So how bad is the G1XMKII?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by demiro, Sep 17, 2014.

  1. demiro

    demiro Serious Compacts For Life

    Dec 15, 2011
    In the relatively short time I've spent as a "photography enthusiast" three cameras have seemed like game-changers to me: Fuji X100; Olympus E-M5; and Sony RX100. Lots of other great cameras, but these three seemed to re-establish the bar.

    I bring that up because the LX100, prematurely, I realize, looks like it might be the fourth entry on that list.

    When I compare the LX100 to the G1XMKII I wonder how the Panny can be received with this level of anticipation while the Canon, after a bit of early excitement, hardly seemed to move the needle at all.

    From Panny to Canon we've got 4K video vs sub-par video; 24-75/1.7 - 2.8 vs 24-120/2 - 3.9; integrated EVF and fixed LCD vs tilt & touch LCD and add-on EVF; clip on flash vs integrated; newer smaller sensor vs older and slightly larger.

    Panny is smaller with longer battery life, and better/faster AF (I think) with double the FPS. Panny costs $100 more

    I'd argue that the Panny is more compelling, unless the longer reach or some of the features of the Canon are critical for you. But I certainly can't argue that the LX100 just blows the G1XMKII away, and it really seems like it should given the tepid reception the Canon received vs the coronation of the Panasonic.

    I'm curious what people think about this. Is Canon simply a bit doomed because they have not pushed the envelope much lately, while Panny gets all sorts of bonus points for doing just that? Or are these two cameras actually further apart than the specs seem to tell us?

    It might be a tough convo, as so few people around here seemed to have tried the G1XMKII. Even in Canon-land on POTN it only seems like a handful of folks have embraced it, and they mostly post the same sort of outdoor semi-landscape shot over and over again, so it is tough to gauge what the camera can really do.
  2. bartjeej

    bartjeej Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 12, 2010
    I think the G1X mkI was a potentially game-changing camera that was held back by several flaws and niggles. Then the mkII simply didn't lift off, despite the fact that, objectively speaking, it was unique and still competes pretty well with the LX100. I think part of that is due to the G1X name having a negative connotation, partly also due to Canon being seen as lacking in innovation.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. val

    val Veteran

    Dec 27, 2013
    I've used the G1X Mk II and it is a very good camera, it has better ISO performance than the 700D for crying out loud.

    the cons for me are.

    -soft corners when shooting wide open with a close subject

    I also haven't seen much marketing for the product, the price alone usually drives people to get their entry level DSLRs.
    I enjoyed using it but not enough to buy it.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I think the G1X mkII is actually pretty awesome except for the older sensor they used. For me, the speed and range of the lens, body size, etc, are pretty great. I'd rather it had a built-in EVF than an external one, but I've been fine with NO viewfinder on my Nikon A, and as long as I have another camera or two with a viewfinder, I don't mind having one without one. There are a few niggles with the controls that sound like they don't work quite as well as they should. But to me the only real killer with this camera is the sensor which, despite it's much larger size, is notably worse than the Sony 1" sensor at everything except low light, and it's barely better there. The killer for me is dynamic range, which it just doesn't have much of at all. As Nic has reminded us, there are some real aesthetic pleasures to be had with that sensor - he's done some incredible work with the original G1X with the same sensor. But I've gotten spoiled by the dynamic range in modern sensors and I take advantage of it in all sorts of un-natural ways... I've processed some raw files from the G1X mkII and they certainly don't suck, but there's just not that much latitude there - you don't have to raise the shadows much to find lots of noise. Sort of like the old 12mp m43 sensors but not as bad.

    Man, put a modern sensor in that camera and I'm ALL over it. Hell, do it with a 1" Sony sensor and a faster lens (at a similar size, I'd think you could manage f1.8-f2.8, considering Canon got there at 100mm in the tiny little G7X). I find the 24-120 zoom range to be just about ideal - I've been using a Nikon 24-120 f4 zoom and it's the first zoom I've ever really enjoyed shooting much. Because it's got all of my most used wide focal lengths covered (except 21, but 24 is plenty wide enough for me most of the time) and the whole portrait range from 85-120, which is a great range for candid portrait like stuff. And actually 120mm is just about enough telephoto to get some real compression and a real tele look to my shots. To me, 24-70 or 75 just doesn't give me anything but my wide stuff and then a wasted area from 35-70 that I just about never find a use for. The LX100 looks like a phenominal compact camera in every respect except what I'd want as a useful zoom range in a camera that would allow me to leave all of my other stuff at home. The G1XmkII has that in spades, but they cheaped out on the sensor...

    Really good camera that could be made really fantastic with a sensor update. And actually the G7X doesn't look bad, since it goes 24-100, which at least gets you that 85-100 portrait range at f2.8 with a great sensor. And it's got a dedicated exposure comp dial, so I already like it about 100 times more than the RX100! But I don't know how good that lens is yet - it's pretty damn ambitious and trumps anything Sony has done in the RX100 series yet. But that makes me suspicious until I see a lot of samples...

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Biro

    Biro Super Moderator

    Aug 7, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    I agree. The Fuji XF1 is currently my daily, totally pocketable camera. And it still does solid work for me. But, just lately, I've been thinking about replacing the tiny Fuji with the original RX100 now that the official price is $499 and is likely to be found for even less money before long. But I don't think I'll pull the trigger before finding out more about the G7X.,573
    • Like Like x 1