Previous news story    Next news story

CP+ 2014: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

By Barney Britton on Feb 13, 2014 at 02:30 GMT
Buy on GearShop$799.00
Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II
1 2 3 4 5 7

Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

We're at the CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan where Canon is showing off its latest high-end compact camera, the PowerShot G1 X Mark II. The G1 X Mark II replaces the original G1 X, which was announced two years ago and offers several improvements over the older model including a faster 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens and a closer minimum focus distance.

The G1 X Mark II is built around a 1.5 inch 12.8MP CMOS sensor and can be used with an (optional) electronic viewfinder, shown here.

Read more about the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

39
I own it
237
I want it
38
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

Comments

Total comments: 201
12
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (4 weeks ago)

So, finally Canon joins the FourThirds system. ;-)

It is basically a µFT with an F2.0 zoom lens. Excellent!
If the lens performs as well as on the previous model, Canon has a clear winner.

Only drawback:
Choices are getting more difficult: GM1, E-M10 or G1Xm2...???

Well done, Canon!

0 upvotes
rustymarmot
By rustymarmot (1 month ago)

No built in VF is a deal breaker for me as well. The optional VF is both expensive, cumbersome and UGLY UGLY UGLY... Cannon must have got the industrial designers to do this on a bad day (or they are have a laugh).

I moved from SLR's to a G11 until i dropped it. I will buy a G16 instead of this.

Im not sure camera manufacturers know this but people who are short sighted struggle to compose a shot using an LCD screen. This is why i went for the G11 as my first compact(ish) camera in the first place... and loved it.

PS to a comment below:
Part of the photographic merit of a camera is how you use it. Some may think that VF's are old school but we have a number of cameras lying around the house; SLR's, the G11 (when working), a Lumix GX1 and and something else. My kids instinctively go to use the cameras with a VF. It is their preference even though the first cameras i let the use were LCD screen only... If it encourages people to pick up a camera to take a photo then thats great.

0 upvotes
Bigheadtaco
By Bigheadtaco (2 months ago)

I reviewed the original G1X and I loved the image quality.... but that's about it. The ergonomics didn't make a lot of sense (why didn't they just take ergonomics from an already mature G-series cameras?) and the AF was mediocre. But the potential was there. This new version looks amazing. I can't wait to review soon.

4 upvotes
kitchenbug
By kitchenbug (2 months ago)

Some more product photos, including menus (in Japanese):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/pview/20140219_634809.html

1 upvote
orion1983
By orion1983 (2 months ago)

Plusminus twice the size and half the MP compared to RX100s.....if the IQ of the G1XII is not "2 steps better" than the Sonies, they did something severly wrong ;)

0 upvotes
orion1983
By orion1983 (2 months ago)

"" (with the DIGIC 6 processor), texture and noise
are precisely isolated, making it possible to reduce noise at ISO
1600 equivalent to levels comparable with ISO 400 using
DIGIC 5.""

Hope they´re right in what Canon offcially claims for the G1X II in their related pdf linked at photorumors....

1 upvote
piratejabez
By piratejabez (2 months ago)

To anyone who may have insight, or to future reviewers: I'm interested in the responsiveness of zoom via both toggle and the ring. How quickly can you zoom in and out with each? All I've heard is Engadget's mention of the "speedy zoom toggle." Thanks.

0 upvotes
rmode
By rmode (2 months ago)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Canon... give us manual control of shutter speed, ISO, and aperture in MOVIE MODE! This should be standard on a $800 point & shoot. Like my Panasonic LX7, Olympus EP-1 & EP-2, Nikon V1, RX100, RX10, Nikon 7800, etc etc etc. Canon is the only hold-out putting manual movie control on $500+ p&s cameras. Absurd. Myself and others have begged for this. Please finally!! Then maybe I can start supporting Canon p&s cameras again.

1 upvote
theRose
By theRose (1 month ago)

Do they not have that on their compacts? My 3 year old 550D had that from scratch

0 upvotes
fotokeena
By fotokeena (2 months ago)

From the pictures shown, the whole package appears to be kinda clumsy, with disproportionately large external view finder, huge lens hood, and flimsy dinky flash...LCD screen about to drop off the back, what a weird contraception.

How would it play out in real action, I wonder.
What do you say?

0 upvotes
Red Penny
By Red Penny (2 months ago)

Any one know if they've managed to cut down the shutter lag time on this camera compared to the G1 X? Everything else considered, this may very well decide whether I'd spring for it or not.

0 upvotes
accupix
By accupix (2 months ago)

Concerned that the lack of the ability to control DR in a single exposure mode like Fuji and Sony cameras do- I am hooked on this feature but see no reference to this ability in current and future Canon cameras- Can someone enlighten me?

Looking to upgrade from RX100, had my eyes on an RX10 but the new Canon semi-compact camera might bring me back to Canon as an RX10 is big, heavy, and expensive.

Love the idea of an EVF that you can shoot looking down into it.

0 upvotes
writelight
By writelight (2 months ago)

Please, enough whining about the optional EVF. Buy it, stick it in your pocket, and whip it out when you want to use it.Or don't. Get my drift? This is just as annoying as the "it won't fit in my shirt pocket" bs. No sh**, Sherlock. Can't we just discuss the photographic merits of the camera instead of all the adolescent pimple-esque gurgitation? Rant over. For now. Oh, yeah, have a nice day.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

Somebody please steal this lens and release it in m43 mount. Weather-sealed, please.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Please don't. I won't be able to resist that no matter the cost.
Gx7 with that lens think of the possibilities.

