UPDATED: Canon PowerShot G3 X real-world samples posted

I hear Fuji is joining the 1" sensor bridge camera club later on this year. Might be worth waiting a couple of months before committing to this camera.

Jul 24, 2015permalink

Probably too huge...even their 2/3" sensor bridge was close with "DSLR with telephoto/super zoom" size.

Jul 25, 2015permalink

tkbslc

At the $1000 price tag, omission of 4K and EVF is too hard to swallow. As spec'ed, I think this should be about $750.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Greg Ness

I agree with your comments. Canon almost made my day with this camera, except the things you pointed out are a big disappointment to me, too. Now I have to wait for Sony or Panasonic to give me an equivalent zoom, quality (1"-sensor) with a built in EVF, 4K video, and a much better fps. I don't expect the camera to be compact with all this, but it would make an ideal all-in-one travel camera with the additional specs. I would not expect the above to substitute for my Canon DSLRs and lens collection (including super zooms) for top-notch photography trips, but what a camera it would be for much of my more casual travel!

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

snapa

If the G3X came with a 300mm that was half the size and a high quality EVF, I would have actually been interested in it. It seems to be a solid, well built camera with nice external controls. I just don't need 600mm too often or think I could focus and compose shots over 2-300mm without using an EVF, or hold the camera still.
Maybe if the G4X is a bit smaller, with ~300mm lens and comes with the new Sony BSI-CMOS Stacked sensor, 4K, 16 fps and --> EVF!, I'll take a look at it.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Woody W.

To those complaining that they want to see examples of "zoom". They are there (e.g. the London Eye). The exif shows 220mm, which is the long end of the lens. Don't forget that the 600MM is an equivalent number. So, for example, if the exif shows 125, it is the equivalent of roughly 340mm full frame.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Finally someone gets it ;)

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Geno123

Barney, don't be discouraged. the good -people are interested in what you do.To wit they follow your postings. the bad Seems like there are a lot of camera buff's that have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. I don't miss hauling all the lenses and FF DSLR the tripod the filters and the heavy bag.
Me I like KISS. The photos I take don't seem to want to wait for me to set everything up studio quality thus my SX10 IS and now my G3X for the times in my life i want to be spontaneous.
Keep the faith and enjoy the hobby!

Jul 23, 2015permalink

TheDevil

If Canon doesn't come out with any new DSLR's this year I just might pick this camera up. The G3X looks like a lot of fun. The images in the sample gallery look really good.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Greg Gebhardt

I was going to get this to replace my G1X Mk2 but after seeing how big the lens is, no deal! Canon has ruined it top of the line compact by putting this honker on such a great camera.

I know some of the "gear heads" will love the 600mm and likely shoot most their images at this focal length "cause they can"! LOL!

I will stick to my G1X Mk2 as I would VERY seldom use 600mm!!!

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

Smaller version been out for a while now...

Not sure why one would consider G3X if they don't care much for telephoto

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Saxon Liw

Eyeing this as a compact birding camera where the Panasonic and Sony falls short.

Aug 22, 2015permalink

gertcher

I have read a number of reviews at random. Many have valid points but IMO Canon and all the other makes are all chasing the same market and in the process many pros are missing the point.

Along time ago when cars had solid rear axle no independent suspension no power steering and no hi tech electronic? We all had to drive and feel the car working and feel the road through the steering wheel. We used skill to drive the car did nothing for you and if you did not pay attention you ended up in a ditch or worse.

Cameras in those days were the same. Now they are point and shoot plastic bundles that fail as soon as they come in to contact with damp and dust or drop them on a soft cushion.

Don't get me wrong I love my collections of technology and occasionally get great pictures with the minimum of my effort. But none of them can match the output of my a Canon AE1 with a Tamron 35-110 lens. The only downside is the cost of processing.

