Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery

Cont. You can see that Canon lens & sensor work with ease and huge amount of reserves. ISO 200 picture is indeed very good. x10 is not in the same class and you can see the sensor struggling but that is to be expected from a small sensor camera. I have a very high confidence in G1X lens and abilities after seeing so many pictures posted on so many sites. It would have been a great replacement/upgrade for G7 if not for 5N. I'm very used to Canon G handling. I may actually go for 5N AND G1X. Still have several Minolta and Sigma lenses... theres no conflict there.

Jan 20, 2012permalink

Excellent link even though I don't speak spanish the pictures speak for themselves. Looking at straight comparison between G1X, Fuji x10 and Olympus EP-M1 finally one can say that Canon lens is indeed very sharp. Sharper then EP-M1. As I posted earlier in G1X preview comments my G7 lens outresolves Sony kit lens ans well as Olympus highly acclaimed 14-42 zoom. Actually my personal tests (2 weeks with NEX5 &5 N, EP-M1) lead me to conclusion that resolutionwise G7 beats the other 3. ISO 200 comparison proves that if not for huge amount of sharpening Olympus cannot keep up. The result is sooo... oversharpened and unpleasant. So much for Olympus superiority (claimed here), lenswise and "spot on processing" which I found simply subpar (color incl.) and this test has clearly confirmed. That applies to all Olympus models as all of them use same guts, just UI is tweaked differently, and the very same "benchmark" lens. Noooo, thank you. I returned the Olympus as a clear looser and kept NEX 5N.

Jan 20, 2012*permalink

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/canon-powershot-g1-x-analisis-muestras-video,1_8397

If pictures speak for themselves, why the rant?

Jan 22, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Jan 20, 2012permalink

Over the last couple of days I have been comparing some cameras concentrating mainly on their dimensions and it suddenly occured to me that it is not as simple as I previously thought. I think most people here have high hopes with Canon G1 X regarding its depth (i.e. collapsable lens) The problem is that Sony Nex cameras are designed to be carried with their lenses pointing downards so the numbers regarding their dimensions should be presented accordingly which means that Nex5N with its kit lens is really 110,8 X 98.2 X 62,2 and Canon G1X is 116,7 X 80,5 X 64,7 This means that in terms of depth Sony is actually thinner and only 1,8cm higher ! In fact packing Sony with its lens ponting down makes it also much safer as the risk of damaging the front of the lens decreases !

Jan 20, 2012permalink

About Canon, Sony, Nikon skin tones... subject that keeps on coming back.
Every Co./Manuf. has its own unique profile programmed into their cameras.
Quotes from respective camera reviews at imaging-resource (examples):

"Skin tones. Here, when adjusted for the correct white balance, the Sony NEX-5 did well, producing natural-looking skin tones."

"Skin tones. Here, with the color balanced properly for the light source, the Nikon D7000's skin tones looked just about right. There were some slight pink tints in places, but overall skin tone looked very natural."

"Skin tones. Here, the Nikon D3S also did quite well, producing natural-looking skin tones, though just slightly on the pink side."

"Skin tones. In this case, the 1Ds Mark III did render skin tones slightly on the pink side in most cases. Still, results are quite good, well within an acceptable range."
For detailed description of spec. camera color profile refer to resp. review.
So where is this expected "perfect tone"?

Jan 20, 2012permalink

It seems 2me all comments here are pretty good. We don't want to see this camera declared great or crap but, really, how much bang we get for the buck.

I bought Canon 230 HS as a gift and she likes it. However, this camera has poor out-of-FOV light rejection, which shows up as foggy ovals in the image. This could be fixed w/ a hood but it's a P&S cam. So I am interested if G1x has decent, if any, side light suppression in their optics, also because Canon thinks it can do just as well as other M-less cams w/ removable lenses -- but I am not sure Cannon can or wants to.

I do not fancy the colors I see on the samples. I also think DPR needs to study up on the signal/noise (S/N) ratio of sensors if it wants to be impartial. S/N ratio is not a constant, it is not even linear. Need a more sr. guy there or shoot all cams under identical lighting conditions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong selling a $100 camera for $1000. It's just that I want to know the cam's value.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

They do all those tests, but not for a preview. When they get a production camera they'll run it through almost every test possible. For the tests they don't do there are some other useful websites you can check.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Howard, if you are connected to DPR I welcome your comment. I have not seen out-of-FOV light rejection test (technically flare) on any (dozen+) camera reviews I read on this site with the exception of removable lenses tests. Pana 20mm, for example, handles flare so well DPR flatly states the hood is not needed. Can G1x match that? I bet a monkey wrench it cannot.

Jan 20, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; —
Thou art thyself though, not a G1X.
What's G1X? It is nor lens, nor flash,
Nor shutter release, nor display, nor any other part
Belonging to a camera. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So G1X would, were it not G1X call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which it owes
Without that title: — G1X, doff thy name;
And for thy name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

Just my way of saying, who gives a flying rat's posterior what the thing is called?

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

Well obviously you care a little bit because i can think of a few easier ways to say posterior, or 'flying rat's posterior' altogether with just one convenient word.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Howard: Are you smoking one of those funny looking cigarettes? Hard to otherwise explain your enthusiasm for such a pathetic camera. I suppose you could be a Canon shill.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

:) No, just bored. My driving leg is in a cast so I have long stretches of time when I'm just stuck in front of a computer trying to keep myself entertained. Normally I would have seen the news of the camera I'd been wanting for the last two years finally coming into existence, read everything I could about it, and then promptly ignored what every fool on the planet had to say about it. The inability to drive or move around very easily has afforded me the opportunity to probe the minds of morons like yourself and I find it utterly fascinating. But, you raise an excellent point. I should probably spend my time doing something more productive and with a greater chance of success than trying to convince fools to quit being fools, like trying to teach a cat calculus.

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

Dan DeLion why do you hate this camera so personally, did it insult your mother or something? Or is just that you think every camera should be built to your personal specifications and to heck with what others want or need? Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Maybe you're just being a troll.

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

Josh152 – I just feel compelled to say something when the Emperor comes by with no clothes on.

