GeorgeD200

A. As an amateur photogrpher who buys a new version of CS extended every 4 years, I'm out. $600/year is just too rich for my blood. I may look into getting CS6 (if it's even available without a CC subscription), and then moving on to something else in a few years.

B. I think the industry leader has just opened the door for a lot of $200-300 photo editing software competitiors. Sure, maybe they won't be as good, but at $600/year I can't afford the best anymore. I don't need content-aware editing or 3-D modeling. I've grown up with Photoshop since 3.0 LE, but I won't be subscribing at $49.95/month.

He was a photojournalist, on assignment, not a spectator taking snapshots. Therefore, anything he produces is always photojournalism, whether a bomb goes off or not.

Welcome to CAPITALISM. Marketing is designed to make consumers value products over and above their "use" value. That's what makes us covet new cameras before our old camera is obsolete (a questionable concept itself) or broken.
Anyone who has ever "loved" a camera has fetishized it. Karl Marx predicted this phenomenon over 100 years ago, but I doubt he foresaw what heights it would reach.
That said, almost everyone in America does this, myself included. My cameras are prized possessions, far beyond their use value.

A lot of people are questioning the f-stop "gain" claim. As I understand it, F-stop is a function of the aperture diaphram size to focal length; it's a ratio. If you decrease the focal length without decreasing diaphram size, you have to gain f-stop. It's the opposite of using a teleconverter. Teleconverteres increase the focal length without changing the diaphram size, and therefore "lose" f-stop(s).

I sympathize with you, Michael, but as you say, the strap came undone from the eyelets of the camera. Since Tamrac isn't the one who attached it to the eyelets, who should be responsible? I wouls say 90% of the camera straps that I see are attached incorrectly. Without showing a picture, it's impossible to say. Most people skip over the "attaching your strap" part of the camera manual, but I suggest you read it. Most people would be surprised.

I disagree, George. I think the J1,2,3 are not designed to compete with the m4/3 and NEX. The V1/2, maybe. You have to compare them to Nex5/6 and $5-600 m4/3, not OMD-EM5 or NEX 7. Those cameras aren't in the same price range.
I was told directly by a Nikon sales rep that the market for the J series was advanced p/s buyers.

Why would you read a review on a camera you already own? You've made your decision. Don't look back.

Saying that a lens that transfers only 50% of the light at longer focal lengths is "just as good for field work" is a thin argument at best.

Actually, I think the G1x is pretty innovative. Not many other APS-c cameras with fixed lenses. I know it's not perfect -- we'd all like a faster aperture, but for corner sharpness it's a small marvel.

No pop-up flash indicates enthusiast camera. No viewfinder indicates consumer. Split personality. Both will be problems for their intended markets. Maybe somebody can rig a small hot-shoe EVF that plugs into the HDMI cable? I know it would be awkward, but I need an EVF! Otherwise, I would be excited about this camera.

I actually like the EF-M, George, though I'd like it better if it had an optional viewfinder. Canon is not infallible. Compare sales of their 5DMKIII to the D800, and the unimpressive release of the T4i as proof.

I think Klamar was the wrong guy for the job. He's a photojournalist (and a darn good one), but he likes his wide angle lenses. You can't use a wide angle in studio and without getting a bunch of background (which is what happened). I've shot tons of studio work with ripped paper -- it often rips and crinkles where they stand on it. You just shoot longer lenses and avoid getting that in the frame. Again, when a PJ does shoot posed portraits, they're usually "environmental" portraits, designed to place the subject in their context: a lab, an office, a library, etc. Very rarely do they shoot against a studio background. I think he just didn't know how to handle it.

What I really want to know (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) is how well this camera works with Leica legacy glass. I don't have $8,000 to spend, so forget the M9. I also don't have the money for current Leica lenses. What I do have is a half-dozen Leica lenses from the 50s and 60s. I'd spring for one of these if I thought it would do a good job with them, but I can't seem to find anyone that has tried it. Does anyone have any links or resources for me?
I'm also pretty lukewarm on the M8 or Epson RD-1. I don't care for Sony -- let's leave it at that, and m4/3 is out. Is this camera the ticket, or should I wait for the full-frame, interchangable lens, sub $2000 camera that Leica is never going to make?

Not gonna happen, based on sensor size, but it might be close!

Comparing the G1X with the Nikon V1 (based on price), the Olympus E-P1 ( m4/3 and I have one), and the Nex 3 (close competitor).
The lens seems to be holding the G1x back. Quality is similar to the E-P1 and Nex3 in the center of the frame, but quickly degrades at the edges, where the E-P1 is by far the best, probably because it was tested with a prime lens. The G1x actually has the lowest noise levels at ISO 800 and above, with the E-P1 second and the Nex 3rd. V1 comes in last in all categories (as expected, due to it's much smaller sensor size).

Conclusion: The G1x has potential, but is limited by the lens. If they come out with an interchangable lens version, it will go toe-to-toe with the NEX and m4/3 offerings, and often beat them. Noise levels are best-in-class (based on these samples). It'll still be the best point and shoot on the market, but it'll lack appeal for enthusiasts.

I'm sure this is more expensive to produce than the T3 and lens, but at $799., they've lost me. At $599, I'd buy one for when I want to leave the D700 at home.

Ok, so it's not the 7x Zoom f2.0 lens that many of you have been (foolishly) hoping for, but this camera is really exciting. And no, it's not a full frame interchangeable lens rangefinder, either. Leica already makes those. Canon abandoned rangefinders 50 years ago. I'm sure Canon explored faster lens designs, and they either cost too much, gave up too much range, got too bulky for this camera concept, or most likely a combination of all three.

For what it is: A pocket P&S with an APS-C senor(almost) I think this is a home run. Interchangeable lenses would have added $200 to the price tag, and we'd be stuck with lenses as large as the APS-C. Sure some people would still buy that, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an IL version of this forthcoming, but I think for portability in a high quality camera, this is awesome!

What a grinch! If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.
Egomaniac: If I don't want to read it, DPR shouldn't put it on their website.
From now on DPR, please submit all article ideas to VENTURE-STAR for approval before publishing. THX.

Yeah, 4.2 FPS is WAY better than 10 FPS.

No, not really. 1 Euro = @1.3 USD.