Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on January 09, 2012, 05:18:45 pm
-
Perfect
Canon actually gets it!
I always wondered why in 35mm film days there were a lot of 35mm compact cameras but no larger format compacts these days
I always wanted a larger format Canon G12 or Nikon P7100
Thanks Canon!
Marc
-
Perfect
Canon actually gets it!
I always wondered why in 35mm film days there were a lot of 35mm compact cameras but no larger format compacts these days
I always wanted a larger format Canon G12 or Nikon P7100
Sounds like a very interesting camera indeed!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... I always wondered why in 35mm film days there were a lot of 35mm compact cameras but no larger format compacts these days...
Indeed... my full-frame compact (Rollei 35) is still significantly smaller than today's so-called "compacts".
-
At this price and stuck forever with a slowish F/2.8-5.8 zoom lens, why not instead get one of the various compact system cameras with a comparable kit zoom and the option of using other lenses? The only edge I see is 4x instead of the typical 3x kit lens zoom range.
The price of this camera and the FujiFilm X100 explains why large sensor fixed lens cameras are far less common than compact fixed lens 35mm film cameras: most of those little film cameras were _cheap_, and so was film, given that their users did not shoot huge amounts of it. These fixed lens compacts with biggish sensors address a far more specialized market.
I have to mention the irony of Canon almost adopting 4/3 format ... alright, at 18.7x14mm, it is about 1mm bigger in each direction, and in fact it is officially 3/2" instead of 4/3". Canon joins Nikon and Pentax in sustaining a sensor size divide between DSLR's and the more compact alternatives.
So is this an attempt by Canon planning to reject the compact system camera trend, or is it step on the way, like the X100 was partly a step towards the X-Pro1?
-
Every camera in every segment of the market is 'a step along the way.'
I'll pick one of these up and enjoy it as a 1 piece grab and go solution. I haven't bought into the line since the G6 so this will be a nice upgrade indeed. It's just small enough to be convenient and big enough to give very high quality images.
I still have a baby Rollei TL that was my 'compact' camera for many years. Now that was fun to shoot with.
-
Whatever the camera used, it becomes really hard to blame on gear the lack of outstanding images. :)
Regarding which to chose, I count on Thom Hogan to cast some light on the respective qualities of all these mirrorless options. He seems to be interested in trying all of them regardless of the manufacturer's name.
http://www.sansmirror.com/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sample. I think this is impresive for just a P&S. The mother of all! :D
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_G1X/sampleimg/original_sample_2.JPG
Eduardo
-
I think it is a good move from Canon, it is also quite "safe" on their part. Rather than going the Nikon 1 way (small sensor and new lens mount), they opted to go for a large sensor and "adapting" the zoom lens from the G12. The bottom line is that both companies have avoided the risk to impact their DSLR lenses sales, in two completely different ways.
However, for the non-informed customers, the current "mirrorless" market must seen quite confusing... different sensor sizes, different lens mounts, different solutions, and so on...
The lens is quite slow at the long end, but that is the compromise for the large sensor and "small" size.
-
At this price and stuck forever with a slowish F/2.8-5.8 zoom lens, why not instead get one of the various compact system cameras with a comparable kit zoom and the option of using other lenses? The only edge I see is 4x instead of the typical 3x kit lens zoom range...
Exactly. For about the same money you can put together an m4/3 system that is far more capable and versatile.
-
Exactly. For about the same money you can put together an m4/3 system that is far more capable and versatile.
But is "versatility" something that the average consumer really cares about?
Last week I happened to be browsing in a camera store (imagine that!) and overheard a young woman talking to a sales rep about which camera she should buy.
The prospective buyer was looking for something small. Her primary concern was image quality. Whether it had detachable lenses or not was irrelevant.
For the casual shooter, it may be that the G1X (ugh, "X" again!) is a far more attractive purchase than something with lenses that you can or need to change.
In terms of compact size, when the lens is all folded away, the G1X is not that far off the size of other mirrorless cameras with a pancake lens. The ability and need to change lenses on other mirrorless cameras is both a positive and a negative: extra lenses for extra reach need to be placed somewhere. And then there's dust. There is no free lunch.