1 upvote
R1Law
By R1Law (2 months ago)

Canon and the EVF:

It's time...maybe the external EVF is the first step towards this tech showing up in the EOS line. I'm tired of swapping to my NEX7 to shot video while taking primary shots with by 7D (and no, I don't want to run around with those massive Zacuto type adaptors.) My eyes are older and I can't deal with the 7D LCD screen to shoot/compose video - it's time to integrate this into the camera body. The NEX7 makes that simple, and steadier, with it's integrated EVF. CANON - the demographics (and technology) are running away from you. Get on board! And don't bitch about the SUPERIORITY of prism view finders....The EVF overwhelms with ease of use and adaptability. Sony is stealing your thunder - for now I'm grateful for Metabones adaptors to secure my Canon glass on the NEX.

2 upvotes
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (2 months ago)

Wow as big as that is you might as well have a full size DSLR. I know some people will say well if you put the same lens on one it would be huge. Well with a FF camera I can crop to get a lot of the lens length, and I rarely need that much zoom anyways. I think that is the reason God gave us feet to be able to walk closer lol.

I will pass thank you.

0 upvotes
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

It is actually not that! big. Only a small bit larger as for example the G16. It just look huge in these images.

A 6D or 5DmkIII with 24-120mm/f4 lens to walk around with or this G1-XmkII... Different cameras for different needs. But I'd choose the this new G1-X.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

You are just showing your ignorance regarding the size of the G1X compared to a full size DSLR. Just go ahead and put a full size DSLR next to the G1X MKII and you'll realize how silly and foolish your statement is. The G1X MKII is *significantly* smaller and lighter than any DSLR with comparable lens. In fact, the entire weight of the G1X MKII with lens (553 grams) is much lighter than a Canon 70D body alone (755g grams). Lugging around a big DSLR with lens is a very different experience than carrying something as compact as a G1X MKII. A G1X MKII fits nicely into a coat pocket, or hangs lightly from a shoulder strap or hand strap. You can't say that about a DSLR, especially a FF DSLR. And when walking around with a DSLR, it really sticks out like a sore thumb. Especially a FF DSLR. As a FF DSLR shooter myself, I can confidently say that there are plenty of situations where I would *much* rather have a more compact camera than my beloved FF DSLR. Hence, a body like the G1X.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Petak
By Petak (2 months ago)

You say God gave you feet to get closer to your subject and so you don't need to zoom. I wonder what God gave you to change perspective and dept of field?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

"I think that is the reason God gave us feet"

I don't know which god is yours but he forgot to give you brains.

5 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (2 months ago)

Marketing guys make miracles.

Let's make it less capable than competition, let's remove the viewfinder and sell it as option, let's add bulk, let's make it pricey.

And there it is: a different market niche that will surely find its estimators.

4 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (2 months ago)

The VF is sold as an option because of the new, larger and much better lens, and to make the bulk optional for only when you need it. I don't think it's pricey compared to the competition. This is a larger sensor than a micro 4/3 camera and has an awesome lens, which is the half of a camera. It's less expensive than e.g. a Fuji X100, but kind of pricey compared to a micro 4/3 with a cheap kit lens -- i.e. precisely where I think it should logically be.

It's larger than the RX100 but only because the RX100 has a smaller sensor and a, uh, limited... lens on the long end (f/4.9! @ 1" sensor, say no more). It's however smaller than an RX10, but that's because the zoom range is shorter. So one could consider this a middle ground, one that should have noticeably better image quality, noise performance, and depth of field control than both of these.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
massimogori
By massimogori (2 months ago)

QED.

0 upvotes
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

'let's add bulk' ?? Check the camera sizes website. http://camerasize.com/compare/#474,534

0 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (2 months ago)

@ Wacon: please do not forget the optional VF!

0 upvotes
EthanP99
By EthanP99 (2 months ago)

wonder where they got the idea for the viewfinder...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-slkb6Mejg40/Ufv-XQkKnEI/AAAAAAAAJZA/T4oGfci4eL4/s1600/ti01067016bl.jpg

:D

1 upvote
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

lens barrel extension made of plastic or metal ?

1 upvote
aekn
By aekn (2 months ago)

So...look at the first image of the DPR "Hands On" report. Once you get the hood and EVF attached, and extend the flash, how is this easier to use than a mirrorless ILC?

All we needed was a slightly up-sized G12 or a refined G1 X classic. I can't believe I had my hopes up for this monstrosity.

1 upvote
quiquae
By quiquae (2 months ago)

Get back to us when you've actually sized out a mirrorless ILC equipped with a 24mm-120mm equivalent f/2.0-3.9 lens with a hood and EVF. I suspect you'll have trouble even fitting a m4/3 f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom in the same dimension.

3 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (2 months ago)

Me thinks, there is a lot of software lens correction to fit that lens.
So no comparisons to the M or SLRs
I don't see anything exciting in the video department, same old stuff, not even 60fps at the lowest resolution.
Anyone wanting to make full screen HD videos to fit iPad 4:3 retinas, would have to make 640x480 videos. How retarded is that!
And for those who have iPhones, Kindle and Nexus tablets in 16:9 HD video the lens is not longer 24 but 28, so much for the multi-aspect ratio. lol
And the lack of PDAF is not good either for real life amateur videos.
Another intentional crippled Powershot. i pass

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Anyone wanting to make full screen HD videos to fit iPad 4:3 retinas, would have to make 640x480 videos. How retarded is that!"

