Review: Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III by DPReview

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,309
2,079
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
DPReview has completed their review of the brand new Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III. The is Canon’s flagship PowerShot camera with a price tag to match, but is it worth it?</p>
<p>From <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review/7">DPReview</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>And yet – I find it hard to imagine myself recommending the G1 X III to anyone in particular. Sony’s options are less user-friendly, but offer far more speed and video options. Perhaps most crucially, Canon’s own G7 X Mark II offers similar speed, smaller size, better battery life and comparable (if not better) image quality in most situations besides daylight landscapes. Also, it’s considerably less expensive.</p>


<p>The PowerShot G1 X III is absolutely capable of fantastic photos, but the compromises made – specifically regarding its lens and battery – hold it back too much for us to recommend it wholeheartedly over a vast number of competitors in the marketplace. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review/7">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like the reviews of this camera have remained consistent. It’ll give you great results, but not results that warrant the price tag. If this is a camera you’re interested in, wait for the inevitable price-drop or refurbished models on sale, both of which will likely come sooner than later.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,080
538
+1

I have the G7X II. It is a great little camera. But you can tell the difference between it and my M3 and definitely between it and my 5D III/IV (still getting used to the 5D IV).

If anything, I would say the 1" sensor output is further away from the M3's output than the M3 is from the 5DIII.

All capable, but not the same.

Reading DPReview's take, and playing with their comparison tools, I am not as discouraged as CR's take seems to be. Lots of CA at shorter focal lengths, but I am seeing reasonable detail. Battery life and the slow lens seem to be the biggest issues, to me, for this body. But the APS-C sensor is giving nicer detail at higher ISOs compared to 1" sensors, as expected.
 

gmon750

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 30, 2015
128
82
docsmith said:
+1

I have the G7X II. It is a great little camera. But you can tell the difference between it and my M3 and definitely between it and my 5D III/IV (still getting used to the 5D IV).

If anything, I would say the 1" sensor output is further away from the M3's output than the M3 is from the 5DIII.

All capable, but not the same.

Reading DPReview's take, and playing with their comparison tools, I am not as discouraged as CR's take seems to be. Lots of CA at shorter focal lengths, but I am seeing reasonable detail. Battery life and the slow lens seem to be the biggest issues, to me, for this body. But the APS-C sensor is giving nicer detail at higher ISOs compared to 1" sensors, as expected.

What does that have to do with the G1? The G7 is a completely different camera, sensor, etc...
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,080
538
gmon750 said:
What does that have to do with the G1? The G7 is a completely different camera, sensor, etc...

Huh, weird, I should have quoted it, but there was a previous comment I was building off of. Must have been deleted.
 

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,188
507
ethanzentz.com
I'll quote it for you.


DPReview said:
Perhaps most crucially, Canon’s own G7 X Mark II offers similar speed, smaller size, better battery life and comparable (if not better) image quality in most situations besides daylight landscapes. Also, it’s considerably less expensive.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
docsmith said:
+1

I have the G7X II. It is a great little camera. But you can tell the difference between it and my M3 and definitely between it and my 5D III/IV (still getting used to the 5D IV).

If anything, I would say the 1" sensor output is further away from the M3's output than the M3 is from the 5DIII.

All capable, but not the same.

Reading DPReview's take, and playing with their comparison tools, I am not as discouraged as CR's take seems to be. Lots of CA at shorter focal lengths, but I am seeing reasonable detail. Battery life and the slow lens seem to be the biggest issues, to me, for this body. But the APS-C sensor is giving nicer detail at higher ISOs compared to 1" sensors, as expected.
Except that higher ISOs imply less than optimal lighting conditions. In these cases the G7XII 1.8-2.8 lens would cause us to shoot with lower ISO value than with the G1XIII so the difference in the final result between the two sensors wouldn't be big.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,301
975
Yorkshire, England
docsmith said:
gmon750 said:
What does that have to do with the G1? The G7 is a completely different camera, sensor, etc...

Huh, weird, I should have quoted it, but there was a previous comment I was building off of. Must have been deleted.

This was the post from myself that docsmith was quoting. I've missed out the bit about what CR Guy must have been smoking to put this thread in the "lens gear talk" section as he clearly took offence to it ;)

To be honest these reviews that treat the "one inch" sensor and APS-c on a level really annoy me. It's a classic example of looking at the spec. sheets and making comparisons and drawing erroneous conclusions. I have the Canon G3X which is, even by DPR and DXO's standards, a fine implementation of the Sony 1" BSI sensor, and yet I can tell you that it is nothing like even the older APS-c sensors once it comes to enlargement. Images from the 1" sensor are good, don't get me wrong, but once enlarged they look like they have come from a small sensor camera. The APS-c does not.

If I took some stitched images on the G1XIII and printed them large, you wouldn't know it hadn't been shot on a 5Ds. The same can't be said for the 1" sensor, or at least that's from my opinion and experience.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
I believe that the G1XIII will produce superior results than G7XII but having both FF and APS-C cameras I believe it is not cost effective to get even a smaller APS-C for that price! ( = the cost of a 200D + 18-55 kit + EF-S24 2.8 + EF-S10-18 + change or a small telephoto!). In the above case a G7XII fills a gap (of a compact). Now if someone does not have all of the above (at least the APS-C gear) and wishes a very small camera that produces quite respectable results then G1XIII could be the right camera to get.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,544
2,001
USA
Slow lens (at 45mm) makes it a non-starter for all but the most oblivious of photographers.