Howard – I was in the same condition a year-and-a-half ago after a bicycling accident and twenty seven days in the hospital. I found the physical therapy did remarkable things for my recovery. Two weeks ago I started taking Ballroom Dancing lessons. For me, working up a sweat every damn day in PT does the trick.

BTW – It's still a very limited camera that's too large.
-

Jan 20, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I'm sure it is very limited and too large....for you. However, for me it will be used almost exactly as advertised: a companion to an already nearly complete array of photographic equipment. The image quality is excellent and the flip out LCD is far more useful than any other camera with an articulating display, mainly because they are extremely limited.
One thing I try to remember when giving advice to people who don't have the same priorities as me is both humility and to have zero expectations that I will be listened to. Dan, you're not wrong because you're wrong. You're wrong because it is impossible for you to be right. There is a concept known as the right tool for the job, and you have absolutely zero grasp on the job I have in mind for this camera. You don't know how I shoot, what I already have, etc. And I don't place any value on your opinion.
I appreciate the sympathy. I'm glad you recovered and are back to cutting a rug. :) I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

Jan 20, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

One more thing. Rest assured I will get this camera within the first few weeks of its release, although I always wait for a few select reviews that I trust. All I was really interested in was having an intelligent discussion. I get that about 50% of the time around here, and the other half is split pretty equally between ignorance, hatefulness, or a combination of the two. Peace out.

Jan 20, 2012*permalink

For several years, since its introduction, there's been a place for cameras like Canon G. This one is a logical continuation to a very succesfull product line. It has been missing on the market for some time and missed by many who had a chance to appreciate Canon Gxx true value. G1X, an awaited successor to all G's so far does not disappoint. It was designed exactly to fit into the very same spot. It does not pretend to be a quasi DSLR. It is what it always has been before...
...and I'm sure it will do the job it has been designed to do, just like previous models of Canon Gxx, only better.

Jan 20, 2012permalink

Dan your response makes no sense. This isn't about people being deluded. For some this is the perfect camera. Just because it's not perfect for you, doesn't mean it is a bad camera.

Your whole argument boils down to if a camera doesn't fit YOUR needs it is worthless. I'm sorry but you are not the center of the universe.

Jan 20, 2012*permalink

Josh & Howard:

I see. You can't win on the cameras specs. So, you turn to personal attacks.

That still leaves this new camera under specced and over sized. But, I'm sure it will make a great paper weight till the next new camera comes along. Don't forget to save the box – it really helps when you try to resell the camera next xmass.

Enjoy looking at your equipment - Dan

Jan 21, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

"Howard: Are you smoking one of those funny looking cigarettes? Hard to otherwise explain your enthusiasm for such a pathetic camera. I suppose you could be a Canon shill."
--Dan DeLion

Jan 21, 2012permalink

I didn't personally attack you at all dan. If you feel like a summery of you argument is a personal attack then maybe it says more about your argument than it does me.

I can't argue camera specs since you have already decided you hate them regardless of how good they actually are.

Jan 22, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Josh, never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Enjoy your G1X, I know I'm going to enjoy mine. Anyone who believes their opinions are of higher quality than your logic and empirical results throws insults at you and your equipment out of insecurity or straight up narcissism. There's no fixing that within these comment pages.

Jan 23, 2012*permalink

Poor Howard and Josh - Thier latest object of thier desire, the camera that'l make them great photographers is being criticized because of its' pathetic specs. I'd really like to know what great picture taking opertunities you have in mind for the camera the world's been waiting for.

Equipment isn't going to make you people better photographers but it is fun to look at and to handle. --- Right?

Jan 23, 2012permalink

rusticus

Hello, this is aesome:
ttp://vimeo.com/34944757

Jan 19, 2012permalink

This video is absolutely unbearable to watch, i felt like an apple logo could pop up at any time. ... It was about the Canon right ? Man when i'm taking pictures this background 'music' is the last thing i would want in my head.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

lordsakana

Thanks for posting the link.

Jan 20, 2012*permalink

thincrust88

I love everything bout this new Canon. Everything but the 4:3 aspect ratio... :-( Having used the Sony NEX-5N's 3:2 aspect ratio, not sure if i'd want to go back to the 'squarish' image size...

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

For some reason that strikes me as odd. When I compose an image I get what I want in the shot and usually have to crop later. Sometimes I crop to form a more square image, and sometimes to give it a more panoramic look. I've never given much thought to the aspect ratio of my camera because my camera doesn't dictate anything to me other than what its physical limitations are. Everything after that is up to me.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

It strikes me as odd that it strikes you as odd. Who want to crop every photo you take ? Most of the time i don't have to crop anything, and when i do it's because i messed up or didn't have the right lens on. 'Be nice if what you seen on the screen/finder is the ratio you want from the start. Anyway, we've all got our personal workflow.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Is there really a ratio that is preferable? I don't crop every photo I take. I crop every photo I print. Getting everything else the way I want it such as depth of field, field of view, and compositional elements means that sometimes I can't narrow the frame in one direction without losing something in the other. Maybe I need to crop a little sky out to get the proportions of the foreground to background the way I want it....but the extra sky either had to be there or extra foreground, either way something would need cropping. And maybe I don't want to tilt the camera down and alter my perspective, so I'd have to go with more sky than foreground. Sometimes if I want a panoramic effect I have to take a wide shot and crop off the top and bottom. The engineers who designed my camera aren't going to dictate the aspect ratio of something I'm printing at 20X30 and putting in an $800 frame.

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

Well yes, since about the Renaissance ratio matters to those who create just about any form of art. Whether it's inside the frame or the frame itself, or even where it is presented, it matters always.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Are we talking about the Golden Ratio or just caring about the ratio in general? The average ratio of some of the most famous works of art in history (565 of them) is 1.34. That's 4:3 to the mathematically challenged (well, 0.066666666 ad infinitum more that true 4:3). I know that the mean of any group of numbers is a value that basically never exists within the group itself, but it still indicates that some pretty important people have differeing opinions on what the perfect ratio is, and despite that disagreement they hover right around 4:3 most of the time. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908036/

Jan 19, 2012permalink

rudymnv

It may be personal thing, but I find 4:3 to be somewhat less desirable then ever before. I know you can crop in-camera or later, but I wish sensor ratio was 3:2. Regardless of that, looks like leap in right direction with G series.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

howard - We, or at least I am talking about any kind of ratio, and the fact that one or another is indeed preferable. For me consistency is most important, but i prefer 3:2 in general, altho 3:4 can be great for portraits. Perhaps 4:3 will grow on me because i have been using 3:2 for so long. The rumored digital Olympus OM might help that along if it's anything interesting and actually m4/3. But i wouldn't start cropping the photos from my SLR as well, because that just isn't how it works for me. The DoF and overall rendering wouldn't match with m4/3 in a set anyway.

