Canon G1X Mark II Review

Overview

Overview by Mike Tomkins
Posted: 02/11/2014
Field Test by Tim Barribeau

Two years ago, Canon announced its first -- and until now, only -- entry in the large-sensor, fixed-lens camera market, the PowerShot G1 X. And what an entry it was -- until the G1 X, no manufacturer had introduced a large-sensor compact with a zoom lens. Not surprisingly for such a groundbreaking entry, the G1 X took home a Dave's Pick award despite a few rough edges here and there. Now, the Canon G1 X Mark II offers a response to those criticisms, and looks to be an altogether more well-rounded camera for it.

At the heart of the Canon G1 X Mk II is what Canon describes as a new, self-created CMOS image sensor. It's still described a 1.5-inch type chip, but it has a lesser surface area than that in the original G1 X.

Sensor width is unchanged at 18.7mm. So, too, are the maximum pixel width, and the total resolution of 15 megapixels. The height, though, is abbreviated somewhat, at 12.5mm in the new camera, versus 14mm in its predecessor. That leads to a reduction in the total pixel count. By our math, it's close to 13.6 megapixels, down from 14.3 in the G1 X.

Note that we said "by our math" -- Canon rates it somewhat differently, because neither of the two most typical aspect ratios match the masked aspect ratio of the sensor. The Canon G1 X II now defaults to a more photographer-friendly 3:2 aspect ratio, for a pixel count of 12.8 megapixels. It also offers an alternate 13.1-megapixel, 4:3 aspect mode. The 3:2 aspect is said to use the full width of the sensor, and the 4:3 aspect the full height, with both modes offering roughly the same diagonal angle of view.

This difference could well be related to the new lens, which we'll come to in a moment. The lack of change in total resolution, pixel width, and ISO sensitivity -- still 100 to 12,800 equivalents -- would tend to back up the theory that the actual sensor area is unchanged, and it's merely masked a little tighter. But enough of the speculation.

The new sensor is paired with a DIGIC 6 image processor, upgraded from the DIGIC 5 of the earlier camera. And here, there's a big difference to be had. One of our bugbears with the G1 X was its extremely pedestrian performance. In terms of burst rate, the G1 X Mark II still won't win awards, but it's a lot swifter overall.

The maximum full-resolution burst rate is now 5.2 frames per second, up from 1.9 fps in the earlier camera. (Note that the G1 X did have a special "High-Speed Burst HQ" scene mode that could manage 4.5 fps for 6 JPEG frames.) With autofocus, you'll still manage 3.0 fps, up from 0.7 fps in the original G1 X. Of course, these are manufacturer-supplied figures and it turns out they only apply to JPEGs. See our Performance test results for all the details.

The G1 X Mark II also has a new lens, and this too solves a shortcoming of the earlier camera. The original G1 X's lens had a nice, bright f/2.8 wide angle, but it rapidly dimmed down to f/5.8 by the telephoto position. The Canon G1 X II's optic is altogether more exciting, starting at a very bright f/2.0 wide angle, and only falling to f/3.9 at the telephoto position, despite offering more zoom range. And there's also a new nine-bladed aperture, up from six blades in the original, a change that should yield more attractive bokeh.

And many of us will be pleased to see the original 4x 28-112mm equivalent range expanded at both ends to a 5x range of 24 to 120mm equivalents. That's everything from a very generous wide angle to a modest telephoto, and the Canon G1 X Mark II still offers rather more at both ends than do Sony's popular (but smaller-sensored) RX100 and RX100 II compacts.

There's another important difference between the G1 X and its successor in the lens department, too. Specifically, in their lens barrels. That on the earlier camera was wrapped with a removable trim ring. Press a button and this could be removed to mount accessories such as the MLA-DC1 Light Adapter. We doubt too many G1 X owners actually did so. Now, the Canon G1 X Mark II does away with the trim ring, and replaces it with not one, but two round-the-barrel, fly-by-wire controls. One has click detents, and is used to adjust camera settings. The other is stepless and smooth-turning, and allows you to control either manual focus, or still more camera settings.

And speaking of focus, this was another area in which we weren't entirely satisfied by the original camera, and another in which Canon says it has made improvements. The Canon G1 X Mk II is said to offer improved autofocus speed, and does so despite more than tripling the number of autofocus points from 9 to 31. The G1 X II also focuses closer, down to a minimum distance of 5cm (2") versus 20cm (7.9") on the G1 X.

The changes aren't all to our liking, however. Flip the Canon G1 X Mark II over, and you'll notice a change we think makes the new model rather less versatile. Gone is the vari-angle tilt / swivel LCD monitor, a feature we singled out for praise on the original camera. It's replaced instead by a tilt-only display which can fold upwards 180 degrees and downwards some 45 degrees. Sure, you can still shoot selfies with this design -- so long as you're not using the flash or hot shoe, anyway, or don't mind the LCD being partially obscured -- but it's of no help when shooting over the head or low to the ground in portrait orientation. Nor can it be closed facing inwards, to protect the screen.

Nor is there an optical viewfinder any more. This is gone, replaced by an optional EVF-DC1 electronic viewfinder accessory, which lists for US$300. And that could be a huge subtraction if you liked to save on battery life by shooting with the LCD monitor switched off, as we'll see in a minute.

But it's not all bad news. The LCD panel itself has been updated, and matches the new, default 3:2 aspect ratio of the camera body. (In the process, resolution has increased slightly, since the pixel array changed from 640 x 480 pixels in the old camera to 720 x 480 pixels in the new one. There are, of course, still three dots per color for a total dot count in the neighborhood of 1,040K-dots.)

The new screen also gains a capacitive touch overlay, allowing it to serve as an input device. And as noted, there's now a electronic viewfinder accessory. The EVF-DC1 has a high-resolution 2.36 million dot LCD, a high eyepoint (unspecified), a dioptric adjustment range of -3.0 to +1.0, is able to tilt up to 90 degrees and displays shooting info overlaid on the image, something the optical viewfinder couldn't do.

Most exposure variables -- exposure modes, shutter speeds, ISO sensitivity, metering, flash, and so forth are unchanged from the previous model, which isn't an issue -- they seemed just fine as they were. There are a couple of new options on the Mode dial, though: Hybrid Auto and Creative Shot. In Hybrid Auto mode, the camera records a short 2-4 second movie clip right before taking each still photo, and then stitches them together automatically to create "digest movies." Creative Shot captures three shots and creates six images from one shutter press, with a choice of Auto (all effects), Retro, Monochrome, Special, and Natural effects applied, in addition to one with default processing. And we should note that as well as the existing popup flash, there is still a hot shoe for external strobes -- at least, so long as you're not already using it for the viewfinder accessory.

And we're not done with the changes yet, either. The Canon G1 X II acknowledges where the market has gone thanks to smartphones in the last couple of years, and adds Wi-Fi wireless networking connectivity. It also adds Near-Field Communication technology, for the first time in a Canon G-series camera. Wi-Fi is pretty self-explanatory, letting you pair the camera to your smartphone, tablet, or Wi-Fi enabled computer to transfer images. You can also remotely control the camera from certain Android and iOS devices, including zoom and self-timer features.

NFC, though, may be unfamiliar if you're an Apple iOS device fan, though, because your iPhone or iPad doesn't support it. This tech allows quick and painless connection with Android smartphones and tablets, simply by holding the two devices close together. The connection is then established automatically, without any prompts or passwords.

As with its predecessor, the Canon G1 X Mark II can still shot Full HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixel; 1080p) movies, but it now does so at a faster rate of up to 30 frames per second, where the earlier camera was limited to just 24 fps. (If you preferred the movie-like feel of 24p video, you're sadly out of luck -- that option is no longer available.)

The G1 X Mark II still stores images and movies on Secure Digital cards, but now adds UHS-I high-speed card support to the existing SDHC and SDXC high-capacity card support. Connectivity options still include USB data, plus high-def Micro HDMI and standard-def composite NTSC / PAL video outputs, and a socket for Canon's RS-60E3 remote switch. (And of course, the hot shoe with its new support for the EVF accessory.)

Canon has switched to a new NB-12L lithium-ion battery pack in the G1 X II, but despite the change, battery life has actually decreased just slightly. (Or, if you consider what was possible with the original model's optical viewfinder, quite radically.) Previously, you could get 250 shots with the LCD monitor, or 700 with the optical viewfinder. Now, you'll manage just 240 with the LCD, or 200 with the optional EVF-DC1 electronic viewfinder accessory. Canon also says 300 shots are possible in "ECO" mode in which the LCD dims and turns off more quickly than usual.

The Canon G1 X Mark II shown with accessory grip attachment and optional lens hood. In the US, Canon sells the accessory grip (Custom Grip GR-DC1A) for an MSRP of $29.99 or in a special bundle direct from Canon for an MSRP of $799.99. The optional LH-DC80 lens hood also lists for $29.99.

Canon has also introduced a G1 X Mark II-exclusive accessory grip, the Custom Grip GR-DC1A (left), giving photographers a bit more substantial hold on the camera. The grip comes standard as part of the European version of the camera. In the US, however, the grip attachment is an optional accessory* sold exclusively through the Canon USA direct web store for US$29.99.

With that said, despite all these new features, the Canon G1 X Mark II is actually a little smaller than its predecessor. That change comes in no small part thanks to the removal of the optical viewfinder, and it only really affects the height, but given that the camera's bulk put it at something of a disadvantage compared to Sony's RX100 and RX100 Mark II, it's still a welcome change. Overall camera weight has actually increased a little, however.

