Canon Canon G1X III: Finally, a huge step forward for the G X series ...

Foggy day JPEGs. Still hazy well into the afternoon. The zoom is pretty limited, but the files have plenty of lattitude for cropping.

f8, 1/8, ISO 1600, 15mm:
IMG_0002.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/8, ISO 1600, 34mm:
IMG_0003.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/2000, ISO 400, 45mm:
IMG_0006.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/2000, ISO 400, 43.4mm:
IMG_0013.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/1250, ISO 400, 43.4mm:
IMG_0015.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/1250, ISO 400, 15mm:
IMG_0019.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/1250, ISO 400, 45mm:
IMG_0021.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f8, 1/1250, ISO 400, 45mm:
IMG_0023.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Another outing today, a few new impressions.

First, this camera is quiet - extremely so; the shutter is even more soft sounding than the whispering one of the LX100 - and soft though the GR's shutter is in absolute terms, it's clearly more audible; the same goes for the lens motor - GR loudest, LX100 second, G1X III wins.

The mushiness of the shutter button is something to get used to - there's some faint resistance (the "mushy" thing ...), but also, the travel between "half press" and release is laughably small. Today, I was working with thin gloves (it was freezing, after all) - this worked reasonably well, but occasionally, I fired of a shot when I tried to focus and recompose (I'm always trying that in order to gauge the camera's suitability for quick - i.e. street - shooting). Not a big deal, just something to be aware of.

But there's also something very impressive I found out because of the issue above: Actually, none of the "bodged" shots was out of focus, even though it felt like I had only just touched the shutter button - which means that the single point AF is extremely fast in good light. It's also faster than both the GR's and LX100's in marginal light. Since single point AF is what I use most of the time (either via focus and recompose or by moving the focus point to the desired subject after framing), that's a very pleasing discovery.

What's hard to appreciate from looks alone is a how secure the G1X III sits in the hand. Neither the GR nor the LX100 are bad in that respect, but the G1X III somehow manages to beat them both. The dials are something to get used to, but they're very well thought out - the top dials are stiff (and/or locked), the front dial is clicked, but very quick and precise in use - but don't expect any kind of real resistance. I first though it felt a bit flimsy, but it's just a very light click. The lens ring is smooth and almost completely quiet. The longer I use these controls, the more I think that a lot of thought went into them - if they suit you or not is another matter, but I'm already getting the hang of them.

Something I do dislike: the lens cap. It's unreasonably thick, and it's neither easy to remove nor easy to snap back on. But I have a - somewhat crude - solution for that: It's a 37mm diameter cap - same as the old Olympus 14-42mm IIR zoom. And that Olympus cap fits the G1X III perfectly, it's slim and can be taken off and put on quickly and securely. I only use the cap when stowing the camera away anyway - and the slimmer profile makes that even easier.

Finally, two from today's outing (again, these are processed with Polarr - there's more to be had from the RAW files):
IMG_0033.jpg

IMG_0041.jpg

IMG_0043.jpg

M.
 
My final outing with the Mk III before packing it and sending it back to the rental company. All in all, it's a decent little camera, but I won't be buying one. While there are some things about the camera I like, I found myself often changing settings I hadn't meant to change. That might change if I had more familiarity with the camera, but I do much prefer the haptics of my X-T1.

I'm not going to post exposure settings this time. Here are a couple of shots right at daybreak. I would be riding my bike past that bridge later in the morning:
IMG_0002a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

IMG_0006a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


My bike on the way down into the canyon:
IMG_0008a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Mill Creek has many waterfalls, and some long drops into the ravine from the edge of the road. Some of those drops were much higher than what I'm showing here:
IMG_0010a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

IMG_0012a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

IMG_0014a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

IMG_0034a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

IMG_0036a.jpg

IMG_0059a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


View from the bottom of the canyon next to the RR bridge. The bluff in the far distance on the right is where I was standing at daybreak:
IMG_0026a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Thanks Tony, you and @MoonMind have done us all a favour.
Well, I'll certainly be keeping mine :) It's a serious upgrade from the LX100 in terms of IQ, but for me, the same goes for handling, though the advantages aren't game-changing ones in that respect. This is no GR killer, but the sensor is at least on par, and the lens is nice for a zoom lens. They did most things right - I love the size and the fact that I now have a seriously versatile EDC that I can take with walks in every kind of weather. Ironically, I went out shooting today, but ended up doing it all with b&w film - the light and the mood led to that. More to come, but I guess I'll let this thread fade a bit and open up an image thread in due time (or maybe someone else will ;)).

