X10 or G12?

<p>I've done extensive research, and I've narrowed my search for a good quality point and shoot to either the Fuji X10 or the Canon G12. Maybe someone can help me break this logjam. </p>

<p>Given the better lens design of the X10, the X10's convenient use, and its larger sensor-size, the X10 would seem the obvious choice. The problem for me is the lousy conversion options offered by Fuji for raw. I've made a thorough study of the X10's review on dpreview.com, and the 3rd party conversion by ACR and even the Silky Pix software provided by Fuji is unacceptable. The conversion of raw in the G12 is far superior. </p>

<p>This leaves the X10's in-camera conversion as the only real option, if one's to retain the higher quality image that the X10 is capable of providing. Except that, I've been told it converts to JPG. This is a show stopper for me. I must have the 12 bit image depth that I should be getting with raw. Otherwise, the X10 is out of consideration, and I will likely get the G12.</p>

<p>Any input on this issue would be appreciated.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unless there's something about the form factor, or some feature that's missing, the new Sony RX100 is the better way to go. It has a significantly bigger sensor than the Fuji or Canon, costs only $50 more than the Fuji and uses a standard Bayer pattern sensor so there shouldn't be a problem with RAW conversion.</p>

<p>Did you eliminate the Canon G1X due to cost or due to some other factor?</p>

 

<p>Thanks. The G1X would work fine for me, but not for my wife. She likes to do macro photographs. It looks like an excellent camera with impressive low-light capability. </p>

<p>Whatever camera I get, I'd like it to have a viewfinder. That doesn't appear to be the case for the Sony RX100. </p>

<p>I've been a user of Fuji for years (my F20 is still going strong!), but their latest offerings have left me cold - overpriced and more style than substance. While I don't use or need RAW power in my G12 shots, the images I get are certainly very nice. One reviewer (I think it may have been dpreview) said he was unable to take a bad picture with the G12. I mentioned owning a G12 to a local camera store owner and he remarked the G12 is the only camera he'd consider owning.</p>

I have seen bad pictures from the G12 - want me to post some?

 

Anyway, the Nikon P7100 is worth considering. I like its 28-200 lens reach, and its viewfinder is marginally better, but the G12 is an excellent all-around camera. The P7100 has larger LCD, in-camera panorama stitching, external stereo microphone jack, and 30p video.

<p>I just spoke to Fuji, and they confirmed that a good raw converter for their camera doesn't exist. The tech commented that Fuji just doesn't do that great of a job with software. So, they have to rely on other companies. (Like Silky-Pix.)</p>

<p>As for Adobe, he said they have all the proprietary information that they need to build a good converter for the X10, but haven't yet done so. The X10 is about the 20th camera from Fuji with it's particular technology. So, one wonders why Adobe didn't get it right.</p>

<p>I'll give it some more thought. I suppose I could get the X10 and hope that eventually, a decent converter becomes available. But there sure have been a lot of positive comments about the G12. Still on the fence; but, not for long.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input.</p>

<p>I'll add that the tech suggested I try S7-Raw as a converter. I haven't done this yet but thought that I would mention it. It's a share-ware product that can be downloaded free. RAW sample files are available on the Fuji site.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whatever camera I get, I'd like it to have a viewfinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I have a Canon G9 in which the viewfinder looks higher than the lens. Apparently it's a common problem. Does anyone know if this was fixed on the G10, 11 and 12 or if the X10 suffers from a similar problem?</p>

<p>I had three G10s and all had viewfinders that closely approximated the centering of the lens, from about 8 ft. out, due to parallax. But I'm wondering why someone would now purchase a G12 when so many later designs with larger sensors are flooding the market from numerous manufacturers. Granted, the G12 is the highest evolution of the PowerShot cameras with small sensors. But the reviewers I read are saying their time has come and gone. With everything said, you might still love a G12!</p>

<p>There are dedicated fans of the G series and there are those who like the feel and look of the Fuji. They are both costly purchases so I think you should really go to a store and try out the feel.</p>

<p>If you have a camera with a stupid optical finder like Canon's then you use the LCD ... my wife tracked her Monarch butterflies from caterpillar to 'fly' with an s20 back before I learnt about EVFs. I made a mount for a close-up lens for her though the Raynox is cheap enough. with a good reputation. So the Gx1 would be viable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have a camera with a stupid optical finder like Canon's then you use the LCD</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you hate the idea of wobbling it around at arms length and would prefer to look through a viewfinder.</p>

<p>I have the X-10 with the orbz sensor and I really like it. I just set it to 6mp in EXR w/RAW and try the in camera conversion. I'm not Dr. Technickle but DPR Review seems to think this is the best setting for IQ and 6MP is plenty for me. The OVF is pretty good IMHO....better than the Canon. I may send it in for the sensor replacement but am not sure I need to. I like it much more than the LX5 or G10 I had. Handle one and decide for yourself. It 'feels' like the Leica CL I had years ago.</p>

