Canon officially announces the PowerShot G5 X Mark II and PowerShot G7 X Mark III

Jul 8, 2019
6
2
The video quality shown on the B&H Photo video on YouTube yesterday looked terrible. My iPhone performs better than that.

However, the 4K video and stills taken on the G5X on the YouTube video below (foreign language) looks good in my opinion. At least good enough for my taste.

 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,258
681
That loud whooshing sound you heard was the sarcasm going right over your head.

If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that the G7X Mk III and the G5X Mk II will have good video quality be my guest, but all indications are that they don't.
So, you cannot show RX100 4K streams without ugly oversharpening artifacts when viewed on the actual 4K monitor?
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
...But it is a terrible way to demonstrate video quality. 4K video even coming into my 300mbs internet feed is not anywhere near the quality of 720p video played directly on my computer.
What 720p video do you have that looks better than good 300mbit/sec HEVC encoded "4K" (UHD)? This I have got to see.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
The preview videos are helpful to my thinking about what I might want to get, if any. Right now I'm in the process of going through the 950+ pictures I made recently in Denmark and Sweden with my G7X II. The results are so pleasing that I must consider whether there are any reasons to upgrade this camera for my purposes. So far I've shot 6,370 pictures with the camera, and have had very few moments where I wished it had or did something different. For travel, the 24mm equivalent is not quite wide enough for everything, so I do take some shots intended to be stitched together. That works well enough that I prefer it to using the panorama mode on my iPhone, which does work rather well for some types of shots, say a 180º pan of a town square. I see that on the trip I shot exactly one video. Outside the modern art museum in Stockholm there is a fountain that is part of the exhibit of fanciful sculptures. I shot 28 seconds of 1080p at 29.whatever fps. It looks great. I'll probably run it through Compressor and embed it on the web page for that part of the trip, maybe at 720p, perhaps with a link to the original.

So with these cameras coming out in August and with my leaving for another European jaunt in October, several considerations come to mind: Do I buy anything before October, or content myself with the II for that trip? If so, do I get the new 5 or the 7? (I've already looked at the competing Sonys and decided they did not suit my purposes, especially the new model with the longer and much slower lens.) My annual video project comes up in June, so video considerations will suggest a spring purchase, maybe when there might be some attractive prices. The 4K will be nice for editing purposes. My iMac and FCP X have no trouble at all dealing with that, and the extra resolution can come in handy for cropping, etc.

I watched the Czech preview above in full screen on my 5K iMac, and it didn't look bad at all.

So briefly, there is the G5X II. Is it really close enough in size to the G7X that it would be handy enough? The latter fits my pants or jacket pockets just fine. Would I use the flip up viewfinder? In October, 2016, I shot a Blue Angels practice show in Pensacola. I couldn't see a thing in the screen in the bright sun, so I just aimed the camera in the general direction of the planes, and it turned out pretty well. I was more intent on seeing it in person than in shooting video anyway. Maybe with the viewfinder, I'd have looked through it and missed seeing the show. I can't really think of anything since then where the viewfinder might have helped. But then I don't shoot a lot of video anyway. The slightly longer lens might be nice, especially since it seems to be as fast as the G7X II. If reviews suggest that it is an even better lens, that could be enough to steer me to the 5.

As for the G7X III, it still is minutely smaller, and so a bit handier. Vlogging or live YouTube feeds are not considerations of mine. I don't miss having a mike jack. My annual video project involves pick-up basketball games, so the audio consists of squeaks from the shoes and bounces of the ball. No one cares about the audio fidelity. The in-camera mike did fine on the video in a review above.

I've never in my life shot 24fps video, so I'm very unlikely to miss that in either camera. I think several cameras that I own can do that anyway, if the urge ever strikes me. I guess I shot 18fps on Super-8 back in my youth.

So maybe for me it comes down to if and when 4K capability will be useful to have, and whether the new lens on the G5X II has an improvement in image quality.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
What 720p video do you have that looks better than good 300mbit/sec HEVC encoded "4K" (UHD)? This I have got to see.
i wouldn't call video that has been mangled through YouTube's processes to be "good 300mbit/sec HEVC encoded "4K" (UHD)." And just because I have that maximum internet speed coming into the house does not mean that is the bitrate I get from YouTube. Even in theory, is typical 4K streaming providing as much information as local 720p? I don't know. I do know that OTA 1080i or 720p (comparable information) can look really good on my TV compared to the more compressed cable feed of the same local channels. 1080p Blu-Ray discs look better than either, but I don't know how their compression levels compare. Maybe you can help me with some of the figures and the math.
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
I have a trip overseas in the fall and I was really hoping the G7X MkIII would be the camera upgrade I was after, but $750 or $900 (G5X MkII) for a camera that looks to have very weak video capability is a really tough sell in my mind. Maybe I should just get a cheap closeout G7X MkII or just use the RX100 MkII (I already have) and not worry about video, or hope Sony rolls out an interesting RX100 MkVII shortly.
 

