@ vapentaxuser

again, the full g16 review on Camera Lab says the G16 is a bit more reactive than RX100. So in this field at least, Canon allready upped the game.

I agree. please have a look to the Camera Lab review.
the whole story is not so "black & white" as people seems to like.
As an exemple, the g16 offer a shallower dof for portraits, have better macro capabilities, better continuous shooting mode, and according this review, a bit better AF.

because compared to DSLRs, compacts are easier to hold in other positions and a tilt swivel screen allows the photographer to explore different possibilities in composition through these different positions. This you would have known if you spent more time taking photos.

Guidenet... Seriously dude!! talk with a higher level of respect for the art of photography! A professional for 38 years and I can assure you that swivel and tilt screens on these little accent shot cameras are an important feature sadly missed on the G15 and now G16. shooting from the ground or above your head is a great advantage and is why many will not give up their G12. I have the G15 and its a great little number to have in your pocket to shoot wedding accents such as the rings, table dressings and all those little things that make contextual shots. Swivels are fantastic for this type of shooting. Please think before saying silly stuff, as peer photographers we should always have respect for one another!

It's always someone who's ignorant and never used a t&s screen that slams then.
In addition to what's said above, any time you have the camera on a tripod and it's not at eye-level, it's sooo useful.
I'll pick up a G17 if it has one and a lens that opens to 24mm.
If we're lucky we'll also see one on the 5D Mk IV...

I would agree with HowaboutRAW.

I have a Canon G12 which I use more often than my Canon 5D Mk2, 40D, Lumix GF1 and other film cameras.

I don't think Canon is ignoring the market overall with the G series. In fact, the G has an established customer base. Those who go diving but could not buy a DSLR housing would most likely use a G series camera with its affordable housing. Many journalists would use a G camera for small assignments. The G series is adequite for many travel writers who do not need enlargement larger than A3. Contrary to what others say, it is quite a capable "small" camera.

Most important, it must be user friendly. I have no complaints about my G12 for what it can do. The G16 should be better.

10Mp is more than enough, 12Mp is about the ceiling for the sensor size. Just keep it that way.

Hey, I could do an A3 enlargement with an image taken with the 7Mp Powershot A620 years ago without any problem. So how big do you want to go?

I also 100% agree with whataboutraw.
The g12/ g15,,etc continue to be very popular. This is the reason canon does continue to make them.
When it does come to more pixels in a small sensor..,canon make a good move.
Less pixels are better.

"the RX100 is not as good as the G15 for picture quality"?
Is this April 1st?

I bought a Panasonic G3 and yes, it is not much larger or heavier than a G series. Panasonic are, however, building newer Gs larger and heavier defeating the purpose of small. If only the G had a decent OVF or EVF.

I still use my G9. It's a great camera.

@KariIceland: aperture and IQ unrelated? The main advantage of large aperture (smaller f-number) -beyond the shallow DOF gimmick- is that it reduces the shutter time, allowing for lower ISO values.

The body of the Canon G1 X is 7% wider and 21% taller than the Canon EOS M. If Canon ever creates a G2 X, it should have a smaller body.

The G1X has accurate but very slow focusing. The lens is slow, too. It has no close-up capability at all--the way cameras used to be, when you bought a macro lens and got outstanding macro results. It's large and not stylish. But the absolute worst feature is that once you see the image quality, you're not going to consider any of the other G series.

I think some may have a misunderstanding regarding the G1X. There is nothing on the market today that packs a near-APS C size sensor and zoom lens in such a small package.

My experience has been that the G1X's autofocus is in the same general performance category as the G11/G12...not a speed demon but acceptably decent. What often gets overlooked is its ability to really crank up the ISO and still maintain excellent image quality. Yes, macros aren't its strong suit.

As far as overall flexibility in taking images under a very wide variety of lighting conditions, it far outshines the G15/16. This is a very underrated camera.

There may be additional reasons, but it has to be tall to fit in the optical viewfinder.

There is a segmant of the market that still believes that bigger is better irrespective of sensor size. People that have large hands or that are used to the ergonomics of a chunky design that is big enough to grip firmly love this design. This is one of the reasons why people have not crossed over the compact mirrorless cameras and are still buying traditionally styled DSLRs. Also, a larger camera is peceived to be the tool of a serious or semi-pro photographer and unfortunately many amateurs like to be seen with a big camera around their necks rather than some dinky looking toy (their thinking, not mine). This is possibly why the Panasonic GH3 has grown to DSLR size to capture this market despite its smaller mirrorless heritage.

Cheers

Nex-3N (with pancake zoom) sells for $449, so the Canon needs to drop $100 just to match that price

If the LF-1's EVF was reasonable quality I would have been tempted. Put the P7800's EVF in the Panny and they would sell like hot cakes. Canon are falling behind with the G15 and G16 with the old OVF that is far too inaccurate to rely upon for composing your shot.

This isn't so far-fetched. Too late now, but if they had put a red dot on the G1X and priced it at $999, DPR would have said "While we have considerable reservations about the G1X's quirks there is no denying the large sensor produces better images than it's competitors."

I wouldn't say that the X20 is smaller than the G16:

X20 - 117 x 70 x 57 mm
G16 - 109 x 76 x 40 mm

HAHA, kind of hard to take this seriously, when you say you've used the G14, which never existed!

I'd be curious as to how you used the G14 as Canon went from the G12 to the G15, skipping 13 and 14. Are you just making things up to sound impressive? I have used the G15 and just as the article says the shutter lag is pretty much nonexistent so your argument that the Fuji X20 outmatches the G16 is doubtful. While the Fuji is a fine camera I'm inclined to go with the Canon with its brighter lens and much better battery life.

No G13 or 14 ever existed. Must have been the 15. I do agree that if Leica made it, it would be a hot little momma, but they didn't. It's the same old boring Canon design with minimal upgrades IMO. The G's are great cameras, but I haven't seen any improvements that would make me jump from the 12 to the 16. I like the LF1, but it's too tiny, so I'll probably go with the new Nikon for a compact.

useless information.

in the west, number13 is unlucky
in east Asia, number 14 sounds similar to the word death

no wonder no 13 and 14

paint it red!

It could be worse: like Sony with anodized aluminum advertising on the stupid thing.

It is amazing that people are actually calling it a sticker but still not getting that means it can be peeled off. It beggars belief really.

The G1X is at another level, it is m4/3 territory which made it larger and slower to focus. Between the Nikon 1, RX, and the G, I would preferred the Nikon but I don't need an ILC. The RX seems the best, but the price is steep. The G is huge yet nice to handle but with IQ lagging.