M.
 
My final outing with the Mk III before packing it and sending it back to the rental company. All in all, it's a decent little camera, but I won't be buying one. While there are some things about the camera I like, I found myself often changing settings I hadn't meant to change. That might change if I had more familiarity with the camera, but I do much prefer the haptics of my X-T1.

I'm not going to post exposure settings this time. Here are a couple of shots right at daybreak. I would be riding my bike past that bridge later in the morning:
View attachment 130714
View attachment 130715

My bike on the way down into the canyon:
View attachment 130716

Mill Creek has many waterfalls, and some long drops into the ravine from the edge of the road. Some of those drops were much higher than what I'm showing here:
View attachment 130717
View attachment 130718
View attachment 130719
View attachment 130720
View attachment 130721
View attachment 130722

View from the bottom of the canyon next to the RR bridge. The bluff in the far distance on the right is where I was standing at daybreak:
View attachment 130723

I just caught up with this thread today. That top shot is gorgeous!

Cheers, Jock
 
Well, I'll certainly be keeping mine :) It's a serious upgrade from the LX100 in terms of IQ, but for me, the same goes for handling, though the advantages aren't game-changing ones in that respect. This is no GR killer, but the sensor is at least on par, and the lens is nice for a zoom lens. They did most things right - I love the size and the fact that I now have a seriously versatile EDC that I can take with walks in every kind of weather. Ironically, I went out shooting today, but ended up doing it all with b&w film - the light and the mood led to that. More to come, but I guess I'll let this thread fade a bit and open up an image thread in due time (or maybe someone else will ;)).

M.

Have you seen any sign of dust spots?

Cheers, Jock
 
Just realised that I started the thread in the wrong section ... @Luke I wonder if you could move the thread to the "Bigger than 1"" section and the "G1X/G7X" sub-forum. Apologies for my clumsiness ...

M.
Thanks for responding so quickly! :2thumbs:

Have you seen any sign of dust spots?

Cheers, Jock
Not yet, Jock, but remember that while I'm not babying the camera (a lot), I took part in the SiJ challenge and used another camera for that, so the G1X III wasn't used much in January. So if this stuff happens in use, I'll find out over time. My images didn't show any problems of that kind up to now. I posted a couple in a different thread ("Seen while strolling ...").

Here's one from yesterday's squelchy walk:
IMG_0378.jpg


The only smudges I see are on the monitor :)

M.
 
I love my original version , saw no IQ benefit in version 2 and until this week hadn't held or seen version 3.
My initial impressions were amazement at how small , light and insignificant the body is , the ghastly lens cap and the excessive price.
I'd still consider one if my original breaks down.
Value is a strange thing to judge.
Twenty minutes earlier I'd been handling a Leica Q at 3 times the price but came away feeling that the Leica was giving better value.

FWIW , Last month for a few hours Amazon UK had the camera priced at about £950 which suggests that the poor reviews against 1" sensored cameras may have hit sales.
According to two dealers that I spoke to last week , the G1X mk3 is regarded as overpriced and rare.
 
Well, I use the G1X III as my daily shooter and am very happy with it. True, the lens cap is a nuisance, but I removed it and put a good 37mm filter on - saves time on start-up; I only put the lens cap on when putting the camera away (i.e. hardly ever). The camera's weather sealing works well enough, so that's one thing less to worry about, and size and handling are really nice for such a small camera (but keep in mind that I have smallish hands, too). I.S. is good, the EVF is very usable, the shutter is extremely quiet (to the point that I'm not always sure if I have taken the shot), only the shutter button is a little mushy (probably because of the sealing), and I have inadvertedly turned the front dial a couple of times (mostly with cold hands or with thin gloves on). In spite of its size, the camera appears to be pretty rugged - I've already stopped worrying about scratching or denting it. I'm also still impressed with the images coming from it, with the additional bonus that Polarr, an application that runs on *all* my devices, can actually deal sufficiently well with the RAW files. The most important thing for me is that the camera is very portable while reliably delivering the goods. It's the best (digital) EDC camera I've ever had.

M.
 
Hey, Matt, I have one question about the G1X Mark III which you may be one of the better qualified human beings to be able to answer it - it's about the built-in viewfinder aka EVF and basically what I'd like to know is ---

You general impressions of it. In terms of usability - size - and magnification.

