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.