Featured: 'New York City with the G7X' by Ray Sachs

Speaking of the EOS M, one of the things DPReview (not that they're always right by any means) called out the G7X on was auto-focus speed. I know you usually use zone focus when doing street images but what do you think of the G7X's auto-focus speed?

And, BTW, I had the K-01. An APS-C sensor and compatability with all of my K-mount lenses for just over $200 on close-out made it a fabulous deal. It was a flawed concept but it was a lot of fun with a DA 40mm Limited pancake on it and image quality was superb. Which, again, backs up your point.

I recently bought a lightly-used EOS-M + the 22mm pancake lens mainly for the remarkable qualities of the lens. My camera came with the updated firmware and, honestly, the slow AF is nowhere near as bad IMHO as all the early reviews suggested. It's at least as quick as my ancient first mu43 camera, the Olympus PL2 - and there are a number of workarounds which actually make it a relatively quick-handling shooter. And the optical qualities of the lens are staggering and surpass all the good things I'd heard about it.

I also have two close friends who both have K-01's in their arsenals, use them frequently, and make fabulous images with them. They let me play around with the K-01's and to my (decidedly) eccentric tastes, it's a sweet camera. Both Canon and Pentax have taken a lot of heat, respectively, for both design elements and practicality aspects of the EOS-M and the K-01 - and I must admit to initially having some old-school prejudices (no EVF = bad; touchscreen = too amateurish; lack of dedicated dials & buttons = poor shooting experience) myself - but using my EOS-M and playing with my friends' K-01's changed my mind.

Kirk Tuck (who also is a big K-01 fan, surprisingly) has written some perceptive posts about photographers' judgmental attitudes and prejudices. I know I suffer from a lot of them. And I know that both the EOS-M and K-01 are 'flawed' in several profound ways. But they're a lot of fun, in others.

And to get back on track of this thread, Ray's G7X pictures make me either drool or wonder whether, if I had one in my hands, I could ever get a fraction of the images he seems to produce regularly. I don't know. One the one hand, I think the camera one's using really doesn't matter - it's all about your eye and vision and either preparedness or patience, among other things. But on the other hand, I wonder if the old musicians' adage - that it's easier to play good music on a fine instrument (as opposed to a poor one) - also applies to cameras?
 
I think the AF speed on the G7X is fine, excellent for a compact. Pretty much everyone who's shot both finds it on par with the RX100 III, maybe a bit better. The Camera Store and DPR are complaining about it, Cameralabs finds the G7X faster, etc. I haven't shot with the RX100 III but find the G7X better than the original RX100, which I thought was the best compact AF I'd used at the time. If it's slightly better or worse than the III, it's not enough to notice, let alone worry about...

-Ray

Wow, I came away from the DPR review with the impression that the AF was very slow. Now you have me reconsidering this camera. If only it had a mechanically-linked zoom like the Fuji X10.
 
Thanks for looking everyone.

My verdict on this camera is that it's definitely a keeper for me. I think the differences between the G7X and RX100 (any of 'em) are really down to features and personal preference. I think ANYONE who tries to declare either a winner and either a loser must have some personal agenda. For the pixel peepers, the RX100 III is pretty clearly better at the wide end, they're about equal (with some finding a very slight edge to the G7X in the mid-range of 35-50mm) and the G7X clearly better up to 70mm and then, obviously, MUCH better from 70-100, which the RX100 III doesn't have. But that's for pixel peepers - at any size or format people actually view whole photographs, I don't think the differences are meaningful at all. The sensor is basically the same, AF is about the same, performance is too close to worry about. The big differences are the RX100's EVF versus the G7X's expanded zoom range and touch screen on the G7X. And the interface / shooting experience, which is clearly a personal preference kind of thing...

