Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Jan 16, 2012 at 19:15 GMT

Just Posted: We've spent a couple of days shooting with a pre-production Canon PowerShot G1 X. We've prepared a 30 image gallery, shot in a range of lighting conditions and using a variety of focal lengths, ISO settings and apertures, in addition to the studio examples we've already posted. The G1 X may look like an existing G-series compact but fits a near DSLR-sized sensor into its slightly brick-like body. So what does this mean for image quality and does its f/5.8 maximum aperture at the long end of the zoom rob it of its low-light potential? Click here to judge for yourselves.

We've also shot three 1080p24 sample videos:


Canon Powershot G1 X preview samples gallery

There are 30 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

 Canon PowerShot G1 X pre-production samples gallery - posted 16 Jan 2012

Comments

Total comments: 425
123
amblepath
By amblepath (Jan 16, 2012)

Back in the late 80's and 90's people got away from slr's and went for 35mm all in one cameras with a zoom range similar to this canon. Of course they were even smaller than this G1x which I guess is a drawback to digital. I don't think it will be long before this style of camera becomes the quality camera for your average family, traveller etc. Most people do not want to bother with changing lenses. If it has good video then I think it will sell very well.

2 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (Jan 16, 2012)

The small film zoom P&S had much slower lenses and no wide angle. For example the Canon Sure Shot 115 with it's 38-115mm f/4.6-13 lens. With a lens as slow as those, there is no advantage to the large sensor.

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Jan 17, 2012)

Also, just about no small film zooms had all-manual exposure capability.

0 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (Jan 16, 2012)

stunning compact!

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Jan 16, 2012)

not sure why people are complaining about the OVF, AF speed, etc, etc

this is basically a large sensor G12 which never had fast AF, good OVF, etc, etc.. if the G12 is still selling well, then this will do even better. apparently, only canon understands that.

3 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

well nikon fanboys have to complain about something. ;)

this camera has everything i want and need from a relativ compact camera which i can carry around all day on a trip.

and im pretty sure AF and speed is not worse then on my E-PL1.....

0 upvotes
Rockchan
By Rockchan (Jan 16, 2012)

Well Canon fanboy accepts all the problem of Canon camera so they don't need to complain anything. Then they label those other people who want to discuss an issue as fanboy even when they can also see the problem. They are not blind but they don't have the gut to face the reality.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Jan 16, 2012)

@Gothmoth: "and im pretty sure AF and speed is not worse then on my E-PL1..."

The problem is that for the asking price of G1X + ~$50, you can get G3 + 14-42X which is only slightly larger combo.

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Jan 16, 2012)

G3 + 14-42 = $579 at B&H. How is that $50 dearer than the MSRP of G1X of $799?

Well I'm a Canon DLSR user and the lack of a quality OVF or EVF is a big turn off. They should have made an optional EVF and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. As it is I may still, but G3 is a whole lot of camera for the money and I can put a nice fast lens on when needed like the 20 f/1.7 and still be very compact.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 16, 2012)

"G3 + 14-42 = $579 at B&H. How is that $50 dearer than the MSRP of G1X of $799?"

It's the X, not the much cheaper (and larger) non-X. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768477-REG/Panasonic_DMC_G3KK_Lumix_DMC_G3_14_42mm_Lens.html

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Jan 17, 2012)

@thx1138: "G3 + 14-42 = $579 at B&H. How is that $50 dearer than the MSRP of G1X of $799?"

I said explicitly: 14-42*X*, not 14-42. With Panny's kit 14-42 size advantages vanish immediately compared to anything - while 14-42 *X* is totally different league. At least size-wise.

There is no G3 kit with 14-42X - nor G3 body-only is available in US. 14-42X alone costs $400.

In Europe (namely Germany) one can get G3 body and 14-42X at around 430€ each. Thus the price of G1X - 800€ - becomes slightly less palatable.

Still, Canon G1X has advantage of longer tele and brighter WA.

But. But from more recent comments, it seems AF speed is not up to par - thus IMO G3+14-42X, even if slight more expensive, becomes a better value. Yes, I value AF speed that much.

