Donnie G: Someone mentioned that cameras with in lens stabilization were not capable of more sophisticated 5 axis stabilization as implemented in Oly's in body stabilization design. WRONG. Check the specs on Canon's G1 X mII. The new Canon gives you 5 axis stabilization with body and in lens IS and without moving the camera sensor around.
@Donnie, the problem with touting Canon's new 5-axis in-lens IS is that it can't be retrofitted to older lenses. That's always going to be a limitation of in-lens IS. With in-body IS, if a newer body comes out with more advanced IS, then that newer IS capability can benefit all existing lenses. Furthermore, there's no telling if or when Canon's G1X MKII stabilization system would ever find its way into any other product aside from the G1X MKII! So what you're touting is a rather hallow victory.
Retzius: What the Nikon 1 should have been...
I can't imagine the Nikon 1 system being around for much longer. It just can't be taken seriously, and I can't imagine anyone investing much money in it. It's dead.
love_them_all: So Sony is dropping the touch screen along with the NEX name?
Yes, they are going to drop touch screens *forever*! Never any more touchscreens on Sony cameras ever again! LOL. Relax. Just because this one doesn't have a touchscreen doesn't mean that they are "dropping the touchscreen along with the NEX name."
T3: Now just make an EOS M version: APS-C sensor, EF-M lens mount.
@quiquae - I'm more interested in the body. Give me an EOS M mount body! I don't need it to fit in my pocket. (I'm not so sure how well the G1X II would fit in my pocket anyway.) Lens interchangeability is more important for me. Give me an EOS M with the G1X II's grip, pop-up flash, EVF data port, mode dial, and articulating LCD. All these things would be welcomed improvements to Canon's current EOS M bodies. Sure, the body would need to be upsized a bit over this G1X, but it's still very compact compared to any DSLR.
Fredy Ross: I have a canon dslr and you are wrong pew pew
Why in the world don't you guys photograph these cameras with something identifiable for scale? A stick of lip balm, an AA battery, an iPhone, something more reliable than a pair of hands! Just put it next to the camera somewhere in the photo for size comparison. Hands vary so much in size, it makes it almost impossible to really judge the size of these cameras.
caver3d: This is amazing. I don't understand why so many of you are so perplexed on how to hold the camera. I think it's a great grip and can easily accommodate the right hand well. Not ugly at all. Great move by Sigma.
Well, I wouldn't say it's a "great" grip. And it only seems to "accommodate the right hand" begrudgingly, or as an afterthought. I mean, does that front right edge of the "grip" really need to have such a sharp, unpadded edge to it? And that tiny little (rubber?) patch on the front of the camera seems like just a joke. It's like they were really reluctant to sully the industrial billet slab design of their camera for the sake of adding anything that would make the camera more comfortable for the human hand to touch.
I'm sure the camera is holdable, but I doubt it's going to win any awards for comfort or ergonomics.
It looks like it should be a wide format (6x17) camera. But it's not!
Robert Garcia NYC: hmm, no image stabilization?
@whitebird - yeah, people said the same thing about Panasonic-- it wasn't part of their corporate game plan, since they had already chosen to go the in-lens IS route. But then, Panny came out with in-body IS!
As for it not being part of Sony's "corporate game plan"...well, Sony "corporate game plan" was to buy a stake in Olympus, and are now clearly working with Oly to share camera technology:
and now are supposedly working with Oly to bring Oly's in-body IS to Sony's A-series bodies (link in previous post). And once it's in Sony's A-mount bodies, it's not a far leap to bring that same tech to their E-mount bodies.
As for your claim that "it isn't in the corporate game plan"...so you know exactly what Sony's "corporate game plan" is? And this "corporate game plan" specifically addresses the issue of IS? Gee, I guess the rest of us missed that "corporate game plan" announcement.