As it happened, whilst I was in said store, I was able to get a first hand look at the various NEX cameras and the bulk associated with them once you've got a lens attached and needless to say, whilst the body has gone on a very effective sliming diet, the lenses have not (and more or less, that's the way it has to be.)
The lack of detachable lenses is also an important for the price point. For example, Fuji's latest mirrorless that has an APS-C, is at least twice the price of the G1X when similarly equipped. For the budget conscious buyer, this is not a trivial amount of money that is involved.
Now it may be that Canon's market research tells them that all they need is "big sensor with more MP than a phone and IQ that is better than a phone", rather than detachable lenses. Time will tell.
-
Whatever the camera used, it becomes really hard to blame on gear the lack of outstanding images. :)
Amen to that, Bernard!
Some days none of my cameras seem to have much of an eye for great shots. :(
Eric
-
Some days none of my cameras seem to have much of an eye for great shots. :(
Worry not... That's what the Photoshop is for :D
-
Worry not... That's what the Photoshop is for :D
Indeed, and Photoshop needs to have a "Convert this image into a masterpiece" button so that I can spend more time doing other things.
-
Wow, this camera looks crazy good for what it is! Now if they lower the price say $100 - $200 I would like to snatch one up asap. This is what a compact camera should be! Sure there are a few tweaks I would make, such as the lens. (24mm - 120mm f/2.0 - 4) An EVF would be great too.
-
The Achilles heal of this (and many other cameras) is the 19-century viewfinder. Sounds like a last-resort option, nice-to-have, just-in-case (and that is why I opted for my G10), but it is so lousy in practice that I never really used it. It is imprecise when it matters the most (i.e., in the telephoto range) and obscured by the lens barrel, has no focusing help and no other information. I sorely miss the intimacy and close contact with the subject that only a proper viewfinder provides. I hate that stretch-your-hands, squint-like-hell, look-like-idiot, touristy way we are forced to use today's p&s. Compare that with the modern EVF and optical hybrids.
-
Wow, this camera looks crazy good for what it is! Now if they lower the price say $100 - $200 I would like to snatch one up asap. This is what a compact camera should be! Sure there are a few tweaks I would make, such as the lens. (24mm - 120mm f/2.0 - 4) An EVF would be great too.
Give it a year or so and the price should moderate ...
The Achilles heal of this (and many other cameras) is the 19-century viewfinder. Sounds like a last-resort option, nice-to-have, just-in-case (and that is why I opted for my G10), but it is so lousy in practice that I never really used it. It is imprecise when it matters the most (i.e., in the telephoto range) and obscured by the lens barrel, has no focusing help and no other information. I sorely miss the intimacy and close contact with the subject that only a proper viewfinder provides. I hate that stretch-your-hands, squint-like-hell, look-like-idiot, touristy way we are forced to use today's p&s. Compare that with the modern EVF and optical hybrids.
I'm confused.
Why is the EVF still so important?
Isn't the hour before/after sunrise/sunset the right time to shoot?
And isn't it usually too challenging to shoot handheld, and thus want to work with a tripod?
And when you're tripod orientated, isn't it better to use the LCD/live view instead of the view finder?
Similarly, when I don't have a tripod and I need to ensure a "steady shot", I usually find something to put the camera on, or push it up against something (so as to try and eliminate one plane of movement entirely), in which case using the view finder (be it EVF or not) is also cumbersome.
-
... I'm confused.
Why is the EVF still so important?...
Not sure if your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in case it isn't, here is my answer:
Why is a proper viewfinder so important? I thought I explained it above.
I am certainly not going to carry a tripod with me only to use it with a p&s. If I carry it, I do not mind carrying my DSLR as well. And yes, on tripod, I prefer live view to a viewfinder.
The same goes for sunset/sunrise. If I am planning to shoot it, then I'll carry a DSLR and tripod (besides, dynamic range of p&s is definitely not suitable for that subject). I carry p&s when I am not planning serious shooting. That is the whole idea of a small, pocketable camera, or at least something less noticeable on my shoulder (as G10, let alone G1X, is definitely not a pocketable camera).