Available from April 2014, the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II is priced at around US$800. That's the exact same price point at which its predecessor launched two years ago, and some US$150 more than the current list price of that model. * Since the camera was first announced, Canon's introduced a exclusive G1 X Mark II kit that includes the add-on accessory grip for US$799.99 and is available only through Canon's Direct Store.

Place your order with a trusted Imaging Resource affiliate now:

• Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II, US$799: ADORAMA | AMAZON | B&H
• Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Canon Direct Exclusive Kit, US$799.99: CANON DIRECT

In the Box

The Canon G1 X Mark II retail kit (as reviewed) contains the following items:

• Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II digital camera
• NS-DC11 neck strap
• NB-12L battery back
• CB-2LG battery charger
• (USB cable not included)
• EOS Digital Solution disk and software instructional manual CD
• Camera instruction manual

Recommended Accessories

• Large capacity SDHC/SDXC memory card. 16GB Class 6 should be a minimum.
• Extra battery pack NB-12L (~US$54)
• Canon custom grip GR-DC1A (~US$30)
• Canon LH-DC80 lens hood (~US$30)
• Canon EVF-DC1 electronic viewfinder (~US$240)
• Small camera bag

Optics

Lens

Zoom
Generally good optical performance from the wide-angle 5x optical zoom.

The Canon PowerShot G1 X II's 5x zoom lens covers the equivalent of about 24-120mm on a 35mm camera, compared to 28-112mm (4x zoom) for the G1X. Maximum aperture has improved as well, ranging from f/2.0 at wide-angle to f/3.9 at telephoto versus f/2.8-5.8, though it does fall off rapidly as you zoom.

The following table reflects the maximum and minimum apertures as reported by the camera:

Focal length (eq.)	24mm	28mm	35mm	50mm	85mm	100mm	120mm
Maximum aperture	f/2.0	f/2.8	f/3.2	f/3.5	f/3.9	f/3.9	f/3.9
Minimum aperture	f/16 at all focal lengths

Sharpness is very good across most of the frame at full wide-angle and f/8, with just minor softness in the corners. Very little chromatic aberration is visible (effectively suppressed by the DIGIC 6 processor), though some minor flare is evident around the bright white elements of this shot. At medium focal length (~53mm eq.), sharpness and contrast are very good across the frame at f/8, and flare doesn't appear to be an issue. Results at full telephoto and f/8 are also very good, with very good sharpness and contrast across the frame. Again, chromatic aberration is negligible because the G1 X II suppresses it in JPEGs.

The G1 X Mark II also offers digital zoom up to 4x, and what Canon calls a "digital teleconverter" at preset magnifications of 1.6x and 2.0x. Digital teleconverter at 2.0x (shown above) does a better than average job because of lower noise levels compared to most digicams, though we wouldn't recommend using higher digital zoom magnifications due to the loss of fine detail that usually comes with strong digital enlargement.

Overall, good to very good far-field performance at f/8.

Macro
A larger than average macro area, with very good detail. Flash is partially blocked by the lens.

The Canon PowerShot G1 X II's lens captured a larger-than-average minimum area of 3.07 x 2.30 inches (78 x 59 millimeters), though that's much improved over the G1 X's minimum macro area (8.79 x 6.59 in. or 223 x 167 mm). Sharpness is pretty good over much of the frame, though extreme corners are quite soft from field curvature of the lens. (Most cameras have some softening in the corners in macro mode. What we see here is better than average.) The Canon G1 X II's built-in flash is partially block by the lens at closest focus distance, resulting in a very dark shadow in the bottom right and overexposure in the top left. You'll likely want to use external lighting for close macro shots with the G1 X II.

Distortion
Lower than average barrel distortion in JPEGs; very high at wide angle in uncorrected RAW files.

In-camera JPEG

Complex pincushion distortion at 24mm eq. is about 0.1%

Complex barrel distortion at 120mm eq. is about 0.1%

JPEG: The Canon G1 X II's just under 0.1% complex pincushion distortion at wide angle is very low compared to the average digital camera, especially considering its generously wide 24mm-equivalent focal length (see below for the explanation). The ~0.1% complex barrel distortion at the telephoto end is also very low and not the pincushion type of distortion we normally see at telephoto. This is the tendency for the lens to bend straight lines outward (like a barrel -- usually at wide angle) or inward (like a pincushion -- usually at telephoto).

Uncorrected RAW

Barrel distortion at 24mm eq. is about 4.4%

Complex barrel distortion at 120mm eq. is unchanged at about 0.1%

RAW: When converting RAW files using dcraw (no corrections applied), barrel distortion at wide-angle is very high, at about 4.4%. Also note how the image "circle" does not cover a significant portion of the sensor (it seems to be masked, perhaps to help reduce internal reflections). Distortion at full telephoto is about the same as the in-camera JPEG, so no correction is performed by the camera at the telephoto end. Canon's bundled Digital Photo Professional and Adobe Camera Raw automatically reduce geometric distortion, producing distortion results similar to in-camera JPEGs, though ACR crops away more than the camera.

We expect high distortion at wide angle for smaller lenses though, and most RAW converters will automatically correct for it. There is however going to be a loss of resolution as well as possible interpolation artifacts as a result of such strong correction, because pixels in the corners of the frame are being "stretched" to correct for the distortion. If you look closely at the corners in the G1 X II's wide-angle shots, they are soft and detail is a little rough with normally straight edges in the resolution target looking jagged. Obviously, a lens that doesn't require such correction and is also sharp in the corners to begin with would be preferable, but relaxing constraints on distortion brings other benefits in the lens design, such as a compact, lower cost design.

Chromatic Aberration and Corner Softness
CA is low at wide-angle, and even lower at telephoto in JPEGs. Mild to moderate blurring in the corners of the frame at wide angle, but very good corner sharpness at full telephoto.

Maximum Aperture
Wide (f/2.0): Lower right CA: Low Softness: Moderately soft	Wide (f/2.0): Center CA: Very low Softness: Sharp
Tele (f/3.9): Upper left CA: Very low Softness: Fairly sharp	Tele: (f/3.9): Center CA: Very low Softness: Sharp

Chromatic Aberration. Chromatic aberration is quite low at both wide angle and full telephoto, because the G1 X II's DIGIC 6 processor removes most of it. See below for examples of uncorrected C.A. Chromatic aberration is a type of distortion visible as a slight colored fringe around the objects at the edges of the field of view on the resolution target.

Corner Softness. The Canon G1 X II's lens produces moderately soft corners at full wide angle when wide open. Blurring is about the same in all for corners, but softness doesn't extend very far into the frame though there is some loss of definition, but the center is quite sharp. Much of the softness is due to the strong geometric distortion and CA correction taking place at wide angle. Corners at full telephoto are fairly sharp but not quite as contrasty as the center. Vignetting is not a problem at either end of the zoom.

Aperture f/5.6
Wide (f/5.6): Lower right CA: Low Softness: Slightly soft	Wide (f/5.6): Center CA: Very low Softness: Sharp
Tele (f/5.6): Upper left CA: Very low Softness: Sharp	Tele (f/5.6): Center CA: Very low Softness: Sharp

When the lens is stopped-down to f/5.6, corner sharpness improves at wide angle, though you can still see some softness and rough edges due to the strong distortion correction applied. At full telephoto, corner sharpness remains about the same which is to say very good but with improved contrast, almost as sharp as the center.

Chromatic Aberration Correction

In-camera JPEG	Uncorrected RAW
Wide (f/2.0): Upper left CA: Low	Wide (f/2.0): Upper left CA: Moderately high
Tele (f/3.9): Upper left CA: Very low	Tele: (f/3.9): Upper left CA: Moderate

As you can see, the Canon G1 X II's DIGIC 6 processor does a great job suppressing most of the chromatic aberration in JPEGs (crops on the left) versus RAW files converted in Adobe Camera Raw (on the right), which appears not to correct for CA by default. Not surprisingly, C.A. is much stronger at wide angle compared to telephoto.

Localized Flare at Maximum Aperture

We found when taking shots wide open at maximum aperture, the G1 X Mark II's lens can produce what looks like localized flare that can also be described as a glowing softness or a halo effect, likely caused by poorly corrected spherical aberration and sometimes accompanied by axial chromatic aberration. The defect is most noticeable in high-contrast subjects that are slightly outside the plane of sharp focus, and diminishes when you stop down, as you can see by the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 in the top set of crops above. The aberration appears to be worst case at wide angle and closest focus, however, we have also seen it in shots at more normal subject distances, and at other focal lengths as seen in the second set of crops above taken at about 7 feet and approximately 100mm equivalent (those crops show an area behind the plane of focus). You'll likely want to stop down as much as you can for most macros to maximize depth of field, but since it can still occur in non-macro shots, you may want to stop down a click or two to avoid this effect, particularly for high-contrast or bright subjects that have some depth to them. Of course, having to stop down unfortunately negates the value of a fast lens in some circumstances.

Viewfinder

Coverage
Excellent accuracy from the LCD monitor and optional EVF.

The Canon PowerShot G1 X II's LCD monitor and optional EVF-DC1 electronic viewfinder displayed excellent accuracy, both showing essentially 100% coverage at wide angle, and slightly over 100% at full telephoto.

The images above were taken from our standardized test shots. For a collection of more pictorial photos, see our Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Photo Gallery .

Exposure

Color

Saturation & Hue Accuracy
Realistic saturation levels with good hue accuracy, though yellows were a little problematic.

In the diagram above, the squares show the original color, and the circles show the color that the camera captured. More saturated colors are located towards the periphery of the graph. Hue changes as you travel around the center. Thus, hue-accurate, highly saturated colors appear as lines radiating from the center.

