uzevla: There seems to be many 50+ guys on this forum who had never seen a decent LCD. Top quality LCD is a way better option than a crappy viewfinder.The failure with this one is that they insisted on a large sensor by sacrificing many things. First of all, adding a high end EVF or OVF like the one in X100 and using a bit smaller sensor would result in a more capable camera - I would buy it right away. But to repeat again: I don't give a damn about cheap OVFs.
Second, this lens seems a bit small - I am afraid it will be similar to that crap in RX100. Again, smaller sensor would allow to use a higher quality lens (note: I am happy with the apertures offered _ I am actually waiting for ages for an m43 with bright and fixed high quality zoom - hopefully Fuji X30 will be the one).
I'd rather have the larger sensor any day. To me, That is the point of this camera.
frenchmonkeys: I know it's always been in vogue to say 'you don't need higher resolution', and complain about the megapixel war, but resolution has always mattered in photography.
When I shot film/trannies, I would occasionally use Scotchchrome 1000 for it's golfball grain, or push the hell out of Tri-X for the same reason. I would sometimes choose Velvia because it was smooth, detailed, with extremely fine grain.
With digital I can't just choose a different sensor - I'm forever stuck with the one that comes in the camera. More pixels gives me more choices. I can reduce quality, add noise, but I can't do the reverse in any meaningful way.
It's not all that long ago that people were saying that 5 MP was enough for anyone, then 8, then 10, and so on. I loved the images on my 1D, but I wouldn't trade my 1D4 for it - I enjoy the extra 12 MP.
Of course noise has to be managed too, and high ISO is welcome, but I'd trade some of the high ISO capability for a spec. that includes an extra 20-30 MP.
Medium format is not a good answer to wanting more megapixels (MP). It requires much higher f/stop, and therefore, light, to get the same depth of field, making it inappropriate for many uses. Switching formats also requires a significant investment in camera and lenses. Megapixels are useful if the IQ is there, and a few cameras have proven that one can have high MP in the 35mm format DSLRs and still have good IQ at the expense of FPS, diffraction at f/8 and above, and a little high-end ISO, primarily.
Joas Souza: I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT IS HAS ONLY 18MP. EVERYBODY WAS EXPECTING 32MP. WELL, NIKON STILL AHEAD, UNFORTUNATELY.
I like having extra MP for the cropping options and quality of large prints. This camera is the right one for its target market. Hopefully the 5D3 will have 26 to 32 MP and great image quality, at a slower FPS. That will provide a camera for each market.
dtkorab: I am asking for your patience and experience. I am a newborn photographer and I need a better camera. Considering current and new line-up Canon, what would you suggest. I shoot hand held natural daylight, often low light, and, like everyone else, I need perfect focus. Weight matters, but image quality trumps all. Need to get the shot in a split second. Frequently use 24-70 mm f/2.8. Thank you for taking the time to consider this question.
Another vote for the 5D Mark II. No sensor dust issue (haven't heard of that one), and the image quality is outstanding.
METROMODEPHOTO: IT WOULD BE NICE FOR A CHANCE IF ALL SLR MANUFACTURERS MADE D-SLR WITH FULL SIZE SENSORS AND GET RID OF THESE APS SENSORS ONCE AND FOR ALL. EVERY CAMERA SHOULD HAVE A FULL SIZE 35MM SEMSORS ONCE AND FOR ALL!
There's a good reason for APS sensors. They provide benefits in exchange for specific tradeoffs, and obviously, many people like that value proposition. To each his/her own.
munro harrap: I use a 1Ds MkII. I cannot get good lenses for it. I have returned a 17-40mm, a 100-400mmL, and a 70-200mmL recently, and have tried out four 24-70mmL-none of which is as good as my old 24-85mmUSM, and have tried out 3 24-105mmL, lenses and bought 2 which were returned, as like the tryouts, they were soft and quite hopeless at the longer lengths across the frame.
So I fully understand the current problems Canon users have, none of which a new body addresses. The lenses are poor.
I am saving for a new machine, but why bother? as without the optics to match there is little point. Dealers box them so badly they get damaged (must be deliberate- you cannot do that by accident) .
Some lenses may be OK, but this new machine needs lenses that cover 35mm not the EF ones designed for cinema HD 2 Megapixel formats, and everyone is waiting for those. At the moment, its a con.
The larger sensor cameras, frankly, are exposing the limitations of all lenses, and this is true for all manufacturers. If you play with the microadjustments for lenses, and do it consistently, in a variety of conditions, I think you will find that there are many variables which impact the lens sharpness from one day to another. Temperature, humidity, a myriad of factors impact it. I have thought a certain region of a lens was less sharp, only to find that in another shoot, it's right on target. I'm not denying your experience, but I think it may be an unusual experience, and it may have more variance involved in the evaluation process than you might realize. The testing labs and media have not had the same experience by and large. Again, we will see more variance in the camera/lens combo sharpness as the new larger sensors expose the variance that has always been there, and in fact, to a much larger degree in the past than currently in the latest pro lenses.