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

Nathebeach

The shot inside the airport terminal is impressive.
ISO 1600 and not much noise.
Was that shot as a straight jpeg or was it processed from RAW I wonder?
I am impressed. I would like to hear some feedback from some of the more experienced guys with a more critical view.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Carlos T

Correct! noise is very limited. Other poisitive point is the small amount of purple fringing of the lens in in the lights (reflectors). Some complain about the f2.8 and not having a faster lens (i.e f 2.0) but frequently having such lens in compact cameras could mean having a not neglible qty of purple which need more post processing to minimize it.

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

Andrew Westlake

All of these are out-of-camera JPEGs. We don't have a raw converter that will process the G1 X's files yet.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

realsand

Nice pictures! Which will give the best indoors shots without flash? - G1X or GX1..?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Unless you purchase a really bright lens (20/1.7 or the 12/2.0 at most) for your Pana GX1, the Canon G1X. The latter has approximately 2 stops better high ISO (check out the French review I've frequently mentioned). In addition, neither of the above-mentioned lens have IS, which is also a minus.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

realsand

Thanks but isn't the G1x's lens 'slower', so that the iso advantage is lost in the end?

Jan 19, 2012permalink

"Thanks but isn't the G1x's lens 'slower', so that the iso advantage is lost in the end?"

Depends on if you really want to use 80mm+ equiv indoors.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

"Depends on if you really want to use 80mm+ equiv indoors."

If you do, and 50 mm is sufficient, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 might produce considerably better results than the Canon both high ISO, DOF and, particularly, corner softness-wise. (The Canon's corners are REALLY soft around 50 mm equiv.)

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I respectfully disagree about corner softness. This lens is no different than any other lens, mid to high end, that loses some detail towards the corners. I have yet to see anything that would warrant the use of the description "REALLY" soft.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

http://www.lenstip.com/1963-news-Canon_PowerShot_G1_X_-_sample_images_(outdoor_shots).html

Compare it to any of the DSLR / MILC lens in the Frenc article between 30 and 40 mm...

Jan 19, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I'm afraid I have no idea how those shots were taken. At such a close distance the depth of field is very narrow and if there was a focus issue that could easily soften those bottom two corners. The top two show remarkably less softening. Every other picture taken on the only three sites I can find with real world sample photos, including this one, shows no problems with corner softness at any focal length or aperture combination. You can point out the same set of test shots until you're blue in the face, but until there are some real tests of the focus system and test shots of actual resolution charts (those are two-dimensional and can quantify detail from the center of the frame all the way to the corners) I'm not going agree wtih you. All of the samples I've seen vs. the French test shots (I'd put that at about a 10 to 1 ratio) gives me pause when trying to explain the anomoly. Unless a site I trust (never seen anything else on that French site) confirms, I'm skeptical.

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

(unknown member)

There are more samples at lenstip and focus-numerique. Between dpreview and these two other sites you get a good idea of this camera's image quality. Excellent detail, sharp corner to corner (minor detail loss if any as far as I can tell without a resolution chart), exposure and color seem good, top notch ISO performance. I really hope there's not some bizarre issue that pops up, because in the absence of that I don't think I'll be able to wait very long after release to buy one.

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-exemples-photos-15.html

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_g1_x#SampleImages

Wow, impressive! thanks for linking
Can't wait for the review here ^^

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Daniel Y

No shots to show performance with skin tones?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

photo perzon

Thats how Sony NEX got its gold award....and it produces orange faces...no skin tones in the review, just a face of stone

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

There is one on the lenstip samples page.

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

Carlos T

Here's one shot where you can appreciate skin tones. Look impressive IMHO.
Link:

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

From imaging-resource 5N review:
Skin tones. Here, when adjusted for the correct white balance, the Sony NEX-5 did well, producing natural-looking skin tones. Where oversaturation is most problematic is on Caucasian skin tones, as it's very easy for these "memory colors" to be seen as too bright, too pink, too yellow, etc.

The problem is trivial. This is WB, saturation issue. Have to see 2 random cameras produce perfect skin tone. Canon tone is low in gold tones, Sony & Nikon are richer. Almost every test among the 3 shows/confirms that. Also sample pics from these brands. Especially visible when the sun is low... Canon lacks the gold/warmth compared to Sony/Nikon. Either create WB profile in 5N or set WB especially indoors. 5N has incredible color richness which looks better then Canon (kinda flat shooting neutral, lacking yellow/orange). Spend the time comparing samples from these brands and you will know. There are color charts as well, compare... clearly visible. Nothing new.

Jan 20, 2012*permalink

worldbestphotograph

action time cadence comments

Powering (time required to obtain the first image with focus)
2.3 s / means
Shutter lag 0.11 s / means

Time between two pictures
(JPEG) 2.4 s / means

Time between 2 images
(Raw) 3.1 s s poor

Autofocus light 0.55 s s well

Autofocus dark (3 lx) with assist lamp
0.9 s s means

Rafale JPeg / 1.9 i / s Mediocre.Number of views according to card capacity. Speed Burst Mode 5.4 i / s of 6 views.

Raw burst / 0.9 i / s Mediocre.Number of views according to card capacity. Fast burst mode is not available in Raw.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

worldbestphotograph

Reactivity

The G1 X is a compact it more responsive than the average. At the lab and in the field, the new model Canon shows performance actually quite modest. The time to deploy the optical zoom, it takes about 2.3 seconds for the first trigger. AF appears reasonably responsive to light (the compact are currently better) and almost a second request in the dark. The shutter lag 0.11 s is not negligible and we expected a higher score for a device-oriented "pro." Burst mode is not great either. JPEG, it struggles to reach 1.9 i / s (number of frames depending on the capacity of the card) and there is a very fast mode (of 6 views) that achieves 5.4 i / s, it does not save Raw. The performance tests are performed a Panasonic SD UHS-I to 8 GB.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

One can hardly expect to buy a "pro" class camera with the lens for $800 these days.