Not to mention that there are other subjects in life, besides sunset/sunrise.
-
I am certainly not going to carry a tripod with me only to use it with a p&s. If I carry it, I do not mind carrying my DSLR as well. And yes, on tripod, I prefer live view to a viewfinder.
That is the thing.
Chances are that the image quality of the G1X is superior in all areas compared to the D2x I used to shoot some of my favorite landscape images with. I always shot on tripod, MLU, cable release and most of my images were as critically sharp as the lack of live view allowed for. It is probably also superior to that of the initial 1Ds that many pro landscape shooters used to replace their MF film cameras.
So it would in fact make sense to shoot the G1X on tripod from an image quality potential standpoint... but does it make sense in terms of total package considering the bulk/weight of the tripod/head? I believe that if you are willing to carry a tripod, you might indeed be better off bringing a top APS-C DSLR like the 7D with better lenses and more flexibility.
So back to the key point... a camera purchase that is done in the context of a finite budget should be considered relative to the rest of one's cameras line up. I believe that it is possible to optimize one's spending by:
- avoiding too much overlap in applications between cameras,
- go as far as possible with the abilities of each camera
I am afraid that few of us at LL will see a real need for a camera like the G1X. This does of course not mean that we might not want one. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It perfectly fits my needs in the cockpit
I want reasonably good IQ and low light capability
But don't want the bulk or weight of dslr
I always looked at my g9 then my p7000 and wanted one a little larger with a sensor like in my k5
So I was considering a nex7 until Canon answered my prayers
So for me this works
Marc
-
Chuck Westfall said last night that the G1X IQ is to be a bit better than the 7D's.
I think the whole purpose of a P&S is to leave home without a tripod. No extras of any kind. Nada. But I would certainly carry one and be totally happy about it if by any unexpected circumstance I have to shoot something important with the G1X. bTW, I'm abandoning using the iPhone for night parties. It's totally useless! :-[
I agree that none us would ever "need" one. But I'd prefer to take this baby to a friends party than carrying my 5D2 with a 24-105 and a 580XII. For traveling when photography is not the main thing, this baby would be the right tool too. For dubious or unsafe places and streets, risking $800 sounds better than risking more expensive equipment.
I'm sure there are more instances for choosing this camera over a dslr. Unless you are 24/365 pro. :D
Eduardo
Chances are that the image quality of the G1X is superior in all areas compared to the D2x I used to shoot some of my favorite landscape images with. I always shot on tripod,
? I believe that if you are willing to carry a tripod, you might indeed be better off bringing a top APS-C DSLR like the 7D with better lenses and more flexibility.
I am afraid that few of us at LL will see a real need for a camera like the G1X. This does of course not mean that we might not want one. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm sure there are more instances for choosing this camera over a dslr. Unless you are 24/365 pro. :D
No doubt... now what camera do you use for those instances today and is the quality delivered by that camera really an issue for the intended usage? I mean is it an issue worth an extra 800 US$? :)
My party pictures are mostly sent by email, very rarely printed, never printer larger than 10x15cm. The J1 I use today is more than enough for this, although I am sure that the G1X is in a different league.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It perfectly fits my needs in the cockpit
I want reasonably good IQ and low light capability
But don't want the bulk or weight of dslr ...
But a DSLR is not the only alternative, or even the closest one; mirrorless systems are closer. And of those, NEX is worst for compactness of a complete camera with zoom lens. To me the Panasonic GX1 is the closest, not only in name.
With either 14-42/3.5-5.6 lens, the Panasonic GX1 kit is at least 20% lighter.
In height and width, the Panasonic is a hair smaller.
With the cheaper lens, the Panasonic kit is longer, and equally priced.
With the collapsible "X" lens, the kit is the same size or smaller, but costs 20% more.
The sensor size difference is about 12% linear, good for about a 1/4 stop speed advantage to the Canon if sensor technology is similar.
The Canon has a greater zoom range of 4x (only the Olympus 12-50 offers 4x in a mirrorless standard zoom).
The Panasonic has a far greater range of focal lengths if and when one needs them enough to carry a second lens, while being arguably more portable on the occasions when one zoom lens is enough.
