Tag Archives: review

Canon G1 X Review—Part 1


This begins a three-part review on Canon’s latest semiprofessional compact camera—the G1 X.  Today we’ll focus on how this camera was selected and highlight the performance of Canon’s latest image processor the DIGIC 5 and the effectiveness of this camera’s built-in image stabilization.

Canon G1 X with 15.1-60.4 (28-112mm in 35mm equivalency) f/2.8-5.8 lens.

If you’ve been following this blog since April 2, then you’ve been viewing the progression of our last cruise trip.  Last week we covered Bruges, Belgium, and this week I was going to end the series with our two-day stay in Brussels.  I’m going to postpone that series finale until next week, as I have some other information I would like to impart.

So, have you enjoyed the photographs over the past five weeks?  If so, then you can give at least partial credit to my latest photographic tool.  More on that in a moment.

I really enjoy DSLR photography.  For that I have a Canon EOS 5D with a 24-105mm f/4.0L Image-Stabilized lens and, a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized telephoto lens, and a 430EX Speedlite external flash.  The 5D is a great camera capable of great images at even fairly high ISO settings.  Problem is that it’s a boat anchor around your neck.  When mated to my 24-105mm lens, the darned thing weighs in at a massive 3 pounds, 7.2 ounces (1,565 grams)!  And don’t even get me started on the conspicuousness of the size.  It’s like trying to hide a toaster oven.

So, for most international travel I like to take a couple of small travel zooms—my Panasonic DMC-ZS3 and DMC-ZS6—and leave the Rock of Gibraltar at home.  Those Panasonics are great little point-and-shoots with a fantastic zoom range (25-300mm in 35mm equivalency), but they have some serious limitations.  The ZS6 has limited controls for aperture and shutter speed, as well as the ability to provide some manual control.  The ZS3 won’t even do that much.  Because of their small sensor size (1/2.33”—6.08 x 4.56mm), neither is very good at anything above ISO 400, and the image actually starts to degrade well before even that.  Neither stores images in raw format.  Still, you can take award-winning photographs with them if you understand photography and how to get the most out what little control the ZS series offers.

But I still wanted more in the way of creative control, better high ISO performance, increased resolution, and the wider latitude that raw gives you in post-processing.  With this latest once-in-a-lifetime trip to Normandy coming up, I started doing my research for another camera system.

For travel photography I would need in order of importance:

1)      Wide angle capability for landscapes, preferably starting in at around 24mm (in 35mm equivalency).

2)      Good low-light capabilities for photographing interiors of monasteries, churches, cathedrals, fortresses, etc.  That means a fast lens at wide angles (f/2.0 or better would be ideal), good performance at higher ISO settings (at least ISO 800, preferably even higher), and exceptional image stabilization (at least 3-stops) for hand-held shots.

3)      Good low-light means a fairly large sensor.  There is simply no way around that using current technology.  This means I would have to balance the need for a large sensor against the desire to keep the camera/lens combination small and light.

4)      Moderate telephoto capability for zooming in on architectural details (I like at least 105mm).

Here’s what I didn’t need:

1)      Fast focusing.  In landscapes it’s all about the framing and light conditions.  Capturing action is toward the bottom of any travel photographer’s priority.

2)      High frames-per-second.  Again that’s for capturing sports action, playful puppies, rambunctious kitties, and annoyingly hyperactive children.

Here’s what I was willing to give up:

1)      Interchangeable lenses, if the range was close enough to my specifications (see above).  There’s nothing more bothersome than specks of dust on the sensor, and changing lenses in the field is an open invitation for these insidious invaders.  Plus, it’s heck trying to get cleaning solution for camera sensors past TSA—guns and knives seem to slip through with alarming regularity, but you’d better not have more than three ounces of anything wet, up to and including Granny’s Depends it would seem.

2)      Macro capability.  Nice to have for close-ups of flowers, but landscapes and architecture don’t normally require it.

3)      Wide aperture at mild zoom ranges.  That’s a hallmark of a portrait lens, as it defocuses the background and directs the viewer’s attention to the person being photographed.

Given this list, my search for a new travel camera began to look like a tall order.  Most bridge cameras have more zoom range than I would ever need, but their small sensor sizes (usually around 1/1.8”—7.176 x 5.319mm) meant I would once again be sacrificing ISO performance.  APS-C sensors are large enough for what I needed ISO-wise, but (save for one exception) we’re once again talking about going to a DSLR—a DSLR smaller than my full-frame (35mm) EOS 5D, but still a large, burdensome package.  I could go with a smaller ILC, but most use the smaller Micro Four Thirds system, some use an APS-C size, nearly all come with a kit lens that only zooms between 27 and 82.5mm (in 35mm equivalency), and I would be back to having an interchangeable lens dust magnet.

Life was suddenly looking like an endless series of compromises that I didn’t really care to make.  I was considering packages as small as the Canon G12 and Nikon P7100 and as large as the Sony NEX 5N and NEX 7.