I wonder how many people will have heard of the Canon G1X, but when they go into their camera store, will walk out with a Panasonic GX1 instead.

Nice way of naming of your cameras, Canon. Duuh....

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

You spend a lot of time trashing a camera you obviously hate, Frank.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Francis :

The seller only has to say the magic words: "is like a canon g12 with a reflex sensor." They'll sell millions.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Gorpalm

What great shots! And pretty ok with the whole non-interchangeable zoom lens things too. Not a fanatic about these things just loving my CSC with a pancake lens, Love the idea of the CONVENIENCE of this Canon w a pancake sized lens at rest that stretches out to a fair usable zoom, as and when required.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Hachu21

Maybe when they'll be able to catch a finalized production model?

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

suedezu

When is the review coming out?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

douple

as always, radical pro people and con people .. lets wait for review. At this moment its a waste of time to judge pre-product.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

I have a fairly good idea actually, don't need a review to get approval, tho some extra in-depth is always informative when there are similar option available. But it's easy in this case because there isn't really any other enormous-sensor compact like this with built-in lens (and VF) on the market, is there. So all you have to do is like it or don't. I'm always amazed at how so many seem to wait for others to give it some kind of useless rating, but what does it matter, you're the one who has to use it.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Answer to Podz !
That's true ! There is however one or actually three drawbacks in regard to Panasonic . It doesm't have in-built viewfinderer. I know that the one in Canon is quite primitive but at least it's ALWAYS there when You need it and it's an integral part of the body - of course You can buy EVF for Panasonic , but it's still quite an expensive ADDITIONAL accessory which You have to worry about. Not to mention that once it's installed on camera you have to be extra careful with handling . The second drawback is the lack of flip-out screen. This is a very useful feature aspecially in a such a portable camera - probably much more useful than in SLR. The third drawback is not very good high ISO performance. Well at least Not as good as the one in Canon - You can compare shots taken at 3200ASA from both cameras of the same subject at www.focus-numerique.com.

Oh, and one more thing ! I don't thing the naming of Canon is accidental G1X versus GX1 in Panasonic ! :)

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

right, but the GX1 has the ability to swap lenses and a faster continuous shooting... anyway, as you said, IQ is not really comparable and for my needs the Canon remains a preferable choice

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Panasonic has many, many camera models with electronic viewfinders. Check them out.

The Canon G1 X's viewfinder is classic 1920s style barrel parallax view job that only shows you about 80% of the image that you are recording.

In other words, it is TOTALLY USELESS.

Regarding the model name that Canon chose for this camera -- shows the level or their present desperation. They have got nothing really good in the mirrorless camera segment.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

"Panasonic has many, many camera models with electronic viewfinders. Check them out. "
we were talking about cameras with the same 'form factor'...

Jan 18, 2012permalink

The use of OVF doesn't worry me one bit ! After all I was using one for many years wiith my fujifilm GA645 ! Besides it supposed to serve as a backup to LV screen which of course fujifilm or for that matter any of analogue rangefinders never had. Mr Carver says that because it covers only 80% it is totaly useless. This might be partially correct with analogue cameras especially while shooting slide films, but in the digital cameras You can crop your photos in Photoshop to your heart content with very little loss of quality!
The lens also for my purposes is absolutely sufficient and if I need to get slightly closer I simply do what I have already described above!
The only thing which worries me in Canon G1X is shooting speed! I don't need a speed demon , but I don't think that 1,5 frames per second is asking too much!

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Oh, and one more thing! In my view it's better to see 80% of the scene than to see 120% :) i.e. to see more through OVF than what you can get in the picture. You can always cut something out but it's impossible to add it !

Jan 18, 2012permalink

@ Podz: and what form factor is that exactly? Stuff smaller than a full-bodied DSLR, right?

@ zavart: Understood, the term "totally useless" was uncalled for. However, one advantage of old-school barrel type VFs is that you will have some markings there for what the camera actually records (with the various focal length lenses), and meanwhile you can "look around" the VF to see what is outside of the ffame line and thus you will not record.

Next best thing from there would be an OVF with 100% coverage.

Canon decided to use neither. Today, the world-class VF to beat is the optical VF with the heads-up electronic display found in the Fujifilm X100 and X-Pro1. That is one extreme on the top end of things. What is in the Canon G1 X is the other extreme.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

You spend a lot of time trashing a camera you obviously hate, Frank. Are you an old, grumpy man who has to urinate on everyone's parade? Your opinion is obvious and also less than useless.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

@Francis Carver
Right, significantly smaller. Undoubtedly this camera is bulkier than previous G-series, but still much smaller than most 4/3 cameras. I think that form factor for most people interested in this G1x is a main concern.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

photo nuts

The number of comments these G1X preview images has received is amazing. For good or bad, it shows Canon marketing has done their homework just right and they clearly know how to time the release of their products. When it was first announced, the Canon 5D also received a deluge of criticisms, both good and bad... and history shows us how influential that camera has become.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

lolopasstrail

Perhaps, but what will really show their homework is not anonymous chit chat on the internet, but lots of sales at $800 a pop.

Jan 19, 2012permalink

Bonsainz

While they look OK I still feel the Fuji X10 has much better colours, and much better camera

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Probably agree with you, as I am looking desperately to get their X-S1 superzoom. Two things though:

1. Fujifilm's X10's sensor is only 2/3-inch, in other words it is less then a quarter the size of the G1 X's imager.

2. X10 is still plagued by the white disc phenomenon. Time will tell if the firmware fix will be able to solve it adequately.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

ksievers

I too am leaning toward the X10. I was excited about the g1x till I saw the lens. Too slow on the long end. Yes the X10 imager is tiny, but man, there's some magic going on inside that camera and the images are quite nice. I'll likely go X10, love the manual zoom, the retro feel, (I'm old enough to have shot M4 leicas) Just wish fuji had put a better viewfinder in it. I hate using LCDs. The X100 viewfinder would be nice, but since I always use the center focus point and re-frame, I'd settle for a black dot in the viewfinder indicating such. Wonder if I could take a sharpie to it... :)

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Agree w. ksievers. There is nothing like the combination optical-electronic VF. It is an optical VF with a see-around area outside the recorded image, combined with a bright heads-up projection. Best of both words. Miles away from what the G1 X has.

