unfortunately disappointing compared to the Sony DSC-RX100 III

The data sheet of this camera made me an alternative to Sony DSC-RX100 III hope, against their purchase I had long "reluctant" me: the Sony seemed to me for that reason little interesting because it has a relatively short zoom range and Me is miserable to use - even with angeklebtem handle it is quite a feat to keep them reasonably quiet and securely in your hand and then also to use - the foldable viewfinder brings the support on the user's face a little more stability, it seems to me in everyday life but rather disturbing , Therefore, I had hitherto always again refrained from Sony already after a short in-the-hand business.
When unpacking the Canon G7x contrast, first came a lot of joy on: compared to Sony to keep much better, much more meaningful focus of the camera, intuitive buttons and menus, and then the larger zoom range of high-aperture objective ... almost everything had bothered me at the Sony trying out so far, seemed to be resolved.
The operation via touch-screen makes unexpected fun. Fun comes otherwise to when shooting with the G7x - occupancy and layout of buttons, design of menus and more are designed mE excellent and practical.
On the camera screen, the pictures looked initially also consistently very good and it seemed to be little "Committee".
Very sobering then unfortunately the closer look at the PC screen:
Remove neither with Canon's proprietary RAW software, even by Lightroom from the JPEG - 1st very many chromatic aberrations
2. even on an overcast autumn day on location hardly an image with no blown-out lights / highlight clipping
3. At first I thought the autofocus did not work properly, so the images appear fuzzy when enlarged - but on closer inspection I found another cause for the impression of blur: edges are consistently "frayed" shown (largely independent of the ISO value) - sharpening via software helps the PC because there is little, but rather strengthened the watercolor look.
4. occur beyond the center, especially in the wide-angle range to massive distortion and blurring, which also does not correct the camera to the JPGs are prepared internally
5. the noise moves at a low level, but seems nevertheless very disturbing, as it is quite irregular and rather "spotty" distributed in the picture - my old Canon G15 rushes as significantly stronger, yet created with her more of (me less annoying ) impression of a fine and very evenly distributed film grain
6. the battery is really going very fast running out

A second copy of the tested G7x brought almost the same results, but hit the automatic white balance partly different choices.

In addition, the RAWs of G7x Lightroom are not yet recognized, so that one must either resort to the Canon's own software or use JPGs from the camera are unfortunately only created in sRGB (unlike the Sony, which also offers Adobe RGB), whereby the processing latitude further reduced in such as Lightroom yet.
Diesbzgl. is of course a corresponding update of Lightroom and / or DxO hoped to be in the (hopefully) correct the lens distortion.

In sum, the picture quality could not convince me considering the price of the camera, so that I decided against G7x and sent her back.
Intrigued, I tried before but once again the Sony DSC RX100 III in direct comparison - ergonomically as I said a disaster - but the image quality is actually so much better: excellent sharpness, low noise (and what occurs in "Film Grain Design") hardly chromatic aberrations and comparatively little loss of sharpness in the corners.
Because even in the wide-area hardly distorted, already the RAWs in the Sony appear to be significantly processed, presumably this also applies to the sharpness. You could criticize, since you just actually want to decide on the degree of processing in RAW - on the other hand, I succeeded in Canon G7x neither with Lightroom (JPG), still utilizing Canon's proprietary RAW development software, even remotely so to achieve good results as they come directly from the camera in the Sony. Particularly pronounced this applies to the chromate. Aberrations that sharpness and distortion. We can only hope that Lightroom or DxO will soon be able to edit the RAWs of G7x - my expectations are, however, rather subdued, given the fact that the Canon's own software from the RAWs little more brings out as from the JPGs , And I also seems questionable how long it will still give Lightroom updates / upgrades beyond the unspeakable cloud solution.

Ultimately, I decided to keep the Sony because their picture quality mE their high price justifies entirely. Photographing itself (or the related acrobatic finger exercises) does so not really fun - the pictures that come out here, but even more so - and this is, after all, that of which one then in the long run has something.
Annoying is, of course, that things like the (almost indispensable) anklebbare handle or an external battery charger must be expensive hinzugekauft as an accessory.

Ideally, I would find a camera with course design / ergonomics, functionality and zoom range of G7x and image quality DSC-RX100 III.
If a photo prints to satisfy 13x18 cm, you will certainly be very happy with the G7x and can have fun.

SUPPLEMENT 12/2014: There is now an update for Adobe Lightroom (5.7.1), which can be edited with the RAWs of G7x - I have so that the original RAWs the Canon edited again and compared with my results so far (then edited RAWs with Canon's included software, then converted to JPEG in Lightroom and somewhat revised):
1. positive:
- There now remain little more details, especially as the noise reduction can work more effectively,
- Abnormal colors can be corrected much better,
- In the overexposed areas minimally more image information can be reconstructed,

2. unchanged:
- Distortions in the peripheral region remain largely the same,

3. Negative:
- Chromatic aberrations can be reduced only slightly and remain much more visible than the previously used procedure.

In sum, the images now appear somewhat more balanced, but remain well behind the results of Sony.