So many posts are hung up on speed of a few micro seconds when you should do something yourself and take control. There is no point in griping here about dificiencies tell it to the manufacturers tell them what you want from a camera and maybe they will listen

Jul 23, 2015permalink

abe4652

In judging the IQ of a camera, why do I have to wade through picture after picture of great artistic quality, but little value in judging the camera. By all means, be an artist, but please take the camera, point it at a house with lots of detail, and shoot. Is that asking too much? And then, only then, do the artsy stuff

Jul 23, 2015permalink

jacobfreeze

Exactly right! Everybody wants to see samples of the ZOOM! 600mm! So what do we get from the gear-heads at DPReview?

50 wide-angle travel photos! Useless!

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

@DPReview Staff, I think he's got a great point.

A better solution all round could be to employ say an apprentice to shoot lots of (boring but more relevant) camera tests and leave the highly (paid! ;) ) qualified editors to more important tasks.

Not many would disagree that more full reviews, standardised and improved real-world samples, and more cameras added to the comparison tool would be a bad idea...

Surely this would be both more efficient and cost effective, and provide higher quantity and quality of content for your readers.

Thoughts?

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Y'all know I shot these pictures on my days off, right? Unpaid? (And there are plenty of long zoom images in this gallery).

Studio samples from the G3X will be on the homepage tomorrow, and more real-world stuff will be added to this gallery soon. It's a strange day when I get pilloried for shooting a sample gallery that wasn't boring enough...

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

Imakefoto4U

Send me the cameras and I will take some photos in Sydney. Flowers are out all year round, sunny, cityscapes, landscapes, seascapes, etc., etc. No worries at all.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

@Barney I wasn't criticizing you mate. I have no doubt you all put in tremendous dedication and hours. You don't think my suggestion has any merit?

Jul 23, 2015permalink

abe4652

No, no, no. When I said I want regular photos, I do not mean I want "studio shots" of charts and other objects of indeterminate size and texture and under adverse conditions. Just take the d%$% camera, go outside on a sunny day, point the camera at cars, people, statues, houses, street signs, at all ranges from wide angle to zoom, and not *too* far away so that we have the air shimmering. That's all.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Take a pill Abe! We get it!

Jul 23, 2015permalink

abe4652

ok...

Jul 23, 2015permalink

No worries Greg, I know. I just wish we had interns / apprentices! Our approach (which seems to work) is real-world samples which feature all focal lengths (and I say again - there are several zoom shots in this gallery) ISOs, etc., and then follow-up with studio work which is taken in a more controlled way. Then in the review we'll assess the camera against peers in various other ways.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

aftab

I find it interesting when people say some ILC will do better than this. The idea of a superzoom is that you won't have to change lenses.

Would love to see more examples at the long end, Barney. Also, how it compares with FZ1000 at 400mm. Thanks.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Ed Chen

For much better IQ for (surprisingly) much less $ I got the M3 from eBay.

You can add the Tamron 18-200 if you really need the zoom range.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

320mm equivalent and 600mm equivalent is pretty different and you then have larger, more bulky package. Better IQ at telephoto pretty much guarantee more expense and size. Personal preference. I am very demanding and would choose the larger and more expensive cams, sensors, lenses...but think these are a great option with a place in the market.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

joelakeland

The Raw conversions do improve on things but I will need some expert analysis by DPR to help me work through how it measures up with the Sony and Panasonic 1" sensor zoom cameras.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

XPloRR

Not even one example of bookeh. Only a few samples in low light. All the rest could easily been performed by a real compact zoom camera. No difference at all. Even worse... blue-ish cold images. Not impressed at all. Disappointing to be honest.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Saman Shamim

Third sample is beautiful. Looks like a sound wave.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Picture quality is not its trump card :)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

sbansban

How about including focal length (and maybe shutter speed) in the file names - like bb_ISO125_f6.3_220mm_1-1250s_IMG_0024 instead of bb_ISO125_f6.3_IMG_0024? And the ability to filter by EXIF data?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Ability to filter is something we're working on (it's not possible in this current interface) and adding actual FL is easy, but adding effective FL requires manual calculation (which I just didn't have time to do yesterday). Sorry! A better galleries system is on the way.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Geno123

