Craig Atkinson: @dpreview Does this camera have stepped focal length option, 28, 35, 50, 80mm equiv as the Sony rx100m3 does?
Also...Sony have just slashed £100 off the m3, so in the UK it's now 599 - a reactive price I assume!
Why would a tilt down screen be needed?For shooting overhead, I'd simply flip the camera upside down and shoot using my left thumb.
lacikuss: Canon nailed it!
Excellent for 90% of point and shoot users (who don't care about EVF but do care about 100mm reach),
not so for 5% of users who want to take this as a dslr substitute for travel (these care about EVF and don't care about 100mm),
and meaningless for the last 5% who just can't compromise between EVF or 100mm.
Hey then I'm in that 90%!
For me this just makes sense: I don't and never have owned a DSLR but I do enjoy photography and manual control in taking my photos.
I have a family with 2 young kids and and I want to capture most of life's moments with good (not photographically perfect) video and image quality.Phone camera image and video is simply too poor and AF is way too slow.
Cost will come down in 6mo to below $600 and selling my LX7 for $150, I'm out of pocket $450 at most for the best IQ pocketable camera possible which is there 90% of moments I'd like to capture.
If I had an entry level DSLR it would have cost me the same and I'd end up bringing it to less than half of those moments while the rest is capture using my phone camera.
beckmarc: I have been a canon shooter for a number of years and they make great cameras but they have lagged behind in dynamic range in the last few years. Any news on the dynamic range of G7X?
If using the Sony 1" 20MP sensor, then it should be on par.
lacikuss: Amazing how much faster and longer this Canon lens than Sony's RX100M3.
I thought Sony was bragging about their advanced glued lens design. Well they are just an electronics company.
Well we need to see the final production results in terms of lens IQ. The non production shots show SERIOUS IQ issues at tele F2.8 for up close objects.
marc petzold: I'd personally choose a 24-70 or 24-75 all time over 28-100mm focal length over the G7X, and the G7X lacks a viewfinder, a EVF both the RX100 III and LX100 does have...and the Sony is quite better with the XAVC S Codec - so the G7X from Canon is just a "me too" product from the Market Leader, in terms that not many more customers running to Sony or someone else (Panasonic, now) to buy their competition product. Sorry Canon - "too little - too late". 2 Years ago, that wouild have been a fine product...but now, the competition is very hard.
Canon had acknowledged this - therefore pricing their G7X as the cheapest from the 1 inch Sensor trio.
To each their own.I'd take the faster and longer reach G7X, Canon's OOC JPEG colors and camera user interface.
qianp2k: It doesn't have hotshoe built-in that is a major drawback on my opinion, otherwise it seems a very nice compact camera.
I agree with the other posts here. I have a Panny LX7 and have never used the hot-shoe once. I understand many others do, but there truly is a market for folks like me that want a day to day practical "do it all" pocketable camera with the best IQ, HD video and all with manual control.
rpm40: WOW. I was not expecting this from canon at all- I had hoped for essentially a 1" sensor S series, but would not have imagined such a fast lens over the range, and better controls.
This is a really nice release. More appealing to me than the rx100 (I like the added reach and the lower price is a fair trade for no EVF), as well as the LX100 (I want the ND filter, lens cap, and flash built in, and this is MUCH smaller).
Good job Canon! This is my new most wanted camera.
+1 me too. Exactly everything you mentioned above on the RX100 and LX100
Island Golfer: Somehow, I can't see people who pay $700 for a camera that has DSLR controls and shoots RAW taking too many selfies. I wish they had left the tilt screen off in favor of a smaller, thinner profile. It might be useful if you want to shoot a ground level macro-type shot. But, it appears as if it can't be held up over the heads of a large crowd to provide a view of what's in front. Of what real use is it?
I suppose if you're going to have a tilting screen, might as well go 180 degrees and allow selfies.With no EVF I suppose the tilting screen was a must.
Dimit: Cellphones will eat even the 1''category PRETTY SOON! So,similarly sensored cameras will become obsolete as well...with the exception of those providing evf.Apparently cells won't have ever.Bottom line: Right now,rx100/3 better option..lx100 even better(definitely) although somehow heavier..for the time being..
I 2nd the above opinions.Cell phones are still 5+ years away from eating at premium compacts as premium compacts continue to evolve and somewhat eat away from larger sensor cameras.
Biggest downer for cell phone cameras is: poor IQ in low light, poor video, lack of shallow DOF, slow AF and no optical zoom (or limited zoom), meaningful internal flash or ability for external flash.Cell phone cameras are like digital compact cameras of about 5-7 years ago.
The G7X and RX100-III gives rise to premium compacts being able to showoff noticable bokeh, great HD video and near DLSR like AF speeds.
jagge: Canon just cant be innovative even when they try. Compare this to the LX100 and its wealth of innovation.
Its just a quite boring, very standard, digicam. Like any sony 4-5 years ago. Its incredible that canon can run a busyness just on the idea that they are market leaders, i guess its subsidised by a world of soccer moms and dads.
I think the G7X and LX100 are both innovative in their ability to cram such fast lenses into their small bodies (relative to each sensor size)
Yes Canon is playing catch up but at least they have 1+ upped Sony with the lens in reach and speed.
ipribadi: So if I setup a mechanism to remotely capture an elusive animal out in the wild by using a motion sensor to trigger the shot then does it mean the animal is the author?
So how does it work for those auto "smiley" gimmicks they add to p&s cameras that take the shot once every human face in the frame smiles? The last guy that smiles and triggers the shot has ownership?
Well understood that there was no trigger.
