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

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
116
91
I honestly think most of these "reviews" (I can't consider all of them as that) are not really serious or well made. They're making lot of silly buzz about the AF...
I disagree. It's not silly buzz. The AF in video is substandard compared to other cameras in the same class. It would have been in the bottom tier 4 years ago and the rest of the field has improved substantially. The poor AF performance is immediately obvious when you watch any footage shot with it unless it was specifically edited to hide it or shot not relying on AF.

I am very demanding with Canon and very critic on many of their decisions, but I know they're not stupid (at least on basic things like that)
I don't think most buyers are going to share your sentiments if they care about video performance.

Edit: Why would someone be buying a III if they don't care about video? They can probably get the same stills performance from the II for less money.
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,122
198
Davidson, NC
What EXACT AF problem (and the corresponding settings and modes) are you experiencing with the G7X II?
I didn't understand
Thanks!
I have no autofocus problems with the G7X II. I am considering buying the III or the G5X II. If their autofocus for stills is somehow worse, then I'd like some test that demonstrates the problem. People popping in and out of videos or doing Dr. Tongue imitations don't show me anything relevant to a way in which I am going to use the camera.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
I disagree. It's not silly buzz. The AF in video is substandard compared to other cameras in the same class. It would have been in the bottom tier 4 years ago and the rest of the field has improved substantially. The poor AF performance is immediately obvious when you watch any footage shot with it unless it was specifically edited to hide it or shot not relying on AF.


I don't think most buyers are going to share your sentiments if they care about video performance.

Edit: Why would someone be buying a III if they don't care about video? They can probably get the same stills performance from the II for less money.
But so far I didn't see any AF problem for video.
The performance of FACE DETECTION AF is not on par with Sony, completely agree (remember that it's also more expensive), but that's not the only way to record video at all.

It seems people and reviewers only consider Face Detection AF!
(I know it's advertised for vloggers but it seems that everyone test it as if the only purpose was to film themselves, and moving around the frame, which in real world is not that often)

I do care about video indeed, the 4K without crop is a strong point to me to buy it.

But I don't rely only on Face Detection to evaluate AF performance on video.

Face detection AF is not good as the Sony RX VI, but it doesn't mean that all AF is bad as many are spreading out.

Again, I remark the last minute of the previous reviewer.
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
116
91
But so far I didn't see any AF problem for video.
The performance of FACE DETECTION AF is not on par with Sony, completely agree (remember that it's also more expensive), but that's not the only way to record video at all.

It seems people and reviewers only consider Face Detection AF!
(I know it's advertised for vloggers but it seems that everyone test it as if the only purpose was to film themselves, and moving around the frame, which in real world is not that often)

I do care about video indeed, the 4K without crop is a strong point to me to buy it.

But I don't rely only on Face Detection to evaluate AF performance on video.

Face detection AF is not good as the Sony RX VI, but it doesn't mean that all AF is bad as many are spreading out.

Again, I remark the last minute of the previous reviewer.
Well, here you go. You can clearly see (at least if you watch it on a 2160p display at full res) with side by side footage that the Mk III AF is inferior to the Mk II even in non-face tracking use. You can also see the Mk II shoots sharper 1080p footage. This is most apparent when he moves outside.


Start at 11:24
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and PVCC

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,122
198
Davidson, NC
Well, here you go. You can clearly see (at least if you watch it on a 2160p display at full res) with side by side footage that the Mk III AF is inferior to the Mk II even in non-face tracking use. You can also see the Mk II shoots sharper 1080p footage. This is most apparent when he moves outside.


Start at 11:24
Thanks. I watched the whole video full screen on my 5K monitor. Of perhaps the most interest to me was his report on bitrates. I wonder whether there is much to be gained at 4K over 1080p at the same bitrate, given the greater compression.

Also, the difference in exposure and color was greater than I would have expected. The fur of course looks sharper when the whites are not blown out. I would expect that most if not all of the differences come from the new sensor.

The differences are subtle enough that I definitely would not regret getting the III. And in any event, I plan to keep the II. I've kept my S120, but have not had occasion to use it since I got the II. I took it along as a backup on a 5300-mile driving trip when my II was new. When I buy the III or the 5 Mark II or one of the Sonys, it will be time to pass the S120 along to a friend who has been taking good photos with my old S95.

My annual video project comes in June, so I might want something with 4K then, for editing flexibility. My fall European trip starts in October. So my decision will be whether I buy something, and if so what and when. Nothing I shoot in June lasts for ten minutes, but I could have the II in my pocket in case I run into heat issues. And both cameras are small enough to have in the little bag I put under the seat on the plane, if I have a new camera before the fall trip.