I'm curious also how the G1x's EVF compares to that of some of the Panasonic and Lumix cameras I've been using over the past few years. Specifically the GX7 (which was a great camera IMHO except for the irritatingly small EVF) - the GM5 (which I owned briefly but finally sold, partially out of frustration with the truly tiny EVF which made the EVF on the aforementioned GX7 appear gargantuan, which it wasn't) - and last but not least, the EVF on my current favorite larger mu4/3 body, the GX8 - which has, hands down, THE BEST (and largest) EVF of any electronic or digital camera I've ever used.

I know you and a number of other photographers have written a number of positive things about the G1X Mark III - but I haven't found any specific references to the EVF - or its magnification - or comparing it to other EVF's.

To put the magnification question into context, apparently my GX8 has a magnification of .77 which apparently is enormous - and has only recently been topped by Panasonic's G9, which apparently has a magnification of something like .93.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated :)
 
Hey, Matt, I have one question about the G1X Mark III which you may be one of the better qualified human beings to be able to answer it - it's about the built-in viewfinder aka EVF and basically what I'd like to know is ---

You general impressions of it. In terms of usability - size - and magnification.

I'm curious also how the G1x's EVF compares to that of some of the Panasonic and Lumix cameras I've been using over the past few years. Specifically the GX7 (which was a great camera IMHO except for the irritatingly small EVF) - the GM5 (which I owned briefly but finally sold, partially out of frustration with the truly tiny EVF which made the EVF on the aforementioned GX7 appear gargantuan, which it wasn't) - and last but not least, the EVF on my current favorite larger mu4/3 body, the GX8 - which has, hands down, THE BEST (and largest) EVF of any electronic or digital camera I've ever used.

I know you and a number of other photographers have written a number of positive things about the G1X Mark III - but I haven't found any specific references to the EVF - or its magnification - or comparing it to other EVF's.

To put the magnification question into context, apparently my GX8 has a magnification of .77 which apparently is enormous - and has only recently been topped by Panasonic's G9, which apparently has a magnification of something like .93.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated :)
Miguel, I can answer that one pretty precisely and even give you a couple of correlations :)

I own a GX80 and a LX100 as well - both of which share the GX7's viewinder (minus the tiltability, but you get my drift). I have the G1X III and the GX80 in front of me right now, so I can compare them directly.

The G1X's viewfinder magnification isn't significantly better than the GX80's - but it does have better coverage and a better panel (it's sharper and shows no tearing whatsoever); most crucially, it's a true 3:2 format compared to the 16:9 panel in the GX80 that's cropped for the sensor's native 4:3, and it's definitely easier on the eye. That said, quality is overall comparable - if the GX7's viewfinder wasn't matching your expectations or hopes in terms of size/magnification, it's no given that the G1X's will.

I too have used bigger EVFs, noteably on the Sony A7 II, but also on the FZ1000, and yes, it's something entirely different, much more comfortable. But I personally don't find the G1X's EVF lacking - and I say this as someone who has to wear glasses all the time, which is a natural disadvantage when having to view a small screen through a complex optical system. I definitely prefer the G1X's EVF over the one in the GX80 and LX100, but it's less of a size thing - it's the layout and coverage as well as the image quality I like.

As soon as you start comparing size and performance, though, it's a no-brainer: The RAW files from the G1X are better in every respect than what I get from the - already good! - GX80 (which - even though it's compact - is a bigger camera), let alone the LX100 which is the same size. In fact, they get very, very close to Nikon's impressive APS-C files in terms of DR and noise and do have better (i.e. more natural) colour; sometimes, I even prefer the results from the G1X over those from the Sony A7 II (when shot alongside each other!). This means that in my book, it's worth putting up with a somewhat smaller EVF if it means I can put that kind of quality in my (jacket or pants) pocket! YMMV, of course - if EVF size matters hugely to you, I'd probably look elsewhere. If usability and basically solid quality are what you're after, the G1X's unit does deliver on a quite satisfying level - clearly, though not remarkably higher than the GX7/GX85/LX100.

M.
 
Miguel, I can answer that one pretty precisely and even give you a couple of correlations :)

I own a GX80 and a LX100 as well - both of which share the GX7's viewinder (minus the tiltability, but you get my drift). I have the G1X III and the GX80 in front of me right now, so I can compare them directly.