But so far the only two Fuji-cams I know of that have the latest hybrid VF is the X100 and the X-Pro1. Right?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Thanks once again for another Fuji commercial, Frank.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

@Francis Carver
I have nothing against fujifilm cameras! In fact I own couple of them myself and I agree that the system they have invented in X100 is truly ingenious. However the problem is that they are much more expensive not to mention that only X100 with it's inbuilt 35mm lens is "flat" enough to be really portable and unobtrusive (kind of digital version of GA645 ) The X-Pro1 is going to cost even more and once you attach the lenses it will be more in the league of SLR than P&S !
When I speak of form factor I mean something which can be packed even to normal backpack without the risk of damaging the lens ! When the lens protrude from the camera body you have to protect it which means proper padding and so the overall size increases...

Jan 19, 2012*permalink

W16GYM

Phenomenal!!! Any chance we can get some RAW samples posted?

A bit cruel but does anyone think the G2 X might allow EFS or EF lenses to be attached? ;o))

Jan 18, 2012permalink

G Davidson

Gorgeous shadow detail and sharpness, a lens that covers all reasonable lengths in one, this sounds like a fantastic take-around camera. It's not inconceivable that it's shortcomings, such as poor bokeh and hard to control depth of field might be alleviated by those who try with good software.

I personally now have a Lumix LX5 and TZ7 and I have never enjoyed working with them or the colour output as much as my older Canon G9 or even older S40, which produced great out of camera images; though needed replacement as they are slow, no HD video and only did 35mm wide.

With this large sensor, which like the V1 seems to be a new breed, I could be confident of DSLR quality in a smaller body. The perfect back-up to my backup.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

maboule123

I also own those 2 cameras, G.
For the LX5 I invite you to see the beautiful youtube tutorial videos made by Charlie Waite. Mind you, I haven't used the camera to the extent of all its possibilities because of Winter, but I even shot some studio with it. I'm happy.
As for the TZ7, my wife used it on her vacations, and believe me, there were some great color render images along with some other captions where contrast & light zones were as far as maybe 4 stops difference. I discovered detail on the dark zones that really surprised me. After I applied some Photo Shop editing we printed & enlarged a couple of them (11x17) They are now proudly hanging in our hallway.
Have a great day!

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

How are you going to set good focus with a truly basic barrel-type optical parallax viewfinder? One that brutally crops your image.

The competition's mirrorless cameras use LCD electronic or hybrid optical-electronic or SLT-type OLED electronic viewfinders. Not this old-school stuff on the G1 X.

Canon's G1 X seem to have been designed 5-7 years ago, and just now coming to market. it is NOT a modern camera.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Deja vu, Frank.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

G Davidson

@maboule123 Thank you for your kind words. I will look into the videos. Don't get me wrong, I have had some fantastic results from both Panasonics, especially the LX5, which has an excellent lens and every control you could dream of. I just don't enjoy their menu system or, often the colour from the camera, which sometimes seems a bit strange to me compared to Canon or Nikon (my usual).

One thing I've noticed about different camera brands is that they each have their own signature colour and type of controls. I'm still open to Panasonics as they do put together such compelling packages, but I find myself needing to do more post-processing on their images when compared to my other cameras and fiddling around with it more than I'd like. I know I could get to use it better, but that itself takes time.

Jan 21, 2012permalink

srados

There is some banding happening...on 6400 iso but on on higher iso there is none?This camera is Jack of all trades.Impressive images!!!Pocket rocket!!!!

Jan 18, 2012permalink

mwh66

I am looking forward to the G1X.

I love the handling and responsiveness of my SLR cameras, but anymore, most any venue I go to prohibit cameras with detachable lenses.

Some security personel are wise to the mirrorless compacts.

After being turned away at the gate and having to walk back to my car to put away my D700 a couple of times, I have turned to my G12.

I believe the G1X will replace my G12, but I look at it as a supplement to my gear. It will not replace my D700 or my Sony A-77.

The hatred torwards the G1X is makes no sense to me, but neither does the arguments how ones Canon is better than anothers Nikon, or Olympus, etc.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Denis Reggie

No sample photos of human faces? Skin tones?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(English is not my mother tongue)

I love this camera. Having aps-c sensor and been so easy to carry is GRREAT. Folding screen for social photos, is a plus I miss in the Nex (my favourites).

But I see a major flaw, it seems born to stand out in a kind of cameras obsolete within a very short time: with little more space, you can take one Nex with all the advantages that this entails in terms of zoom and focus. The bonus of portability (for the G1X) is very small.

Still, if I have spare money, I will buy it, it seems a very enjoyable cam.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Bonus of portability is HUGE when you already have a large DSLR (7D in my case). I wish people would qualify their statements "for me because...." and quit making blanket, universal affirmatives. "I am a person, I think this is good, therefore all people must think it is good."

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

I have had DSLRs too.

As for portability, the G1X is only a fraction little than a Nex, (and a little heavier) THAT is what I am talking about. Everybody knows portability is good.

And I wish people dont coming to give unnecesary&unsolicited lessons of empathy, and thought: the "I think, I like" is implicit. I have given an opinion clearly and respectfully to spare. If you've been bothered by a negative view towards this gadget, that's your problem, not mine.

-> In my opinion :D <-

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Major flaw...very small....fraction...implicit. People say what they mean, but I wasn't angry with you. A lot of people speak in a absolutes around here and it just gets old after a while. Like an NEX that's a fraction larger. Which one?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(to me) 3cm in depth is not a "fraction" for cameras of this size. G1-X stays in my jacket pocket, NEX (with SEL1855) surely not...

Jan 18, 2012permalink

-English is not my mother tongue-

I said what I said because it is my opinion, politely, with the words you repeat; there is nothing wrong about those and maintain it.