> Canon DLSR user and the lack of a quality OVF or EVF is a big turn off.

If you use Canon 1/5/7D, the only Canon which posses "quality OVF", then you are looking for a second body. Why the hell you nitpick the second body?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

"But. But from more recent comments, it seems AF speed is not up to par - thus IMO G3+14-42X, even if slight more expensive, becomes a better value. Yes, I value AF speed that much."

If AF speed is that important, you will want to stay away from the G1X. (See the comment of the DPR folks I've pasted a day ago.)

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 16, 2012)

These samples raise the question that will there be any point in buying budget SLR's? Though they may have the OVF but even my 40D's slightly bigger viewfinder I find not big enough. Anyone who is about to say "but you can use the screen for composing" stop! No thanks. Maybe at times even when remotely speedy operation is not needed.

3 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Jan 16, 2012)

Sure there will be a point in buying a budegt DSLR. A budget DSLR can be paired with a large assortment of lenses to do so much more. If you ask about "budget DSLR with kit lens" then yes I agree that there will be no point in buying that. But then I think there never was any point in using any DSLR with the 18-55mm kit lens anyway :)

6 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 16, 2012)

Of course budget DSLRs still make sense. The T3i, all the Nikons, the Pentax K-r and a number of Sonys hold great advantages. Then it only takes the addition of 1 or 2 good lenses to really outshine the G1 X. Sony and Pentax in particular offer some relatively "affordable" 2.8 zooms that one can upgrade to.

1 upvote
pcworth
By pcworth (Jan 17, 2012)

Think of the potential if they could pair this sensor with even a bright 10X zoom. That would be the killer vacation camera. I'd pay big for something like that!

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Jan 17, 2012)

I would still start out the way I did. Rebel entry level DSLR body, because I could use "real" lenses, which I upgraded as soon as I realized which lenses I really needed (large apertures for speed and bokeh, and a constant aperture). And I didn't have to replace my body to do that. In fact, upgrading my lenses improved my results far more than buying a better SLR.

If I had started with this G1X, I would have had to ditch the whole camera to get faster, better quality lenses. And I would have had to...because the G1X zoom is not fast, and can't be replaced because the lens does not come off.

1 upvote
kadarpik
By kadarpik (Jan 16, 2012)

Marvelous job Canon !!! Really best thing to carry always with if DSLR is too heavy. Enough for emergency backup as well in most cases. Fuji X-pro1 resolves more pixels but this one is easy to carry without any lenses or add-on gadgets. High ISO is impressive. Only the thing I am little bit afraid of is AF performance, same thing with Fuji but Nikon 1 does well here - unfortunately Nikon1 has only one nice feature for photography - AF. Resolution, lenses all looks very weak except for video 1080 pixels.

4 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jan 16, 2012)

Seems to be a great lens and a good sensor. Too bad it has such a wide DOF.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 16, 2012)

A camera with a sensor this size won't have "wide DOF". These samples, except for the statue of the aviator, don't really show off the shallow DOF capabilities of this camera, but it should do quite well in that area. Don't know if this is the rumored mirror-less from Canon, but certainly an ILC with this sensor would be interesting. Knowing that Canon likes to play things kind of safe, I'm not sure we'll see an ILC and new lens line to go with it. I hope I'm wrong though.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 16, 2012)

Very clean High ISO shots, well done Canon! But how about the AF speed? No news yet.

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

AF for fast moving subjects always tough to overcome on any system... no system has it fast, especially in lower dim lighting (the world isn't always 'static' when the sun goes down, or the light get low...
i don't expect AF to be much different now than it ever has been for fast moving subjects, unless of course, the subject is well lit.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 16, 2012)

Nikon has done it right in the 1 system, so why not Canon, too?

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

nikon as nothing then the AF and burst speed to sell the camera.... canon has image quality.

i go for IQ....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Jan 16, 2012)

Really, have you looked through the 1 forum lately? Here's a shot only the 1 could pull off:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/6701163897/in/set-72157628774050455/lightbox/

3 upvotes
wb2trf
By wb2trf (Jan 16, 2012)

why do you suppose only the N1 could take the robin picture? I don't get it.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Jan 16, 2012)

Because its taken with a 70-200 with a 1.7 TC. Hand held. What other compact can do that? Don't get me wrong, the canon images are nothing short of revolutionary for a small cam, but Goth's comments show ignorance of the 1 system, which is remarkable in its own way.