Other cameras rarely shoot at native 4:3 HD formats like 1440 x 1080. And if they do, they generally use plain MPEG-4 encoding, requiring a H.264 reencode if you need manageable file sizes. And there are no (consumer-priced) cameras capable of producing higher-than-1440x1080-res 4:3 videos.

Unless you use iPhones and jailbreak, that is. I've written a tweak that lets for shooting at 1664x1248 on all iPhone models starting with the 4S and at 1120*840 on the iPhone 4 (all 4:3 modes with sensor oversampling). However, only the iPhone 5s delivers 30 fps in this mode and only under good light. (See http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1538193 for more info.)

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (2 months ago)

H264 is not restricted to any particular aspect ratio or resolution.
The fact that no many cameras have it is not a good excuse.
If there is a limit is in data throughput but there should be an option to maintain the same aspect ratio to fill the screen.
Several Canon EOS cameras can output video in different resolution, aspect ratios and frame rates via hacked firmware, h264 or Raw!!
Apple did wrong by using 4:3 sensor in iPhones instead of 3:2
Thanks for the tweak I'll check it out.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"H264 is not restricted to any particular aspect ratio or resolution."

I know. This is why my 4:3 video recorder records 4:3 content into H.264 at 1664x1248 / 1120*840 resolutions.

I've spoken of consumer cameras currently available. First, few of them support any hi-res 4:3 formats out of the box. The Canon example you cited is a hacked one. So is my iPhone recorder, which requires jailbreaking. Out of the box, the top 4:3 video resolution all iPhones (starting with the 3gs) are capable of recording to is VGA (640x480). Everything above that is 16:9 only.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

The lens correction in camera is a good point. I know when I installed CHDK on my SX230HS I was surprised at what I got in raw, especially at wide angle. I doubt this lens will be as compromised as the lens on my SX230HS, but it may be largely uncorrected, which would be another factor contributing to it's small size (along with the absence of a lens mount, and slow aperture when zoomed out). However, in camera correction really only degrades the edges of the frame, from what I've seen, and not at all focal lengths. There will surely be a sweet spot on this lens.

1 upvote
boblu
By boblu (2 months ago)

Agree. Very disappointed in HD video part. I believe not only it does not have the manual control over the video, it also sad to see no external video input. Just watch video clips (3rd) in Canon USA, you can hear clearly background noise... Will pass too and waiting for M3.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

BTW, Engadget's preview ( http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/13/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-hands-on/ ) also confirms the AF speed is very good:

"This G1 X refresh was comfortable to use and very responsive, from the speedy zoom toggle to the super-fast focusing. "

Nevertheless, as usual with Engadget's camera-specific articles (see for example their absolutely we-have-no-clue-what-we-are-writing-about articles on Nokia's imaging headships like the 808), the article is definitely written by someone not really into photography. He recommends the RX100 over the camera without even knowing how the IQ of the two cameras compare... lolz.

2 upvotes
Dames01
By Dames01 (2 months ago)

If you compare the IQ of the RX100 with that of the original G1X you will find that Canon wins hands down from ISO800 upwards. Canon is claiming a major improvement in terms of signal to noise.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

Yup - after all, while the RX100 has Sony's latest-and-greatest sensor, while the G1X "only" that of Canon (and, the G1X being early 2012, a pretty outdated one), you still can't beat the laws of physics - the G1X delivers better high-ISO performance.

Too bad the Engadget folks haven't been aware of this either. Pretty typical for them, actually...

0 upvotes
select
By select (2 months ago)

the price of this camera si crazy high...

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

Compared to 1/1.7" flagships like the LX7, definitely. Compared to, say, a decent m43 body and the Pana 12-35 & 35-100, definitely NOT.

5 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist
By pacnwhobbyist (2 months ago)

Same as the G1X when it came out.

0 upvotes
fdfgdfgdgf
By fdfgdfgdgf (2 months ago)

but its 550g, heavy for a small body.

1 upvote
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

Actually I like it very much! At 24mm f2.0 aperture and great low light sensor, thats nice. EVF you can choose that option or not. 24-120mm is a great range as a walk around camera.

Question remain....: Can the pop-up flash trigger other speed-lights? Because if you use the EVF you can't use an external speed-light.

5fps is ok, but nothing special. All recent new mirror-less camera's have 8/10/11/12 fps! I can live with 5fps, but with that great 24mm/f2.0 it could have ben great for low light dynamic action shots as well.

I'd skipped Canon(after 20y) winter 2012 in favor of MFT, but I could see myself buying this one.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

24mm 2.0 on a big sensor will be great for indoors shots, especially handheld indoor architecture, etc. This will be a terrific vacation cam.

5 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

rpm40- It does look like a good vacation cam, unless you need the reach of a travel zoom. I've carried both good compacts with a limited zoom and crappy travel compacts with a longer zoom, and I prefer the crappy travel zooms now. If you visit a place time and again, missing a shot is no big deal, but if you are traveling through once, and can't get close to that monument in the distance or whatever, you kind of get sick of it. Been there, done that. Canon has a pretty good series of travel zooms. I own one.

1 upvote
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

You have a good point Bobbarber. Those travel zooms are getting better every year, but image quality can't live up in comparison with this G1-XmkII. A totally different class.