Saturation. The Canon G1 X II produced fairly accurate saturation levels overall, with only mild to moderate oversaturation in reds, greens, browns, and purples blues. Bright yellow, aqua, and cyan were undersaturated by small to moderate amounts. Mean saturation at base ISO is 108%, or 8% oversaturated, which is a little more true to life than most cameras these days. Overall, the Canon G1 X II's images appear to have natural looking color that is a touch muted compared to other cameras, though you can always adjust saturation to your liking. Most consumer digital cameras produce color that's more highly saturated (more intense) than found in the original subjects. This is simply because most people like their color a bit brighter than life.

Skin tones. Here, with Auto white balance in simulated daylight, the Canon G1 X II rendered lighter Caucasian skin tones a little yellow and flat. Manual white balance produced more pinkish skin tones. Where oversaturation is most problematic is on Caucasian skin tones, as it's very easy for these "memory colors" to be seen as too bright, too pink, too yellow, etc.

Hue. The Canon PowerShot G1 X II produced a few color shifts relative to the correct mathematical translation of colors in its subjects, most visibly pushing cyan toward blue (probably for better-looking skies), red toward orange, and yellow toward green. Mean "delta-C" color error after correcting for saturation at base ISO was 4.36 which is better than average, though the shift and reduced saturation in yellows was noticeable in some of our shots. Hue is "what color" the color is.

Sensor

Exposure and White Balance

Indoors, incandescent lighting
Good color balance with Auto, and very good with Manual white balance settings. Above average exposure accuracy.

Color balance indoors under incandescent lighting was pretty good with the Auto white balance setting, with just a hint of a magenta tint. The Canon G1 X II did much better here than the majority of digital cameras we've tested. The Incandescent white balance option resulted in a strong orange cast, while the Manual white balance setting was pretty accurate if a touch cool. The PowerShot G1 X II's exposure system handled this lighting well, requiring no exposure compensation to produce reasonably bright images when the average amount required is + 0.3 EV for this shot. Our test lighting for this shot is a mixture of 60 and 100 watt household incandescent bulbs, a pretty yellow light source, but a very common one in typical home settings here in the U.S.

Outdoors, daylight
Slightly cool colors, with high default contrast. Very good exposure accuracy.

The Canon PowerShot G1 X II struggled a bit under harsh outdoor lighting of our "Sunlit" Portrait shot, as default contrast was quite high. About average exposure compensation of +0.7 EV was needed to keep the mannequin's facial skin tones bright, resulting in a lot of blown highlights in her shirt and flowers. On the other hand, overall exposure was excellent in our outdoor far-field shot at default exposure, with surprisingly few clipped highlights and few lost shadows. Color outdoors was good with the Auto white balance setting, just a touch cool and muted, though the camera rendered some skin tones a little too flat and yellow, so we preferred Manual white balance here for our "Sunlit" Portrait shot.

See full set of test images with explanations
See thumbnails of all test and gallery images

Resolution
Very high resolution, ~2,300 lines of strong detail from in-camera JPEGs, about 2,300 lines from converted RAW files.

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,300 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and about the same in the vertical direction in JPEGs straight out of the camera, though the G1 X II's high default sharpening interferes by exacerbating moiré making it difficult to call. Extinction of the pattern occurred at about 2,600 lines in the horizontal direction, and about 2,800 lines in the vertical direction. Adobe Camera Raw wasn't really able to extract more resolution, producing more false colors and higher color moiré, as it often does, however applying less sharpening than the camera avoided some of the aliasing artifacts seen near the limits of resolution. Use these numbers to compare with other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.

See full set of test images with explanations
See thumbnails of all test and gallery images

Sharpness & Detail
Fairly sharp, detailed images overall, though with some visible sharpening artifacts on high-contrast subjects. Noise suppression limits detail in low contrast areas, though much better than average results here.

Sharpness. The Canon PowerShot G1 X II captures fairly sharp JPEG images at default settings, though some edge enhancement artifacts are visible on high-contrast subjects such as the noticeable halos around lines and text in the crop above left. Enthusiasts might want to shoot with a lower sharpening setting and apply additional sharpening in post processing, or shoot RAW for complete control over sharpening. Edge enhancement creates the illusion of sharpness by enhancing colors and tones right at the edge of a rapid transition in color or tone.

Detail. The crop above right shows some smudging of low contrast detail due to noise suppression, as individual strands of hair are blurred together in midtones and shadows, but performance here is much better than average for a compact digicam and compares well to some DSLRs. Noise-suppression systems in digital cameras tend to flatten-out detail in areas of subtle contrast. The effects can often be seen in shots of human hair, where the individual strands are lost and an almost "watercolor" look appears.

RAW vs In-Camera JPEGs
As noted above the Canon G1 X II produces fairly sharp, detailed in-camera JPEGs. With a good RAW converter, more detail can often be extracted with fewer sharpening artifacts. See below:

Base ISO (100)
Camera JPEG, defaults	RAW via Adobe Camera Raw

In the table above, we compare an in-camera JPEG taken at base ISO using default noise reduction and sharpening (on the left) to the matching RAW file converted with Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 using default noise reduction with some strong but tight unsharp masking applied in Photoshop (300%, radius of 0.3 pixels, and a threshold of 0).

Looking closely at the images, ACR extracts additional detail that isn't present in the JPEG from the camera, particularly in the red-leaf swatch where the thread pattern is likely treated as noise by the JPEG engine. Fine detail in the mosaic crop is also slightly improved, but as is often the case, more noise can be seen in the bottle crop. You can of course apply stronger noise reduction (default ACR NR used here) to arrive at your ideal noise versus detail tradeoff. Color was improved as well, with ACR removing much of the yellow-to-green shift in the JPEG. And, as expected, sharpening haloes aren't nearly as strong as default camera output. Still, not bad in-camera default JPEG processing, but as usual you can do noticeably better with a good RAW converter.

ISO & Noise Performance
Very good detail versus noise performance up to ISO 1,600.

Default Noise Reduction
ISO 100	ISO 200	ISO 400
ISO 800	ISO 1,600	ISO 3,200
ISO 6,400	ISO 12,800

The PowerShot G1 X II performed well here, with very good noise performance up to ISO 1,600. There's a bit of softening in the hair at ISO 800, as well as some fine-grained luminance noise and some chroma noise in the shadows, but fine detail is really quite good. ISO 1,600 is a little softer from more aggressive noise reduction, but detail is still pretty good. ISO 3,200 is noticeably softer, though, with more noticeable luma noise and chroma noise becoming evident in darker areas. Luma noise is stronger at ISO 6,400, as is chroma noise. Contrast is also higher. ISO 12,800 is pretty noisy as you'd expect, with little fine detail and noticeable chroma noise in the form of green and purple blotches. Still, high ISO performance is much better than most compact cameras, though not as good as the better APS-C and Micro Four Thirds models these days, and not much improvement over its predecessor (perhaps even a step back with some subjects, although the faster lens will help a lot when shooting wide open, particularly at telephoto). Note that the G1 X II offers three levels of noise reduction (Low, Standard and High), and these shots were taken using the default Standard setting.

Of course, the impact of noise and detail loss are highly dependent on the size the photos are printed at, and pixel-peeping on-screen has surprisingly little relationship to how the images look when printed: See the Print Quality section below for recommended maximum print sizes at each ISO.

Extremes: Sunlit and low light tests
High resolution with strong detail, though limited dynamic range. Excellent low-light performance, capable of capturing bright images in near darkness at all ISOs.

Sunlight. The Canon PowerShot G1 X II struggled a bit under the deliberately harsh lighting in the test above. To keep facial tones bright, +0.7 EV compensation was required, but that led to a lot of washed-out highlights, more than we're used to seeing for this class of sensor. Some may prefer the +0.3 EV setting for its reduced highlight clipping, but we found the face a bit too dim. Detail is not bad in the shadows at +0.7 EV, though there are some very deep shadows that are quite noisy and posterized. Consider using fill flash in situations like the one shown above; and it's better to shoot in the shade when possible.

Because digital cameras are more like slide film than negative film (in that they tend to have a more limited tonal range), we test them in the harshest situations to see how they handle scenes with bright highlights and dark shadows, as well as what kind of sensitivity they have in low light. The shot above is designed to mimic the very harsh, contrasty effect of direct noonday sunlight, a very tough challenge for most digital cameras. (You can read details of this test here.)

Face Detection Examples
Aperture Priority 0 EV	Face Detection 0 EV	Smart Auto 0 EV

Face Detection. The table above shows results with the default exposure using Aperture Priority AE, as well as with Face Detection enabled, and Smart Auto. As you can see, the G1 X II's face detection and Smart Auto mode both increased exposure dramatically compared to the default exposure in Aperture Priority mode, going from very underexposed to overly bright images. Face detection dropped the shutter speed from 1/50s to 1/20s to improve the exposure for the face, while keeping ISO (100) and aperture (f/8.0) the same as before. Smart Auto also detected the face, but boosted ISO to 400, used maximum aperture (f/3.9) and a faster shutter speed (1/250s). Overall, we preferred the Smart Auto exposure as the camera also seemed to adjust contrast resulting in far fewer blown highlights as well as more open shadows, though noise is more visible in the shadows and you can see the the localized flare issue around brighter elements that are slightly out of focus, as mentioned on the optics page.

Outdoor Portrait i-Contrast Series
	i-Contrast Setting: DRC Off (Default) DRC 200% DRC 400% DRC Auto Shadow Correct

Intelligent Contrast. As part of the G1 X II's Intelligent Contrast (i-Contrast) feature, the camera has "Dynamic Range Correction" to help tame highlights, and "Shadow Correct" to bring out more shadow detail.

