Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: G3X Review  (Read 32377 times)

J. Paul

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
G3X Review
« on: July 24, 2015, 02:53:36 pm »

Michael,
I really enjoyed reading this review and it looks like Canon may have a real winner on their hands.  I think the missing component on all the Canon cameras in the past (especially DSLR's) has been the lack of a Sony sensor.  Had Canon incorporated a Sony sensor in their 5Ds and 5Ds R, they would have come up with a real winner.
J. Paul
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2015, 04:17:39 pm »

Michael said:

"It is worth noting that while all three companies are using the same sensor, the image processing engine used by each of these makers is different, and thus how these cameras perform in terms of dynamic range, high ISO and other parameters will naturally differ."

I would like more information about this (from anybody) as I'm in the market for a fixed-zoom compact. It would seem to me that at this stage of digital camera evolution, that image processing software would have converged on an "optimum" set of values, and that they really wouldn't differ much -- or, in any case, would not differ so much that you couldn't get to the same place from any of them, with a modest exertion in Lightroom. Is this not true? Are some companies' processing engines notably deficient in one area or another?

« Last Edit: July 24, 2015, 04:20:59 pm by John Camp »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2015, 04:37:13 pm »

More than noticeably different...dramatically different.

There are a huge number of design decisions and tradeoffs to be made. Just the colour science alone leaves vast areas for customization.

Michael
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2015, 08:39:36 pm »

Gosh, this could be a darn good first camera or casual / discreet travel camera for a birder. WANT!
Logged

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2015, 11:57:44 pm »

Very interesting review.

I'm not sure if anyone can answer this but I would like to know if we are looking at new Canon sensor technology here ?
Logged

Blandest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2015, 01:35:29 am »

I am confused how this could out resolve the Tamron on a full-frame Sony?  How certain are you of this conclusion?

Also, I am curious how this compares to the Nikon 1 70-300mm lens on a V3? Or a P900 zoomed in fully and then downsized?  Or the Tamron on a m43 body for the 2X crop advantage?

I am surprised by the image quality.  Thanks for the review.
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1564
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2015, 06:34:27 am »

Very interesting review.

I'm not sure if anyone can answer this but I would like to know if we are looking at new Canon sensor technology here ?

If "new Canon sensor technology" is your way of saying "Sony sensor technology", then yes. In the review it mentions which company made the sensor (Sony), although that may not be a straight forward to deduce from the text.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2015, 06:28:28 pm »

I had a friend who shot a bull moose and had the head mounted. When it was done, he found that the mount was so large in all three axis that he couldn't get it through his apartment door.

This is a metaphor for what I think is a major consideration in a super-zoom purchase, that Michael didn't touch upon. The whole argument for a super-zoom is that you have a do-it-all camera. But when would any of us (photo enthusiasts) want a super-zoom? Almost always, I'd suggest, as a second camera that would be used in traveling, when you didn't want to haul along a whole system. Lens qualities and sensor qualities aside, a major problem with a super-zoom is that it doesn't pack easily, because it's too large in all three dimensions, just like the moose head. If I'm traveling by air, I don't want to put it in a checked bag, because so much stuff gets stolen. And more and more airline trips are on those small jets where they won't even let you take a wheeled bag on board -- you've got to gate check it. So, the super-zoom will have to go in your briefcase or backpack. And they just don't fit very well, because they're too big in all three dimensions. I think the solution to this (in my case, anyway) is an m4/3 camera with a 14-140 (28-280.) With the lens detached, the lens becomes the widest thing you're packing -- the camera body itself, even with an enthusiast body, is quite small. The Sony Alpha system offers the same qualities, with an even larger sensor, at a bit more cost. (You could get a Panasonic GX7 and the 14-140 for about $1100, or a Sony Alpha with an 18-200 for about $1450. In both cases, the sensor and the controls are probably superior to anything you'd get in a fixed super-zoom.) Neither of these options is larger than the best-regarded super-zooms; in fact, I think they might be a bit smaller. An additional argument for this solution, of course, is that you could buy more specialty lenses for the system. Still, neither the m4/3 or the Sony system offers what I'd call a real super-zoom, which would go from a wide (~24) to a long zoom (400 or longer.)  If either Panasonic or Olympus offered such a lens, I think it could make super-zooms somewhat obsolete, especially for enthusiasts.

I don't think the RX100 IV comes into this argument, because it's a very short zoom (only goes out to 70mm) although it's great for travel, of course -- the ultimate in flatness.