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 16, 2012)

"Very clean High ISO shots, well done Canon! But how about the AF speed? No news yet."

I've pasted the answer of the DPReview folks several times in the other thread / the Canon forums. Please see my post at http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/13/CanonG1Xpreviewupdate#comments dated Jan 16, 2012 at 12:57:33 GMT

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 16, 2012)

It was a 1.4x converter, not 1.7x.
How about a NEX7 with a Sigma 70-300 OS? Pretty much the same amount of pixels covering the subject to provide a similar enlargement. ;)
A Sigma 120-300 OS would work and give a larger aperture (F2.8 vs F4), the 120-400 OS would provide more enlargement, as would the 150-500 OS.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 18, 2012)

Kiitos linkistä, Menneisyys.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm a real novice when it comes to photography, but I was impressed with these photos for a a camera at the suggested price point and point and shoot classification. I like some many others have expressed would like to see some people photos in low light settings, but never the less this is great teaser. I'm looking forward to the review. .....

And not to take away from the G1 X, but I'd like to see photos from the Fuji X PRO1 as well.
;-)

0 upvotes
HSway
By HSway (Jan 16, 2012)

Very nice set of samples. Nice jpgs overall. The lens doesn’t look a weak point of the camera either. Plenty of detail recorded.

0 upvotes
avgcitizen
By avgcitizen (Jan 16, 2012)

To my eye, there are some very strange Noise Reduction artifacts in some of the shots- NR does not appear to be applied consistently throughout the frame.

Check the extreme ISO 3200 IMG_0434; sections of the floor and stone walls are almost cartoon like with NR, yet the painted ceiling panels look remarkably clean and detailed. I thought I saw the same kind of weirdness in some of the recent Powershot S100 samples.

I think Canon has some demons to work out of their in-camera JPEG algorithm. Other observations?

4 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

yes my observation is that you nickpick one thing out of a couple of fantastic images only because you are a negative human at heart.

8 upvotes
Rockchan
By Rockchan (Jan 16, 2012)

And you are just a fanboy who prevent from discussing any problem even when you also see it?

3 upvotes
DioCanon
By DioCanon (Jan 16, 2012)

I think you should stop sniffing bleach before you analyze photos...

2 upvotes
avgcitizen
By avgcitizen (Jan 17, 2012)

Y'all are pretty much convincing me to cease and desist on noting my observations. I only 'nitpick' because I am a 30 year loyal customer of Canon, and I am seeing their edge on the competition rapidly eroding due to heavy-handed market positioning, and conservatism and that is no longer directly linked to image quality. Nonetheless, I hope y'all buy three each because I'd hate to see Canon go pixels up any time soon, as they are a great foil for Sony, etc.

2 upvotes
Antony Dean
By Antony Dean (Jan 17, 2012)

As another nitpicker who has somehow independently stumbled onto the same observations as yours... the slightly heavy handed NR applied mainly to LOW ISOs it what concerns me a bit (unless it's the lens). NR is a very "perceptual" thing, in that the engineers will tweak and refine algorithms to closer match the way the human eye sees, I guess this is what the camera is doing here - taking it a step further and making decisions about what it is seeing (noise, texture, patterns) in different regions of the image then dynamically applying the best mix of NR types. Still, all I'm really looking for is 25fps movies for the PAL region then I think I'm sold.

0 upvotes
Antony Dean
By Antony Dean (Jan 18, 2012)

I had another look after shrinking the images to 6Mp (what I use on my G7s because they're a bit too noisy at 10Mp), and at this size the G1X images are incredibly sharp and free from NR artifacts (unsurprisingly). At that size the G1X high ISO performance utterly is amazing - better than 10 times as sensitive as the G7, the gap increasing as ISO increases. But in the 'raw' G1X jpegs at ISO100, there seems to be excessive loss of very fine detail (tree bark, bricks) considering what the sensor should be capable of. Could just be unsharpened jpeg output, but there are halos therefore in-camera sharpening. It may be softer demosaicing, or just the soft "kit lens" look, but sharpen an ISO100 sample to the point of stupidity and it brings out nothing but jpeg artifacts in these areas (while there's noise visible at object edges). Not a deal breaker considering what the big sensor is for.