The Canon has a "peep-hole" VF in addition to the LCD, but it is non-TTL, no no use for manual focusing or DOF judgements, and probably with inaccurate framing, especially at close range.
The Panasonic has an optional EVF, probably far better than the optical peep-hole, but it adds to the cost and bulk.
By the way, the dust issue mentioned in another post is a bit of a red herring: if you can accept never being able to change lenses on the Canon, you can surely accept sometimes not being able to change lenses due to dusty conditions.
P.S. It is not just "X" that is being overkilled, but "X1". Did we ask for a GX1, G1X, 1DX and X-Pro1 all in a bunch?
-
P.S. It is not just "X" that is being overkilled, but "X1". Did we ask for a GX1, G1X, 1DX and X-Pro1 all in a bunch?
Hum... marketing teams will soon be facing a very tough time... only 2 letters left in the alphabet... ;D
What will they do after they release the 1DZ?
- 1DZZ?
- start back at A?
- ...
I am surprised nobody has done Junior yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That is the thing.
Chances are that the image quality of the G1X is superior in all areas compared to the D2x I used to shoot some of my favorite landscape images with. I always shot on tripod, MLU, cable release and most of my images were as critically sharp as the lack of live view allowed for. It is probably also superior to that of the initial 1Ds that many pro landscape shooters used to replace their MF film cameras.
So it would in fact make sense to shoot the G1X on tripod from an image quality potential standpoint... but does it make sense in terms of total package considering the bulk/weight of the tripod/head? I believe that if you are willing to carry a tripod, you might indeed be better off bringing a top APS-C DSLR like the 7D with better lenses and more flexibility.
Why doesn't a camera like the G1X deserve to be used with a tripod?
Consider that a smaller camera/lens combination also allows for a smaller and lighter tripod.
Why do the rules of how we use the G1X need to be different just because of its form factor?
Isn't that prejudiced of us?
-
My mountaineering camera of choice was my Rollei 35. Something like that, all manual, preferably with a FF though I'd settle for an APS-C sensor, would be perfect. It's not going to happen, but this Canon looks to be close to it. My Ricoh GX200 is rarely used - the quality is just not good enough, and I carry the D700 & a couple of lenses in stead. That's a lot of extra weight when climbing in the Cairngorms, but rather that & good quality images than the sort of thing I get from the Ricoh. This Canon looks like a good compromise.
-
Why doesn't a camera like the G1X deserve to be used with a tripod?
Consider that a smaller camera/lens combination also allows for a smaller and lighter tripod.
Why do the rules of how we use the G1X need to be different just because of its form factor?
Isn't that prejudiced of us?
Didn't I, on the contrary, write that its qualities do justify the use of a tripod from a quality standpoint?
My - personnal - questioning is whether the loss in quality compared to another device still makes sense when consireding the - relatively - more modest gain once a serious tripod is considered.
I am not sure why you consider this prejudice?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Achilles heal of this (and many other cameras) is the 19-century viewfinder. Sounds like a last-resort option, nice-to-have, just-in-case (and that is why I opted for my G10), but it is so lousy in practice that I never really used it. It is imprecise when it matters the most (i.e., in the telephoto range) and obscured by the lens barrel, has no focusing help and no other information. I sorely miss the intimacy and close contact with the subject that only a proper viewfinder provides. I hate that stretch-your-hands, squint-like-hell, look-like-idiot, touristy way we are forced to use today's p&s. Compare that with the modern EVF and optical hybrids.
http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaview/index.html
I use it on my Canon g12 and I can recommend it.
-
As noted in a previous post, Chuck Westfall says the IQ is superior to the 60D / 7D. Would that be a 60D / 7D with an 18-55 f3.5-5.6 or with a 35 f1.4L? Hmmm..... For reasons of weight and cost, I've stuck with X00D cameras (450D currently). I've owned 40d & 50d, but there's no advantage there for shooting landscape (easier to use, but no better IQ). Lenses I've used most have been 17-40 f4L & 24-105 f4L. If the G1X lens can keep up with those, I can easily see myself abandoning my SLR and going backpacking with a G1X and a Gitzo 0530 (total weight less than my current tripod alone). But of course one must assume the next iterations of the 60D, 7D, etc will have yet better IQ (if not Canon's in trouble, right?). Heck they might even catch up to Nikon, Sony..... One can dream, no?