Above are examples of our challenging "Sunlit" Portrait scene shot with the G1 X II's three available Dynamic Range Correction settings, plus Shadow Correct. Mouse over the links to the right to compare, and click on the links to get to the full-resolution images. The resulting images are a little dim (in hindsight, it would have been better to shoot these at +0.7 or +1.0 EV compensation instead of +0.3 EV), but you can see that highlights were toned-down progressively with the DR 200% and DR 400% settings. The results with DR Auto were practically identical to being set to Off, probably because relatively few highlights were blown to begin with. Shadow Correct also worked as expected, boosting shadows without impacting highlights (it actually reduced highlights a bit according to the histogram, but the framing isn't identical so it's difficult to compare), leading to the best overall exposure for this series.

Note that Dynamic Range Correction may boost ISO depending on your current setting, so more noise and/or stronger NR may be visible with it enabled. (In our samples above, DR 200% used ISO 200 and DR 400% used ISO 400, while DR Auto and Shadow Correct left ISO at 100.)

Far-field i-Contrast Comparison
Off (default)	DRC 200%	DRC 400%
DRC Auto	Shadow Correct

Above, you can see the effect of the available i-Contrast settings on our Far-field shot. Again, Auto made little difference, but default exposure was spot-on to begin with. Shadow Correct also made no difference, because few shadows were lost at defaults.

Dynamic Range Analysis (RAW mode)
While we once performed our own dynamic range measurements based on in-camera JPEGs as well as converted RAW images (when the camera was supported by Adobe Camera Raw), we've switched to using DxO Labs' results from their DxOMark website. As technology advanced, the dynamic range of modern high-end cameras in some cases exceeded the range of the Stouffer T4110 density scale that we used for our own measurements. DxO's approach based on RAW data before demosaicing is also more revealing, because it measures the fundamental dynamic range of the sensor, irrespective of whatever processing is applied to JPEGs, or to RAW data by off-the-shelf conversion software.

In the following, we use DxO's "Print" dynamic range results, which are scaled based on camera resolution. As the name suggests, this scaling corresponds to the situation in which you print at a given size, regardless of how many megapixels the camera might have. (In other words, if you've decided to make a 13x19 inch print, that's the size you're printing, whether the camera's resolution is 16 or 300 megapixels.) For the technically-minded, you can find a discussion of the reasoning behind this here on the DxOMark website. Also note that DxO Labs uses a signal-to-noise (SNR) threshold of 1 when defining the lower boundary of acceptable luminance noise in their dynamic range measurements, which corresponds to the "Low Quality" threshold of the Imatest software we used to use for this measurement.

Here, we decided to compare the Canon G1 X II's dynamic range to its predecessor, the G1 X, and also to the 16-megapixel Olympus E-M10 which actually has a slightly smaller sensor with higher resolution, representing one of the best Four Thirds sensors these days, while in the same price range as the G1 X II. You can always compare other models on DxOMark.com.

As you can see from the above graph (click for a larger image), the G1 X Mark II's dynamic range is very similar to the G1 X's, as expected, ranging from about 10.8 EV at base ISO, down to about 6.6 EV at maximum ISO. Compared to the E-M10, though, the G1 X II offers about 1.5 EV less dynamic range at base ISO (10.8 vs 12.3 EV), and the E-M10 continues to offer significantly higher dynamic range to about ISO 800, above which all three cameras offer roughly the same dynamic range (within about 1/3 EV). Click here to visit the DxOMark page for the Canon G1 X Mark II for more of their test results and additional comparisons.

	1 fc 11 lux	1/2 fc 5.5 lux	1/4 fc 2.7 lux	1/8 fc 1.3 lux	1/16 fc 0.67 lux	1/16 fc No NR
ISO 100	1 s f2.0	2 s f2.0	4 s f2.0	8 s f2.0	16 s f2.0	16 s f2.0
ISO 200	0.5 s f2.0	1 s f2.0	2 s f2.0	4 s f2.0	8 s f2.0	8 s f2.0
ISO 400	1/4 s f2.0	0.5 s f2.0	1 s f2.0	2 s f2.0	4 s f2.0	4 s f2.0
ISO 800	1/8 s f2.0	1/4 s f2.0	0.5 s f2.0	1 s f2.0	2 s f2.0	2 s f2.0
ISO 1600	1/16 s f2.0	1/8 s f2.0	1/4 s f2.0	0.5 s f2.0	1 s f2.0	1 s f2.0
ISO 3200	1/32 s f2.0	1/16 s f2.0	1/8 s f2.0	1/4 s f2.0	0.5 s f2.0	0.5 s f2.0
ISO 6400	1/64 s f2.0	1/32 s f2.0	1/16 s f2.0	1/8 s f2.0	1/4 s f2.0	1/4 s f2.0
ISO 12800	1/128 s f2.0	1/64 s f2.0	1/32 s f2.0	1/16 s f2.0	1/8 s f2.0	1/8 s f2.0

Low Light. The Canon PowerShot G1 X II performed well on the low-light test, capturing bright images at the lowest light level (1/16 foot-candle), even with the lowest sensitivity setting (ISO 100). As expected, noise increases as ISO goes up and light levels go down, but noise remains remarkably low up to ISO 1,600, and even ISO 3,200 looks pretty good. Noise is a little high at ISOs 6,400 and 12,800, but that's to be expected, and it's pretty fine-grained with low chroma noise. Color balance is pretty good with Canon G1 X II's Auto white balance setting, just a touch cool, even at high ISOs and low light levels. We didn't notice any significant issues with hot pixels though some minor banding (pattern noise) can be seen in darker shadows.

The camera's AF system was able to focus unassisted to below the 1/16 foot-candle light level in our tests, which is very good, and the G1 X II was able to focus in complete darkness with the aid of its AF assist lamp.

How bright is this? The one foot-candle light level that this test begins at roughly corresponds to the brightness of typical city street-lighting at night. Cameras performing well at that level should be able to snap good-looking photos of street-lit scenes.

NOTE: This low light test is conducted with a stationary subject, and the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod. Most digital cameras will fail miserably when faced with a moving subject in dim lighting. (For example, a child's ballet recital or a holiday pageant in a gymnasium.) For such applications, you may have better luck with a digital SLR camera, but even there, you'll likely need to set the focus manually. For information and reviews on digital SLRs, refer to our SLR review index page.

Output Quality

Print Quality
Good 24 x 36 inch prints at ISO 100 and 200; makes an nice 16 x 20 inch print at ISO 800 and even an 4 x 6 inch print at ISO 12,800.

ISO 100 and 200 produce good 24 x 36 inch prints despite the relatively humble ~13MP 1.5-inch type sensor. At this size print, there's a bit of pixelation visible upon close inspection, but at an arm's-length viewing distance or farther, the amount of detail is impressive. Color reproduction at this ISO also looks very accurate and pleasing to the eye.

ISO 400 images looking very similar to ISO 100/200 and noise is very minimal, but fine detail is just slightly softer with some noise reduction processing visible in the shadows at this print size. Overall it makes a good 20 x 30 inch print, with a lot of detail and nice colors.

ISO 800 prints look great at 16 x 20 inches. At this size, prints are starting to match closer with the resolution of the sensor. Fine detail is great considering ISO 800 is relative high ISO for a compact camera, though the larger sensor gives the G1 X II a noticeable advantage. Noise reduction also does great at eliminating noise, and the effect doesn't appear overly aggressive.

ISO 1600 images make very nice 13 x 19 prints, with lots of fine detail and great color. Like ISO 800, noise reduction processing is very good with only minimal reduction in very fine detail.

ISO 3200 prints look good up to 8 x 10 inches, though an 11 x 14 inch print would be acceptable for less critical applications. Detail is quite good for this ISO sensitively and there's very low noise, even in the shadows.

ISO 6400 images are acceptable up to 5 x 7 inches. While luminance noise is reduced quite effectively with default noise reduction, fine detail takes a hit and colors look a little murky and drab.

ISO 12,800 images impress us with viable 4 x 6 inch prints, which is a rare accomplishment for a "compact" camera. As expected, the lack of very fine detail and drab colors prevent us from calling any larger sizes acceptable.

The Canon G1 X Mark II displays rather impressive print quality performance. The ~13MP 1.5-inch type CMOS sensor and powerful DIGIC 6 image processor make for some nice prints at low ISOs and even at some very high ISOs that other smaller-sensored compact cameras would struggle with. At ISO 100 and 200, images are able to print as large as 24 x 36 inches with excellent colors and lots of fine detail at normal viewing distances. At mid-range ISOs of 800 and 1600, prints as large as 16 x 20 and 13 x 19, respectively, are acceptable with default noise reduction doing some intelligent processing to eliminate shadow noise while keeping fine detail intact. Even at very high ISOs of 6400 and 12,800, prints are still viable, though a 4 x 6 is the only size acceptable at ISO 12,800. At these levels, fine detail has taken a hit due to noise and NR processing, and colors begin to look a bit on the drab side. Overall, the Canon G1 X Mark II unsurprisingly manages to out-perform competing compact cameras with smaller sensors in the printing department.

The images above were taken from our standardized test shots. For a collection of more pictorial photos, see our Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Photo Gallery .

Not sure which camera to buy? Let your eyes be the ultimate judge! Visit our Comparometer(tm) to compare images from the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II with those from other cameras you may be considering. The proof is in the pictures, so let your own eyes decide which you like best!

