November 28, 2014, 02:36:49 PM

Author Topic: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??  (Read 6527 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2014, 04:06:42 PM »
The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D

I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2014, 04:06:42 PM »

powershot2012

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2014, 04:28:10 PM »
Thanks for the link and article:

"The RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.




The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D

I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2014, 04:40:43 PM »
Thanks for the link and article:

"The RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.




The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D

I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12

Well if you need 20MP from your P&S, and if you think they are worth having, then have at it. But don't say and agree with stuff like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" when all it actually seems to lack in comparative images is resolution, and considering resolution is a conscious design decision, like I say, if you need a 20MP camera why look at 12MP cameras?
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

powershot2012

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2014, 05:37:09 PM »
What? If you need 20MP? This is about who has the best sensor, IQ, etc.

BTW, that is a great site you provided.  Read the review on the G1X II and you might better see the difference:

"The G1 X II is a good camera, but not a great one. For those who want a good ILC companion - or a compact camera that's great for portraits, it's a solid choice. That said, if image quality is your priority and you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II (the closest competitor) is superior in terms of both still and video quality."



Thanks for the link and article:

"The RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.




The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D

I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12

Well if you need 20MP from your P&S, and if you think they are worth having, then have at it. But don't say and agree with stuff like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" when all it actually seems to lack in comparative images is resolution, and considering resolution is a conscious design decision, like I say, if you need a 20MP camera why look at 12MP cameras?

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2014, 05:46:14 PM »
" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

powershot2012

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2014, 08:33:18 PM »
Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....


" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2014, 08:42:12 PM »
Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....


" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........

Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2014, 08:42:12 PM »

powershot2012

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2014, 09:33:53 PM »
Well if your looking to buy a camera to shoot solely at 1600, 3200, or 6400, knock yourself out, but don't think that's the norm. 

Be sure to check out there review on the G1X II.  "With a larger sensor and faster lens than the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II - which is the Mark II's closest competitor - one would expect vastly superior image quality. As it turns out, that's not the case. The G1 X II's sensor has a high 'noise floor', which is to say that there's a lot of noise and not much detail in the shadows. Thus, if you try to brighten dark areas of a photo, you'll end up with more color noise than you will detail. While using either of the DR Correction tools on the camera do work as advertised, the trade-off is a lot more noise. The point here is that while the G1 X II's sensor is much larger than that of the RX100 II, Sony's much more modern sensor performs much better than the Canon's, to the point where it cancels out that disparity."

Noticed they also gave the G1X II only a Silver rating while the RX100 III received a Gold...interesting.




Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....


" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........

Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2014, 09:50:27 PM »
As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

powershot2012

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2014, 10:30:18 PM »
I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2014, 10:38:45 PM »
I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" . It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me.

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2014, 10:38:45 PM »