Simon97: I never could come to terms with Canon's JPEGs that have rather intense sharpening halos around contrasting edges. Best to shoot raw. Something might be up with the lens as the upper right area is sharp but the other three corners have an issue. Hopefully not another Canon decentered lens lottery.
look at the images from other review sites and draw your own conclusion ... they all look decentered to me (but of course, scaled down to 2 MP you won't see that so not relevant for the average buyer of this camera ...).
proxy: Seems Canon has a sharp lens and nice color rendition, too bad no EVF.As per Imaging resource tests it seems to be sharper then Sony RX100 III, Lumix LX100 etc. differences are small but visible. Original G7 which I still own and I'm not willing to part with yet (excellent tool for day to day use) has a really sharp lens, hard to beat, with spot on AF. Feature-wise Sony RX100 III is better no doubt, but as a photography tool G7X really delivers. No disappointment here. I'm pleased to finally see a G7 on steroids. Lens IS A KEY and Canon lens seems to be better then Sony's Zeiss in Sony RX100 III. Corners could be a bit better but they are not bad by any means. Hate the smallish RXIII-alike form factor, should be tad bigger with a better grip. Compared to G7X Sony tends to blow highlights with overall more pale colors. G7X images are really good for 1inch sensor, better then the competition IMO.
the G7X lens is only sharp if you just look at the image center. As soon as you look at the border/corner areas, RX100-3 is MUCH sharper in the complete WA range. For normal to tele the G7X lens is nice, but it is definitely NOT the best lens for those shooting primarily in the WA range.
Samuel Dilworth: I cannot understand why any camera, much less a €600 one from a big brand, is slow in 2014. My two-year-old iPhone can take pictures as quickly as I can pump the trigger. SLRs have responded effectively instantly for about a decade, during which time ASICs have advanced enormously. What is the excuse for sluggish response in a brand-new machine designed purely for taking pictures?
I was hopeful that the low battery life of the G7 X (itself not a problem for me) was indicative of significant onboard computing power and an end at last to the slowness that has plagued Canon compacts since the beginning. Evidently not.
I guess it is slow because of the huge amount of lens corrections that are required for the display and the final images ;-(
Processing G7X RAW images takes many times longer in DPP than processing RAWs from my DSLR...
mpgxsvcd: It is clear from this article that Dpreview does not respect Canon anymore. There were some pretty snide remarks in the article.
time for the Canon fanboys to start a total DPR forum boycot :-)
uzevla: Seriously, what's this trend with using low-end EVFs just to satisfy some "pro" wannabees ?0.46x magnification and 1.1K dots - who needs that ?
Compact camera like this one needs good LCD. 3.3" would be good, yet they gave us 16:9 LCD which is more like 2.5". Hopefully, they didn't do what Sony is doing as their 921K 16:9 LCD on Nex6 is extremely dim - Samsung OLED w/ 230K looks better than that.
On top of this, flash sync speed stays 1/50.
Who is buying this crap ?
YOU need ..... keep stating your demands, but you are clueless.
Many photographers are less demanding than you and accept that every camera is a compromise. Why MUST a camera hava a state-of-the-art EVF? Just being able to frame in bright light with an EVF and see basic control information can be all you need, especially if it means the camera can be lighter and cheaper and saves battery power.
perry rhodan: Built in flash doing wireless would be nice! Touch and swivelscreen. Separate EVF, tele macro, some kind of wheatersealing. Room for an OLY XZ 100 then?
Yes, despite the impressive feature list the lack of a tilt screen puts this camera much lower on my list. Really a surprise as the FZ1000 does have EVF and tilt screen ...
And when comparing to cameras like G7X and RX100-3, that LX100 lens better be VERY high quality to compensate for the increased weight/size/price... will be interesting to see how much better the LX100 is with all those ED/aspheric lenses (I guess RX100-3 and G7X also use special lens technology ...).
Henrik Herranen: The new G7X sure is closer in size to the S120 than the G1X.
G7X vs G1X Mark II:http://j.mp/1ubUF5KG1X Mark II weighs almost double that of G7 X and is significantly bigger in every way.
G7X vs S120:http://j.mp/1ubUYxyG7X weighs 40% more than S120. Its width and height is very similar, but it's a whole centimeter deeper. Try changing camera direction to see for yourself.
