Canon Powershot G7X
- Thread starter rhino123
- Start date
The hype for this camera has likely died down by now. But hope you guys don't mind me asking.
I played around with the cam and one thing that I noticed first is that the during playback of the images, the quality is surprisingly bad. I thought I mis-focused! Had to take the same shot several times to realise it's not. I can't judge image sharpness as it looks like some low quality blurry jpg with artefacts. I didn't have to zoom in too much, just halfway.
I did more tests and realised this happens when shooting RAW. For JPG, the image playback is clearer but not that optimal either.
Also, at f/1.8 the image is rather soft and has noticeable chromatic aberration.
Anyone with similar experience?
I played around with the cam and one thing that I noticed first is that the during playback of the images, the quality is surprisingly bad. I thought I mis-focused! Had to take the same shot several times to realise it's not. I can't judge image sharpness as it looks like some low quality blurry jpg with artefacts. I didn't have to zoom in too much, just halfway.
I did more tests and realised this happens when shooting RAW. For JPG, the image playback is clearer but not that optimal either.
Also, at f/1.8 the image is rather soft and has noticeable chromatic aberration.
Anyone with similar experience?
Got any sample images for others to compare with?
Hard to show as it's on the LCD screen. Just checking if those who used the cam have experienced this.
I thought with more than 1 million screen pixels, the quality should be a lot better. Didn't see this phenomenon with my previous S-series compact camera.
rhino123
Senior Member
Nope didn't experience this. However, I do agree that there are CA in some of the pics. Anyway, I didn't zoom all the way in to check the pic on LCD, not my style.
Thanks for sharing.
Yup, anyway, I confirm it's the case.
Did more tests last evening and can confirm that the RAW images are not as sharp as the JPGs. This is usually only obvious when shooting distant subjects such as landscapes. Perhaps Canon expected users to do own sharpening later?
As for the LCD screen playback, I didn't have to zoom in all the way. Just zoom halfway and I could see the RAW images blurry and sometimes there are even artifacts. In JPG, I could see clearly the words of distant buildings. In RAW, the words are less sharp. Definitely new to me for modern day compact cams with high res LCD screen.
Sometimes, it's good to zoom in a little to check. Cos I notice also the G7X's AF is not exactly that accurate (documented in other reviews also). A few times, though luckily not often, the focusing picked on the wrong subject even though it was nothing difficult to focus on.
Besides these, I must say the high ISO noise control is very good. But that's expected of a bigger sensor compact.
rhino123
Senior Member
Hmm... maybe I should also test a bit more with my set, to be frank, I seldom check what I have taken... didn't check any preview basically. Guess I am still stuck in the old film camera era
(Actually... in the first couple of days, I forget that I have zoom too... so I was basically shooting at the widest angle all the time... till later on then I remember... yeah... I can go to 100mm. LOL)
But I am sure what you say is true, I have read about that in the net too. Guess Canon really need to improve on its preview thingy. And yet, normally RAW pic is not as sharp as JPEG, it leave you more room for post processing... in actual fact, I really hope Canon didn't have any noise reduction thingy at all (zero, totally don't have).
Last edited:
raydio
Senior Member
RAW files have no processing in them at all... including sharpening. JPG files are the complete opposite. Depending on settings chosen, JPG files are sharpened, saturated, contrasted, etc. RAW files require post processing... JPG's do not.
Hmm... maybe I should also test a bit more with my set, to be frank, I seldom check what I have taken... didn't check any preview basically. Guess I am still stuck in the old film camera era
(Actually... in the first couple of days, I forget that I have zoom too... so I was basically shooting at the widest angle all the time... till later on then I remember... yeah... I can go to 100mm. LOL)
But I am sure what you say is true, I have read about that in the net too. Guess Canon really need to improve on its preview thingy. And yet, normally RAW pic is not as sharp as JPEG, it leave you more room for post processing... in actual fact, I really hope Canon didn't have any noise reduction thingy at all (zero, totally don't have).
Haha... Yah... maybe you're used to the film era. Which is good sometimes. Many photographers these days simply press the shutter first then spend too much time checking on LCD screens. If not satisfied, they re-take again.