-
... the IQ is superior to the 60D / 7D...
There is more to "IQ" than pixel peeping. With those cameras you can use number of lenses below 28mm and above 112mm and number of faster-aperture lenses. A 60D with a 17-55/2.8 is two stops faster at the tele end... would G1X's IQ at 1600 be still be superior to 60D's 400?
Those cameras also have a viewfinder (granted, you would not know what to do with if you are born yesterday and the only way you learn to hold a camera is like you would hold a baby with full diapers, i.e., as far from the nose as possible). If all you ever use is in the range of 28-112mm and between 2.8 and 5.6, then, sure, go ahead and replace that bulky DSLR.
By the way, I am not trying to argue we do not need p&s... we do... I have G10 and will probably go for G1X or similar at some point... what I am arguing is: horses for courses. There are times and circumstances where all we could ever want would be a G1X, and then again, there are other times.
In that respect, G1X appears to be "too little, too late"... which seems to be Canon's new corporate slogan as of lately. When was the last time you saw a non yawn-inducing new Canon?
-
:) I don't know if I understand what you imply. (it could be that I am translating)
I use a 5D2 with a short zoom and a 580X or my iPhone4. (as I just said in my former post). I bought a Pana G3 last summer but sold it. Not really happy with it. A cousin of mine loved it and sold it at the same price. Still waiting for that little camera to use under many instances where the 5D2 is an overkill. Or for those occasions where "cheap" equipment is better to carry. Also, thought, that if it is good enough to double as a backup or emergency camera, even better! So, this adds up to the equation too.
I really like the G1X. Will I buy it? Mmhm..maybe. There are so many offers right now, it is staggering. If the Panasonic GX1 had a swivel screen, I would buy it today no doubt.
Since this kind of camera, I don't "need" but would love to have, I can wait till the right one comes. The only permanent thing is change. Especially in humans. Who knows that when the right model gets here, my mind would be somewhere else and I could end up buying a Nex 7 or a S100. In the meantime, this Canon is ahead for me.
Most party pictures never see a printer, or printed small, you're right about that. Perhaps for this kind of photography manufacturers should come with P&S cameras with light sucking pixels. Think of a Canon S100 with a 4mp sensor.
Eduardo
No doubt... now what camera do you use for those instances today and is the quality delivered by that camera really an issue for the intended usage? I mean is it an issue worth an extra 800 US$? :)
My party pictures are mostly sent by email, very rarely printed, never printer larger than 10x15cm. The J1 I use today is more than enough for this, although I am sure that the G1X is in a different league.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But a DSLR is not the only alternative, or even the closest one; mirrorless systems are closer. And of those, NEX is worst for compactness of a complete camera with zoom lens. To me the Panasonic GX1 is the closest, not only in name.
P.S. It is not just "X" that is being overkilled, but "X1". Did we ask for a GX1, G1X, 1DX and X-Pro1 all in a bunch?
Yes you are correct but after dreaming of a colapsable lens compact with a larger sensor for several years and because Canon listened to my dreams I was compelled by the force to preorder one.
When I retire from flying and go back to manufacturing loudspeakers I've decided my next product will be an "X1Pro1X-G2X" !
Marc
-
Collapsable lens and big sensor you have them in the Panasonic GX1. Unless like me, the swivel screen is a must have. 8)
Eduardo
Yes you are correct but after dreaming of a colapsable lens compact with a larger sensor for several years and because Canon listened to my dreams I was compelled by the force to preorder one.
When I retire from flying and go back to manufacturing loudspeakers I've decided my next product will be an "X1Pro1X-G2X" !
Marc
-
found this interesting noise tests
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-bruit-electronique-12.html
Eduardo
-
Unless like me, the swivel screen is a must have.
Oh, I overlooked the swivel-screen in my side-by-side, which could account for a chunk of the weight difference.
