chillgreg: Barney, question for ya:
Should the parallax distortion be so strong? I realise that it's wide angle, but thought that for the Jpegs they did in-camera correction? Do they on the RX-10 or FZ1000?
Because perspective correction crops the image. When shooting, always allow for a wider angle to allow for such corrections in post. A tight shot might not allow for correction. Always best, and more effectively, done in post.
nicoboston: For less than 400 USD, we can get the tiny EOS 100D body, which can be used with dozens of amazing lenses and generates infinitely better images that this pixel jello.Whatever the brand, all these "premium compact cameras" are just a joke IMO. They are not small, not versatile, not cheap, not convenient, very slow, and generates files that are technically put to shame by any entry level DSLR, as well as a growing number of smartphones.Save your money and have fun with a good camera! Take time to study what you can get for... $999.
The least you could do is state which lens setup matches the G3 X.You mean like, the Sigma 18-250 or Tamron 16-300? Those lenses are mostly effective when stopped down to f/8."Dozens of amazing lenses" is precisely what people wish to avoid doing. A photo op can be missed because the wrong lens was on the dslr. Most people here are no strangers to aps-c or ff and are after a single, versatile camera that comes close to doing it all.
Looks very normal to me. Also pretty nice for ooc jpg.
There's sufficient quality in the images. Very nice focal range, weather sealed and in a reasonable size body make this a nice travel camera.
Looking forward to Lightroom support update.
Lawrencew: I will be impressed when it does 960fps in 4K :-)
You can, with the Phantom Flex4K - if you have a spare $100K.
Flying Snail: GorillaPod FTW. You can use it on the ground (meh), attach it to a tree, a rock, a fence, a bench in the park, a lamppost or even stick it in a hole in the ice and when not in use, you can attach it to your bag so it goes everywhere with you.
Well said. When travelling, and all you have is a fence rail, all the other tripods become useless.
joe6pack: I would like to see a comparison with a cropped image from a FF sensor using a cheap 300mm prime.
300mm? No chance. Try 600mmhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56034089
vroger1: As an old time Leica photographer it is my sole opinion (I say sole because so many will disagree) if you don't have a viewfinder- you are a snapshooter no matter how much time you spend in post processing. VRR
Leica? Viewfinder? Unless you're using large format with shroud, you're a snapshooter.
Check out the samples. Looks great.http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/dcam/lineup/powershot/g3x/image-sample.html
Jennyhappy2: People said the same thing to the G7X they are going to say to the G3X:
NO EVF = NO PURCHASE
For someone called "Jennyhappy", you never seem happy.
Nukunukoo: $1K. I'd go for the RX10 II. This Canon would probably cater more to the Wildlife and Voyeur crowd.
and a far heavier setup..
2eyesee: I can't really see people opting for this over the FZ1000, which includes an EVF and is $200-300 cheaper.
BarnETIt's only 600mm. The camera is light-weight enough that its not difficult to shoot at 1/50 hand-held without stabilisation. Users of the P900 can shoot that speed with stabilisation at 2000mm hand-held. These days it's a non-issue.
I agree regarding cost. I understood canon left out the EVF to reduce the base price, but it doesn't look like they have. However, if Panasonic released a similar spec camera with built in EVF, I think the price would be more than 1K and not weather sealed. It might have 4K video, but that's also not a factor for many people interested in a still camera.
Only those who consider 400mm to be enough reach for their needs. I know many FZ1000 users who desire more reach than what their FZ1000 provides.
$1000 with the EVF thrown in would have been more reasonable.. or at least offer the EVF at a heavy discount if purchased with the G3 X.
maxnimo: What's interesting is that this moon photo looks much worse overall than the moon photo I took 11 years ago with a 70-300 zoom on an ancient DSLR. Very interesting indeed.
Because it wasnt shot properly. ISO 1600, 1/1600s and f/8.
A lot of measurbaters here. The P900 is a multi-purpose tool. If you want to carry a heavy toolchest with specialised tools, go ahead, no-one is going to yell at you.
For me, the ability to shoot nice close-ups of the moon was one aspect that sold it for me:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55569962
lacikuss: Good starting point for convergence, first cam I see with this type of ergonomics which is IMO huge. I bet Canon is going to sell thousands of these...
You are being far too sensible here.I agree with you.
MarioV: "If you're one of those people leaving comments along the lines of 'too expensive!' and 'Canon has lost its way' then rest assured - this product isn't for you."
Well said. Unfortunately, it didnt stop the moaning. A lot of people have a massive sense of entitlement and are the centre of the universe.Nice try though.
Yeah, its just a lot of people who are outraged that this product wasnt specifically designed for them and are choking on their own self importance.
"If you're one of those people leaving comments along the lines of 'too expensive!' and 'Canon has lost its way' then rest assured - this product isn't for you."
MPS Photographic: Anyone see any good troll comments about the P900? This one is at GizMag.com:
"24-2000-mm equivalent? Nikon ought to be ashamed. Almost no one who buys this camera will be using it on a steady tripod. What a cynical bid to grab dollars from naïve photographers."
I just turned off stabilisation on my SX700, zoomed to 750mm and took a sharp shot at 1/50 sec in low light.If people can hold a camera steady, I think they'll be fine at 2000mm.