Catalin Stavaru: I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
@Zeisschen The fact that RAW can solve almost every color problem is a big misconception, in my opinion. Here is what Ken Rockwell said about colors, and unfortunately, given my experience, I tend to agree:
"Great color is what looks good when photographing real subjects, and I just can't get colors as good from this Sony as I do from my pro cameras. Color rendition is delicate and subjective, and critical when you get serious. You can't just tweak it in a computer; each brand of camera, like each type of film, interprets colors differently."
I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
The m43 advantage should be compactness, smaller cameras, smaller lenses. And yet, Panasonic unnecessarily increased the size of the GM1. This camera will not sell well.
Marty4650: I think there is a popular myth that cell phone users all want an outstanding camera. The truth is, almost all of them are very happy with a "pretty good camera for snapshots, email attachments, and for web blog and facebook photos."
There is probably another myth that serious photo enthusiasts would pay any price to own a good camera that can make phone calls too.
There are probably a few people who will want one of these, but not very many who will be willing to pay the very high price for one. Most photo enthusiasts would rather spend that much money for a high grade lens or a photo trip than for a cell phone that can take better photos.
Bottom line... the cell phone fans won't need it, and the camera geeks won't want it, leaving very few customers left.
This makes it an interesting exercise, but an epic commercial failure.
There is no "pretty good camera" in any phone right now. Even the Nokia 1020 camera is rubbish and slow.
johnsmith404: For less than quarter the price you can get better phones. For less than half the price, you can get better cameras.
But you can't get a device that combines such a quality phone and camera in this small volume, at any other price.
Mike FL: Does it ever have a [auto] lens cap to protect the [not too small] lens' glass?
It will have an accessory that can be screwed on to protect the lens.
Hugo808: Hard to believe those pics are from a compact camera. Truly we are spoiled.
That doesn't look "compact" to me at all.
"Optimized for one-person operation" :))
cpkuntz: Typical Canon dull colors, plastic skin, mushy details, and blown highlights. In 2012 these sensors were badly beaten. Now they are embarrassing.
I owned a Sony NEX-5N and an RX100, I sold both because the colors were a joke and the NEX-5N kit lens was an insult. Now I effortlessly get stunning looking pictures with a maligned Canon EOS-M which you can buy for $250 with a very sharp 22mm kit lens. Sony does innovate more than Canon, but if their cameras are fundamentally flawed color-wise and they don't do anything about it I'm not sure why they even bother.
It seems that the Canon campaign had its desired effect. This article seems to have the largest number of comments in dpreview's history :)
PeterBM: Still waiting "my" good camera:- compact with large sensor- good fixed lens, min range 28-135, possibly more- max aperture 2.8, possibly better- overall good features (photo quality, responsiveness, focus accuracy, ...)- and absolutely a fully articulated screen
Catalin Stavaru: Looking at the samples, the colors are not typical Canon colors, which means that the problem is not the "secret sauce" in the color processing algorithms - Canon masters these quite well - but the Sony sensor output.
It seems to me that the Sony sensor is quite bad at highlights, even if it's good at shadows. Daylight photography needs good highlight performance, that's why Sony daylight pictures always have a shadowy/cloudy tint on them, as opposed to Canon daylight pictures.
Canon tries to compensate the sensor shortcomings by overexposing a bit, but it doesn't really work, the result looks flat and without enough contrast.
More samples are needed but until now the G7X does not render colors in a typical Canon fashion. Which is disappointing because colors were the only reason why I would buy a Canon G7X versus a Sony RX100/II/III (which is even worse than the samples posted here).
@theprehistorian You may want to look at the other members opinions on the samples, maybe you are the one looking at the wrong gallery ? :)
Peter Gurdes: better than the LX100
I strongly disagree with this statement. Colors are way worse on Canon.
Looking at the samples, the colors are not typical Canon colors, which means that the problem is not the "secret sauce" in the color processing algorithms - Canon masters these quite well - but the Sony sensor output.
- deleted -
Catalin Stavaru: Canon may be late to the party, but if the color rendition is the typical Canon, it has a winner. I for one don't need a viewfinder, I just need good image quality in as compact a camera as possible. I sold my Sony RX100 (and a NEX-5n) for the awful colors. If the G7X is priced right, I think it will be my next camera.
@Zeisschen: indeed, the colors are not typical Canon color, which means that the problem is not the color processing algorithms, but the Sony sensor output.
They announce a new technological advancement in less than 5 years after the last.
I think this picture is very nicely rendered color-wise. It seems that Panasonic did something to improve the color rendering.
At first sight, the color rendition from the real-world samples looks quite a bit better than what I am used to from Panasonic and vastly better than Sony, for example, which was not the case before.
al_in_philly: Is it just me, or does the X look almost like a toy camera? The thickness of that lens barrel just doesn't work aesthetically. Leica's always seemed to reek of being no-nonsense but this camera just comes off as minimalist without conveying German durability and precision. But that's just my opinion.
It's just you.