 |
| Without data it is difficult to tell which camera made which photo. Any one of the cameras reviewed in this post could have made this. It was in fact made with a Panasonic FZ300. |
Despite the morbid predictions of various self appointed sages it appears the compact camera is not quite dead.
In fact Canon has recently released the brand new G1X Mk3, the second zoom compact withan APS-Csensor. The first was the Leica X Vario of 2013, with an 18-46mm lens but no EVF.
The G1X3 is a much more useful device than the Leica having a built in EVF, fully articulated monitor and much more.
I recently bought and have been testing a G1X3 and also happen to have in my camera drawer a Panasonic LX100 and a Sony RX100(4).
So naturally I have been comparing the three cameras to see how they perform.
It would appear that Canon, Panasonic and Sony are the only three makers still seriously competing in the consumer fixed lens camera market.
This comparison is interesting in that we have one model from each of the three players.
Unique Selling Points
I guess Canon might want its dual pixel AF, APS-C sensor to be a big selling point of the G1X3. No doubt that will be used as a marketing point. But plenty of drivers neither know nor care if their car drives the front wheels, the rear or both. So my guess would be that there might be quite a few potential buyers who are not interested in the technical details of the sensor.
My take is that the best feature of the G1X3 is the accuracy, consistency and speed of its autofocus system.
The standout feature of all the RX100 series models right from the first version is their compact dimensions, making these cameras pocketable. This is seen as a considerable benefit by some users.
In addition you get very good still and video quality.
LX100 is the only one of this group to have a true multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The image circle is the same or very nearly so in 2:3, 3:4 or 9:16 aspect ratio. I use this feature frequently. It gives a horizontal angle of view closer to 22mm than 24mm at the wide end of the zoom in 16:9 aspect ratio.
At introduction much was also made of the hybrid traditional/modern control system with aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed dial and exposure compensation dial. Some users say they really appreciate this control system, others are not impressed, preferring the mode dial/control dial layout seen on the Canon.
Technical stuff
It is also interesting because one camera, the RX100(4) uses a 15.9mm diagonal sensor (so-called one inch), the next, the LX100 uses a 21.5mm (four thirds) sensor cropped to 19.2mm diagonal enabling a true multi aspect ratio capability and the third, the G1X3 uses Canon’s latest 27mm diagonal (APS-C) sensor.
The sensor in the RX100(4) is a previous generation version from Sony. The current generation, high speed, “one inch” sensor finds itself in the RX100(5) and RX10(4).
The sensor in the LX100 was not the latest version of Panasonic’s 16 Mpx sensor even back in 2014 when the camera was introduced.
The G1X3 sensor is Canon’s latest and presumably best 27mm model. It has approximately twice the area of the LX100 and three times the area of the RX100(4).
The Canon sensor has 24 Mpx, the Sony 20 Mpx and the Panasonic in 3:2 aspect ratio has 12 Mpx.
So with more pixels and more area the G1X3 should deliver better image quality than the other two cameras.
Spoiler alert- it does but only just and not in low light.
Autofocus
Each of these cameras has a sophisticated auto focus system which works well, even in low light levels.
However for both still and moving subjects I rate the G1X3 AF the most consistently accurate and reliable.
In about 1500 still photos I have not seen a single mis-focus from the G1X3 as long as I put the AF frame over some part of the subject on which it could reasonably be expected to focus.
Note 1: I use 1-Point/1-Area AF with all three cameras. I find this more controllable and reliable than the various other “helper” type AF options.
Note 2: None of them will focus if the subject consists of horizontal lines only (in landscape orientation).
The LX100 will mis-focus if presented to a subject with multiple small bright lights.
The RX100(4) mis-focusses occasionally for no reason apparent to me even in bright light. It also cannot follow focus accurately on a moving subject.
Lens characteristics
Each of these cameras has a variable aperture zoom lens. The chart gives the widest aperture at each focal length (expressed as 35mm equivalent).
