

i simply dont even consider canon compacts because of their crappy quality control

why cant fuji offer another compact with their class leading evf,,,, Japanese quality control ... updated with a new generation of 1 inch sensors

if they build it they will come ........... also fuji while i like 28 -115 equiv
i wouldn't turn down 24 -90 just sayin

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

jimjulian

I had the S110 and loved it. For me, this adds the 1" sensor and I'm thrilled.

Regarding the lack of menu wheel, I was concerned, but the touchscreen really does replace that functionality quite well. It's got some interesting "shortcuts" on the touchscreen that really work.

From one Sxxx series user to another, give this a try.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Joseph K Boston

The lens is soft -- and I'm a landscape/urban photographer, so this update is pretty much a no go.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

KoolKool

please make mark III 1.8-2.8 and weather seal, no need 4K (save for mark IV)
then G9X will be perfect pocketable carry travel snappy anywhere camera!

Dec 17, 2017permalink

It wouldn't be anywhere near this small then, it'd be a G7 X.

Dec 17, 2017permalink

KoolKool

it's possible, digital is limitless

Dec 18, 2017permalink

johnsaxon

This camera, like the S110 that I've been using for years, slips easily into a blue jeans pocket and you can carry it around all day without noticing that it's there. It's going to generally shoot better than a cell phone camera (please note that not all of us can afford to spend $1000 on a high-end cell phone). You can rant and rave about the Sony RX-100 but, sorry, it's fat and won't fit easily into a pocket; you'll end up leaving it sitting on your desk half the time. So far, this camera and the S series are the only ones I can even consider for my "always have it with me" camera.

Dec 17, 2017permalink

KoolKool

yeah, the canon has much better build quality, sony better tech but fragile

Dec 17, 2017*permalink

the sonys would never stand up to the abuse i heap upon a camera

the fuji x 30 an insanely robust helicoid lens and a solid metal body Japanese quality in control and build and a very good evf to boot ..
sharp contrasty f2 to 2.8 lens 28-115 equiv

sadly fuji a firm ive always respected ... has cowardly exited this market

it seems ..... i wish they would kickstart an x 50 with a bigger 1 inch sensor
with a 700 dollar preorder special price on a 1000 dollar camera

they would sell well

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

I have had the Panasonic LF1, Canon S95, and the Fuji XQ2 and liked those sizes better than my RX100M3. I ordered this camera for that reason. But when I want to maximize IQ I deal with the weight and size of the Sony.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

i wonder how much of a difference there is between the[ 58 sqmm sensor] of the xq2[x30] and the the sony 1 inch [116 sqmm . sensor]in most average use ,

eventually at a certain enlargment size , the sony would pull ahead visibly ,as would high isos , but the fuji 58 sqmm sensor is good compared to the very good sony 1 inch 116 sqmm sensor imho

sony ,at double the size of the fuji ,are closer to each other than apsc is to ff
which are very difficult to tell apart in a blind test except at very high enlargments or noisy isos ...

even then its close

Dec 31, 2017*permalink

Cosinaphile. The image quality of my RX100M3 at similar FOV and under various lighting conditions was quite a bit better than my Fuji XQ2. I never did head to head comparison, but I took alot of photos with both in the same places. The 1 inch sensor is quite a bit better and the Sony Lens was sharper. The Fuji was still excellent for its size.

Dec 31, 2017permalink

interesting .... well the x30 has a different lens that very good but the rx100 is a well loved machine for its iq

Dec 31, 2017permalink

pacnwhobbyist

I went back and read Imaging Resource’s review of this camera and they said only corner performance was lacking at wide angle but the lens was otherwise pretty decent. They have been very critical of the lenses on these G series compacts before so I wonder if they got a copy with a sharper lens than the folks at dpreview got. But even if that is true, that inconsistency on Canon’s part means they need to shore up their QC on this camera. Buying this camera shouldn’t be like playing the lottery or you shouldn’t have to purchase multiple copies to get a good copy.

Dec 17, 2017*permalink

It's not just Canon that stuffers from this variability in lens QC (not excusing it, just saying it's far more common than you might think).

Dec 17, 2017permalink

pacnwhobbyist

That is true. Sony RX100 has some inconsistencies with lens sharpness as well.

Dec 17, 2017permalink

entoman

Variability in quality control is widespread in the photography industry. I've used most of the major brands, and all have inconsistent quality control, although some are worse than others.