I fully expect both a swivel-screen and a compact EVF in the forthcoming EP-X1 from Olympus (now under new management.)
-
All the new directions are very exciting. Digital cameras are finally starting to exploit the unique advantages of being digital (overlays in OVF, switchable EVF/OVF and so on) rather than just mimicking film cameras. But we still don't have my dream compact yet. I'm waiting for the NEX-7 with a Panny 14-42mmX on the front. The Canon is pretty close except for falling down on the OVF. Replace it with a Fuji X100 VF and you're about there.
-
found this interesting noise tests
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-bruit-electronique-12.html
Eduardo
I suspect that we're looking at JPEGs produced by the camera.
We need to see what sort of detail is in the raw files because above ISO 100, detail is being smudged/blurred away.
In the above pictures, the map is perhaps the best area to see where detail is being lost as it is predominately colour on white.
-
A collapsable zoom for an NEX7 would be great too
Marc
-
I think you nailed it on both accounts. Especially in the case of the Sony. (parallel thinking).
Eduardo
All the new directions are very exciting. Digital cameras are finally starting to exploit the unique advantages of being digital (overlays in OVF, switchable EVF/OVF and so on) rather than just mimicking film cameras. But we still don't have my dream compact yet. I'm waiting for the NEX-7 with a Panny 14-42mmX on the front. The Canon is pretty close except for falling down on the OVF. Replace it with a Fuji X100 VF and you're about there.
-
I was directed to this site.
http://digitalfotoonline.dk/Nyheder/verdenspremiere-se-vores-testskud-med-canon-g1-x
There's one 12800iso jpeg from raw
Eduardo
-
A collapsable zoom for an NEX7 would be great too
Marc
I believe they are going to be announcing 6 new NEX lenses this year, including a pancake zoom similar to the 14-42 m4/3 lens.
-
I have pre-ordered the G1X but if the NEX7 becomes available before it comes into stock, that is what I will go for. Either option (G1X or NEX7 with a couple of good lenses) sounds attractive to me.
-
So is LL going to do a field review of this camera? It has some great spec's but how it performs in the field is also just as important. Like how it focuses in low light or how good the IS is, etc. Would love to see LL review this one. Or should I say _please_ field test it? LL is always a trustworthy source for product reviews which is needed in this case (I've been looking).
-
An educated guess is that Michael won't let this pass.
Eduardo
So is LL going to do a field review of this camera? It has some great spec's but how it performs in the field is also just as important. Like how it focuses in low light or how good the IS is, etc. Would love to see LL review this one. Or should I say _please_ field test it? LL is always a trustworthy source for product reviews which is needed in this case (I've been looking).
-
I own and use both the G9 and G12 and have assembled a chart comparing those specs and features to the G1X, see http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/2012/01/features-g9-vs-g12-vs-g1x.html on my blog. The chart might be useful to others who are considering the G1X. I intend to get the G1X and blog about it while learning to use it -- as I did with the G9 and G12.
-
I've already requested a review sample. I'll let everyone know when it arrives.
Michael
-
One of the major pluses in my mind, for the G1X, is the fact that it has an in-lens leaf-shutter, operating hand-in-hand with an electronic shutter. A leaf shutter of course makes the camera silent - no audible noise at all, when taking pictures (unless one deliberately turn on the simulated shutter sound via the menu option).
Wish more manufacturers made leaf-shuttered lenses.
-
Is that so?
One more reason to buy this camera. I often take pictures at theaters during plays, operas, acoustic concerts, etc.
Eduardo
One of the major pluses in my mind, for the G1X, is the fact that it has an in-lens leaf-shutter, operating hand-in-hand with an electronic shutter. A leaf shutter of course makes the camera silent - no audible noise at all, when taking pictures (unless one deliberately turn on the simulated shutter sound via the menu option).
Wish more manufacturers made leaf-shuttered lenses.
-
if this is early 2012, imagine 2013 and later.
-
Perfect
Canon actually gets it!
I always wondered why in 35mm film days there were a lot of 35mm compact cameras but no larger format compacts these days
I always wanted a larger format Canon G12 ...
+1
though I'm missing a designated belt bag,
leather, like with the former Gs from Canon .
