Dennis: And people blast Sony for having a kit lens that's too big for the NEX ... now there's a wrist strap that's a bath towel with a mounting plate sewn into it ! I think they should call it the "Linus" (in honor of the Peanuts character) - it's a camera strap and security blanket all in one.
lol Yeah, it may work well in practice as a 2 in 1 strap & protective cover, but it looks really goofy with all that extra neoprene bundled up in awkward angles under the camera... The product photos on their site are even worse. Plus what about the weather? That thing looks like it'd wick up any and all sweat around my arm, wrapping that around the camera afterward might not be ideal.
Seems far simpler to have a regular wrist strap plus some large microfiber cloth or a foldable padded cube in your bag for protection... I do like the lens cap pocket though, lots of straps out there could/should have something like that. I appreciate the review, I'm more interested in some of the convertible wrist/shoulder straps out there tho, or some of the easy to cinch slings...
I'm using the Joby 3-Way Camera Strap and it works great as a neck/shoulder/wrist convertible but it's too short for sling use... Their slings seem bulky, seen some very simple ones from Japan that I liked but they're pricey, Artisan or something like that.
pew pew: 800$ ???
@MenneisyIs Samsung/Apple's panorama implementation much better than other's? I'm genuinely curious, I've only had HTC/LG phones myself... Wasn't terribly impressed with the panos from those, they looked fine but it wasn't a cut above my old Sony P&S, and shooting them at any focal length I want with my MFT has been fun (most P&S seem to lock the lens at it's widest, and with phones you're obviously stuck at 28-35mm depending on the phone's optics).
True in that light it's a bargain, kind of a relative thing... Though as I said elsewhere, I'd pay $700 for a MFT lens that bright/wide/long even if it was larger, and without hesitation. Compact point and shoots can obviously achieve better lens specs thanks to dedicated designs, whereas system cameras of any kind tend to get primes, kit zooms, and constant aperture zooms with few high quality zooms falling in between all that... It's still a compromise though (the G1X lens) that really has to fit your shooting style, cause there ain't no changing it.
zakka: Here are some pictures I took comparing it with the mark 1. You can add them in the article if you wish, although this is smartphone quality pictures...http://reho.st/preview/self/2cad2366ea58bda387ccd180d9320e6f3c836eb8.jpg
Let's face it: it's more or less the same size as the original one (and given the lens it's a small miracle).And here is an example of the bokeh you can expect from that big boy at full zoom and 3.9 aperture (poor quality picture but they caught me while I was trying to wifi uplaod the pictures from the camera to the smartphone...)
PS: I have them in higher resolution if you wish... (taken with a google nexus 5)
You also won't get shallow depth of field portraits or comparable low light performance beyond 30mm out of the G1X tho... And the prime lenses needed to achieve either of those (among other possibilities) plus a small M43 body are still only about as expensive as the G1X. It really comes down to convenience vs versatility.
The G1X lens looks like one of the most versatile P&S lenses yet (given the sensor behind it), but if you're not allergic to lens swapping then an ILC is still far more versatile at a similar size (those primes take no space at all and neither option is going into smack pockets...). I'd still pay $700 for a MFT lens with the G1X's focal length and aperture range, not taking away from it's value... But it wouldn't be my most used lens.
Esign: Canon quality compacts: G15, G16, EOS-M. This is m43 with stuck lens. Certainly very nice, but not very clever.
I do wish I had a lens that small with that focal length and aperture range for my M43; hell, I'd settle for two out of the three and I'd pay up to $700 for it...
That being said, gluing it to the camera, even if figuratively speaking, would be inane. Even if I had such a lens I'd still use the tiny 20/1.7 & 45/1.8 more often (which do things the G1X cannot), and I still appreciate the versatility of something like the tiny 9-18 /though it costs as much as the G1Xq by itself).
However, if you bought an ILC (whether mirrorless or DSLR) and never got a second lens for it, then this is absolutely a far better choice for you, as was the RX100 to be honest... It doesn't take away anything from M43/NEX/X's value tho. Just a more convenient choice for *some* people.
Alphoid: It's funny. The cell phone cameras are getting better and better as main cameras for photographers, while point-and-shoots are getting worse and worse.
Cell phones offer growing sensors, wider apertures, increasingly more programmability and control, and better review. In the meantime, Sony announces a 63x zoom point-and-shoot with an f/3-5.9 lens, and Canon, a D30 with horrible folded optics.
I don't get why someone doesn't make a point-and-shoot with a fixed f/0.95 lens, make it sturdy, and beyond that, make the sensor as large as possible while maintaining form factor.
