If this camera could make calls, I could get rid of my phone.

Do I buy this camera or the Note 10+ ?
I cannot afford both. Yes, two different products, but both take photos & videos.
And if I could buy both, I get the feeling I would not be using the Canon very much.

Concerning the IQ of the G5X II, I find it satisfying.

On cellphones the fake bokeh looks terrible most of the time.

To all who says that their smartphones can take better pictures... If you don't want to mess with RAWs, then download your photos to your phone, open Google Photos, click "POP" an voila... The images will look as processed as if taken by so praised GCamera.

What smartphones doesn't have is 5x bright aperture zoom lens, viewfinder, tilting screen and physical controls.

Pretty poor value. Not saying it's a bad camera and I guess if you HAVE to have a camera that you can put in your pocket, it would be A way to go.
I think you'd be better off getting a Panasonic G7, with the very good kit lens, plus the great Panasonic 25mm 1.7, put them in a small camera bag, strap it over your should, weight about 1.5 lbs. and you are good to go. Cost you about $685. Plus you get top notch video!

Since i don't really care about 4K videos and the 24-72 focal is sufficient for me, + since the price of this G5X-2 is almost the same, i will rather have the G1X-3.

I like the camera, but it seems expensive and offers nothing truly revolutionary, it would be an option to consider for $ 500-600, like Canon G5X Mk1.

I would be interested to see a comparison between max aperture vs focal lengh compared to the G7X (over the FL range I mean). Which camera provides the best back ground separation?

I have G7X which is almost inbeatable in terms of a single camera travel solution. The lens has its weaknesses (especially at the wider end), but the fast lens even at larger FL’s makes it very versatile. Even allows some shallow DOF portraits. Is the g5X ii even better in that respect?

It is interesting how these compact lens are expected to operate at total sharpness edge to edge in every circumstance at wide apertures and wide field of view.
In ILC a wide angle fast lens is often forgiven for being soft at the edges, this is often even found to be an endearing quality. The long reach zoom is often forgiven its faults considering the utility and this sort of speed would cost a fortune anyhow.
Little mercy in these respects is shown to the compacts though when the serious photographers are on the prowl in these reviews.

what I want to know is if the new 120 lens is "better" than the old 100. I can't see it in these images but that may be me. What's the verdict? Is the IQ eqaully good? If so, IMHO, the new one is better.

Lens doesn't seem to be good. Apparently dpreview wants to hide that by avoiding f/1.8 landscape photos, although f/1.8 is one of the main arguments of this camera. The f/2.2 low-light sample image definitely looks much worse than what the best smartphone cameras achieve, but that's not surprising. Furthermore it's surprising that Canon doesn't notice that their default jpg settings are really bad.

Meh. Waited a long time for the mark2. Held off going the rx 100 wayearlier. All because I really like What canon does to their JPEG. My EOS bodies are Still my favourites in 2019.
I think DPR did a magnificent job with the samples. Thanks a lot! They are surely showing the IQ very clearly. Tap tap tap...
Im convinced now my next 1" minicam will be a Sony. Most likely an rx 100 mk6. It will live next to my mini fantastic hx90V.

Sold the g5x a few weeks ago convinced (hoping) canon would mitigate all the lesser parts with the mark2. Not so. AF seems NOWHERE near the Sony rx 100 series. IQ is a real dissapointment to me. Up to 400iso I even prefer my X30 from half a decade back. To bad Fuji stopped this line and didnt give us a 1 inch sensor.

When taking great care and working within the strong zone this camera seems just acceptable for a 400 euro camera. But 900?,? Serious? Canon should do better.

Looking at the 100% of the landscape shots, this lens looks a bit mushy, even with the edited the RAW. I'd love to see a proper landscape shootout between this, the RX100 and the RX10, as I'm considering all 3 (yes, I know the RX10 isn't pocketable, but its range is nice)

I don't think this can compete with the sharpness of a RX100 .... Why??

Nice colors, but it's about time to offer a quality lens on such an expensive camera.

My first ever camera was rx100 mk1, than i switched to the g7x mkii with its fabulous combination of zoom range/aperture/stab and great canon colors. I travelled 10 month with it and make thousands shoots with a lot of pleasure.
Near the end of this trip, i sold it and bought a xt20 + zoom and prime lenses.
Yes, image quality is far better with a 35 1.4 than with the g7x ii. But i never felt again the same pleasure to shoot pictures with the fuji. This small g7x was simply amasing, so discreet and easy to use, wide angle for landscape, perfect for candide street and portrait pictures.. i miss it!

Really hop one day they'll do the same camera with m43 or apsc, if so i'll sell everything else!

Decent, if shooting low contrast photos. Falls apart when trying to capture highlight details and shadows at the same time. Higher ISO shots are just noisy mess. Still, all those photos technically good enough, if not viewing in life-size. It is going to be a problem in near future when people can afford displays which could do that. Too late to regret then.

I thought Jeff Keller did a great job of showing us this camera's potential, as well as hinting at some of it's limitations. Some beautiful photos there, Jeff! As far as the camera goes, great Canon color with the out of camera .jpg files, and while the images do appear sharp when viewed normally, the lens does seem a bit soft sometimes when you get in there at 100%.