A Titanium edition of the camera would also be nice :)
Peter
--
-
Doesn't seem to have the macro capability of the previous G's?
-
There is a flower icon on the back?
Marc
-
Closest focusing distance 20cm...
-
Closest focusing distance 20cm...
It's part of the price for a big sensor, I'd guess?
-
I like the G1x concept. I was a user of the Pro 1 and really loved its size and decent quality (compared to its contemporaries).
I recently got tired of waiting for canon to make a large sensor small cmera and got an Olympus Pen EPL3. Quality is decent. Compactness is good, but I find it clunky and difficult to operate. I will be selling that one and trying out the G1x.
I would absolutely use this camera on a gitzo traveller carbon fiber tripod. This will be a great combo for backcountry skiing, paddling, climbing or any adventure where you need compactness. The tripod isn't too bad if you pack it away in a backpack.
I am curious about the menus and software features. I recently looked at a canon S95 (I think that was the model) and I was shocked about how much more evolved the software features were compared to the DSLRS (7D in particular). It is really inexcusable that these software capabilities don't get into the EOS series cameras. I'd like configurable auto ISO, intervalometer, bracketing with more than three exposures.
On a totally unrelated note, with auto ISO we should start calling manual mode aperture/shutter priority mode.
-
Dpreview just published some samples:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would love to see a comparison of the G1x and the new fuji x1 pro!
-
There is more to "IQ" than pixel peeping. With those cameras you can use number of lenses below 28mm and above 112mm and number of faster-aperture lenses. A 60D with a 17-55/2.8 is two stops faster at the tele end... would G1X's IQ at 1600 be still be superior to 60D's 400?
Those cameras also have a viewfinder (granted, you would not know what to do with if you are born yesterday and the only way you learn to hold a camera is like you would hold a baby with full diapers, i.e., as far from the nose as possible). If all you ever use is in the range of 28-112mm and between 2.8 and 5.6, then, sure, go ahead and replace that bulky DSLR.
By the way, I am not trying to argue we do not need p&s... we do... I have G10 and will probably go for G1X or similar at some point... what I am arguing is: horses for courses. There are times and circumstances where all we could ever want would be a G1X, and then again, there are other times.
In that respect, G1X appears to be "too little, too late"... which seems to be Canon's new corporate slogan as of lately. When was the last time you saw a non yawn-inducing new Canon?
The whole point of this camera to me seems to be that its specifically not looking to compet with Canon's DSLR business. Dispite the hype
that there "killing DSLR's" I suspect that the vast majority of mirrorless sales are either to upgrading compact users who wouldnt consider a bulky DSLR or to a lesser extent DSLR users who want a smaller second body.
You look at mirrorless lens sales are really there pretty poor compaired to body sales which to me suggests that the majority of those users are just sticking with the kit lens. In that respect the G1X offers a very significant advanatge in zoom range and aperture over the kit zooms, even moreso the Samsung NX pancake zoom, will Sony need to limate theres aswell?
The viewfinder seems like a good middle option for that market aswell, your typical ex P&S is probabley happy with the backscreen as the primary composition tool and only wants a viewfinder when lighting makes it hard to use. On any other system its a choice between nothing or a large/expensive EVF where as the Canon offers a smaller/cheaper alternative good enough for the odd shot is not constant use.
-
I suspect my problem with this camera will be that it will leave f2.8 and get to f5.8 fairly quickly. I have a G11 but at Christmas, I borrowed my daughter's D7000 and stuck on my 17-55 f2.8 and shot with that -- because one thing I've found with inside daytime party photos is that f2.8 is hardly adequate except at higher ISOs, and f5.8 won't work at all. (Flash? Most people don't care to be blinded with repeated flashes during Christmas parties, and since nothing is posed, flash photos are not often attractive because of shadows and glare, etc.) The D7000 @ 3200 worked okay, but even then, the photos weren't what you'd call "bright."
I can see a camera like this being useful as a backup for trekkers, where you're outside most of the time and also have another system (or, if the shots are just intended as "casual" and you don't really need the flexibility of longer or shorter lenses.)
