Field Test: Canon PowerShot G5 X on the Olympic Peninsula

For my images, I took the Raw files into Adobe Camera Raw because they have a pretty good amount of latitude. Almost never did any cropping, and adjustments were limited to white balance, a bit of exposure, whites, blacks, highlights, shadows.

Hope that helps. If there's a specific image you're curious about, I can pull up the specific adjustments and amounts if you like.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Mike Ranfft

Did you have to bump up sharpness (as there are some reports of softness)? How did you find the wait time in between RAW pics?

10 months ago*permalink

@Mike - I never bumped up sharpness with these images, though I usually do with other gigs. Wait time was pretty good, even though they're 20MP, that's kind of getting on the low-end these days. It's when I'm processing 12MP files that I'm really spoiled for speed :)

10 months agopermalink

Mike Ranfft

Thanks, good to know there was enough sharpness/resolution.! So taking and processing RAW was ok. The pics and vid look great and thanks for doing this field trip. Ergonomically, it seemed hard for me to imagine an RX100 III being as easy to shoot in this outing, especially in the boat using the vari-angle screen out to the side for stability etc.

10 months agopermalink

Naveed Akhtar

Great video .. bring'em more ..

Mar 17, 2016permalink

justmeMN

Catch-and-release is a tough concept for those of us who value eating fish more than actual fishing. I'm glad that you were able to get one "keeper".

Mar 17, 2016permalink

steelhead3

catch and release is respect for your quarry...only invasive hatchery fish are suitable for the table

Mar 18, 2016permalink

007peter

Beautifully filmed, and a Great "IN-REAL-LIFE" review. I much prefer this kind of IRL review over just listing specs. I think the fixed-compact has mature to a point that it is challenging the NEEDS of having a DSLR or Mirrorless iLC. I think for 90% of the population, this kind of 1" fix camera makes more sense than interchangeable. My only annoyance is the PRICE TAG, pricing more expensive than an entry-level M43 camera like E-PL6 for $299.

If Canon can price this camera toward $300 ~ $400, its a no brainer

Mar 17, 2016permalink

RayVagh

I couldn't agree more. This kind of review from Canon is not the first time and always more interesting than listing specs.

Fixed lens compact zoom cameras sure have a place, especially for weekend photographer/travel photography etc. I have several Canon compact cameras. They are very compact, less hassle to bring than DSLR. Ive got nothing to loose when I bring my compacts to expedition, weekend trips etc.

Canon optics on compact lens are always satisfying, with its zoom versatility of compact cameras and great lens, my photos are mostly better than others who took picture with DSLR (esp. in daylight, outdoor). The key is they have to limit lens range from 28 to 210 mm. Beyond that, I think it's only a gimmick. With my compact lens, I beat other photographers with the zoom range I have.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

justmeMN

In the long run, I think it's inevitable that large-sensor fixed-lens compacts will cut into ILC sales. As a practical matter, many people who buy an ILC will never go beyond the kit lens.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

Sam Santana

I agree with most except the price comment. You need to consider that a good lens like the ones built into these compacts are worth more than the body portion of the camera and so it's reasonable for the RRP to be at least twice that of a cheaper M43 body.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

manaskarekar

This is a really well done review with some beautiful photos!

Could you please share them as a gallery?

Thank you!

Mar 16, 2016*permalink

Sorry for the delay - I've just uploaded a number of samples from this trip into the existing G5 X samples gallery, and added a link to it in the article.

Mar 22, 2016permalink

manaskarekar

Thanks Carey.

This was a really great episode and I loved all the photos.

Mar 22, 2016permalink

@manaskarekar - you're most welcome, and thank you for watching and for the kind words.

Mar 22, 2016permalink

WesternSage

I really liked the text overlays showing shooting data. Good job! I also enjoyed the early a.m. scowl, and the cat on the roof!

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Michael Uschold

This video is very good, but beware, it is as much or more about fishing as it is about the camera. All the information in the video that pertains to the camera could have been shown in a video in 3-4 minutes, rather than the 8.

I would love to know how the camera was protected from the rain and water.

