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
mjkerpan
By mjkerpan (Jan 17, 2012)

Nice image quality. Still a shame about the slow lens, though.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 17, 2012)

How can you be ashamed of physical laws?

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

Because most people believe that image quality is tied to the max aperture. Sure, there are some that really do want a faster lens for practical reasons, but most who bemoan this "slow" lens think that the slower the lens, the worse the images it will produce.

2 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Jan 17, 2012)

Most people that talk about 'fast' lenses are probably not aware of the big limitations of this 'wide' setting. They talk about it because they do not want to carry a tripod and only shoot at the right lighting conditions. They want to handhold in the lowest possible lighting and therefore produce many pretty average photos. So, shoot wide open only if you want to blur the background, shoot at the sharpest aperture in any condition where your subject is at about the same distance as the rest of your scene and shoot at the smallest aperture possible for front to back sharpness, minding difraction of the lens - wich is different for every lens. It always amazes me to see so little photographers carrying a tripod and yet it's the first rule of the profession.

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

"Nice image quality. Still a shame about the slow lens, though."

You want a camera weighing twice as much? Don't forget the Sony R1 (which had a much brighter lens at the long end) was twice as big / heavy...

1 upvote
Martin_PTA
By Martin_PTA (Jan 17, 2012)

Very nice camera, but a pity about the high price tag.

The prohibitive price will keep me way in the background until, or even if, it shows a substantial decrease!

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

There surely will be a price drop. In addition, I don't think it's THAT large. The size/weight-wise directly comparable Pana GX1 + 14-42X combo costs $150 more(!) - and has still way inferior high ISO and a definitely inferior (darker, shorter, way worse resolution when fully zoomed in etc.) lens. The Nikon 1 also has a comparable (or even higher!) price tag, let alone the new Fuji cameras.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
stelioskritikakis
By stelioskritikakis (Jan 17, 2012)

The bokeh is very nice for a compact camera, but that one i can get with the cheapest slr and a descend lens.

The most impressive here is the quality from the sensor, and i'd say the dynamic range as well.

Next thing i'm expecting is some RAW samples to check out the noise and detail levels in adobe camera raw.

0 upvotes
suedezu
By suedezu (Jan 17, 2012)

Look at the bokeh and plane separation at full tele and f 5.8 in this shot:
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/G1_X_przykl/IMG_0548.JPG

More sample images here: http://www.lenstip.com/1963-news-Canon_PowerShot_G1_X_-_sample_images_%28outdoor_shots%29.html

This is good news for those interested in taking portraits at full tele!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
leogarber
By leogarber (Jan 17, 2012)

Having a Black Fender Stratocaster does not make you Eric Clapton!

You may use the most expensive camera available but if you take bad pictures the results will be useless. If you get my meaning.

1 upvote
Michael Thompson
By Michael Thompson (Jan 17, 2012)

Thease photos are awfull! we have had 3 days of frosty nights and crystal clear blue sky weather here in the UK and this is the best DPR can produce?

Once upon a time DPR had photographers who had skill experiance and passion i fear those days are gone - Amazon what have you done.

No wide angle Landscape photos in sunshine this to check image detail near and far, i could go on but what is the point.

A photography website without skilled photographers what a joke!
my neighbours 12 year old doughter could do better (with her mobile phone lol!
Michael

2 upvotes
eoonline
By eoonline (Jan 17, 2012)

Personally, I'm not looking for artistic merit in preview shots. (Nor do I remember DPR ever focusing on that.) The goal is to quickly capture as many shots as possible in a diverse array of conditions.

4 upvotes
Martin_PTA
By Martin_PTA (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree with eoonline. These shots tell me all I need to know about the camera. The photography skills can be assessed on a different forum!

6 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

The goal is to quickly capture as many shots as possible to show what the equipment is capable of. None of them do. I agree with Michael Thompson.

DP Review's review of cameras is still pretty good and their lens reviews too although their use of new "scientific" methods to convey results make them less easy to read and come to conclusions over. Almost everything else is a complete waste of time including many of their previews which now overwhelms their site. For some people, judging by their comments, this is quickly becoming more and more annoying, including me.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 17, 2012)

is there a dislike button? i have heard this kind a million times.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

+1 for a dislike button or a "Was this post helpful? Yes No" voting arrangement.

2 upvotes
meland
By meland (Jan 17, 2012)

There must be times when the guys at DP Review would like to scream with frustration at some of the comments they get. Whatever they do it isn't enough for some people! We are so fortunate that all this incredibly detailed stuff is available FREE within days of products being announced and yet some of you still do nothing but complain.

0 upvotes
macky patalinghug
By macky patalinghug (Jan 17, 2012)

What do you think are the advantages of G1X over the 1100D+18-135mm aside from size/portability? This 1100+18-135 combo, which is closely priced to the G1X, will have the edge in responsiveness.

What would make you choose one over the other?

I lean towards the G1X but only because I already own many Canon aspc's. I am not buying the G1X though till its price drops (maybe around the end of the year).

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

I think you might be surprised at how slow the 18-135 is. It is not a ring-type Ultra Sonic Motor, but instead a micro USM. I owned one lens with the micor USM and got rid of it as soon as I could. Put a decent USM lens on your 1100D and you might have the edge in AF response.

1 upvote
macky patalinghug
By macky patalinghug (Jan 18, 2012)

I have no experience with the 18-135. But I find the 55-250 IS's AF fast and accurate enough. No hunting. Do you think the G1X can perform as much in terms focus and speed accuracy. If it does then I'm sold already. The 55-250 IS is not a USM lens.

These days though I use Nikkor MF lenses on my apsc Canons. I doubt if one can MF in the G1X. Even if it can't, the G1X is still in my wish list.

0 upvotes
Corpy2
By Corpy2 (Jan 17, 2012)

I give up. I've been looking for a telephoto shot, and have gone through 15 random images. Still have not found one.

Is ther any telephoto shot in these pictures? If not, why not? If yes, why can't they be organized in some fashion so that I can find the one that is?

0 upvotes
eoonline
By eoonline (Jan 17, 2012)

There are several 60.4mm shots in there (look at the focal length info below photo), which is 112mm equivalent to a 35mm camera. That's as long as it gets.

