Do images MUST be black and white, or monochromatic (sepia etc.) is also OK?
Wedding photographer: Comparison with VM 21 mm / F 1,8 Ultron will be interesting.
No fair comparison. 1.8 and 2.8 are two different leagues. It would be great if 1.8 is the same or better quality (from 2.8 onwards) than 2.8, but...
Chris Yates: Yikes!!! The more I look at these the more I prefer the look and handling of the classic ZF and ZE lenses. The 21mm, 100mm and 85mm are not particularly attractive. Besides there's nothing more satisfying than cold hard metal touching your fingertips.
All lenses but 1.4/50 and 1.4/85mm have the same number of elements/groups as ZF and ZE Zeisses. Should that mean that they are just redesigned? And yes, I also don`t like the look and handling of new birds of prey by Zeiss.
codeNsnap: Super ! Thanks Tamron. Finally a compact 35mm with VR/VC for us Nikon shooters. Will be my second Tamron prime after my 90mm VC Macro which has been stellar for macros and portraits.
As I already wrote, EOS pancakes are great (at least on APS-C, what I am using). People say that EOS 1.8/50mm is also great. I was eager to see Samyang 2.8/10mm, an when I saw some sample photos, I was disappointed. It is not compact (some 10-xx mm zooms are smaler - OK, not 2.8, but are zooms), it doesn't take filters (10-xx mm zooms do), and I wasn't pleased with test images - 10-xx zooms seam better or at least as good as Sam. And so on...
Compact? These are HUGE lenses for what they are... Can somebody make a compact AND quality prime anymore??? (Sorry Canon, your pancakes and few more are.) And yes, I am not a FF shooter...
electrophoto: About the ND100'000:Cheap alternative: Welding Shield (Grade 13 solid).... works well and costs only a few quid.might not be the same optical quality (quite certainly not) but if you're looking for a cheap option, easily affordable... that's a good thing.
If you decide to try Baader, the trick with AstroSolar and Mylar sheets is to mount them on the lens/scope lose, not tightly stretched...HTH
Digitalis32: The question is are they colour neutral?
What about custom white balance?
RichRMA: No idea if an ND is that safe (or good quality enough) for solar shooting. Consider using Baader Solar Film or glass filters from Thousand Oaks Optical. Both are metallized to screen out UV and IR.
ND filters of proper density are as safe as Baader or Thousand Oaks, because you don`t use them for gazing into the Sun, just to frame it and focus. I use AstroSolar ND3.8 for imaging and ND5.0 for watching sunspots as they are much cheaper and I can cover large apertures for just a few bucks. Nota Bene: these are logarithmic values, not linear as in photographic filters.
I used welding glass for solar imaging some ten years ago, but I was not satisfied with image quality. I don`t know if glass surfaces were not plane enough, or they were not plan parallel, or both, or something else. Now for solar imaging I use Baader Astrosolar Safety Film that is also cheap alternative. It costs some 25€ for a 20x30 cm sheet, and you can cut it into several sizes for all your needs.
Marty4650: I wonder if Nikon and Canon are paying attention?
They are listening only what top pros have to say. They are not interested in vox populy, but there is the market... And it is the key to Fuji`s success.
SONY FF E cameras now need a quality prime in a 18-20mm range... But not as heavy and bulky as 1.4/35mm is. F 2.8 or even 3.5 should be enough for me.
sbansban: For me the biggest thing that could make or break this camera would be how fast this lens is (and of course, the quality of the lens - sharpness being my most important criterion aside from the other usual suspects like distortion, CA and so on). As many have speculated, if it's F2.8-F5.6, it's not very promising. But despite the lack of an EVF, given it's 1" sensor and relatively compact size, G3X would still have its niche, especially if the price is right.
Almost every camera has it`s niche, but is it`s niche large as it is aimed to?
Mike FL: OK, this Canon G3X has no build in EVF for sure.
I like to know if Canon G3X-MK2 will have a pop-up EVF as seem from SONY RX100-MK3.
Or we will waiting for G3X-MK3?
We can wait...
MkII will lose it`s option for external EVF, MkIII will have shorter lens, and if there is an MkIV, it will be even more striped. That is the Canon way...
They`ll need to put an EVF in a MkIV body, make compact and good 10mm WA, 40mm Macro, 65mm, and some other primes if they want to convince me about their "serious intentions".
Rod McD: A 1" sensor, an add-on EVF and a super-zoom??? This is a different line of camera from the G1X's. I'm still using the original 1.5" sensor G1X with its crappy OVF, slow between shot times and great IQ (at modest ISOs). I'll upgrade it one of these years with a suitable replacement. ATM, the LX100 would be leading the race. However, a BUILT-IN high grade EVF is an absolute requirement. I simply don't want an expensive, external, add-on EVF that blocks the flash shoe in use and gets left at home, lost or whatever. An egregiously bad idea. Please give us a complete camera.
If it is a necessary trade of to save size (and price), than built-in EVF and no built-in flash. EVF would be used most of the time, not the flash.
LiSkynden: Looking at that one pic it looks like it has a "selfie" LCD YAY!!!
Great for selfies at 600mm!!! ;)But there is tiltable LCD, I am quite positive.
mcshan: I am not a superzoom guy. I would take the G1X I and II over this any day. I know this is a different series and would guess research shows there is a target audience.
I would like them too, but if there is a built-in EVF... Dream cameras IF evf.
Neil189: Why are the dpreview forum members such whiners? If you don't like it, buy something else. This camera is better than most people know how to use, is the first of its kind on the market, and we don't even know how it may or may not perform. Go out and take a picture and quit being so negative. Look now I'm whining too. Sheesh.
The point is: with built-in EVF it would be closer to ideal of camera I want; without one, just another junk camera. Lumix LX100 would be the one, but at 75mm as the longer FL, it is to short. If it reaches at least 100-130mm (G1xII would be great with built-in EVF), I would not look elsewhere. (I know it is hard to compare 1" and 4/3 sensor, but I am making compromises.)
Joriarty: Where are you folks getting the idea that there's no EVF? You can't tell that from the front view! That could be a pop-up EVF on the top there, like the RX100 III. Way to jump to conclusions.
From this image of the mockup, I can also tell that it should have a tiltable (not fully articulated) LCD, too... Not only a "no EVF".
cgarrard: Canon save some production costs, scrap this, and re-design with a built in EVF. It's absolutely clear to me that while you'll make a minority of purchasers happy with this camera announcement, that you've made a grave error in not designing it to please the majority who are interested in this segment.
ALL of the last G series models are san's viewfinder- and you have to be absolutely blind not to see that the desires of enthusiasts want BUILT IN finders.
Next you'll see Canon eliminate the optical finders in their DSLR's.
Well, due to their avoiding to implement a built-in EVF`s, I am no longer their fan. And I am seriously considering selling my EOS system, too, and switching to Nikon (or even Sony A7). Like long ago Nikonians once switched to EOS.Canon wants to become a leader on the mirrorless market within a year? What a nonsense! No way without a built in EVF.