The shooting experience is vastly better FOR ME on the G7X than the RX100 family, but that will clearly vary by user. I just never liked shooting with the RX100 much at all and I really like shooting with the G7X a lot. Key differences in this regard that I find really useful are the exposure comp dial (which may have some QC issues - mine is really good but some have reported dials that are too hard to turn), the auto-ISO setup, the manual focus distance scale, the number and types of things that can be saved to the "C" mode on the mode dial. WIth this camera I'm able to set up a default street setting that includes focal length, aperture, auto ISO setup, manual focus mode and focus distance, etc, an save it to the "C" setting. Once this was done, I can walk around with the camera in "A" mode (or occasionally manual or shutter priority), moving through the zoom range, using AF, changing aperture and other settings on the fly, and then I can flip it over to "C" mode and be ready for any street opportunity in about a second or two. This type of functionality was invaluable to me walking through a city where there are many shooting opportunities of all types, including lots of street shooting. With the RX100, moving between street and other types of shooting was a real ordeal, bad enough that I just never really did it. I'd stay set up for street shooting would just wing it for other shooting with my street settings or I'd stay in a more "general" type of setup and just not do any street shooting. This specific functionality matters to me and won't to most people, but the flexibility that allows me to do this as easily as I can will probably have an application for other folks with other specific needs as well. That's why I much prefer the G7X, but I know many many shooters are very happy with the RX100 shooting experience and I'm not going to say one is "better" than the other, except that one is definitely better for me and either might be better for you. So they're both worth checking out in this regard...

For city trips, the G7X may become my main camera. For dedicated street shooting, particularly in low light, the Coolpix A is better. And for landscapes and more scenic shooting, the Df and RX1 are way better. And for any type of action shooting, the Df is the ticket. Time will tell, of course - my zoom compacts have always ended up spending too much time on the shelf after an initial honeymoon, so I don't KNOW how much I'll use this one over time. But I do a lot of the kind of shooting that the G7X is really good for and I think I'll get a lot of use out of it. I sure enjoyed it immensely this weekend...

-Ray
 
You keep pulling great (and I mean GREAT) shots out of that place. Rather than just dump accolades on you, I thought I'd try to explain why, for me, these are especially compelling images as a whole. That seems like it would be more useful.

I'll liken it to beer. With beer, you've basically got 3 things that contribute to the final flavor: Malt, Hops, and Yeast. Each has special tricks it can do that none of the others can fake. Each can be overdone, underdone, or just done poorly. With photos, I think you've got 1) the Choice of subject matter (right down to the split second you choose to fire), 2) the Mechanics of capturing that image, and 3) the Processing of that image later before you share it. Each of these can be overdone, underdone, or just goofed. Most often, to me, images don't have a strong enough subject, are captured well (which usually has as much to do with today's cameras as it does our skill), and then the post processing is overbaked.

Here, you've managed to nail:

1) The subject matter... that look on the younger girl's face on the park bench is a great example.
2) The capture of those images... exposures are rich and detailed, motion is stopped to the right degree, framing is beyond "competent" and often into "dammit I wish I could think of things like that"
3) The Post processing... it's there, it's clearly visible, and yet it doesn't distract. Your choices make the photos more compelling, more dynamic, and somehow more life-like, without over-staying their welcome. You've got a light hand with post, and yet you're doing a fair bit of work. That's rare.

Keep it up. Or quit, so I stop feeling inadequate. :)
 
You keep pulling great (and I mean GREAT) shots out of that place. Rather than just dump accolades on you, I thought I'd try to explain why, for me, these are especially compelling images as a whole. That seems like it would be more useful.

I'll liken it to beer. With beer, you've basically got 3 things that contribute to the final flavor: Malt, Hops, and Yeast. Each has special tricks it can do that none of the others can fake. Each can be overdone, underdone, or just done poorly. With photos, I think you've got 1) the Choice of subject matter (right down to the split second you choose to fire), 2) the Mechanics of capturing that image, and 3) the Processing of that image later before you share it. Each of these can be overdone, underdone, or just goofed. Most often, to me, images don't have a strong enough subject, are captured well (which usually has as much to do with today's cameras as it does our skill), and then the post processing is overbaked.

Here, you've managed to nail:

1) The subject matter... that look on the younger girl's face on the park bench is a great example.
2) The capture of those images... exposures are rich and detailed, motion is stopped to the right degree, framing is beyond "competent" and often into "dammit I wish I could think of things like that"
3) The Post processing... it's there, it's clearly visible, and yet it doesn't distract. Your choices make the photos more compelling, more dynamic, and somehow more life-like, without over-staying their welcome. You've got a light hand with post, and yet you're doing a fair bit of work. That's rare.