2 upvotes
yurikk
By yurikk (Jan 17, 2012)

IMG_0169, IMG_0255 and others with 60 mm focal length

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Jan 17, 2012)

60.4 =112mm equivalent

I would say the majority of the shots are telephoto. I would like to see DPR do samples in bonafide landscape settings in order to judge infinity performance - not just on this camera but on all lenses reviewed.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679534/img_0130?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1673114/img_0140?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1673116/img_0169?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679539/img_0224?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679540/img_0255?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples

etc etc

Edit: sadly DPR doesn't allow links in these comments.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (Jan 17, 2012)

Soooft...

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

Sounds like a personal problem.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

Get a new monitor and/or don't look at the left bottom corner, particularly not between 30 and 40 mm...

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

Menneisyys, you are aware that almost every lens on the market has softer corners than center, aren't you? Even those high dolloar, pro white lenses from Canon have soft corners at certain apertures and focal lengths, some worse than this lens. As far as soft corners go, you'd be lucky to have this lens even at its worst. I personally see very minimal corner detail dropoff, and those French pics might very well be suffering from a depth of field that is three inches behind the flat target and three inches in front of it, which means those objects in the bottom corners are off the reservation.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 18, 2012)

"I personally see very minimal corner detail dropoff, and those French pics might very well be suffering from a depth of field that is three inches behind the flat target and three inches in front of it, which means those objects in the bottom corners are off the reservation."

All the other cameras + lens have produced better results in the bottom left corner, even APS-C ones (read: larger sensor = shallower DOF) - I've thoroughly compared all shots. Fortunately, the bottom corners' blur is only really bad between 30 and 40 mm's; when fully zoomed out/in, it's much better.

BTW, here're the shots: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-bruit-electronique-12.html

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

I looked at all of the sample shots on F-N. The studio shots aside, out in the real world there's not a soft corner in the bunch.

0 upvotes
frosti7
By frosti7 (Jan 17, 2012)

Guys, seriously, how can you consider this gallery useful if it lacks a single shot of human being?

Especially for camera that is intended for family\social photos, i have still no idea how human skin (which is critical and one of the hardest colors to reproduce) looks with this camera

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
frazbrown
By frazbrown (Jan 17, 2012)

Agreed there should be some of people, here's one I found ...

http://www.canon-europe.com/Images/IMG_3082_tcm13-898844.jpg

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
1 upvote
eoonline
By eoonline (Jan 17, 2012)

Agreed. But I'm sure detailed reviews are forthcoming...

1 upvote
leogarber
By leogarber (Jan 17, 2012)

To place the kind of engineering that would enable publishable photos in a PS can be a difficult choice for camera makers. However, for those of us that have to work in the streets, in areas where personal security is an issue, having a small camera that enables us to work blending with the background would be a blessing. The idea, that technology can put out a bridge camera with a 28-600 mm lens and video in a single camera with great quality properties is not news. Therefore, the G1X can be on the road that enables photographers get in hot areas and still get the shots without been shot. After 30 years of photography (22 Nikon 8 Canon) I would jump and buy an all in one camera, that may cover the 20-300 range without sacrificing quality. Working in the rainforest, crowded streets, shantytowns, without the bulk that one has to carry around and having to blend with the crowd is not ease. So a small camera with great attributes can be the answer to many photographers wish list.

0 upvotes
eoonline
By eoonline (Jan 17, 2012)

I don't think they're anywhere close to that range of focal lengths. I think the P7100 has a wider range if you're looking for the compact raw shooter with wide range, tho I suspect that's at the cost of the smaller sensor.

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Jan 17, 2012)

Nice and clean high ISO images. I only wish there were some full size images as well and also people, portraits and kids.

0 upvotes
eoonline
By eoonline (Jan 17, 2012)

Below the picture, there are links for different size images, including "original".

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 17, 2012)

Great sensor and great integrated zoom lens that seriously you should not expect to give you any useful level of Bokeh.

Wait for the IL version of this camera and use a prime lens if you want bokeh.

0 upvotes
freestar
By freestar (Jan 17, 2012)

is it really that big a chore for your web developers to organise samples by iso with the the iso number underneath the thumbnail same as photographyblog.
i bet there's there's loads of gallery code for websites that will do this for you.
how about polling users on this site to see how many of them would like to see this feature? i bet nearly all of them would.

0 upvotes
agilestyle
By agilestyle (Jan 17, 2012)

I have expectations on the G1X... broken on rocks when i see this gallery.
What do not impress me at all here is the BOKEH.
Is only visible by shooting at 60.1, where the max aperture is forced to F5.8.
There are no traces of it at wider angle:, no surprise here, cause the lens is far by being fast.
This is a clear compromise imposed by fitting a compact broad-uses-zoom (no complains to Canon).
If i'd choose the G1X, i have to forget the great creativity that the 20-1.7 and 45-1.8 lenses allow me on my GF1.
What i'd get is a good quality camera, with high ISO capabilities, that avoid bringing some extra lenses with me, but that doesn't excels in any particular area and, i am sure of it, makes my shots more "average".
Please do not start crying with the "it's not the camera, is the photographer" litany, if u shot with a small-camera-fast-lens-combo u understand what i'm talkning about.
That said, i suppose it will be an high-quality, compact, "average" camera.
Best regards.
M. Costa

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

Yeah, this is the typical trade-off of point and shoot (less stuff to carry around with you) and interchangeable lens camera. You won't be able to compete with fast prime, but it's more convenient. I think the appropriate aphorism is not "it's not the camera, it's the photographer", but rather "your best camera is the one you have with you".

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

What eoonline said. Sometimes I think people just like others to know that they've heard the word bokeh. If you want bokeh, if that's the icing on your photographic cake, there are many, many options available.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
agilestyle
By agilestyle (Jan 17, 2012)

Lenstip.com also have posted some outside shots taken with the G1X.
I must admit that their gallery is much more encouraging: blur areas are visible also at 15mm F2.8, and IQ is very acceptable even at ISO 12800.
Also interesting is that shooting at 1/20s seem to give you crisp results, meaning that the IS on lens is very effective.
I am really happy since, i repeat, i want to like this PRO G camera.
@howordroark: to me control over DOF is an important topic. This, together with IQ even at HI-ISO, distinguishes a PRO camera from the P&S/small-sensor ones.
That said, we have to wait to put our hands on the first production camera.
Best regards
M. Costa

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

This is not a pro camera, at least not in terms of target market. I'm sure some pro work will be done with this, but those will be the exceptions rather than the rule. What I mean is, I don't expect to see those big white lenses at sporting events replaced by tiny G1X's, nor do I see a reporter boarding a plane for some major world event hauling nothing but a G1X in his carry on.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cheenachatze
By cheenachatze (Jan 17, 2012)

Very impressive output even at ISO3200.
Many here complain about the price. If you compare this camera to an entry level SLR, this one has better build quality and better lens than any kit lens. The price of $800 is right on the mark. Maybe if Canon made this in silver, put a piece of leather on the hand grip and call it "retro", no one would mind paying $1500 for it.