So I'll keep looking for tests that seem to have some relevance to my situation. I'll watch more of this guy's videos as he uses the III.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
Well, here you go. You can clearly see (at least if you watch it on a 2160p display at full res) with side by side footage that the Mk III AF is inferior to the Mk II even in non-face tracking use. You can also see the Mk II shoots sharper 1080p footage. This is most apparent when he moves outside.


Start at 11:24
Thanks!
Good tests.

It seems the continuous / servo AF performance of the G7X III is a bit below the G7X II, weird.

But for a one touch AF it works fine. So it's good for me.

I downloaded original FullHD and 4K files from Cameralabs, and they're good to me too. Maybe a subtle difference with other similar cameras, but not a problem.

One thing took my attention: according to Cameralabs the G5X II has a bit sharper still image than G7X III, which I didn't expect due to the fact the zoom is larger and that usually means lower IQ performance. Weird too.

Reading the User manual, tells the lens ring cannot be used to zoom WHILE recording video.

What Canon moves 1 step forward usually moves 2 backwards.. No 24p, no clickless ring, somewhat weak AF...

S**** :(
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
After seeing the stills IQ of the G5X II are bit sharper, having the longer zoom and EVF, I wonder if it could be a better long-term purchase...

No Mic-in, but if it happens to need good audio and I use a Digital Audio Recorder like Zoom H1n or H2n, would it be a real problem (besides replacing the audio track in post)? Hmm...
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,122
198
Davidson, NC
After seeing the stills IQ of the G5X II are bit sharper, having the longer zoom and EVF, I wonder if it could be a better long-term purchase...

No Mic-in, but if it happens to need good audio and I use a Digital Audio Recorder like Zoom H1n or H2n, would it be a real problem (besides replacing the audio track in post)? Hmm...
I’m inclined to agree with you after seeing the stills. I don’t need the mike input for my travel camera. I’m not going to do live streaming, so the pluses on the 7 don’t matter to me. I have no idea whether or how much I’d use the popup viewfinder, OTOH.

But two things give me pause about making a choice this soon. First, I don’t shoot JPEGs. Is the apparent sharpness advantage due to the new lens, or is some of it due to better JPEG processing in camera? I’d like to see if the difference is apparent in Raw files. Having a slightly longer zoom without losing lens speed or quality would be a plus.

The other, and perhaps more important, issue is size. This 5 is more pocketable than the one before. If it is close enough in size to the 7, that would likely seal the deal for me. A few millimeters could be the straw that breaks the camel. If they have both in stock locally, and the 5 passes the size test, it could become an impulse purchase.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
I’m inclined to agree with you after seeing the stills. I don’t need the mike input for my travel camera. I’m not going to do live streaming, so the pluses on the 7 don’t matter to me. I have no idea whether or how much I’d use the popup viewfinder, OTOH.

But two things give me pause about making a choice this soon. First, I don’t shoot JPEGs. Is the apparent sharpness advantage due to the new lens, or is some of it due to better JPEG processing in camera? I’d like to see if the difference is apparent in Raw files. Having a slightly longer zoom without losing lens speed or quality would be a plus.

The other, and perhaps more important, issue is size. This 5 is more pocketable than the one before. If it is close enough in size to the 7, that would likely seal the deal for me. A few millimeters could be the straw that breaks the camel. If they have both in stock locally, and the 5 passes the size test, it could become an impulse purchase.
The G5X II and G7X III use same Digic 8 processor, so I think the image processing is probably the same.

If you check the original G5X which has the same Optics but older processor than the G7X mk 2, the IQ was noticeable lower (to my surprise) - DPReview has a great page to compare cameras -

The EVF becomes handy in sunlight or strong light conditions when you can't see the LCD. Besides that I never used it due to be so small and the advantage of a LCD touchscreen.

I wonder if everything else would be the same as G7X III. (AF "low performance", 4K integrating after a while).

I'll never stream nor do vlogging either. But may film for serious purpose, which in that case external audio recording is often the way.

I was decided for the G7X III, but now I hesitate if it would be worth spending $200 more or not in a camera that I expect to use for years.
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,122
198
Davidson, NC
Yes, for me the difference in money is a minor consideration, given that I will use it for years, and the money is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of the trips I will take during those years where I will use the camera.

My 6D2 has a mic input, so I’d use it if I ever need to do that. The audio on my annual video project involves the ambient sounds of basketball shoes squeaking on an arena floor and the bouncing of balls, so fidelity is not an issue. Traveling, I might shoot short clips on occasion, and the sound is just ambient.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
I’m inclined to agree with you after seeing the stills. I don’t need the mike input for my travel camera. I’m not going to do live streaming, so the pluses on the 7 don’t matter to me. I have no idea whether or how much I’d use the popup viewfinder, OTOH.

But two things give me pause about making a choice this soon. First, I don’t shoot JPEGs. Is the apparent sharpness advantage due to the new lens, or is some of it due to better JPEG processing in camera? I’d like to see if the difference is apparent in Raw files. Having a slightly longer zoom without losing lens speed or quality would be a plus.

The other, and perhaps more important, issue is size. This 5 is more pocketable than the one before. If it is close enough in size to the 7, that would likely seal the deal for me. A few millimeters could be the straw that breaks the camel. If they have both in stock locally, and the 5 passes the size test, it could become an impulse purchase.
I found that DPReview has posted a Sample pictures gallery of G5X II, in JPG and RAW formats, so you can download the original files.

Please, if you compare G5X II vs. G7X III RAW files, share with us your findings.

I can only check the JPGs so far...

Thanks!!
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,122
198
Davidson, NC
Will I be able to open the Raw files in Photoshop or anything yet?

I saw on the web that a Best Buy in my area has both the 7 III and the 5 II in stock for me to see, though they have just one of the latter to show and none to sell. I was tempted to drive down there late this afternoon.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
With the Adobe Camera Raw from the latest CC update, yes. Or at least I was.
What do you think of the RAW files compared to JPGs?

Does the G5X II seem to deliver a bit sharper images than the G7X III in the RAW too?
And along the whole focal length?

Thanks!
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,100
521
What do you think of the RAW files compared to JPGs?

Does the G5X II seem to deliver a bit sharper images than the G7X III in the RAW too?
And along the whole focal length?
Sorry, I am waiting for someone else to do the tests before I choose the camera to buy. I am not in hurry. I've just downloaded a dpreview raw file and checked that I can open it in Photoshop.
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
I was checking the GX5 II Sample pictures right out of the camera from DPReview and got impressed with the IQ especially regarding Sharpness.

Even at wide open or 1 stop down, the stills are very sharp along the focal range.

No noticeable Chromatic aberration (obviously corrected by the CPU).

I wish the full frame Zoom L lenses have a performance like that!

I didn't check the G7X III Sample pictures yet, don't know if it's available nor if they will be so solid performing. But will do later.

According to Cameralabs the G5X II is a bit sharper, so if it's evident in the Sample pictures too, when checking the G7X III's, then I think I'll miss the muc-in in order to get the best possible IQ pictures... (didn't want to spend $200 more than the G7X III, but I'll take it as long term investment)
 

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
The G5X II looks to have a much better quality lens than the G7X III.

In the video he mentions many things, but not exactly that the G5X II has a much better lens.
Why do you say that? I didn't understand

I said I was impressed because all images I checked are very sharp, and I expected the longer zoom range of the G5X II would deliver softer images at the corners.

Besides that, the G5X II can also focus to closer distance, so when using at ~120mm this is very good.

I'll compare to the G7X II, and also check the AF on the G5X II (vs. the low performing G7X III), but now I think I'll go for the G5X II, since I want the best possible IQ from this little cam.

The 4K (original files downloaded from Cameralabs) on both look good to me, but if G5X II is bit sharper, then probably 4K is also bit sharper, or maybe not noticeable difference.

Grrr... I didn't want to spend $200 more but I think I will regret if I don't

At this point Gordon from Cameralabs deserves much more than a coffee!!
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
116
91
In the video he mentions many things, but not exactly that the G5X II has a much better lens.
Why do you say that? I didn't understand
The multiple crop comparisons at 11:40 in the video definitely favor the G5X II significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PVCC

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
49
13
The multiple crop comparisons at 11:40 in the video definitely favor the G5X II significantly.
Yes, he posted the still crops on his site, which is much better to compare than on the video.

Remember that his crops comparison are for ~24mm only.

So I went and download original JPGs from DPReview at different focal lengths and got pleased with the G5X II results, plus the 20cm closest focus distance, giving a stronger macro.

Well, I'll try to get G7X III original JPGs at different focal lengths, but I'm almost with the G5X II.

I wish it had a Muc-in just in case for some pro footage made easier.

Canon could have kept the declick button and allow to focus and zoom with lens ring WHILE recording. I don't understand why to remove something so handy that doesn't bother anyone nor imply sacrificing any new feature, that makes me really upset with Canon's product managers (as always...)