METROMODEPHOTO: by the way the camera on the galaxy note 2 has a low light seting wich works very very well too for those in the market who wants the best for their money.with the ability to see your photos on a 5.5 inch screen this is truly awesome and yes the note 2 is "BIG" and not as comfortable to hold in your hands like an iphone. once you get comfortable with its size after 3 to 5 days ,your good to go. yes 1080p video capability too and many many more photo feature you can find on slr you will find on your galaxy note too. i thought it was funny to have iso setting on a mobil phone but i was totally okay if it came with it.
While I'm happy with my iPhone 5, I find the taller design noticeably less comfortable to use, especially when having to reach a button near the top of the screen. As Apple had warned back when they resisted a larger phone design, the extra screen size comes at the cost of ergonomics.
I can't imagine using one of those oversized Android phones.
kjh7: Had a chance to check out this camera. Why are people complaining? The fixed display lowers the weight, and it very clear. It's much easier to hold for longer periods because it's only 310g. The lens is bright and fast, and menu system is typical Canon, which is good. I would have liked a dedicated ISO button, but no biggie. Just waiting for the price to go down a bit.
How are swivel screens hard to protect? They flip over and turn into a hard plastic cover when not in sue. I know they're not for everyone, but let's not forget the the swivel screen has always been a signature feature of the G-series. every time they've dropped it they've had to bring it back. At this point it's clear this is just a marketing game. Canon needs to let the engineers run the show and put their marketers on a short leash.
Why does Canon always have to screw up the G-series every few generations? The design went from Leica-esque to crude and butt ugly, they ditched the signature articulated LCD viewfinder, got rid of a highly useful dial to make way for a useless flash that no serious photographer will ever use for anything beyonf fill-in; the camera is bigger and heavier yet has a smaller, lower capacity battery, and they've done nothing to address its historical weak point - autofocus speed.
I used to upgrade G-series cameras like I upgrade iPhones. Haven't spent a dime on Canon in the last 3-4 years.
PhotoTrevor: I have to say I'm really disappointed with this. I've been coveting an X100 for some time now and I've had the chance to use one and I liked it but being a canon guy I wanted to see what they would put out given my flashes. The lens on this is a joke. Why can't we put a fast prime on instead of a slow short range zoom. Canon would hit this out of the park with basically the same camera with a 35mm equivalent F2.Sorry Canon no matter how favourable a review DPR will inevitably put on this, going to buy an X100 or whatever else they release.
Replacing the zoom with a fixed, prime lens would reduce the camera's versatility and significantly diminish it's market appeal. I don't blame Canon for the decision to keep a zoom.
fivedawgz: Nice camera. However, for that price, an Olympus Pen or Sony NEX both offer more bang for the buck. I have always liked Canon equipment. I have had 3 Powershot cameras over the years & I have a Canon DSLR too -- NONE of which cost this much, including the EOS T3. I'm not arguing concept or quality. I'm sure it's a fine camera with terrific optics, but the lens is not terribly fast nor does it have an especially impressive zoom. It is still a point & shoot, bells and whistles notwithstanding. At $799, there's nothing about this camera that makes it a better choice than my Oly PEN E-P3, for example. Hopefully Canon will have an attack of common sense and rethink this. . I don't it think this camera offers value for the $$.
The advantage over a camera like the Oly is size. The G-series is quasi-pocketable, unlike most mirrorless cameras due to their protruding lens. For some (myself included) portability is a key concern.
Aside from low light and shallow depth of field capabilities, the G-series has always provided image quality that's very competitive with a DSLR considering the smaller package.
Still don't think the price is justified though...
Why does Canon always have to take a few steps back with every step forward?
In order to incorporate a pop-up flash (which wasn't on anyone's short list of must-have features) they've removed one of the mechanical dials at the top of the camera, eliminating the ability to change the ISO setting on the fly without digging into the menus.
So essentially they've sacrificed one of the G-series' coolest "pro" features in exchange for a useless one. More likely, this was a cost-reduction decision, which is especially irksome considering the fat price increase.