2 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

"better lens than any kit lens"

Really? Where did you get that information from?

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

Of course not all kit lens are worse - for example, the new Sony 16-50 SSM (see A77) surely not. Let's say "most" - particularly the cheapo ones.

0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

G-lenses were consistently described as "sharp" and/or "impressive" by dpreview and other sites, please see G-cam reviews. Since the lens design principle has not changed dramatically similar results may be expected, hopefully. Just check past G reviews. Is this a guaratee? certainly not but an indication.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cheenachatze
By cheenachatze (Jan 17, 2012)

I was comparing this to ENTRY level SLR. How many of them come with kit lens with x4 zoom and F2.8? The Canon is sensibly priced compared to SLRs and definitely when compared to Fuji X100 and Leica X1.

2 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

I see. You judge the quality by the zoom range and maximum aperture. Clever stuff! And on this basis the G1 X jusitifiesd a higher price than an entry level DSLR, even a good one.

DP Review, you are wasting your time with your reviews of equipment. Just do a little bit of arithmetic based on these two criteria. Everything else is a waste of time your checking out and us reading.

Also, so many people commenting here seem to have decided what a wonderful camera this is already. DP Review, why bother with a review at all?

I have had more than enough of this stupidity. I am saying goodbye, logging out, deleting my RSS feed and abandoning this website. This is not the first time but finally forever.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

Really? You don't see the test shots and see something remarkable? Oh, it may not blaze any new ground in terms of image quality, but if it resolves as much detail as some DSLRs as I suspect it will then we've got something special on our hands. Most kit lenses really are awful. 18-55, 17-85, 28-135, and others produce lousy detail and have other serious issues...I can only speak from experience about Canon lenses, but I've researched the lab tests of many other manufacturers and haven't been impressed.

0 upvotes
Elieser
By Elieser (Jan 17, 2012)

The review properly represents sensor possibilities and noise reduction level.
It did not demonstrate true lens qualitat, because all pictures were done with aperture F 5,6 - 8,0

0 upvotes
brkl
By brkl (Jan 17, 2012)

What review?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Jan 17, 2012)

Sigh. I can only suggest you have another look through and find the wide-open samples you missed the first time. Bear in mind the maximum aperture is only F5.6 from 85mm onwards too (and F5.8 at full tele).

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Jan 17, 2012)

Interesting. I will launch a crazy idea: to me, this is also a "preview" to what the new sensor on the... EOS 1D X will be capable of (I also think that a large chunk of the the secret is actually in that Digic V chip). On the other hand, I will certainly swap my ol' good G10 with this one (as side camera) whaen the G1 X will become available, because to me will be 14 Mpix small sensor with poor high ISO vs 14 Mpix large sensor with quite good high ISO (and a marginal difference in zoom) choice, quite clear. Cheers.

2 upvotes
MortonH
By MortonH (Jan 17, 2012)

I reckon the only thing really wrong with this camera is the price. All the other 'issues' being complained about are design compromises, which have to be made in every camera.

At the end of the day, this camera is another option for taking pictures. Why complain about having more options?

1 upvote
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

The $800 MSRP is just a barometer of consumers needs/hunger/desperation/... we will soon find out if camera/price fits the market. If ILS competition sells at 500-800 range plus say 1 $300 lens... that means there is room for upsell. You can buy a nice P&S compact cheaply today, DSLRS are not out of range... there will be a pressure on G1X price. Hopefully we'll soon call it "introductory" or "past". Canon was procrastinating with an agenda... that is for sure. Ppl were expecting fireworks at bottom prices but top brands like Canon, Nikon never give stuff away unless they have to. G1X is the only large sensor compact with a fixed zoom, that's why Canon commanded this price and despite that had still huge interest at CES... will it translate into sales time will show. Compare flat screen TV's, every now and then they introduce new technology to jack up the prices. Refresh rates, LED, 3D etc. Canon is simply trying to seize the moment. Thankfully there is always competition...

1 upvote
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

Spot on. Give the suckers what they're willing to buy!

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

And keep people who wouldn't know value if it fell out of the sky, landed on their face, and wiggled out of the market as long as you can.

2 upvotes
ezradja
By ezradja (Jan 17, 2012)

the noise reduction is quite aggresive. But probably the raw would do justice to the image. Is there any option on noise reduction on jpeg?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

There're three NR levels in JPEG mode (low/medium (teh default) / high)

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 17, 2012)

Sony (NEX-7), Olympus PEN and Nikon 1 could learn a thing or two from this supposedly "aggressive" noise reduction approach. For me NR is well handled at all ISO levels.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

Agreed with rocklobster. Noise reduction in this and most other Canon cameras is far less aggressive than almost every single other manufacturer. And since this image quality is on par with mid-level SLRs (my 7D included) I don't see much room for complaint.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
anchorite64
By anchorite64 (Jan 17, 2012)

It's a matter of taste. I would prefer more details. Hopefully they will emerge with the "low" NR setting or in RAW.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

More details might be the limitation of the lens and not the NR.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

"More details might be the limitation of the lens and not the NR."

Well, the NR does smear details even at ISO 800. I've posted two comparative crops of ISO 100 and 800 some two days ago in the other article's comment section:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13100693/html/Screen%20shot%202012-01-15%20at%201.54.16%20PM.png

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13100693/html/Screen%20shot%202012-01-15%20at%201.54.29%20PM.png

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

In two parts:

Part I

We have had bright sunny weather in London for the past few days so I would have expected enough umph at least for the outside shots to draw some conclusions from these samples even before a rigorous test. I decided to home in on wide angle shots and I think they are very disappointing:

Judging from a number, what follows assumes that sharpening has not been applied in camera or if so only very slightly:

1679997 taken at f/4.5 at 15mm (the wide angle)

The top corners are quite sharp and the chromatic aberration is reasonable but the bottom left corner is very unsharp. Not sure if this indicates decentering but the performance a stop down from the maximum is rather poor IMO.