1 upvote
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (2 months ago)

As a professional photographer I fully understand that equipment is not always pleasing to look at - I used to own a Rollieflex twin lens! However for a family/vacation/survey camera this thing is absolutely hideous - especially with the optional viewfinder attachment. Does anyone remember something called the Vsioflex that attached to Leica M cameras? It made an otherwise panache´looking camera into something that resembled a Russian moon lander.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

The G1 X was beautifully unattractive. It was a big chunk of metal with all sorts of random angles that made me love it's awkward good looks. The G1 X Mark II is gorgeous. That big lens on a sleek body is almost enough for me to drop the cash, and I imagine if people start drooling over its performance my last bit of will power will vanish. People who see you using this camera on vacation will see you using a big compact camera instead of a dinky P&S compact that looks like a toy. They'll think "that looks kinda like a G but serious." Enjoy the strangely beautiful angles and chunky lens of the camera.

6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (2 months ago)

When the sloped back Porsche was introduced, somebody said "it looks ugly until you see what it can do". Without the hood and finder, this camera looks like a camera to me.

One has to ask is image quality more important than having a stylish camera. Apparently, many people don't think so.

4 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

This type of camera looks Rube Goldberg-esque to me. I'm not talking just about this Canon. I mean all of the m43 cameras, compacts, etc. that have this kind of a viewfinder. Plus, what if you lose the darn thing? I mean, it's one thing to misplace your $1.99 bubble level for the flash shoe, but shouldn't the viewfinder (assuming there is one) be (firmly) attached to the camera? Am I missing something here?

It's a huge design flaw, and the reason I went with Panny bodies in m43. Oly only had this separate viewfinder option pre-OMD-E5.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
gdfthr73
By gdfthr73 (2 months ago)

You think that a Rolleiflex is Ugly? WOW thats nuts

4 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (2 months ago)

^ Rube Goldberg? You mean a rectangle? Clearly you have been ignoring camera shapes since you fell in love with your Exakta VX500.
This camera is actually very cleanly designed and has great features for walk around photography for those wanting good quality and light weight.
For me it is appealing as it promises to be a Leica Vario replacement with silence, good fast zoom, and good IQ; a perfect candid shooter.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Photomonkey,

Google Rube Goldberg. Click on "Images" in the results.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

You can get an LX7 for the price of this viewfinder. Give me a break.

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

There are a lot of things you can get with that kind of scratch. How many more posts do we have to endure on this line of reasoning?

4 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

So A) Canon is overcharging, or B) The technology, materials, and cost of fabrication of this viewfinder are comparable to the same in an LX7? Unless you can justify B), people are going to point out that Canon is trying to bone them. You know, we're funny like that with our money out here in real life. (Waves)

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Canon is overcharging"

While I don't know the BOM of the G1X2 or that of the LX7, there is a major difference between the two cameras: the large-sensor compact scene is pretty much deserted, while the 1/1.7" one is full of alternatives, starting with the, now that the P340 is announced, $200 Nikon P330, having Canon's S110/S120 and even Pana's older but, IQ wise, still excellent LX3/5. These cameras all are pretty much comparable, specs- and IQ-wise. No wonder Pana need to make major price cuts.

Large-sensor compacts? Some Fuji models? The RX100 (II)? And that's all. No wonder Sony, Fuji and, now, Canon can ask for a lot more money than Pana for the LX7.

Pana could remedy the situation by releasing a large-sensor compact, with comparable specs, themselves. Should they deliver the same set of features (most importantly, the bright, and for its capabilities, extremely small lens), they could easily offer a true alternative. The LX7 simply isn't.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Hey Menneisyys

Try reading the post before you comment.

The cost of the LX7 was being compared to the cost of the add on VIEWFINDER that comes with this camera, not the whole camera!

In other words, the LX7, with chassis, sensor, circuit board, f1.4 lens, LCD screen, dials, buttons, etc., etc., etc. costs LESS than the add-on VIEWFINDER of this camera, which is basically a screen in a hood, with electrical contacts!

Hey, this is a great camera, but they are seriously overcharging, for the viewfinder at least. If you can't see that, then your bias is showing through. I've acknowledged the strengths of this camera many times.!

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

@bobbarber

"So A) Canon is overcharging, or B) The technology, materials, and cost of fabrication of this viewfinder are comparable to the same in an LX7? Unless you can justify B), people are going to point out that Canon is trying to bone them. You know, we're funny like that with our money out here in real life. (Waves)"

The cost of a product is based on more than just the cost of building it. I don't understand why people keep going back to this oversimplification. Oh, yeah I do....they're cheap.

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"The cost of the LX7 was being compared to the cost of the add on VIEWFINDER that comes with this camera, not the whole camera!"

Yeah, I know. That's the result of the fierce competition in the 1/1.7" enthusiast market, forcing down the prices. Which is, unfortunately for us customers, simply non-existing in the large (1"+)-sensor compact market. This is why both Canon and Sony heavily overprice their 1"+ compact cameras.

I'm not a Canon fan BTW. I just explained why Sony / Canon can ask for so much more money - because they, generally, don't have to compete with anything else in this market segment.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Yeah, right.

Parsimonious explanation = Canon is boning us.

Long-winded, fanboy explanation = images conjured up of Canon R&D people pulling all-nighters designing a simple add-on viewfinder, together with voodoo economics, free market allusions, lots of handwaving, etc. (O.K. I have to stop typing now, I can't type and chortle at the same time.)