In my experience, and that of various friends, Panasonic and Olympus seem to be among the worst offenders. I've never had problems with Sony, but there again I've never held on to them for very long.

Nikon have had several major issues, most notably the oil on sensor problems with the D600.

Canon likewise - many of the early 7DMkii copies suffered from serious AF issues, and some of the older lenses such as 17-40mm L and 28-70mm F4 had inconsistencies in edge/corner sharpness.

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

People should take note from this greedy company. If they can't sell you an over priced dslr or lens they give you options like this. I think their older p&s offerings were better than this overpriced garbage. If no one buys this or returns one if they bought one they WILL get the hint.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

jimjim2111

I think you are taking it too personally, Brad.

Dec 17, 2017permalink

Maybe jimjim2111, Canon can and should do better. If I wanted a point and shoot it would probably be a Sony.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

Petak

Brad, you are blaming Canon for being greedy and selling overpriced cameras and your solution is Sony?!?!

Dec 18, 2017*permalink

Yes. If you look at what they have been doing in the 1IN sensor market I would hope you would agree. Expensive stuff for sure (if not overpriced) but better choices I would say.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

SpencerSL

I always find it funny when people call a company "greedy". What are you expecting? They sell all their products at cost? Realistically, when people call companies "greedy", it is often because they aren't willing to pay the prices that they sell their products. They aren't willing to part ways with their money, but they expect companies to part ways with theirs. In addition, calling products "over priced" is such a subjective statement to make and based on your personal finances.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

They are greedy, so is Sony, so is Nikon, so is so on, this we all know. Canon is supposed to be one of the top camera companies right? If not the top, Sony if anything is trying to knock them down a notch and I think they are doing it, or I at least hope they do. I don't own either at the moment but if I was to buy either, it would be a Sony for sure.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

PortableLover

People who work 9-5 jobs go around accusing companies being greedy and complain about things being expensive. Once you start your own company and price your products, a reality check happens and you shut your pie hole. Yes, I have my own company. IMO calling companies greedy and calling products expensive is stupid. If you don't like a company or a product take a high road and move on instead of making yourself look like an ass.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Maybe you should ask for a tax break, it sounds like you need one, you sound like someone who would love to see the poor pay your taxes for you. My goal of this post was, and STILL is, this greedy company could make a much better P&S camera but wont, and why you ask? with ALL the money they made in the past, wanna guess? Come on dude wake up.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

PortableLover

Sounds like you would really like communism. If you can't afford something don't call it expensive. It just makes you look poor. And no I don't need a tax break. I'm doing great financially.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Its a garbage overpriced soft zoom camera. My point still should make sense to whoever, this is a greedy company that wants us to buy a dslr so they can make more money selling us glass. With the money they have made off US in the past one would wonder why they would do this, and, not only this camera, its been going on for awhile now. My answer is the same, greed, and, way to much money going over seas.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

dpr4bb

What a shame. Another Canon compact with a poor lens.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

Simon97

The review over on Image resource shows a decent lens if you examine their test shots. Could be a duff lens here which is an unfortunate inconstancy. I'd buy this camera now if it were $300. The price for admission at over $400 at reliable retailers is nuts.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

fotogrofur

That sunset image Photo by Dale Baskin shows it doesn't really matter if a camera doesn't have the best image quality or sharpest lens to get a beautiful shot like this.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

LiangMing

To be honest, the picture quality of this camera is better than the one coming out of the iPhone X. Think about the price and compact size, it will be a good pocket camera to carry along with your cellphone on the trip.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

Jefftan

not so sure
maybe foe iPhone X

this really have better IQ than Pixel 2 ? not sure

Dec 16, 2017*permalink

Halina123

I downloaded a few full size images from the gallery and they are poor, soft and all lack bite.
Is this a poor copy or are the samples intentionally below smartphone standards.
My Sony HX50, with tiny sensor and 30X zoom gives sharper images with more details.

Dec 16, 2017*permalink

armanius

How about a G7Xiii?

