Greg Gebhardt: Forget waiting on the DPR review. If you want it and it meets your needs buy it and you will not be sorry. Do not let the negative posts in the Canon Forum sway you as they are typical for haters who are either jealous or trolls.
The G1X MK2 is a VERY capable camera and a worthy one to replace the MK1 version if you are looking for a camera if this type.
sure, according to some very vocal people on the Canon forum everyone who is even mildly critical of this camera is a troll or doesn't know what he is talking about, and every review that doesn't declare the G1X II king is not to be trusted.
Sometimes life can be very simple, just buy and enjoy ;-)
Nindy: I wish Canon would innovate like Sony for the average consumer. Every Canon dslr hd footage I have seen including 5d mk iii is soft (exclude 1c). Well done Sony, I don't need more 12 mp for stills, I haven't heard a Pro Photographer say you need more then this, only mp nerds care. There is much more important aspects to a photo to magnifying 400% and comparing resolution. I have always hoped for a lower resolution for better noise performance, this camera could be a real winner, a dslr that can produce low noise photos and sharp video.
Yes, Canon is very conservative but this also has its advantages. Just look at the huge lens line ... Too bad you can't use EF lenses (with auto aperture, fast AF etc.) on Alpha 7 cameras, that would make them a lot more attractive ;-)
It remains to be seen if this camera is a low noise / low light champion, could be they sacrificed noise performance for fast sensor readout etc. I guess I could live with 12 MP if the DR at low to medium ISO is best in class.
deep7: "While image quality in this class won't compete with a good mirrorless camera paired with a good lens". Actually, the G1X certainly competes. I have an EM1 and good lenses and a G1X and speak from experience. In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold.
Then again, is the G1X series really in the same class as the others? Only on body size. Better to think of the original as a Fuji X100 with a zoom lens and crappy viewfinder...
@ deep7:" In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold."
A 60D without lens doesn't have any image quality. Or do you think that IQ is just a function of the sensor?
@ Menneisyys:it's difficult for the G1X to compete at 24mm or f/2 ... ;-)
I guess the best one can hope for is that the G1X II is at least as good as the G1X at the same focal length and aperture, said otherwise f/2 24mm, macro mode etc. is 'better than nothing'. My impression is that the G1X Ii lens is very soft wide open and that you need to stop down at least 1-2 stops for decent corners; not really a camera for landscape type photographers but possibly great for low light people/event photography and similar stuff.
igorek7: The lens is a high-quality alternative to the cheep and decent Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, similarly as Panasonic-Leica 25mm f/1.4 is to Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. I am considering to buy 15mm together with Lumix GM1. As a kit lens, the price is right.
I now hope that Panasonic would return 150mm f/2.8 to their roadmap, and would design 10mm f/2.5 or similarly wide-angle rectilinear prime.
10mm f/2.5? You can already chose from 10mm f/2.8 and 12mm f/2 (from Samyang). They are big compared to the camera and MF only, but probably good value for money.
Yes, m43 really needs a native bright tele prime in the 150-200mm range, and with an affordable price (below $ 1000, I don't see why they want to ask stellar prices for such lenses). For me that's the major reason for not using m43.
Alan Lai: FF equivalent whine....checkM43 sensor too small whine....checkToo big whine....checkToo expensive whine....checkAperture ring whine....checkOlympus is better whine....check
Back to topic: Good lens and handy focal length. Price is a little bit too high.
@JohnMatrix:agree, looks like a nice lens but doesn't really fit the GM1 concept because it sticks out too much. A redesigned 14mm (with better corners and maybe slightly brighter, even if this increases thickness a bit) would make a better combo with GM1.
AndreSJ: I'm I the only person confused about the actual market that the GM1 is aimed at?? I know its quality is great and I'm a fan of the product but it seems to be aimed at a very small market of people.
The price is high due to it having the same sensor as the GX-7 and it seems like all the lenses being dedicated for it are just as highly priced (yes great quality).