Keep it up. Or quit, so I stop feeling inadequate. :)

Wow Kyle - those are VERY kind words. While I don't think as highly of my own work as others sometimes seem to, I think that's true of all of us - we see what WE see so naturally that it doesn't seem terribly challenging or good to us, but we see what OTHERS see in their photographs as pretty great simply because what came so easily and naturally to THEM seems kind of exotic to US because we don't see the same way. I'm convinced of this because I know plenty of shooters who's work I REALLY admire who don't think that much of their own and who think considerably more of my work than I do. I'm pretty comfortable with the craft of photography - I feel like I know how to get what I want to get out of my tools for the kinds of shooting I do. I should - I've been doing photography to one extent or another since about 1968! But the art, the vision, the ultimate image is another matter entirely. I don't think very highly of myself there at all - what keeps me shooting is just that I enjoy the process too much to stop, even when I'm not producing much that I'm pleased with. But when others see something they like from me it's a reminder of how differently we all see and perceive things and that in itself is valuable.

Takes me back to a guy I used to play guitar with regularly back when I was playing a lot in my youth - he was an exponentially better guitarist than I ever was, both technically and in terms of musical diversity. He played incredible rhythm, fingerpicked like the devil himself (he had Jorma's style down to the most subtle little syncopation), sang incredibly well, and could play any style of lead over any type of rhythm. I, very much on the other hand, could play OK sounding pentatonic scale blues leads IF (and ONLY if) I had a really good rhythm player/section to play over top of. I couldn't play rhythm to save my life, couldn't sing AT ALL, could barely pick my nose, and couldn't play lead in a major scale or anything more sophisticated than a minor pentatonic. I was as sorry and limited as anyone who ever picked up a guitar and kept at it for more than five minutes. In most contexts I just sucked and in one and only one context I was only sort of OK. Yet this guy used to LOVE to play with me. He'd call me up all the time to come jam. If he pulled a band together or someone asked him to come sit in, he'd give me a call to join in. He KNEW how limited I was but the little I played I played completely differently than he'd have played in the same place. I asked him why he seemed to like playing with me so much (because I honestly felt like a charity case) and he'd say "you always surprise me and come at something from a direction I'd have never thought of". He heard a whole lot more in my playing than I ever heard - it all seemed so obvious and limited to me. And it WAS limited, but I guess obvious only to me - and actually fresh and interesting to him...

I took a lot of lessons from that and applied them in various other endeavors, including photography. And I hope you will too because you have absolutely NO reason to feel inadequate. You don't see what we see in your shooting, but there's a lot there in most of it. That's true of most folks on this forum and very much true of you.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to write what you did and break it down the way you see it. I agree with you on the importance of #1 and #3, but would stress composition and framing more in #2. Because the technical part of nailing what you saw in the camera is sort of a pre-requisite, the basics, the fundamentals. Without that, you can't even think about the other stuff - that's Photography 101, the craft, the one thing I do feel pretty comfortable with. But you need content, composition, and good processing to bring what you thought you saw to life in a little two dimensional box. Generally you can get by with two of the three. One of the three won't cut it and getting all three right is extremely rare and defines those handful of shots we still like a year or two later. I don't think I hit three out of three very often at all, but I try not to put anything out there that I don't see two out of the three in...

-Ray
 
I think that's true of all of us - we see what WE see so naturally -Ray

I agree completely with this part, every workshop I have ever taught it always amazes me how different we all see the same thing. On the other hand I do not completely agree with people being either blasé or not impressed with their own work, many have not learned the art of self-criticism or how to hard edit. One great images is always better than 10 lackluster ones.

As to the topic I keep telling myself I do not need on of these cameras. They look cool but the more I have the less they get used, maybe the next generation.
 
I agree completely with this part, every workshop I have ever taught it always amazes me how different we all see the same thing. On the other hand I do not completely agree with people being either blasé or not impressed with their own work, many have not learned the art of self-criticism or how to hard edit. One great images is always better than 10 lackluster ones.

As to the topic I keep telling myself I do not need on of these cameras. They look cool but the more I have the less they get used, maybe the next generation.

I don't think inability to edit has much connection with self-regard. I'm a terrible editor but not because I produce loads of work I thing is really good. It's because I see a lot of my work at about the same level and usually if I think enough of if to work on processing on it, I'll stick it up on Flickr and some of it here or elsewhere and see what sticks to the wall. I have shots I like that never get any feedback and shots I'm not that crazy about that get a lot of attention and I actually find that sort of instructive. And while it doesn't often change my mind, it does force me to take a second look at some stuff and reassess why I didn't like it when others do or do like it when nobody else seems to. Over time, the best of my stuff becomes clear to me, but that can take a while, like months, and it sometimes takes the help of input from others. So I put too much stuff up and only narrow it down over time...