Performance

Image Quality

Below are crops from our laboratory Still Life target comparing the Canon G1 X Mark II against the Canon G1 X, Canon G16, Olympus E-M10, Sony A6000 and Sony RX100 II. All of these models sit at relatively similar price points and/or category in their respective product lineups. The main exception is the G16, which has a much smaller sensor than the other cameras in this comparison, but it sits right below the G1 X II in Canon's current PowerShot lineup and thus warrants comparison to the G1 X II.

These comparisons were somewhat tricky to write, as the cameras vary a great deal in resolution, so bear that in mind as you're reading and drawing your own conclusions. (We generally try to match cameras in these comparisons based on price, given that most of us work to a budget, rather than setting out to buy a given number of megapixels.)

NOTE: These images are best quality JPEGs straight out of the camera, at default settings including noise reduction and using the camera's actual base ISO (not extended ISO settings). All interchangeable lens cameras in this comparison were shot with our very sharp reference lenses. Clicking any crop will take you to a carrier page where you can click once again to access the full resolution image as delivered straight from the camera. For those interested in working with the RAW files involved: click these links to visit each camera's respective sample image thumbnail page: Canon G1 X Mark II, Canon G1 X, Canon G16, Olympus E-M10, Sony A6000 and Sony RX100 II -- links to the RAW files appear beneath those for the JPEG images, wherever we have them. And remember, you can always go to our world-renowned Comparometer to compare the Canon G1 X Mark II to any camera we've ever tested.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G1 X at Base ISO

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 100	Canon G1 X at ISO 100
Despite the DIGIC 6 processor and revised sensor in the Mark II, the resolutions are very similar in both cameras (13MP in the Mark II vs. 14.2MP in the Mark I), and as such, image quality at base ISO is quite similar. Both cameras show an excellent amount of fine detail and handle the notorious fabric swatches very well. The G1 X does however display slight more contrast in the red fabric compared to the Mark II.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G16 at Base ISO

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 100	Canon G16 at ISO 80
While the G16 is more compact and less expensive, here is a prime example of what the larger sensor in the G1 X Mark II can produce: crisper, sharper fine detail all around in all three comparison crops -- it's especially noticeable in the mosaic and fabric swatches.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Olympus E-M10 at Base ISO

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 100	Olympus E-M10 at ISO 200
The G1 X Mark II's 1.5-inch type sensor is actually a bit larger than the Four Thirds sensor in the E-M10, though the latter has a higher megapixel count. Despite the visible difference in image resolution, both display a lot of fine detail here at base ISO. The bottle crop from the E-M10 looks slightly cleaner and the mosaic looks ever-so-slightly crisper. And while the pink fabric looks a little better from the E-M10, the G1 X II handles the red fabric just a bit better (though the E-M10's expanded ISO 100 setting does even better).

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony A6000 at Base ISO

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 100	Sony A6000 at ISO 100
In this comparison, the APS-C sensor of the A6000 is much larger than the G1 X Mark II's sensor, and as such, the difference is fine detail is noticeable, though there is a significant difference in resolution. Both cameras display a lot of fine detail, but the larger, higher-resolution sensor of the A6000 makes the Sony the clear winner in this comparison. However, the Canon still produces a more natural-looking red fabric pattern.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony RX100 II at Base ISO

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 100	Sony RX100 II at ISO 160
Both the Canon G1 X Mark II and Sony RX100 Mark II do well at base ISO, but each has its own strengths. As expected, the RX100 Mark II's higher 20MP resolution captures more detail and we prefer the colors from the Sony as well, however the Canon looks a little crisper with higher contrast, and does much better with the red-leaf fabric.

Most enthusiast cameras will produce excellent base ISO results, so we like to push them and see what they can do compared to other cameras at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400. Recent advances in sensor technology have made ISO 1600 look a lot more like ISO 100, but there are still cameras whose quality starts to fall apart at this setting. We also choose 1600 because we like to be able to shoot at least at this level when indoors and at night.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G1 X at ISO 1600

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 1600	Canon G1 X at ISO 1600
Again, like the base ISO comparison, the Mark II and Mark I look very similar at ISO 1600. Very fine detail in parts of the image looks ever-so-slightly sharper on the Mark II -- the tile robe and yellow tile border, for instance. Luminance noise is very low in both, though if you look closely at the bottle crop, the NR processing is a little more apparent from the Mark II. Interestingly, the fabric swatches looks slightly better from the Mark I than from the Mark II.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G16 at ISO 1600

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 1600	Canon G16 at ISO 1600
The 1/1.7-inch type sensor of the G16 is no match for the 1.5-inch type sensor in the G1 X Mark II -- fine detail is significantly better and noise is much lower. The G1 X Mark II is the overall winner in this comparison for all three crops.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Olympus E-M10 at ISO 1600

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 1600	Olympus E-M10 at ISO 1600
At ISO 1600, the luminance noise levels for both cameras here are quite even -- NR processing does a great job at eliminating a lot of the noise. As for fine detail, the mosaic tile area actually looks a bit more natural-looking from the G1 X Mark II, as the E-M10's NR affects the finely detailed pattern. Also, the fabric swatches look slightly better on the G1 X Mark II.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony A6000 at ISO 1600

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 1600	Sony A6000 at ISO 1600
The larger, 24-megapixel APS-C sensor of the A6000 is, unsurprisingly, able to resolve a lot more detail than the G1 X Mark II. Barring the difference in resolution, both cameras display great handling of noise at ISO 1600. Both cameras struggle with the red fabric, though the A6000 is able to handle the pink fabric much better.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony RX100 II at ISO 1600

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 1600	Sony RX100 II at ISO 1600
While the RX100 II is a very good high ISO performer compared to other pocketable compacts, its smaller sensor doesn't perform quite as well as the larger sensor from the G1 X Mark II, and you can tell the Sony is working harder to smooth away noise. In all three comparisons, the G1 X Mark II crops show better, crisper detail.

Today's ISO 3200 is yesterday's ISO 1600 (well, almost), so below are the same crops at ISO 3200.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G1 X at ISO 3200

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 3200	Canon G1 X at ISO 3200
It's an interesting comparison here at ISO 3200. While the Mark II displays slightly cleaner images from high ISO noise reduction, fine detail is slightly worse compared to the Mark I. Both the mosaic and the fabric swatches looks more detailed than those from the newer Mark II.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Canon G16 at ISO 3200

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 3200	Canon G16 at ISO 3200
Like we saw in the ISO 1600 comparison, here at ISO 3200, the G1 X Mark II outshines the smaller-sensored G16 is in all three comparisons. There's much less luminance noise, and fine detail in the mosaic crop is far superior. While both struggle noticeably with the fabric swatches, the G1 X Mark II displays an ever-so-slightly better semblance of the leaf pattern in the red and pink fabrics.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Olympus E-M10 at ISO 3200

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 3200	Olympus E-M10 at ISO 3200
Both cameras do well at controlling noise at ISO 3200, though the E-M10 does display a little chroma noise around the edge of the bottle in the first crop. The default noise reduction processing on the E-M10 is noticeably more aggressive than that on the G1 X Mark II, which gives the mosaic tile details a very mottled look, while the G1 X II looks a bit more natural.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony A6000 at ISO 3200

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 3200	Sony A6000 at ISO 3200
Again, we see similarly excellent handling of high ISO noise here at ISO 3200. The resolution difference makes it difficult to compare detail, but both display a lot of fine detail even at this higher ISO. The G1 X II does struggle more than the A6000 with fine detail in the fabric swatches, though.

Canon G1 X Mark II versus Sony RX100 II at ISO 3200

Canon G1 X Mark II at ISO 3200	Sony RX100 II at ISO 3200
The Canon G1 X Mark II is the winner again here at ISO 3200, though not by much. The G1X II shows a finer, tighter luminance noise grain pattern which helps hold on to fine detail a little better than the RX100 Mark II, however both struggle with fine detail in the troublesome red and pink fabric swatches.

Detail: Canon G1 X Mark II vs. Canon G1 X, Canon G16, Olympus E-M10, Sony RX100 II and Sony A6000.

Canon G1 X Mark II ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Canon G1 X ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Canon G16 ISO 80 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Olympus E-M10 ISO 200 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Sony A6000 ISO 100 ISO 3200 ISO 6400	Sony RX100 II ISO 160 ISO 3200 ISO 6400
Detail comparison. This lettering allows us to really examine fine, high-contrast detail. At base ISO, the Canon G1 X Mark II is a very good performer for clean, high-contrast detail, displaying crisper detail than the G1 X and G16, though the larger sensor in the A6000, as well as the sharp E-M10 beats it. The RX100 II may not be as contrasty as the G1 X II at base ISO, but the very fine, high-contrast detail here is a little better than from the G1 X II thanks to its higher resolution. As the ISO rises, the G1 X Mark II struggles a little with very fine detail, but performs better than both its predecessor and the G16, as well as the RX100 II. The E-M10 is notoriously good at high ISO high-contrast detail, and the larger APS-C sensor of the A6000 unsurprisingly performs better than the G1 X II here at higher ISOs.

Good 24 x 36 inch prints at ISO 100 and 200; makes a nice 16 x 20 inch print at ISO 800 and even a decent 4 x 6 inch print at ISO 12,800.

ISO 100 and 200 produce good 24 x 36 inch prints despite the relatively humble ~13MP 1.5-inch type sensor. At this size print, there's a bit of pixelation visible upon close inspection, but at an arm's-length viewing distance or farther, the amount of detail is impressive. Color reproduction at this ISO also looks very accurate and pleasing to the eye.

