Canon Powershot G7X
- Thread starter rhino123
- Start date
nvm, when viewing raw in compter, all look normal.
only on camera lcd, raw files look somewhat pixelated compared to jpeg when zoomed in 100%.
Its ok i can live with that.
Normally, I would just ignore camerastore. The test are not objective. That fella who run that review obviously already had a favourite. It was all like... Sony is incredible, Sony is great, Sony is the best thing human have had after sliced breads... and it was the same to Nikon, Pentax and all other brand... but when it came to Canon, he was like... nah... Canon shoot himself in the foot, Canon is rubbish and stuff like that.
I find the following are better reviews,
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_G7X/index.shtml
There are no which camera is better or which brands is better, it is all, lots of information, you make your own decision based on your needs and wants... such as... Canon offer longer focal range as compared to Sony, Sony offers great EVF and still manage to keep the size of the camera small, Sony had slightly better image quality as compared to Canon (which is abit soft), Canon had a great touch screen, etc etc.
Then you base on these information and match the capability of them to your needs and get that camera. Rather than go around some dodgy test and half-baked information (not the full story behind) and trash a camera (or a brand) base on those so as to bring the one you like up to the top.
Please educate me. Alot sharper?
Sony RX100 (Tele)
Canon G7X (Tele)
RX100 III (Wide)
Canon G7X (Wide)
When you zoom in 100%, Canon at tele seemed a bit sharper actually.
Last edited:
Plus, I don't know if you like it... But I kind of like Canon's picture at 100mm a bit more. The color seemed more natural.
Canon G7X
Sony RX100III
However, I acknowledge that color is subjected personal preference. That is why I kept insisting that both cameras are good, they each have what they are good at and what they are not. You would have to match your expectation to these information and choose which camera that suits you.
And from the website Steelman provided and what I have read before, it seemed that at wider angle, Canon's picture is not as sharp as the Sony, but at tele length, it is another story all together.
So in summary, both cameras are excellent.
1) The Sony produces excellent sharpness in their photo slightly better than Canon G7X.
2) Both have great AF, although some review site claim that Canon is a tag faster in good lighter, while Sony is better in darker area. Sony had a good EVF (love it or hated it, it is entirely up to individual). For me, the EVF is not needed, because it is small, I wear spectacle and it is not comfortable to mash the entire camera onto my face.
3) Both cameras are small... the Sony is a tad smaller, but really not a significant amount. The Sony had more accessories thus far going for it.
4) Sony had greater flexibility LCD with more angles to choose from so making some of the shots easier. The Canon can only flip upward and so pretty limited. However I do find a way of shooting overhead (and that is to shoot holding the camera upside down) but I still find Sony's vari-screen LCD better in this case.
5) The Canon had a great touch screen. Love it alot. Sony didn't. But it is also arguable on whether you need it or not.
6) Sony offer greater video mode, while Canon's one are pretty standard and at this time of age, it can be pretty boring.
7) Canon G7X is significantly cheaper as compared to Sony RX100III.
So there... although both cameras appeal to the same market, but clearly they have significant differences and it is up to users to gather these information and basing on what they need and want, then choose that camera that is closest to those needs.
Who knows... one might end up with a Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A or the newest Panasonic LX100 (when it is released).
Canon G7X
Sony RX100III
However, I acknowledge that color is subjected personal preference. That is why I kept insisting that both cameras are good, they each have what they are good at and what they are not. You would have to match your expectation to these information and choose which camera that suits you.
And from the website Steelman provided and what I have read before, it seemed that at wider angle, Canon's picture is not as sharp as the Sony, but at tele length, it is another story all together.
So in summary, both cameras are excellent.
1) The Sony produces excellent sharpness in their photo slightly better than Canon G7X.
2) Both have great AF, although some review site claim that Canon is a tag faster in good lighter, while Sony is better in darker area. Sony had a good EVF (love it or hated it, it is entirely up to individual). For me, the EVF is not needed, because it is small, I wear spectacle and it is not comfortable to mash the entire camera onto my face.
3) Both cameras are small... the Sony is a tad smaller, but really not a significant amount. The Sony had more accessories thus far going for it.
4) Sony had greater flexibility LCD with more angles to choose from so making some of the shots easier. The Canon can only flip upward and so pretty limited. However I do find a way of shooting overhead (and that is to shoot holding the camera upside down) but I still find Sony's vari-screen LCD better in this case.