@Felice62 - as for not liking "the idea of having your sensor moving", sorry pal, but your sensor already moves...assuming that your sensor has a self-cleaning mode, which every ILC camera now has. These sensor self-cleaning modes work by shaking the sensor to shake any dust off of them. Most cameras go into this self-cleaning sensor-shake mode every time you turn on or off the camera. So if you really don't like the idea of your sensor moving, then I guess you only buy ILC cameras that don't have a sensor self-cleaning feature!
@Felice62 - one can just as easily say the same thing about in-lens optical stabilization being weird-- having a lens element inside the lens floating around...and only being able to have IS by using a lens that has one of those floaty lens thingies inside the lens!
As a Canon SLR user, I've been using in-lens stabilization since the 1990's. In-lens IS is a legacy of the film era. With film, you *had* to put stabilization inside the lens, by way of a floaty lens element. But in the digital age, where you can stabilize the sensor, it makes a lot more sense to have in-body IS. Every lens now becomes stabilized. You can also now have multi-axial (3 and 5 axis) stabilization, too, whereas in-lens "floaty-lens" stabilizers are limited to 2-axis.
BTW, since Sony has now invested in Oly, Oly's 5-axis in-body stabilization is rumored to be coming to Sony's bodies in the future:
Francis Carver: Another yawner from Sony-san. Maybe it'll take decent still pix, but the 24MP sensor sounds crowded. Not good for video, of course, as it uses the banged-up old bad codec AVCHD, and Sony had conveniently "forgotten" to add a microphone jack and/or a headphone jack to the body. I guess it'll be good for something nonetheless.
Also, it would be so nice for Sony to finally retire either their E-mount cameras and lenses or else their Alpha mount cameras and lenses. Why have them both?
Once again, Francis Carver proves that he is the grumpiest know-nothing on dpreview. LOL.
Very strange body design. Lens protruding out the front, grip protruding out the back, sharp angles on the "grip", very long and narrow...just strange.
Now just make an EOS M version: APS-C sensor, EF-M lens mount.
Biggiep: I supposed the G1 X must've sold well for Canon to find it more worthwhile to put in effort to make a successor to it as opposed to fix their EOS M line. This G1 X is the ultimate tweener camera, which means it's half-assed in multiple respects. Too large to fit into a pocket, not large enough to have a viewfinder. Too expensive to not have interchangeable lenses. It's also curious that Canon develops a totally different 1.5" sensor JUST for the G1 X line because as we all know, Canon has been nothing short of legendary when it comes to getting the most out of each sensor design (ahem 18mp APS-C).
And by the way, I hate the notion that a smaller camera is completely pointless unless it can fit inside your pocket. I've found that a smaller camera is still quite desirable even if it doesn't fit in your pocket. That sentiment has always existed, even back in the film days when many people preferred rangefinders over SLRs for their smaller size, even though you couldn't slip a rangefinder into your pants. Less to carry around is still less to carry around, even if it's in a messenger bag or hanging on your shoulder.
I think it's absolutely bizarre that people think that because they came out with a new G1X, it means they aren't putting effort into the EOS M. Canon is a big company, not a mom-and-pop shop. They can do more than one thing at a time!
This is just a camera that doesn't happen to cater to your needs, while catering to the needs of others. But since it doesn't cater to you specifically, you think everything is wrong about it. Typically internet narcism and self-centeredness. Grow up, dude.
noflashplease: Canon has pretty much abandoned the MILC market after the EOS M debacle but they have the time and resources for this thing? Only $299 for an EVF on top of $799 for the camera itself. Really? Is is April 1?
Maybe the G1 X has been a hugely popular and profitable model, with legions of enthusiastic followers waiting for a sequel with an add-on EVF?
For the rest of us, this camera makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I don't think Canon has abandoned MILC at all. But I do think that (as typically with a lot of Canon products), the pricing needs to be adjusted downward a bit. I'm sure the market will eventually take care of that, as it always seems to do.
As for the Canon EVF, keep in mind that Sony's latest external EVF (Sony FDA-EVM1K) goes for $450, although they have an older model that now sells for about $230.