Then came the April edition of my Popular Photography subscription.  Right there, on both the cover and on Page 77, was the Canon G1 X.  Specifications:

Huge 1.5-inch (18.7 x 14mm) 14.3 megapixel CMOS sensor.

4x 28-112mm zoom lens.

Great ISO performance through ISO 1,600, and perfectly acceptable all the way through ISO 6,400.  Only at ISO 12,800 did the G1 X reach unacceptable performance levels in Popular Photography’s testing, and even then it just barely scored outside the moderate range on noise (3.1 scored on a 3.0 cutoff).

Image Stabilization good for 3.5 stops even full-out zoom of 112mm.

Image quality and resolution both rated as Extremely High (vertical resolution 2,310 lines at ISO 100 and an incredible 2,220 lines even at ISO 1,600)

4.6 inches (117mm) wide; 3.1 inches (78mm) tall; 2.6 inches (68mm) deep (lens retracted); and weighing “only” 1 pound 4 ounces (566 grams) including battery, memory card, neck strap, and lens cap (I say “only” because that seemed high until I found out the G1 X is built like a tank on a stainless steel chassis).

Articulated 3-inch high-resolution (920,000-dot )screen.

Internal pop-up flash and a hot shoe for TTL (through the lens) flash metering and exposure control using Canon Speedlite flash units.

Canon G1 X with neck strap, lens cap, and lens cap retaining cord. Altogether with battery and memory card the entire package weighs in at 1 pound 4 ounces.

My search was over.  Yes, I was giving up a bit on the wide zoom side and lens aperture, but I was exceeding my specifications in nearly every other criteria.  On top of that, I was gaining the latest Canon image processor—the DIGIC 5.

My impressions on the DIGIC 5?  I’m personally stunned at the improvement over the EOS 5D’s DIGIC 2 on everything from automatic white balancing to contrast and color rendition.  Quite simply put, the DIGIC 5 in most cases makes raw photography and post-processing totally unnecessary.  Except for specialized instances requiring HDR (high-dynamic range) photography, extreme color shifts in lighting, isolated color spectrum subjects, or a few other situations, the DIGIC 5 will in my opinion consistently produce better pictures than I can with raw manipulation.  It’s simply that good.  You’ll be hard pressed to find an excuse to take anything but JPEGs with this camera.

The DIGIC 5 is also the secret behind the remarkably low-noise, high-resolution photographs taken at heretofore unusable high ISO settings.

The image stabilization is also astounding.  I was taking hand-held shots of cathedral interiors at shutter speeds as slow as 1/15th of a second.

Part 2 of this review will continue on Wednesday.  Until then, I would like to present the following hand-held pictures.  Move your cursor over the picture to find the shot details, such as ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc.  None of these straight-from-the-camera JPEG photographs have been post-processed in any way other than to reduce the size for inclusion in this blog.  All colors, contrast, white balance, noise reduction and other factors result solely from the DIGIC 5 processor and the camera’s built-in image stabilization.

ISO 400, f/5, 1/15th second, 35.8mm (66mm in 35mm equivalency)

ISO 1000, f/2.8, 1/20th second, 15.1mm (28mm in 35mm equivalency)

ISO 500, f/2.8, 1/30th second, 15.1mm (28mm in 35mm equivalency)

ISO 1000, f/2.8, 1/20th second, 15.1mm (28mm in 35mm equivalency)

ISO 1000, f/2.8, 1/20th second, 15.1mm (28mm in 35mm equivalency)

ISO 500, f/5.8, 1/80th second, 60.4mm (112mm in 35mm equivalency)

3 Comments

Filed under Photography, Technology/New Stuff

Ruger versus Walther—Battle of the .22 Target Pistols


Every handgun owner should have one—a .22 caliber target pistol.  The ammunition is cheap, making gun practice affordable.  The recoil is considerably less than defensive calibers.  Less recoil means you can better see if you’re flinching as you pull the trigger, and that makes for better control and greater accuracy later on when you shoot the big stuff.

I’ve owned a Walther P22 target pistol for several years now, and it makes a really great training weapon.  It has a single-action/double-action trigger, an ambidextrous external safety that operates in the same direction as older Walther models, and a grip similar to more modern Walther products such as the P99 and the newer PPQ.  The ambidextrous magazine release built into the trigger guard further emulates current Walther designs, although the levers are much smaller and therefore more difficult to manipulate than on Walther’s full-size weapons.

The Walther P22 also offers adjustable sights for long-distance target practice and replaceable grip back straps to customize how the butt of the weapon fits in your hand.  The P22 is currently in its second iteration, now more closely resembling Walther’s PPQ.  The version I own is much closer in appearance to the P99.