Barney,
What memory card is typically used with a camera when testing by Dpreview? I have a sandisk Extreme Pro 64 GB UHS-I SDXC Class 10. Would this card provide higher frames per second burst mode than the card DPreview uses?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

I think that's the exact same card I was using in the G3X. The more likely impact is more images per high framerate burst, but since I was photographing a hiking and camping trip I had the G3X in single frame mode ;)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

PhotoKhan

So, we can definitely forget Canon's historically pleasant reddish-based color mapping in exchange for (...as the M3/750D/760D had already shown us...) this "Sonish" shifting into blue/green, right?

Canon S&S (skies and skin) will never be the same...

(...I hope Canon understands they are eliminating a traditional differentiator and, with it, helping further tilting the sensors gap scale towards the "S" world...)

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

grasscatcher

Try adjusting the white balance. If I want the Canon look on my GX7 photos, I simply set WB to "cloudy".

Jul 22, 2015permalink

PhotoKhan

I work with Raw, so I can have pretty much whatever color I want...it is just a question of convenience and brand consistency.

...but, with my EOS M3, if I try to shoot Jpeg with WB set to "cloudy", then it's when things get to open-laugh level.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Lawrencew

Look beyond the headline grabbing 600mm reach, and there are just too many missing features for this to be my 'ideal' travel and general purpose camera.

No EVF
Limited video capabilities (and generally poor video quality these days from Canon compared to peers). Even putting aside 4K, there's no slo mo either.
No timelapse.
lowish fps compared to peers
Probably slow AF compared to peers.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Normally this kind of Canon is worse than "Probably slow AF compared to peers" as it miss the focus.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

http://g2.img-dpreview.com/CEE433C1EC974DA39FE415A825E36292.jpg

Barney, question for ya:

Should the parallax distortion be so strong? I realise that it's wide angle, but thought that for the Jpegs they did in-camera correction? Do they on the RX-10 or FZ1000?

Thanks

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MarioV

Looks very normal to me. Also pretty nice for ooc jpg.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

It seems normal to me too, but you can correct this easily by using any kind PP tools if you want.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3254464/rs_sigma24-35_1c3a7966-24mm-f2-8?inalbum=sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-real-world-samples

Check this one, it is also OOC (in terms of parallax distortion) @24mm. It looks just liking your sample:

You may like this one better, it is also OOC (in terms of parallax distortion) @24mm:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3254465/rs_sigma24-35_1c3a7968-24mm-f4?inalbum=sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-real-world-samples

Both samples use same Sigma lens, same FL, and same scene, and both samples have "No...lens distortions of any kind applied".

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

Thanks guys. Still... makes me wonder why they don't correct it in-camera.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MarioV

Because perspective correction crops the image. When shooting, always allow for a wider angle to allow for such corrections in post. A tight shot might not allow for correction. Always best, and more effectively, done in post.

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

G-D

Can't say I'm blown away by JPEG IQ. I've seen better JPEGs from Canon. Colors are OK, but images look grainy at base ISO, blotchy, lack of detail... Hopefully RAW + PP will be better, but for that kind of money JPEG quality should have been outstanding...

Can't help but think that Canon put an underpowered processor into the G3 X for managing all those pixels...

So now we have an RX10 with a lens that's great but too short (IMO), an FZ1000 which is great (with 4K!) but too big (IMO), and the G3 X with so-so JPEGs (IMO), lacks a builtin EVF and is way too expensive (IMO).

Oh well, maybe next year...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

RPJG

Fancy that!! Cameras are compromises, even if the level of compromise gets reduced a little bit each year :-)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

LionelA

Grain at base ISO? really!? now im interested on this camera!....noiseless images look fake

Jul 23, 2015permalink

tarsus

Next year will have the EVF and the year after 4K. This is just part of the great compact camera scam of leaving features off and grabbing your money year after year. Imagine what the upgraders for the Sony RX series paid by the time they got to version 4. Thousands of dollars for a one inch compact camera.

Jul 26, 2015permalink

RPJG

Yeah, because everyone was forced to buy every version.

Jul 27, 2015permalink

Treeshade

The 1" sensor on G3X is 4 times larger than those of 1/2.3" type. When compared to Panasonic FZ300 at 600mm (eqv.), it is "2-stops-better sensor" vs "2-stops-brighterlens", roughly the same light-gathering ability.

I guess G3X would have better IQ at shorter focal length, while FZ300 has EVF, articulating LCD, and 4K video, for nearly half the price.

And if you don't need 600mm, there are FZ1000 and RX10 mkII.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

"I guess G3X would have better IQ at shorter focal length,".

Yes, while zoom out, G3X is two stops better as "it is "2-stops-better sensor", and that's a lot.

Or say, *at least* "2-stops-better sensor" as FZ300 uses exactly FZ200's sensor which is kind of old.

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

Actually, Canon G3X is kind of smaller than just released Pana FZ300 even G3X's SONY sensor is 4 times larger.

The lens is kind of slow, but it seems reasonable as :

- RX10 is F2.8 @200mm.
- FZ1000 is (one stop slow) F4 @400mm, and
- G3X is (one more stop slow) F5.6 @600mm

Not sure about G3X's lens IQ, but FZ1000 is bad comparing to RX10.

Canon should release two version of G3X liking SONY. SONY always has two version of very much the same camera, a6000 and a5100 for example. One with EVF, one without.

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

Jorginho

FZ1000 bad....it got a Gold award. And this was noted:
"For those looking for a superzoom camera that excels at both photo and video quality, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 delivers.""

Only the wide end was (quote) " a tad soft". That is very good performance for such a zoom lens. Try to find somehting comparable in the mirrorless market...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

"Gold award" you do care?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

BTW: FZ1000 is about $520 while RX10 is still almost $1000 in amazon Japan while both were released about the same time with very much the same price.

"Users choice".

Oh, you forget to mention that FZ1000 has 4K while RX10 does not have. Or may be Panasonic forget to tell Japaneses consumers.

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

(unknown member)

Good crack you're on Mike, sorry :)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

You do?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

@ Mike FL

FZ1000 at 520 and RX10 at 1000 ?
Do you joke ?????????????????????

Both are roughly the same price ! Each time one gets a decrease in price the other one follows soon. The only real difference today is the panasonic cashback (here at least)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/offer-listing/B00KXOS3D4/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

@Bev81 from France;

1. read my OP carefully.

2. New FZ1000 is @526 USD as below from Amazon JP

3. Amazon Japan is not the lowest price in Japan, and Japan is not the best price in Asian. I think you know that.

4. I assume that you know how to order cameras from
overseas, as well with international warranty.

5. Repeat my #1.

6. I think you know how to use "Currency Calculator" to covert JPY to your currency in your pocket.

Any questions (?) as I see you have LOT of "?????????????????????" in your post.

BTW: Check the RX10 price by yourself, would you?

You can do it.

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

Oh, I use Amazon Japan as an example b/c:

1. Amazon is a very respectable Online store
2. DPR is part of Amazon, so I show my respect to DPR.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Of course you can read japanese ?
So No problem ! Buy from Japan if you want !

I won't !!! Most of us won't ...

PS: I don't see any RX10 in stock sold by Amazon Japan :)
Mrketplace yes, but not by Amazon...

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

So, FZ1000 is $526 USD. Yes?

RX10 is almost $1000. No?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Bev81 from France;

I saw you used 3 "!!!" after "I won't".

Do not get too emotional b/c you may only pay 50% more in France for the same FZ1000.

What's the price in France anyway?

Jul 23, 2015permalink

I don't get emotional for the price :)
But by your bad faith, I do !!!
Marketplace is not Amazon...

