No word about APS-C
Baby Lens on a Man's Body.Recycled lens full of compromises designed for the pocketable G7X.I think this is the first time Canon has tried something like this and is the reason the design looks disproportionate.Functional body but weak optics.Also, with a soft, aliased "1080P" video and a 5 year old uninspiring feature set it would have to be low cost to make sense if at all.
2eyesee: "...the G5 X takes the guts of last year's G7 X."
Unfortunately they took the lens too. That lens is awful at the wide end. This was to some extent understandable in a camera as compact as the G7X, but why cripple the larger G5X with it?
That's a rhetorical question - the answer of course is to save the cost of developing a new lens. Which is unfortunate, because it's a missed opportunity as other than the lens everything else looks great.
I was going to comment about the same thing.The G5 X weakest part seem to be the lens.The lens was designed for an ultracompact camera, G7X and several compromises have been made to reach that small size.This is what makes the G5X design look odd and disproportionate. The lens is too small for the body.It is not a bad idea to save on cost. However, for something not pocketable a small mirrorless would make more sense.
Tom Z: I'm surprised they didn't step up to 4K video. I would think the hardware is capable of handling that resolution.
Canon has been crippling the Video quality of their cameras for quite some time.Not even the 1080P video is up to "true" FHD in resolution.Check the Sony RX100 iv Video page on this site and compare to the Canon G7X. I am confident the G5x & G9x are going to have same Video quality since use same sensor same lens.If you value Video stay away from Canon Cameras.
Mssimo: This will be a game changer for a huge online video industry no one ever likes to talk about.
Too bad the DJI Phantoms camera module (which is essentially the same thing) can't be attached to this grip.That would have been awesome.
Photato: I like the concept of this camera.Utmost quality in a small package.The quality I am sure is there but the small, hmm not so much.I would like to see this concept expanded for a larger market using smaller bodies with crop sensors and accesible prices.
RX1 Mini APS-CRX1 Nano 1"
I think this would be a better value proposition.
Yes, 1" with Prime.Prime lenses are easier to make compact.F2 shouldn't be a big deal.Hell even Smartphones have Prime f1.8 lenses.
monkey, check the new Canon G9X a true pocket 1" camera but with a 3X zoom lens.1" camera in tight pockets is possible.
RidgeRunner22: One issue I see is the problem of handheld 42mp shoots. Without any form of IS I think this was meant for the tripod.
zlatko, Increasing resolution increase the demands on camera stability if you want to claim sharper images.
Canon does have a 35mm OIS lens. lolOh! you bet that if I need a shot to be sharp I mount my 18MP camera on a tripod, just as any other Photographer would do. Nothing wrong with that.I never said that the RX1 was useless, just questioned the practicality of having such a high resolution sensor on a portable camera. Actually I am itching to swtich to Sony given that they have interesting products laletly. But so far my Canon gear has served me well and I am staying Canon for the foresable future.
ET, You dont need any practical experience with the camera to understand this basic concepts of Physics.If the RX1 had IS that would be a differnet matter but it doesnt.So tell me, what ET stand for, Entertainment Tonight ? LOL
Don Sata: The impressive image quality of this camera now seems to be matched with equally good usability. My only thought is that for a camera that is intended for handheld shooting 42 megapixels may be more of a hinderance than a welcome feature.
Dave, I think Sony will sell this camera regardless because of its sex appeal.
ET2, That 1/fl shutter speed rule of thumb was for the film era, Probably useful for up to 12MP digital cameras today.
Boris, you said it better.Totally corect.
The amazing 12MP sensor from the A7S would have made more sense for a handheld like this.
Yes, I have been shooting for years with a Canon 18MP APSC and you need a tripod when you need pixel sharp results.If the implications of having 42MP is that you can print larger, then the sharpness needs to be held to an even higher standard than 18MP camera.So same sensor density is a moot point.
Sure, except that FF sensors of this kind of resolution have existed just for a few months.Nobody is stopping you from taking all your pictures handheld, but you wont be getting the sharpness of what this sensor is capable of.And if that is the case, save yourself $3000 and get a Ricoh GR II.
Exactly that is why Photgrphers decided to get rid of their tripods after Sony made this camera.
The RX100 rellies heavely in software lens corrections due to the optical comprimizes made to fit a zoom lens of that size.Having a RX to actually fit in most pockets makes a huge differnce.
You cant have it both ways. If one of the benfits of a sensor like this is lots of room for cropping, you better stabilize the shot with something.