Because of physics... But there's a lot of P&S with fast lenses, from your S110 to LX7... Or larger sensor compacts like the RX100, the new G1X MkII (which has one of the more impressive P&S lens in a while, at least on paper), etc. f0.95 on a 1"+ sensor wouldn't be compact anymore (or have much of a zoom factor).
Advanced P&S still have lenses way more advanced than any phone. It's the budget/bottom of the barrel P&S that get worse all the time, but then, cameras on non-flagship phones aren't much to write about either. I do think three introductory price of cameras like the S120, LF1, RX100, etc is too high tho...
Street prices always end up falling by a hundred bucks or two within months, if such advanced compacts were just a little more affordable and didn't share the limelight with so much crap, the P&S market would probably be doing better (also if they had started introducing connected models much earlier).
Still, pictures from our One X, One, or Nexus 5 still look like smartphone pics more often than not... /shrug
TFD: kind of big might just as well by a DSLR
Even the smallest SL1 will still dwarf this...
I wasn't trying to seriously argue this would be an alternative to an f2.8 zoom... Just commenting on the value proposition in light of some people's apparent shock regarding price. Price seems pretty normal given it's unique standing, street price will be lower.
If you're gonna go down the size tangent I'd posit that a GM1 or even E-PM2 is smaller/comparable and paired with the 12-32mm plus 20/1.7 and/or 45/1.8 they can do things the G1X will never manage, but carrying an extra lens or two (even if small enough to be pocketable) isn't anywhere near as convenient obviously.
This is probably gonna be one of the most versatile fixed lens cameras in a while given the sensor/lens combo, certainly very convenient, but an ILC is still several orders of magnitude more versatile. It comes down to what you're shooting, seems if you love wide angle or landscapes you'd love the G1X...
Despite the fact that Canon continues to ignore the popular auto-stitched panorama modes...
Ehh, I dunno about a bargain, constant f2.8 zooms go for "only" $200 more and the difference at the long end is vast (even if reach is shorter)... Still, I'd probably think about getting such a lens for $800 if it were no larger than the 12-35mm, and if it were $600 I'd probably not even think about it. There's definitely a gap between the pricey constant aperture zooms and basic kit zooms, in most systems (mirrorless or DSLR).
Edgar Matias: From a DOF control perspective, this is better than any kit zoom...
It gives you 24mm/3.8-e - 120mm/7.5-e.
For comparison, the Leica X Vario (a MUCH more expensive camera) gives you 27mm/5.3-e - 70mm/9.7-e. Canon's standard kit zoom is 29mm/5.6-e - 88mm/9-e. Both lenses are bigger, slower, and cover a narrower range than the G1 X MkII.
If you're an APS-C or m4/3 shooter, this is the perfect 2nd body.
It'll sell for sure, if only because it's so unique... Just like the RX100. How much it sells will depend on how aggressively Canon markets it and how many enthusiasts want a second body with bright wide angle as the biggest draw...
I'd argue a GM1 or even E-PM2 + 20/1.7 or 45/1.8 would still be better for lots of situations, tho not as convenient. There's probably gonna be a lot of upgrades from old G series owners and LX5/LX7s too... People that might've otherwise bought a mirrorless camera.
T3: Now just make an EOS M version: APS-C sensor, EF-M lens mount.
An M mount would be significantly smaller, tho still larger than this. That EF-S lens is a poor comparison tho, mirror box flange distance and all that... Look at the GM1's 12-32 (24-64 equivalent) lens, slower and shorter tho, or Fuji's f2.8-4 kit lens (still covers a narrower range and it's still bigger, but not EF-S big).
nathondetroit: Good news, I just finished ripping apart my living room, and the anger has settled.
While swapping the G-series body for NEX simplicity is heartbreaking, I can find peace in a new fact: this lens and sensor will render any $800 in MFT gear useless. Okay Canon, I see where you’re going with this… ***golf clap***
Unless you're trying to shoot a portrait with some DoF control (E-PM2 + Oly 45 would do better for the money), or you tend to shoot more in the 35-50mm range (lenses like the 20/1.7 are completely pocketable), or you like the flexibility of having very tiny fisheye & ultra wide angle lenses...
The G1X's lens sounds impressive on paper, and even if it slows down quickly thru it's range it'll be impressive if it's sharp... But it's not a magic bullet or a perfect all around lens. Gets closer to that than most P&S zooms for sure tho.
ThePhilips: Wow, that thing is big!