I think I'll go with the parsimonious explanation.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

Irony is that the add on viewfinder for the LX7 has a $249 MSRP.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Touche, and the LX7 viewfinder is also a ripoff.

0 upvotes
LiSkynden
By LiSkynden (2 months ago)

Gone is the good old vari-angle screen!
... i would never buy a camera with such complicated looking flip out screen. How do you use it on portrait?

Lets hope they bring the old vari-angle screen back to normal G series now :D

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

As a pro-photographer I'd never understand the vari-angle screen. Your screen is off centre from where the lens is placed. I do understand it can be handy for video filming.

Also I do use a tillable screen on my Olympus OM-D everyday. The screen is in the same centre position as the lens.

But all is personal off course or what you are use to.

2 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (2 months ago)

Post removed. I noticed JognFredC basically said the same thing already below.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Peter G
By Peter G (2 months ago)

I actually think the new one is an improvement.

I really didn't like the side flip screen on my G6, It always felt awkward to compose on because it's axis didn't line up well with the camera. I much prefer the locked in tilt up/down screens like this one.

0 upvotes
quiquae
By quiquae (2 months ago)

@WACONimages

Even with the off-center axis and the glacial AF in live view mode, I find variangle infinitely easier to use than shooting blind in certain situations:

- when I want to shoot my dog below his eye level without getting mud all over my shirt
- when I have to hoist my camera above my head to see beyond the people in front of me
- during astrophotography when I can point the camera straight up without having to bend over backwards.

I'm sure professionals such as yourself do not need to deal with such trifles, but we amateurs do....

0 upvotes
WACONimages
By WACONimages (2 months ago)

Huh... 'quiquae'...? I'm Dutch so my English might lead to misinterpretation?

I did mention that I own a Olympus OM-D with tiltable screen! Not vary-angle but tiltable screen! and I use it everyday! So I don't kneel down in the mud or climb ladders, I use the LCD screen.

0 upvotes
LiSkynden
By LiSkynden (2 months ago)

About off axis, off centre screen, ... The vari-angle screen is lined with lens when you shoot portrait, what about tilt screen? Isnt it only on axis when you do landscape?
I always wonder how people shoot portrait with tilt screen, if not keep lens fixed. I mean when i do it with vari angle, i have the camera so that shutter button is up and if i now imagine where the tilt screen would be ... its off axis right? and i would be limited to shoot like it was fixed screen.
Sorry but that feels a lot more awkward than vari angle being off axis on landscape shooting.

Look at this pic
http://i1033.photobucket.com/albums/a414/lindon4/inhand-back2.jpg
Thats how i would hold the camera when shooting portrait. Where do you put that tilt screen now when you have to shoot above head, or knee level, or even lower?

0 upvotes
JohnFredC
By JohnFredC (2 months ago)

So the flip-up screen essentially kills the camera's usefulness for portrait (vertical) oriented photography from positions other than eye-level.

65% of my photos are vertically composed. What was wrong with the previous flip-and-rotate design? The camera wasn't made any smaller by moving to the new, less useful design, plus the there are more moving parts in the screen mechanism and more ways to break it.

Sigh.

The lens looks great, I'm sure the sensor is adequate, the rings on the lens look, well, useful if two hands are available. The rest?

Not so much.

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

It's not like the viewing angle of the LCD is 89-91 degrees.

1 upvote
pancromat
By pancromat (2 months ago)

we might see this viewfinder again sonn on the next EOS M....

3 upvotes
pancromat
By pancromat (2 months ago)

why do i always have to choose between using an electronic viewfinder and an external flash?! :/

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

You don't. There are dozens of models that give you that feature set.

2 upvotes
Norshan Nusi
By Norshan Nusi (2 months ago)

Just a thought, for DSLR there is an eyepiece can be attached on LCD for critical focusing in video.

If it was made for this Powershot then, the hotshoe can be used for external flash then...

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (2 months ago)

Looks lovely, just what I need, big sensor, small body, perfect lens range and bound to have good IQ. Form an orderly queue behind me.

6 upvotes
ebbesen
By ebbesen (2 months ago)

Don't worry, you can have the line for yourself.

For those of us who don't ignore the competition this camera brings nothing new.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (2 months ago)

Shouldn't be a line. This isn't Nikon and Canon rarely backorders more than 2-3 weeks. This camera should be like an RX100 with a big sensor although probably not as slick as the Sony interface.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

Slick as the Sony interface? Is that a joke? Sarcasm? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main problem with Sony cameras is that they are made by Sony. That means Sony menus, Sony glitches, Sony controls, and Sony processing. Those are not compliments, by the way.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

"For those of us who don't ignore the competition this camera brings nothing new."

If the competition offered a pancake f2 zoom with a 2x crop or larger sensor, I'd have bought it already This is definitely bringing something new.

3 upvotes
MarioV
By MarioV (2 months ago)

Looks like a great camera.
But why no 1080p60 video? Is canon still having issues with Digic 6 and 1080p60 video battery life?

3 upvotes
boblu
By boblu (2 months ago)

Agree, just couldn't understand Canon.

0 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (2 months ago)

Can you tilt the flash with your finger, to bounce it up?

2 upvotes
Branko Collin
By Branko Collin (2 months ago)

Canon Australia has posted a video that answers (or hints at answers for) a bunch of the questions people have been asking about the G1X mkII:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFMVnNsmblo

This includes "how do the control rings work?" and "which directions does the flippy screen flip?"