The G1X's viewfinder magnification isn't significantly better than the GX80's - but it does have better coverage and a better panel (it's sharper and shows no tearing whatsoever); most crucially, it's a true 3:2 format compared to the 16:9 panel in the GX80 that's cropped for the sensor's native 4:3, and it's definitely easier on the eye. That said, quality is overall comparable - if the GX7's viewfinder wasn't matching your expectations or hopes in terms of size/magnification, it's no given that the G1X's will.

I too have used bigger EVFs, noteably on the Sony A7 II, but also on the FZ1000, and yes, it's something entirely different, much more comfortable. But I personally don't find the G1X's EVF lacking - and I say this as someone who has to wear glasses all the time, which is a natural disadvantage when having to view a small screen through a complex optical system. I definitely prefer the G1X's EVF over the one in the GX80 and LX100, but it's less of a size thing - it's the layout and coverage as well as the image quality I like.

As soon as you start comparing size and performance, though, it's a no-brainer: The RAW files from the G1X are better in every respect than what I get from the - already good! - GX80 (which - even though it's compact - is a bigger camera), let alone the LX100 which is the same size. In fact, they get very, very close to Nikon's impressive APS-C files in terms of DR and noise and do have better (i.e. more natural) colour; sometimes, I even prefer the results from the G1X over those from the Sony A7 II (when shot alongside each other!). This means that in my book, it's worth putting up with a somewhat smaller EVF if it means I can put that kind of quality in my (jacket or pants) pocket! YMMV, of course - if EVF size matters hugely to you, I'd probably look elsewhere. If usability and basically solid quality are what you're after, the G1X's unit does deliver on a quite satisfying level - clearly, though not remarkably higher than the GX7/GX85/LX100.

M.

Great answer Matt, thank you for taking the time and detail to really address what I was hoping to find out. All in all it sound like the EVF is more than acceptable - and at least as good as the aforementioned Panasonic unit in the GX80 and GX7 before that. The 3:2 format I imagine makes a big difference too; the 16:9 in my GX7 frankly drove me batty on more than one occasion.

I do have one more minor and non-EVF related G1x question for you, however - one with regards to the low-light capabilities (or lack thereof) of the lens. I owned the early generation of Canon's EOS mirrorless, the EOS M - on which I used the relatively small 22mm pancake lens (a 35mm FOV equivalent) which was, in a word, superb - not just optically speaking, but also as a lens which was fast enough to use in some relatively low-light (or at least lower light) shooting situations. I still miss that lens, actually. Obviously with a f/2.8 zoom, the G1x won't be as good of a low-light lens as the f/2 22mm was; but all things are relative, I know. So my question (at long last) for you is: have you used it on occasion in lower-light shooting situations - and how does it perform?
 
Great answer Matt, thank you for taking the time and detail to really address what I was hoping to find out. All in all it sound like the EVF is more than acceptable - and at least as good as the aforementioned Panasonic unit in the GX80 and GX7 before that. The 3:2 format I imagine makes a big difference too; the 16:9 in my GX7 frankly drove me batty on more than one occasion.

I do have one more minor and non-EVF related G1x question for you, however - one with regards to the low-light capabilities (or lack thereof) of the lens. I owned the early generation of Canon's EOS mirrorless, the EOS M - on which I used the relatively small 22mm pancake lens (a 35mm FOV equivalent) which was, in a word, superb - not just optically speaking, but also as a lens which was fast enough to use in some relatively low-light (or at least lower light) shooting situations. I still miss that lens, actually. Obviously with a f/2.8 zoom, the G1x won't be as good of a low-light lens as the f/2 22mm was; but all things are relative, I know. So my question (at long last) for you is: have you used it on occasion in lower-light shooting situations - and how does it perform?
That's actually something that comes up whenever and whereever the G1X is discussed. Let me first state that I really have an issue with colour (chrominance) noise - which is why I cap Auto ISO at 800 for both the LX100 and the GX80; the latter camera retains much more detail at that ISO, but starts to show - IMO! - objectionable levels of chroma noise at 1600, which is unfortunate because the camera's IQ is really impressive otherwise.

Now, the G1X III delivers equally usable, even better, RAW files at ISO 3200 than the LX100 at 800, period. And that's at twice the resolution. The GX80's RAWs is equal to, maybe a touch better at ISO 800 than the G1X III at 3200, but again, only offers two thirds of the resolutions. I use the G1X III at ISO 3200 without any real restrictions - though it has to be said that Auto ISO pushes the sensitivity to its set limit a lot of the time (meaning that I probably could reduce the number of images taken at ISO 3200 by changing the ISO manually more often).