1679548 was taken at f/5.6 and 15mm but it is more even but not especially sharp!

1679995 taken at f/6.3 is uniformly sharp to all the corners so by that aperture the shortcomings of the lens at the widest angle have disappeared.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

"The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!"
...really? I mean really? perhaps only on some of 4x6 prints at ISO 100 on a sunny day... as the scale sadly ends in C-5060 at ISO 400. This discussion gets beyond the ridiculous.

On a second thought... if so, Olympus should put C-5060 back on a market. Btw. how unwise of you to give it away...

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
douple
By douple (Jan 17, 2012)

And Oly is 14mpx for sure too, right? This comparsion doesnt make sense

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

Exactly. The Olympus is a few years obsolete, has only 5 mega pixels and a tiny sensor but does much better than this. I have done a 16 x 20 from it which is much sharper than the G1X and is also sharp into the corners.

That's my point, proxy, what's yours?

If the lens in this sample is typical, then it is dreadful, certainly for any camera at this price, even at half the price. I cannot comments on anything else, not have I.

And you, douple. Don't you understand? An 5 mp true compact of 2005 vintage with a better lens than a very new camera with a hugely bigger sensor and costing a lot more. Given that, this comparison makes a great deal of sense.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

Keep it and relive your dream... it is still listed in Comparometer (imaging-resource...) anyone can look it up... if you like blur, blown highlights, fringing, overexposure and what comes with it... (test pictures) compared to todays standards. This is 2012, Canon G1X discussion. We are talking progress here... while you are getting sentimental. Get over it. New is coming.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

You are the one who is dreaming. I talk only of the lens. The rest of the G1X might be excellent but who cares?

If you set the C-5060 to lower than the default contrast and saturation which, like a lot of cameras are far too high, the results are consistently excellent. No perceptible colour fringing and no blown highlights except in HDR conditions. I have scores of shots with it that prove both. Anyone can look up the reviews and I did and then bought it not for keeps but to see what was possible with digital.

Then I was using film in my Nikon F80. Later, I sold the Olympus to my son at a hefty discount, waited awhile and bought a DSLR, partly because I wanted a far wider angle, wanted to use my three lenses which include a 12-24 mm on APS-C and partly because I wanted the best dynamic range.

People like you are perfect fodder for the manufacturers. New models every few months, unnecessary extra megapixels, progress hugely exaggerated but you fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

No point arguing (not a Camedia forum).Soon all the facts will be known including the lens which was consistently very good on G-cams. Then you will either eventually buy it or go onto another forum to complain... I'm not 100% happy with everything about G1X but if you want all then you have only few options: Nikon D3S or D4 (D800?) now or top Canon DSLR. If you want ILS or top DSLR this is a wrong place to be. G1X is what it is. A year or 2 from now it will be better and cheaper. For now Canon is testing waters with the product and the price. At 800 it will sell, at 500-550 as suggested here it will be on a permanent backorder until something else comes out, don't you see it? Every camera is a compromise between the wants and the price and what can be put into it. They did what they did. Makes me happy as it moves things forward. Always loved G, own G7 and been happy until 5N. Will G1X beat my 5N? doubt it but I may still get G1X. I've had (D)&SLR's for over 20 years and got tired.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 17, 2012)

C'mon. I had the C-5060 and while at its time it was probably the best compact camera out there (I loved the build quality) its performance is (was) nowhere near what the G1X puts out.

As to me the NR as used in this samples is on the heavy side I would really first like to see RAW stuff before making any comments on the lens performance.

I did see some unsharpness in one of the images (the wall with electrical stuff) and I would not rule out something like slight decenterring of the lens - but I would wait for full review of the camera to judge further.

So - I am not saying that the GX1 is 'perfect' or 'the best out of XYZ' or such - its output seems really good to start with. And way beyond what a camera like C-5060.

And it is very improbable that I will get the G1X - not my style. But I still find it very good (based on what).

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jan 17, 2012)

Seems to me he simply doesn't get how more megapixels bring out more flaws, and doesn't care for high iso. Plus a whole lot of ignorance.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

In your last comment, proxy , at last a lot of sense and I mostly agree . The concept behind the G1 X is excellent but it does need to have a good enough lens and, this sample at least does not. If it did I would be interested as my D300 with 12-24 mm Sigma weighs 1503g, a lot too much to carry around all of the time.

slncezgsi "nowhere near what the G1X puts out"On whose say so? If it was as good as it should be, but the lens is not...

In good light at low ISO the C-5060 was fine, still is. I suspect you are right at higher ISO not so, where I agree the G1 X appears to be good up to about 1600, may be more. In that respect at least, we do have progress. Who told you the C-5060 no longer is good? What makes you think so? I happen to like landscapes which generally have strong light. Maybe in poor light the C-50560 is awful, no idea! However if a lens is bad in decent light, it is not going to improve in bad light, is it? I would not be satisfied with the lens in the G1X in any light.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

M Jesper When you look at a picture, what you see is what you see. It makes no difference how many megapixels there are, you are still seeing what you see. And, if the result is better or worse it is better or worse regardless of anything. With or without a whole lot of ignorance. Yours.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

keepreal, downsize the G1X output to the same size as your Oly 5060 and then you'll be a little closer to comparing apples to apples. Would you compare a 35mm negative to a medium format negative by comparing a 20X30 print from each? At full resolution it may appear that some photographs show less detail because the sensor is reaching or exceeding the resolving ability of the lens, but the only true test for comparison is shooting a resolution chart...OR if you shot the exact same photograph with two cameras, then you could do a real comparison. That 5MP on the 5060 wasn't coming close to the resolving ability of its lens.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
KimTeo
By KimTeo (Jan 17, 2012)

I am still using the C5060, C7070 (same as C5060, but 7.1 Mp), and C8080 - all small sensor all-in-one.
I was almost sure that the G1X would be a excellent upgrade, especially when the G1X is almost indentical in size to the C5060/7070, yet has a much larger sensor.

After viewing these G1X images, I am not so sure. It does not give me the Wow feeling. I think my best 'photographs' from these dynasaurs are better, and pretty sure the C8080 lens is better too; not so sure about the C5060/C7070 lens. Considering that these photos were made in London's weather, I will have to wait and see if the full review is any better.