<p>The G12 is a little more versatile, and will fit into a coat pocket. On the other hand, I find the X10 much more enjoyable to use. Canon's menus are great, but the best part about a camera like the G12 or the X10 is that you almost never need to use the menus.</p>

<p>Since you're only looking at a 30mm or so difference in lens reach, I would say that it comes down to pocketability, and whether or not you care for the rotating LCD. But I'd agree with the others - try them first, if you can. They're both excellent cameras, and you can't go wrong with either.</p>

<p>And yes, the RX100 specs out as a phenominal product. But it is set up more like a point-and-shoot, and it costs 20%-30% more than either of the other cameras. Also a great camera (in theory), but not the same product.</p>

<p>The two fundamental questions that every photographer should ask before making gear decisions are: What subjects do I shoot? and What do I do with the images?</p>

<p>I don't think any of the cameras with sensors in the 1/2.5" - 1/1.6" size range are worth a darn for moving subjects. I make prints. I typically print at 12" x 16". My S95, even shot in RAW, @ ISO 80 clearly doesn't have the IQ of my D7000, or my µ4/3 gear at that print size. If you print smaller, or not at all, and only use them on the web, then by all means get whatever tickles your fancy.</p>

<p>And Jack, the difference between a $600 Fuji and a $650 Sony is not 20 - 30%. Really.</p>

<p>[[Not if you hate the idea of wobbling it around at arms length and would prefer to look through a viewfinder.]]</p>

<p>Quick, someone dig up Diane Arbus and tell her she was photographing incorrectly. </p>

 

<p>I bought an X10 a few months back due to the glowing reports I had read about it. It was not available locally so I ordered one from B&H. The day after I received it, I called B&H and got a RMA number and shipped it back. It's the first time I had ever returned any piece of photo equipment simply because I didn't like it.</p>

<p>To me, there were too many things that did not fit. There were lots of positive points about the camera such as the viewfinder and the zoom ring (although the on/off control on the zoom ring was poorly placed, in my opinion). The Raw converter--SilkyPix--that came with the camera was virtually unusable. I was already familiar with SilkyPix since I own a couple of Panasonic cameras and the program works much better with the Panasonics than it did with the Fuji.</p>

<p>I don't own the G12 but I do own a G10. The Canon viewfinder is not as good as that on the X10 but the rest of the camera kicks the X10's butt, in my opinion. As for the new Sony, I read the review on Luminous Landscape and it sounds like a nice, but expensive, camera. It does not have a viewfinder which is not unusual these days. What kills the deal for me is the lack of a separate battery charger. The camera battery must be charged in the camera. While that saves carrying another charger when traveling, it precludes keeping a spare battery charging while you're out shooting.</p>

 

<p>I have had my Fujifilm X10 since the beginning of the year. I really enjoy using it for family events. I especially like the EXR mode. The camera uses the same NP-50 battery as my Finepix F200 EXR, so that is another bonus for me. I usually shoot JPEGs, but I tried a few RAW pictures after reading the complaints of others. I take photographs for my own pleasure, and my experience with the camera has been quite favorable. I use the latest version of Raw File Converter EX. It works for me.</p><div></div>

<p>I recently had this dilemna, but looking at the "compare to; hi iso" pics on dpreview I immediately discounted the X10 and went out for the G12......but when it came to the actual crunch I got an S95. I now feel I should have got the G12 simply for the more advanced focussing system. The IQ is virtually identical and there is no way I can feel short-changed from the S95, but for more controlled shots it would be much better and I have to admit the case/UI is lovely. On a sunny day I set the S95's Av to 6 r 7, centre-point the focus and click away.<br>

TBH, it is possible to get really nice pics with the S95, printable to a decent size, but after ISO 160 or so, even though in the controlled images they look really clean, they're kind of not. I'd personally go for a bigger sensor.</p>

 

<p>I got an X10 a couple of days ago and I have to return it.<br>

The viewfinder is very disappointing. I was hoping for something much more useful. Even with center focus set I'm not sure where that is in the viewfinder image. And the image is distorted unless the eye is dead center.<br>

AF is pretty hit and miss and its behavior is confusing and frustrating: sometimes it doesn't try to focus, sometimes it fails, sometimes it takes a long time, and sometimes it confirms focus but is way off. So sometimes I have to release the shutter and try again after waiting a couple of seconds to let it try again. <br>

The menus are horrible to use.<br>

RAW is unacceptable. And I can't get comfortable with JPG because setting all the conversion parameters ahead of time is too difficult for me. And trying to remember if I've set everything is too stressful.<br>

IQ is rather poorer than I was expecting. Images look like they come from a small sensor camera.<br>

All in all it is no less frustrating to use as my old Pana LX2 and the images are not a lot better.<br>

I'm very sad about it because I've been wanting this camera for months. The zoom ring is great. And brightness at the long end is tremendous. <br>

My plan at the moment is to try the Sony RX100. It appears the IQ just isn't an issue even at ISO800. Plus it's truly portable. I guess I have to accept that I'm not going to get a decent VF on a pocket camera.</p>