5) The Canon had a great touch screen. Love it alot. Sony didn't. But it is also arguable on whether you need it or not.
6) Sony offer greater video mode, while Canon's one are pretty standard and at this time of age, it can be pretty boring.
7) Canon G7X is significantly cheaper as compared to Sony RX100III.
So there... although both cameras appeal to the same market, but clearly they have significant differences and it is up to users to gather these information and basing on what they need and want, then choose that camera that is closest to those needs.
Who knows... one might end up with a Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A or the newest Panasonic LX100 (when it is released).
Last edited:
Well... I'll be damn. Look like I owe you an apology :embrass:, the RX100III seemed sharper in the centre frame... while the Canon looked sharper in the corners (which to many is actually not important). Look like the Sony do have better image quality at maximum zoom.
So the facts are right.
1) Sony RX100III produce overall better image quality as compared to Canon G7X.
2) The Canon have a longer range (100mm vs 70mm)
3) Sony has a built in EVF
4) Canon has a touch screen
5) Sony has a more flexible vari-LCD
6) Both have good high ISO performance although Canon employed more noise reduction (I believe this can be solve when using RAW file).
7) Color different. Sony tends to be a bit 'cooler'. WB can however be changed when shooting in RAW files.
8) Sony seemed to have more accessories, Canon's one are coming in by the way (so was the batteries and pouches).
9) Canon G7X is significantly cheaper than Sony RX100III.
10) On paper, Sony RX100III has a longer battery life as compared to Canon.
11) Sony RX100III take better video as compared to Canon.
The above eight points are the important ones for me when I choose my camera and these are the points that I looked into which finally land me a G7X... Because I find the image differences are insignificant, I don't like Sony's EVF (it was in a small compact and I never would want to mash it on my face especially when I am wearing spectacle), I can work around the limited vari-angle screen, the price difference allow me to get an extra battery for the G7X and with some spare too.
Last edited:
I'm quite convinced by now that the Sony is a tad sharper than Canon with more contrast when you pixel peep. Thanks to Steelman for proving his point and for the useful comparison websites.
But in general (not referring to anyone, also a good reminder to myself), I think we should spend more time producing good pictures with our cameras, whatever brand or type it may be. The danger with photography forums is sometimes, we get too engrossed with the fine details (literally!) that we do too many tests, and try to justify our purchases. By the time we finish all the analyses and convince ourselves and others, perhaps there will be a GX7 II or RX100 IV!
I'm a pixel peeper myself and usually, I'd say the Sony RX100 III is more attractive. But there are other factors which I have to consider also.
Sony lacks the extra zoom. Do I need it? Yes. I will feel more crippled without the longer zoom. (Fixed focal length compacts are even worse and a NO-NO for me!) It will be especially useful when traveling. 70mm is too short for 20-30% of my needs. Also remember that life is never perfect. It's not possible to make longer zoom lenses as sharp as shorter zoom or especially single focal length lens. That likely explains why the Sony is a bit sharper. I am quite sure if Canon stops its zoom to 70mm like Sony, the images produced should be on par.
I'm not a video person so Sony's better video doesn't attract me that much. I don't need the EVF and I hate EVF actually in a compact.
The price difference between the Canon and Sony is quite substantial actually. I don't think I'd want to spend more than $1,000 on a compact. I'd rather get a much better m4/3 cam for that price. A good compact to me is to travel light, take casual shots with reasonably good image quality. If I am so particular about fine details, then sorry, even the Sony RX100III is lagging far away in comparison with bigger sensor cameras, not to mention a DSLR.
So I wouldn't worry or intend to pixel peep when using a compact camera. No one's going to say my picture looks good because the image looks sharper when zoomed in 100-200%. They will judge me more on whether I am competent on my photography skills. If it's so simple, then every photographer who owns expensive cameras like Leica, or those who use expensive lenses will have won most photography competitions. But they don't.
Just my honest personal opinion. I'm not slamming one camera over the other. Either Canon or Sony is definitely not a wrong choice. It depends a lot on your budget and needs. If I am a rich man, I will buy Sony. Heck, wait, make it I will buy the Canon, Sony, Leica, LX100 and use them interchangeably depending on my mood for the day!
