# G1x vs. G16 vs. ??



## roombarobot (May 15, 2014)

I have a big full-frame DSLR rig and I am looking for a new point-and-shoot to compliment that. My S95 has served me well, but I'd like something better. It seems that the G1x and the G16 are now about the same price. For pure still image quality, which is better? The sensor size of the G1x is tempting and even though it is a bit older, I am guessing it has better IQ. Is that right?

The Fuji X-E1 and others are also tempting, but I think they are much, much bigger with their lenses. If it is bigger, I might as well take my DSLR. I am looking for something that is (almost) pocketable. Are there others to consider?

Advice? Thank you!


----------



## mrzero (May 15, 2014)

If you want a pocket camera, the G1X series is not it. Mine rides in a case, in my backpack. When I'm carrying it, I have to have it over my shoulder. It is far too big to put on your belt. If you do want the G1X, just go straight for the Mark II version. The Mark I is good, but it has shortcomings that have been seriously addressed in the Mark II. I can't compare image quality to the G16, I've never had any in the smaller series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2014)

Best of the pocketable bunch is the Sony RX100 (any of the versions). Same physical size as the Canon S95-S120, _much_ better IQ. Or consider the EOS M + 22/2 pancake, which can also double as a backup to your dSLR (with EF adapter).


----------



## roombarobot (May 15, 2014)

Thank you two. Great advice. I am now looking at the RX100. I found that there is even a version 3 that might be announced on Friday. 

The "pocketable" seems pretty important to me, as if it isn't I should bring my big rig that I sunk so much money into. It seems that for pocketable, there isn't anything better out there than the RX100.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 16, 2014)

I have a G1 X, and its pretty big, certainly not pocketable, which doesn't really matter to me.. I looked at the MK II in our local camera store, and its much smaller. and might be borderline pocketable. It certainly improves on some areas. It gets rid of that crappy lens cap for one that is built-in. I bought a third party automatic lens cap for the G1 X MK I that works well, but is ugly.


When comparing a G16 with a G1 X MK II, consider the following.

If you want shallow depth of field, a larger sensor is better.
If you want better low light performance, a bigger sensor is better.
If you want a f/2 lens on a small camera with large sensor that does 24mm equivalent at the wide end, your choices are very limited.
If you are like me, and have a issue with big fingers and small buttons, a touch screen is a big help.
If you like to tether your camera to a PC, Mac, or tablet / smartphone, the MK II does that, but not the MK I.
It also has Wi=Fi, but it sounds clunky to setup and use in the reviews.

I almost bought the MK II after playing with it the other day. I sold my D300s today, so I might still do it. The G1 X MK 1 is used by my wife, she does not carry it around, but uses it to photograph her crafts that she sells on Etsy. I'm setting up a bigger place in my studio where she can leave her full sized mannequin setup with backdrop and lighting. I'm trying to figure out how to fit my light table and a computer into the same rather small space (7 X 18 feet with some areas that are 9 feet wide.) She had been using my big 40 foot shipping container this winter and early spring, but moved out when I told her how hot its going to get in the summer. I have a old 66 feet single wide trailer(with heat pump, so its air conditioned) that I gutted to use for my online store - product photography (light table), storage of products, electronics repair area, and a shipping room. Overstock is kept in the 40 foot container. The issue with the trailer for photography is the low 90 inch ceiling, I'd prefer 10 feet or more. That makes lighting more difficult, since overhead lights would hit my head.


----------



## Jamesy (May 16, 2014)

I am in a similar conundrum. G1x.MII vs. G16 vs. the RX100.MIII. I have my 5D3 kit and a S90. Love the size of the S90 and will likely pickup whatever comes out after the S120 - not sure what that is.

Considering the G1X.MII for travel rather than lugging the 5D3 kit - I have also been considering a Fuji X100s but not sure if I can live with a fixed 35mm equivalent prime. I recently bought a shorty-40 for the 5D3 to see how I like the constraint of that focal length.

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## 2mnycars (Jul 4, 2014)

Excellent thread. 
Film days I had a brace of Nikon F3's with motor drives and fast glass. Also had a Leica M3 lightweight system. 

Today I am looking for a lightweight setup. My G9 was perfect. sold it when the G11 came out for the screen. G11 and I had issues, because internal battery died. And ergonomics weren't the best for me. 

I do have an Oly OMD that tries my patience. 

I am considering the G16. However, I would prefer a longer lens. I truly like Canon gear. That's why I looked here. 
Dave


----------



## Aglet (Jul 4, 2014)

if you have roomy pockets, Fuji XE1 + 27mm pancake prime is not very big
Same lens fits on the much smaller XM1 and XA1 which also come kitted with a very good but slow 16-50 zoom.
APSC sensor and very good IQ altho dim, low contrast subjects can be hard to AF.
OTOH, the Fuji X-20 has is also worth a look.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2014)

I bought a G1X MK II and played with it yesterday. The Wi-Fi is clunky, to say the least. They best way to use it is to upload to the canon site and then move it from there. That can be setup automatically to download to your computer, to Flickr, Facebook, and a couple of others.
So far, not to Canon Rumors or Smug Mug though.