My question is who (if your spending the amount of money that you would have to) wants a camera that small??
There is a market for small cameras with high image quality, but it is difficult to find a good compromise. Using a dim lens (like the GM1 kit zoom) means you lose most of the advantage of the bigger sensor in low light, compared to e.g. a 1/1.7" sensor camera with f/2 zoom lens. Using a bright lens with bigger sensor means the camera gets a lot bigger/heavier (like G1X Mk II), and maybe the lens is more compromised.
I think there is a market for a very compact full-featured camera with 1-1.5" sensor and high quality WA prime lens. My only reservation would be that the lens seems a bit big compared to the GM1 body (not a pancake, which makes it less pocketable than e.g. Ricoh GR).
radissimo: For a second I was thinking about this kit, but why not get Canon G x1 mark II with nice bright zoom lens, bigger sensor and for less?
because this GM1 kit would be much smaller/lighter and probably has a significant advantage in low light. The G1X2 seems to have so-so image quality af f/2-f/4 for most of the range. So if you want sharp images (including the corners) the GM1 may offer about 2 stops advantage, assuming the lens is really good.
some people prefer a prime for street shooting etc., if you want a zoom this clearly is not a camera for you :-)
interesting alternative to the far more expensive Zeiss Touit 2.8/12mm (only available on NEX and Fuji-X though).
Samyang 2.8/14mm FF lens beats the over 5x more expensive Canon equivalent in many ways; I wonder how this SWA lens compares :-)
agentlossing: It will sell, because it's Samsung (and Best Buy will shove it in our faces).
What's the point of a slow (f/3.5), wide (24mm!) prime? Who wants it, beyond someone who will shoot the occasional landscape, and who would be served better by a larger sensor for that purpose?
Odd. Just odd. I think Samsung knows they can take market share away from the more serious mirrorless manufacturers just by releasing something that the lens comes off of.
"what has the thickness to do with optical quality?"
Most pancake style lenses have compromised image quality, especially in the borders/corners of the image. But who knows, maybe this one is an exception to the rule. If it is really sharp I'm definitely interested. It would be a bit like the Ricoh GR concept, but with a bit smaller sensor, tilt LCD and wider view (and with very different ergonomics, but that's another story).
Rachotilko: Thank you for nice review of a nice cam.
However, I expected that after reading it I'd be informed about how good the lens is, esp. wide open. After all, that's the most significant selling point of the product - since the whole concept stands&falls upon the lens resolution @F2.8.
Unfortunatelly, almost all of the samples are taken with aperture narrower than F4. Why is that ?
unfortunately, the samples also show that either the camera or the lens was skewed relative to the subject plane. On the left side RX10 is clearly better than others, on the (top) right side it is a lot worse. Difficult to draw conclusions from that (my impression is that it's mostly a focus plane issue, not blurred corners).
J Parker: Initially I thought this camera was expensive -- then I realized it might be dollar for dollar one of the best camera values around.
If the Zeiss lens is as good or better than the f2.0-2.4 from the days of the Sony F707/717/828, this is tremendous value for the money. Consider the cost of a Canon or Nikon F2.8 24-200mm lens combination -- then ask yourself how much would a Zeiss equivalent would cost.... To add a little more food for thought, years ago, Luminous Landscape did a shoot out between the above mentioned Canon L Glass and the fixed Zeiss lens on the Sony F828. The Canon should have won hands down -- it was a dead heat.
Think about the sum of the parts this camera offers. This camera is worth every dime.
the RX10 is in many ways a worthy successor of the F707/717/828 (and R1), similar concept with the latest technology.
If I remember correctly the 707 or 717 started selling for a similar EUR 1300 price (over ten years ago ...), and it was worth it. A big difference is that in those days DSLRs were just starting to become affordable, and often had little choice in good WA/standard zoom lenses; this makes the RX10 more a niche camera than the F-series in its days.