Ok that aside, I was doing a thorough test on the camera that's why I checked even the fine details. But it really surprises me. Cos like I said, in the past, I don't remember seeing the preview of RAW images to be that bad even in smaller sensor compact cams. It's so blurry on the G7X there's no point checking for fine focusing accuracy.
Maybe if you have time (and if you're interested!), try taking distant scenes like landscapes with details. I took pictures of distant buildings with names on them. One in RAW, the other in JPG. When zoomed in on the LCD screen, the words looked blurry for the RAW.
Next, open up the images. The JPG one looks sharp as it should be. No complaint on that. The RAW one looks below average. Zoom in a little on your computer, and you will see loss of fine details, even at ISO125. I'm not sure if Canon got it right here...The purpose of shooting RAW is to give one a lot of freedom to edit, but if the fine details are so "muddy" or blurry to begin with, I don't see how any editing will help bring back the details.
raydio
Senior Member
Haha... Yah... maybe you're used to the film era. Which is good sometimes. Many photographers these days simply press the shutter first then spend too much time checking on LCD screens. If not satisfied, they re-take again.
Ok that aside, I was doing a thorough test on the camera that's why I checked even the fine details. But it really surprises me. Cos like I said, in the past, I don't remember seeing the preview of RAW images to be that bad even in smaller sensor compact cams. It's so blurry on the G7X there's no point checking for fine focusing accuracy.
Maybe if you have time (and if you're interested!), try taking distant scenes like landscapes with details. I took pictures of distant buildings with names on them. One in RAW, the other in JPG. When zoomed in on the LCD screen, the words looked blurry for the RAW.
Next, open up the images. The JPG one looks sharp as it should be. No complaint on that. The RAW one looks below average. Zoom in a little on your computer, and you will see loss of fine details, even at ISO125. I'm not sure if Canon got it right here...The purpose of shooting RAW is to give one a lot of freedom to edit, but if the fine details are so "muddy" or blurry to begin with, I don't see how any editing will help bring back the details.
Hmmm.... sounds like the G7X is unusually blurry in RAW. Could someone post a photo example of a shot taken in RAW so that we can see how blurry it is. Ideally it would be great if 3 versions of the same photo could be shown:
1. Completely untouched photo in RAW
2. The same photo in JPG
3. A post processed photo from the original RAW in '1' above.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
If the RAW works the same as the DSLRs, what the LCD displays is only a (small) preview image of the RAW image, and therefore is low resolution. You'll need to download the image into your computer, run through the software, then you can see for sure whether it is sharp or not.
If the RAW works the same as the DSLRs, what the LCD displays is only a (small) preview image of the RAW image, and therefore is low resolution. You'll need to download the image into your computer, run through the software, then you can see for sure whether it is sharp or not.
What's displayed on the lcd screen is a JPEG representation of the raw file with the applied presets of picture style.
thomasssss
New Member
hi, is it recommended to get Canon camera in Singapore (funan mall) or Japan? I'm traveling there in a few months time and am thinking of getting this camera. Sorry for asking such a noob qns!
https://www.mapcamera.com/item/4549292020397
59k after tax refund. Should be about 550 thereabouts. Good price imho.
thanks for the heads up on this. I'm actually heading to tokyo soon and this is one of the stuff to consider getting
thanks to u!59k jpy is 650 sgd . anyway, ms color is selling at $705 cash payment.
sorry my bad arithmetics
rhino123
Senior Member
Haha... Yah... maybe you're used to the film era. Which is good sometimes. Many photographers these days simply press the shutter first then spend too much time checking on LCD screens. If not satisfied, they re-take again.
Ok that aside, I was doing a thorough test on the camera that's why I checked even the fine details. But it really surprises me. Cos like I said, in the past, I don't remember seeing the preview of RAW images to be that bad even in smaller sensor compact cams. It's so blurry on the G7X there's no point checking for fine focusing accuracy.
Maybe if you have time (and if you're interested!), try taking distant scenes like landscapes with details. I took pictures of distant buildings with names on them. One in RAW, the other in JPG. When zoomed in on the LCD screen, the words looked blurry for the RAW.
Next, open up the images. The JPG one looks sharp as it should be. No complaint on that. The RAW one looks below average. Zoom in a little on your computer, and you will see loss of fine details, even at ISO125. I'm not sure if Canon got it right here...The purpose of shooting RAW is to give one a lot of freedom to edit, but if the fine details are so "muddy" or blurry to begin with, I don't see how any editing will help bring back the details.