" What about adding a very bright, wide, 5x zoom for the NEX or the m43? If such a lens existed (it doesn't), it'd result in HUGE size and weight increase. "
It's an impressive lens, tho it remains to be seen just how impressive it really is... A GM1 with a 20mm/1.7 (40mm equivalent, or 45/1.8 - 90mm eq.) is still in the same size class and that lens is easy to pocket (the 45's a little larger tho). How bright is the G1X's lens at 35mm or 50mm? That's the big question. It's gonna be three stops slower at 90mm regardless...
It comes down to what you're shooting and how much you value the convenience on hand here. If you live at 24mm then this thing is probably an ILC slayer for you (and probably a much better value than a GR or Nikon A)... If you tend to shoot at 35-50mm or you shoot more portraits you might still be better off with a NEX/M43 and a prime + a pancake zoom.
I'm looking forward to the comparisons...
kapeed1: Question to Gurus here and to Canon: Why can't such a beautiful lens be available as a EF-S lens option for the Rebel DSLRS like T3i (that I have)? That will offer the best of both worlds: 1) The flexibility and interchangeable lens aspect of a DSLR when you need it 2) A general good walk around lens that is BOTH bright (f2) and with decent 5x zoom range. Request - Make such a lens for EF-S too !
The issue is currently the DSLR lens options either start at f3.5 (not BRIGHT) or are just too HEAVY and PRICY - and even if they exist (like the L lens) don't cover a 5x zoom range. For this reason, I am planning to get this camera once it comes but since I do not like to haul 2 cameras, I may have to let go of the DSLR.
The bottomline with this awesome lens - even with a smaller sensor than APS-C, there is more light reaching the sensor and more bokeh at full open - so no point of keeping my T3i DSLR with 18-55mm kit lens other than the occassional use of the Nifty Fify 50 mm f1.8 prime.
You won't really see a lot of 5x zooms out there regardless of system, I'm guessing because the demand to go up to 100-120mm (from 80mm-ish) just isn't that high. What you'll usually see are slower 3x kit zooms, larger and MUCH more expensive constant aperture zooms (f2.8, f4, Sigma's f1.8, etc), and then the 10x superzooms which also tend to be slower.
A 28-280mm equivalent super zoom for M43 is just about the size of an average 3x kit zoom for a DSLR tho, so that's worth weighing up if longer tele reach is what you're after. A premium kit zoom like Fuji's 28-80-something equivalent f2.8-4 gets closer to the G1X's lens but it's still slower and covers a narrower range. You won't really find anything quite like this in ILC land...
That being said, this lens is only gonna be particularly bright at 24mm, that's fine for low light landscape/architecture and what have you but might not be so favorable for people shots... And many landscape shots are often shot at smaller apertures anyway just to get more detail across the whole scene...
It's still a compromise, just a different one. It might be more convenient for sure (not swapping lenses, even if it's just between two small pancakes), but it all depends on what you're shooting. Kind of comes down to convenience (all in one package) vs versatility (primes, UWAs, teles, etc).
Zeisschen: Too large for a jeans pocket >> not qualified to compare with an RX100II.
Better compare it to a Panasonic GM1 with kit lens at that size.
Same here, it'll fit into my regular non skinny relaxed fit jeans but it's gonna be very noticeable... It's why I ultimately decided not to get the RX100 (and settled for a thinner LF1, which is somewhat noticeable, profile of the lens mostly).
I think untimely the RX100, the G1X, and the smaller mirrorless bodies all end up competing in the same space, figuratively and literally. The RX100 is the smallest but they're all jacket pocket/purse/easy carry cameras.
The G1X lens sounds the most impressive out of that bunch, though as versatile as it is an ILC is still far more versatile. I wish specifying aperture at certain key equivalent focal lengths was a standard practice, maybe something for CIPA to look at.
Beat Traveller: This is a pretty awesome upgrade: you now get a camera with a bigger sensor than m4/3, with a longer zoom range than the standard kit zoom and a brighter lens than most, all in a body close to the size of the GM1. Really impressive.
The GM1 is significantly smaller, but whether that matters or not would depend on how you carry it... Neither one will comfortably fit in regular pant's pockets, either one would fit in cargo pants. I imagine either one would fit in a lady's purse quite easily too, so it's all relative. On your shoulder or wrist both would be a huge relief compared to a DSLR.
The G1X will go farther and brighter at wide angle with it's kit lens, sure, and if that's your priority then it may very well demolish the GM1 or anything from Fuji/Sony... OTOH you're not gonna have the versatility of a relatively fast 90mm equivalent portrait lens, or UWA, or FE... Any of those can easily be had as very portable lenses for a mirrorless body.