As for the question of need, I didn't need one. But I like it. And the question of how much I'll use it remains to be seen. If I use it a lot over a period of time, I'll conclude it was a good purchase and if it dies of neglect in a matter of months, I'll conclude it was a mistake. And maybe I'll learn something either way, but probably not... :cool:

-Ray
 
I hope you did not think I was implying that your edits were not tight enough, I really like your edits. I was speaking in very broad terms about where people fall in love with their work so much that they cannot see the good from the average.

And as to camera needs, none of us need most of the cameras we use, but I just think I can wait this round out, especially after all my attention lately has been spent in more ways than one on my "expedition build out" of my Landcruiser:eek:
 
I hope you did not think I was implying that your edits were not tight enough, I really like your edits. I was speaking in very broad terms about where people fall in love with their work so much that they cannot see the good from the average.

And as to camera needs, none of us need most of the cameras we use, but I just think I can wait this round out, especially after all my attention lately has been spent in more ways than one on my "expedition build out" of my Landcruiser:eek:
No Bob, I didn't take it as a criticism of me and I didn't see it as about how one edits an individual photo, but more about the inability to cull the wheat from the chaff in choosing which photographs to process and show other folks. And whether anyone finds my work is good, bad, or average, that's something I think I'm pretty bad at. I'm fine with how I process my shots, but if I see enough potential in 10-15 shots after a day's shooting to process them, then I have trouble tossing more than a couple of them and too many average shots end up on Flickr and it can take me a long time to recognize which ones are crap and take them down, if I even bother... I thought that's what you were talking about - not me specifically, but I'm calling myself out for it because that's something I know I don't do well at all.

-Ray
 
... I'll stick it up on Flickr and some of it here or elsewhere and see what sticks to the wall. I have shots I like that never get any feedback and shots I'm not that crazy about that get a lot of attention and I actually find that sort of instructive...

THIS. I find this whole experience perhaps the most baffling and fascinating aspect of having photography as a hobby in this day and age. We go out on a Saturday, and I take maybe 100 pictures. I go home, delete half of them, then quickly edit the rest (crops, mids, sometimes b&w conversion = all I can do now that Raw Therapee stopped seeing ANY jpg's). I post 5-10 on Flickr monday morning, and the views and favorites are basically a crap shoot, versus what I thought of the shots. To wit, my currently most popular picture on Flickr by either views or favorites, is a picture of a damned squirrel.


13983714497_3b95e716d1_c.jpg
DSCF2455 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Not Machu Picchu, not adorable children, not scenic Boston, not sexy homemade bicycles, not Glacier National Park... a squirrel. Then you explore Flickr, and the people who are viewing and liking your stuff, right? And they post an essentially verbatim toss-away shot that 8 million other people have posted, and the comments section almost literally explodes with emoticons, awards, and praise, and I think... huh? There's a strong social element to Flickr, I guess.
 
THIS. I find this whole experience perhaps the most baffling and fascinating aspect of having photography as a hobby in this day and age. We go out on a Saturday, and I take maybe 100 pictures. I go home, delete half of them, then quickly edit the rest (crops, mids, sometimes b&w conversion = all I can do now that Raw Therapee stopped seeing ANY jpg's). I post 5-10 on Flickr monday morning, and the views and favorites are basically a crap shoot, versus what I thought of the shots. To wit, my currently most popular picture on Flickr by either views or favorites, is a picture of a damned squirrel.


13983714497_3b95e716d1_c.jpg
DSCF2455 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Not Machu Picchu, not adorable children, not scenic Boston, not sexy homemade bicycles, not Glacier National Park... a squirrel. Then you explore Flickr, and the people who are viewing and liking your stuff, right? And they post an essentially verbatim toss-away shot that 8 million other people have posted, and the comments section almost literally explodes with emoticons, awards, and praise, and I think... huh? There's a strong social element to Flickr, I guess.

Well, it IS a really good photo of a squirrel, and they're notoriously quick and twitchy little sumbitches that don't often sit still for a photo. And, hell, you even managed to nail focus on the his face and blow out his tail, so well executed.

But yeah, it happens all the time. And sometimes I think those people must be crazy to like photo A and not mention the clearly brilliant photo B, but sometimes it makes me take a second look at a photograph and occasionally I even change my mind...

-Ray
 
Back
Top