LOL a DSLR... how quaint.
If it beats my hacked GH-2 in IQ... I'll eat my computer.
That's gotta be the Wooden Shoe Tulip Festival in Oregon, eh?
Why are you putting a mirror into a cinema camera, Canon?
Is there really ANYONE who will buy this to ever shoot stills? Really? WHY? WHO?
They just really don't wanna design a new camera body, and laugh as they sell mirrors, prisms, shutters, and phase-AF units to people who literally NEVER EVER use them... EVER!! What a rip-off scam!
I am guessing rich corporations are the only people stupid enough to throw away their money on this. Further showing the class divide between the corps who rule over all, and the powerless minions eeking out pathetic "lives."
Can it be a zoom lens set to 50mm?
bashosfrog: It reads to me like "If an X10 user has a problem with white discs and takes up that issue with our service centres, Fujifilm will fix/replace the camera. However, there are a whole lot of X10 users out there not bothered by white discs, so lets not create a stampede by issuing a total recall".
The release is succinct and reasonable, offering succour to the disc-afflicted but not too much.
I'm astride the fence. I haven't been bothered by white discs, but I'd like my X10 to be perfect in every way. On the other hand, if by "modified sensor" they mean a sensor that doesn't perform as well as the current one, I'm happy to have the possibility of white discs as a tradeoff for current levels of performance.
Recalls are only issued when consumer safety is at risk. Otherwise, why replace every customer's sensor if only 1% of them care?
FujiFilm is doing the smart thing, what every company does. Apple did the same thing with MacBook Pro motherboards which had the defective NVIDIA chips.
The new medium format, both in quality, price, and sales figures. "full frame" is now APS-C.
Sam Carriere: Sony has yet to deliver on the NEX-7 announced 9 months ago and yet it keeps announcing new products. No wonder this company lost a billion dollars in the last quarter of 2011.
You douche... THAILAND FLOODED do you have any concept of what that did to the factories of Sony, Nikon, Western Digital, et al.? Have you no sensitivity? I'd like to see how many months it would take you to turn your life around after all your possessions are erased off the Earth.
I love the drool :D
Sdaniella: ooo, i have high expectations... (lens limitations notwithstanding):D
as imaging-resources image comparisons have already shown...dpreviews studio image comparisons bear out the same level of expected IQ too
that, as expected... having inherited 60D/7D pixel pitch and gaining improvements, has put the G1X deep into APS-C IQ territory regardless of system format (dSLR or mirrorless)... this is Absolutely great for prosumer bridge cameras like the PowerShot G... Yay!
(if you cannot see it, look at a refreshed version of other comparison models, and the new listing will then include the new model)
There are many stellar lenses on Micro Four Thirds, and a couple on Sony NEX (they got a late start). So I don't know what your argument is, but frankly the G1X lens seems a bit soft compared to even the basic offering of Lumix or Oly, if Imaging Resource is any judge. But then again I'll wait and test one for myself when I have it in my hands in a couple of weeks :D
fuxicek: nice camera, but the new olympus om-d is the winner here ;)
Oh and for your information, I work for a Canon Authorized Reseller, and I sell many Canon products. That does not mean I cannot state my own opinions regarding these matters but I have every reason to wish for the success of the G1X, since I will be selling them to my customers in a few weeks.
I just know that when I have a customer and they are asking me whether they should spend $800 on a PowerShot G1X, or if they should purchase something like an Oly E-P3, or Lumix GX1, or Nikon V1, or Sony NEX, then I will explain to them the differences of going each way.
I'm sure there will be some people like you who do not care about being able to have a fast aperture, or an electronic viewfinder, or options for wider angles or more telephoto than a set range, etc. Rather they just want something that covers the basic needs and gives 4/3"-sensor-level quality. Then the G1X will be a great option.
But that's going to be a vast minority. Most people don't have an $800 secondary camera! LOL.
The OM-D is not "limited" to a Micro Four Thirds sensor. That is just what kind of sensor it has. You state it as a limitation, as if it is a bad thing to have a 4/3" sensor. Which it is not.
In fact there are many advantages to 4/3" format. I have been shooting on that format for about 3 years and I have made prints as large as 144"x134" that look phenomenal from those cameras.
I really think that you exhibit a quite unfair bias and obvious hatred for 4/3" format, for no real reason. You seem to think that it is not a good format, but that's just your own biased opinion, and obviously is not shared by the majority of consumers in Japan who are now flocking to this revolutionary new format.
Myself, I like Canon. I think the Rebels and 5D's, etc., are great machines. I would purchase a 1D X if I could afford it. But I'm more than happy with my Olympus E-5 and E-P1, and looking very forwards to the OM-D.
I think the G1X is a mind-boggler, but I'm sure many will sell. Look at Fuji
dark goob: G1X looks terribly soft. $800 and stuck with only a kit lens? Thanks but no thanks. This is obviously Canon trying to do mirrorless without cutting into Rebel sales (not that I blame 'em). But look at the comments below, Canon is stuck viewing 135-format (a dying dinosaur) as if it were the only full-frame format. It's not. All these mirrorless and consumer DSLR cameras are full-frame between the lenses and sensors. 135 is the new medium format. Micro Four Thirds looks better than film scans, and looks great at any sane ISO levels. Who honestly cares which camera has the best "worst quality" mode? I don't care what 6400 looks like. They all look better at 800 or 1600. Put a Panny 20 1.7 and then you don't need as high ISO anyway!