ISO 400 images looking very similar to ISO 100/200 and noise is very minimal, but fine detail is just slightly softer with some noise reduction processing visible in the shadows at this print size. Overall it makes a good 20 x 30 inch print, with a lot of detail and nice colors.

ISO 800 prints look great at 16 x 20 inches. At this size, prints are starting to match closer with the resolution of the sensor. Fine detail is great considering ISO 800 is relative high ISO for a compact camera, though the larger sensor gives the G1 X II a noticeable advantage. Noise reduction also does great at eliminating noise, and the effect doesn't appear overly aggressive.

ISO 1600 images make very nice 13 x 19 prints, with lots of fine detail and great color. Like ISO 800, noise reduction processing is very good with only minimal reduction in very fine detail.

ISO 3200 prints look good up to 8 x 10 inches, though an 11 x 14 inch print would be acceptable for less critical applications. Detail is quite good for this ISO sensitively and there's very low noise, even in the shadows.

ISO 6400 images are acceptable up to 5 x 7 inches. While luminance noise is reduced quite effectively with default noise reduction, fine detail takes a hit and colors look a little murky and drab.

ISO 12,800 images impress us with viable 4 x 6 inch prints, which is a rare accomplishment for a "compact" camera. As expected, the lack of very fine detail and drab colors prevent us from calling any larger sizes acceptable.

The Canon G1 X Mark II displays rather impressive print quality performance. The ~13MP 1.5-inch type CMOS sensor and powerful DIGIC 6 image processor make for some nice prints at low ISOs and even at some very high ISOs that other smaller-sensored compact cameras would struggle with. At ISO 100 and 200, images are able to print as large as 24 x 36 inches with excellent colors and lots of fine detail at normal viewing distances. At mid-range ISOs of 800 and 1600, prints as large as 16 x 20 and 13 x 19, respectively, are acceptable with default noise reduction doing some intelligent processing to eliminate shadow noise while keeping fine detail intact. Even at very high ISOs of 6400 and 12,800, prints are still viable, though a 4 x 6 is the only size acceptable at ISO 12,800. At these levels, fine detail has taken a hit due to noise and NR processing, and colors begin to look a bit on the drab side. Overall, the Canon G1 X Mark II unsurprisingly manages to out-perform competing compact cameras with smaller sensors in the printing department.

Field Test

Big and beautiful, but is it better?

by Tim Barribeau | Posted: 07/07/2014

Cyclopean is a word that doesn't pop up in casual conversations anymore, but with the Canon G1 X Mark II in hand, it's the term that most readily springs to my mind. Not just for its huge, glaring lens, but also because of its implications of enormousness (though not enormity). It's a camera that seems defined by its largeness. Largeness of sensor, largeness of body, and largeness of price. But having spent a substantial amount of time using it, I'm left wondering who this big, relatively expensive camera is for, and if it packs enough performance to be worth the price and size.

Purely by chance, I happen to have a Sony A6000 on my desk for something else I'm working on, and the two cameras are disturbingly similar in size, shape, and cost, and I can't help but ask myself which I would grab to take out with me for a day of shooting.

The familiar. I'm not going to spend long writing about the interface and menu system of the G1X Mark II, apart from the new lens rings and touchscreen which I'll cover below. If you've picked up a Canon camera within the last decade or so, you've doubtless already encountered it, and Canon has got the menu system down to a science. The black backgrounded main menu with long lists of options, and the more frequently used function menu that overlays the live view to quickly adjust shooting settings both work well. At this point, Canon has this system so well refined that if you're a previous PowerShot user you should feel well at home, and a new user should be able to get around it very quickly. Adjusting such crucial features as white balance, image quality, continuous mode, metering and more, takes just a few seconds, and both the info overlaying live view and what appears in the function menu are customizable.

The body. The exterior and control layout of the G1X II, however, deserves a bit more attention. Canon's G line of high-end point-and-shoots have long been a byword for incredibly resilient cameras. Built like tanks (both in terms of size and toughness), the G1X II feels like it would survive everything short of a full-on nuclear war. The magnesium alloy body feels tough as nails, and is unsurprisingly heavy (563g or 19.9 oz with battery).

Despite what you might think given the "Mark II" moniker, the G1X II is actually a significant redesign from the original G1X. Gone is the pokey optical viewfinder, and overall the lines and angles of the body have been simplified considerably.

Gone too is the front control dial. The G1X II uses a system of three control rings; one on the back, and two around the lens, one of which is smooth to rotate, while the other clicks between settings. By default, the stepped ring controls the primary setting of your shooting mode (aperture in Av, scene mode in, well, Scene Modes, etc.), with the other two available to customize.

Unfortunately, that stepped ring is one of the primary control mechanisms of the G1X II, and sometimes, it just doesn't work right. It'll take a second or two of adjusting before it starts to register that you're trying to use it, giving you a brief period of frustration when you want to change a setting, but the camera refuses to cooperate.

The tilt-only LCD mechanism is now hinged along its top and bottom allowing tilt up to 180 degrees up (facing forward) and 45 degrees down, rather than being fully articulating, rotating a full 360 degrees around a single joint. However, the newer, higher-resolution LCD has a capacitive touch overlay, which is quite responsive -- tapping to focus or navigating menus with taps and swipes is a breeze, and gives you another method to adjust many camera settings. The sensitivity of the touch panel is adjustable, and touch operation can even be turned off entirely. The gapless LCD design makes the screen easier to see in bright sunlight, though the glossy glass exterior is prone to glare at certain angles, as well as showing fingerprints (but no more that your typical smartphone). Brightness is adjustable in 5 steps, and you can quickly boost it to maximum by holding the "DISP." button for one second, which keeps you from having to dig through to the admittedly buried LCD brightness menu setting. And a second one-second press restores the previous brightness setting. Much of the time I found the lowest setting was plenty bright for most locations, helping to save battery power, but the quick toggle to full brightness when needed is quite handy.

All told, the G1X II is a mammoth improvement over its predecessor in terms of looks. It's smaller, sleeker, and just generally a better looking camera. It's still not anything even near what you'd call pocketable, however it's definitely better than it was. But it's still very big.

Despite being a sizable piece of kit, the G1X II actually has a very shallow grip compared to the G1X, which I found a bit annoying over long shooting periods. However, Canon does sell an alternate grip for an extra US$30. You simply unscrew two tiny hex screws with the included Allen key and swap grips. The replacement grip is noticeably more comfortable, and doesn't actually add to the bulk of the camera at all, thanks to the huge and protruding lens -- so I don't understand why Canon doesn't include it in the bundle, unless it's to keep the clean lines of the G1X II as they stand. [Editor's Note: The European version of the G1X Mark II includes the add-on grip. U.S. buyers can purchase the accessory separately, or you can buy a special kit with the grip exclusively from Canon's online store.]

With the G1X's less than stellar optical viewfinder now gone, the viewfinder hordes will no doubt be out and baying for blood. While the Mark II lacks a built-in option here, you can attach an external EVF-DC1 electronic viewfinder into the hotshoe. This nifty clip on accessory features a high-res LCD with 2.36 million dots, a high eyepoint, a dioptric adjustment range of -3.0 to +1.0, can tilt 90 degrees up for top-down shooting, and has an eye sensor to automatically power up. In use, it works very well, with a bright screen that's crisp and easy to read. But, it's ~US$240, consumes more power than the LCD monitor, and is one more thing to cart around and potentially lose, not to mention the added bulk while attached to the camera. However, if EVFs are your thing, it's nice that this option is available.

Lens. Perhaps the most noteworthy new addition to the new edition is the lens. The previous generation G1X had a 28-112mm equivalent f/2.8-5.8 lens, where the Mark II gets a 24-120mm equivalent f/2.0-3.9 optic. Wider, longer, and faster at every step of the way. As far as upgrades go, that's one to take your breath away, an improvement if ever there was. The G1X II can also focus much closer than its predecessor in macro mode (5cm or 2.0 inches versus 20cm or 7.9 inches at wide angle).

The Mark II's lens barrel does not have filter threads, but Canon sells a filter adapter for US$30 (FA-DC58E) that attaches via the bayonet mount and accepts 58mm filters, and there's an optional lens hood (LH-DC80), also listing for US$30. (Both can't be used simultaneously, though. Note that these are different part numbers than their G1X equivalents, and the G1X II does not accept the G1X's Macrolite Adapter either.) Unlike the G1X which had an external lens cap, the G1X II's lens has a built-in lens cover.

The new lens continues to include a built-in 3-stop neutral density filter. With the faster f/2 glass, you're going to want to be able to keep your bokeh and depth of field nice and shallow, and with a neutral density filter you can do that even in bright light. But I would have liked the option for it to kick in automatically when overexposed. Speaking of bokeh, the new lens has a nine-blade iris diaphragm, up from six blades in the original, which should help create more pleasing bokeh when not shooting wide open.

But the biggest complaint I had was because of that insane lens speed. It's a feat of engineering that lets the G1X II's lens hit f/2 in a 5x wide-angle zoom, but it's one that also has significant drawbacks. Something as seemingly minor as the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 can produce dramatically different images. The problem? When wide open at the f/2 setting, the lens produces an unpleasant, localized flare around bright or high-contrast objects (likely due to spherical aberration), to the point where I'd very seriously consider not using it at that setting if I could avoid it, but it can produce some noticeably shallower depth of field shots.

f/2.0 vs f/2.8 (100% crops)
12.5mm (24mm eq.), f/2, 1/250s, ISO 125, Vivid	12.5mm (24mm eq.), f/2.8, 1/160s, ISO 125, Vivid

To make matters worse, if you put the G1X II into any sort of automatic exposure mode, if very swiftly defaults to opening the aperture to f/2, even when it could get away with leaving it a bit more closed. While the one stop exposure difference between f/2 and f/2.8 isn't anything to sneeze at, with a sensor this size, you should have enough latitude with ISO and shutter speed that you can push those a little and keep it away from f/2.