Dec 15, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

A little late to be reviewing this camera I would have thought? A replacement can't be that far off. If the reviewer was really familiar with this camera, they would point out that the UK price of suitable chipped Canon batteries has been excessively high and has only dropped a little recently due to customer protests. The lens lacks enough range and is not very fast. Yes, you can buy the over-priced Canon G7X, which is a better camera, but it has serious issues with dust entering the lens assembly. Another option is the pleasing Sony RX100 with several mechanical failure possibilities or a Panasonic, which may also have lens sealing issues. And should you have faults, the after sales service from all three companies could be a lot better. My advice would be to buy a budget Nikon or Canon SLR, unless the size is absolutely critical. The performance is far better and there's less to go wrong.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

JEROME NOLAS

I think the size is biggest advantage and main reason why people buy this cameras!!!

Dec 15, 2017permalink

mauijohn

So true on stuck lenses that won't retract such as my Canon 100.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

People might still be looking to buy it since the follow up isn't out and the price has dropped under MSRP, I know I'd grab one if it dropped any lower.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Michel Savage

Not a fair review. Unusual for DPReview to be so subjective and not rigorous. I own the MKII. It works just fine. Certainly deserves a lot better than 75% considering its function. The best camera is the one you have with you. And this one fits the bill at low cost. You want ultra-sharp? You want 4K? You want Hi Def? Top resolution? You'll have to have not only big pockets, but also deep pockets. In short, not a good review, lack of perspective.

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

Everythingis1

It sounds like from your perspective a smartphone is a much better camera than this Canon... considering they are ultra-sharp... 4k... hi def... much smaller... just as cheap or cheaper...

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

MikeRan

@Everythingis1: smartphone camera are basically free and take up zero additional space because most of us already have them and are carrying them. Suspect a modern iPhone or android equivalent will outperform this for video outdoors. Indoors is probably a different story. But there are other options that tick all the boxes. I agree with DPR's Ho-hum review...

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

If Canon were building this camera like a phone, as in, with a fixed 28mm lens, you imagine...

Dec 16, 2017permalink

supeyugin1

Then you would get something like Panasonic CM1.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

The Silver Nemesis

Why review it?!

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Adamant

Why read a review of a camera you aren't interested in? Why comment? The world is full of mysteries.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

The Silver Nemesis

Not only of mysteries. The world is full of many things. One if them is your comment.
P. S.: chill out, I am not a keyboard warrior, and Canon does many things well.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

entoman

Silver Nemesis - Why NOT review it? Surely you are here for the same reason as everyone else. i.e. to read interesting camera reviews?

I read many reviews, including those of camera brands or genres that I have no interest in buying.

It's just interesting and entertaining to find out what is happening in the industry, and to see how various brands differ in design, function and performance.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_g9xii&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100&attr13_2=canon_g7xii&attr13_3=panasonic_dmclx10&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=125&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=125&normalization=full&widget=575&x=0.11404834780436014&y=-0.9950051091277425

When I look at a comparison test scene such as one of the ones linked to here the jpeg size of the Canon 9x II is 5mb while every other camera is 10mb or more.

OTOH the RAW file of the canon is substatially bigger 28mb versus 20mb

So..... what's going on here? Am I looking at a more aggressive jpeg compression engine or an inferior lens?

Also are all the cameras set to the best quality jpegs?

At 125 ISO
9x II jpeg: 5mb raw:28mb
RX100 jpeg: 10.7mb raw 20mb

Thanks!

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

Looking at the jpeg file you've provided for the 9x II....

according to the exif data in the jpeg file you converted it from raw to tiff then tiff to jpeg twice.

So it's not a camera jpeg setting but something you are doing in your post processing of the cr2 file that is generating a file that is more than two times smaller than the other cameras.......

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

mcshan

Something does seem off. I own both the RX100 IV and G9X II. Sorry but at low ISO I can not believe there is that big a difference. I have used the studio scene to do a comparison and the results seem off.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Keeponkeepingon: that should not be the case (that's not our process at all). Could you let me know which file shows that in the EXIF, please?

The JPEGs are taken from the camera and then uploaded to our comparison tool with no additional processing. I'm going to do some tests to see whether adding metadata in Bridge (during the selection process) is interpreted as a 'save' step in the EXIF.

The Raw files are opened with ACR, saved as an uncompressed TIFF, sharpened in Photoshop and then saved as Quality 11 JPEGs, then uploaded. The only reason I can think of that they'd appear to be 'saved' twice is if Bridge is amending the EXIF.

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

Looking into it, though, it seems like the from-Raw-JPEGs have been saved as quality 10, not 11.