What this means is that over the LX100 (my previously preferred compact), I get a solid two stops better ISO performance in terms of noise and detail, and that's at the pixel level, not even counting resolution; the latter means that if push comes to shove, I even get to crop heavily before ever touching the restrictions I see for the LX100. This voids the advantages of having a clearly brighter lens on the LX100.

Additionally, the G1X III's lens performs (slightly, but noticeably) better wide open than the LX100's, but I'd say there's not much in it scientifically. On the GX80, I can mount - e.g. - the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and get better optical quality and even net a third of a stop better low light capability, but that means losing the zoom; as for the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, its IQ is visibly superior to the G1X's lens, but of course, the size penalty is considerable.

To put the lens' performance into perspective: During my Scotland trip, I shot the G1X III alongside the Leica M10 and, for some time at the beginning of the trip, the GX80. I retired the GX80 for the rest of the trip after a couple of days - I really like the camera, but the G1X III outperformed the combo I had brought while being a third of the size (and 25% lighter). Of course, I have to admit that I had brought an optically inferior lens for the GX80, but the Olympus 14-150mm II had me satisfied on other occasions (and, to be fair, performed according to my expectations again). On the other hand, I had (and have) no reservations whatsover about mixing results from the G1X and the M10 ... Of course, Leica glass is visibly sharper and generally delivers on a different level, and so does the FF sensor in the M10 - but I shot some of my favourite images on that trip with the G1X III, and if there is an IQ limitation (which, technically speaking, is bound to be the case), it doesn't appear to be decisive, nor was it holding me back at any time.

I think the sensor/lens combo on the G1X III is a win - but I definitely appreciate Canon's decision to go for compactness instead of a bright lens that would have had to be a lot bigger (or offer less zoom range). Furthermore, weather-resistance (I wouldn't dare thinking of this level of protection as "sealing") meant that I could, with some care, take images in rainy/wet conditions during my trip, but that's not within the scope of your question. What may be of interest, however, is my observation that the 22mm f/2 is an exceptional lens - the G1X's is just good, better than most kit zooms, but still a zoom, and less versatile than fast prime. A Canon EOS M body would give you access to a lens you already know you like - and it's certainly true that the G1X III is pricey, even considering its merits. I think a M5 with the 22mm is cheaper and the sensor is the same (though the processor is one generation behind - not that important if you work from RAW) - all while being not that much bigger. Apart from size, some convenience would have to be sacrificed (weather resistance, actually more controls), but you'd safe on money while gaining even better IQ.

M.
 
Thanks again, Matt. You make some interesting and thoughtful points, some of which I had considered myself. What you say makes a lot of sense - the combination of the 22mm lens (which I truly liked) and the M5 body would do quite a few things that work for me. However the one area where the G1x iii definitely has the M5+22mm beaten is, obviously, size & portability. If I do get one, it will be much more for that mythical beast, the compact-every-day-carry-with-you camera that so many of us search for but never quite seem to find.

Then again, the other element to consider is the concept that certain non-interchangeable camera + lens combinations seem to have been truly optimized for at least optical quality. The Ricoh GR and the late Nikon Coolpix A both come to mind as excellent (and highly portable) examples of this. And obviously prime lenses (like the 28mm equivalents in both the GR and the Coolpix) are 'easier' in some ways to design than zooms like that of the G1x. But...I can't help wonder whether or not the Canon optical engineers might have fortuitously struck a sweet spot with this lens + camera body combo.

And, yeah...I know - the only way for me to find out would be to try one out myself - and see if it fits my photographic needs and shooting style.

But thanks again for your detailed replies - they've given me food for thought.
 
You're right, of course. Just a little afterthought because I know the GR quite well (it was my first "serious" compact ...): The shooting experience and results are both quite different from the G1X III - you really have to be comfortable with the 28mm-e to make it work, but if things work out, the images have a magic, a depth the G1X isn't equally capable of. The sensor, however, good as it is, is a generation or two behind now - very nice in good light, but somewhat brittle in low light (i.e. at and below ISO 1600). Still, performance is hard to believe if you look at the size of the camera - and the lens is very, very good indeed. It's truely pocketable, and it's also a real one-handed camera, peculiar, but very nice in use. I'd actually love a GR with an EVF and an updated sensor - but if that ever happens, noone knows.

M.
 
Back
Top