I have one Nex5 for casual, everyday use, in my bag; I put the lens hood reversed, and turned the camera on itself. It occupies a tiny space for a camera with its capabilities. But I was thinking particularly of the Nex C3, which is the Nex smallest. Placed vertically, takes up little more than a G1X in the bag. And weights less. The G1X has the advantage of the square shape, but I do not see genuinely pocket, unless the pocket is really big! : D

Ok, any Nex with 18-55 stayed never in a pocket!

Jan 18, 2012permalink

I think you expressed your opinion politely and perhaps you could be right on G1x flaw. It must be said that this camera belongs to a relatively new segment that stands between mirrorless and compact (with their strengths and weaknesses), so it's pretty hard to say if it will be able to meet the different needs of many people...only time will tell :)

Jan 18, 2012permalink

@ Podz:

"this camera belongs to a relatively new segment that stands between mirrorless and compact."

Not in my opinion,. Instead, the Canon G1 X is Canon's "answer" to all the wonderful mirrorless cameras out there already from companies such as Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm, Sony, and so forth.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Do you prefer Francis or Frank. And did you copy and paste this from you million other posts?

Jan 18, 2012permalink

For the past couple of days I have been reading comments regarding new Canon G1X and I must say I'm really surprised by so many negative entries! It seems to me that most people here are comparing apples with bananas :) The IQ is not up to SLR -Nikon D3 , It is not as fast as Canon Eos 1-DX, the optical viewfinder is not as good as the one in Mamiya 645...and so on and so forth !The fact is that for the most people who want to own camera like this, the most important factor are dimensions, and I mean ALL of them (no point of having small camera body with a big sticking out lens ) and weight in relation to sensor size. It's a compromise , I know , but if I wouldn't be willing to make one, I would for sure be getting one of the above cameras instead. This form factor is fundamental because it will allow me to carry the camera ALL THE TIME ,EVERYWHERE ,and as probably most of You know the BEST camera is the One That's with You !

Jan 18, 2012permalink

You get the point ;) Probably the only real competitor is Panasonic GX1 with 14-42 compact lens (maybe if price drops^^)

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Lbr0805

I used to carry and SLR, but I don't any more. So the comparison to this or that SIL are meaningless for me personally. I want a large sensor camera that shoots raw, has PASM modes and that I can put in a jacket pocket. Comparisons to high-end, smaller sensor cameras are more useful for me. Is the increase in photo quality worth the increase in size over my Canon S90, or should I go for the S100. ? I would like to see more threads discussing that sort of question.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

image quality of this camera is comparable to that produced by an entry level DSLR. If you put the s100 with an SLR on a scale from 1 to 10, where the SLR is 10 and S100 is 1, then G1-X would be 8-9. Obviously there are compromises in size to achieve such quality, and in the end everything comes down to a very personal choice...

Jan 18, 2012permalink

philippei

I saw some G1X images sample on the french site "Focus numerique" which are more close to real usual conditions (human....people...). Results are good but perhaps not so as one could think with the present gallery....We definitely have to wait for complete review with production camera.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

leicaman

To me the big deal breaker on the new Canon is much longer focus times and shtter delays in comarison to a DSLR or a manual focus rangfinder. I have owned many G series cameras and I love them but they are just not quick enough in responsed. Live view is not really a concern.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

An Inconvenient Truth?

The release of such a raft of mirrorless cameras as we have seen lately has made me look afresh at the market and consider some brands I’d previously dismissed.

When you do this it can turn up some surprising results.

Sony’s NEX range has perhaps rather quietly come of age. And the newish NEX C3 trumps Canon’s foray into this market hands down before the G1-X has even hit the shops.

Looking for a high quality, light weight, compact second camera? or just a do it all? Results below:

Canon G1-X
Sensor Four Thirds 14.3 mp
Weight 534g (including batteries)
Dimensions 117 x 81 x 65 mm
RRP USD799

Sony NEX C3
Sensor APS-C 16.2 mp
Weight 421g (including 18-55 lens and batteries)
Dimensions 110 x 60 x 33 mm (not including lens)
Price USD549 (Amazon)

And the NEX C3 sports genuine DSLR level IQ.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/sony-alpha-nex-c3-review-samples

"And the NEX C3 sports genuine DSLR level IQ."

Lens size? Weight? Quality (particularly that of the 16mm)? Compared to the G1X?

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

@Menneisyys

As I mentioned the weight I quoted of 421g includes the NEX C3 body, batteries AND the 18-55mm kit lens.

The camera body alone weighs just 225g.

The lens is interchangeable and retails for USD299. I would expect it to be at least as equal to the lens on the G1X, and probably a whole lot better given that it is also used to front the 24 mp NEX-7.

dpeview's NEX 3 sample gallery is here. The results are excellent as is their review of both it and the NEX 5.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Richard Butler

In the name of accuracy:

Canon G1-X Sensor 1.5" (20% smaller than APS-C) 14.3 mp Lens range: 28-112mm equiv. Weight 534g (including batteries) Dimensions 117 x 81 x 65 mm RRP USD799

Sony NEX C3 w/18-55 Sensor APS-C 16.2 mp Lens range: 27-82.5mm equiv. Weight 421g (including 18-55 lens and batteries) Dimensions 110 x 60 x 97 mm (including lens) RRP USD649

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Go figure: when you put a lens on it the dimensions change. Thanks for reminding people that an incomplete picture is no picture at all, R Butler.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

In terms of iso performance I think that a comparison between G1-X and NEX-5N would be more appropriate...imho

Jan 18, 2012permalink

lensberg

I think this camera's high ISO performance is far superior to anything the Sony NEX 5N can produce... The 5N looks like an artistic smudge fest beyond ISO 3200... Based upon the sample images here, its safe to conclude that the Canon G1 X produces superior results to even Nikons D7000 / D5100 at any sensitivity... probably by one full stop...

Jan 18, 2012permalink

"I think this camera's high ISO performance is far superior to anything the Sony NEX 5N can produce..."

Using the French test shots, I've throughly compared the high-ISO performance of the 5N and the G1X. The former is about 0.5EV better. However, the G1X results are still stellar, particularly if you take into account the somewhat lower sensor size and the fact that the 5N has the world's best APS-C sensor.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

"Go figure: when you put a lens on it the dimensions change. Thanks for reminding people that an incomplete picture is no picture at all, R Butler."