There should be no visible difference between these two (Quality 11 is overkill for most applications), but I'll reprocess and upload them so that all is fair and consistent.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/download-image?s3Key=a68c923363b74a49b6ec5041c5e0a9cb.acr.jpg

Richard Butler

Thanks for looking into this. I can't imagine that going from quality 11 to 10 would cut the file size in 1/2.

Regarding "how I know" here's the specific steps I took:

I downloaded the jpeg from the 9x II 125 ISO then uploaded it to jefferey's exif viewer.

I am clicking on the "jpeg" download link for 125 ISO on the g9-X II studio comparison linked above which takes me to this file:

Jefferey's exif viewer can be found here:
http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi

Jefferey chokes on the above URL so I download the file then upload it to jeffery.

Under "history action" the XMP data (I mispoke when I said exif) is showing:
saved,
saved,
derived,
saved,
saved,
converted,
derived,
saved,
saved

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Under history parameters the XMP data shows:

converted from image/x-canon-cr2 to image/tiff,
from image/tiff to image/jpeg,
converted from image/tiff to image/jpeg

History sofware Agent XMP data shows:
Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw (Macintosh),
Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw (Macintosh),
Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw (Macintosh),
Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh),
Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh),
Adobe Bridge CC 2018 (Macintosh)

Dec 15, 2017permalink

For the JPEG (not the JPEG-from-Raw), both the version on our storage drive and the version downloaded from the site say that they've been 'saved' twice by Bridge and both changes are described as "/metadata." This is just the files being given star ratings in Bridge. They are straight out-of-camera JPEGs.

The Raws will have been opened in ACR, saved as Tiffs, opened in Photoshop, sharpened and saved as 'quality 11 JPEGs' (which are twice the size of quality 10s. Try for yourself).

The ones I've just uploaded were opened directly from ACR into Photoshop (there's only 8 ISO settings for this camera, so it's easier for me to manually apply the sharpening to each one, rather than saving as TIFFs and pushing it through the sharpening action/droplet). I'll see if I can find the droplet to make sure there are no double-save steps, but I think it's just the XMP making things look more complex than they really are.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

hope this link works:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_g9xii&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100&attr13_2=canon_g9x&attr13_3=canon_g7xii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=125&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=125&normalization=full&widget=575&x=-0.21066899868823774&y=-0.649245759947814

Wow going from 10 to 11 did double the size. So now when looking at the RAWs the displayed raw from jpeg should all be on a level playing field.

Did it make a difference? If it did it's not a lot but anyway thanks for correcting it eliminating a variable between the tests.

Regarding the saves I was confusing the jpeg from RAW with the SOC jpeg you get when using the dropdown to select the jpeg images. A bit confusing to have the two different types of jpegs but now I "get it".

Dec 17, 2017*permalink

richard-kw

Nice - but I shan't be buying one. I have the G1 X Mark 11 - and the flexibility of the wider range of focal lengths on its lens suits me better. Possibly other features of this one will "beat" the G1 X Mark 11, but the other differences are negated for me by the more restricted focal lengths available on the lens for this cam.
BTW - i must say I am impressed by my PowerShot - no matter what its limitations, it is fun to use and takes great shots. If this one is "better" and someone isn't so fixated on the broader range of focal lengths, I'd have no hesitation in suggesting they should go for it.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

MichielBd

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7574157504/gear-of-the-year-canon-g9-x
And this one is even better.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

CyeJoeBob

Yes, that's strange. The lens of the Mark I is definitly sharper.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

MichielBd

That was not exactly the point I was trying to make but it's o so true.

There is a comment from Jeff Keller with an example where he shows that the lens of the G9x II is not as sharp as the one on the RX100. But if you add the G9X (which has the same lens and the same sensor) You can clearly see that it's either sample variation or user error.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

@MichielBd: it's almost certainly sample variation. We've had that issue with the Canon G7 X and numerous Sony RX100s (the RX100 IV we received from Sony is much much sharper than the V, for example).

Dec 15, 2017permalink

MichielBd

@Jeff: If it’s almost certainly sample variation and this variation occurs not only in Canon but also in Sony camera’s than I would find it difficult to conclude that the lens on camera X is better than the lens on camera Y.

This camera is obvious not a camera for you and that’s nothing bad. What I intended to do with my original post was to point out the difference between your and Carey’s opinion on this camera.

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

BG_CX3_DPREVIEW

In other words; overpriced point and shoot?