My point was regarding pressing the shutter button "seemed" to have given the monkey the rightful ownership of the shot.
Just like the last person to smile in a group shot triggers a p&s camera, simply pressing the shutter button should not = rightful owner of the shot.IMO it can't just be about who triggers the shot but who was more dominant in the whole process of taking the shot.
I'm sure Slater was the one who cropped, re-framed the shot and posted it all without the monkey's permission. :)
OTOH I still do agree with b_craw that in this particular case, the monkey did take, hold, aim (to some degree) and press the shutter button.Hmm ... so perhaps it is correct that ownership is more towards the monkey.
So if I setup a mechanism to remotely capture an elusive animal out in the wild by using a motion sensor to trigger the shot then does it mean the animal is the author?
dwl017: Who exactly is this camera design for? John Doe and his his wife with two kids? or the hipster single guy with disposal cash? The $800 price point seems massive to me given the fact that its still a point and shoot camera. I also disagree with the whole pocketable argument since I doubt very few people are shoving there new $800 gadget into a pants pocket.
So again back to my original question just who sets out on a saturday afternoon to buy a $800 point and shoot camera and how exactly is the price justified given the fact that 90% of the photos taken around the world today are only posted to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or Instagram. Depending on the state you live in within the US this is $850 camera when tax are added.
Perhaps the original Sony RX100 might even be a better option at the end of the day? price point wise. I did a quick Flickr scan of the Canon S120 and all the photos look no different from the current Sony RX100 model.
I'm their target market. Mid 30s, two kids, and some intermediate photog skills. I have a Panny LX7 and don't own a DSLR coz it is too big and heavy.
I want great quality photos in low light and some bokeh capability which only DSLR and ILC offerred until now.My LX7 was a good compromise but now this RX100 III closes the gap considerably.Only thing holding me back is the price but Sony knows they got me.Hoping for a black Friday or xmas deal now.
larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)
To me the RX100 III is getting really close to the holy grail of mobile photog: getting bokeh in a small pocketable camera.
Face it: phone photogs are all over and in good light, the photos look decent IQ wise but lacks bokeh and long focal lengths.
Nowadays phone cameras are adding zoom, but still the laws of optical physics can't be outdone regarding shallow DOF.
DSLR became a hit 5-10 years ago as even lay people realize the bokeh factor seperates the P&S and phones vs. the DSLR "pro" looking photos.
So here the RX100 III now allows decent bokeh at 24mm and 70mm (not much in between tho) which gives off that pro photo look so many lay people love.
This camera is intended for those who don't own a phone or aren't allowed to own a phone yet.Yes it's for the 4th graders and under as it perfectly fits their still small growing hands but have out grown their Fisher Price toy cameras.
FreedomLover: Thank you for the tilting display and the improved sensor, Sony.
RX100 is the best pocketable camera, but it is crippled by:- slow 50mm equivalent, needs to be f1.8- slow tele- mediocre IS- no real macro
The new hot-shoe is good for your revenue, bad for the pocket.Firmware needs to be open source for better options.Also missing an in-camera manual.
Not so fast. Just adding a larger lens or upsizing the front lens doesn't get you larger aperture. The entire lens system must be larger. Besides there's also the auto lens cap.
I regard this CZ lens system much more compact for what it is compared to the LX7's f1.4-2.3 24-90mm Leica.Seriously .. a 1" sensor is huge! we're lucky to get f1.8 at 28mm equiv (10.4mm actual)!
Just checkout the 1 Nikkor lenses (also for 1" sensor) .. they are all huge and none come close to a 10-37mm zoom with f1.8 at wide.
40daystogo: If it had, at its widest, a 24mm f2.0 at least, with vibration control, plus attachable EVF, it would be close to my ideal camera.
The Lumix LX5 / Leica D-Lux 5 had a very sharp Leica zoom lens with f2.0 aperture. Why couldn't Leica have provided something like that?
In the past, I have owned a few Leica cameras, including an M, but I consider it a nonsense for Leica to only offer here a f3.5 maximum aperture.
Leica, you missed the boat on this one. Very disappointed.
24mm equiv @f2.0 lens on an APS-C sensor? You're talking about a whole different form factor.
Combatmedic870: If you dont need video or a articulated screen...The XZ-1 is still what i would go for. ESPECIALLY since its going for $199 right now!!
For compact cam video, IMHO the LX7 takes the crown.The S100 video is just not as sharp as 1080p should be and has more noise in low light shooting.
LX7 has an internal ND filter allowing proper shutter speed in bright scenes and it's fast lens allows low ISO in low light scences.LX7 shoots 1080/60p @28mbps using AVCHD format which is more effecient than H.264, but even so the bitrate is not the bottle neck here for IQ.
Andy, any sensor to DOF comparison data against Olympus XZ-2 ?Thanks!
BadScience: hmm, "without rich shadows, the images look flat".
That is true, so it's strange the photographer ignores his own advice.
The interior of the car - of the original exposures, the top left exposure looks better than the final HDR.
Ditto with the hotel in Havana. All trace of atmosphere has been lost by using HDR. Again, the original exposure is the best.
Although, these images do not have the overt tone mapped look to them, they still feel very artificial. I'd be very tempted to overlay the original exposure on top of the HDR and set the opacity to 90%. So there is just a hint of the extra dynamic range, without the plastic look.
If you want to acheive natural HDR images, you will know you have succeeded when people do not realise that the image is HDR. If this was the aim here, it has failed.
I don't think the goal was to avoid anyone knowing it was an HDR shot, but to retain a mostly realistic look to HDR shots.
The car HDR is meets my taste for HDR, the hotel, a bit over colored, but still pleasing.