Of course the G1X has a huge low-light/hand holdability advantage - 5 stops in ISO, plus 3 stops in IS = a whopping 8 stops!

0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

Those who waited for a camera like this will buy it in a heartbeat and never look back at current offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and more. This camera was long overdue despite, I know, no 24mm 2.0 lens and OLED EVF... no matter how many more trolls appear here it will sell and sell big. One good camera and no more lens bags... need I say more? at a still reasonable price and very good IQ. Dont forget retractable lens coupled with a sensor just 3.5 mm narrower then APS-C - the last one you need to get from Canon to put it to use. I understand the disappointemt of other brands fans. Yes, they didn't think of it, Canon did. Always wanted my G outfitted with a bigger sensor, just that. My wish was granted. Some of the posters will have to wait for their favourite brands to wake up and even if they do it WILL cost you dearly in lenses and bills for chiropractor services.
So instead of complaining here about Canon go make them deliver what you always wanted (at $150?)

7 upvotes
Gerardjan
By Gerardjan (Jan 17, 2012)

Couldn't say it better (but than again I am Dutch)Pre ordered mine yesterday, sold my DSLR.

1 upvote
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

Given what I think (see above) your decision shocks me! Why did you not wait for a proper test? Can you get your DSLR back?

1 upvote
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

Oh, I love the spirit... no DSLR, what a relief. Been there.

0 upvotes
DonnyHiFi
By DonnyHiFi (Jan 17, 2012)

Keepreal,

Given the fact that almost everyone doesn't agree with your opinion, its not shocking at all, really...

2 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

DonnyHiFi Almost everyone. Says who? Lemmings, you mean?

I would like to see some of the photos of these wise guys whose logic, IQ and invented evidence (eg. almost everyone) are about as advanced as a child. I expect their pictures are too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

Putting a 100% digital image on a screen is a poor method of judging detail unless you're using a resolution chart to determine actual resolution. An image that shows up on the screen as perfectly sharp at 1000X1000 may look like garbage at 4000X4000. An image with a native res of 4000X4000 may not look all that sharp, but downsize it to 1000X1000 and suddenly it looks tack sharp. At the low end the resolution may have been limited by the sensor and at the high end it may have been limited by the lens. If you put a modern day 10MP sensor in an old Oly 5060 and compared an original 5MP shot to the new 10MP, at 100% I bet you'd be unhappy with the 10MP sensor, but I bet it could resolve more detail than the 5MP sensor. That is to say downsize the 10MP to 5MP and I bet the image would contain more detail than the 5MP was able to resolve. This is, of course, assuming that the lens was only able to create a circle of confusion somewhere between the pixel size of the 5 and 10MP sensor.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Jan 17, 2012)

This is great! Kudos to Canon. If only they made up some better name for this camera, to address the possible confusion with the rest of similarly named products on the market.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jan 17, 2012)

After looking at the samples, it is safe to say the enthusiast fixed lens compact camera market will never be the same. This camera is one of the best to come out of Canon in a long time. It is much more than just an incremental model upgrade. It has changed what is considered possible with this size of camera.

5 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Jan 17, 2012)

I wish it where more noisy. Some noise reduction artefacts are visible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

RAW.

0 upvotes
TX Photo Doc
By TX Photo Doc (Jan 17, 2012)

I have a G12 that I can easily make nice 16x20 exhibition prints with. Instead of making a G12 with just a bigger sensor, I would have been willing to spend the money for the new camera if there were other improvements over the G12 like a 24mm equiv, as well as f2 at the wide end.

0 upvotes
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Jan 17, 2012)

You want 24mm? 16mm? Stitch a couple of photos together... Fish Eye? Tilt shift? For less than $50 PhotoShop LE can replace dozens of $1,000 lenses, that you'd only use rarely. Do we deserve digital technology if we're all still stuck with an analog mentality?

7 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

You may be right about G12 prints but only in sunlight. G1X removes that limitation, you can start shooting early mornings and finish evenings. But you seem to like G12 at 2.8 28mm, how come?

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jan 17, 2012)

Richie Beans - amazing.

I have three lens on my Nikon D300 - 12-24mm, 24-85mm and 70-300mm. On holiday recently I took 768 shots and 87% were at 24mm or wider. It would be nice to have a smaller lighter camera as an alternative to the Nikon D300 with 12-24 but your stitch-up is not the answer.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jan 17, 2012)

There are so many factors that determine how large an image can be printed with acceptable quality that saying the G12 can make nice 16X20 prints is pretty much meaningless. Given the right set of circumstances most modern cameras can do that. What this camera will give is a wider range of images that can be printed at that size successfully.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

Stating personal opinion as fact strikes again!!! My way of saying "agreed" Josh.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Jan 17, 2012)

Based on everything I've seen so far, I've pre-ordered one from Amazon. This will be the perfect complement to my 7D. I've used an XZ1 and LX3 previously, and while the bright lenses are indeed helpful in low light, sometimes that was not enough and I needed to shoot above ISO 400 and was always underwhelmed at the mushy, processed looking results. High ISO performance on the G1X looks comparable to my 7D, and the camera is only a bit bigger than the other enthusiasts cameras (save the S100).

I like the direction Canon took with the G1X as I was looking for a large sensor discreet camera and don't care about swapping out lenses (my previous favorite was the NEX7). Additionally, based on the samples here, the lens looks pretty sharp even wide open at wide angle.

My only wish would be for a control ring of some sort to change ISO.

4 upvotes
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Jan 17, 2012)

This camera targets a different type of enthusiasts, I think. Canon has successfully made a bridge between point-n-shoot cameras having small-sized sensor and lens-interchangable cameras with bigger sensors. There's no camera in market both of this size of sensor and retractable zoom lens.

Every camera doesn't suit everyone, isn't it?

8 upvotes
Carlos C
By Carlos C (Jan 17, 2012)

well said

0 upvotes
Carlos C
By Carlos C (Jan 17, 2012)

When I see the many post saying you have better options on some dSLRs, no kidding. However, we are looking at form factor here. A camera significantly smaller than an dSLR that can take dSLR quality pictures (at least that what these samples seems to indicate). Yes, I do not like the price, but if you like the convenience (I am very sure it will sell well) you have a choice to make.
To me this one is all about how much is it worth to you to have that size camera with that IQ with you. The answer will obviously vary greatly on the individual.