0 upvotes
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks, but why no reasonably close (live) people in these shots? Skin tones, human hair, clothing / fashion, eyes, style; please post some people shots. The camera looks very good for these types of pictures, but I don't take these kinds of pictures... I know it's a review site and people expect some of those types of pictures, but please post some pics for the other styles too -- for the rest of us -- street photography, portraiture, casual / friend photos, self-portrait, etc. Living, breathing people, shots that show emotion, shots that tell a story, etc.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

pattern marble floors in the museum are supposed to be there, they aren't 'artifacts'... at first that was what I thought, but one doesn't have 'artifacts' that get smaller in the distance as one looks from near to far on that floor...

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Jan 16, 2012)

I know. It makes me crazy the the NEX SOny cameras are getting Gold reviews with no skin tone samples, and my pictures with t he NEX people look Orange. So far I am getting great skin tones (not a throughrough list) with Leica, Olympus, Nikon, Fuji and Canon P&S. Sony NEX gives orange faces, Samsung NX200 white or brass metallic faces, Panasonic a little yellow.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

Wow, Canon has put a lot more attention to handling the shadows than before... I experimented with forcing a gamma from 1.0 up to 2.0 with a contrast cranked down to -32/-128, to scrutinize the shadows... (just using IrfanView32, have nothing fancier or more sophisticated) and they look very 'random' rather than splotchy, meaning, there is a lot of flexible play for creative contrast adjustments at least on their JPEGs more so than before.
If this is a prelude to improved shadow handling on their newer models (dcams or dSLRs or mirrorless), it's going to be great for extended creative control without worrying about losing flexibility after a shot is captured.

1 upvote
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (Jan 16, 2012)

This is impressive compared to my D60 this is just awesome, ISO 12800 there's so little chroma noise for me the most disturbing type of artifact.
Hopping for the new Canon DSLR cameras with Digic 5 and all the stuff, really really promising.

My NEX-3 at 12800, looks a lot worse with the kit lens...

0 upvotes
Phil King
By Phil King (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks. Any chance of seeing what can be achieved bokeh-wise at f2.8?

Phil

1 upvote
arscii
By arscii (Jan 16, 2012)

Alas, it was apparently beyond the means of the site to produce a single portrait in London during a weekend with this camera. A curious and possibly telling omission.

5 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

yeah sure that´s telling.. we all know DPR is payed for reviews right?.. so they would avoid doing that.. because YOU know portraits are bad with this camera.. is that what you saying?

im a aviation shooter i guess it is telling that there are no airplanes in these samples? mhm..... i begin to worry.... no dogs either.....

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

Yeah, and they didn't set it up on a tripod for some lightning pictures either! Oh, and where are the pictures of poorly lit night club concerts??? You afraid of something? Until I see images of a clown making balloon animals at a 5 year old's birthday party taken at f/11, 31.935mm, and ISO 12,800 you guys can keep your lousy pictures!

11 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

I want to see moonlit natural landscapes (no artificial lights anywhere) where the skies are starry, and the exposure looking like 'full clear sunny blue sky days' and minimal star streak lengths... 30" or shorter... minimal noise... and high dof for near/far subject/background all looking near in-focus...

again... wish Canon offered 24mm fov (equivalent) instead of narrow 28mm.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

You can wish in one hand, crap in the other, and see which one fills up first.

