Because they can get it. For everyone else, there's Lens Rentals.
ThePhilips: Pretty cool.
Actually, the more interesting research would be have been in the other directions: what optical distortions can be correct well in the software? Some uniform resolution sacrifice is acceptable.
... And after that, the question would be: given the correctable distortions, how can we simplify the lens design, by shifting all the distortions into the correctable range?
Or even more "other way around" approach: how can we make a tiny sensor to perform on the level of the larger sensors? For a tiny sensor, one can always develop potentially near perfect lens of a manageable size.
With the ability to correct most lens flaws, what stands in the way of a really great small (tiny, even) camera is a much better small sensor. Right now, the situation is surprisingly similar to film; bigger is better, at least where very small sensors are concerned. The only difference is now, we say the small sensor image is too noisy and we used to say small film was too grainy.
Stephen_C: I thought the G1X was the worthy successor to the G-series cameras. Coming out with the G16 when the G1X and the Sony RX100 are already out seems odd.
The G1X has accurate but very slow focusing. The lens is slow, too. It has no close-up capability at all--the way cameras used to be, when you bought a macro lens and got outstanding macro results. It's large and not stylish. But the absolute worst feature is that once you see the image quality, you're not going to consider any of the other G series.
Plastek: Good test. Guys at LensTip.com made similar tests (only never published the results) and came to a similar conclusions - adapters are completely random and getting an acceptable one - perfectly centred with accurate flange distance - is impossible. That's why they test lenses on native bodies instead of comparing all of them in a single body and single sensor (what would allow cross-system comparisons).
So much for all these people thinking that shooting mirrorless with adapters is a valid way for photography.
Because of what Andy says above, I don't pay much attention ton what Lloyd Chambers says. In fact, I don't pay at all for his advice although unlike Ken Rockwell, it seems Lloyd Chambers understands the hairs he is splitting.
Plastek has a point. I love wide angle lenses and the first thing I do is see if all 4 corners are the same. Not good or bad; just the same. I had two Sony RX 100--a camera that people love--and each had a soft corner. The tests at Imaging Resource showed the same, as does the DPR test. But people love the camera and think it's worth every penny.
MarcMedios: It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.
I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.
This isn't so far-fetched. Too late now, but if they had put a red dot on the G1X and priced it at $999, DPR would have said "While we have considerable reservations about the G1X's quirks there is no denying the large sensor produces better images than it's competitors."
thejohnnerparty: Why would Canon continue with this line up when they the G1 X platform? Why not improve that one. This one (1/1.7" sensor) makes no sense. And what about the EOS M platform? Small sensor cameras are done. That sensor size has been conceded the smart phone industry! It would seem to me that the 1" sensor is a minimum for point and shot in this day and age. Comment?
A guess would be that a G1X with a faster lens and much more processing speed would be $1200+ and those customers would buy Fuji instead. An improved EOS M is on the way but looks like they're in no hurry.
Jim Evidon: The Canon G15 viewfinder is not a serious composition tool, nor do I believe it was ever intended to be so. Only a very few of its competitors offer a "tunnel view" viewfinder. It is a handy thing to have when grabbing a shot and due to it's narrower FOV, you are bound to get the subject. It should be compared to cameras in the same price range that have no viewfinder. Let's face it. The only viewfinders worth a damn come in the Leica M's, The Fuji X100's and the Fuji X-Pro-1 and so forth and they are priced accordingly. So, it is unfair to criticize the G15 for the limitations of it's viewfinder.
For what it is, the G15 (CMOS) is a great little camera. Nice to take along when I don't care to take a premium camera outfit with it's greater bulk. With the right settings, I have made some very good 13 X 19 prints with it.
The GX1 is priced higher than the G15. The G15, and I suppose the new G16 are good cameras for the purposes intended. And no one is forced to use the viewfinder.
In college, I remember saving up the $300 for a Leica 28mm finder. That would be about $500 today and on the high side even for an outstanding, metal, optical finder. Of course it didn't have multiple focal lengths let alone zoom automatically but those things would have cost a lot more. So, when I hear criticism of these compact camera finders (by the same people are perfectly happy with more expensive cameras that lack a finder entirely).