Max aperture | 24mm | 28mm | 35mm | 50mm | 70mm |
G1X3 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 4 | 5 | 5.6 |
LX100 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
RX100(4) | 1.8 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
You can see that in the middle of the focal length range at equivalent 35mm the LX100 lens has a 1.6 stops advantage over the G1X3 and the RX100(4) a one stop advantage.
This matters in low light because each of the two cameras with a smaller sensor has a lens which admits more light than the G1X3 allowing them to use a lower ISO setting which in turn delivers potentially better image quality.
Lens quality
My copy of each camera has a very good lens. Each is sharp right from the widest aperture at each focal length. Each makes very sharp, highly detailed pictures at every focal length with sharpness extending well into the corners in each case.
Overall I rate the lens in the G1X3 as slightly better than the other two but you have to look closely at matched test pictures at 100% on screen to appreciate this. The superiority of the G1X3 lens is most noticeable towards the edges of the frame.
If one were to spend one’s photographic experience taking pictures of test charts and viewing them at high zoom on screen then the G1X3 would be the clear winner. But with pictures of ordinary subjects out in the real world the advantage of the G1X3 is less obvious.
All three lenses are decently competent against the light although each will show flare with the sun on the front element.
The G1X3 accepts a 37mm filter. The LX100 takes a 43mm filter. The RX100(4) has a leaf type auto lens cap with no filter.
High ISO luminance noise levels
I tested the three cameras with my standard test subject in low light at all available ISO settings. The RAW files were converted in Adobe Camera RAW at default settings for sharpness (25), luminance noise reduction (nil) and color noise reduction (25) viewed side by side on a sharp monitor after reducing output size of the high pixel cameras to match that of the LX100, to allow meaningful side-by-side comparison.
At ISO 3200 I found the G1X3 had a just detectable level of advantage (less luminance noise seen as grain) over the RX100(4) and 0.5 stops advantage over the LX100.
At ISO 6400 the G1X3 had a 0.3 stop advantage over the RX100(4) and 0.6 stop advantage over the LX100.
This is a rather unimpressive result for the G1X3 which is only just better than either of the small sensor cameras and reinforces just how good the Sony 15.9mm sensor still is.
Even the ageing four thirds sensor in the LX100 looks good in comparison to the G1X3.
Low light capability
The combination of lens aperture and high ISO noise levels give the advantage to the two smaller sensor cameras in low light levels.
At a focal length of 35mm equivalent the LX100 has a one stop low light advantage and the RX100(4) a 0.6 stop advantage.
In low light all three cameras focus quickly and accurately without any need for the focus assist light.
Each gives accurate exposures.
On my tests I could see no appreciable difference between the three in sharpness, resolution or highlight and shadow detail except that the LX100 was able to operate at a lower ISO setting all the time giving a small image quality advantage.
Low light capability verdict:
1. LX100
2. RX100(4)
3. G1X3
Flash
The G1X3 and RX100(4) each have a built in flash, the LX100 has a clip on flash supplied in the box.
Each is effective in providing fill flash outdoors or supplementary light indoors. The G1X3 and LX100 have a hotshoe so can accept accessory flash units. The LX100 is also compatible with Panasonic’s sophisticated multi unit off camera wireless flash system, not that I would expect many users to avail themselves of this.
Outdoor/ scenic subjects
Here the G1X3 has a small but definite advantage. With more pixels and a slightly better lens the G1X3 can capture more fine subject detail in scenic subjects than the other two cameras.
Each has good highlight and shadow detail and minimal distortion.
Outdoor/scenic verdict:
1. G1X3
2. RX100(4) = LX100
Close-up
This is fairly straightforward.
If you want to photograph little things the LX100 gets in closest for the greatest subject size followed by the RX100(4) then the G1X3.
The G1X3 is an improvement over previous G1X versions but still well behind in this company.
None of these cameras can compete with a proper macro lens.
Movies
The G1X3 lacks 4K so I tested them in Full HD. I make no pretence at being any kind of expert on video so my testing was not very sophisticated.
I just filmed domestic scenes and viewed the film clips on screen.
The results were fairly obvious. The LX100 produced the most natural, sharpest and best movie picture quality. The G1X3 was the least appealing with unsharp details, un-natural color and contrast and edge artefacts.