If I wanted pocketable, the Sony RX100 is the champ. The version II has the longest zoom, the version II has only a 3:1 zoom, but the lens is faster, and it is greatly improved hardware wise, even has a built in electronic viewfinder. I cannot reliably operate it with my large fingers though, or I'd have one.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 4, 2014)

I've concluded there's no pocketable camera with zoom that has good enough IQ, so I've settled on Ricoh GR. Besides IQ, it's really well designed ergonomically. It's only real drawback is the fixed 28mm f/2.8 lens (with its APS-C size sensor f/2.8 about as fast as f/2 in the Canon G1X).


----------



## ecka (Jul 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Best of the pocketable bunch is the Sony RX100 (any of the versions). Same physical size as the Canon S95-S120, _much_ better IQ. Or consider the EOS M + 22/2 pancake, which can also double as a backup to your dSLR (with EF adapter).



+1

However, I would never carry something like that in my pockets. I prefer using a small cam case and for that (mostly for EOS users) EOS M makes a lot of sense + you can add the EF-S 55-250STM and still get a cheaper package than G1X or RX100. Actually, in my 7D days, I did carry EF-S 55-250mm IS (the first version) in my jacket pocket and it wasn't too bad. For now, 6D+40STM is my (almost pocketable) point-and-shoot with amazing IQ and crop-zooming capabilities .


----------



## dswtan (Jul 4, 2014)

Similar story here. I currently stick with the stalwart G-series over the Sony because I need the Canon hot shoe for occasional but regular use of bounce flash and I like to use my existing flash units. It's nice to have the same basic user interface as my DSLRs too. 

Currently have G15. I tend to skip a generation or two because the annual upgrades tend to be rather minor. The G1 X II is tempting but ultimately just too bulky and too expensive for my use cases. However, my G receives less and less use because camera phones are just getting too good for snaps now (I have a Nokia Lumia 920). But the G still saves taking the DSLR on most business trips.


----------



## Canon1 (Jul 4, 2014)

I wouldn't get a G1X. The AF speed is pretty weak and it has a hard time acquiring focus in lower light. Also, Min focus distance is not that close. IQ is pretty decent though.

I sold mine and got a G1X2 when it came out. Its a great little camera. Much better AF, much closer min focus distance, and really good high iso. They fixed everything I didnt like about the G1X.

Couple of cons though: The new screen is just annoying. I preferred the articulating screen that could reverse to protect the LCD. Also, the socket for the mounting plate is right next to the battery door, so I am having a devil of a time finding a plate that will stay mounted AND allow me to access the battery and SD card, I will probably modify my own.


----------



## tayassu (Jul 5, 2014)

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 28, 2014)

The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy. Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.



tayassu said:


> I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2014)

powershot2012 said:


> The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.
> 
> Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy. Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.
> 
> ...



I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 28, 2014)

Thanks for the link and article: 

"The *RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. *As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.






privatebydesign said:


> powershot2012 said:
> 
> 
> > The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2014)

powershot2012 said:


> Thanks for the link and article:
> 
> "The *RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. *As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.
> 
> ...



Well if you need 20MP from your P&S, and if you think they are worth having, then have at it. But don't say and agree with stuff like _"it has stunning low-light-capabilities"_ and _"The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it"_ when all it actually seems to lack in comparative images is resolution, and considering resolution is a conscious design decision, like I say, if you need a 20MP camera why look at 12MP cameras?


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 28, 2014)

What? If you need 20MP? This is about who has the best sensor, IQ, etc.

BTW, that is a great site you provided. Read the review on the G1X II and you might better see the difference:

"The *G1 X II is a good camera, but not a great one.* For those who want a good ILC companion - or a compact camera that's great for portraits, it's a solid choice. That said, if *image quality is your priority and you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II (the closest competitor) is superior* in terms of both still and video quality."





privatebydesign said:


> powershot2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the link and article:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2014)

" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 29, 2014)

Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....




privatebydesign said:


> " if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"
> 
> Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2014)

powershot2012 said:


> Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.
> 
> To each their own....
> 
> ...


But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........

Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 29, 2014)

Well if your looking to buy a camera to shoot solely at 1600, 3200, or 6400, knock yourself out, but don't think that's the norm. 

Be sure to check out there review on the G1X II. "With a larger sensor and faster lens than the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II - which is the Mark II's closest competitor - one would expect vastly superior image quality. As it turns out, that's not the case. The *G1 X II's sensor has a high 'noise floor', which is to say that there's a lot of noise and not much detail in the shadows.* Thus, if you try to brighten dark areas of a photo, you'll end up with more color noise than you will detail. While using either of the DR Correction tools on the camera do work as advertised, the trade-off is a lot more noise. The point here is that while the G1 X II's sensor is much larger than that of the RX100 II, *Sony's much more modern sensor performs much better than the Canon's, to the point where it cancels out that disparity*."

Noticed they also gave the G1X II only a Silver rating while the RX100 III received a Gold...interesting.






privatebydesign said:


> powershot2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2014)

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like _"it has stunning low-light-capabilities"_ and _"The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" _ are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons. 

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.


----------



## powershot2012 (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.



privatebydesign said:


> As I said, I am not looking to get either.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that comments like _"it has stunning low-light-capabilities"_ and _"The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" _ are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.
> 
> But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2014)

powershot2012 said:


> I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like _"it has stunning low-light-capabilities"_ and _"The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" _. It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me. 

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.


----------

