Summerhill: I want a waterproof camera to take kayaking, etc. I may drop it in the water,but won't be diving with it. I would like to have the highest quality pictures I can get in a compact...that can be dropped in the water.
Are there other cameras that I should consider?
except that it is big and not with right focal for UW images
peevee1: Terrible choices of color for a beach camera. Black will get superhot under the sun very quickly, blue can easily get lost under water. They should be bright-yellow, orange, red.
Gabriel, you are right about red being absorbed but i can guarantee you that blu will not stand out as much as yellow or pink...
evoprox: What the NEX system needs IMO are fast, high-quality lenses, not more bodies.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: So you pay a bucketload of money in order to mount (comparatively) huge lenses on small bodies, you lose resolution and AF performance, but get higher levels of chromatic aberration... makes sense.Wouldn't it be simpler - and less ruinous - to use your Canon FF body when you want to use EF lenses?Just saying. Some may think otherwise and that's OK with me. It's their money anyway.
I have Canon FF lenses that I used on older 300/350 Canon bodies...After years the lenses are fine but bodies are behind the camera I use now: Olympus OM-D. Some WA and fast lenses are interesting!. These lenses on MFT cameras would actually make sense if image quality is good. Listening to reports of whom has been trying them say results are great. They are a niche product for people like me that have some expensive optics that could get some use, or video people, or for those older but special lenses that combined in newer MFT or NEX mounts would still shine. I am interested in samples for MFT mount given smaller sensor and probably even better quality of the image resulting from the Metabone lenses. Why so many people shoot these adapters down without even having any experience on their image results is a mystery to me. Just because it does not apply to their personal camera/lens/shooting universe is certainly not a reason to be so negative or disruptive!! ... or sarcastic :((
amazing how many people JUDGE and write without any sense or knowledge (!) ...I guess this is a human trait... It would rather make more sense to wait for some more real tests done from real people and ....in terms of it applicability: different strokes for different folks... :))
Jun2: Do I really need this? Spend $600 to put large FF lens to my little M4/3, NEX cameras.
only if you have a couple of very expensive FF lenses gathering dust in a drawer and the equivalent focal length is unavailable on MFT mount... I am sure there is a market for this since there are plenty of people looking for high quality fast lenses on MFT and if you do not mind the extra size and weight you now have lots of choices ! I wished their price was less though!
Vitruvius: The Wide AND Bright combo was the one thing missing from the compact system cameras. This blows the doors WIDE open! Awesome! FF lens to M4/3 body would be perfect. OMD EM5 and GH3 cameras would ROCK even more with all that glass available that would be Wide AND Bright!
this is where my beloved FF Sigma 15mm lens becomes interesting again!
nice camera with the CAVEAT of no RAW... I do not understand what is the problem on not supporting it...
Nudibranco: I do not see this camera as a compelling one in the current market. It struggles to "bridge" the gap between the larger sensor higher quality images and the compactness and versatility of smaller cameras.
Basically it is trying to be small enough to be pocketable and maybe it is but it compromises too much on Focus speed (this is just from the review and frankly it is probably not that bad) and distance (which instead is a big disadvantage at least in my applications).
In the "bridge" market I prefer the M43 offering which has lots of flexibility, kit options that are smaller and lighter, and similar or better image quality (thanks to the interchangeable lenses). And some recent compact cameras like the S95/S100, Oly XZ1, Nikon P series are not far off in image quality at low ISO (but with distinct advantages over the G1x). Canon is just under pressure in this market segment and trying a new approach (this is the only Canon revolution for now).
here are a few links that may helphttp://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-g-x-asph--o-i-s-micro-four-thirds-lens-review-18401http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scoreshttp://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-PowerShot-G1X-Review/Canon-G1X-vs-hybrid-camerashttp://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=752&ReviewUrl=LUMIX-G-X-14-42_2.html
BTW, just to be fair, not only you get better flexibility from the G3 but a real EVF and by adding a .79x pana lens DMW-GWC1 to the pancake you make its range start at 22mm rather than 28mm (adding only 70g and still lighter than the G1X!). and if you compare to the latest entry in 43 cameras the OMD from Olympus you will have to face better stabilization, better EVF than G3, weatherproofness, and probably better high iso performance. The G1X will be obsolete in a few months. I hear Canon is preparing to launch at Photokina some new models that might address the shortcomings of your pet camera. maybe then Canon may show something that is not just a its BIG NAME and MARKETING. In the meantime they are falling behind even to Nikon in their high end turf. Too bad I own lots of Canon equip but everything has a cycle and I dont get paid by Canon.
it is funny how some people will convince themselves they are right no matter what and close behind a wall (or you are a CANON owned mind). You can even look at the Pana G3 which is an older model with the pancake 14-42 to know you are getting a lighter (20% lighter) flexible and interchangeable lens solution with the same size of a GX1. The pancake lens is a fine lens and you can read reviews that will proove that (check ephotozine for example or DXomark). Not a stellar lens but even the Canon lens is not (!). Do you have an objective review that compares the image qualities side by side and show this better G1X quality in practical life that you talk about?You say it is revolutionary (!?) but instead this camera is - heavier- bigger- not flexible- slow focusing and performance- lacks Macro
hahah the only thing it does not have is the range but the quality is better lighter and smaller on a much more useful body. I guess that is revolutionary ... enjoy your camera!
just check the GX1 from Panasonic with the 14-42x kit zoom. Or you can also check other bodies from Olympus especially the up and coming OM one. The M43 is compared in size in this site review of the G1x. So if you want compactness I would buy the GX1 (which is expandable).
I do not see this camera as a compelling one in the current market. It struggles to "bridge" the gap between the larger sensor higher quality images and the compactness and versatility of smaller cameras.
I strongly disagree with the conclusions as well.
I have now used the G12, the X10, the XZ1 and I i certainly put the G12 at the bottom of these 3 cameras which have much better lenses (just this is enough to make it more versatile).
Other things completely left out in the review are the amazing versatility of the XZ1 on the remote flash capability, the fantastic optional EVF on the XZ1, the great panorama and profocus functions on the X10, and amazing EXR dynamic ability of the X10. I found the various options retained through the various modes of the X10 a gift for easy setups in many situations. So is the G12 more versatile? Just because of the swivel LCD screen???
I am not the only one to have found the G12 frustrating in the settings and so it seems that Canon G12 is just taking advantage from its older models performance and from marketing.