Ordinance PowerShot G X Mark II audit CNET

“I’m not sure why Canon dubbed this PowerShot G1 X a “Mark II.” It’s a completely different camera than its predecessor: a significantly redesigned body, new sensor, and wider-aperture lens. Basically, everything that matters. With the PowerShot G1 X, Canon made the poor choice of coupling a great sensor with a relatively narrow-aperture lens. The Mark II incorporates a faster, wider, and longer 24-120mm f/2-3.9 lens which offers closer focus capability. It uses a lower-resolution version of its 1.5-inch CMOS sensor and a new autofocus system, swaps out the articulated LCD for a selfie-friendly tilting version, and drops the optical viewfinder for an optional electronic one.
But while some of those updates mark a change for the better — most notably, the increased lens flexibility — the results aren’t quite as great as I expected. For the most part, I like the camera for street shooting, but some irritating performance lags and not-as-great-as-I-expected image quality makes it disappointing given its $800 USD (u00a3800/AU$1,000) price.
View full gallery
Image quality
I have really mixed feelings about the G1XM2’s photo quality — it’s better than very good, but not quite excellent. One of the goals of dropping the resolution is to allow for larger pixels, which in turn facilitates a better dynamic range. But it only drops its effective resolution in order to be able to preserve resolution across aspect ratios — there’s no significant increase in pixel pitch — so you don’t don’t see any improvement over the G1 X, and you’re losing some detail because of the drop to 12.8 effective megapixels.
It still produces very nice photos. They’re sharp — they frequently look oversharpened, actually — in the area of focus, and the colors are saturated with only slight hue shifts. And as long as you look at them at small sizes, they look great. The lens is quite good, sharp without much fringing or distortion, and round out-of-focus highlights.
But the tonal range isn’t very broad. There’s little detail that you can recover in blown-out highlights, and there’s surprising clipping in dark areas. When looking at the images at 100 percent, the JPEG processing appears, well, the only word I can think of is sloppy: as low as ISO 100 I can get better results over the default settings, which seem to swallow detail in some areas and oversharpen in others. Even printed at 18 x 12 you can see it, and printing tends to hide some JPEG faults (though it exacerbates others, like tonal range).
That said, while they’re not quite as good as the RX100 II’s, they’re very good viewed at 100 percent up to ISO 3200, depending on scene content, and at ISO 6400 at about 50 percent. And note that all the JPEGs were shot at the camera’s Super Fine compression setting, not the default Fine.”

Original link