As for who this camera makes "sense" for, I see it as catering to the same buyer that would consider the Sony RX100 II, a $699 camera with an add-on EVF option. But with the GX1 MKII, you get a wider and longer zoom range, plus a larger sensor. So pricing seems about right.
@Zeisschen - whether in the lens or the body, IS still works great wherever you put it. But the advantage of IS in the body is that it gives *every* lens stabilization. Even old manual lenses that predate IS. It's too bad that, when starting these new lens systems, some manufacturers still chose to use in-lens stabilization rather than going with sensor stabilization. But at least Panasonic was smart enough to change direction, after initially starting with in-lens stabilization. Now Panny offers in-body stabilization. Maybe someday, Sony will do the same. Sure, then can still offer lenses with in-lens stabilization. But it'd be nice if they also offered it in the body, too. Having used both in-body stabilization and in-lens stabilization, I don't see any difference in performance. If there are any differences, they are so tiny as to be inconsequential in day to day shooting.
jeremyclarke: TOUCHSCREEN STILL MISSING
Of all the possible omissions this review could have, it's amazing that they didn't harp on the lack of a touchscreen. To my hands it was easily the biggest missing feature on the NEX 6/a7 and was justly pointed out in all the reviews I read of the NEX 6 (especially because the NEX 5x models had touchscreens that people enjoyed).
Without a touchscreen the fastest and most natural form of AF point selection is unavailable, in addition to the ways in which it can enable quick configuration of any setting.
All the OM-D models, including the obvious competitor to the a6000, the EM-10, have touch screens, as do the Panasonic cameras and Canons. Why haven't they fixed this problem in the a6000? It seems like low-hanging fruit.
@antares103 - You probably still use a cell phone with a physical keypad, too! LOL. I love touchscreen on cameras. I can swipe through my images when reviewing them, or pinch to zoom. Settings show up as buttons or scales I can actually touch on the screen, which are much larger and easier to manipulate than the (typically tiny) physical buttons and wheels that are on these compact cameras.
When a device is designed with a good touch UI, it's a real pleasure to use. But I also realize that this is also a generational thing: older people who hate change and can't understand that you can actually interact with a screen with your fingers are the ones that often don't like touchscreens. The younger generation that has grown up with smartphones and tablets and have more adaptable mindsets take to touchscreens quite naturally.
Plus, you can have a touchscreen, and still have tiny, fiddly physical buttons and wheels to use. A camera can have both.
@forpetessake - every decision made by every manufacturer is a "deliberate decision"! Do you think these things happen purely by accident? LOL. But as for the reason, "cost cutting" is hardly ever given as the actual reason by the PR people or press releases. A more common reason is "XYZ product doesn't *need* this feature." That's just PR speak. But the reality is that any time you use a camera when your eye isn't at the viewfinder (which is quite a lot, if you think about it), and you want to interface with the LCD screen (which is a lot, when you think about it), a touch screen really is a nice UI advantage versus using buttons and dials as intermediaries between your finger and what happens on the screen. That's why touchscreen smartphones and tablets are so popular...touchscreen offers a much more intuitive, direct and seamless interface with what you see on the screen.
forpetessake: If the AF performance is indeed what Sony claims, then the slaughter of DSLRs, SLTs is about to begin. I wonder what rabbits Canon/Nikon are going to pull out of their respective hats.
@Lab D - first of all, for such a young system, I think the E system is growing its lens system quite well. Secondly, as for sporting events, I do think that certain hardcore specific types of shooters who currently use DSLRs will continue to use DSLRs, especially for the type of shooters for whom portability is not so much of a factor (like if you're standing on the sidelines of a sporting event). I don't think there will be a "slaughter" of DSLRs, but I do think that the market share of DSLRs will gradually erode, especially with MILC maturing so rapidly. Indeed, MILC is maturing at a much faster pace than SLRs/DSLRs ever did.