NormSchultze: And still no GPS . Thats a real deal breaker for travelers like me.
I prefer cameras without GPS. I don't want the cost, size, weight or battery drain, and only the latter is selectable of the four detriments if I like the camera otherwise. I know where I shoot my pics and label accordingly. I save the second six-pack for after the hike.
patrick c tom: With this sensor leap...could one expect a leap in IQ and maximum print size(20x30 or larger)...or will it be fairly modest...
Print size comes down to pixel count, quality of color (luminance noise, amount of noise reduction needed, and color authenticity) in those pixels, and lens clarity. You can easily compare the pixel count here to other cameras, and remember, a doubling of resolution in pixels requires four times as many pixels, not simply double. As for color quality and noise reduction, the larger sensor should provide better color quality with less noise than that of a smaller sensor, and sharper images since less noise processing should be required. We don't know much about the lens clarity at this point. To evaluate the first two, go to various sites and compare test images from a Canon T3i to a Canon SX230HS, for example. While the pixel counts are not identical, you'll get a close answer to your question.
freediverx: Why does Canon always have to take a few steps back with every step forward?
In order to incorporate a pop-up flash (which wasn't on anyone's short list of must-have features) they've removed one of the mechanical dials at the top of the camera, eliminating the ability to change the ISO setting on the fly without digging into the menus.
So essentially they've sacrificed one of the G-series' coolest "pro" features in exchange for a useless one. More likely, this was a cost-reduction decision, which is especially irksome considering the fat price increase.
The pop-up flash vs non-moving flash was required in order for the lens to not block the flash's light when the lens is at wide angle.
PhotoTrevor: I have to say I'm really disappointed with this. I've been coveting an X100 for some time now and I've had the chance to use one and I liked it but being a canon guy I wanted to see what they would put out given my flashes. The lens on this is a joke. Why can't we put a fast prime on instead of a slow short range zoom. Canon would hit this out of the park with basically the same camera with a 35mm equivalent F2.Sorry Canon no matter how favourable a review DPR will inevitably put on this, going to buy an X100 or whatever else they release.
I'd vote for this zoom every time over a faster prime, because it's of greater benefit to me, but everyone's mileage will vary.
Andy Curtis Pics: It still has an optical VF when I don't need one at all... When will they learn? :-(
It has a pop up flash when an integrated one is far better (less to go wrong and less invasive when activated...no unnecessary clicking that draws attention to you when doing candid shots etc)
It still has a short zoom which is not long enough... I need 6x....like the G9
Well that's me deciding to trade up from my G12 to a S/H full frame SLR that's just about to be phased out and back down to G9 as a spare snapshot camera...
IMO the G1x is a step change, but absolutely not enough to make it a killer product that will take command of this market..
In other words, a lost opportunity with a comedy Canon price.... again. ;-(
The pop-up flash is necessary to avoid having the flash blocked by the lens at wide angle.
Rowland Scherman: Sensor size should, in every single case from now on, be written as a size in mm--and not in an arcane, alphabet soup or inch fraction format. The chart shown in this thread is a big help, thanks; but sensor size should be written in a standard format, ie its actual size. Why isn't it?
It arises from the history of how sensor size was expressed, and it persists because the marketing departments of the manufacturers can mislead consumers into thinking actual sensor sizes are larger than they are as a result of the historical size expressions. Clearer expressions will result in the sensor sizes appearing to be smaller than current/historical expressions, and no manufacturer wants to be there first.
To all those wishing Canon had supplied more, I'm impressed with what Canon has done. Having a large sensor in a small, powerful package is right up my alley. Sure, 24mm would have been great, f/2, too, but think about the physics. With a sensor this size, f/2 adds size, weight and costs to the lens, as does 24mm. There are tradeoffs to the wishlists. Personally, while I'd like to see how much size, weight and costs 24mm would have added, I'm happy with what Canon has done with this camera, and will buy one. It's terrific as it is, and I can always buy a 24mm version in the future (for a little extra net cost by selling this one), and in the meantime, I will have had an outstanding pocket camera with a nearly APS-C sensor, RAW format, shallow depth of field, and impressive ISO levels. Cool!
Alphoid: I wonder what MSRP will be -- that lens has got to be expensive. If they can keep the price down without compromising the optics, this might be the compact camera to beat.
I only wish it had GPS.
I'm glad Canon didn't include GPS. It adds cost, size, battery drain and weight, with no benefit to me. Furthermore, it rarely works well inside. Thank you, Canon, for NOT adding GPS!!