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...
Timmbits: I've yet to see much any bokeh in the samples... is it just that no one tried any, or that the combination of lens speed and sensor size just don't cut it? I get more out of my Nikon P7000 that I'm looking to improve upon. I can't wait to see what the competition will introduce this spring... on what the G1X should/could have been. I guess when you don't want to cannibalize your own market share held by your more profitable products, you won't be as competitive as those seeking to infringe on your market share.
PS: I do believe this is the first in a new trend! What the G12/P7000/XZ-1 category should have been. I'll be on the lookout for faster lenses from the competition, and more price cometition by fall... unless one manufacturer decides to jump the gun to make strides in marketshare and mindshare.
Greg, why would anyone want a DSLR when you could have a mirrorless camera? The mirror in a DSLR serves literally no technical purpose. Canon could easily make a mirrorless equivalent to 5D series, and all associated lenses, if they chose. Then you would not be encumbered by bulky viewfinder apparatus etc. "But I want a viewfinder" -- you know what? Then every picture you take is from your head's perspective. Been done before. Open your perspectives.
mayogeezer: Has a viewfinder, so why wasn't the comparison with the G3 ?
Obvious Canon employee sdyue at it again... how much do they pay you to post this garbage?
Seriously, your argument is this:
"G1X has a slightly less bad worst quality mode than G3."
Here is the truth:
ISO 6400 looks like garbage on both these cameras. So who cares?
None of the so-called "halos of acutance" or other mumbo-jumbo that you are spouting has bearing on actual reality.
I personally challenge you to a blind test when the G1X comes out. I will print a series of 16x20" prints from Canon G1X, Olympus E-PL3, Panasonic GX1, and Sony NEX-5N. I will take the same image exactly the same settings on all. And I will challenge you to be able to pick out the G1X from all them.
Then think about how much you are spending on a camera which has no future, no lens options, and costs the same or MORE than cameras with far better expandability.
Consumers would be complete idiots to waste their hard-earned money on a G1X. Of course you are proof that some people will buy it anyway!
101er: sdyue - I'm in love with you-deeply! At last ONE human being who appreciates the significance of a an OV for a certain type of camera and its equally typical user!I've been skimming comments for hours on end (fuji X10-G12-P7100 ) Nasty!
"Tunnelview- no control - a.s.o." BUT - this one works at the speed of light - AND - ifyou need to compose, there is still the screen. So what can be wrong with a camera that offers you brillant IQ, when cropping will rather meancrapping in other cameras of similar size , lens and money?I can only hope that more of you will read ALL of sdyue's comments on this.
Obvious alt-account is obvious.
Jeffrey Lockwood: Can someone explain to me why Canon would get rid of the ISO dial and instead keep the exposure comp? I never, ever, use the exposure comp settings on either my G11 or my 7D, but I change ISO all the time. If you shoot RAW, why would you ever need to? Other than doing some HDR work, which if you are advanced enough to want to do that, you should be using RAW. I understand that a lot of photography novices will buy this camera but it really is a very good pocket camera for those with DSLRs and why wouldn't you cater to that market a bit more? Can someone give me a good reason for exposure comp that perhaps I don't know about?
Yes, Live View exposure simulation shooting with live histogram... Another idea they copied from Olympus, just like they copied the Quick Menu... and added the rotating screen to SLRs... etc. Sigh.
But we must agree, full 'm' is an appropriate shooting mode for people who want to control everything.
OneGuy: I have a distinct feeling that Canon doesn't want to get into MIL cams because it thinks it can hide poor design and get away with poor performance with integrated lenses and regardless of the sensor size.
I read about the dust eventually winning in Canon's G cameras (this tells me I don't want a used one). Poor workmanship could be the cause of Canon S100 off-center lens when dpr had to get four cam samples before it was able to get decent pics for their studio series (this tells me I don't want a used one or a new one). I purchased Canon SX 230HS and experienced a nasty flare under bright yet cloudy skies (I would not recommend this cam to anyone).
Hope springs eternal, yet new integrated-lens models will perpetuate the basic philosophy of producing cheap cams -- and price has nothing to do with cost. MIL cams, however, cannot be easily slipped in as the lens quality has its own competitive space.
When will Canon introduce MIL cams? When you, guys, get smart.
Canon did introduce an EOS MIL in 2011, were you smoking crack and did not see it? Here's a link to the introduction:http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/4/canoneoscinema
But anyway ... I guess you meant a CONSUMER MIL... Canon does not give much of a crap about consumer market, LOL.
Look, they are not going to cannibalize their own Rebel sales with a new MIL camera until such time as they are forced to do so by overwhelming forces.
I like the Rebels ... they are nice cameras. I think the 60D is one of the best cameras for the money on the market. Canon is a great company and they make a lot of great glass. But they are firmly anchored in the 1990s-era technology.
I don't think SLRs are dead yet. A lot of people like to see through the lens. SLRs will still be around for a few more years as a viable segment. But it's technically more complex to build an SLR, and most consumers will not care to pay the extra next christmas. We all know it.
Sdaniella: MIL cameras will always be handicapped by non-compactness, and risks to exposure to the elements (no sense appealing to sensor cleaning when stuck in the field)
G1X the sensor is an improved processed 60D/7D crop sensor, and this is welcome given no alternatives for ILCs.
agree... i never use 'compensation' given i shoot 100% 'full M' w/ 5DMkII
it's better to have a dedicated button or dial for ISO, and allow sensitivity simulation (exposure simulation) live full-time preview to be had 'real-time-while-adjusting' without any menu interruptions or preview 'toggling' (like 'part time' live preview of competitors.)