Master Yoda: If Canon ever upgrades the G1X it will kill the G15/16 and that is why we probably won't see a G1X upgrade . . . ever. The G16 has no 24mm, no articulating screen, no large sensor and no chance of being taken as seriously as this series once was taken.
In a way, the G1X is like the EOS M. Serious image quality in a relatively small package and currently not that expensive. These cameras have not done well because consumers are not willing to give up convenience and "essential" features like sweep panorama, just to get better image quality.
Konrad Lefkon: I feel comparing this G16 with a Sony RX100M2 with the 20+MP sensor is a bit tricky. However, from the studio scene comparison in the RX100M2 review the G16 (as well as all the other cameras available in the comparison) seems to have sharper/better IQ in the corners than the Sony. For me, and don't shoot me for saying so, I'm not so convinced the Sony is the automatic choice others seem to think it is.
I'm looking forwards to seeing the Nikon P7800 with its 28-200 equivalent lens and the electronic viewfinder/movable viewfinder screen.
The Sony is a lovely camera. Looks great, lots of technology and very good image quality for it's size. As the young folks say "I wanted to like it". But the corners were soft at the wide setting. I tried two, and DPRs test chart shows the same. Obviously, this isn't a problem for most people.
GabrielZ: Give it a 1 inch sensor - EVF and it might become relevant again, oh and a touch-screen facility would be good too - Canon are market leaders in that department.
The only thing the G1X has going for it is a big sensor and really high image quality. In all other respects, it's primitive.
Interesting that Nikon and Canon are going to battle it out to see who can make the best camera with a sensor that's too small. Although I didn't care for the Sony, assuming the G16 is the same price, I'd definitely take the Sony.
Please Canon, give us an updated G1X. The image quality is already there; it just needs the computer stuff.
I long for the days when lens designers had no choice but to correct lens flaws in the lens itself. Old fashioned, I know. For a lot of subjects, the pincushion won't be noticeable but now that we're complacent about software fixing things it's worth noting that correcting pincushion correction seems to damage image quality more than correcting barrel distortion.
I already see the potential for content aware move. And not just for making it seem the little girl has a bridge tower growing out of her head. This feature could be used to "fix" all kinds of photos; movie stars, news events, you name it.
vadims: So, Silver award... OK.
Controversy increases traffic but reduces credibility. Seems like the choice was made here already.
Next logical step is hiring Ken Rockwell as reviewer.
Ken would be much better as a moderator; making sure that opinions were not cloaked as facts. (Insert smiley face, here).
Nice. Now if we can just have dynamic auto exposure in a camera with a decent sized sensor we can use the phone for other things.
Johnsonj: Kids aren't bogged down by per-conceived notions about what photography should be. They're more pure and less concerned about convention, rules, Photoshop and the diminishing returns of the RAW file. Give some willing kids a 5 minutes lesson on using a P&S camera and let them loose for a photo essay about Anytown, USA and they'll come back with images equal to (or better) than any seasoned photo journalist.
I'd give them more credit than that. A professional will go to a spectacular location like Antarctica and deliver spectacular photos. But getting great shots in a mundane environment is obviously far more difficult.
Wow. I'm sure these were edited from a huge selection but if this is the work of amateurs, let's see more of these and less from the pros.
I liked the control ring on the RX100. It operated smoothly with a quiet clicking sound. The corners were somewhat soft at wide angle and there seemed to be a lot of plastic in the all-metal body.
If you look at the the test chart shots for the image quality compared (daylight) the lower left corner is much better than the lower right corner. I ran into a similar thing with mine. But I really did like that control ring.
I guess there is a point to this but if you've decided to use a phone as a camera, you've already decided what your priorities are. It would be interesting to see how much you give up by not using a camera as your camera. Then again, some of the smaller sensor cameras are probably no better than a phone.
abortabort: Seriously? The 16-28mm is a great lens, but 5 TIMES the price?! Samyang's cine versions are something like $50 more, if that. I suppose this will still be cheaper than the competition though.
The biggest cost in optical designs is the labor--to design and make the components, assemble, test, adjust and if necessary, discard. I had four of the Samyang 14mm lenses. Each was different and three were ok but I doubt that's the sort of consistency Tokina is aiming for in this market.