You might ask, why not just buy a pack that fits the super-zoom better? Well, that can be a problem if you take along a laptop, books and magazines, pens and pencils, extra glasses, etc. Most of those things are thin, and most backpacks that are designed for things are thin, but may be wide and long, and for smaller items. (Think a laptop or a legal pad.) After a lot of research, I bought what I think is one of the best "office" style backpacks, and it works wonderfully for me - easy to carry, takes a lot of stuff, balances well on roller bags, etc. But, a camera with an attached longer lens just doesn't fit.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2015, 06:31:46 pm by John Camp »
Logged

Internaut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2015, 08:42:32 am »

This is the first review of this camera that has me thinking I might want this camera.  Well, that and the partner article about a preference for shooting long (I consider 90mm equivalent to be long, for landscape shooting BTW). The only concern I have, with the 1" format is with control over depth of field, but for many situations this concern is probably irrational. 
Logged

Jonathan Cross

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2015, 01:46:05 pm »

Thanks Michael for the review, but it has unsettled me!  I have a Canon 5D Mk3 and some L lenses and it does all I want, i.e. macro and images in the range 24mm to 280mm (70-200 with 1.4 extender).  I can capture fast moving subjects, and find that I can get competition prize and published images at up to 800ISO.  The only downsides are the weight and size and I would like to reduce both.  I am not convinced I need full frame any more.  Sony is being very innovative, but I am not convinced to commit to the expense of moving across, i.e. change body and lenses.  I see that more and more pixels are squeezed on to small sensors, and the camera you have reviewed has a huge range, butů  I also read about lossy RAW on Sony, and that the IQ on cameras such as the new Canon you review are not up to good DLSRs.  Fuji is stuck with 16MP at the moment and has been promising an X-Pro 2 for what seems a long time.  I have some Fuji lenses and an X-E1 and I am happy with it as a travel set, but feel the body is now long in the tooth.  The lenses seem fine to me apart from macro.  MFT is now squeezing more pixels on the sensor but will it do all I want?
We mere mortals cannot afford to change systems other than very occasionally, so we sit, as I am, and look at developments with large amounts of caution.
Logged
Jonathan in UK

vicfei

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2015, 06:35:45 pm »

Michael -

Very interesting review of the G3x. What did you think of the AF of the camera,  in terms of speed, accuracy and low light sensitivity? The quality of the AF would be the deciding factor for me in deciding to buy this camera.

Many thanks for your wonderful work,

Vic
Logged

EdWalker

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2015, 11:36:27 pm »

Michael -

Very interesting review of the G3x. What did you think of the AF of the camera,  in terms of speed, accuracy and low light sensitivity? The quality of the AF would be the deciding factor for me in deciding to buy this camera.

Many thanks for your wonderful work,

Vic

I have a SX50 HS for birding and carrying in the car in the event I spot wildlife.  Carrying my 5d MK III around along with my 100-400mm lens and TC is too cumbersome.

I'm thinking of switching to the G3 X, but am wondering if AF is adequate for tracking birds or other moving subjects, and how well it locks on at 600mm for stills.  The video example made it seem questionable.
Logged

Blandest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2015, 12:37:24 am »

So I bought this camera today.  Best ultrazoom I have ever used (but first time I have owned one with a 1-inch sensor).  It's no dSLR which is most obvious in the jpegs when it comes to noise and detail smearing at higher ISOs, but by far the best/sharpest ultrazoom I have used by a large margin.  AF so far reminds me of any other bridge camera I have had (that is, not great) but I haven't had time to learn how to use it properly yet.  

However one thing is concerning me.  When you have the camera turned on the lens feels/sounds solid.  When it is turned off you can actually see/hear the lens's inner parts move around.  I have never experienced this with a camera before.  I went back to the store to try the demo model and it also was making the same sounds (what are the odds both my copy and the demo have the same problem?).  It does not appear to effect functionality or image quality but it's disconcerting to hear sounds from the lens when rotating the camera while turned off.  Anyone else experience this?

I uploaded two jpgs for a comparison (full size/unmodified)..  The DSC_8072.jpg is the Nikon D600 with the Tamron 150-600.  It's a test shot I took (it was the best of 3 shots) a while back.  Then today I took the IMG_0015.JPG with the Canon G3 X of the same subject.  These are both straight from the camera with no modifications.  THIS COMPARISON PROVES NOTHING.  So take it with a grain of salt.  I don't have the D600 anymore.  This is a picture of a manhole across the street from me:

Nikon D600 @ 600mm http://4krumors.com/canon_g3x/DSC_8072.jpg
Canon G3 X @ 600mm http://4krumors.com/canon_g3x/IMG_0015.JPG

My only conclusion: What was I doing so wrong with the D600 that day to get such a poor result?  Maybe the lighting was much worse that day?

Edit: One more just for fun (of the same subject) from the Nikon P900 @ 2000mm http://4krumors.com/canon_g3x/DSCN0140.JPG (I quickly returned the P900 as I found the image quality lacking). These photos were all taken on different days and hand held so again I am not trying to say these mean anything.


« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 12:56:22 am by Blandest »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2015, 06:53:16 am »

The rattling is nothing to be concerned about. It is the group of lenses that are part of the stabilization. When not powered up, they are free to move around.

Normal behaviour.

Michael
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1564
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2015, 08:25:51 am »

Michael,

If you exclude video from considerations with the G3X, what could Canon have improved upon?
Without a mirror to warrant a "Why isn't there a single button to activate MLU?", what have Canon left off/out that a landscape photographer would use?

Or are you of the opinion that is this "As Good As It Gets" for this particular camera size & feature set? (Excluding price but otherwise that's the message I get from this review.)
Logged

Blandest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2015, 02:17:53 am »

The rattling is nothing to be concerned about. It is the group of lenses that are part of the stabilization. When not powered up, they are free to move around.

Normal behaviour.

Michael


That is good to know.  Thanks for the reassurance/clarity. 

I bought this camera based on your review and I have no regrets.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2015, 06:35:08 am »

Michael,

If you exclude video from considerations with the G3X, what could Canon have improved upon?
Without a mirror to warrant a "Why isn't there a single button to activate MLU?", what have Canon left off/out that a landscape photographer would use?

Or are you of the opinion that is this "As Good As It Gets" for this particular camera size & feature set? (Excluding price but otherwise that's the message I get from this review.)

That's impossible to answer. Faster AF, built-in EVF, and a few other things.

The point is, not what the camera's missing but what it has. The lens and sensor are dynamite and if you like shooting long it's excellent value for the money, even on a absolute basis, and it's very useful and fun camera.

I am on vacation on Prince Edward Island this week and shooting with the G3X along with a new pre-production medium format camera, which I won't name.

Bottom line... I shoot with the MF when want to get something that will be useful for the review. I shoot with the G3X the rest of the time because it's more fun and , on my laptops Retina screen at least, it see shots will be indistinguishable (colour nuances aside) on prints up to and including 13X19 and in and print publication, even with some cropping.

The world is changing fast.

Michael
Logged

Jens Peermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2015, 07:50:41 am »

After reading this review I am delighted and seriously considering to liquify my EOS 7D and some of the lenses I use with it (including the trusty EF 400/5.6). This set sees only limited employment, mostly for shooting events like parades, or the occasional newspaper assignment. My current workhorse is a Sony A7 with a gaggle of ZE lenses. I would like to complement that with a light, flexible camera that can be on standby for the unexpected wildlife encounter or other situations that require quick reaction. It's what I intended the 7D set for, but it turned out to be too heavy and cumbersome.

Naturally, I would like to know how the G3X's sensor compares to the 7D in image quality. I expect it to be much better - particularly DR - but I better ask anyway. Also, the burst rate in RAW is important. I don't expect the 8 fps I get from the 7D, but might get second thoughts if it's below 4 fps.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2015, 09:22:06 am »

The burst rate in raw is terrible. Barely more than 1FPS. This is one of the major flaws of the camera. If it were higher it would be a great wildlife lens. As it is, once has to prejudge animal behavour because firing bursts isn't going to work. Switch to JPG though gives about 5FPS.

Michae;
Logged

Jens Peermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
Re: G3X Review
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2015, 10:26:29 am »

The burst rate in raw is terrible. Barely more than 1FPS. This is one of the major flaws of the camera. If it were higher it would be a great wildlife lens. As it is, once has to prejudge animal behavour because firing bursts isn't going to work. Switch to JPG though gives about 5FPS.

Michae;


Thanks for the quick reply, Michael. Even though it's bad news.

Now I'm on the fence. I got to search my soul if I really need RAW for everything I shoot. I didn't see any information on auto-bracketing. Is that an option?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up