6 upvotes
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Jan 17, 2012)

A point-n-shoot took these photos? No touch screen to fiddle with? No lenses to swap out and keep clean? No giant DSLR kit to stuff back into it's own padded duffle? Time to upgrade the A650!!

18 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm impressed! Fringing is well controlled and images look like they are from an APS SLR. There is a bit of sharpness loss at wide angle in the corners, but that is given. When camera is off, lens stows nicely in the body. Not a pocket camera by any means, but pretty compact for the sensor size. Canon made a winner!

4 upvotes
Mordechai
By Mordechai (Jan 17, 2012)

This output would be respectable even for a full-fledged DSLR. 'Nuff said. If the AF is any good, this will be a real winner. Expensive perhaps, but not really overpriced for what it is.

4 upvotes
Kwick1
By Kwick1 (Jan 17, 2012)

I don't know how to quantify this. The High ISO samples look good, but all of the samples look very "digital", with bland colors, low contrast, etc. I didn't find them appealling at all compared to any of the Olympus cam JPGs or the Fuji X100.

4 upvotes
Augustin Man
By Augustin Man (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm VERY happy you said this as a professional because I didn't dare to say it as a simple hobbyist, but actually I'm not at all impressed by the samples.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 17, 2012)

Help for you to quantify what you don't know:

When you say 'bland colors/low contrast'
You mean low saturation/low contrast (i.e. pro requirements)

Pro dSLRs are typically set to this kind of setting, and this is what pros want, very uncartoonish, and details can be had at both contrast extremes (shadow details and highlight details)

Unless they want to exaggerate the scenery (see below). PRO FILM (like those used for portraits and weddings) had BOTH these highly desirable characteristics, and so now, do high end dSLRs

Which can easily be cranked to what you prefer 'popular for the masses' high saturation/high contrast (virtually identical to the FILM aimed at the popular masses in the old days). because the film makers knew this is what the masses thought were 'great colors' and great look (high contrast prints look like they pop out even if they totally lose details in the shadows and highlights)

Your Oly/Fuji dcams are catering to the masses who want just that

not G shooters.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jan 17, 2012)

some professionals know to pander to the masses

and yes, many of us as serious amateurs often do the same for our families and friend when shooting 'for them', even though we know better, that exaggerated colors and contrast is the least natural of all. what we as humans are able to perceive under any lighting situation in any OPEN area (even if covered) is that there are no such things as black shadow surfaces or totally blown highlight surfaces, ever. our eyes see both shadows and highlight details all the time unless it is super strong light searing into our eyeballs straight on (straight on to a lens/sensor; same thing).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Retro Joe
By Retro Joe (Jan 17, 2012)

Sorry, but...reading your posts/replies makes me want to poke my own eyes out.

1 upvote
Rich Niemeyer
By Rich Niemeyer (Jan 17, 2012)

Outstanding Joe! I guess none of us know how to take images that people like. 40 years of using Leica and Canon with high resolution and contrast has yielded many sellable results. Guess I won't poke my eyes out yet...

1 upvote
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (Jan 17, 2012)

WOW incredible pictures from this camera. This is the new standard in soccer mom gear!

0 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Jan 17, 2012)

Well, now i want to return my NEX-5n :p ...this looks more up my alley.

1 upvote
proxy
By proxy (Jan 17, 2012)

5N is a KEEPER, regardless. Mine stays home. Best sensor in class, by far. This is a true marvel at current price. A true Leica KILLER you can have at 1/10 of the M9 cost.

0 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Jan 17, 2012)

Very nice photo at 12 K ISO. Dark zones showed a little bit grainy at full resolution not so evident in cropped image. The more illuminated central zone is very acceptable even at full resolution.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 17, 2012)

Interesting camera, but for this price there are better options.

If your into video, a Canon T3i will be significantly better because you can mount some excellent lenses, including Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Tamron 17-50, EF 50 1.4, etc.

If photos are your thing, a Nikon D5100 with a DX 35 1.8, and a 55-200 VR for the long end, will outperform this camera by a lot.

If you just want a snapshot camera, an Olympus XZ-1 is much cheaper, smaller, has great IQ, and a much faster lens.

If Canon puts this same sensor in an ILC, that's a different story, as then you'll have the option of mounting faster glass.

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 17, 2012)

most people who buy a canon G model camera have ZERO interest in buying extra lenses. when will people here get that?
photogs are a minority these days.

and when people want a DSLR they will buy a DSLR... simple as that.

out there the customers a are not all tech nerdy photogs.
they want a compact camera with great image quality.
most don´t even know what "f-stop" means.

canon understands the different needs of customers... that is why canon is making profit with it´s camera business and other companys not.

sure canon could make this a ILC.... but have you looked at lens sales for M43 cameras... well it was not looking that good last time i checked.
most PEN and GF users runing around with just a KIT lens and that´s it.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 17, 2012)

But marike6 makes a good point - the cameras and lenses he mentions are truly superior options for those applications.

Interesting comment about the M43 lens sales - I can easily see that happening in that market. People just get the kit zooms, or if they're a pro they might get one prime lens. For example, they get just the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 and use the camera much like a Fuji X100.

I agree that turning the G1 X into an ILC wouldn't help much - when I bought my Olympus XZ-1 I specifically wanted a pocketable camera with good IQ and a built-in zoom, and changing lenses would have defeated the purpose of its simplicity.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

You know what, throwing the word "superior" around and other subjective terms is really holding one's own standard up as that by which all others are measured. I own equipment that is superior in many ways to the G1X...it's also much larger, much more expensive, much louder, much heavier, and these attributes affect how I use it. Arguing the features of a camera one at a time and pointing out those cameras that are superior in that one way is like shooting fish in a barrel. Finding a camera that suits your needs is the work of the photographer alone, and all others should either make good arguments or none at all.

3 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Jan 18, 2012)

You seem to have forgotten the lens aren't free in your pricing model - a T3i with 10-22mm is $1400, a lot more than the $800 G1X.

The XZ-1 has a significantly smaller sensor than the G1X which means it needs that fast lens to not quite keep up. The G1X is excellently priced for what you get.

0 upvotes
René
By René (Jan 17, 2012)

Has anyone noticed noise in dark areas, even around 125 iso?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
john
By john (Jan 17, 2012)

big sensor with small body tend to have AF problems

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 17, 2012)

ROTFL... yeah we all know that the BODY SIZE has a tremendous influence on AF accuracy and speed.

honest where all these people comming from?