I think the key spec for the G1X is gonna be how fast the zoom remains thru it's range... If it's down to f3.5 or less by 50mm (or worse, 35mm) then I'm guessing a lot of people would rather carry the ILC with one prime + a pancake zoom, unless wide angle is your priority (and not UWA). If it remains somewhat faster at 35-50mm then I'm gonna guess it'll carve out a big following even without Canon's marketing muscle.
Serious Sam: $799 You must be Joking.
Why I want to buy the when I can get the E-M5 kit for less or even better The Fuji X-E1 Kit....even cheaper....and i am sure these two will beat the GX1 ii hands down.
Canon need to get their mind set correct in this market. They are not the leader like they are in the DSLR market and need to price their products accordingly
" Equivalent DSLR or m43 lenses either dont exist or are above 1000$ "
Yeah, I agree, that's what's gonna make or break this camera... Those kinda lenses just don't exist for mirrorless systems or DSLR, the constant aperture 2.8 zooms are larger and expensive, even something like the Sigma f1.8 zoom still dwarfs this... Fuji's kit zoom doesn't go as wide, as far, or as bright, and it's probably the closest approximation.
If the aperture doesn't shrink too much by 35-50mm I could see tons of people cross shopping this vs smallmirrorless bodies... And it's probably ideal for those who're already invested in a DSLR system but want a more portable backup (without investing in another system), the RX100 fills that same role for many but this looks far more attractive in use IMO, just slightly less portable.
Maxim_C: This little guy might make me come back to the fold...That lens is very tempting. I just want to know what is the aperture at about 50mm (equivalent).
Yeah, that's probably the key point for anyone weighing the convenience of this vs a mirrorless plus one prime... I like my 45mm/1.8 (50mm equivalent), and I'm lusting after an ultra wide, but the 20/1.7 (40mm equivalent) and a kit zoom is still what I use the most. I imagine a lot of people with smaller mirrorless bodies are on the same boat...
Tapper123: Nice specs.
But not small or light enough to compete with RX100 series, and with its size and price it's competing against ILC's which offer far more flexibility.
I don't really see where this camera fits in. After you add the EVF especially. Just look at the new Sony A6000, the Fuji X's etc. which have even bigger sensors. Might as well get a real system camera if you're looking at something of this price, size, and weight.
The RX100 is probably the closest thing to it from a technical level, perhaps some of the fixed focal length large sensor compacts too... Regardless, I do think it competes with mirrorless ILCs at a certain level. What mirrorless system has a 24-120mm f2.0-3.9 lens? Not a one AFAIK, Fuji's kit lens probably comes the closest but it's still a far way off and it's larger.
Now, any decent system is still far more versatile, you're not gonna get <f2 portraits with shallow DoF at longer focal lengths from the G1 X MkII, or UWA, or FE, or a constant aperture zoom, or a longer tele, or true macro, etc etc. A lot of people don't really care for all that tho... That being said, I don't know how large of a cross section there is of people that just want solid low light performance at 24-35mm (maybe up to 50mm if aperture doesn't drop too quick) with some extra range all in a small yet not pants pocketable package.
Seems like the RX100 does much of the same, just doesn't go as wide or as far but remains far more pocketable. I'm sure there's market for the new G1 X tho, and with Canon's branding/marketing that'll get stretched plenty. I can see a lot of people cross shopping between this and a GM1 or a Fuji, a 35-50mm equivalent prime on those cameras would probably perform better but it's one more thing to carry, and their kit zooms don't go as far nor are they as bright at 24-28mm.
Juandante: I'm tired of those 18-55 mm f/3.5. I really don't see the point of these lense.You put it in 18mm for prime, you are limited by the f/3.5.
You put it in 55mm for low DoF portrait, 55mm is too short for it.
I think this is a vicious stylé from those company just for us too buy more lense when we purchase a DSLR.
So you're basically advocating for manufacturers to stop selling cameras with zooms and mostly sell them with primes? Get real, that might work fine for enthusiast models or high end models but Canon, Nikon, et al would quickly see DSLR sales drop thru the floor if all Costco buyers got with their camera was a prime; regardless of how much sense it actually makes.
The average buyer has no clue why a faster prime might be more adequate at times, and forcing it down their throats isn't the way to educate them. You keep saying we all end up paying for useless kit lenses but last time I checked most popular DSLR & mirrorless bodies are often also sold body-only sans lens. I don't see what the big deal is...