Some time ago there was a photo critic for the NY Times who said (in effect) "The only thing that matters is the image. All the other stuff -- the camera, the technique, whether you took it hanging upsidedown from the landing gear of a biplane, is inconsequential. The image speaks for itself." I agree.
Further, we often fail to see the wonder of the ordinary around us, to see it and photograph it in ways that move people. Where I live, in the Northeastern US, photographing the dynamic epic grandeur of the daytime sky is constant and fascinating challenge. It's the greatest show off earth, and it is easily accessible but under-appreciated.
Jock Elliott: Those who practice what I call "wildlife photography for the rest of us" -- ie, long-range photography with (relatively) light, nimble superzoom cameras and generally without tripods -- might be interested in the "figure of merit" calculations for this camera.
Figure of merit calculates the total reach potential of a camera/lens combo by multiplying the equivalent focal length squared times the number of pixels. It does not factor in the quality of the pixels.
Here are some of the numbers for various cameras and combos (the higher, the better):
FZ200 -- 4.320FZ1000 -- 3.216D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580Canon G3X -- 7.272
So the G3X comes off pretty well. I own and shoot with the FZ200.
For more about this concept, check out this: http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/30576/ Be sure to check out the link to the original article.Cheers, Jock
For some examples of the quality that the combo of long lens and small sensor can produce, here are some examples:
These were taken with the FZ150: http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/20418/
These were taken with the FZ200:http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/29478/
And these were a series of experimental shots to show the quality of the FZ200 at various stages of optical and digital zoom:http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/35032/
Those who practice what I call "wildlife photography for the rest of us" -- ie, long-range photography with (relatively) light, nimble superzoom cameras and generally without tripods -- might be interested in the "figure of merit" calculations for this camera.
yslee1: I thought this was a camera review site, not a luxury goods showcase. :P
Selecting manual focus did not resolve the problem.I returned the D3300 due to "creative differences" with the Nikon design team.
I bought an LX100 and really enjoy it. Here's a link to my initial throughts about it. http://www.photographerslounge.org/showthread.php?t=32152&highlight=lx100+good
Both reviews are very helpful.
I had a simiilar refusal-to-do-what-I-ask problem with a Nikon DSLR. You can check it out here: http://www.photographerslounge.org/showthread.php?t=31746
I think cameras should allow photographers to take bad images if they want to. Sometimes bad ideas produce good results.
Also, I wonder if Sam Spencer moonlights as leader of the Zac Brown Band.
I ran into the same "nanny state" problems with a Nikon DSLR. check it out here: http://www.photographerslounge.org/showthread.php?t=31746
I reserve the right to take technically awful pictures if I want to!
Also,I want to know if Sam Spencer moonlights as leader of the Zac Brown Band.
I have read and respected your reviews for years, so I am have difficulty reconciling two things: (A) the silver award and (B) "The OLED display on the AW110 looks great when you're indoors. It's bright, vibrant, and has a wide viewing angle. But, as mentioned above, the one on the back of the AW110 is nearly impossible to use outdoors, and not much better underwater, which is disappointing on a camera designed to be used in those situations. "
Where else would you use a rugged camera except outdoors or underwater? If you can't see the display, in the absence of any other viewfinder, how do you compose a picture? It strikes me that inability to see to compose a picture is as close as you can get in any camera, let alone a rugged camera, to a fatal flaw in the camera's design.
I get that the Nikon and the TG2 have a lot of other virtues, but lack of a decent way of composing an image strikes me as a very serious problem.
I saw no mention of Picasa. It's free, ubiquitous, and does a fine job at a rudimentary level.
I think Easycass has pretty well nailed it by including just about everything I would want:- dial for shutter with auto setting- dial for aperture with auto setting- dial for ISO with auto setting- weather proofing- quick autofocus but the ability to do manual focus with focus assist button- fast lens- good zoom range- ability to fit protective filter and/or add-on tele lens- ability to use AA batteries in a pinch- reasonably compact- a button to highlight the controls
As a fulltime freelance writer who often shoots photos to illustrate his stories, I use small-sensor cameras (FZ150 and G12) professionally. I have had hundreds of pictures published and not once has an editor complained about photo quality. Unless you know that you are going to be making very large prints, I think in many cases large sensors are simply not needed. Recently I covered an event with two cameras, and an ultrabook, and the bag weighed less than a DSLR and 2 lenses.
Jon Stern: This is the G-series camera I always wanted.
I can't believe the whingeing in these comments. The specs are well balanced for what it is. As with any point and shoot, it's designed to give you everything you need 99% of the time.
If you want 24mm and F2.0, buy a CSC and spend a couple of grand on the body and a series of lenses, and deal with the pros and cons of that (pros = flexibility, cons = having to carry several lenses and swap them out at times). Or you could buy an X100 (as I did) and deal with the limitations of that.
I don't expect any camera with this level of portability to replace my full-frame DSLR, but something that doesn't have me filled with regret every time I leave the SLR at home and see a great shot opportunity sounds like a good compromise. The G1 X looks like it might just keep me happy in those situations.
At $799 it sounds like a bargain to me (don't tell Canon).
For $799 this seems like a bargain to me (don't tell Canon I said that).
I agree with you, and for virtually the same reasons you enumerate. This is a G12 on steroids, very nearly as good (IMHO) as an X100 without the limitations or eccentricities.
I am a fulltime freelance writer who shoots photos often to illustrate stories or blogs. I couldn't afford a Leica, the X100 is too limited. the new X camera looks a winner but too rich for my blood, and the mirrorless cam systems don't really bring anything that you can't get better and very nearly as portable in a small SLR. (And I don't want the hassle and weight of an SLR system.)
Provided Canon didn't bugger something up, it looks to me like they hit a home run.