As for viewfinders...I have to agree with Slobodan. I have two Panny GX1s and I bought one accessory viewfinder to share between them, and shooting yesterday afternoon in bright sunlight, with a long lens on one and a short lens on the other, I found that half the time, I couldn't make out the screen on the one without the accessory viewfinder. It was driving me crazy. I've had a number of these top-end Canons P&S, and also a Nikon P7000, and now a fairly complete Panny system, and to tell the truth, it's often a relief to shoot with a regular DSLR with a good mirror viewfinder. ON the other hand, my full-sized system is a NIkon D3 (and a recently departed D300) and it's just too big, both body and lenses. My girlfriend has as K5 with five or six lenses, including the three pancakes, and I was shooting with that last night, and if there were about three more really good primes, that might be my ultimate solution. Or maybe the Fuji. I'ver heard good things about the viewfinder system there, although some of the reports on the glass aren't too encouraging, which is strange, because Fuji does have a reputation for good glass.
Be interesting if Pentax stayed with APS-C but managed to squeeze the size a bit more. The frontal area isn't bad, but the K5 is a chunky little thing.
-
Quote
I can see a camera like this being useful as a backup for trekkers, where you're outside most of the time and also have another system (or, if the shots are just intended as "casual" and you don't really need the flexibility of longer or shorter lenses.)
Unquote
+1
-
DxO have reviewed the sensor performance of the G1X and their summary is "The best compact camera".
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-PowerShot-G1X-Review
their testing does not appear to include anything related to the lens' ability to resolve detail.
The sensor bests everything in a related category except the new Panasonic GX1 in low light/high ISO.
-
The sensor bests everything in a related category except the new Panasonic GX1 in low light/high ISO.
"This year's two best compact cameras bought to you by the letters "G" and "X" and the number 1." (Apologies to Sesame Street)
It is hardly a surprise that on sensor specs, the biggest sensor compared scores best. This only becomes a clear win under the heading of "compact camera" if it is also about as compact as the alternatives. That is still a tricky comparison to make: the GX1 with 14-42 "X" lens is substantially lighter (about 400 vs 530 grams) and less high (68 vs 80.5 mm), but the weight is partly through a smaller zoom range (3x vs 4x)?
P. S. given all the complaints about Panasonic's sensors being noisier than the competition, the high ISO noise advantage for the GX1 over the G1X, even with more pixels on a smaller sensor, is a surprise.
-
P. S. given all the complaints about Panasonic's sensors being noisier than the competition, the high ISO noise advantage for the GX1 over the G1X, even with more pixels on a smaller sensor, is a surprise.
Keep in mind than the G1X sensor (14x19mm) is cactually loser to µ4/3 (13.5x18mm) than to APSC (15x22 or 16x23mm depending on brands)...
And it seems that Canon still didn't do his homework very well for read noise. :-\
-
Keep in mind than the G1X sensor (14x19mm) is cactually loser to µ4/3 (13.5x18mm) than to APSC (15x22 or 16x23mm depending on brands)...
And it seems that Canon still didn't do his homework very well for read noise. :-\
My bet is on this being a short time to market camera and that they're just using the same sensor as in their current 18MP APS-C cameras such as the 7D rather than something new. If Canon were smart and started a G2X project at the same time (or close enough to) as the G1X to use the next-gen sensor, then lookout...
-
My bet is ... they're just using the same sensor as in their current 18MP APS-C cameras such as the 7D ...
Quite likely the same cell [photosite] design as in the 7D, 60D, 550D and 600D, since there is no newer cell design in any Canon DSLR except the very different 1DX. But in a new smaller sensor: I doubt that Canon is just covering up the extra 4mm of sensor area at the sides with black tape!
Things change fast if the sensor technology in the four models atop Canon's current EF-S DSLR range, including one model from 2011, is now "out of date" and behind Panasonic in the "ISO race"! (*)
(*) To me, the ISO race is getting as silly as the MP race: striving to reduce IQ problems that are already far less noticeable than with the equipment used to take most great photographs of the 20th century ... or even the previous decade. I think that most of us, from family snap-shooters to professional photographers of sports and news events, will get more from the "focus accuracy and speed race".