The G7X might be too big for me, as I currently own an S110 for my pocket camera needs. But the potential IQ benefit from the larger sensor and two stops faster tele aperture is tempting. In low light I consider the S110 a fixed focal length camera, but with the G7X it would be possible to zoom a bit even at less than perfect light. Also, the G7X wouldn't be diffraction limited at full tele + full aperture (S110's f/26 equivalent in the long end is nothing to write home about).
All in all, this camera has a respectably small form factor for what it is: a camera with a 1" sensor and an f/1.8-2.8 4x zoom lens.
regarding 'diffraction limited' S110 at maximum tele: I found the images of the S110 at 120mm to be VERY sharp (very fine details visible), but low contrast (a bit 'hazy'). With some PP they can look quite good, I don't think diffraction is the real problem here.
Big advantage that I see for G7X compared to S110 (I tried one but returned it due to insufficient IQ): due to the much bigger sensor there is more leeway for in-camera processing like distortion and vignetting correction. In the S110 this produces visible increase in noise and artifacts near the borders, even at low ISO (especially when working with the lens full open). I see the same in G7X images (especially increased noise and more 'rough' looking texture towards the corners), but the effect is much milder and acceptable to me.
And of course, the G7X can finally produce some decent DOF control, a big step up from the S series.
h2k: 24 mm equiv. at f1,8 sounds nice. But i had (around) these parameters on the G1X MkII – and the image quality was bad. It only got better around f3,5 or so.
The monitor hinging is very unfortunate for all but selfie-enthusiasts. Now there is no angle at all to shoot top-down – say onto a plate of food, onto a low flower or above a crowd. I use this perspective regularly. This newest iteration of the verticially hinged monitor is even more useless than the more common vertically hinged monitor that allows at least some kind of top-down view.
I have no idea why almost every company now abandons the much more versatile side-hinged monitor, which easily gives you many more perspectives onto a subject.
question for DPR crew: how does the G7X handle when turned upside down for 'over-the-head' shots?
@hk: G1X2 needs stopping down 1-2 stops for good quality, especially at the extreme ends of the zoom range and for closeups. Probably the same goes for G7X (already clear at f/2.8 100mm). Do you know similar cameras that don't have this problem wide open? RX100 isn't great wide open either, although RX100-3 seems a bit better than G1X2 wide open. If the image quality wide open is insufficient, maybe better buy a camera with slower (smaller, lighter, cheaper) lens that is sharp at f/3.5, e.g. GM5 with kit zoom?
olypan: Love the way dpr have manipulated the front page with Canon headlining all week with articles on the weakest introductions at Photokina.Substitute any other brand for these dismal products and the Amazon control is obvious.
funny, over at the Canon forum some people are loudly complaining about the 'Nikon sponsored Photokina coverage'.
I guess Canon has a bit more new camera products at Photokina than most other companies (who may have chosen to introduce new gear on other tradeshows or simply as soon as it is ready).
ThomV: pre-ordered... but curious, if the main feature that distinguishes this from the GM1 is the addition of an EVF, meaning that enthusiasts were purchasing almost solely for this reason, why would they put a cheaper low resolution version in there, why not a nice big high rez unit? I wonder if the HDMI port functionality has changed from the GM1. The GM1 only allowed playback out of the HDMI port, it would be welcome to allow live monitoring or better yet, clean uncompressed recording too as a bonus.
big high res unit: bigger camera, more power drain, higher cost. Just doesn't match the GMx concept.
Catalin Stavaru: Increasing the size of the camera was the stupidest thing Panasonic could do. Just make a detachable EVF and bundle it with the camera for free, not necessary to ruin the camera appeal and the display size for a small EVF.
I like to have an EVF but I would NEVER consider a detachable EVF that makes the camera definitely non-pocketable, is inconvenient in many ways, tends to get lost or damaged etc.
An add-on EVF for such a compact camera is a kludge, bad idea. For big equipment it's another story.
the 'crap' you are talking about was acceptable to every pro videographer just 5-10 years ago. I used several digital cameras with 200K or so viewfinders around ten years ago, and they saved the day many times. People who call this 'crap' don't know what they are talking about.