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

>equivalent aperture also gives an idea of low-light performance, since it also describes how much light is available across the sensor's area.

Absolutely not true.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Indeed - it is very surprising that DPreview makes such an obvious blunder.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

The Squire

Must. Not. Start. Debating. Aperture. Equivalence. Again.....

Dec 15, 2017permalink

happypoppeye

Equivalency Police are back ...net neutrality is dead.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Richard Murdey

Perhaps "across" is what's causing people to get upset? "how much total light is collected by the sensor." is less ambiguous...

Dec 15, 2017permalink

I agree that the word 'across' adds ambiguity to the phase (it can be read either as 'across its entirety' or 'at any point across'). I'll re-phrase it.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

now that fuji no longer wants my money in the compact markets im looking around
please someone make a great camera like the x30 but a 1 inch sensor

corner evf [ not pop up] wanted and a very sharp lens

Dec 15, 2017permalink

pacnwhobbyist

Panasonic LX100 might fit the bill. 3 1/2 years old at this point but still a great camera.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

that probably the most intelligent suggestion one could make
i had considered but zoom a little short lens a bit flimsy [compared to fuji x30]
and the EVF, while welcome, and rare, was of the field seq. type which drives me nuts with its color tearing.

i still might buy a minty used one someday

iq was better than x30

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

mailman88

Ouch, that hurt review....better shape up Canon.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Wow, what a poor review. It seems like dpreview completely failed to understand the purpose of this camera and its position on the market.

"The memory card and battery compartment are on the bottom of the camera, so you'll have to remove it from your tripod when it's time to change the battery."
"If you're on a safari or whale watching trip, the G9 X II is not so hot."
"If you're looking for a camera capture your child's soccer game, the G9 X II is not it."

Are you kidding us? I am unable to find such stupidities in other of your compact camera reviews. I really think you should scrap the whole "use case" idea, because you have failed to make any reasonable use of it in any of your reviews, and this one borders with embarrassment.

"The lens is soft" is repeated over and over in the review, but you fail to mention that the RX100, the only real competitor, has a lens as soft as this.

On the other hand, you somehow fail to notice how terribly soft the 1080/30p video is.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

For the RX100 and G9 X II that we have, the former's lens is considerably sharper.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Battersea

To my eyes, the Sony does not look "considerably sharper." The G7MII does look sharper than both though.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Gesture

"The memory card and battery compartment are on the bottom of the camera, so you'll have to remove it from your tripod when it's time to change the battery."

I do think you can lose some of your old review points, though, Jeff. Not that many using this camera will be working a tripod other than their selfie stick. How long does it take to switch card or battery?

Dec 15, 2017permalink

mouzhik

What I like best in this review is the photo on the first page: very beautiful carpet indeed!

Otherwise it's rather odd and inadequate (politely speaking).

Disclaimer: I am a big fan of DPR and do not criticize it often.

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

Couscousdelight

"The lens is soft" is repeated over and over in the review, but you fail to mention that the RX100, the only real competitor, has a lens as soft as this.

Nop, not even close.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

As for the lens, the RX100 is a bit sharper in many parts of the test scene, I agree, but the G9X II is better in some others (like the corners in the right side). I would give the edge to the RX100, but the difference is really quite small. However, and this is the elephant in the room, at F4 the lens was wide open! There is a lot of spherical aberation because of this. It should have really been stopped down to F5.6 and I am pretty sure the lens would sharpen up significantly.

I haven't tested my copy at 50mm equivalent, but at 35mm it fares much better than this. It holds its own against the Panasonic 12-35mm/2.8 (which is a very sharp lens), especially when stopped down a bit. It is not equal, but not much worse either. Nowhere near as soft as it's show here at the test scene.

Dec 15, 2017*permalink

@Gesture: And moreover, all compacts have it like this. Complaining about aspects common to all compact cameras seem really strange to me, especially when the purpose of the model is to be cheap and pocketable.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

The Squire

@Kolyy It's DPRs job to point out what the camera is good at or not. You might know that a cheap point n shoot isn't meant for safari use, and get upset if DPR even mention that... But other people reading the review might not be as smart as you. I see no problem at all with DPR saying it's good or bad for Use Case X and leaving it at that.

As for tripod use, see below the number of people saying 'but this would still be a great camera for social media and vlogging'. It's pretty common to see compact cameras on gorilla pods or mini manfrottos, even larger tripods. So again, thanks DPR for the notes.