Above is another example. The first was shot at f/2, the second at f/5.6. There's soft and dreamy, and then there's throwing Vaseline on the lens. When you pull back a bit, it's not so noticeable (like in the image below), but be careful, once you get to pixel peeping, it's definitely still there.

At more ordinary apertures, like a venerable f/5.6, the issue all but vanishes and sharpness is excellent. The first image below and then a zoomed-in shot show an impressive amount of detail in the wooden walls. Thus, the G1X II is a camera that one needs to be aware of its shortcomings -- but if those are properly accounted for, it can do some impressive things.

Softness issue aside, the maximum aperture of f/2 provides for not just an impressive amount of light, but also really soft bokeh for a point-and-shoot. No, out of focus light points aren't going to look quite as nice as they would on an SLR with a good, fast lens, but it's still very smooth. And it also means that you don't need to throw the camera into macro mode and focus very closely to achieve that effect.

Even at full 120mm equivalent zoom, the lens is impressively fast with a maximum aperture of f/3.9. Some point-and-shoots can barely hit that bright at wide angle. While still obviously a cropped sensor, so the depth of field is greater than you'd see with the same aperture on full frame, it does provide the sort of subject isolation that you'll rarely see on a point-and-shoot. Even more so than when zoomed out, at full tele, being able to have the lens wide open at f/3.9 allowed for some immensely pleasing subject isolation of the sort that can be hard to achieve otherwise. It's one thing to pull that off when you're just a foot or so away from your subject, but when further afield, it's a very nice effect.

Shooting. Shooting with the camera is fairly straightforward, once you're accustomed to its considerable weight (563g or 19.9 oz). After all, this thing is heftier than an A6000 with 16-50mm kit lens (468g or 16.5 oz), thanks to that magnesium alloy body and substantial lens, though admittedly, an A6000 with an equivalent lens would be heavier. But generally speaking, it handles admirably. In normal lighting conditions, it felt fast to focus, and the wide-angle lens makes it work quite well as a street camera (but again, the size means it's not very subtle).

I did have problems with the battery display, with the indicator dropping from half full to being completely dead over the course of less than an hour of light shooting (I grabbed just 42 shots), but that's hardly a problem unique to this camera. Still, battery life isn't great for the size of camera, CIPA rated at only 240 shots per charge, though there is an Eco mode that'll stretch battery life to 300 shots by turning the LCD down or off more quickly. Unfortunately when shooting with the optional EVF battery life is even worse, rated at a rather dismal 200 shots.

As mentioned above, autofocus felt pretty responsive to me, and IR's lab performance tests agree, revealing it's much improved over the G1X, especially at wide angle. Prefocused shutter lag was pretty quick, but a bit slower than average. Startup time (including taking a shot) took about two seconds which is slower than most ILCs, though they typically don't have a zoom lens to deploy.

Single-shot cycle times were okay at just over a second, but nothing to write home about. Burst mode performance with focus and exposure locked at the first frame was decent when shooting JPEGs, measured at 5.26 fps with no apparent buffer limit. However when shooting in RAW mode, burst speed fell to only 1.45 fps, and in RAW+JPEG mode, it fell yet again to 1.27 fps. And enabling autofocus or live view during burst shooting slows the G1X II further. With AF enabled, the lab measured 3.03 fps for JPEGs, but only 0.81 fps for RAW and 0.75 fps for RAW+JPEG. These rates are much slower than most ILCs or premium compacts, and of course mean the G1X II is not well suited to action photography unless you're willing to live with JPEGs only as well as focus being locked at the start of a burst. At least buffer clearing with a fast UHS-I card isn't a problem, never taking more than four seconds.

After using the Canon G1X Mark II for a substantial amount of time, I find myself unsure as to if I love the thing, or dislike it. When used correctly, it seems capable of producing some truly wonderful images -- but to do so involves successfully accounting for its myriad of flaws.

There's a lot the G1X II can do well, and that's mostly thanks to that relatively large sensor that it packs away under its magnesium skeleton. The 1.5-inch CMOS sensor is capable of some impressive levels of detail, as you can see in the image below. Even zoomed in, the G1X II's enormous lens does an excellent job of keeping things looking sharp.

The Canon G1X II's dynamic range is however a bit of a disappointment, as is alluded to by the lost highlights in some of the clouds in the gallery shots above and below, though these are in-camera JPEGs (with i-Contrast off) which tend to have somewhat high default contrast and therefore contain lower dynamic range than what's possible from RAW files with careful processing. Still, according to DxOMark.com which analyzes raw data, the G1X Mark II's sensor has a dynamic range at base ISO that is significantly lower than the Sony RX100 II's (10.8 vs 12.4 EV), and also lower than the much smaller-sensored Canon G16 (11.7 EV). The G1X II roughly matches the RX100 II at ISO 400 and above, though, and dynamic range is much higher than the G16's at ISO 400 and above. Compared to ILCs with current generation Four Thirds and APS-C sensors, the G1X II also lags quite a bit in this metric. For example, the Olympus E-M10 manages 12.3 EV of dynamic range at base ISO, while the Sony A6000 scores 13.1 EV, though the gap does improve at higher ISOs.

Some of the shooting modes are an awful lot of fun. While it doesn't have quite the array that you'll see on some other cameras (even some Canons), there's still plenty to like. For instance, the top two images below were both shot in Star Nightscape mode, and third used Canon's Star Trail mode, which stacked an exposure taken every minute or so over the course of an hour. It looks very impressive when zoomed out, but when you jump to 100%, you can see little gaps in the star trails.

Star Nightscape Mode

12.5mm (24mm eq.), f/2, 5s, ISO 400

12.5mm (24mm eq.), f/2, 15s, ISO 800

Star Trail Mode

Up close at 100% (inset crop), you can see small gaps in the stacked multiple exposures. 12.5mm (24mm eq.), f/2, 30s, ISO 400

Wi-Fi. The G1X Mark II's Wi-Fi features are fairly robust. Canon gets brownie points for allowing it to connect to smartphones, tablets, computers, printers, other cameras, and cloud services, where many of the competition will only do smartphones and tablets. And you can connect your camera to your phone using both an ad-hoc connection from the camera, as well as having both on the same network.

Canon's PowerShot cameras use a different app than their EOS counterparts ("Canon CameraWindow" in this case, as opposed to "EOS Remote") and with the app, you can of course browse and save photos and videos to your mobile device (iOS and Android).

New this time around is the remote shooting capability that was sorely lacking on the PowerShot G16, however manual controls are quite limited, and there's no remote video recording (though the EOS version lacks that as well). Exposure is automatically set, without any support for PASM modes or exposure compensation, however flash and self-timer can be enabled as well as controlling the zoom lens. Unlike the EOS counterpart, there's no tap-to-focus capability with the app. Overall, using the smartphone app was pleasing and remote shooting was fast with barely any delay, although there's a bit of lag to adjust the zoom.

If your phone supports NFC (Near-Field Communication), which as of press time is limited to select Android devices, the G1X II supports that connection protocol as well for quick and easy pairing.

Of course, like many smart device-paired cameras these days, you also have the ability to geo-tag images using the smart device's GPS capability. (Like the G16, the G1X II does not have built-in GPS.) To enable the location tagging option, simply snap some photos with the app, then return to the menu and transfer the location data to that previous set of photos. It's a bit of a hassle with a multi-step process, though, and you can't leave the app up on your phone and use the camera 'manually' to take photos -- it needs to be done with the app.

Video. As with most modern cameras, the Canon G1 X Mark II has Full HD video recording capabilities (1,920 x 1,080), along with HD (1,280 x 720) and VGA (640 x 480) resolutions, all at 30p. Unlike Canon's DSLRs, the G1 X II is rather limited with its video recording features with all exposure settings, apart from exposure compensation, adjusted automatically. One very strange behavior is regarding the built-in ND filter. Typically used for still shooting to use slower shutter speeds or wider apertures in brighter conditions, the ND filter is also available in video mode on the G1 X II. However, since the camera is set to Auto ISO in movie mode, activating the ND filter doesn't darken the exposure as you may expect, but rather makes the camera bump up the ISO making for a noisier, grainier video.

Video quality itself, while adequate for a point-and-shoot camera, is not up to par with Canon's EOS cameras, despite a larger-than-average sensor for this kind of camera. Fine detail is not bad, but colors look a bit desaturated at default Picture Style settings, dynamic range is limited with some blown highlights, and moiré is quite strong in certain subjects and surfaces. There are also visible compression artifacts, which are particularly noticeable when shooting more complex, highly-detail scenes (i.e. see the wide angle view in the sample video below).

Full-time AF works well, with nice smooth transitions when focusing from near to far subjects, though there were a few times I noticed it had trouble re-focusing on a foreground subject at full tele. You can tap-to-focus, that again uses a nice, smooth transition, but the transition itself is pretty slow. And there's also manual focus, which is quick to toggle thanks to the dedicated MF button on the rear of the camera. As with still shooting modes, you can turn on focus peaking in manual focus mode (or when AF+MF mode is enabled), and the camera gives you the choice of red, yellow or blue overlays as well as a low and high setting for peaking sensitivity. Oddly, while you can adjust focus manually prior to recording, you can't manually focus during recording. However, peaking will remain active before and during recording.

