mpgxsvcd: Has Canon finally abandoned the A-PSC market in favor of a slightly larger than 4/3s sensor compact camera? Their latest DSLR announcement was pathetic. Their compact sensor announcement has some real promise.
no jack, canon has definitely abandoned the A-PSC market. :p
Serious Sam: $799 You must be Joking.
Why I want to buy the when I can get the E-M5 kit for less or even better The Fuji X-E1 Kit....even cheaper....and i am sure these two will beat the GX1 ii hands down.
Canon need to get their mind set correct in this market. They are not the leader like they are in the DSLR market and need to price their products accordingly
well .. please go price a 24-120/2-4.0 lens that has a near APS-C image circle and get back to me on how much it costs to make.
sean lee: come on canon....Is this all you can do?For this size, at least view finder should included.It is same size as Fuji x100 or XE2 with lens........I know for zoom lens like that, it is still smaller than other lens.... but.....
the lens also takes up a fair amount of room inside of the chassis.
not to mention adding an EVF would add to the cost. now of course if the lens was a 28-85 like the XE2 you could take money from the lens and put it into EVF,etc.
there's always a compromise.
mwstebbins: When are these cameras going to start offering USB3, rather than USB2?
USB 3 has lenght considerations that USB 2 do not.
Domo P1000: I like the look of this. I am one who appreciates a fully articulated screen - very useful when photographing with arms stretched above head height, but may adapt to cope with the less manoverable screen supplied.However I do have one on-going bugbear: in the US this will cost just under £500 ($799) in the UK it will cost £750 (almost $1200) – why? WHY?!
vat, import taxation, increased costs to handle consumer laws,etc in the UK - cost of living for local assets (support, marketting,etc ) in the UK.
There is no free lunch. buy it grey market if you want.
NCB: Canon have made the same mistake as Nikon, dropping the viewfinder, as Nikon did in the P7700 before bringing it back as as EVF in the P7800. Too much of the potential market for this sort of camera wants a viewfinder of some sort; the optical type was never that bad that omitting it was a good thing, and while the EVF in the P7800 isn't great, compared to other EVFs now appearing, it's better than nothing.
Unless Canon and Nikon start putting quality EVFs in this sort of camera, they might as well drop them; there are too many attractive alternatives around in the quality-but-not-too-large market. The sensor-size of the G1 X II isn't enough on its own to make a difference.
most users coming up from a smartphone will never have used a viewfinder
iudex: There were 4 issues with the G1x:1. it was too bulky 2. the VF was useless3. the lens was slow4. the AF was poorThis successor solves 2 problems completely and partially (possibly) the other 2.First I applaud for the lens: the improvement in speed is enermous, f2-3,9 is much better than most of the competition, only Fuji with 18-55/2,8-4 can compete, however it looses in range. Getting rid of some external controls, OVF and articulated screen helped make the body smaller (however getting rid of some controls is controversial). While I do not regret dropping the OVF, I hoped for a built-in EVF. Possibility to buy external EVF is fine, bue a built-in one would be better and more pocketable.The improvement in AF speed is yet to be checked, but it will problably not be amazing.So generally a lot has been improved and I like the nex G1x very much, but there is still space for improvements, most importantly putting a built-in EVF.
add a 24-140 2.0 to 4.0 lens to that sony and check back to me on how much it costs.
bshy: look at the physical characteristics(According to canon USA):G1X:Dimensions (W x H x D): 4.60 x 3.17 x 2.55 in. / 116.7 x 80.5 x 64.7mmWeight:Approx. 17.3 oz. / 492g (Camera only)Approx. 19.0 oz. / 534g (Including the battery and memory card)
G1X Mark II:Dimensions (W x H x D): 4.58 x 2.91 x 2.61 in. / 116.3 x 74.0 x 66.2mm
Weight Approx. 19.5 oz. / 553g (CIPA standard)Approx. 18.2 oz. / 516g (Body only)
Not noticably smaller or lighter!!!!!what about ommitted viewfinder and EV dials?But other characteristics (with a question for autofocus speed) seems better
check out the lens aperture range.