Yup, Nex fans always "forget" to mention the camera dimensions with the lens attached ;-)

Jan 18, 2012permalink

Lbr0805

The case for the NEX C3 would be very compelling for me if someone offered a collapsing zoom for it like the new Panasonic. If that were available, I would stop reading these comments and order an NEX C3 with that lens right now.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

I sort of feel sorry for folks who will do just about anything at any price just to shave off 5mm from a camera's dimensions.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I feel sorry for people who won't shut up about how others spend their money. If you're poor maybe you should realize that posting negative comments here doesn't pay that well. Or does it, Frank?

Jan 18, 2012*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I apologize if I missed this but does anybody know if the G1X has the ability to register the images it takes in HDR mode? I thought it did but reading the specs on Amazon's page it says "tripod required".

Jan 17, 2012permalink

It is, but on tripods only. That is, it lacks any kind of Sony "magic"; that is, intelligent motion compensation. If you need "true" HDR, go for the Nex.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

If you need true HDR, go for Photoshop HDR.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

AnHund

The big problem with the DPR high ISO tests is that images are all shoot in good light (the side by side images).

Shooting in low light at high ISO would produce a lot more noise in the images, revealing how good the sensor really is.

Otherwise the output looks very nice for this type of camera.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

Well said, AnHund. It's about the S/N ratio.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Andrew Westlake

Can you quantify exactly what you mean by 'low light' as opposed to 'good light'? Because if you wanted to hand-hold those ISO comparison shots you'd need to use high ISOs - 3200 at the very least.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Andy, I believe what the OP wants you to do is take photos in a dimly lit room AND underexpose the images. Because everyone knows that it is only by underexposure that you can see how truly lousy a sensor is.

Jan 18, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

These photos look fine and vidicate those who've said at at the end of the day, if the sensor is too small, no go. My question is, how many people are there who, on the one hand want small size, lightweight and the simplicity of non-interchangable lenses but on the other hand will pay for a G1X. It's a bit like the $240 earplugs for my iPod. Great to have but if I was really interested in the ultimate quality I wouldn'd be using an iPod.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Kirppu

My gues is the same as why people buy XZ-1 when they could buy Pen series camera or why people by iPod when they can get Philips GoGear Raga. Or even better why people buy pre configured cheap computers with windows when they can get better hardware and free Linux OS for the same money. Different people, different needs and taste. But one thing is sure, Canon marketing research department has probably made an approximation that G1X will sell enough to make profit.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

infocus

It's not like expensive earplugs when you have a bad back and don't want to lug around a lot of equipment. As I've said before, I have to WANT to take my camera with me in order to take good photos.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

infocus

So, where's the best place to sell my G11?

Jan 17, 2012permalink

hammerheadfistpunch

Just a few of my uninformed thoughts here, but the ISO performance is pretty impressive, aside from that it doesn't stand out but it certainly performs well for its class...or if it had a class it would perform well in it. The people that complain about bokeh, DoF, lens speed, etc, etc...just remember that you can pocket it...and that's the whole point. In fact, for this type of user, and for most people i would imagine, the shallow DoF heavy Bokeh effect is way overrated anyway, as what you really want is accurate focus with snap and go convenience and razor thin DoF works against that, lest with forget "F8 and be there". My only beef is with the price, but hey its a new technology and its bound to head down.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

infocus

One of the things I'm looking at in these images is the detail in the shadow areas. The image of the graffiti pillar, the one of the sculpture (globe) in a garden, and the image of the riverboat at dusk are decent examples. In all cases the detail is good while maintaining the quality of the higher lighted parts of the image.

The next thing I looked at was the still life taken at different ISOs. There is a difference between the ISO 100 and the ISO 12800 for sure. BUT the higher ISO image is very acceptable for that range.

So far this camera is looking good to me.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Not terribly impressive results for such a large camera with a very limited lens. If it's your only camera its' limited lens is a hindrance. If it's a portable alternative to your DSLR – you can get the same results with much smaller, more versatile and cheaper cameras. It probably has some advantages at higher ISO's if you can live with its' limitations. This one is destined for the dustbin of history.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Kirppu

My opinion is that this is for those people who want good quality everyday photos in all around situtations and will never invest in interchangeable lens camera because they don't want to hassle with lenses. One lens, big sensor, ready to shoot photos and video in the given zoom range all in one body. Isn't that what pp cams are there for? Twist is that this one has big sensor that probably give great image quality. I think Canon is spot on with this product when we talk about the premium pp camera models.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

(unknown member)

My money is on "game changer" status. This is roughly the size of a G12 with some added thickness thanks to the lens. The G12 is what I would consider a small camera, although it is still mid-range (medium) when bracketed on one side by the S100 and the other side by my 7D. It is closer to the S100 than the 7D.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

8632Morrison

You're joking, right? We must be looking at different samples, because to my eyes these look very impressive. Particularly the higher ISO images. There are one or two with what appears to be camera shake, but for the most part this camera gives excellent pro quality images. I can't see how you can not see this. Plus, this camera is NOT large for how big it's sensor is!

Jan 17, 2012permalink

If you think the results aren't impressive for a camera of this size you either need a new monitor or glasses.