The G1X3 had the best autofocus making transitions from near to far subjects more quickly than the other cameras. However the other two were not disgraced. They both shifted focus reliably enough just not as quickly as the G1X3.
So even without invoking 4K, the video verdict is:
1. LX100
2. RX100(4)
3. G1X3
Social documentary and street photography
Each camera is very well suited to this type of work. Each produces very good results.
I rate the G1X3 slightly ahead because of its more reliable autofocus and slightly greater subject detail. But the others are also very good.
My rating:
1. G1X3 (just)
2. LX100= RX100(4).
Family/children at play
Many people like to use these cameras to photograph family members including children/grandchildren at play.
Each of these three does a fine job with fast, mostly accurate autofocus and good highlight/shadow detail.
I rate the three cameras equal for this task.
Panoramas
Each camera can make sweep auto-panoramas stitched in camera.
The G1X3 is the first Canon camera with this capability.
I tested the three cameras on my usual landscape subject and also in various settings suitable for panorama. I have considerable past experience with the LX100 as a landscape pano camera and found it to give very good results.
The G1X3 has the advantage that panorama can be used at any focal length. The others revert to the widest focal length for panorama. The RX100(4) has a dedicated pano icon on the mode dial. The other two have to access pano via the Scene icon on the mode dial.
Each camera can do pano in portrait or landscape orientation with sweep in any direction.
Considerable practice is required with each camera to get consistent results.
The G1X3 permits the greatest sweep angle, regularly reaching around 200 degrees, the RX100(4) allows the least sweep angle.
Overall pano image quality and best stitching integrity is achieved by the LX100. The others make more stitching errors particularly with foliage.
Panorama rating:
1. LX100
2. G1X3 = RX100(4).
Action
I doubt many users would expect any of these cameras to be ideal for capturing action.
However the G1X3 can follow focus on moving subjects very well. The problem with it is the small buffer and tediously slow write to card times. It is much better if JPG only output is used
I have used the LX100 for basketball with quite good results. Even with RAW+JPG output the LX100 has a decent buffer which clears decently fast. So I can fire a sequence of shots without the camera getting bogged down in its own processing.
So best for action is the LX100 if RAW+JPG is required, and either the LX100 or G1X3 if JPG only output is suitable.
Ergonomics
Using my standard ergonomic scoring schedule I rate them:
1. G1X3 score 68
2. LX100 score 54
3. RX100(4) score 52
The G1X3 has the goods: the best EVF of this trio with more importantly the best eyepiece and eyecup, fully articulated monitor, twin dial controls (triple dial if you count the lens ring) and all the rest of it.
A clear win for the G1X3.
Summary
If compact size is your primary criterion the choice is easy: get one of the Sony RX100 models. I recommend the Mk3, or Mk4 as best value for money.
The G1X3 and LX100 have double the box volume (width x height x depth) of the RX100 models.
If your preference runs towards indoor sport, low light subjects without flash, video or close ups consider the LX100 even though it is getting a bit old having been announced in September 2014.
For the best overall user experience and results with general stills photography, family/children, street and social documentary work I recommend the G1X3.
Comment
If Canon had given the G1X3 an f2.0-4 lens and a sensor with better high ISO characteristics and a more anatomical handle and faster processor and better video and a few other upgrades and a more interesting shape and style, they might have had a camera of the year to sell.
As it stands the G1X3 is a decent camera which performs competently in most situations.
Is that enough in 2018 ??
I suspect that description would fit the latest crop of smartphone cameras.
My personal reaction to the G1X3 is that it falls short of the kind of adventurous excellence which made Canon the leading brand which it is today.
It is evidently the best Canon compact to date but let’s face it, Canon’s previous compact models have been mediocre little things unlikely to engender much excitement in anybody.
I think that in today’s market which threatens the very existence of the camera as a type of image making device manufacturers need to produce products which are really special.
Things with a flavour of exotica after which people will lust.
There is nothing exotic about the cameras compared here and I can’t imagine too many people lusting after one.