As for the price here, same roughly as in the rest of UE
FZ1000 at 700 Euro and RX10 generaly a bit more

Anyway I'm not going to buy another small sensor so no RX10 nor FZ1000 for me

Jul 23, 2015permalink

CameraLabTester

Any shots using 600mm with extended arms?

(Canon's response: You should buy our EVF add-on, for only $999.95)

Or wait for our pop up EVF to come out in the G9X...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

600mm extended arms for eyeball-selfie? :)

Seriously - if you can't get sharp photos with elbows locked to your sides and the screen against the body, facing up...you won't get them with viewfinder either as it's less stable. People should give it a try with tilting screens.

Good for that eyeball health too.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

What is it with Canon! They charge you premium dollar for their products yet they can't bloody build an evf in the camera, instead your top dollar buys you tacky dated clip on contraptions!
Dear Canon if you want to charge premium prices, then make a camera with an evf built into it
$1000 for a G3X plus extra $$$ for the evf, which transforms your camera into some sort of frankenstein creation, is ridiculous!!!! .... Its only marginally better than the goofy looking prehistoric loupe you get with the XC10 for $2500

Jul 22, 2015permalink

What Canon could've done, if they were being nice, is throw in the EVF for free as a limited time offer. Or at least say buy the G3X, get the EVF for only $100 US extra or something like that.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

0MitchAG

No. It should have been included.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

And Sony for $1300 is SO MUCH BETTER. Ya...Right.
Sony could charge double and no would complain. Canon could give their cameras away and people would still complain that it needs ????
I would buy the Canon way before Sony. Far more versatile for a holiday camera.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

Apart from the a6000, I agree, Sony are a bit pricey, but if I had to choose a camera based on value for money and versatility it'd be between Panasonic and Olympus, Canon are nowhere near as good, but with Sony at least you get more for your dollar than Canon!

Aug 14, 2015permalink

Expat Nomad

Good looking application and variety for testing. Please do more trips for these sorts of cameras...

(Did you catch any fish?)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Aroart

Can't believe the BALZZZ to not have this do 4k..

Jul 22, 2015permalink

R U kidding? Most of Canon's CINEMA (!!!!) class cameras can only do HD video, and only in the "cinematic" 16:9 aspect ratio. No kidding -- that's Canon for ya'.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

justmeMN

Canon doesn't sell 4K televisions, so they have less self-interest in including it in their cameras. In addition, the Sony RX100 IV can only record 4K for five minutes.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MrViko

1k for that terrible dynamic range. I'm sorry Canon but you killed the G serie after G16. Also external viewfinder selling is awefull marketing trick for telephoto segment.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Yep, that's so been there done that... the new market is finders built into the design. Canon will adjust, they just do it slower than the rest of the market cuz they can afford too- for now.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

"1k for that terrible dynamic range."

It's the same BSI CMOS sensor we've seen in several other cameras. As such we'd expect it to have excellent dynamic range, but that's not something you can judge from OOC JPEGs. Raw conversions will follow as soon as we have them.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

lensberg

I'll probably have the best dynamic range & noise performance amongst 1" sensor cameras...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

You will eh.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MrViko

Yes I can Barney. If you like to do PP you are going to buy an APS-C already, this one must have good JPEG processing, this is ultimate compact segment, actually was, now G serie transformed to bridge segment, and comparing level has changed. Sadly quality is not better even than ultimate compact league.

@lensberg go and get an a600 with nice lens in half price mate, don't throw your money, least bigger sensor, or X-T10 delicious. Just stay away from canon and nikon marketing war.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

lensberg

@ cgarrard - I meant to say " It'll " ... :) :) :)

@ MrViko - do you mean the A6000 ? ... At APS-C level image quality is excellent across the board regardless of manufacturer... This particular camera is extremely compelling mainly for its zoom range & 1" sensor ... If you check out photographyblog - there are 1 or 2 samples of full zoom at ISO 1600 and the image quality is great ...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MrViko

Yes mate a6000. All needs are up to you, if you are going to shoot birds should be slow and I don't think zoom lenses are sharp like prime on chicken photography. If you going to street, pretty big size for it. Maybe portrait or landscape ok.

I prefer to Nikon Coolpix P900 if I'm zoom fetish, but Canon PowerShot SX60 HS better build and hardware. If I perefer to general usage Nikon D7200 best solution. 600mm yes pretty expensive angle on lenses but is it worth I don't know.

I'm going to buy Fuji X100T next week, I love telephoto too but have to make a decision what will you do and what's best option for it, I listed what I want, I chose more plus, I can't bokeh portrait, wild life or wide architecture but I can shoot with big sensor and awesome optimized lens. I said myself I have a zoom from 0mm to infinity (my legs) and free :)

So there is no perfect camera and don't believe in charming features. I just don't like G3X's unperformed images and looks made you prety busy with PP.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

The Sony RX100 IV is no better is this regard with its JPEGs. You can't expect DR from a 1" sensor to match that of an APS-C.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

Canon used an excellent lens design and will sell many of these even with some missing features. The focal range isn't easy to get with ILC super zoom lenses like it is with ones going to 200mm or 400mm...this the biggest sensor to easily get it in a compact package no less. Shooting at 500-600mm in good light will be effortless even without EVF with half decent OIS/bracing against body.

Now 600mm isn't restricted to phone size sensors or huge lenses - It will sell well ;)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

aris14

Maybe it's just me, but I 'll never comprehend the way Canons render light or lighter areas. Any Canon... This one is silly overpriced for what it is, just a me too product...
Btw how vicious is s/o offering a super zoom camera w/o VF..?
I guess less than the guys who 'll buy it...!

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

lbjack

No built-in EVF? No deal. Canon is trying to hustle what it has instead of getting with it.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

MarioV

There's sufficient quality in the images. Very nice focal range, weather sealed and in a reasonable size body make this a nice travel camera.

Looking forward to Lightroom support update.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

bernardf12

14 Bit RAW files from a big zoom compact is not bad. Its just too expensive.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Steven Blackwood

I don't wish to be snarky but would it kil DPR to finally deep-six Flash? Many of us use mobile devices and Flash doesn't work. Yeah, yeah, it works on Android or at least some of them but Adobe is no longer developing for mobile. It's very laborious to click on pictures one at a time. hTML5, guys.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Don't quote me, I think I heard Puffin web browser works with Flash and iPhone/iPad; I was going to download it and check it out later.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

"I don't wish to be snarky but would it kil DPR to finally deep-six Flash?"

Funny you should say that...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

InTheMist

Oh Barney! You getting my hopes up. I spend hours in trains with only my iPhone and DPR to keep me company.

Nice set!

Jul 22, 2015permalink

The REAL problem with this camera is the price. I returned my FZ1000 because of the massive size and weight - this seems perfect for me. But at $1100-1200 +EVF/case in Australia they can forget it...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Yep.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Forgotten already, as most of the new crop of over-overpriced Canon gear falling off the proverbial overpriced turnip truck ..

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Yup. So go pay Sony more money than Canon.
Makes sense, pay more to Sony for less.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

ThatCamFan

This is a camera I can see my father be quite happy with, hes using an old powershot sx210 I gave him, long overdue for something better (his has plenty of dust inside) Also a good enough camera if I bump into something news worthy. The image quality is not dslr levels of course, but for a single light solution of "keep one just in case next to you in the car" for example the glove compartment this would do fine.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

fatdeeman

I really want to like this camera, it's looks remind me of the original g3 and g5 and it's the first camera in ages that made me just want to hold and handle it, it looks like it would be nice to use. The samples look pretty decent for a mid sized sensor and the lens seems pretty good although atmospheric distortion makes any assessment towards the longer end of the zoom difficult.