5 upvotes
Beurk
By Beurk (Jan 16, 2012)

@ Gothmoth
What? You didn't spot the plane in IMG_0297 ;-)

2 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Jan 17, 2012)

I think this G1X is not expensive enough. I do not mind paying $1000 and perhaps even $1100, and I do not mind if it is a little bit bigger, if it can give me just a little bit more in max aperture, a little bit more battery power, if not a little bit more FOV or an EVF. That would then make it a complete system for most shooting needs, i.e. without any more purchases of lenses. As it is, it just falls a little short on a number of minor things that keep adding up and miss the mark for what I seek in a all-purpose fixed lens camera. Your needs of course are different.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wb2trf
By wb2trf (Jan 16, 2012)

The ISO 12600 images are extremely impressive. These pictures are certainly not the final word for comparisons between cameras, but they do establish that this camera will be in all conversations about trends and they suggest that whole product lines of competition are headed for the trash heap. I suspect this camera will change the landscape of expectations throughout the industry.

The industry is in a very interesting phase right now in which all the old design standards are breaking down.

9 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (Jan 16, 2012)

At first blush, the JPGs generated by the G1X look promising. Almost DSLR-like. However, where the G1X is likely to fall short is quickness of operation. Start-up, shutter lag, shot-to-shot time, fps will all likely suffer compared to even a budget Canon DSLR. Thank you Andy and DPR for delivering on the additional images for us to inspect!

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

I think we're all aware of the fact this isn't a DSLR and what implications that has. Thanks for, once again, pointing out obvious shortcomings all point and shoot cameras have compared to DSLRs rather than see this for what it is: an advanced point and shoot.

9 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (Jan 16, 2012)

One can always dream, no? I own the S95 and am seriously considering the G1X.

1 upvote
Mal_In_Oz
By Mal_In_Oz (Jan 17, 2012)

I think Reginald's comments highlight a key difference between opinions on this thread. With the new Nikon 1 and m43 cameras being so small and with super fast focus, it is now no longer acceptable to have slow AF. You might argue that this is a P&S, not a DSLR, but the G1X does not fit in your shirt pocket like a P&S. It is actually larger and more expensive than some of its MILC competitors so its fair to compare at that level of camera.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

As large or larger than what camera with a lens of the same range and quality?

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

WOW.. the only ones who can speak negativ about this great samples are envy nikon fanboys or people who have no clue at all.

i take this image quality all day over nikons speed and tiny sensor in the 1 series.

i think this camera will replace my E-PL1.

and simon65.. you really have no clue at all.. right?

"So Digic 5 may be the culprit. "

yeah sure..... i can only shake my head over all the ignorance in the world..

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
DWR0082
By DWR0082 (Jan 16, 2012)

This cameras ISO 800/1600 put my D300 to shame honestly. I know I can reduce it in LR but it's always better to have cleaner shots straight out of the camera.

1 upvote
douple
By douple (Jan 16, 2012)

Well, overall its pretty awesome, but some parts (passage picture) have surprisingly messed details. Anyway, cant wait for review!

0 upvotes
coastcontact
By coastcontact (Jan 16, 2012)

I have written this before about on line photos. This is really a function of the capabilities of your computer monitor. Most of us have not spent the money for a high quality unit. I have the HP monitor that came with my CPU. Other than a significantly bad camera the pictures all look good.

2 upvotes
simon65
By simon65 (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm disappointed, although perhaps I shouldn't be as Canon isn't the sort of company to go and undercut its cash generating DSLR line up.

But I see nothing special here at all and quite a lot to be worried about. I expected better from a camera deploying Canon's latest Digic 5 processor and a sensor only slightly smaller than that found in its DSLR line up.

Maybe its the lens, although more likely its the processor, the new Digic 5, which has also been launched in the new Powershot S100, and which from what I have seen isn't quite as good as the S95 it replaced. So Digic 5 may be the culprit.

I'd compare this samples are comparable to my old 400D in terms of sharpness, colour etc, although yes they have slightly more detail, maybe. Obviously high end ISO quality is also better than the old 400D, but then it is on every other camera sold today.

All in all I'll be refocusing my second camera search back in Fuji and Sony's direction.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm disappointed to. Getting similar image quality from this camera that I get from my 7D and 15-85 EF-S is going to make my life so difficult. I don't always have to go to my $2,500 setup to get really amazing high ISO/low light photos??? Don't get me wrong, I'll still use my big gear for serious work, but when I need a point and shoot the first thought that goes through my mind won't be "are these going to look like garbage? Should I go get my 7D instead?"