But in general (not referring to anyone, also a good reminder to myself), I think we should spend more time producing good pictures with our cameras, whatever brand or type it may be. The danger with photography forums is sometimes, we get too engrossed with the fine details (literally!) that we do too many tests, and try to justify our purchases. By the time we finish all the analyses and convince ourselves and others, perhaps there will be a GX7 II or RX100 IV!
I'm a pixel peeper myself and usually, I'd say the Sony RX100 III is more attractive. But there are other factors which I have to consider also.
Sony lacks the extra zoom. Do I need it? Yes. I will feel more crippled without the longer zoom. (Fixed focal length compacts are even worse and a NO-NO for me!) It will be especially useful when traveling. 70mm is too short for 20-30% of my needs. Also remember that life is never perfect. It's not possible to make longer zoom lenses as sharp as shorter zoom or especially single focal length lens. That likely explains why the Sony is a bit sharper. I am quite sure if Canon stops its zoom to 70mm like Sony, the images produced should be on par.
I'm not a video person so Sony's better video doesn't attract me that much. I don't need the EVF and I hate EVF actually in a compact.
The price difference between the Canon and Sony is quite substantial actually. I don't think I'd want to spend more than $1,000 on a compact. I'd rather get a much better m4/3 cam for that price. A good compact to me is to travel light, take casual shots with reasonably good image quality. If I am so particular about fine details, then sorry, even the Sony RX100III is lagging far away in comparison with bigger sensor cameras, not to mention a DSLR.
So I wouldn't worry or intend to pixel peep when using a compact camera. No one's going to say my picture looks good because the image looks sharper when zoomed in 100-200%. They will judge me more on whether I am competent on my photography skills. If it's so simple, then every photographer who owns expensive cameras like Leica, or those who use expensive lenses will have won most photography competitions. But they don't.
Just my honest personal opinion. I'm not slamming one camera over the other. Either Canon or Sony is definitely not a wrong choice. It depends a lot on your budget and needs. If I am a rich man, I will buy Sony. Heck, wait, make it I will buy the Canon, Sony, Leica, LX100 and use them interchangeably depending on my mood for the day!
So for those who can wait a bit, it may be worth it?I've used RX100M3 and currently owns the G7X. Have to say what bro rhino said was spot on. I did not have to actually pixel peep, the images on the RX100M3 were really sharp when I view it on the LCD, somehow the G7X's was that little bit softer and noiser (which made me think I got a lemon). However, as what most of you said, you get what you pay for lah, so up to you to decide whether its worth it. I think the G7X is good value for money with the longer range. In addition, having used the RX100M3, I am not a fan of the EVF on a compact (the colors are bad and it is laggy). I seldom take videos as well. The G7X's exposure compensation dial won me over. I like to shoot manual and auto ISO so this dial helps alot (a big plus for me since my Canon 6D does not have it). I like the click wheel too.
Enjoy your cameras bro - whichever it may be.
I know G7X is less sharp than rx100m3 when bought it.
I favor the other features like touchscreen, touch to focus, touch to trigger shutter, focus pull in video and of coz 100mm becoz they are more useful in 'getting the shot'.
For the sharpness, you can only see at 100%. My audiences don't pixel peep. They appreciate the content and the story of photos. The above features are helpful in achieving it.
Also $700 is attractive.
This is just me. Both cameras are great. If the G7x didn't exist, i will be happy with rx100m3.
I favor the other features like touchscreen, touch to focus, touch to trigger shutter, focus pull in video and of coz 100mm becoz they are more useful in 'getting the shot'.
For the sharpness, you can only see at 100%. My audiences don't pixel peep. They appreciate the content and the story of photos. The above features are helpful in achieving it.
Also $700 is attractive.
This is just me. Both cameras are great. If the G7x didn't exist, i will be happy with rx100m3.
Last edited:
Being a long time user of both LX3 and LX5, I'm more interested to see how the upcoming LX100 compares with the G7X. With the price of the G7X significantly lower than RX100 Mk3, I would say that getting a G7X is a no brainer. But I'm still interested to see how well the G7X is compared with the LX100.
I bought a spare battery from Cathay Photo. It cost me around $50 plus (I think) a couple of weeks back. I have also received quotes from Alan Photo. You can send them email to ask if they still have stock.
Keen to know too. As most of the freebies does not includes a camera case for the g7x.
Am getting my g7x tomorrow at Sitex.
Similar threads