Some very nice sample photos are displayed in the video that show how the camera works in less than perfect light.

4 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (2 months ago)

EVF Nice! I hope it's implemented well. I loved my G11 and wish the series well.

1 upvote
Esign
By Esign (2 months ago)

Canon quality compacts: G15, G16, EOS-M. This is m43 with stuck lens. Certainly very nice, but not very clever.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

And the G15/G16 are small sensor cameras with a fixed lens. Is that more clever? The G1 X is not that much bigger, but has a much bigger sensor, and a lens that is surprisingly compact, considering how fast it is.

9 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

M4/3 wishes it had a lens like this they could glue onto their cameas and forget about pretending to be DSLRs.

2 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

I do wish I had a lens that small with that focal length and aperture range for my M43; hell, I'd settle for two out of the three and I'd pay up to $700 for it...

That being said, gluing it to the camera, even if figuratively speaking, would be inane. Even if I had such a lens I'd still use the tiny 20/1.7 & 45/1.8 more often (which do things the G1X cannot), and I still appreciate the versatility of something like the tiny 9-18 /though it costs as much as the G1Xq by itself).

However, if you bought an ILC (whether mirrorless or DSLR) and never got a second lens for it, then this is absolutely a far better choice for you, as was the RX100 to be honest... It doesn't take away anything from M43/NEX/X's value tho. Just a more convenient choice for *some* people.

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

M4/3 does wish it had a lens like this, but it certainly doesn't wish to be DSLRs.

I bought m4/3 because it WASN'T a DSLR. I'll buy the G1Xii because of the lens, AND because its not a DSLR. Win-win for me.

1 upvote
TFD
By TFD (2 months ago)

kind of big might just as well by a DSLR

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

Even the smallest SL1 will still dwarf this...

2 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

I'd rather NOT have a DSLR. Smaller size, no changing lenses, no lens caps, silent shooting with leaf shutter, flash sync at the high shutter speeds, EVF over OVF, live view shooting, built in ND filter... lots of benefits to me.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"I'd rather NOT have a DSLR. Smaller size, no changing lenses, no lens caps, silent shooting with leaf shutter, flash sync at the high shutter speeds, EVF over OVF, live view shooting, built in ND filter... lots of benefits to me."

Me too (a casual snapper, only using his cameras for fun, holiday, social stuff and tech article writing, not for artistic stuff where, say, super-shallow DoF would be needed).

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

The smallest 24-120mm equivalent lens for a dSLR is 4" long and weighs over 1lb.

1 upvote
zakka
By zakka (2 months ago)

Here are some pictures I took comparing it with the mark 1. You can add them in the article if you wish, although this is smartphone quality pictures...
http://reho.st/preview/self/2cad2366ea58bda387ccd180d9320e6f3c836eb8.jpg

http://reho.st/preview/self/a516f1fbf15db41330113e5cb7c0f422708f249d.jpg

http://reho.st/preview/self/b2a06d4015ab08aaa6e085de67707ffe6cfccb39.jpg

http://reho.st/preview/self/56d2a7c833953f03227195da94d7800fcf2b4c75.jpg

Let's face it: it's more or less the same size as the original one (and given the lens it's a small miracle).
And here is an example of the bokeh you can expect from that big boy at full zoom and 3.9 aperture (poor quality picture but they caught me while I was trying to wifi uplaod the pictures from the camera to the smartphone...)

http://reho.st/preview/self/ec770fb27fb50bfaa9c5b350f39c49f9ad73e97c.jpg

PS: I have them in higher resolution if you wish... (taken with a google nexus 5)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
zakka
By zakka (2 months ago)

I also tested the continuous shooting mode. It's reasonnably fast in Jpeg (around 5fps I would say) but dog slow in Raw or Raw+Jpeg. So much for that "digic 6"...
The AF looked fast, but still not an OMD.

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (2 months ago)

What is Canon thinking...I guess just the mindless, zombie upraders will buy this camera....
Buy an entry-level MFT camera and you can:
Have a smaller camera
Have better performance and IQ
Spend less money
This camera w/VF is just silly at this point in time, no?

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"What is Canon thinking...I guess just the mindless, zombie upraders will buy this camera...."

You're absolutely wrong. As has been pointed out a million times, you won't find such a great, ultrawide and bright 5x zoom lens in such a small and cheap package anywhere else. Not even with the smaller-sensor m43 ILC's, let alone bigger-sensor cameras.

7 upvotes
papa natas
By papa natas (2 months ago)

"...As has been pointed out a million times,..."
Do you count them?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Do you count them?"

Among others, I've posted this argument at least five times. A lot of other people also.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

You also won't get shallow depth of field portraits or comparable low light performance beyond 30mm out of the G1X tho... And the prime lenses needed to achieve either of those (among other possibilities) plus a small M43 body are still only about as expensive as the G1X. It really comes down to convenience vs versatility.

The G1X lens looks like one of the most versatile P&S lenses yet (given the sensor behind it), but if you're not allergic to lens swapping then an ILC is still far more versatile at a similar size (those primes take no space at all and neither option is going into smack pockets...). I'd still pay $700 for a MFT lens with the G1X's focal length and aperture range, not taking away from it's value... But it wouldn't be my most used lens.

0 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (2 months ago)

They always seem to drop some key features when introducing new ones, don't they?

Where are all those nice manual controls that one would expect from a G-series Canon? Not even one control dial (I don't count the wheel around the 4-way controller) when the original G1X has two.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

It has two control rings around the lens.

