Buy, if the lens is sharp as the RX10, for me (almost) perfect.
tutek: I'm waiting for the G17, I hope that Canon has not forgotten, slightly larger body, a longer zoom lens, external flash, grip ... and most importantly, a better quality lens.
But what does 5d with g-series? I want the camera like a G12 with 1 "sensor.
I'm waiting for the G17, I hope that Canon has not forgotten, slightly larger body, a longer zoom lens, external flash, grip ... and most importantly, a better quality lens.
mcorona: Sample images are starting to trickle through..
Is it me or does this camera seem kinda soft and prone to fringing?
This image particularly troubles me... I know one image does not tell all, but I'm definitely treading with caution.
Here's a couple places I've found samples.
Soft image with extremely blurry edges. Maybe there will be one (1) focal length and one aperture where the image should be a bit better ... maybe ... maybe not ... disappointing.
Another failure: blurry lens, picture looks like it was digitally zoomed with 5MP, blurred edges, a disaster. Look at imaging-resource, and compare with the Sony A6000 (fantastic).
Mike FL: If Canon want to beat Sony in High ISO IQ, cut the sensor pixel count by half.
You already got G1X mkII
Finally some good news from Canon ... but ... no external flash, a little too short zoom. They need g17 because g1xmkII has blurred lens and poor resolution. Missing a little to be great ...
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
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
For 400-500 U.S. dollars buy it. That's his real price
avicenanw: At $800, the electronic viewfinder should come with it. Canon shot itself in the foot, and not surprisingly so.
When the canon with any aperture achieve a sharp image, it would be great. Quality images at ISO 100 is like any cheap camera for $ 100!
Andrea Georgia: Judging from the sample photos, the G1 X Mark II offers an incredibly poor image quality even at base ISO with jaggedy unevenness, tons of smear, very soft corners and lots of distortion, becoming unacceptably smeared and mushy latest at ISO 3200. The pictures look like coming from one of the rugged/waterproof cameras which are notorious for their poor IQ. Even my ancient G5 produces better images than that (even with its chromatic aberration), and my SX 230 most certainly does, too. I've always like the G-series very much, and Canons generally as compacts for their IQ, but this is a major disappointment. What are all the bells and whistles worth if the image is spiked with digital artifacts even at base ISO? Canon needs to rethink their image processing here, big time.
Do you like this picture looks set to $ 800 camera? horror
Exactly. For $ 798 get a sony a6000 with electronic viewfinder, not significantly larger than the G1X, and has a much sharper image. It has less zoom, but it can compensate by cutting 6000x4000 image. Canon offers only 4356x2904
kcccc: I'm not a Canon user, but the paper spec. of G1X Mark II attracts a lot of my attention. The usual comments here are something like "The XXXX model has a viewfinder and has better this and better that than G1X Mark II". I did search for other cameras with similar features (including interchangable lens camera), but I still can't find another one that has similar spec to this camera including: 1.5 inch sensor (similar to 4/3); fast zoom lens 5x f2-f3.9; similar weight; similar (or cheaper) price. Sony RX100 II came close, but it has smaller sensor and slower lens. Please enlighten me.
Here's a link, all focal lengths and apertures:http://www.monox.jp/digitalcamera-sp-canon-powershotg1xmk2-04.html
Image quality you'll find when you open the ORIGINAL size. You're looking at the sharpness of the image size 2MP.
While I have not seen the test images I was sure that I would buy it. Missing details, blurry edges ... Large sensor but the lens is really bad, better picture with lots of light give the G10, G11, G12, G15, G16 and G1X ... and all have detailed, sharper image.
PudCat: I am not a professional, just someone who likes taking photographs and has a pretty good eye. I am not looking to travel with multiple lenses. I have used a Canon S90 for the past few years and have been very happy with it. I would like a camera with greater low light capabilities. I am also hoping that a 1.5 inch sensor would allow me to crop more of an image and still maintain good quality. I know this isn't a DSLR! And I know it won't fit in my pocket. My hope is it could be one piece of photographic equipment I can carry in my bag to get good photos under many conditions without ever having to change a lens. I'm just not going to carry one or more lenses because I'm not a pro. Am I right in thinking this camera fits my requirements as well as anything available?
Okay, 13mp is enough, great sensor, excellent ... but ... at all focal lengths to be a lot of experimenting to achieve at least some sharpness. With such a sensor put the blurry lens as cheap cameras for less than $ 100 and the price of 8x higher. Too bad.
sawdustman: For almost half the price I can have the Nikon ZS40 with built in OVF and 30X zoom!
Then you buy the Coolpix L320 for $ 200 if you do not see the difference ...
See sample images from the Canon G11. Excellent picture and better than the current G1X MKII. I am disappointed with the new model, the old Canon is better.
tutek: For that money can buy Sony Alpha a6000. Canon has a weak 12.8, sony even 24 megapixels (maybe not all in the number of megapixels, but the picture is amazingly sharp) Reasonable price for canon would be 400-500 U.S. dollars.
Turnip Chops; 10MP is enough if the lens is good, with the new Canon is not the case. Every year I hope will make the right replacement Canon G series. I do not want sony, I'm just saying that canon is increasingly lagging behind the others.Otherwise I have one Canon EOS series. And a lot of equipment.
I have a Canon G11, 3-4 years waiting for a replacement, but every year something is missing, and the competition continues forward. If Sony is able to put 24 megapixels in the camera size a6000, canon going backwards, incomprehensible? More megapixels still in good conditions gives more details. Compare the quality G1X II and a6000 on imaging-resource. Canon's ordinary toy, I'm disappointed the quality of the lens. What do I mean by 1.9 when the picture blurred? Better 3.5 or 4 if it is a requirement that the picture is better.