But either way I think most would agree there’s little to nothing to choose between the RX100 Mark II and Mark III for normal outdoor photography at a mid-to-wide focal length and f4 aperture. This could be down to the different lens, but I think image processing is also playing an important role here as my RAW comparisons on the next page are closer than the JPEGs here. I’ve pictured the crops in columns, from left to right, Sony RX100 Mark II, Sony RX100 Mark III and Canon G1 X Mark II.Ĭomparing the two Sonys first, I think they’re delivering essentially the same degree of real-life detail and that the only difference between them here is a slight crispness to the newer Mark III. The two Sony cameras show the same image area due to the same sensor resolution, but the Canon G1 X II shows a greater area due to its lower sensor resolution. The crops as always are taken from the areas marked by the red rectangles in the thumbnail above right and presented here at 100%.
#Canon powershot g1 x mark ii review iso
I then shot this scene at their lowest respective sensitivities and noted each camera metered the same exposure, compensating for the slight variances in ISO with equal ones in shutter speed so what you’re looking at below are identical exposures, with each camera’s default image processing applied to see how their JPEGs compare under best-case scenarios. I tested all three cameras at each of their apertures and found f4 to be a common sweetspot, so that’s what I set each of them to in Aperture Priority. I tried every aperture setting and selected the sharpest result for the crops below. For comparison here I attempted to match the vertical coverage as closely as the optical zooms allowed. To compare real-life performance at wide angle, I shot this scene with the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II, and the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 Mark II and III within a few moments of each other using their base sensitivities and best quality JPEG settings. Canon G1 X II vs Sony RX100 II vs RX100 III
0 kommentar(er)