Mar 16, 2016*permalink

We didn't give the Canons too much protection - if it was a light drizzle, I was careful and just tried to make sure the lens barrel wasn't wet when it retracted. In downpours, I kept it in a mostly waterproof pocket.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

WeAreShouting

Mr. Rose, you still have not addressed accusations that you forced people to watch a fishing video.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

nicoboston

Also, you brought this camera on a small fishing boat because it was a free camera offered by the sponsor ;-) Not even a strap!
I'm not sure I would do this with mine!
The sample images and videos are nice though. I like the DR and the very pleasant colors.
Although it is "sponsored content", these field tests are informative. They show nicely how the cameras can be handled.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Mr. Shouting, my lawyers have advised me to remain silent on the matter. It all seems rather fishy.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

nicoboston

Sigh... I will have to choose soon to replace my dead Fuji compact (there is no real X10/20/30 replacement).
G5X? The new Panasonic ZS100? RX100? Similar price, different cameras... I was about too pre-order the Panasonic but this nice video makes me hesitate again. The G5X is not the latest fancy compact with 4K etc but I like the Canon touch, and this camera seems quite robust. Sigh !

Mar 16, 2016permalink

tolleknolle

Nikon DL?

Mar 16, 2016permalink

nicoboston

Nikon DL and G7X mkII will come too late. I will need it in ~ 1 month.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

tolleknolle

LX100?

Mar 16, 2016permalink

bakanecko

you can find 1st and 2nd gen rx100 for quite bargain prices.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

BarnET

Do you shoot Raw often?
Do you shoot bursts
If so stay away from the G5x 0.8 fps in raw is just stupid

What focal length do you shoot?
The G5x lens is good from 35mm-100mm. nice smooth bokeh too for a camera in this class. 24-35mm on the other hand leaves a LOT to be desired.

How often did you use the viewfinder of the Fuji.
The Canon seems to have a very useable one. The Rx100 not so much(no eye relief).

Panasonic Lx100, Sony Rx100 mk3, Canon G5x

are all selling arround the same prices. The Canon is by far the slowest and doesnt compete in video quality. But it does have some useability advantages with the swivel touchscreen and longer zoomrange.

Both the Panasonic and Rx100 mk3 have better lenses at the wide-end. your call.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

pacnwhobbyist

The jihad against Canon continues with you. Don't you ever give it a rest?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

TheDarmok74

It has everything I want, even the price would be ok, BUT I want a sharp lens.
At least my trusty RX100 is tack sharp at 28mm which I use most of the time anyway. But at the widest end my camera needs to be sharp and the g5x doesn't seem to be according to the review.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

bluejaguar

I tried the G5 X hands on. Looked at the images at home. The lens is really bad. Not just wide aperture and wide zoom. It's pretty bad everywhere. Never really sharpens up. Seems to be a quality control issue as I have seen some sharp shots. But you are taking your chances if you buy one. From what I saw on G5 X I used, the images were less impressive than Olympus XZ-2 which I also own (having 1/1.7" sensor vs 1" sensor) The lens on G5X is sub-par.

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

EddyGil

complainer

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Robert Zanatta

Looks like a great upgrade to my S110 - wish I had one. Very good stills and video.

I enjoyed the video and wished I were there for the steelhead fishing.

So that's two things I'm envious of.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Lawrencew

Despite some of the negatives in the "inching forward" review, the G5 X seemed to perform really well here in terms of PQ.

It looks an ideal travel cam for someone like me (who is also a Canon DSLR user), but the inevitability of a G5 X II with digic 7 that fixes several of those negatives gives me reasons to want to hold off for now - unless they rapidly reduce the price of the current model...

Mar 16, 2016*permalink

"This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon" since when did this start happening? Is this only being mentioned now as a result of the Lord & Taylor vs. FTC legal dispute?

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Rouseabout

These field tests have in my opinion always been infomercials. I congratulate dpreview for its move towards transparency.

Transparency would have been welcome during last years Sony tsunami and the following Fuji shower. Was I the only one to lose faith in dpreview in that period?

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Simon Joinson

i very much doubt any of the content you're referring to is sponsored unless is was a video field test, and was clearly signposted as being sponsored content.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Michael Uschold

Perhaps so, but I did not see the signpost at all.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

The disclaimer could linger on a screen for a few more frames.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Rouseabout

Simon, I'm sure you know better than I the various means of sponsorship available to marketers. I remember a writer of another blog saying Sony offered an RX1r ii as a thankyou gift for an article. Did any DpReview staff or writers aquire Sony 'gifts' in this period?

A certain low light autofocus test (but not limited too) that'd have made Ken Rockwell proud comes to mind

Mar 16, 2016permalink

The ongoing Field Test video series is DPReview's first foray into sponsored content. And no, DPReview staff do not receive "gifts" from brands. I am curious about your lowlight test reference nonetheless, care to link to it?