An EVF, even a basic one, can have big advantages over an LCD (especially a fixed one) e.g. for using the camera against the eye (better stability, not obvious from a long distance that you are taking a picture), for those with aging eyes or to make sure you can see the image as seen by the camera in very bright light.
technic: yet another machinegun style brick from Canon with no real improvement in sensor quality compared to 8 years ago or so ... really sad. Dual pixel is some progress, but not in image quality where it was really needed given the advantage that Nikon and Sony have had for several years now.
IMHO the most boring upgrade in a long time :-(
@brownie314:Yes, and that 70D is hardly better than the top APS-C models from 6-8 years ago (almost same DR, 1/2 stop better High ISO performance, only a bit more resolution). No progress in IQ.
yet another machinegun style brick from Canon with no real improvement in sensor quality compared to 8 years ago or so ... really sad. Dual pixel is some progress, but not in image quality where it was really needed given the advantage that Nikon and Sony have had for several years now.
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 don't understand what someone who thinks cellphones will soon beat 1" quality compacts does on a site like DPR ...
Cell phones are a joke for ergonomics, and I'm not even going to discuss all the issues with pinhead sensors, crappy lenses, lack of a real aperture etc.
technic: typically Canon: a bit dull, nothing revolutionary - but a very solid product that provides strong competition to RX100-2/3 and LX100 (also in price). We can expect better ergonomics and better color from the G7x compared to RX100 series; the big question is lens quality. If the lens really performs (without needing to stop down) this is a winner. Too bad about the low battery capacity but this isn't surprising, just buy an extra one ...
I like the EVF, bigger sensor and the looks of LX100, but it remains to be seen if that camera really has better image quality. It should, given the extra bulk and higher price ...
LX100 should have 1/2-1 stop better low light performance than G7X due to the effectively 50% bigger sensor and the better equivalent aperture of the lens. But the Canon has 50% more pixels, and even if you don't need 20MP those pixels should help improve the quality of in-camera lens corrections, and they offer more room for cropping (on top of the already larger tele reach).
l_d_allan: I wonder why the battery life is so underwhelming. Is it because there just isn't room for a larger battery, in order to keep size and weight down?
Or is it "power hungry", suggesting less than impressive engineering?
FWIW: one of my "pet peeves" is that there seems no legitimate reason to not have a real "finger grip" that would also allow a larger battery.
IMO, one of the more important specs on a compact camera is the depth dimension, which greatly influences "always with you pocket-ability". My Canon S110 easily goes in my shirt pocket or jeans pocket.
With a grip that is the same depth as the retracted-when-OFF lens, you don't lose ANYTHING in pocket-ability. A real "grip" on my S110 would significantly improve handling, especially one-handed.
Ok, some weight and maybe a bit higher fabrication cost? However, I don't consider "weight" to be a particularly important spec in a compact camera that has an objective of pocket-ability ... an ounce or so at the most difference?
it is sad indeed that despite lacking an EVF (EVF usually means more battery drain) G7X has the worst battery capacity among its competitors. Maybe it was important for Canon to keep the weight low compared to RX100-2/3; I guess the brighter lens adds some extra weight.
balios: My LX5 fits into a large pocket and from the published specs it appears the G7X is just a hair smaller.
On the other hand, the LX100 appears to be massive (in comparison). For the size and price of a LX100, why wouldn't I just get a proper M43 camera? If I'm going to have a camera strap over a shoulder, I'll just bring a full-sized camera.
Yes - the LX100 needs to have clearly superior image quality, otherwise it seems much bulk and extra cost for very little gain.
For me the GM5 with compact kit zoom would be a potential alternative, but if it has no tilt screen and only a very basic EVF it doesn't look very attractive (we should know more tomorrow?). Keep in mind that an m43 camera with f/2.8 standard zoom is going to be much bigger and more expensive than 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?
apart from the big advantage that you can take shots from unusual (low) angles - BIG advantage as most people know who have worked with such cameras - it helps in viewing the display in unfavorable lighting (view LCD at optimal angle, shield external light). I don't like the 'selfie' option but well ... it's a sign of the times I guess ;-(
For those with aging eyes, a tilt screen helps in viewing the small detail on the LCD without having to work 'at arms length'; an EVF would be even better for that, but I think it is an acceptable workaround.
raay: Please make this into a G series , with same lens but G16 like Body , with EVF , I was looking at rx100 MIII but i dont need video. Atlast Canon has brought out something worthy.
Canon always leaves something out for the next model ;-)