tutek

Joined on Jan 13, 2012

Comments

Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

G5X: Three lack: ugly, where 4k video? Zoom a little too short ...

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 05:18 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply

Buy, if the lens is sharp as the RX10, for me (almost) perfect.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 06:13 UTC as 87th comment
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review (707 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel Stehura: 12.8 megapixel........... What year is this? Slackers at Canon pumping out another under pixeled camera. Great Internet camera just don't blow up past 8x10. It's as big as a f 150 Ford truck, rather gross in Size and design. For a small Camera the Sony RX 100 II Has better image quality, Sony uses Carl Zeiss Lenses the best. Canon lenses are #3 after Nikon. I would have to have 3 beers to drink this big clunky boxy camera pretty. The Pixel count is from the year 2000!!!! What in the next 10 years they will be up to 20.2 Megapixel...... Good luck Canon for milking the pixel count for your profit taking. Nikon D800 is progressive and my 18x22 inch Epson 3880 shots are Razor sharp like a Ansel Adams print, Well Almost lol

12.8mp and it still blurry

Link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review (707 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnFredC: So disappointing. I want to replace my aging G11, but retain its functionality (esp. the dials/swivel screen). All Canon had to do to the G series to get another purchase from me was to improve the image quality and performance but leave the camera body/controls alone. Instead, look what we get in later iterations of Gs (G15/16 most egregiously), and now, my last hope for an improved G1 X, this thing.

Compare the G1 X II with a Fuji X-A1. The latter has a plastic behemoth of a kit lens, plastic body, isn't "pocketable", but the image quality blows the G1 X II out of the water (the widget tells the tale). And the Fuji is more than $200 cheaper on the street.

I know, I know, things are not as simple as that, features and specs differ, etc, but still...

After many years of Canon cameras in all sizes going back decades, it must be that I need to wake up and understand I am no longer a Canon customer.

Are you listening, Canon? The evidence would suggest not.

I own the G11, G1X mkII is better, no doubt, but not so much better as it is more expensive. Not worth it

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 18:20 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review (707 comments in total)

For 400-500 U.S. dollars buy it. That's his real price

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 18:17 UTC as 113th comment
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: Wow. Waiting on dimensions. This seems better than the RX100, potentially, and the second decent all-around compact camera series.

116x74x66mm

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 09:02 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary (533 comments in total)

Full samples: http://www.eprice.com.tw/dc/talk/1440/4892920/1/

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 13:08 UTC as 109th comment | 2 replies

Screen size 3". Too bad, they had space for 3.8". So they could put 3.5 "without problems.
I think I'll buy it anyway :)

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:25 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary (533 comments in total)

Finally something good in the PowerShot series. Too bad there is no electronic viewfinder. And what will they F2.0-3.9 when there is practically no difference between 3.9 and 4.0, were able to put F2-4

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 06:50 UTC as 150th comment | 2 replies
On article CES 2014: Canon Stand Report (48 comments in total)

Rather than create a successor model G1X, canon has made a toy for kids: N100

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2014 at 06:30 UTC as 4th comment

Canon should be ashamed. Check out the new Nikon P7800. Exactly what customers want in this class ...

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 05:31 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On photo IMG_0207 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

ISO 80 is very good. ISO 12800 pure disaster, and anything above 400 is weak.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 05:25 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Canon PowerShot G16 Samples Gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

ISO 80 is very good. ISO 12800 pure disaster, and anything above 400 is weak.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 05:25 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

gpsgps: Canon you giveth me the flip T&S screen in G16 and I taketh it away from the shop, OK? Otherwise I do not considereth it.
BTW, wouldn't it make sense to produce 2 versions at the same time: with flipout screen and separately without it? The names could be G16FOAMIAYPS (flip out and move it as you please screen) and G16NMPS (no movable parts screen). Or better still just repair the G1X by adding to it better macro, slightly longer zoom, brighter lens, faster autofocus and longer battery life and I wanteth no more.

That's what I asked for the G15 last year, 2 versions at the same time. Canon's answer: buy a G1X. They do not care.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

SRT3lkt: this thing should be called "G15.1".

Looks more like a G9 mk ii, Canon is so far behind the competition

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: I'm still using my G12 and G1X. The G15 & 16 offer a brighter lens than the G12, but I'm not yet persuaded to part with it. There's no news here re any developments to their larger-sensor compact cameras like the G1X and EOS M. I'll be interested to see what emerges later in the year.......

I have the G11, I will replace it just because of poor video 640x480, but certainly not with the Canon because it has no swivel screen. Is Canon has not seen the new sony rx 100 ii? Unreasonable ...

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 07:34 UTC

I'm totally disappointed. So it's just a fancy G15, again the same small sensor .. Why again without a swivel screen? Goodbye Canon, Sony knows better ...

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 05:36 UTC as 115th comment
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review (338 comments in total)

G10 is only 2mm thinner than the G11, insignificant 2mm, because of 2mm of thickness g15 lost swivel screen.!!??

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2012 at 06:36 UTC as 14th comment
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tutek: Too bad it does not swivel screen because at 112mm is f/2.5 (G1X f/5.8) and image quality are almost identical: g15 400asa = g1x 2000-2500asa !!!!

Where'd you get that about G20, imagine or read somewhere?

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2012 at 06:44 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review (338 comments in total)

Too bad it does not swivel screen because at 112mm is f/2.5 (G1X f/5.8) and image quality are almost identical: g15 400asa = g1x 2000-2500asa !!!!

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 09:42 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »