Review: PowerShot G7 X via DXOMark

[3kramd5]

That's really hijacking. Cool!

Nothing has been hijacked. This thread doesn't even exist!

There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Are we now liking DXO?

No.

They still do not test the camera. Virtually all the other testers remark on the frustrating slow focus of the G7X. If your going to rate a product, it needs to be fully tested. Otherwise, its just giving a rating to some secret blend of features which does not mean the camera will actually take photos in the way you expect.

If it takes 2 seconds before the shutter opens to capture a shot, and you want to take photos of your kids running around, do not go to DXO to find what will work. Their rating number is worthless.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

While DXOMark scores are still considered as rubbish, the base ISO DR data for G7X is interesting. 12.7 eV is wider than that in all of Canon sensors, including their top end 1DX.

Hmmm....

It's not the plot data that some call rubbish, it's the overall and totals scores. The plot data and stuff like 12.7eV is generally pretty good and better than you'll find on any other major site.

And yeah, interesting that Canon's newest P&S beats every DSLR from 1 series high end to landscapes 6D for lowest ISO DR. Then again it does use a Sony sensor.

 

[Maximilian]

This is a thread about the PowerShot G7 X.
Not even 2 pages and you're only talking about a 50 MP FF???

Not just 50 MP...

We want a 50MP high DR Sony sensor in a 6DII body for 2500$.

:

*sigh* so true.
BTW: how did this hyperlink get into my post? ??? New way of advertising in CR. ???
I tried to erase it in my OP... :-\

 

[bosshog7_2000]

Canon, do you hear us? We want a 50MP high DR Sony sensor in a 6DII body for 2500$. It doesn't need many focus points, it doesn't need the best low light performance, it doesn't need to be fast. We want many good pixels at ISO64 and an EF mount.

I don't.

What do you need 50mp for in a cheap camera?

So $2500 is a cheap camera??? Anyway, I know exactly what he is looking for...a 2014 version of the 5D2 but with 50Mp for landscape work.

The 5D MkII was replaced by the 5D MkIII, and it was a massive upgrade in every respect that the MkII got criticized. Indeed it is probably the best general purpose camera made so far.

How do you think your "landscape work" will benefit from a 50MP 135 format sensor? How does the D810 not fill your needs? Why do you think a 50MP 135 format will touch the IQ in big prints of the 645z medium format 50MP sensor? How does stitching let you down currently?

I know there are a very few photographers out there that will get the best out of a 50MP 135 format sensor, but most of us are kidding ourselves if we think we need it.

When people like Jimmy McIntyre can shoot images like this on a daily basis with a D800 and 60D, and I'll bet you can't tell which is from which without big prints in front of you, I think the 'need' for 50mp is just hype for 99.999% of people.

But I'd love you to prove me wrong..........

Actually a D800 would be great...except that I own Canon glass so not really an option. As for the 50mp, it was a bit tongue in cheek....what I want is a D810 grade of sensor in a 5D body. Also, I'm not an idiot...well aware that the 5D3 is an upgrade to the 5D2, at least from a AF and handling perspective. The image quality is NOT a huge upgrade which is what the OP was referring to.

I laugh at you armchair experts that think you know what others need or do not need from a camera. If you are happy with 22mp then good for you...fact is many of us are NOT. Also, it's not just the increased resolution, I also want better dynamic range.

I remember when I first bought my 5D2 all the Nikon guys were saying that 12mp from a D700 'was all anyone needs'. In fact there are still some who say that. That said, obviously Nikon felt differently and obviously so do many Canon photogs who got tired of waiting for a higher MP Canon body and jumped to Nikon.

Last I will say on this is that for 75% of what I do, the 16mp from myt XPro is plenty...but when I do landscape work I want as much resolution as I can get...and my 5D2 is long in the tooth and for landscape purposes the 5D3 is not worth buying if you already own a 5D2.

 

[privatebydesign]

Actually a D800 would be great...except that I own Canon glass so not really an option. As for the 50mp, it was a bit tongue in cheek....what I want is a D810 grade of sensor in a 5D body. Also, I'm not an idiot...well aware that the 5D3 is an upgrade to the 5D2, at least from a AF and handling perspective. The image quality is NOT a huge upgrade which is what the OP was referring to.

I laugh at you armchair experts that think you know what others need or do not need from a camera. If you are happy with 22mp then good for you...fact is many of us are NOT. Also, it's not just the increased resolution, I also want better dynamic range.

I remember when I first bought my 5D2 all the Nikon guys were saying that 12mp from a D700 'was all anyone needs'. In fact there are still some who say that. That said, obviously Nikon felt differently and obviously so do many Canon photogs who got tired of waiting for a higher MP Canon body and jumped to Nikon.

Last I will say on this is that for 75% of what I do, the 16mp from myt XPro is plenty...but when I do landscape work I want as much resolution as I can get...and my 5D2 is long in the tooth and for landscape purposes the 5D3 is not worth buying if you already own a 5D2.

The glass, unless you are into the unique stuff like the 17TS-E and 65MP-E, is no excuse, you can get comparable Nikon glass for generally less money than the Canon equivalent, you could sell you lenses and buy the same Nikon ones and make money. I am always surprised at the comparative bargain secondhand 14-24 f2.8's are.

I was not saying you didn't 'need' 50MP, I asked what you thought you needed them for, there is a substantial, though subtle, difference. But like most people who claim things like crop camera reach advantages, often your stated 'need' doesn't actually gel with reality and realising the potential of the advancements you demand is not practical, and often not even possible.

Your point about Nikon's 12MP is true, but there must become a point at which an optimum MP level is reached. Obviously 12MP for the 135 format wasn't it for most people, however I'd suggest few ever utelise the full potential of the 24MP commonly available now, to demand 50MP (even if you then change that to tongue in cheek) demands a lot of the photographer, their technique, and the rest of the system, it is also impossible to actually see all those pixels in anything less than a 30" print @ 300dpi.