Audio recording is pretty bare-bones despite the G1 X II being a pretty advanced camera. There are two small mics on either side of the playback button on the top deck for stereo audio, but there's no external mic input, no recording volume adjustment and only a wind noise filter option.

Summary. The G1X II is obviously a camera aimed at skilled shooters, both in price and variety of settings. But that does mean that some of the more fun features that we see in other cameras (and other Canon modes) don't seem to have made the transition to this slightly more dour camera. There's no panorama mode, and the G16's 120fps video isn't there (I assume because of the much larger sensor). All told, the G1X II is a brute that needs to be babied. An impressively solid device, capable of very good things, as long as you're aware of its weaknesses. But that raises what is perhaps the most pertinent question: who is this camera for?

$800 is not pocket change. Even for the most gear obsessed of us, $800 gives pause for thought, and considerable research. And the Canon G1X Mark II costs $800. Purely by chance, I have on my desk another $800 camera at the same time, the Sony A6000. From a distance, they're all but indistinguishable. When turned off, the G1X II has a slightly smaller lens and grip, but both are still large enough that the minor size difference won't make it any easier to fit in your pocket. The G1X II is 3.4 oz heavier than the A6000 with its kit lens. The A6000 also has an APS-C sensor, built in EVF (which adds an extra $240 to the cost of the G1X II), as well as much faster autofocus and a far better burst speed of 11 fps. So which one should I grab if I'm heading out the door?

To be fair, though, if you mount a lens to the A6000 that gives you close to the equivalent range and speed, something like the Sony E 16-70mm f/4 OSS Zeiss for example (yes, the 16-70mm f/4 isn't as long or as fast, but the A6000's higher resolution and better high ISO performance help to mitigate that), the G1X II's cost, size and weight suddenly seem quite reasonable, as that lens alone is ~$1,000, is about 3 inches long, and weighs almost 11 ounces.

But, I hear you say, the A6000 is an ILC. The G1X II is a point-and-shoot, and fills a very different niche. Fair enough. But how does it stack against them? Look at our Comparometer images between the G1X II and the well-loved Sony RX100 Mark II. Even with the ISO cranked up high, you'd be hard pressed to see much of a difference. The RX100 II has a much smaller sensor, but at the same time is a much smaller camera. You can actually put the RX100 II in your pocket, it takes images that are arguably on par with the G1X II's, and it's $100 cheaper. The G1X II might have a faster lens, but with the newly released RX100 III, even that benefit is lessening.

And what about the other large sensor compacts? Can the G1X II compete with the $800 Ricoh GR? Sure, it's got a single-focal-length lens, but if sensor size and optical excellence are what you crave, and cost isn't a factor, it makes a compelling argument.

At $800, the G1X II doesn't take images as well as some equivalently priced mirrorless cameras, it's far bigger and bulkier than the RX100 II without sufficient image quality improvements to justify the difference, and it doesn't quite compete with truly large sensored compacts. There's something to be said for its magnesium frame, though, and its fantastically fast 5x zoom lens; but if it's a heavy weight, and you have to stop it down anyway, is that enough?

For many people, the Canon G-series (and perhaps the Panasonic LX series) were the first name in point-and-shoot cameras for more advanced photographers. Professionals, journalists, and serious hobbyists kept them in their bags, at the ready, as a smaller alternative to an SLR. While the G1X II is a notable improvement from its predecessor, both externally and internally, with the explosion in other high-end compacts, I'm just not sure that it can retain that position.

Flash

Canon G1 X Mark II Flash

Built-in Flash

Coverage and Range
A fairly powerful flash for its size, with uneven coverage at wide angle. Good exposures in our Indoor Portrait test shots.

Coverage. Flash coverage was quite uneven and narrow at wide angle (not unusual, especially for a wider-than-average lens), with much more uniform results at full telephoto.

Exposure. Here in our standard Indoor Portrait scene at ISO 200, the G1 X II's flash performed well, requiring only +0.3 EV of flash exposure compensation which is less than average for this scene. The camera selected 1/60 second shutter speed, which is good. Slow-sync flash mode produced a more evenly lit image with the same flash exposure compensation, but the slower shutter speed of 1/13 produced a warmer image due to the ambient lighting.

Flash Range: Wide Angle
6 ft	7 ft	8 ft	9 ft	10 ft	11 ft
1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200
12 ft	13 ft	14 ft	15 ft	16 ft
1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200	1/64 sec f2.0 ISO 200

Flash Range: Telephoto
6 ft	7 ft	8 ft	9 ft	10 ft	11 ft
1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200
12 ft	13 ft	14 ft	15 ft	16 ft
1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200	1/64 sec f3.9 ISO 200

ISO 200 Range. At wide-angle and ISO 200, flash shots were bright to about 12 feet. At full telephoto, flash shots were bright to 8 feet, and got darker from there.

Manufacturer-Specified Flash Range
Wide Angle	Telephoto
22.0 feet Auto ISO 400	11.0 feet Auto ISO 400

Manufacturer Specified Flash Test. Canon rates the PowerShot G1 X II's flash range at 6.8 meters / 22 feet at wide angle and 3.5 meters / 11 feet at telephoto, when using Auto ISO. In the shots above, the PowerShot G1 X II's flash performed to Canon's specifications, producing bright images at wide angle and full telephoto, with the camera boosting ISO to 400 in both cases.

Our standard test method for flash range uses a fixed setting of ISO 200, to provide a fair basis of comparison between cameras. We now also shoot two shots using the manufacturer-specified camera settings, at the range the company claims for the camera, to assess the validity of the specific claims.

Conclusion

Canon turned a few heads, back when it released the original PowerShot G1 X: the industry's first compact, large-sensor camera to offer a zoom lens. The 1.5"-type sensor was leaps and bounds larger than what's inside the typical compact camera, and it was married with Canon's popular PowerShot G-series build, ergonomics and functionality. While Canon got a number of things "right" with that camera, namely great image quality, very good optics, and dual control dials that resemble Canon DSLR functionality, it had some rough edges with slower than average AF and burst speeds, poor macro performance, short battery life when using the LCD, and a 28-112mm equivalent f/2.8-5.8 lens that wasn't very bright at telephoto.

With the G1 X Mark II, Canon aimed to fix all that. First, they upgraded to their latest DIGIC 6 image processor for better performance, and revamped the sensor, making the default image aspect ratio 3:2 like most DSLRs while still offering a 4:3 mode with the same diagonal field of view. More importantly, Canon also updated the lens significantly to one that is not only brighter (f/2.0-3.9), but also wider and longer, ranging from 24mm to 120mm in 35mm equivalence.

While the lens is indeed more versatile with improved macro capabilities, there are some notable issues. At the wide end, there's stronger distortion correction applied to images that can make corners a little soft even stopped down. We also noticed a distinctive localized flare aberration on bright objects when shooting wide open. While the aberration is greatly reduced or eliminated entirely by stopping down, you end up negating the benefit of the G1 X Mark II's bright lens if you need to stop down.

Performance-wise, the Canon G1 X Mark II shows a marked improvement in autofocus speed over the "Mark I", focusing about 3x faster at wide angle, and almost twice as fast at full telephoto. The DIGIC 6 processor also gives the Mark II's maximum JPEG burst speed a boost with deep buffers and fast clearing, however if you're a RAW shooter, burst performance hasn't improved much and is still disappointing. Battery life is also not improved over its predecessor, with only a 240 shots per charge CIPA rating (the original model was rated for 250). If you used the optical viewfinder with the original G1 X, you could manage about 700 shots/charge, but with the Mark II you no longer have that nice battery-sipping option. In fact, with the optional external EVF, battery life actually drops to around 200 shots/charge.

The redesigned Mark II is certainly a bit sleeker than the original model, with the lack of a protruding optical viewfinder. The hand grip is also sleeker and less pronounced, but isn't as effective. (Luckily, Canon offers an optional grip that works better.) While ergonomics are otherwise still generally excellent, fans of Canon's traditional dual control dial system may be a bit disappointed that they removed the front dial near the shutter button in favor of a dual control ring setup around the lens. The lens rings can be programmed for any number of settings adjustments, though one can sometimes become sluggish to respond.

The G1 X Mark II is a super-solid, well-built camera, as is typical of Canon's PowerShot G-series, and the magnesium-alloy body, while not weather-sealed, feels strong, tough and high-quality. However, the Canon G1 X Mark II is still quite a large and heavy "compact" camera thanks to its substantial lens, making it as big as some interchangeable lens cameras with lesser kit lenses. And, the Mark II's image quality -- though still much better than the average compact -- has not really improved from its predecessor, while rivals have in the meantime advanced, offering competitive image quality in a smaller, lighter package.

Overall, though, Canon still squeezes a lot of good stuff into the sleeker, more powerful G1 X Mark II. While it's not leaps and bounds better than its predecessor and is still relatively large and heavy, it shows improvements in some important areas, and the addition of Wi-Fi/NFC connectivity for sharing and remote control is a definite plus. At around US$800, it is a bit pricey though, especially when other options such as the Sony A6000 or compact Micro Four Thirds cameras are offered for around that price. However, to add on an equivalent lens to what you get with the G1 X Mark II, you will certainly increase the price and bulk of these interchangeable lens alternatives.

Although far from perfect, the Canon G1 X Mark II still gets the nod for a Dave's Pick for those willing to work around its quirks and limitations.

Place your order with a trusted Imaging Resource affiliate now:

• Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II, US$799: ADORAMA | AMAZON | B&H
• Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Canon Direct Exclusive Kit, US$799.99: CANON DIRECT

Follow Imaging-Resource.com on Twitter!