MPA1: Why is an insolvent company producing new products?
To try and survive, of course.What a strange question.
I'm curious if this is a potential problem for other sensors (other camera brands) not having an AA filter on the cover glass of the sensor.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
I think those people need to discover the studio image comparison tool.
GSD_ZA: Based on this test, I'd have to say the G7X is an absolute dud.
In my opinion the G7X is an absolute winner, for a compact. If the noise reduction at ISO 1600 can be reduced a bit - trade a bit more noise for a bit less detail smearing - then it's even better.
108: I like these samples much better than the LX100s', and yet it's a smaller sensor ..go figure . Less "digital" looking, more "volume" and "depth", more pleasing to my eyes . I don't pixel peep, I blow them screen size on my 20" iMac, sit back about a good meter from the screen to get an overall "feel" of the photo, just like I do in the end when I pp . Really don't care if that corner is a bit soft .What can I say ? That samples here on DPreview can be and certainly are a buying guide for a lot of amateurs ? That the staff here does sometimes a real good job on these samples and sometimes does a rather poorer one ? Or that with today 1" sensors you can get as good IQ as with M4/3 ?Speaking about it I was astonished at the quality of the Pana FZ1000 samples, even dowloaded a 3200 iso sample to check , and this is an 1" sensor, and I think as good as a lot of M4/3 cameras, except maybe for the upper tier ones like the EM1 and GH3-Gx7.
I made that comparison to the FZ1000 too this morning and was equally astonished how good those sample images look.
The G7X gallery looks fine for a compact, though.
bernardly: Fellow Canonites and camera nerds!
Another Canon compact model discreetly labelled "High Zoom" is coming in the wake of the G7X and G1X mk2. In this video Canon hints at its existence and form factor. Yes, you can even discern its outline near the end. So another new Kwanon is to be born soon. Canon is keeping busy in their R&D department and making good use of their line of copiers. The video is about the evolution of the Canon high end compact range.
Video is here: http://www.canon-europe.com/assets/videoplayers/video.html?bctid=3785004094001
Check it out and comment. What will it be? My guess is something between the Panny LX100 and Sony RX10.
Found the video embedded on this page:www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/expert/index.aspx
Wow, thanks for spotting that!The G7X is ticking a lot of boxes for me, but the lack of tele reach is it's main drawback. If this future High Zoom model could have something like a 24-240 mm eq. zoom, f/4 at the long end to keep the size down, then that would be my dream cam.
Mark9473: I'm curious which Olympus 1" camera the second paragraph is referring to. Something still to be announced?
Too bad. Thanks for responding so quickly though.
I'm curious which Olympus 1" camera the second paragraph is referring to. Something still to be announced?
marc petzold: I'd personally choose a 24-70 or 24-75 all time over 28-100mm focal length over the G7X, and the G7X lacks a viewfinder, a EVF both the RX100 III and LX100 does have...and the Sony is quite better with the XAVC S Codec - so the G7X from Canon is just a "me too" product from the Market Leader, in terms that not many more customers running to Sony or someone else (Panasonic, now) to buy their competition product. Sorry Canon - "too little - too late". 2 Years ago, that wouild have been a fine product...but now, the competition is very hard.
Canon had acknowledged this - therefore pricing their G7X as the cheapest from the 1 inch Sensor trio.
The G7X zoom is not 28-100 eq. but 24-100.Still sure you'd prefer a 24-70 or 24-75?
konmin: I think having a common benchmark is useful reference for everyone. I do appreciate Richard and his team for writing this article.
Hmm, for crop sensor cameras, I hope camera manufacturers would be upfront about the equivalent aperture values too.
Most do state the equivalent focal lengths (in 35mm terms) but ignores the aperture values.
The reason could be that the aperture values would appear less appealing if camera manufacturers do so e.g. a Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 OIS on a Four Thirds sensor would be 85mm F2.4 in 35mm terms.
"I hope camera manufacturers would be upfront about the equivalent aperture values too."
You seem to ignore that the first function of the aperture is to determine the exposure, and then f/1.2 remains f/1.2.
I believe the vast majority of camera / lens buyers don't care about DOF, and that of those that do care about it, more would prefer to have more DOF instead of more shallow DOF.
Wolfgang Fieger: The original G1X was producing pictures with a contrast setting way too high. As a result sunny daylight JPGs out of camera where hardly usable. How did this change with the new G1X MkII? If I look at the HDR image in your review I still think that the standard shot is way too contrasty, while HDR is just close to what the camera should produce as a standard...
So what, it's expensive so JPEG's don't have to work?
I wonder how the people at Canon will feel about their G1X sensor being classed as 4/3 size, and at Nikon about their 1" sensor being in the 1/1.7" section.
Mark9473: The camera ticks all the boxes for me, provided it lives up to IQ and handling expectations. But a big let-down is the appalling battery life. Any chance for an after-market solution offering better battery life? Or will we just have to get used to carrying 4 or 5 spare batteries?
Well I was thinking that with some image reviewing and shooting a bit of video, the camera wouldn't even make it to the specified 240 images by some margin.
The camera ticks all the boxes for me, provided it lives up to IQ and handling expectations. But a big let-down is the appalling battery life. Any chance for an after-market solution offering better battery life? Or will we just have to get used to carrying 4 or 5 spare batteries?
"Not so good for JPEG shooters, Auto ISO users, and photographers who want to quickly capture a moment"
Isn't that like 99% of us? ;-)
Also, taking just the average of the bars on the scorecard gives me a 74% average, not 80%. I wonder how they arrive at the overall score.
I agree it's a significant camera, the first full frame mirrorless and all that, but it appears there was a need to give it an award no matter what the test scores say.
Bijan Alpha: here are few full size samples:http://camerahoarders.com/sony-dsc-rx10-preview/2/
I am underwhelmed by the image quality, to be honest. I don't see this replacing my DSLR. Too bad because the camera looks stunningly beautiful. 20 megapixels into a 1" sensor equals compact camera image quality, is my conclusion.
Francis Carver: I mean, it's not like anybody is going to be MISSING Olympus as a digital camera makers once they're gone, is it? We now have way, way too mane digi-cam makers, not to mention way, way, way to many almost identical camera models polluting the stagnant marketplace. We need to do a spring house cleaning to trim the numbers down. Actually, the courts and the banks will take care of that process for us.
Well, I for one would miss Olympus, as they have IMO the best zoom lenses. Wouldn't mind if a few other companies folded so as to thin the herd though.
Having just started submitting challenge entries, I'm not taking my low percentage (21%) too seriously. But in an upcoming challenge I noticed one of the rules is that you can only enter if your percentage is 45% or higher. So some people - that host at least - are definitely taking it serious.
--Markmy gallery: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5120988127/albums