20 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jan 17, 2012)

Yes, make fun of your ignorance. Obviously he's not talking about body size, but the fact that contrast-based af tends to have questionable performance with larger sensors. A combination most commonly found in .... large sensor compacts aka mirrorless. And he's right. Up to now the only large sensor compact that can do a decent subject tracking is the Nikon1. How? By NOT having a large sensor.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

This is the first point and shoot (small body) camera with a large sensor. Statistics that would lead one to a conclusion that this class of camera "tend" to do anything requires a sample size of more than one.

3 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 16, 2012)

for the $799 price-- one can have a Canon T3i or a Nikon D5100 -- give or take $50-- when the DSLRS are on sale..

right now the Canon T3i is $749 on sale, the Nikon D5100 is $799..

granted the DSLRs are not as small..but they are small already as far as DSLRs are concerned.. but then again, I am betting the DSLRs AF a lot faster than the G1x...

why can't have it all? :-)

if this Canon G1X-- is priced at $549 ... I think I will be more than willing to have it :-) does anybody share these thoughts?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Jan 16, 2012)

Agree with you, G1X should be priced at $549, $649 max.

2 upvotes
pcworth
By pcworth (Jan 17, 2012)

Have you included the price of lenses in this calculation? What about the difference in size? You could realistically take this camera to Disney World, which would be an insane thing to try and do with an SLR and a bag of lenses.

I am not sure what a camera like this is really worth, but I am sure there is a premium to be paid when you try and squeeze this kind of technology in to such a small package. It would make much more sense to compare this to a camera in its class such as the . . . . . . . Well there isn't one, but I suppose it could be compared to the new offerings from fuji even though the sensor in the G1X is much larger and lower noise.

5 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 17, 2012)

when I mentioned the DSLRs.. the prices included the lens kits.. 18-55 (27-82.5mm equiv)... versus the 28-112mm of the G1X..

and yes I have mentioned the size difference.. but if we are being realistic.. when one brings a camera-- the size of a G1X and the size of the mentioned DSLRs... once the cameras are around your neck or your shoulder.. granted that is all one will be bringing (ONLY the G1X and/OR the DSLR with kit lens).... all of them are bulky already... anyway

once again.. i hear what you are saying.. but the question is.. would the premium price of the G1X warrants it? ...

and also.. believe me i want to have this G1X.. but I am just balking at the price... that is all...

0 upvotes
regova
By regova (Jan 17, 2012)

Have you thought about Panasonic Lumix G3 or GX1? Its very questionable to me why dpreview has already published pre-production samples of Canon G1x and not any sample of Panasonic GX1, which has been out for few months now.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1 upvote
René
By René (Jan 17, 2012)

Totally agreed. I have a G12 which i got for less than $500. A bigger sensor with mainly better high ISO doesn't justify the $800 price... not at all !

2 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Jan 17, 2012)

m4/3 systems are charging $ 900 for the body and $ 700 for Every lens. Canon's pricing is so aggressive in this indutry it is nothing short of extremely revolutionary. Look at Fui trying to get $ 3500 for the camera and three lenses...which by the way Canpn's zoom covers.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 17, 2012)

i think a ferrari 458 spider should be 25000 euro max... then i would buy one.

and what do you pay for a lumix LX5... ??

G1 X expensive?.... well not for what it offers.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Uri Ben
By Uri Ben (Jan 17, 2012)

John....11: That's the G1x - Cost too much? not good? don't buy, but I am sure that millions will ( may be me too)

0 upvotes
Retro Joe
By Retro Joe (Jan 17, 2012)

there will be a market for this camera and the G series along with other brand advanced camera enthusiasts will be chief among them. As a past owner of G12, G11, LX5, TL500 and P7000, this camera will easily surpass what they each offered...and they had some great benefits.
All cameras come with compromises, the G1x will have less than other smaller-sensored cameras.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Jan 17, 2012)

I don't want a fat Rebel. No thanks.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

I would like to make a statement that is of equal validity. In two years I will have spent plenty of time with my G1X. I will have it with me on a day that I otherwise would not have brought my DSLR with me. It will be the right tool for the job and I'll get the shot of my life. On that day it will have made itself worth 10 times the price I paid for it. Dear Canon, please charge me $2,000 for this camera because of its potential in MY hands. Because others can only squeeze somewhere under $800 of value out of it, please don't allow them to have one.
Anyone who can't get $800 of value out of this camera should hang up their camera today and go into coin collecting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
DonnyHiFi
By DonnyHiFi (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree, the price is just too high, I would rather get a Canon or Nikon DSLR you just mentioned with a kit lens. I just see the need for one of these cameras for myself. If I'm carrying this around my shoulder I would rather just have my 60D 17-55mm on me. If not then it has to be pocket sized and my S90 and iPhone 4s covers that well.

This camera would be quite useful if you carry a work bag with you all the time such as a TUMI bag, you can just throw this in the bag and have a great IQ camera with you all the time.

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Jan 16, 2012)

The IQ seems to be excellent. Thanks for the good samples, DPR.

$600 and I'm in.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 16, 2012)

The ISO 1600 shot inside the train station (?) is impressive

0 upvotes
George Sears
By George Sears (Jan 16, 2012)

I printed an ISO 100 shot at 8 by 10. The output is very nice. The lens seems quite good. Under a 3x magnifier, I compared it to an 8x10 from a Canon S90. The S90 is not tack sharp, but it is far from unsharp. Fine detail is blurred, but the effect without a magnifier is not unpleasant. The G1x is crisper and the lens seems to offer more contrast, therefore more texture in the printed output.

Of course, the S90 is kind of a step brother to the G12. On balance, I would take the S90 output with the S90 form factor. Did Canon really fail with the S90 or G12? Not with me.

Relative to a cheap mirrorless, the Panasonic GF3 with kit, for daylight shots at mid-apertures I can see little advantage to the G1x. Again, two roughly letter size prints under a 3x magnifier. So, you might buy an interchangeable lens mini, Pen EPM1, Panasonic G3 etc, to save money. The G3 has a nice EVF.

The G1 is basically a $500 lens, somethiing like that.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 16, 2012)

looks pretty much like an APS-C DSLR with a kit lens. As we'd expect.