There's still the shortfalls everyone has discussed exhaustively though, the lack of an EVF at this price point is truly criminal and will make life at 600mm harder than it should be, this might have been a handy little tool for airshows and birding etc. 4k video would have been nice too. Oh and a fully articulated LCD like we had YEARS ago on the g series.

There's still something about this camera that draws me in though, I can't quite put my finger on it.

I have a feeling this will be one of those cameras I pick up in a few years time for next to nothing to have a play with.

Jul 21, 2015*permalink

fatdeeman

I guess like most recent Canon's it's a fantastic bit of kit in isolation but as soon as you look at the rivals you realise they are fantastic and a half.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Skipper494

A poor imitation of the Pan FZ1000, more money and extra for a VF, I don't think so.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Except that the FZ1000 offers 200mm less focal length and is bigger (by quite a bit). For some, having a camera that takes just as good of photos while offering 200mm more focal length will justify the extra cost. I paid $400 more for a lens once because if offered 2mm of extra range on the wide end; and it was worth it because of the pictures I got. Everyone's needs are different.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

NowHearThis- For some is the key to your statement, not most. These days its best to appeal to most, not some, of the market. Canon's Powershot division has always been a leader and awesome division for them, but not including finders in the recent announcements makes the division look a bit dated. At least they are wise enough to use Sony's superior sensors :).

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

I used the phrase "For some" kind of loosely. This thing will likely sell very well. Sales people will know how to sell it to the masses just like they've done with the Rebels (which I personally can't stand). "Most" people aren't gear heads. I'd wager most people use smart phones for their photos (not that they should...). The G3X, while not perfect, and not my first choice for a 1" super zoom camera, will be compelling for the "most" people - just not as many on this forum.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Maybe, maybe not.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

I'd say likely not -- based on Canon's recent dismal track record of declining sales and even faster declining reputation.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(Edit - Ah, read your other recent posts so really no point in my commenting here, just ignore the next bit.)
Since Canon's most recent figures still show them making more money than everyone else in the camera business put together I really doubt they care about your opinion. Argue all you like but they have the task of making money selling cameras down better than anyone else.

Jul 22, 2015*permalink

Revenant

Those declining sales are seen by every camera manufacturer, since the entire market for dedicated cameras is shrinking. And since Canon's market share has been pretty much constant throughout this market contraction, their decline isn't steeper than any of their competitors'. So while saying that Canon's sales are declining is true, it's a tad disingenuous to not put it in context.

Jul 22, 2015permalink

I said what I said -- Canon's sales numbers are declining. Revenue is declining. And reputation is fast declining. What's up?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

http://www.rankingthebrands.com/The-Brand-Rankings.aspx?rankingID=33&year=910
Japan's Best Global Brands | 2015
Canon came 3rd, Sony 4th and Panasonic 6th, but I suspect the latter two's ranking was about stuff other than cameras.
They (Canon) also came 7th in this Global ranking:
http://www.rankingthebrands.com/The-Brand-Rankings.aspx?rankingID=248&year=930
Apple were 8th.
I think their reputation is fine away from a handful of forum posters...

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Japanese rankings of Japanese companies, right. Just like in German rankings, the German companies usually lead the pack.

For video cameras, the Japanese makers are way, way behind. The world leaders are one Australian, a bunch of American, and one European company there. A few years ago, Canon had tried to break into the high-end video camcorder market (EOS Cinema Cxx series products), but failed. Same thing happened when they tried to break into the cinema optics market.

And once the DSLR era will draw to a close -- just what will they sell to remain so well off, as you say they are?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/07/canon-fight-back-with-a-box/

Desperation alley, indeed. Oh, Canon... :-((

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Cinema EOS sales seem pretty good and they get credited (as an additional cam) on many movies, plus I see a lot of people using them around London, usually on sliders. I think amongst people who actually use these things they are doing fine.

Also InterBrand, whose rating I linked, have offices in 27 countries and aren't a Japanese company.