Still, this little camera seems like a winner for casual walk around shooting. Thanks again, Jeff.

Please take more portraits with the aperture open.

It’s an RX100 series killer , at least for stills . The colours are amazing comparing to the Sony’s dull rendering with poisonous greens.

Is this a 3D camera? The images 3D pop on my screen amazing!

Is it just me, or do these landscapes look a bit soft?

yeah yeah, canon color, impressive as always
but some landscape shots seem to have soft corner issue, even stopped down to f4
and the resolve power of canon len seem not as cool as zeiss on rx100

come on canon, i know you totally capable of red L quality in small factor, and even you can make your own 1 inch sensor too!

The images do look nice, but how good or bad are the controls in this camera? More especifically, is the lens ring clickless?

Sony should hire an engineer that remind the design team to design a comfortable grip and ergonomic buttons.

Canon should hire an engineer that reminds the premium compact camera team to not forget to implement Canons Dual Pixel technology and explains them what an L lens is.

Looks like a pretty good travel/pocket camera overall. Image quality is pretty good from middle to longer focal lengths and not bad at wider focal lengths. At the wide end there is a lot of coma and fringing in high contrast areas towards the edges. For me, the sensor is good enough for many purposes, but the lens is just a bit too compromised. I would be happy with the camera being a bit larger if it meant they could design the lens with fewer compromises, but for others the smaller size is worth the trade-off. Personally I was hoping they would stick with the form factor of the mk i and just improve the lens quality and camera responsiveness.

Sony RX100VI/VII: log profile, great AF, no ND, slow lens
Canon G7xiii/G5xii: no log, bad AF, ND, fast lens
The more these camera cartels collude on specs, the sooner smartphone will take over compact 1".

Liked the gallery of shots from this camera.

I was hopping to replace my compact Canon G12 with this G5X . For the price, AF so and so not much improved, and an eliminated fully articulated LCD . No thank you, I'll pass.

Hi Carey, anothee forum member here explained to me lately that the lenses of Canons G7X ans G5X line as well as of Sonys DSC RX 100 line are not even covering the whole 1" sensor. If true, this would make the 1" sensor a poor marketing joke (I would even dare to day fraud). Could you shed some light on this topic please? Thanks!

I would love to see a few portraits at 120mm / f2.8 to judge the amount and quality of bokeh. Any chance of that?

Honestly, this can be good enough to replace m4/3, at least in the lower segment.
I would really like to see some super sharp prime optics on a rugged waterproof 1" sensor camera instead.

While still a bit soft in the corners at 8.8mm (24mm eq), it is a nice improvement over my G7X which is awfully soft at the wide end in the corners.
Nice sunstars too (picture 65), the main reason why I bought the G7X over the RX100 III back then.

Sadly, my phone (S10 with the latest software update) takes better night handheld pictures than my G7X thanks to computational photography. I believe it takes several shots and compiles them to eliminate the noise and resolve more details.
Will we ever see computational photography make it to compact cameras? Sony?

Personally, i do like the Canon G5X original Design way much more, it's because, the Pop-Up EVF Design wouldn't last a couple 1000's EVF up & down presses, that is a breaking point. Second, the Original G5X looks way better - at least for my eyes.
Last, but not least...900 Bucks is way too much money, but into times, whereas the margins are falling every season, brands like Canon are upping the Price, to remain some profit. ;-)

I'd wait quite some time, and someday perhaps get cheaply a G5X. ;-)

Good Light.

This camera looks good, it appears to have a good lens and sensor too (Sony?). If the autofocus is half decent then it's going to be a good competitor for the Panasonic and Sony equivalents.

Nice pictures!!!!!

Did I think I could have taken most of them with my iphone.

Maybe.

But it's still a nice gallery.

I'm sure that canon et-al won't allow you to do this but it would be really cool/useful if you shot the same pictures with whatever smartphone you are carrying. Almost zero effort and perhaps it would illustrate the utility of these increasingly expensive betweeners (between a smartphone and a real camera)>

I will compromise for the zoom and take Ricoh GR III for this price.

While I don't love the processing on the OOC JPEGs, the colour and exposure looks decent. More importantly though, the RAW conversions look fine. Noisy, but fine.

They are similar to the results I might expect from my 6-year old 16MP M4/3 camera with kit superzoom lens. Which might sound like it's damning with faint praise, but that's a pretty good accomplishment from a camera that can fit into a small pouch, rather than requiring a strap (or worse, a bag) to carry.

I will wait until DPR does a somewhat more systematic evaluation of the lens quality in their review, but as long as the wide end can produce decently resolving corners when stopped down, that's probably enough for me to be interested. At that point, I will really need to handle one in the store and see how it compares with something like an LX100 II as a replacement trip and travel camera. The longer 120mm lens in a slightly smaller package, along with the flip screen, holds real appeal.

That's a lot of sunny-side up eggs.

900 USD? Serious? Nikon D700 + Nikon 24-120/4 VR cost about 900 USD now in mint condition. Canon 5D2 + 24-105/4 IS cost also same. Full frame cameras with middle range pro lenses. Or there are a lot of APS-C camera with top lenses (Nikon D7100 + Nikon 17-55/2.8, for example, in mint condition!) for this price... Yeah, maybe I am stupid...