Lawrencew: Here in the UK it is interesting to note that the pre-order prices of the Sony A6000 (£729) and the Olympus OM-D E10 (£599) with kit lenses are both lower than the G1 X II (£749). And that is before you even add the price of the EVF to the G1 X II making it £949.You can argue they are in different segments, but for anyone just about to spend circa £700 on a new compact camera (i.e. none DSLR) the Sony and Olympus offer fantastic VMF for the feature set they offer in comparison.
The G1X II is not for the walmart shopper, that's for sure. It's for the people who appreciate image quality and great color rendering.
I got rid of a Sony NEX-5n and a Sony RX100 because of vastly inferior color rendering. Also the Sony kit lenses are really, really bad, so if you are comparing to Sony, please factor in a $1000+ Zeiss lens to get some decent results, and even then you can't get rid of the bad colors.
If the G1X II delivers its image quality and autofocus promises it will be a great camera which could replace a myriad of interchangeable m43 and APS-C cameras and lenses.
Shunda77: The problem is that it has got a big sensor with canons outdated sensor technology, so the advantages of better high iso, dynamic range etc are simply not going to be there in the way that they should.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!!!!
The sad thing is that no one has really beaten the Canon 18Mp sensor except in DxO Mark numbers. When you look at the actual pictures, Canon's sensor is superior most of the time.
dmanthree: Why would anyone buy this instead of a GX7?
Because the GX7 produces inferior color rendering with any lens.
Allen Yang: I'm wondering if this one is more portable than Canon S120, in terms of size.
Don't wonder, compare the size specs.
Catalin Stavaru: Basically, there wasn't a lot that was wrong with the EOS M. Autofocus is now fixed, picture-to-picture time much reduced, and Wi-Fi added. Basic very compact camera with the highest APS-C image quality. I am beginning to like it. Hopefully I can pick up one for $300 soon.
@rpm40: Just look at the colors...nothing matches Canon. The competitors can be "technically" better (faster AF, some $1000 sharper Zeiss lenses - not sharper than the $100 EF-M 22mm though) but when you look at the actual pictures, they are vastly inferior in color and tone rendering.
Basically, there wasn't a lot that was wrong with the EOS M. Autofocus is now fixed, picture-to-picture time much reduced, and Wi-Fi added. Basic very compact camera with the highest APS-C image quality. I am beginning to like it. Hopefully I can pick up one for $300 soon.
wakaba: So it sucks and sticking tailfins (WiFi and strange sensor) on that Olds is not going to make it better.
Canon is dead, check the data on dxo, 30-100% worse than a D600.
Doesn't the D600 have a full-frame sensor compared to 70D's APS-C size sensor ? Why would you compare these ? Compare the D600 with the 6D, please. And if you really want to compare them, how about taking some videos...you will then see what the dual pixel is about.
PS: How could DxO Mark measure the D600 with those oil patches on sensor ? :)
jackgreen: Great, that Sony is really in close co-operation with Zeiss, unlike Canon, who treat 3rd party makes as competition.
Because they have different business models, there is no wrong in this. Canon also manufactures high-quality lenses, while Sony leaves this task to 3rd parties. Nothing wrong with this.
N22515: Aha! Most interesting message from SONY is that NEX will not be continued, as said in the SONY video.
It's about the NEX brand, not the NEX system. For example, the NEX-5R/T/N will be called ILCE-5000, from what I read.
They are going backwards compared to the world. People are dumping point and shoot cameras in favor of smartphone cameras, Nikon expects the opposite. And then they complain that their new camera systems don't sell well. A smartphone has way better lens than the F3.3 of the Nikon.
Probably the most useless camera of the year.
marcoventuriniautieri: They should make the Hasselblad version of this one.
Hasselblad Foolar, the cheapest Hasselblad camera at only $1500.
wootpile: Hmm Nikon finally getting a clue. When will they learn to listen to what the market wants and come out of their tech-cave. The 1 system is a fan-thing.. which never makes nyone any money.
Give us a p7700 like thing with a 1 inch sensor and start from there..
I really really like Nikon, started out my career with them, but i really really hate their conservative we know best mentality. Just look at their pocket cams - virtually everyone kknows they suck, and have been sucky for decades. Such loss of face and money..
You have to realize that every company is run by people, and they have average IQ scores, they mostly climb the hierarchy because of their age in the company. That's why they don't really see obvious things, like: the reason for a smaller sensor camera system, is a smaller camera. Yet they make huge cameras with small sensors just because of the DSLR reputation.
Every company that makes a new "small sensor" camera system, should begin with the smallest camera technically possible and a compact, wide angle zoom lens (like the Panasonic 14-42X or Sony PZ 16-50), in addition to a kit price that is no more than a few dollars higher than a fixed lens camera. The profit may be small at the beginning, but after a few years when the system becomes established among users, they can make higher profit.
Being greedy from the beginning relying on brand name only and no innovation is just stupid.
nathantw: I suffer from Gear Acquisition Syndrome. You know how to beat it? Get married and then keep thinking of all the appliances and modifications you can get on your home for the money you're spending on gear.
You didn't beat it. You just switched to Appliance Acquisition Syndrome :)
Honestly, I am not impressed at all. I see some fringing of some sort in low-ISO images (not the best quality lens ?) and too much noise even at ISO2500. Also the JPEGs seem over-processed / over-sharpened and the colors are not the best I was expecting.
Wasn't the K-01 discontinued a short while ago ?
radissimo: LINKS to grip and add on filter adapter: sweet and fairly cheap!:
That filter adapter looks kind of huge, adds unnecessary bulk to the camera. I think the MagFilter adapter is actually nicer.
Unbelievable for ISO3200 !
inlawbiker: All they've done is create the single best camera-in-a-phone combination ever made. The trend has to begin somewhere, I'm glad it's finally moving forward.
It's not the sensor size that matters, it's the pixel size. At 41MP, the PureView has the same or very similar pixel size with the Samsung. PureView has an advantage until about 2.5x zoom, Samsung takes the lead from there.
Catalin Stavaru: This is the future. I suppose it has a smaller sensor, with that kind of zoom it is not possible for it to have a 1/2.3" sensor like current point-and-shoot cameras have (hopefully I'm wrong :) ). I would have preferred a 3x zoom and a standard point-and-shoot sensor.
Sorry guys but when I posted the comment the entire article had only the first paragraph. The press release was not included in the article at that time.
This is the future. I suppose it has a smaller sensor, with that kind of zoom it is not possible for it to have a 1/2.3" sensor like current point-and-shoot cameras have (hopefully I'm wrong :) ). I would have preferred a 3x zoom and a standard point-and-shoot sensor.