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW: There must be a market for these things,
Nikon keeps investing in their 1 series, now Samsung.
I don't get it really, The NX300 costs almost the same, with a18/55.
Probably a style exercise, a model to create as thin lenses as possible.
Now their engineers have a platform to try thsoe thin lenses, if it fails, than it is because of the mini, so the mini dies and the other cameras do not suffer from it.
Still i don't get it, there is absolutley no benfit whatsoever in using a 1 sensor over a 1/1.7.
Enough enthousiasts cameras in the same price range that perform just as good.
A 1 cannot create bokeh with these small and slow lenses anyhow.
"no benfit whatsoever in using a 1 sensor over a 1/1.7."
really? So all the buyers of RX100, Nikon 1 and similar cameras are delusional and should buy a 1/1.7" compact/ILC instead??
Great to see more competition and some new ideas in the 1 inch sensor arena :-)
straylightrun: The Samsung 17mm 1.8 looks promising. Not only is it smaller than the Nikon 18/1.8, but it also has IS.
Talking about size with the pancake, let's add the Ricoh GR to the comparison: slightly bigger, but also bigger sensor, brighter lens and very high optical quality (but fixed lens ...).http://camerasize.com/compact/#467,545.414,454,ha,f
Hachu21: What's the point to make interchangeable lenses on a small sensor if they are not faster than the RX100 series???
"Its Wi-Fi connectivity and flip-up LCD suggest that it's aimed at a socially-driven user, someone who wants concert photos and pictures of friends and isn't too concerned about changing settings."So i doubt it will be interested in swapping the lense..."The 'selfie'-loving, socially-driven user is not likely to care whether the lens comes off or not "+1
Another strange concept... designed better for asia market?
"What's the point to make interchangeable lenses on a small sensor if they are not faster than the RX100 series"
They ARE faster than RX100 series at 50mm equiv. (which is more useful for getting some DOF isolation than maximum WA). And it is safe to assume that there will be a few more lenses in future, with better tele aperture than the f/4.9 of RX100.
Jogger: I've always said that interchangeable cameras with smaller than APSc sensors make no sense. Might as well get an RX100.
"Name at leas one smaller and more flexible camera!"
that does depend on what one considers 'flexible'. If you need 24mm wide, or a better aperture at tele than f/4.9, the RX100 isn't flexible at all...
Hannu108: "While it's great that the mini will be available with the 9mm prime, F3.5 is awfully slow."
Is it sooo awful???
"The 28mm end on the Sony RX100 is f1.8."
and how bright is the 24mm end? ;-)
Also, it really depends on quality - the RX100 zoom isn't very good in the borders/corners until about f/5.6. If the Sammy prime is sharp at f/3.5-4 (including the corners) it could be attractive.
2eyesee: You're better off with a premium compact like the Canon G16 or Olympus XZ-2. While the 1" sensor on the Samsung is 3x larger than a 1/1.7" sensor, and therefore gathers 1.5 stops more light, you lose 2 stops when you pair it with an f/3.5-5.6 lens compared to f/1.8-2.8 on a 1/1.7" sensor, which leaves you worse off.
worse off? only if you want to take pictures in low light conditions, and just 1/2 stop isn't much (difference e.g. in IS systems or shutter shock will be more important). And for those who only do low light photography, there is an f/1.8 prime ...In medium to good light the much bigger NX mini sensor should show a clear advantage, assuming the lenses are high quality.
JEROME NOLAS: I am not sure what to think about this camera, but I think it would stand a bigger chance if the lens is built in, like RX100.
agree that starting at 24mm equiv. makes the zoom interesting, and the 24mm equiv. prime is interesting as well - assuming the optics are really high quality, with better borders/corners than the RX100 (which might be difficult to achieve with a removable instead of fixed lens).
G1X2 and P8000 (also 1 inch sensor) seem to be aimed at different type of customer, but if the optics of the NX mini are great it could be an alternative for some.