Even Canon lays a rotten egg here and there.
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
248
25
a 1" is about 2 stops away from a APSC Sensor, APSC is Little more than 1 stop away from FF.$


the Lens from the 7gxii is 8.8mm 1.8 to 37mm 2.8
on APSC this represents 15mm 3.0 to 62mm 4.7 which is better than the basic kit lens kombinations
on FF This represents 28 4.9 to 100mm 7.6 which is Little bit worse than a combination with the 24-106 STM Lens

Questionable (and unanswered) is if the STM lens is better performing than the miniaturized lens on the g7x which i do not know.

But for sure, from a 7gxii we can expect reasonable performance, not far from the bigger cameras, as long as they are compared with basic lenses. Of course there is no 85mm 1.4 IS equivalent available for any small sensor Option.
 

Aaron D

Hey!
Jul 21, 2016
273
265
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
It's fine Canon put a big sensor in a point and shoot, it will find a happy home with lots of people. I think I'd rather have an M6, or M5. If I were going to go smaller that FF, which I think I'm not. I use my heavy, bulky 5Div for everything and don't imagine being comfortable using a lesser camera on the slim chance I'd capture a photo I really liked - but did so with a little sensor. I mean yes of course, to capture a "great" photo is better than having missed a "best possible" photo but I'm still using tripods and multiple exposures most the time. Call me an idiot, but I get too many photos with a big unwieldy camera that I can keep up with anyway - down-loading, re-naming, editing, posting...

Real reason I thought I'd post, before wandering off is this: Why is Canon so married to pentaprism top-dead-center? For mirrorless, I wish they'd go range-finder style and keep the thing as compact as possible. For crying out loud. A Leica M10 but with Canon image quality, usability and a reasonable price.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
hendrik-sg said:
a 1" is about 2 stops away from a APSC Sensor, APSC is Little more than 1 stop away from FF.$


the Lens from the 7gxii is 8.8mm 1.8 to 37mm 2.8
on APSC this represents 15mm 3.0 to 62mm 4.7 which is better than the basic kit lens kombinations
on FF This represents 28 4.9 to 100mm 7.6 which is Little bit worse than a combination with the 24-106 STM Lens

Questionable (and unanswered) is if the STM lens is better performing than the miniaturized lens on the g7x which i do not know.

But for sure, from a 7gxii we can expect reasonable performance, not far from the bigger cameras, as long as they are compared with basic lenses. Of course there is no 85mm 1.4 IS equivalent available for any small sensor Option.
I believe that a reasonable comparison (= not a hugely apple to orranges one, only a little) can be between:

1. G1XMkIII and G7XMKII where they have a difference between 1.3 and 2 stops (in the lens) and a similar in sensor performance as you said

2. G1XMKII with any Rebel camera (preferably with SL2/200D for size purposes) with a few lighweight lenses (like 10-18, 24 2.8, 18-55, etc)

I believe that in the above cases there are pros and cons but not a clear winner. I guess we are spoilt with so many choices :)
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
251
14
I don't like the output I see looking at the samples in this review. Unlike Eos M line, I think this has a compact feel.
I wonder how Fuji x100 is out of the comparison tables since that's another fixed lens option with APSC sensor. Also Ricoh GR II. These two have fixed prime lenses and I personally prefer them to G1X.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,178
886
Davidson, NC
tron said:
I believe that the G1XIII will produce superior results than G7XII but having both FF and APS-C cameras I believe it is not cost effective to get even a smaller APS-C for that price! ( = the cost of a 200D + 18-55 kit + EF-S24 2.8 + EF-S10-18 + change or a small telephoto!). In the above case a G7XII fills a gap (of a compact). Now if someone does not have all of the above (at least the APS-C gear) and wishes a very small camera that produces quite respectable results then G1XIII could be the right camera to get.

Since it is larger than my G7XII, I would still leave it at home when I travel. I already have a T3i, so APS-C is covered when I don’t need something pocketable. So there is really no niche for that camera to fill for me. The 1” sensor is a move up from my previous travel camera, an S120, and I have murals on the wall printed on 13” roll paper stitched from photos it shot. When I get home, I’m likely to make a panorama out of some of the shots I’ve made in Hawaii with the G7XII, print it out on the roll paper, and have it framed to hang in my front room, where it will go with the furniture and binging the outdoors inside décor.

So I am inclined to agree with you, and can see how in different uses and contexts of different mix of equipment that the G1XIII could fit right in. Just not in my circumstances.
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
248
25
bf said:
I don't like the output I see looking at the samples in this review. Unlike Eos M line, I think this has a compact feel.
I wonder how Fuji x100 is out of the comparison tables since that's another fixed lens option with APSC sensor. Also Ricoh GR II. These two have fixed prime lenses and I personally prefer them to G1X.

Of course it's a comparition of apples and oranges, this was the intention. The point was, that despite they are apples and oranges the difference in IQ and lowlight performance will differ less than expected when one sees the size of the cameras.

The second conclusion is, that from some point on a better performance is a question of lens (> and system) size.