OremLK

I'm New Here
Jun 17, 2019
15
9
The old G5X formfactor would have supported that with hotshoe and flip out screen. Two steps forward, one and a half steps back. Seems to be the Canon strategy for the camera department.
I actually prefer it in this form factor. I don't like fully articulating screens, they're more awkward to use and increase the profile of the camera. I just want to be able to tilt the screen.

That loud whooshing sound you heard was the sarcasm going right over your head.

If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that the G7X Mk III and the G5X Mk II will have good video quality be my guest, but all indications are that they don't.
I'm sure the uncropped 4k coming off the full width of the Sony sensor will be fine. On a camera like this, it doesn't have to be high-end production-quality footage, it just has to be good enough for non-professional YouTubers and such.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
I have a trip overseas in the fall and I was really hoping the G7X MkIII would be the camera upgrade I was after, but $750 or $900 (G5X MkII) for a camera that looks to have very weak video capability is a really tough sell in my mind. Maybe I should just get a cheap closeout G7X MkII or just use the RX100 MkII (I already have) and not worry about video, or hope Sony rolls out an interesting RX100 MkVII shortly.
If I were primarily concerned with shooting video, or even substantially so, I don't know what I would buy. My priorities are obviously quite different from yours.

FWIW, just in case you find it helpful to see, I've uploaded the original out-of-camera fountain video I shot in Stockholm: original video.
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
i wouldn't call video that has been mangled through YouTube's processes to be "good 300mbit/sec HEVC encoded "4K" (UHD)." And just because I have that maximum internet speed coming into the house does not mean that is the bitrate I get from YouTube. Even in theory, is typical 4K streaming providing as much information as local 720p? I don't know. I do know that OTA 1080i or 720p (comparable information) can look really good on my TV compared to the more compressed cable feed of the same local channels. 1080p Blu-Ray discs look better than either, but I don't know how their compression levels compare. Maybe you can help me with some of the figures and the math.
I didn't realize you were limiting your comment to YouTube when referencing 300mbit 4K content. 100mbit/sec HEVC can look fantastic. UHD Blu-ray demonstrates this easily.

ATSC OTA HDTV is no more than ~20mbit/sec MPEG-2. Usually less these days because all the stations want to have 2 or more SD sub channels that take bitrate away from the main HD channel. You can get visually similar quality to OTA HD with AVC/H.264 with 5-6mbit/sec. Blu-ray is a big step up from ATSC OTA HDTV as it should be given the codecs and bitrates.

I'm sure the uncropped 4k coming off the full width of the Sony sensor will be fine. On a camera like this, it doesn't have to be high-end production-quality footage, it just has to be good enough for non-professional YouTubers and such.
Fine for what though? I think people might notice that their phone shoots better looking "4k" video. If you lower the bar far enough you'll inevitably fall into the "I'm just going to use my phone" to vlog camp. That works fine too.

If I were primarily concerned with shooting video, or even substantially so, I don't know what I would buy. My priorities are obviously quite different from yours.
I've always been a stills shooter when travelling. I'd like to expand into shooting some video, but I'm not going to do it if doesn't look good and 2 cameras or a camera and a camcorder isn't happening.

FWIW, just in case you find it helpful to see, I've uploaded the original out-of-camera fountain video I shot in Stockholm: original video.
I'll check it out.
 

OremLK

I'm New Here
Jun 17, 2019
15
9
Why on earth would you assume that the footage will look worse than smartphone footage? On the basis of one YouTube video shot on non-final firmware using god-knows what settings?
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
I maintain a disc subscription with Netflix rather than watching the same content by streaming because of the superior picture and discrete 5.1 surround sound. That is in spite of the fact that I watch a 46" 1080p set from 12 or so feet away, which suggests that I shouldn't be able to see that much difference.

My real OTA comparison was with the cable transmission of the same channel, suggesting that compression can make a visible difference, which should be no surprise.

I shoot video to include an occasional short clip on a relevant web page. I find the G7X II to be more than adequate for that purpose. My basketball pick-up footage is posted on YouTube because my audience doesn't care about the quality of the video. They are just thankful to see how the incoming freshmen play, how the returning players look, and to watch the pros who are home from Europe, and see how all of them interact. Occasionally others will wander in. The Curry brothers played one night a few years back when Steph was already a pro and Seth was still at Duke. Last summer, several of the Hornets played one night. It is really good for the younger guys to face stronger competition that they will see from almost all of the college players they will face in the regular season. I got nothing but thanks from fans around the country even when I was shooting just 640x480. It bugs me that I can't adequately color correct the wonky arena lighting. One year I tried shooting a white piece of paper to set a custom white balance. That did no better than my tinkering in FCP X. But that's just me.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
224
187
No mic jack on the G5 X? Typical Canon. So one has to choose between longer and probably better lens and EVF or mic jack for better audio. NIce.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
3,115
636
No mic jack on the G5 X? Typical Canon. So one has to choose between longer and probably better lens and EVF or mic jack for better audio. NIce.
Isn't every camera/body purchase that way? Nothing new here and why are you surprised? I do not expect to live long enough to see anyone make the perfect camera for just ME.