If only it didn't look like Frankenstein's arm.
Whitesands: It would be nice If when we CLICK review it would take is straight to review instead of clicking again....not a huge deal but it's a bit redundant.
It's a trick to have more pages and thus more ads displayed and more potential ad clicks. Plus Google is a bit dumb and favors these tricks, indexing more pages even if some of them are just gateway pages for ads and don't really have any useful content.
1/2.3" sensors just don't cut it these days. The image quality is just lacking as there are also too many pixels for the sensor size. At 8MP with larger pixel they could make a point, especially that cropping is not always needed with this kind of zoom. I don't really understand why all this craftsmanship put into a 1/2.3" camera. However it may probably work very well for video.
LukeDuciel: "He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp, but that OM-D users could switch between using a tripod and not, according to the resolution mode set on the camera."
why i cannot see the logic?
I suppose that camera movement has a more pronounced visible effect in very high resolution sensors, in the sense that you can't get full sensor resolution benefit (eg. the images look sharp, but not 40MP sharp). This is somewhat logical, imagine what would happen if you would look at the hand movements with a smaller and smaller microscope. The movements would appear larger and larger.
SanPedro: Who do Canon think the target buyer is for this? It would make a nice wildlife/sports camera if the AF is fast enough and the add-on EVF is good value and not too bulky. But I guess it'll be something like the EVF-DC1. Which will make it look bulky and ugly.
I can also see it being popular as a general purpose family camera... travel, family events and suchlike, but with much better quality than a phone and less bulky than a DSLR, and more versatile than either.
I still can't get over why Canon seems incapable of adding a built in EVF to their higher end compact offerings. The new EOS M and now this... what gives? I've used the EVF on a mates RX100 3 and it works well given its size. Plenty good enough for a camera like this.
If the AF is slow then won't that 600mm reach be a waste of time?
Anyhoo, I still think it's an interesting camera so will be waiting for the review. But I can't see it usurping my RX10 for my needs.
The FZ1000 and Sony RX10 look bulky and ugly all the time. At least with this one you have a choice.
This is a really impressive achievement from Canon for this zoom range on an 1" sensor. Compare this with the huge Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10. Looks about twice as small. I like the fact that Canon does not listen to specialized forum "customers" requiring a bunch of size-crippling features like EVFs and keeps their non-DSLR cameras as small as possible. A smaller camera means more pictures taken.
99% of the upsetting caused by the EOS M3 comes from the lack of an electronic viewfinder. If it had one, everyone was raving.
To me, the inclusion of an EVF means a larger camera, a higher price, and another component that could make the camera obsolete sooner because another EVF is brighter or has more pixels.
So the exclusion of the EVF is in fact a very good idea. Those who need it can attach it, and right now it is offered almost for free at Amazon Japan together with the camera (and anyone can preorder via a package forwarding company).
I personally think that the EOS M3 is a winner. The EOS M lens range is small but very high quality and perfectly chosen for the target audience.
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.