4 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (2 months ago)

I concur. The G10, which is the last one I used lacked a flip-out screen, but it had the best dials ever with dedicated ones for both ISO and exposure compensation - and when using exposure compensation, what you saw on the screen was actually a realistic rendition of the effect of the adjustment - unlike so many other cameras - and the screen, though stuck to the back of the camera could easily be seen even in bright sunlight and while wearing sunglasses. In short: brilliant. The only bad thing was the eye level finder, which was absolutely rubbish, but with a screen like that, I never felt I needed it. Many other cameras are useless in bright sunlight without one.

I'd even go so far as to claim that in terms of user interface, it is the best camera I've ever used. That's from how I use digital cameras, of course, usually keeping it at aperture priority to control depth of field and changing ISO manually. I often have other ideas of handholdable shutter speeds than the auto ISO.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (2 months ago)

easily the best canon g ..

the missing features are missed to make room for more useful one.

am happy with the bigger focal length and aperture over the lose of silly tiny g-series viewfinders. also the lcd makes more sense for portrait photographers ...

0 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (2 months ago)

Whoops, hadn't noticed the control dials on the lens, thought one was for focusing only and the other for show. Quite clever design.

Good to hear the controls are better than I thought.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

I don't know what functions you can assign to the two rings, but both are customizable. The clickless one is mainly for focusing, I believe, but it remains to be seen what other things it can do.

0 upvotes
JohnEwing
By JohnEwing (2 months ago)

I very much liked the tilty-swivelly screen on the G12, which allowed the camera to nestle snugly against the paunch while stealthily shooting streetwise. I suppose touch screens need bigger connectors. Drop a tear.

3 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

$600 i buy.....if not no buy

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (2 months ago)

if results will be good .. i gonna buy it anyways :)

without seeing them .. won't spend even 60$ on a canon camera!!

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

Wait 12 months and it will be. Fixed lens cameras always drop in price every year. Coolpix A is already down to $650-ish gray market.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FriendlyWalkabout
By FriendlyWalkabout (2 months ago)

Is that the same sensor canon has been putting on its cameras for the last 5 years?

3 upvotes
hawat
By hawat (2 months ago)

No, look at the size of the sensor as well, instead of just the number of pixels. It is much more important.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Looking at the resolution and sensor size it becomes save to assume it is based on the 5year old 7 d sensor cut to 1,5inch. Just like the original g1x.

Still with a fast zoom like this no worries.
I think the fujifilm xe1/2 with kit lens will beat this. However those are bigger. And they beat every crop canon anyway.

So canon did well here. I do wonder how close the gm1 with the 12-32 comes. The pana sensor is likely to perform better but unlikely to offset the difference in aperture.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"I think the fujifilm xe1/2 with kit lens will beat this."

Apples to oranges. The Fuji with the kit lens is a no-go for people needing UWA (the 18-55 Fuji kit starts at 27mm equiv) and/or a very bright lens.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

Like an UW enthousiast will have enough with 24mm equiv.
They want an dedicated lens that does not exist for the Canon

And Fujifilm also has the 16-50mm which is 24mm equiv.
Weight of the XM-1 with that lens is similar as well. At the size and price of this Canon it will compete with the top mirrorless. The lens could be very exciting the sensor will not be like that.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

The XE-2 combined with the 18-55 is just 660gr not much more considering it has a viewfinder built in.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"And Fujifilm also has the 16-50mm which is 24mm equiv.
Weight of the XM-1 with that lens is similar as well. "

1, F3.5-5.6 vs. f2.0
2, its optimal aperture is f/8 wide open (albeit the G1X's sweet point is still unknown)
3, it's exactly as thick as the G1X2 in itself (65.2 / 66mm)
4, no macro

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (2 months ago)

PowerShot Pro1X (Pro2?)... Canon, please update to integrate all that's 'extra' on the PowerShot G1X MkII ... and give me that VASS (Vari-Angle Swivel Screen) back, again ... and finger dial on grip ... keep lens, and allow for threaded filters ...

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

You are probably in the minority wanting another giant "compact".

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

pro is a word often used by second and third class makers.

0 upvotes
kitchenbug
By kitchenbug (2 months ago)

Threaded filter adapter is available:
http://cweb.canon.jp/cgi-bin/camera/dcam/accessory/detail.cgi?serial=FA-DC58E

0 upvotes
pew pew
By pew pew (2 months ago)

800$ ???

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

.... Would be a bargain price for a 12-60mm f2-3.9 lens for any ILC on it's own.

3 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

Ehh, I dunno about a bargain, constant f2.8 zooms go for "only" $200 more and the difference at the long end is vast (even if reach is shorter)... Still, I'd probably think about getting such a lens for $800 if it were no larger than the 12-35mm, and if it were $600 I'd probably not even think about it. There's definitely a gap between the pricey constant aperture zooms and basic kit zooms, in most systems (mirrorless or DSLR).

0 upvotes
technic
By technic (2 months ago)

$ 800? No, about 50% more at least if you live in Europe ...

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Ehh, I dunno about a bargain, constant f2.8 zooms go for "only" $200 more and the difference at the long end is vast (even if reach is shorter)... "

So is the difference in size - compare the Pana 12-35 (2.9x2.7") to this camera's dimensions...

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

I wasn't trying to seriously argue this would be an alternative to an f2.8 zoom... Just commenting on the value proposition in light of some people's apparent shock regarding price. Price seems pretty normal given it's unique standing, street price will be lower.