14 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jan 17, 2012)

@howardroak

Exactly!!!!

I don't understand how people can not see the great value in what canon has provided with this camera. For the first time, having a compact and convenient camera doesn't mean a massive compromise of image quality. You can have this camera with you, pull it out, take a shot, and then not think "If only I had my DSLR with me."

1 upvote
cassano
By cassano (Jan 16, 2012)

wow, this canon is a killer!

Ultra clean high ISO samples. Details are good, if not superb. This will certainly steal lots of sales from other EVILs (and Fuji x100)

4 upvotes
NYshooter
By NYshooter (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to see a few samples of people photographed inside a restaurant or bar w/ high ISO w/o flash. Thanks DPReview!

5 upvotes
moris
By moris (Jan 16, 2012)

yes, it will be good to see some photos of walking people in a mall also.

2 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

or a dog on a bridge on a overcast day.

i find it amazing how much you can read out of a picture of an dog on a bridge on a overcast day!!!

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

Or a picture of my mom.

4 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Jan 16, 2012)

Great colours and exposure. No plugged shadows or blown highlights. For example, if you took the shot with people walking along the river with a Panasonic M4/3 the people would just be blacked out and the sky probably blown to kingdom come. Still, I think Nikon's dynamic lighting system does the best job of all in lightening the shadow areas. There's a chance the G1X is going to sell by the bucketloads...

0 upvotes
mjrpes3
By mjrpes3 (Jan 16, 2012)

I thought I read somewhere that the G1X has a scene mode that is equivalent to Nikon's dynamic lighting (not to be confused with HDR mode, which averages 3 photos and requires a tripod).

If not it would really be nice to have this, as lightening shadows is the thing I most often do post process.

0 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Jan 16, 2012)

What, you like your DR "compressed" straight out of the camera? I prefer to have a little control. However M4/3 has the controls to do the same, I just leave them off and prefer to adjust in LR.

With that said, the Canon output does look very nice, and it will be interesting to see how MILC systems answer. If this was around after my Sony R1 took a nose-dive, I probably would have never adopted the M4/3 system. Now I am committed and enjoying it.

0 upvotes
Inars
By Inars (Jan 16, 2012)

Images not important. Easy accsess, manipulations, speed is way to go. Good pictures produce many cameras.

1 upvote
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Jan 16, 2012)

Images not important, "manipulations". You are a clairvoyant? What a nonsense. Why don't you just go to bed, why wast your time looking at DPReview.

1 upvote
Graystar
By Graystar (Jan 16, 2012)

They're pointless. Can't tell anything. The artifacts caused by JPEG compression are too great to make any determination from the smooth gradients of the skies and other areas. And in typical Canon fashion, they're oversharpened for better printed results. Everything is covered in halos.

Can't you hand-process a few images from RAW for us?

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

I'd imagine they have better things to do than pander to people who will never be satisfied despite getting far more than any of us could have expected. You know how much of this we'd get for just about any other camera? None of it. You'd be waiting two or three months to see ANY of this.

9 upvotes
Kelly M Jones
By Kelly M Jones (Jan 16, 2012)

In my opinion the jpg's at 100% look pretty good even with the artifacting. I too wish we could download RAW for each of the photos. I will be interested to handle G1 X to see if it small enough to make it worthwhile to carry compared to a small DSLR.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 16, 2012)

so that you can complain about ACR and why they did not use capture one?

lol....

" Everything is covered in halos."

maybe you have some eye sickness.. i would go and visit a doctor!!

1 upvote
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (Jan 16, 2012)

I see a hater here...
Calm down man.

0 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Jan 16, 2012)

um... i really dont know what to say.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

I do. Sold!!!

8 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Jan 17, 2012)

LOL!

0 upvotes
htimm1948
By htimm1948 (Jan 16, 2012)

It's unbelievable also with higher ISO.

6 upvotes
Kelly M Jones
By Kelly M Jones (Jan 16, 2012)

Wow, these look really good. Even ISO12800 might work for small prints or web viewing.

