I want a G1X but I'll buy an RX100 Mk II

[shutterbud]

<p>Today I went to my local Sundan and spent quite a while testing out both the Canon G1X and the Sony RX100 Mk II. To be honest, I only tried the Sony to be comprehensive as I had set my heart on the G1X. But I wanted to assess the AF time and general performance of the larger Canon before commiting in my mind. I really like the Canon. It feels exactly like I want a mini camera to be, with that chunky, square body, loads of contact points and chiselled LCD screen, not to mention that lovely big ol' sensor. I really like the way it feels and handles, love the IQ...at least from scouring samples images and seeing what was on the screen on review. <br /> "Yes," I thought, "This is the one for me. I can handle it's shortcomings"<br /> Then I moved over to the RX100 II. It seems ludicrous that such a tiny tiny camera can be<em> so</em> good. It seems to know exactly what it's doing. No problem with operational lag, focus, even the fill-flash was pretty decent. Zooming in on playback, it is clear that Sony has pulled off a bit of a miracle. Looking at the G1X after spending a few minutes with the Sony is like looking at a techy's 'before & after' picture. The Sony Mk II just is a wonder, the G1X a dinosaur. A powerful, beautiful creature, but a dinosaur nonetheless. So, I will always want to own a G1X, but the smart money goes on the Sony. What a pain.</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Whenever some iconic company is acquired by a bigger company, they always say that the new merged company will be able to succeed where the original company could not. They always say that, but this time it's true. Minolta never managed, despite its innovations, to surpass Canon and Nikon. But now it's happening. Nikon and Canon are too big and clumsy to follow Sony into the mirror less generation. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The slowpoke AF reported by reviewers would turn me off from the G1X. And since you enjoy street photography that might be a hindrance, unless you're comfortable with zone focusing and stopping down to get the shot. I've done that but I'd rather have quick AF.</p>

<p>Sony has done some remarkable stuff with the RX100. There's really nothing else like it. While I'm a fan of the Nikon 1 System, it doesn't really compare other than in sensor size. Nikon's AF may be a tiny bit quicker, but the cameras are bigger, chunkier, weirder and just not quite... right. Until Nikon makes a CX sensor Coolpix with the same AF and shot to shot quickness, Sony really owns that unique niche among genuinely compact zoom lens cameras with sensors larger than the typical cell phone/tablet camera.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>[T]he RX100 II ... seems to know exactly what it's doing.</em></p>

<p>Interesting observation, but based on my (limited) experience with the original RX100, I think likely spot-on. I rented one for use under circumstances where I often had to leave the camera to make several of its own choices. It did a remarkably good job of getting the 'right' setting, be that whether it really should have been ISO 200 or ISO 800, or where it focused, or what was a good exposure. Indeed, if the Canon compacts (albeit lower in the range, currently an SX230 HS) we've had tested out at IQ's (that Intelligence Quotients, not Image Qualities) of 80, the Sony showed a solid 125.</p>

 

[shutterbud]

<p>I agree with the comments above. "Pocketability" is a strange metric to use in some situations. I find it weird to hear some of the membership ditching a D300 for a D5200 or investing nearly a thousand pounds in an NEX system to save a few hundred grams or 1/4 of a litre in volume. But there does come a point where it is relevant and the RX100 is at that point. If I bought the G1X I have no doubt I would form a strong attachment to it, but it would be forever in a small bag in my rucksack/pushbag. It is only pocketable in the largest of coats. But handling the diminutive RX100 I strongly had the wonderful thought "I need <em>never</em> be without a camera again!" And that means an awful lot. Easily fitting into a blazer or really any jacket short of a Levi's Trucker, or on a belt-loop in the summer, this is truly a go-anywhere photographic device, with good enough IQ not to have to make excuses about. I bought the S95 and while I did appreciate it and managed to capture some very nice scenes, I ultimately let it go as it simply didn't make good enough pictures past ISO 400 or so. I think we all have experienced that feeling "Argh, if only I had a camera with me!". Now only the only limiting factor will be my own ineptness. :-)</p><div></div>

[songtsen]

<p>Just wondering about the LX7. It appears that the maximum available aperture on the LX7 is f1.6 at 28mm equivalent, f1.7 at 35mm-e, and f2.3 at full zoom. The corresponding apertures on the RX100II are apparently f1.8, f2.8 and f4.9.</p>

<p>While there is a significant difference in sensor size (and DXOMark shows a 2-stop difference in SNR), the difference in maximum available aperture should allow one to use a correspondingly lower ISO on the LX7 (1-2 stops depending on the focal length). Would that make the difference between these cameras less than 1 stop in terms of low-light performance?</p>

<p> </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>LX7 vs RX100 is another difficult one. I feel that ultimately, even if the noise issue balances out, the sheer detail from the Sony is a winning factor. There is no doubt the Panny is very good and the lens is reportedly something of a masterpiece in miniature. But the sensor is too behind the pace. Panasonic need to deal with this IMO. It is a constant factor in their cameras- great interface, great glass, wonderful Monochrome setting, but the sensor is the weak point. I find I love shooting with my GX1 and even with the kit lens there is a great deal of photographic authenticity to the shots I get from it. But wringing the best out of the sensor is hard work. On an enthusiast's MFT with a good prime this is fair enough- part of the challenge if you like. But not in a compact, the lens of which constantly makes you wish you had a good enough sensor to put it to good use.</p><div></div>

[douglas_topper]

<p>I also switched from a Canon S95 to a Sony RX100 over one year ago. This was the best photo equipment decision I have ever made. Using the S95 I always felt under equipped. The RX100 is good enough that now I almost never use my Canon DSLR anymore. When taking photos of people I very much appreciate the silent shutter and the unobtrusive size. At first I missed having a viewfinder but now I have adapted and the rear screen is fine.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>A powerful, beautiful creature, but a dinosaur nonetheless. So, I will always want to own a G1X, but the smart money goes on the Sony. What a pain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dinosaur? I wouldn't call a beautiful creature a dinosaur because a dinosaur is not beautiful at all. But I agree that it is powerful. I got it as soon as I can and never look back. It would really be a pain if you still want some thing and had to be with something else, especially, it is more expensive.<br>

The RX100II has much smaller sensor (which explains why its lens is faster), without a EC dial, only one control dial, no optical finder, and the tilted lcd is not very flexible.<br>

I wouldn't except the pain and be happy with the G1X</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thing is, owning a Panasonic GX1 means that if I don't go for the RX100II, then I would be far better off spending my money on a better lens for the Panny. The Canon G<em>1X</em> is larger, heavier, slower in <em>all</em> ways and will not give pictures as sharp as that of a Panasonic GX1 with a 20/f.17 on it, never mind the Leic 25mm.<br>

It doesn't make sense to buy the Canon, much as I like it. I wish it did. The final coup de grace from the Sony is the Macro function, focussing in as closely as 5cm. As you know, <em>there is no Macro function</em> on the G1X. I am absolutely certain that, equipped with a Canon G1X, every member of P.N could go out and take some very rewarding pictures indeed, in a variety of situations. But in such a crowded field with so much competition from a number of <strong>very</strong> competent players, it simply is too limited. A G-series uberbody with a cut-off 600D sensor and inadequate fundamentals smack more of a parts-bin Greatest Hits than a serious bid for the compact market. It's not even compact!</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Comparing the specs and prices of the new G1X with EVF and the Sony RX10 (god these camera companies can't leave the X-factor alone, LOL) I would choose the Sony hands down. </p>

<p>Sorry Canon no cigar this time though the MKII is an improvement.</p>