Mirrorless is still a ways off, given advantages never existed (compactness never existed unless one has to switch to a flat prime, or a limited zoom, which is NOT pocketable by any measure: e.g. m43 perfect example of 'bulk' even w/ m43 short zooms)... worse... m43 IQ now worse than a PowerShot G1X...
if Pro1 X will offers a 24mm FOV (35mm equiv)= great!28mm not wide:P
Obvious Canon employee!
OK SDYue... then why is the Lumix GX1 actually smaller than a Canon G1X? Hmm?
I shoot a PEN E-P1 with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 ... it will stomp all over a G1X in every respect, in terms of image quality. Also I will buy you a free G1X if it has faster than even an E-PM1 Olympus, a $450 camera that has about the same image quality and probably weighs less and has wireless flash control, bracketing, in-camera RAW development, art filters, in-camera stabilization that works even with manual lenses when used with an adapter, etc.
If you think mirrorless cameras are not compact, then you are smoking crack absolutely. I sell mirrorless cameras all day long to people who all buy them because they are compact. THEY ARE HALF THE SIZE OF DSLRs. Olympus E-P3 is half the size or less than a Rebel.
Everyone's compact camera now is the iPhone 4S.
So now it goes like this:iPhone 4SCompact: Olympus PEN Full Frame ILCFull size: Leica S2 Full Frame ILC
Canon's OK too
Sdaniella: Canon, seriously has to offer prosumers
who already have plenty of the best dSLRs in use: be it 5DMkII, 7D, (um, ok, 60D, 600D (ugh, a Rebel; no EOS-1 controls))... and maybe even any number of '24mm' fov EF/EF-S lenses...
EF24 f/1.4 II (got it)TSE 24 f/3.5 II (got it)EF24-70 II... (maybe)EF24-105... (um, no thx)EF-S15-85... (only if i had APS-C)
and then, finally... took Canon long enough, to finally offer on a semi-prosumer SX (30 IS & 40 HS) and S (S100) series, a 24... for PowerShots... 'sub-flagship'...
BUT WHERE IS THE 24 on the Flagship G!!!!!???? is it on the Pro1X ????
WE WANT a G with 24 FOV... (as a prosumer pocketable for 24/7 duty!!!! PLEAAAASSSEEE)!
we're not going to abandon our EOS LV dSLRs with ExpSim LV 1080p just because the Pro1X has a 24!!!!
the G1X is 'almost' what i want, and no, i will skip it like i skipped the G2... G12...
5DMkII girl here...former PowerShot G1 (adapter w/ 0.7x... 23.8mm)and Sony R1 (24-120... hint.. hint...)) shooter...
Can we PLEASE stop talking about angles in terms of what they relate to on a format that represents less than 2% of all cameras sold? Almost nobody shoots 135-format anymore. DX-format, EF-S-format, 4/3"-format, and CX-format are ALL full-frame formats. The sensor is full within the image circle which is also full. The frame is full. They are all full frame.
The angle of view you want is 84.1° (degrees). Technically speaking there is only one company that makes a zoom lens for an ILC that starts at 84.1°, which is Olympus 12-60mm SWD 2.8-4. Of course the new Olympus 12-50mm 3.5-6.3 also begins at 84.1°. Canon EF-S 15-85 is 83.6°. Nikon 16-85 is 83°.
Of course if you want a good, small camera with 84° wide angle then just get the Lumix LX-3, probably the best one with that wide angle (I like its image quality better than LX-5, YMMV).
Mssimo: Wow, canon sharpens the image in RAW! That is cheating right? Compare the queens face to the D7000 or other "nice" sensor.
They only set it to sharpen the RAWs on the one that they send to DPReview. ehehe
Sdaniella: m43 led the way in over-sharpening... they knew folks would like it even if in fact it adds excessive accutance haloes and other digital artifacts
right now, looking over at imaging-resources previous IQ samples, the G1X exhibits better fabric details than any m43 and many dSLRs of similar pixel pitch.
so, for a prosumer digicam, it is great.
calling it a P&S is a bit low, as plenty of m43 and dSLR shooters are P&S shooters too (using AE modes, auto-this-n-that, etc), nothing wrong, with auto-P&S modes, but why call the G1X that, when all cameras have such P&S modes?
would it be fair to call m43 non-compact 'compact wannabe' toy interchangeable cameras? not really, but it isn't that far off the mark really... higher 'focus' free' look... yes, that's what the masses want because it is 'easy' to get 'nice' photos...
M43 is a just format. The only thing that it "led the way" in was the mirrorless revolution, which is making SLRs increasingly irrelevant, and of course Canon hates this, which is why the G1X is here. But Micro Four Thirds did not lead the way in "over-sharpening," that's just a hateful LIE. Panasonic doesn't over-sharpen. Olympus actually sharpens their images so they look good as prints -- try printing both these samples and see what looks best! On actual prints, you are not looking at pixels, you are looking at pictures. I have conducted "blind" tests showing people sample prints from PEN vs. NEX, Rebel, and others, at 11x14" size, and they always choose the PEN images as having the best color and sharpness. I wonder why? And it's not like you can't turn the sharpness down if you want, or shoot in "soft focus" art mode on PEN. Micro Four Thirds system lenses are very sharp indeed (Lumix 20mm f/1.7, Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4, Lumix 7-14mm f/4) and they're all FULL FRAME, literally.
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!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review