I also really doubt DSLRs will disappear as fast as you think, the low-end will go mirrorless at some point, but the higher end stuff is likely to stay as it is for some time, just with LCD overlays (the 5Ds has a transparent LCD overlay on the viewfinder, for example). More likely a number of mirrorless companies will go out of the camera business, as their financials on making cameras are universally dreadful (except Leica, if you include them). I think Sony do the best, at around break-even, although it's hard to tell as their very profitable Pro Video business was merged into the same group so you only get to see broken-out numbers occasionally

Jul 23, 2015*permalink

joelakeland

First, some really awesome compositions and nice captures. Having said that and as a recent owner of the FZ1000(gifted to my son for his hiking adventures), these pictures are quite underwhelming once you look closer at the original files. I would have enjoyed seeing a real world side by side by side between this, the FZ1000 and the Sony RX10II(or RX10). Am I expecting too much from the 1" sensor? I thought the FZ1000 had pretty good output, punching over its weight sensor-wise.

I wanted it to be grand, but the only thing that is grand about it given my initial impression, is the price.

Jul 21, 2015*permalink

johnsmith404

Wow, there aren't any details at all at the long end. Kinda disappointing for a 1k+250$ camera.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

To be fair, a lot of the long tele shots are rendered pretty wobbly just from atmospherics.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

@Barney why not some typical "backyard" style pics at full zoom then?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

From the news story:

"We've got more samples on the way (and Raw conversions as soon as possible) but for now, take a look at our initial real-world gallery."

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Just what wereyou expecting from Canon for a mere pittance of $1250, after all?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

People with low self-esteem put down people to build themselves up.
I see this happens with companies. People buy into a company and feel cheated so they put down the other company(s) to make up for their poor decision.
Lots of subjective whining without any figures to back themselves up. Great IQ Poor IQ, IQ is subjective, give some figures to back up this IQ. Remember IQ is subjective, meaning it changes from person to person, picture to picture and day to day. Give a solid basis of data for IQ.

Very little has been said about the very good work Barney has done. He has to defend himself by adding more pictures that people are just going to whine about to build up their poor decision.
Thank you very much Barney for doing the field tests and reviews.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

Colors are nice. Overall IQ is about what one expects for an in-between size sensor. Sharpness is not mind blowing but the pics blow up nicely and fine detail looks pretty good.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

maxnimo

Well, for a small, cheap super-zoom the pics look not too bad.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

brownie314

except not small or cheap.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Revenant

It's subjective, of course, but to me a typical entry-level DSLR is a small camera, and so is the G3 X.
The sort of camera that you can put in your pants pockets isn't small, it's tiny.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Revenant

It's subjective, of course, but to me a typical entry-level DSLR is a small camera, and so is the G3 X.
The sort of camera that you can put in your pants pockets isn't small, it's tiny.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

CHEAP??? PMing you my bank account details now... ;)

Jul 22, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Small and cheap? ... are you a rich giant?

Jul 22, 2015permalink

vermaden

600mm and no EVF ...

Jul 21, 2015permalink

justmeMN

On the bright side, you can buy an optional EVF, but it's not exactly cheap.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

vermaden

... or convenient ;)

Jul 21, 2015permalink

>> "600mm and no EVF ..."

Did you just find that out??

Jul 22, 2015permalink

Sony $1300 with built-in EVF. Since when did a built-in EVF ad to the raw file, resolution, DR, or color bits of the sensor?
Canon $1000 + $250 = $1250 hmm cheaper than the Sony, more versatile than the Sony.
Oh, right, Sony does everything perfect compared to Canon.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

turvyT

Canon 5ds gallery tells you something about the camera. These ones, barely. Someone had a nice trip. Good.

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Lens performance, ISO performance, AWB performance, metering performance...

Or am I missing something?

Jul 21, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

No DxO numbers?

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Presumably the same Sony sensor everyone else is using so will be about the same result, give-or-take a bit.

Jul 22, 2015permalink