Honestly, why are you getting so wound up Kolyy?

Dec 15, 2017permalink

I am not really wound up, just a bit disappointed with the direction dpreview wants to go with their reviews. Do you really come here to read that a compact camera has the battery at the bottom and that is not so hot for a safari? This is not the level of quality I expect from dpreview. It sounds so much dumb down that it turns into parody. To me it seems almost insulting to the intelligence of the readers.

The other problem is that the review pretty much misses the niche where this camera is aimed to. This is actually the only modern successor to the very compact, cheap, but competent class of cameras of yesteryear, like the Canon PowerShot S120. Canon should be applauded that they did not abandon this niche, like others. They actually tried to innovate on the interface in a major way and thus solve the problem of cramped or limited controls of cameras this small. Yes, it has a softer lens (but not that soft) and shorter battery life, but this is standard for this class of cameras.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

BodgeandDurn

Many people who aren't us members come to dpreview to choose a family snapper, the other sites they will be looking at will be places like CNET and Trusted Reviews.

A great many people would take something like this on a whale watching trip. I imagine if you could analyse the traffic to this site we are also in a small minority as prosumers/professionals.

Editors have stated before that they are trying to increase their taggable sentences/phrases etc. to increase traffic. Throwing some bones to casual users doesn't offend me as much as some.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

I can see kolyy's point on the review format, but I can also see why DPR is doing it this way for certain lower end cameras. The technical content is all mostly still there tho, they might have spent a bit more time discussing this feature or that under the old format, or they might have not even put out a full review either... Kind of a give and take. It's still useful for savvy shooters, just skip the common sense parts about usage cases.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

photofisher

Cameralabs and Imaging Resource as well as several other review sites say the lens is decent with pictures to back it up. Seems to be a lot of sample variation in these compact cameras. I just asked for this in lieu of an iPhone X for Christmas.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Gesture

I see a lot of nice video done with this camera on YouTube. It serves its purpose well.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

BokehFanatic

Love that "equivalent aperture" chart!

Dec 14, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

When you say the heavy noise reduction was this set at the lowest level. Also in the landscape JPEG where you point this out it is focused very close to the camera so would infinity be in focus with a larger sensor like this. Can you confirm what the parameters were for this image and there should be distant fine detail. It all seems a bit vague.

Dec 14, 2017*permalink

muljao

I had not realized canon share the same sensor as sony. I thought canon did their own always

Dec 14, 2017permalink

The reviewer is assuming.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Jon555

Canon use their own sensors in all their Interchangeable-Lens Cameras. For the compacts they occasionally use one of their own sensors but a lot of Sony ones too. This is almost certainly the BSI version of the Sony 20MP sensor as Canon have never mentioned having such a sensor of their own and Sony makes huge numbers of them.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

Not one iota of hard data to back up the Sony sensor claims.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

No camera company is going to say that someone else makes their sensor. We are very confident is saying that it's a Sony sensor, likely the Exmor R from the RX100 II.

Dec 15, 2017permalink

That's your opinion.

Dec 16, 2017permalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

chuck westfall (they don't come any bigger than chuck) confirms it in a video interview I saw (I think it was about the original G7x) and he added "we do our best but when we find another company producing a better sensor out there for that camera we'll most definitely use that"

Dec 16, 2017permalink

Jefftan

I am amaze some believe in Canon like a religion

Dec 16, 2017permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Ironic, since given the reputation of Sony sensors it would be an obvious plus to just say so. So much effort goes into deception, like "Zeiss" lenses made by Cosina in Japan. Leica items made by Panasonic. It's like buying an appliance where all the features are written in big letters and "made in China" is in tiny letters.

Dec 18, 2017permalink

celipessoa1971

Very banal.

Dec 14, 2017permalink

WuWuZilla

Wait! Wasn't this camera already released in January this year?

Dec 14, 2017permalink

Shlomo Goldwasser

It is wrong to compare it to LX10, Rx100 etc.

The whole point of this camera is its size, which is truly pocketable.

Dec 14, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Interesting the battery life is described as poor for a camera of this class. Which other camera is there which is this small with a 1" sensor? The drain is bound to be more than in an Ixus. The RX100 is G7X sized and entirely irrelevant here.
There is no other camera in this class.

Dec 14, 2017permalink