If you're gonna go down the size tangent I'd posit that a GM1 or even E-PM2 is smaller/comparable and paired with the 12-32mm plus 20/1.7 and/or 45/1.8 they can do things the G1X will never manage, but carrying an extra lens or two (even if small enough to be pocketable) isn't anywhere near as convenient obviously.

This is probably gonna be one of the most versatile fixed lens cameras in a while given the sensor/lens combo, certainly very convenient, but an ILC is still several orders of magnitude more versatile. It comes down to what you're shooting, seems if you love wide angle or landscapes you'd love the G1X...

Despite the fact that Canon continues to ignore the popular auto-stitched panorama modes...

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Despite the fact that Canon continues to ignore the popular auto-stitched panorama modes..."

They may not have the necessary tech / algos? Let me point out that even the latest Pana and Sony cameras have awful sweep panos compared to those of Apple iPhones and Samsung high-end Android phones. Coming up with a decent, quality pano implementation is very hard.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

@ Impulses:

It's definitely a bargain. The 12-50 from Olympus is a $500 MSRP lens and it is 1.66x stops slower at the wide end. The Fuji 18-50 f2.8-4 is $700 alone and has a less useful zoom range while being a stop slower at the wide end.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

True in that light it's a bargain, kind of a relative thing... Though as I said elsewhere, I'd pay $700 for a MFT lens that bright/wide/long even if it was larger, and without hesitation. Compact point and shoots can obviously achieve better lens specs thanks to dedicated designs, whereas system cameras of any kind tend to get primes, kit zooms, and constant aperture zooms with few high quality zooms falling in between all that... It's still a compromise though (the G1X lens) that really has to fit your shooting style, cause there ain't no changing it.

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (2 months ago)

@Menneisy
Is Samsung/Apple's panorama implementation much better than other's? I'm genuinely curious, I've only had HTC/LG phones myself... Wasn't terribly impressed with the panos from those, they looked fine but it wasn't a cut above my old Sony P&S, and shooting them at any focal length I want with my MFT has been fun (most P&S seem to lock the lens at it's widest, and with phones you're obviously stuck at 28-35mm depending on the phone's optics).

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"he 12-50 from Olympus is a $500 MSRP lens and it is 1.66x stops slower at the wide end. "

Also, they aren't very good, IQ-wise, either. If the new Canon camera is at least somewhat close to the previous one, its IQ will undoubtedly be better than that of the 1250 Oly.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (2 months ago)

"Is Samsung/Apple's panorama implementation much better than other's? I'm genuinely curious, I've only had HTC/LG phones myself... Wasn't terribly impressed with the panos from those"

Yup, HTC / LG's algorithms (as is that of the stock Android camera client) are pretty poor. For example, while the LG G2 is a flagship with even OIS, it only produces some 5 Mpixel (and very poor) panos.

Sammy and Apple have the best pano implementations, particularly with the iPhone 5s (variable exposure without visible banding).

0 upvotes
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (2 months ago)

Butt Ugly is calling... it wants its camera back NOW!!! I love Canon and its line of great SLRs, and I long lusted after the G-series... but Fuji showed up to the party and stole my "rangefinder" heart... I was hoping that they could provide some kind of competition to Fuji, but it seems they can't and should stick to SLRs (hear that as well, Nikon??) ... Rube Goldberg seems to be alive and well, living in the Canon design office.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (2 months ago)

It's ugly with all this crap attached. Nice looking on its own.

1 upvote
Master Yoda
By Master Yoda (2 months ago)

I have to agree. I was hoping they'd introduce this at CES and that it would have an electronic viewfinder and fix the slow focusing issues. Well, I got tired of waiting and picked up a Fuji X100S in BLACK just recently. Glad I did because I'm loving it. Yes, the price is quite a bit more but the camera offers so much more. Now that I see what Canon finally released I'm convinced I made the right move.

5 upvotes
hajiaru
By hajiaru (2 months ago)

yo Pentax 645DII

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (2 months ago)

Not sure I get this. Even when they are introduced with the camera, these finders look like something that was forgotten and by the time somebody noticed, it was too late to fit it in the camera. Whoops!

At least it's optional. That should please everyone except DPR readers.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (2 months ago)

Does it have a lens cap or is it like the other g series cameras??

0 upvotes
kitchenbug
By kitchenbug (2 months ago)

It has a retractable blade type cap builtin.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (2 months ago)

Very good. I havent seen a pic with it turned off yet.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (2 months ago)

Good job Canon. ...a bit late though and too pricey considering the same old sensor.

1 upvote
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (2 months ago)

When will Canon start to employ designers?

11 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (2 months ago)

They employed a designer for the first G1 X. He stated:

“I was aiming for a simple, “professional’s tool” with no waste, and bare functionality. Since the PowerShot G7, the controls had been getting more complex, and I wanted to organise them, so I went after simple looks with functional beauty. […] The concept I pursued was one of authenticity, I wanted a camera that a professional would be proud to have among their equipment.”

It went down like a lead balloon. (Though some liked it. I thought it was the best-looking Canon in a long time.)

With the G1 X Mark II, Canon went back to old ideas. The PDF brochure about its development says, “the design is not pretentious”. No kidding! It’s downright homely.

But a strong design language may be counterproductive in this camera segment. The market is disproportionately old, conservative, male, and uninterested in design. Many potential customers interpret good design as snobbery.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 201
12