Finally had the time to do some test. Yes, you are correct, I have taken a couple of shots, some at JPEG format and some in the RAW format, and the one in the RAW format is not as sharp. I will go back to put these in my computer and see if post processing can bring the quality of the RAW file up or not.
(Edit: I have put the two files into my computer and open it with software provided by Canon DPP. Although the RAW file looked to be much softer, but by converting it to JPEG, the sharpness is there. There are basically no difference between the RAW and JPEG files after conversion.)
Last edited:
Thanks for verifying. I never use the Canon DPP software. But I have also managed to include sharpening during edit of my RAW images taken by the G7X.
I've done some extensive shooting on the G7X in the last 2 weeks.
Extensive points to note are:
1. Focusing - Have to be careful and make sure it's correctly focused.
2. LCD playback - Still can't figure out why the >1 million pixels LCD screen doesn't display RAW images sharply. Anyway, don't zoom in too much, especially for those who like to check for sharpness. You will be confused and disappointed.
3. Tiny details in distant subjects can't be resolved well. A surprise here for a 1" sensor like the G7X. I suppose this is where some have compared and concluded that the Sony RX100 III is a bit sharper with better details.
4. Battery - Really bad as what the reviews say. Among all the compact cameras, Canon is probably the worst in manufacturing their batteries. And it gets worse with newer models released. I remember the early S-series could take about 270-280 shots and it was already considered bad. The later models dropped to ~250 or less shots per battery charge. Competitor brands could do average 350-400 shots consistently. Fuji could do >400! The latest G7X was reported at only ~210 shots?
Use the cam sparingly if you want to extend battery life, and if taking many pics, a 2nd battery is highly recommended.
However, after saying all these, I still find I want to keep the G7X and I'm slowly growing to love it! If you shoot JPGs often, then there is little problem with the images. They are sharp. Just nice without looking over-sharpened. Colors are vibrant without looking unnatural.
No other compact camera brands right now with larger sensors are as compact as the G7X. The Sony RX comes close but the shorter zoom range and high price (with awkward to use viewfinder) puts me off. The LX100 is too bulky with no built-in flash and recent users have pointed out some image quality issues at bright areas? And it's too expensive also. Compact cams to me are meant to be small and light, and priced not like entry level mirrorless cams or even DSLRs!
So I guess nothing is perfect and it depends on one's requirements.
I've done some extensive shooting on the G7X in the last 2 weeks.
Extensive points to note are:
1. Focusing - Have to be careful and make sure it's correctly focused.
2. LCD playback - Still can't figure out why the >1 million pixels LCD screen doesn't display RAW images sharply. Anyway, don't zoom in too much, especially for those who like to check for sharpness. You will be confused and disappointed.
3. Tiny details in distant subjects can't be resolved well. A surprise here for a 1" sensor like the G7X. I suppose this is where some have compared and concluded that the Sony RX100 III is a bit sharper with better details.
4. Battery - Really bad as what the reviews say. Among all the compact cameras, Canon is probably the worst in manufacturing their batteries. And it gets worse with newer models released. I remember the early S-series could take about 270-280 shots and it was already considered bad. The later models dropped to ~250 or less shots per battery charge. Competitor brands could do average 350-400 shots consistently. Fuji could do >400! The latest G7X was reported at only ~210 shots?
Use the cam sparingly if you want to extend battery life, and if taking many pics, a 2nd battery is highly recommended.
However, after saying all these, I still find I want to keep the G7X and I'm slowly growing to love it! If you shoot JPGs often, then there is little problem with the images. They are sharp. Just nice without looking over-sharpened. Colors are vibrant without looking unnatural.
No other compact camera brands right now with larger sensors are as compact as the G7X. The Sony RX comes close but the shorter zoom range and high price (with awkward to use viewfinder) puts me off. The LX100 is too bulky with no built-in flash and recent users have pointed out some image quality issues at bright areas? And it's too expensive also. Compact cams to me are meant to be small and light, and priced not like entry level mirrorless cams or even DSLRs!
So I guess nothing is perfect and it depends on one's requirements.
Similar threads