Francis Carver... 135 is the new medium format because 135-format cameras represent less than 2% of ILC cameras sold in the past two years. More than 98% of camera users neither need nor want the "advantages" that 135-format grants: insanely high megapixels, night-vision level sensitivity. Only professional photographers and super-serious amateurs with lots of cash to blow are willing/capable to operate in 135-format digital. 15 years ago the same could be said for medium format film cameras like Hasselblads, etc., relative to 135-format SLRs.
"Micro Four Thirds looks better than film scans": I have worked in a professional digital & film lab for about 10 years collectively. I do scans on a regular basis. I shoot a lot of pictures on a lot of cameras ranging from Four Thirds to 135-format. I regularly print images on a Canon ipf8300 44"-wide inkjet (awesome printer!!!).
And I am just telling you that images shot on Micro Four Thirds look better than 135-format film scans. Capisce?
SDYue... if 6400 is so important then why does it still look terrible on the G1X? I thought the Panasonic at least had better detail.
Sharpening can be adjusted in the camera. If you don't like the level of sharpening then turn it down! LOL. Most people like sharp pictures though... ones that are ready to print with no adjustments. Canon still thinks it is 2003 and everyone is going to spend 30 minutes in PP on each image before printing -- but people want print-ready images out of the camera. It has nothing to do with the sensor size or lens format!
I'm sure Canon WANTS to make 4/3" format obsolete, because it has taken 10% of their market share in two years. Canon does not want to admit to itself that most people do not WANT digital SLR cameras, even the ones who have it already, because you can get just as good or better pictures for almost all normal purposes with a mirrorless PEN or NEX.
Canon is threatened and you are its response. You are delusional that G1X has better ISO.
liquidsquid: My goodness, there seems to be a heavy weight of fanboy in this thread. "I'm dumpin my m4/3, blah blah..." because it doesn't perform as well as a brand new sensor compared to an older one at ISO6400!
I mean come one already, judging at 6400??? Kinda defeats the purpose of all these fast lenses everyone is clamoring for. The last time I NEEDED 6400 was, um, wait, um... oh yeah pixel-peeping tests. Perhaps once or twice trying to get a decent shot of my son indoors at night with poor lighting out of 10's of thousands of shots I have taken with my camera.
So much more goes into a cam than IQ of the sensor. I still cannot believe how spoiled we have all become vs. film days.
p.s. Looking forward to the new Olympus which reportedly does NOT use a Panasonic sensor (and seems to have evidence of it based on the RAW samples) Wow.
With that said, this Canon does look pretty nice, just not my bag getting stuck with a single lens.
SDYue, did Canon steal exposure simulation LiveView from Olympus. Or did they license it?
Sdaniella: i'm here to only share relevant info for shooters like myself who happen to be already dSLR owners, be it FF, or APS-H, or APS-C, who have held off for quite along time with great reservations on a suitable 'prosumer' compact to complement the dSLR, and that it must have a level of IQ and sufficient focal length choices for daily walk-around 24/7 carry around digicam, and not 'another' full ILC system, which do not perform anywhere near what can already be had with our FF/APS-H/APS-C dSLRs.
or even PowerShot G shooters looking for an update 'G' but with vastly improved IQ of a dSLR.
i do it with keen interest on how the G1X compares to what we already own, so that upon scrutiny, the IQ would not be at a level that we'd be ashamed of being handicapped with, that many smaller systems face, or 'in between' or current mirrorless systems. and YES, good performance in LOW light at HIGH ISO's do matter, as we have already taken it for granted with our current larger sensored dSLRs.
APS-C and APS-H are both frame sizes from a discontinued film format. Canon stole those names and abused them to refer to sensors that were not even close to the same dimensions specified in those standards.
Meanwhile "FF" is an acronym for "full-frame," which simply defines the relationship between a sensor and lens. 12 years ago, we all wanted the day to come when there would be an ILC digital camera where the lenses gave us the same ranges of angles-of-view that we were accustomed to from our 135-format cameras. We called such an option "full-frame" because it would mean the lenses were optimized for the digital format they were being used on.
Today, you can get many "full-frame" digital lenses that are optimized for the sensor sizes of ILC digital cameras. The dream we hoped for came true.
Now you get better IQ than 135-format film in a full-frame 4/3" or NEX ILC system that is 1/2 the size, weight, and cost (if not less).
That is, if you're not anchored to the past.
Samuel Dilworth: The serious colour moiré here suggests a weak or non-existent anti-aliasing filter: http://tinyurl.com/6nmemu7
Puts a damper on things...
SDYue, obvious canon employee... very obvious indeed. Look. Some of us shoot ISO 100 indoors on our compact cameras because we have 1.4 lenses on them. Which is impossible with this waste of money called G1X.
Not everyone has spent $5,000+ on heavy, bulky single lens reflex stuff, nor wants to.
That's a foul!
Film wins! Epic
Yes but G1X is not significantly better at high ISO compared to the competition. However, with G1X, you cannot get a fast lens. So you are stuck with a SLOW lens.
I will prefer a Lumix GX1 with a 25mm f/1.4 on it, or 20mm f/1.7... any day... Or an Oly E-P3 with one of those 45mm f/1.8 lenses. That is going to give you MUCH better indoor child pictures, compared against this Canon. And frankly for the price of the canon, you can just about buy an Olympus E-PM1 with a standard zoom AND a 20mm f/1.7.
You people are so ISO-obsessed and completely irrational about it. You zoom into 200% and look at very MINOR differences between cameras, and you falsely believe that those subtle things will even be noticeable on a standard print. To even notice these differences, you have to print at 16x20 and look at the print from about 6" away.
This is stupid. You have no idea how big of a hype engine Canon is spinning behind this thing, trying to undermine mirrorless and delay it...