0 upvotes
manishsaini
By manishsaini (Jan 16, 2012)

may be 28mm at the lower end is kept to retain the best quality of the optics, but digic 5 can handle more fps and better AF system for sure.

0 upvotes
massimobenenti
By massimobenenti (Jan 16, 2012)

I have been waiting for years for this new G series camera and for what I can see here I'm REALLY disappointed. To me image quality is the first thing, then everything else. SO they made a very high IQ camera, well built, great high ISO performance....WITH SUCH A BAD LENS?????

I am quite sure that using RAW will not make any difference in this matter because when you have a lens with such bad borders (sharpness and coma just are AWFUL) nothing can be done.

My beloved Canon...you really missed a great chance to give us a "professional" compact camera.

I'll buy a Sigma DP2 used camera without regret, not having the money to buy a Fuji X-Pro1.

So sad.

2 upvotes
Kurt Haerting
By Kurt Haerting (Jan 16, 2012)

Maybe you´d better get yourself a new computer display? Or even glasses?

11 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 16, 2012)

The lens isn't THAT bad. In some focal lengths (typically, between 30 and 40 mm non-equiv), the lower left corner is pretty bad. This isn't that big an issue when fully zoomed out or around 60mm or more, though.

The center is sharp at every focal lengths.

1 upvote
pcworth
By pcworth (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm not sure what he really meant by "Bad" lens, but when you consider the types of lenses showing up on cameras like ZX-1, LX-5, and X-10, it is not clear to me why Canon is sticking with lenses that have such small apertures at full zoom and then are incapable of going much smaller. If the Fuji can handle f/2.8 to f/11 at full, then so should the Canon.

This does not make it a "bad" lens per-se, and the pics are great, but it is something that makes me think twice because it reduces my compositional options. I felt the same about the s100, which I had been eagerly waiting for and decided not to get. Maybe I am asking too much, but I am really looking for something that offers as good or better aperture range than my current camera (FZ5, f/2.8 to f/3.3).

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

There is an over abundance of people in the world with very strong opinions and little experience to back them up.

7 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Jan 17, 2012)

he is either blind or a nikon troll trying to make this camera bad.. otherwise i have no idea what he is talking about.

1 upvote
massimobenenti
By massimobenenti (Jan 17, 2012)

Sorry guys...."he" is referred to me? A nikon troll too? This latter made my day....my smile is HUGE!
OK let's say something. My display is outstanding, my eyes are very good.

I do not want to be critical nor with CAnon (which I love) nor with such expert ( ;-) )people...
TO ME it is quite obvious even to a semi blind person that the lens they put on this otherwise good/excellent camera is
REALLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH for that sensor.
TO ME the borders are as important as the center of the image. Look at a Sigma Dp1 or DP2 files and it will be quite clear what I'm talking about, as a reference. Unfortunately they are just 5MP cameras otherwise they are the standard of quality I expect from a VERY GOOD compact camera.
That's all. And that - to me - means giving an opinion not being a blind, a nikon troll (???) or anything.

My regards! LOL

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

Put a 14MP on your Sigma and watch it outresolve that wonderful lens to the point of actually seeing the soft corners and imperfect edges. High resolution and high pixel density will put even the best lens to the test, and since all lenses are imperfect you'll see more and more imperfections as the sensor advances to the point of resolving greater and greater detail.

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 16, 2012)

Wow, those are crispy looking shots. And lens performance seems to hold very well all along the range, and at the widest aperture. Canon did their homework!
14 MP complete that sharp lens very well ( I missed these few MP on my J1, it just misses that crispiness).

Only things I like less:
* bad bokeh and too little separation at 60.4mm f5.8
* quite bad macro capabilities.

I think I'd be an early adopter, and come back to Canon after a long Nikon trip (last Canon was the S5 IS, which I loved).

1 upvote
DStudio
By DStudio (Jan 16, 2012)

The Image Quality is nice, and the high ISO performance is impressive. However, it appears the DOF is not as narrow as on my Olympus XZ-1. I'd love to have the ISO performance from the G1 X, but the Olympus fits in my pocket.

The G1 X looks like it will be a worthy compromise for many. But the Olympus plus a Pentax K-5 and fast lenses works well for me.

Nevertheless, I think the most significant point is that the high ISO performance portends similar results from the new Canon DSLRs! When I first read the EOS-1D X announcement I was skeptical, but now I believe they can do it. Canon may finally be catching up with Nikon, Pentax and Sony in this area.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 16, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1679547 does show

- the lens' bottom left corner is indeed really bad at 38mm. (The center is great though.)

- there is visible noise in the shadows even at ISO200 (check out the back of the Tower and the trees on the right)

Otherwise, great results - I was expecting definitely worse.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 16, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1679542 is also worth checking out:

- at 60 mm, the lower left corner is much better than at 38mm (see prev. image)

- no noise seems to be present in the blue channel (see the sky), unlike, say, with most?all? m43 cameras.

(-there is some cushion distortion - check out the line of the water. It's in no way bad though and can easily be fixed in PP.)

0 upvotes
CAcreeks
By CAcreeks (Jan 17, 2012)

I think two of your comments about 1679547 are slightly off. The lower left corner could simply be too near to be within the DOF. Forest noise looks like very darkly rendered tree branches to me, although maybe you are right about the tower.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 17, 2012)

I don't see a problem with the corner, and that picture doesn't offer much in the way of scenery by which to judge the corners. Also, the shadows are underexposed because of the background, and even the best camera is going to show some noise in underexposed areas.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jan 17, 2012)

"I think two of your comments about 1679547 are slightly off."

Over at the Canon fora, the lens corner problems (particularly that of the lower left one) in the 30-40mm region has been discussed in length. (Please see e.g. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&thread=40325394 ) This is why it was the first I checked out and compared at different focal lengths to find out whether all G1X samples exhibit the same behaviour, or, was it just sample variance. (Unfortunately, the former.)

"The lower left corner could simply be too near to be within the DOF."

Nope, it isn't - the corner is simply bad. The same blur can easily be spotted in all of the otehr shots to a greatly varying degree (depending on the FL).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Jan 18, 2012)

All the other test shots....using exactly the same focal length and aperture? Yeah, I'd imagine they'd all have the same depth of field. Either way, looking at every single shot out in the real world the corners and edges hold up very well.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 425
123