Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Canon' started by Djarum, Nov 11, 2014.
I'm not really in the market for a camera like this, but if I were, it'd be a tough choice between it and the Sony. The longer range might just win me over, despite the reported niggles.
I have to say I don't "get it"... What am I missing?
Are you referring to the camera or the review?
Hmmm, they gave it a Silver Award but with so much backhanded praise they may as well have not given it anything. Well, screw the critics - I like the camera a lot. I can't say I've ever really tried burst mode shooting with it, so I can't dispute the "performance" issues they bring up. But I've shot a fair amount of raw and I haven't had any problem with shot to shot time in any sort of normal shooting, including street, where I might fire off a few shots pretty quickly.
As with every camera, a really good camera for some people, and not good at all for others. The key is to figure out which one(s) work best for you... This one works really well for me.
The camera. I've read the review and it actually feels like they are biting their tongues. The list of cons outweighs the pros not just by number, but in terms of eyebrow-raising fundamentals like unreliable AF and almost unusable MF (I'm paraphrasing here). If a camera cannot reliably focus it is a paperweight, n'est pas?
From what I've read of their review and shooting, I think they were really upset with the AF. From the samples they show, it really is a small step up in IQ over the RX100 v3.
There are now two reviews that trash the AF and one that praises it. Of the numerous owners and users who've posted on DPR and elsewhere, there are very very few who've had any problems with the AF, and most that do have had very very specific issues but are generally OK with it. I'm not sure why these reviewers have had such bad experiences, but maybe they have real intense AF torture tests to judge it by??? In any case, to say the camera can't reliably focus isn't even CLOSE to the reality. Does it occasionally miss focus? I guess - I haven't used a camera that doesn't. But the AF, for the most part, is fine.
But I agree with you regarding the tone - they give it a silver award while the tone makes it sound like something they'd never recommend to anyone...
It shouldn't be any step up in IQ over the RX100 since it uses the same basic sensor. Arguably the IQ isn't quite as good given how much more aggressive the lens is in terms of reach and speed. But it's still really good and you'd have to look REALLY hard to see the differences (mostly in the corners at the wide end at wide apertures). The biggest differences are features and shooting experience. For me, the shooting experience is exponentially better than the RX100 (which isn't as tough as it sounds, because I never liked the shooting experience with the RX100 even a little bit), but that's obviously subjective. At least DPR had the honesty to say it's different and will be better for some and not for others, which to me is the only way you can say it. Where the camera store guys just trashed it in their review. They acknowledge that while the clicky front wheel isn't as good for manual focus, many people will find it better for the various other purposes it can serve. A much more balance review all in all. But a bit of schizophrenia between the tone and conclusions!
Maybe the tone could be dictated by their expectations (being too high) - and the conclusion acknowledges that it still is a great little camera (at least for those who like these cameras)?
"Not as good as we expected..." seems to come up in their 'shooting experience' bit quite often...
I guess people expect a lot from cameras these days (especially reviewers, who get to play with all the newest cameras and consequently compare against isolated "best" aspects of all sorts of cameras.)
But who knows
I had read their "shooter's experience" write up before buying the camera and found the full review interesting. Most of their "cons" don't really concern me personally and would not effect my personal shooting. I rarely shoot video or use continuous shooting mode - but it was surprising how much it did slow down when shooting continuous JPEG+RAW in their demo video (oh well). I did notice that the exposure compensation dial was a bit stiff. Have not had any issues with the short battery life - but then again I have only gone out for afternoon strolls and that is what extra batteries are for. I do agree that some of the useful JPEG processing should be available when shooting RAW+JPEG - give me the normal RAW file and the JPEG showing whatever processing (digital zoom, art filter, etc.) was selected. But again, not a real deal breaker. Most of their other "cons" (placement of the rear controls, phone app limited, etc.) sounded more like nit-picking than anything else.
My only tentative agreement is the comments about the AF. Again, outside for three (another today) afternoon walks I had no issues. And I think that the "issue" I mentioned earlier about not being able to focus on my grandson's eye indoors (but far from dim light) was caused by me not noticing the minimum focusing distance for various focal lengths. I did some more testing - again indoors in decent light - and noticed how when zooming the minimum focusing distance changes as you zoom out. That might explain my experiences with the dreaded "yellow box of doom". I don't think it is as common - again when staying within the AF distances of the lens - as they make it sound.
I read the review with the camera sitting next to my computer. I've enjoyed playing around with the GX7 and could not believe that the overall evaluation seemed so negative. The complaints about start-up, shot to shot times, focus issues, manual focus, etc. are not things that have deterred my enjoyment of using the GX7; in fact, I have not even noticed them. I mean, it is a true compact camera after all. If I need high performance, I can use the D750.
Focus- I point the thing at something, press the shutter button, and, almost instantaneously, it snaps a properly focused and exposed photograph.
Start-up- I push the start button while holding the camera at my waist; before I get the camera in front of my face, it is ready to go.
Shot-to-shot- In Jpeg+Raw mode I take a shot, and by the time I have steadied my hand for the second shot it is ready to go.
Who cares about having to push the "Func Set" button a second time?
The front dial is worthless for manual focus, but is pretty handy for step-zoom- or any of the other functions that can be assigned to it.
"The yellow box of doom"????(not a shot at Swandy, but at DPR) Give me a break! People in this world are dying in mortal combat and of dread disease. Recompose!!!. OK, so it is an imperfect camera! Personally, I was not looking for perfection, I was looking for convenience, good image quality , good build quality, and fun. The G7X provides in all those areas.
It is manufactured in Japan. FWIW, I do still assign some value to Japanese manufacture. The GX7 feels more solid and sturdy than the RX100 in the same same way that the Nikon A feels more solid and sturdy than the Ricoh GR.
Don't let the DPR review scare you away from considering the G7X.
Just as many people say the G7X's autofocus performance is fine as those who say not. I say most of the differences between this camera and the RX100 III are a matter of personal preference. Myself, I'm trying to simply trying to decide if the Sony's EVF is necessary for me. If not, the Canon's clicky controls and faster aperture over much of its focal range will probably rule the day.