4 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

Wow, great pictures. Thanks to everyone at DPReview for their hard work. Image quality and ISO performance are both beyond my expectations. Canon has created a new segment of the market and the mirrorless bodies have a totally new kind of competition.
Corner to corner sharpness is excellent from every image in this gallery. A full battery of testing will reveal whatever weak points the lens has, but it looks like they will be hard to track down. This lens even beats my 15-85 EF-S in some regards.
If this is the price we pay for starting at 28mm (eff.) rather than 24mm (I personally didn't care, but certain people couldn't stop talking about this point) then I'm glad Canon made that choice. I wouldn't sacrifice the quality they've produced nor additional money to get four extra mm.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
technic
By technic (Jan 16, 2012)

agree; I also use the 15-85 (on 450D) and this comes pretty close. The 15-85 is sharper in the centre, but corner/border performance is pretty close and maybe even better in the tele range. The 15.1mm f/2.8 tree shot is promising. Too bad it doesn't start at 24mm equiv., otherwise I would probably sell my 15-85 now ;)

several posters have suggested that 35mm is the weak spot of this lens, will have to wait for production camera for final verdict.

0 upvotes
Dan W
By Dan W (Jan 16, 2012)

What Howard said!

0 upvotes
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes, this camera seems able to take great pictures. But I absolutely do NOT agree that a lens starting at 24 mm. (equivalent) is "close" to one starting at 28 mm. The difference - for a tourist-photographer like me - is HUGE. All the more for a fixed-lens camera !! So much so that - to me - it is a 100% deal-breaker per se. Lost angle of wiev is lost forever; as a fixed lens, a 24-70/80 would have been A LOT better ! Panasonic is very right in being about to produce a 24-70 equivalent for its m43 system (the new 12-35 by Panasonic) !!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

If you lose a shot it's your own fault. I have a 10-22 for my wide shots and I love it. The right tool for the job. Every image I take is important to me, so trying to find a point and shoot the last few years has been maddening. Enter the G1 X and now I've got DSLR image quality in my jacket pocket.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (Jan 17, 2012)

It's not about losing shots, Howard. It's about having had enough of PTGUI and other stitchers !! If you too love panos (as you probably do, having a 10-22) , once you will only have a point-and-shoot with you, you will start to understand the difference between one starting at 24 mm. and one starting at 28 ...!! A shot taken with the former will often require two or three taken with the latter, plus some darned stitching ...

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

I have owned the Canon A620 (35-140), SX20 (28-560), D10 (35-105mm), and Sony S85 (34-102mm). The only time I stitch anything is if I need high resolution shots for huge prints, which I've only done once. Still, saying that 24-70 or 80 would have been better is oversimplifying. If they'd put that lens on this body it would have cost a lot of money and made for a larger camera. It may have been better, all else being equal, but the point is to know the limitations of your equipment and deal with it. I personally like the size of the camera and don't want to pay more for 4 extra mm.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

woo-hoo!

wish DPR shows more dimly lit indoor and night shots with lowest light... all the shots so far in the first 38 (latest 30 new shots) are well lit (artificial lighting)... dimmer natural lighting... that's where it's going to count where smaller sensors/slower zoom lenses struggle

otherwise... thx!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Jan 16, 2012)

I wouldn't call night-time shots that require ISO 12800 to handhold 'well-lit'. Maybe that's just me.

6 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

hahahaha... just being hopeful, not critical
:D
hope to see more, it is looking great

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 16, 2012)

Ever feel like Rodney Dangerfield, Andy? We'll always want more than we get, but we still appreciate what you've done. This kind of speed and the range of images you've posted goes above and beyond the call of duty. We were not entitled to anything, so we got a whole lot of your time in just a few days to satisfy our intense interest in this new camera. Kudos!

4 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 16, 2012)

... noticed...
good to see 'subject distance' available in the EXIF... (missing on my dSLR)

0 upvotes
Tower
By Tower (Jan 16, 2012)

It is very impressive for the high speed quality, I think will be a big sell in future. For $800.00 what you can for your SLR lens? this is a great achievement.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 425
123