Naveed Akhtar: Now could someone explain, why canon announces T5 alongside this much improved G1x camera!!
t5's predessor is the T3.
no improvements? really?
Shunda77: The problem is that it has got a big sensor with canons outdated sensor technology, so the advantages of better high iso, dynamic range etc are simply not going to be there in the way that they should.
It's almost unbelievable actually, and they just released yet another camera with that positively ancient 18mp sensor!!!!
probably the sadder thing Catalin is that people actually care about DXOMark.
CMurdock: If this camera produces blurry pictures like the original G1X, what good is it? It certainly won't be worth $800. For years now, Canon's philosophy has been that it's okay to produce blurry, over-processed images as long as the overall size of the image is large so it looks sharp when it's printed or shrunk, but that doesn't work for me.
ever hear of RAW or changing your jpg settings to match what you want?
LevyB: So, this gets 31-point AF while the 6D gets 11? Who makes these ass-backwards decisions at Canon? I got a Fuji X camera instead of the 6D I was saving up for, and I have no regrets.
G1xII's points are PDAF sensor points on the sensor itself versus the 6D much higher low light performing separate PDAF sensor.
i'd say the decisions are fine, your understanding however is not.
Richard Murdey: And I thought Nikon fans were the ones that complained ...
Both Nikon and Canon are in the same pickle. Their low-mid-range APS-C dSLRs are perfectly good cameras, and have been for some years, but they are no longer attractive options for a lot of people who prefer now to go with something like Sony's A6000 (or GX-7, or OM-D M10, or EX-2) for the smaller size if for no other reason...
really that's odd .. seems rebels outsell every other camera body out there, including your mirrorless.
apparently there are a bunch of people out there that disagree with your marketing expertise.
pacnwhobbyist: P340 looks like it will be a fine camera but it's hard to overlook the fact that its direct competitor, the Canon S120, has a capacitive touch screen while the P340 has none at all.
the P340 doesnt' have GPS either.
yes s120 has IS
justinwonnacott: F40 at the long end???? It will be a little sharper than a pinhole camera I suppose but with more CA. This will NOT be the lens of choice for photographers concerned about quality.
that's aperture range o.O
B-rad: 50mm at $999.00 to do macro? I can see many insects leaving town with how close you will need to get to get a good close up of something small. What a joke.
equivalency has no bearing it's working range.
Rick Knepper: C'mon Zeiss. Crank out a few more Otus FLs.
yes please :)
itsastickup: For portraits it's not long enough and the aperture isn't big enough.
And it's not long enough for macro either, other than document copying.
I really don't get this lens.
sure, usually short macro's in a lens lineup aren't 1K USD either.
Zeisschen: It's quite sad to see that many readers here have obviously no idea of what quality Zeiss lenses are in the past and today. I don't know how Zeiss got the reputation for so people to sell (summarized) "fugly overprized German crap", when pretty much the opposite is the truth. These comments can only come from people who never used ANY Zeiss product.I for myself chose the Sony Alpha System ONLY for the ability to use Zeiss autofocus lenses! I'm aware that non of their lenses are "cheap", but for the performance I get I'm always satisfied and I never felt I had been tricked by them and paid too much. All of their lenses are designed to be used wide open and to deliver outstanding contrast and color, not seen in any other lenses you can buy for money today. Every single lens they make has that state of the art performance that we are always asking for, unbelievable how people ignore can ignore that by just looking at a product picture and some numbers.
zeiss has also created bad lenses to .. just because it says zeiss on it doesn't mean the lens is worthy of the name.
28mm distagon is horrid in the corners (as one example of a zeiss crafted lens which is very sub par) - and has puzzling has been that same way since contax days.
the sony/zeiss 24-70/2.8 is nice - but i wouldn't call it the best one out there either.
Vario Sonnar 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Zeiss / Sony isn't anything to write home about either.
no one outside of quantray makes a bad 50-100mm macro - so needing zeiss quality of some sort in this range .. is well... you're simply paying for the name.
now if this was a 21/2.8 distagon or a 135mm APO .. well different story.