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Thanks, Scoot. DISCLAIMER should be BOLDER and LONGER. Wouldn't hurt to put at the beginning and end.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Transparency is a good thing. As a result of the Lord & Taylor vs. FTC legal settlement, for those doing business in the U.S., transparency in content marketing is now also a legally-required thing, particularly for big players (like Amazon!) that the FTC has the resources to address.

That aside, for any media company that derives significant income from a party over which it passes judgement, (regardless of "stated policies") that company's employees will always have to ask "if we say x about business y will we still receive $z dollars from them?"

For me, I couldn't watch this video after I saw that it was content marketing. And I now feel like I have to audit everything I read on this website to see whether or not it is a content marketing piece. Which makes it more difficult for me to enjoy. Of course, I have no idea if I am or am not representative of the greater visitor/user base at DPR.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

I'd be interested in learning more about why you cannot watch the video once you know that it is sponsored content. At a high level I understand the gut-response to words like "sponsored" or "marketing".

But the reality for us is that we had a relatively simple goal, to make incremental content about photographers and gear that we otherwise could not afford to make. So we sat down and asked ourselves what format would make sense, and settled on this video series, where we pair a camera with a photographer, and go off to use the gear in interesting situations.

Mar 17, 2016*permalink

We feel good about the video series because we do not consult with the camera companies at any stage. Our editors choose a camera they want to highlight, an interesting match for a photographer and a location, and we go off and shoot. There's no additional layer of complexity or mystery.

So in the end, we are able to make videos that we'd love to be able to make anyways, and the feedback from our users has been extremely positive.

Mar 17, 2016permalink

Good stuff Scott except I am sure DPReview has ample resources for a modest video shoot like this. There was a time when entities like yours would purchase any cameras that they review.

Mar 17, 2016*permalink

@Gesture, I wish this were true, but DPReview's business model is based on selling online advertising. And banner advertising in general is dying a slow death. It will always be there, but the rates advertisers are willing to pay have been going down for years. This is a big reason for the rise in sponsored content. If you look across the web at different types of publishers, the ones thriving are the ones able to find a way to make sponsored content that their readers enjoy.

Anyways, our entire annual budget, beyond paying our staff, goes to freelance writers. Video production rates vary, but generally you will see about $1000/minute as the absolute lowest rate, and generally most production teams will not take projects below $5000-10,000, and this does not factor in travel expenses, paying the talent, etc.... So a 10-15 minute mini-documentary is a costly affair, much beyond our budget.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

"I am sure DPReview has ample resources for a modest video shoot like this. There was a time when entities like yours would purchase any cameras that they review."

Scott has explained this above, but just for the record - DPReview has never bought the products that we review (with one exception that I can remember, when we were let down by a manufacturer). To the best of my knowledge, almost no review sites do either.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

@Scott, You asked "I'd be interested in learning more about why you cannot watch the video once you know that it is sponsored content" -- My response would largely match your high-level understanding of "gut-response to words like 'sponsored' or 'marketing'". Additionally, I cringe when those words weren't mentioned before I decided to click on the article -- I feel baited. There's only so many hours in a day for all of us and I'm sure in our personal lives many of us tend to prioritize the product info that we are confident is giving us the most full, candid story.

As someone very involved with digital media myself, I empathize greatly with creating diff content for diff users/visitors. As you state, "feedback from our users has been extremely positive", so that hopefully keeps a site we all love thriving.

A 'question mark' (perhaps you've already considered??), is whether to label sponsored-content as such, up-front on the homepage (The Atlantic's Quartz does this for example).

Mar 18, 2016permalink

@Scott, as a 'heads up', this goes well beyond my or your own personal opinions -- your team will want to be caught up on this:

"[Native advertising] disclosures should be placed prominently on the main page of a publisher’s site where consumers will notice them and easily identify the content to which the disclosure applies" - Matt Savare, Lowenstein Sandler LLP (AdExchanger article 3/17/2016)
"In evaluating whether consumers would recognize [native ads]... the [FTC] will consider... customary expectations based on consumers' prior experience with the media....if a natively formatted ad appearing as a news story is inserted into the content stream of a publisher site...reasonable consumers are unlikely to recognize it". - FTC memo linked in the aforementioned AdExchanger article.

"You're welcome!" - Banhmi pro bono legal counsel

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Terry Breedlove

Oh man you were so close my home. Forks boy

Mar 16, 2016permalink

TheWhiteDog

Really nice video and surprisingly excellent stills & video. Beautiful part of the world, I hope it remains unspoiled. Thanks for all these videos, nice to get introduced to parts of the world we may never visit- and highly entertaining also.

Mar 16, 2016permalink