I don't understand why so many seem to very badly want this camera to be a failure. It's like for some reason it threatens them in some way.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

If it's not a large camera, let's see you put it in your shirt pocket. Why would anyone choose such a limited lens (28-112 – f2.8 to dark), when for less money you can have an ELPH or S95. Sometime check out the IQ of the ELPH 310HS up to ISO 640. Any questions about the G1 X's IQ can be answered by looking at image 0299.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Image quality, flexibility, size, flip out screen, video, hot shoe.
My shirt pocket is the definition of small? How about my inside jacket pocket? Is that large? I also can't fit my 7D/15-85 in my shirt pocket, nor my jacket pocket, nor can I put it in a little holster on my belt, and it would get heavy around my neck after about ten minutes (reason I put it in a backpack).
Why not choose an ELPH or the S95? Same reason I don't choose a camera hidden in a tiny American flag pin attached to my lapel -- image quality.
0299? No chromatic aberrations, great detail, very sharp corner to corner, excellent exposure, excellent dynamic range. What is your complaint? The hazy cityscape way in the background? Don't like the effect dirty air has on the picture? The camera won't fix that.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

If you think 0299 is sharp then you'll be happy with the G1 X! If you think a zoom with a longish wide end and a short long end is the cats meow, then you'll be happy with the G1 X! And, we haven't even touched upon the glories of an f5.8 lens. So if your shirt pockets are sized to fit an iPad, then you'll be happy.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I guess that depends on your definition of sharp. If you think sharp images come out of an ELPH, then 0299 would look like magic by comparison. If you think ISO 640 is just as useful as 12,800 then technology need move no further forward.
You must have a well calibrated eye to be able to determine the resolution of an image without a resolution chart to do it. Does f/5.8 mean something to you that it doesn't to me? I think it is a measure of light transmission and not a measure of sharpness potential. Your turn.
Sarcasm aside, I don't usually wear shirts with pockets outside of work since I'm under 60 years old. The few casual shirts I do have with pockets won't be full of a camera....as awesome as that would look. I'll be super cool with a little holster on my belt for quick access. Even when I've got 20 pounds of camera in my on my back, I like to have a little camera in a holster for certain shots.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

@howardroak,

I agree completely with you.

Image 0299 Looks sharper and has better defined details than many T3i shots I have seen. I really can't see any way the IQ could be improved. Any one who thinks image 0299 isn't sharp really does need glasses lol.

Dan DeLion obviously just has some kind of personal bias against this camera for some reason. Especially since he actually suggested the G1 X was the same size as an iPad. Which is just absurd.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

08rvtraveller

"The new, revolutionary FUJIFILM X-Pro1 Digital Camera has won four awards during the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week."

No mention on dpreview news - it's not a Canon I guess!

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Rich Niemeyer

These comments aren't relevant on this site. They should be on the Fuji site. Besides not everyone uses LV in composing images.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

cshyde

Jeez sdyue, who put a twist in your shorts. You seem to be the only one in the world concerned or even aware of ES-LV. I'll have to check my M9 and D3x manual to see if my cameras even have the feature. If not I guess I should trade them in on a Canon Elph 300. Why don't you quit your job with Canon and become a bit more objective instead of a Canon Fangirl who slaps around the rest of us for not being particularly overjoyed with the latest offering from Canon.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

tranced

For those not familiar, Exposure Live Preview is when shooting setting adjustments are instantly reflected on the exposure shown in live view.

This feature has immense impact on handling. You essentially must rely on an exposure meter and sample shots as your primary means of judging exposure as you do when shooting through the viewfinder.

This process of shooting stands in contrast to live view, which psychologically mimicks the final shot due to seeing your composition where you also review it. In this case, if the live view image and the taken image differ, it leads to confusion and a dampened shooting experience.

I handled a Panasonic LX-5 recently. I usually shoot a Ricoh GRD3.

For whatever reason, the LX-5 live view showed an underexposed preview, with shooting settings that should have reflected a neutral exposure.

With the GRD, the live view reflects your f-stop/ss/iso. It makes shooting feel superior to the LX-5 (even if the LX-5 took better pictures).

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Okay, we're a bit off topic, but GF1 in a spot metering mode gives me live exposure compensation. (After focus lock) I can move the metering center spot ever so slightly to get the exposure I want (and refocus if I move too much). I have no need to mechanically adjust exposure and I stopped using bracketing altogether. Just one of the terms of endearment of the GF1.

Back to G1X. People's faces in the museum with the dino do not seem to have the resolution I get with my 20mm GF1 lens.

Cannot wait for the Studio shots.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Jake

Slow internet, don't have time to look at all samples. Are any of them at f2.8? Thanks.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Jake

Thanks much, guess I should have started at the beginning :). Looking good to me.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

Carlos T

Just to reinforce the correct argument of ZAnton: G1X is focused primarly to those who wants relative high quality without sacrificing portability which at the end of the day is one point not to forget in travels where a DSLR with plenty of lenses is not needed.
Imagine taking decent RAW photos during a colorful spring evening only carrying a tiny light bag for the G1X or better during a long weekend in a beach minimising the risk of carrying expensive 5DMKII/7D/1D +lenses enoying at same time walks without struggling with a heavy and bulky bags...
In my oppinion Canon made a unerring design in function of a market study.
Noise very similar with a 7D at same conditions, very good dynamic range.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

zodiacfml

I like the dynamic range of this one. I can't wait for the review.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

whtchocla7e

Does this camera have a leaf shutter? Is it quiet?

Jan 17, 2012permalink

It does. It is VERY quiet, as has also been pointed out in the DPR preview.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

manishsaini

thanks to the competition (& all competitors)............canon is getting better day by day 8)

Jan 17, 2012permalink

"i had hoped Canon would at least up the sensor to APS-C size on their PowerShot G/Pro (years ago) since Sony's R1, but they didn't. So, then i/we all relented and hoped for something in between, say maybe a 43d sensor size, but now, at least Canon has given us something a bit larger, and better to boot. Glad they finally did something we want"

Yup, the R1 has still been the unbeaten benchmark no moderately (under or around $1000, as was the R1 itself) priced camera + lens combo could reach (assuming improved specs and quality, taken into the progression into consideration since 2005)

Jan 17, 2012permalink

ijustloveshooting

iso12800 is better than iso400 on my oly xz-1 ... i'm deeply interested in this beast. IQ looks excellent.

Jan 17, 2012permalink

frazbrown

Exactly my thoughts, I reckon this would give a 4-5 stop advantage over my XZ-1 although the faster lens on the XZ-1 pulls 1-2 of them back so overall I reckon at least 2-stops better but with better DR. The DOF will be fairly similar.

I've pre-ordered one in the UK for £599

Jan 17, 2012*permalink

viking79

Theoretical difference is 2.5 f/stops (a lot). log ((7.9 * 5.8) / (18.7 * 14)) / log 2 = -2.5 (XZ1 is 2.5 f/stops smaller).

Any other difference is in technology or noise reduction in the JPEG files. I imagine 2 or 3 f/stops difference is entirely reasonable.

Jan 17, 2012*permalink