Many years ago I owned a Ruger Mark II target pistol and had fond memories of it.  So, when I recently drooled over a newer Ruger Mark III 22/45 Hunter with polymer frame, fluted stainless barrel, fiber-optic front sight, adjustable rear sight, and a grip modeled after the famous Colt Model 1911, Ursula whipped out her credit card and insisted I acquire it.  The Ruger’s value as a training weapon is a bit more limited; while the Mark III has an external safety, it looks and feels differently than on most similarly equipped weapons.   The Ruger also has a straight single-action trigger—great for target practice, less so for defensive gun training, especially if you own a more traditional double-action/single-action weapon.

But being first and foremost a true target pistol, the Ruger 22/45 Hunter is outstanding in this application.  The longer sight-radius and high-visibility fiber-optic front sight makes it a dream to aim.  The more massive barrel gives the shooter a steadier hand and better controls what little recoil the .22 LR cartridge imparts.

I put these two weapons to a head-to-head test at an indoor range this past Saturday.  My good friend Keith McKay brought along his Browning Buck Mark target pistol as well.

I set the target at my normal practice distance of 21 feet (6.4 meters) and tried the P22 first.  Having much more experience with the Walther, I expected to out-shoot the Ruger at least initially, and the grouping of my first twenty shots was not bad—a ragged, more or less circular pattern approximately six inches across.

Next up was the 22/45.  If I had any thoughts about being better with the Walther, they were quickly dispelled when I retrieved the target.  With no adjustment of the sights and absolutely no experience at firing the weapon, I achieved a much tighter grouping (less than four inches across), better accuracy, and I experienced better recoil control and faster times reacquiring the target.  There simply was no comparison on this test.  The Ruger 22/45 was much better as a target weapon.

Keith gave both weapons a try and his results mirrored my own.  This was especially instructive in that Keith had much less experience with the P22, having only fired it once before, and that was many months ago.  Thus, Keith was for all practical purposes firing two unfamiliar weapons while still scoring better with the Ruger.

Interestingly, the Browning Buck Mark bested both of the weapons I was testing, but it did not beat out the Ruger by much and I found the hair-trigger of the Buck Mark a bit disquieting.  Indeed, the first time I fired the Buck Mark, after having just fired both the 22/45 and the P22, the trigger broke well before I was expecting.

As a target pistol, the Ruger has it all over the Walther.  It’s more accurate, easier to aim, displays less recoil, and is faster getting back on target for followup shots.  Alas, all is not peaches and cream with Ruger’s Mark III design, however.  I remembered that my older Mark II was a bit of a pain to reassemble.  Well, Ruger took a bad reassembly procedure and managed to somehow make it infinitely worse.  Part of this I attribute to the magazine safety, which requires a magazine to be inserted into the weapon in order to manipulate the trigger and thus the internal hammer.  As the hammer has to be uncocked for some portions of the disassembly/reassembly and cocked for other portions, this means you’re frequently inserting and removing the magazine as you struggle to get the weapon back together.

Compounding this idiocy is one of the worst owners manuals I’ve ever encountered.  The instructions for disassembly and reassembly are overly complex, counter-intuitive, apparently contradictory, and difficult to perform.  How bad is it?  This bad—Ruger states in the owners manual that you can watch a video on how to take the 22/45 apart and put it back together by going to their website at www.ruger.com.  Go to that web address and see if you can locate it.  Ruger couldn’t even make finding the video easy, and that’s just colossally stupid after you’ve just sent a frustrated customer there.

So, it was off to the internet to see other videos put together by YouTubers who kept telling me how simple it really is.  Here’s a clue, guys—if it was really that simple, you wouldn’t be producing a video on how to do it and those videos wouldn’t be getting the hits they’re getting.  Don’t insult your potential audience by making claims everybody knows to be false just by the mere fact you’re making a video on how to do it.

As you can tell, those smug and self-serving videos telling me how easy reassembly of the Mark III is were of little help, so I started searching for written instructions.  That’s when I stumbled upon this simple, eight-step disassembly/22-step reassembly procedure.  Now, come on, Ruger, was that so hard?  If it was, hire this guy to write your manuals for you.  It’ll be money well spent.

Note:  One quick point about the Browning Buck Mark—according to the owners manual for that weapon, there is no authorized procedure for taking it apart for cleaning and lubrication.  That alone puts the Buck Mark on my do-not-purchase list no matter how good it is.  Sorry, Buck Mark fans.

A word about functionality—The Walther P22 can be converted from a five-inch target pistol to a standard configuration model with a 3.42-inch barrel by removing the compensator and installing a separately purchased shorter barrel.  Can’t do that with the Ruger.

And the Winner is:

Walther P22 for handgun training
Ruger 22/45 Hunter for target shooting in every regard (aiming, accuracy, recoil management, followup shots, etc.)
Walther P22 for ease of maintenance
Walther P22 for functionality (with optional barrel conversion kit)

If you’re looking for a straight target pistol, however, don’t underestimate the frustration level when attempting to reassemble the 22/45.  Spending an hour struggling to get your pistol back together after cleaning and lubrication will totally negate any sense of satisfaction you may have had a short while earlier on the range.  Trust me on this.

Now for the pictures:

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms