New Camera! Finally! -- I'm Impressed.

[Ysarex]

I've been looking for more than a year now to replace my go-everywhere compact. The hang-up has been a fully articulated screen that I have on my Samsung EX2 and now finally given up on. My new Canon G7x mkii has a flip up screen but not fully articulated.

I've had the camera for two days and been able to run some preliminary tests. Overall I'm going to be very happy with this camera and in fact I'm quite impressed both good and unfortunately also bad.

Let's do the bad first: So one of my students, Oscar, comes complaining to me a couple weeks ago about his new Panasonic super zoom. He shows me some group photos and points out that the people are badly stretched and wants to know WTF is going on. Bottom line Panasonic put a lens on the camera that is loaded with distortion and was doing a piss-poor job of software correction. I showed Oscar what was going on, he's not happy, and I told him the only consolation I could give him was that they're all doing it now.

Which brings me to my new G7x mkii. Have you no shame Canon?! When I read reviews of the G7x one of the more common complaints I encountered was corner lens softness especially on the wide end of the 4x zoom. Well the lens really isn't that soft in the corners. But the massive correction the camera applies to counter the barrel distortion renders a soft image. Here's a JPEG SOOC with the exception that I made it B&W.

And here's what the lens actually recorded:

The corners in the camera JPEG are indeed soft but that's because of the distortion correction not the lens.

Here's an overlay of the two images above which shows just how much the original has to be adjusted to correct the lens distortion.

So I can deal with this with careful hand processing. Here's the upper corner side by side between the camera JPEG (left) and my hand processed version of the raw file using C1 (right):

My only consolation as I told Oscar is that they're all doing it. This is par for the course now and that includes DSLRs. It's cheaper to fix it in software than actually design and manufacture a good lens. Most folks, like my student Oscar, have no clue what's going on and even review sites just say the lens is soft in the corners. I can live with this because I have no choice. I've looked at the alternative cameras and I'm consoled -- no shame! They have no shame!

Joe

 

[zombiesniper]

This such but you are asking a lot from a superzoom. It can't do everything perfect.

This is par for the course now and that includes DSLRs.

I haven't seen anything to this effect yet. Now I use mostly primes but we tend not to use as extreme rage of focal lengths with a DSLR as you would see in the all in one cameras.

 

[Ysarex]

This such but you are asking a lot from a superzoom. It can't do everything perfect.

My student's Panny was a superzoom, but my new G7x zoom is a modest 4X. In a 4x zoom they could do massively better.

This is par for the course now and that includes DSLRs.

I haven't seen anything to this effect yet. Now I use mostly primes but we tend not to use as extreme rage of focal lengths with a DSLR as you would see in the all in one cameras.

It's on a sliding scale where primes aren't seriously effected -- more a zoom problem, and although the DSLRs aren't generally as bad as the fixed lens cameras, I've seen some kit zooms that lean in that direction.

Joe

 

[Braineack]

that's quite a lot of image stretching -- surprised it didn't just crop

 

[Ysarex]

that's quite a lot of image stretching -- surprised it didn't just crop

It sure is -- it crops too.

Joe

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, that ain't no cheap camera either.

 

[Ysarex]

Hmm, that ain't no cheap camera either.

$650.00 average price here in the states. Most owners would never see what I showed here. Canon goes a long way to hide it. Even if you process raw files odds are you wouldn't see that. Most raw processors that support the camera apply corrections automatically. All they see is a camera with soft corners on the wide end of the zoom, and you gotta enlarge it pretty big to see that.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Very disappointing to see such poor optical performance from a modern, merely 4x ratio zoom at that price point. Buuut....it's a Canon...they go with the marketing and advertising angle. And it's 2018 now...some of the camera companies are releasing poorly-performing lenses with the idea that "software correction" is cheaper for them, and higher-profit for them as well...

Still...you'll be able to make a lot of good pictures with it, with your degree of photo skill and post-processing savvy.

 

[Ysarex]

Very disappointing to see such poor optical performance from a modern, merely 4x ratio zoom at that price point. Buuut....it's a Canon...they go with the marketing and advertising angle. And it's 2018 now...some of the camera companies are releasing poorly-performing lenses with the idea that "software correction" is cheaper for them, and higher-profit for them as well...

Still...you'll be able to make a lot of good pictures with it, with your degree of photo skill and post-processing savvy.

You and I go back a long way and we never shot film lenses that were anything like some of this junk they just assume they'll correct in software. And that includes zoom lenses from 30 years ago. I even had a chance back in the 70s to get my hands on a Voigtlander Zoomar and run some film through it (came into the shop). It wasn't nearly as bad as the above and it was pretty bad. People don't realize this is going on. The camera JPEG engine corrects the JPEGs and LR et.al. corrects the raw files all behind the scenes. I had another student a couple semesters ago bring in a Sony bleep bleep alpha predecessor -- NX something or other with this beasty 18mm-135mm Sony E lens. I swear it was no better than what I've shown above. It's becoming commonplace and it is a shame.

Anyway I knew before I bought it that I'd have this to deal with. Otherwise I'm happy and in fact impressed with the camera, but they got no shame!

Joe

 

[TCampbell]

Very disappointing to see such poor optical performance from a modern, merely 4x ratio zoom at that price point. Buuut....it's a Canon...they go with the marketing and advertising angle. And it's 2018 now...some of the camera companies are releasing poorly-performing lenses with the idea that "software correction" is cheaper for them, and higher-profit for them as well...

Still...you'll be able to make a lot of good pictures with it, with your degree of photo skill and post-processing savvy.

Derrel, you know I love you more than my luggage... but... don’t make me point out the Nikon embarrassments.

There is no “best” camera brand.

 

[Derrel]

Very disappointing to see such poor optical performance from a modern, merely 4x ratio zoom at that price point. Buuut....it's a Canon...they go with the marketing and advertising angle. And it's 2018 now...some of the camera companies are releasing poorly-performing lenses with the idea that "software correction" is cheaper for them, and higher-profit for them as well...

Still...you'll be able to make a lot of good pictures with it, with your degree of photo skill and post-processing savvy.

Derrel, you know I love you more than my luggage... but... don’t make me point out the Nikon embarrassments.

There is no “best” camera brand.

Feel free to point out any and all embarrassments. I like your attempt to salve that Canon pride that apparently Ysarex and myself injured two weeks ago...

 

[jcdeboever]

Wow, that is incredibly interesting performance. I noticed in certain modes that sx60hs did that. It sits on the shelf these days waiting for a restricted camera sporting event. To be honest, I did manage to get some very nice images out of it, especially on a tripod, with the VR turned off. Like Derrel said, I'm sure with your skill, it will serve you well.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Actually, it looks over-corrected into "pin-cushion". Is it, or is my brain overworked?

[later]

Never mind. I saw it in the detail crops later. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Gary A.]

Sad.

 

[Ysarex]

Wow, that is incredibly interesting performance. I noticed in certain modes that sx60hs did that. It sits on the shelf these days waiting for a restricted camera sporting event. To be honest, I did manage to get some very nice images out of it, especially on a tripod, with the VR turned off. Like Derrel said, I'm sure with your skill, it will serve you well.

I see this as an increasingly disturbing trend. Since I retired I only teach part-time now; two to four classes a year. Still I see a lot of different cameras; every new semester a new crop of students show up in my class with most of the standard entry level cameras and occasionally better (had a student last semester walk in with a D800). More and more now those entry level kit zooms are relying on software to correct increasingly severe distortion -- at least that's what I think I'm seeing. It's getting beyond the level of reasonable. We shouldn't have to tell everyone that they need to buy a lens with a red, gold or green stripe to get something decent.

When I made the switch a couple years ago from FX to DX I started shopping for lenses. The old mantra was: lenses take pictures and cameras hold film. It was the lens line that ultimately led me to select Fuji. They're not guilt free on this but at least they're not shameless. edit: Actually, they're pretty close to guilt free -- good glass.

Joe