Interesting offering from Canon : G3X

[MarioV]

This from another site

All Details Below are Based on Speculation and Rumours only as to what the G3 X may well feature

• 20.2MP 1" High-Sensitivity CMOS Sensor
• DIGIC 6 Image Processor
• 25x Optical Zoom f/1.8-2.8 IS Lens
• 24-600mm (35mm Equivalent)
• 3.0" 1,040k-Dot Tilting Touchscreen LCD
• High-Speed AF with 31 Focus Points
• Full HD Video Recording at 60p
• ISO 12,800 & 6.5 fps Continuous Shooting
• Control Ring, Dials & Built-In ND Filter
• Built-In Wi-Fi Connectivity with NFC

Now This, if true, is really interesting!! Note the 1.8-2.8 IS lens

Given the sensor size, I'd be happy to have a constant f/4.0 600mm lens. That aperture range is next to impossible.

I would too. It might upset the night landscape users who shoot wide at 2.8, but what's an extra stop. ISO 400 instead of ISO 200 wont be that much noticeable on a 1" sensor. Maybe in very low light situations where ISO 3200 is now pushed to ISO 6400. Fortunately, the IS is usually good enough to be used hand-held at very low shutters, so that could help push the ISO back down for static scenes, but not for action.

But for the majority of shooting, f/4 would be the most useful aperture when balancing dof and exposure.

Usually in a zoom system that starts at f/2.8, it gets to f/3.5 quite quickly, so not much difference to f/4.

 

[LensElf]

I'm always interested in the new Powershots, but what I'd like to see in these series would be a built-in slave flash feature.

For now, my main camera is a Canon G1 X Mark II, and I've got the external EVF. It's mostly used outdoor in daylight, but even then an external flash might be needed, and I could've used both the EVF and my flash in slave mode.

You guys think the GX 3 might get the feature? I'm not holding my breath on this of course...

But it's on my wish list!

 

[damian5000]

I really don't think the pop-up flash has a lot of practical use on a camera with a 600 mm (equiv) lens. An EVF would be much more useful for stability at that range, and therefore used by most experienced photographers more often than a pop-up flash. Yes, I know you younger folks say you are just fine with using the LCD for telephoto images, though my experience with students' images tells me otherwise.

So this is what would garner my interest in this camera, going from this:



to this:



Then the hot shoe can be used for what it was originally intended: the few times a flash needs to be attached. I know that a pop-up EVF would take more space than a tiny flash, but an external EVF adds even more. An EVF would also be more expensive, but not as expensive as an add-on.

This camera appears to be giving some degree of "best" (read that: acceptable compromise) of everything in a single package. No internal EVF unfortunately is not an acceptable compromise to most of the photographers I know, possibly unless every other feature is so good that we would have to swallow hard and live with the external EVF. So I will not write it off, at least not yet.

Ed

This is just a matter of taste. I would never use the EVF except in extreme and rare circumstances, and prefer to keep the cost down and have an onboard flash if I needed it. Far more people would be psd if they included the pricier EVF and nixed the flash.

 

[G-D]

I really don't think the pop-up flash has a lot of practical use on a camera with a 600 mm (equiv) lens. An EVF would be much more useful for stability at that range, and therefore used by most experienced photographers more often than a pop-up flash. Yes, I know you younger folks say you are just fine with using the LCD for telephoto images, though my experience with students' images tells me otherwise.

So this is what would garner my interest in this camera, going from this:



to this:



Then the hot shoe can be used for what it was originally intended: the few times a flash needs to be attached. I know that a pop-up EVF would take more space than a tiny flash, but an external EVF adds even more. An EVF would also be more expensive, but not as expensive as an add-on.

This camera appears to be giving some degree of "best" (read that: acceptable compromise) of everything in a single package. No internal EVF unfortunately is not an acceptable compromise to most of the photographers I know, possibly unless every other feature is so good that we would have to swallow hard and live with the external EVF. So I will not write it off, at least not yet.

Ed

This is just a matter of taste.

Disagree. Based on the size of the hot-shoe in those pictures, this camera is larger, fatter, and probably heavier than you would think at first sight (and no I did not make any calculations, I just used my eyes). So good luck composing handheld at 600mm holding it in front if you. I think you'll miss an EVF dearly. IMO.

I would never use the EVF except in extreme and rare circumstances, and prefer to keep the cost down and have an onboard flash if I needed it. Far more people would be psd if they included the pricier EVF and nixed the flash.

Disagree. I did not count the + and -, but when reading thru the comments on the DPR article, I do not get that impression at all, quite the opposite.

BTW, why do you think Panasonic and Sony both included one in in the FZ1000 and RX10? To annoy possible customers? No, because a built-in EVF makes good sense on such cameras.

I bet when you buy yourself a G3 X, you will be psd for not having an EVF. It won't be long before you buy yourself that separate EVF... for 250$/€. Ka-tsjing for Canon.

 

[freediverx]

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

24-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 for 1 inch sensor is possible with current optics technology, assuming a size similar to FZ1000. If they want a much smaller size, it is probably going to be slower indeed, and have a more compromised lens with 'software magic' like on the G7X, which isn't good at least for those who want decent image quality throughout the frame. Or they would have to use DO technology but that is probably too expensive for a camera in this price range.

Also, it's not reassuring that the presentation has been postponed several times, maybe they have trouble realizing the combination of image quality and small size that they were aiming at? Just from the specs this should be an FZ1000-killer, and that will be difficult if it doesn't have an EVF and at least the same image quality.

What is DO technology?

DO = Diffractive Optics: this enables much shorter, lighter lenses and works especially well for long tele lenses (example: the new Canon 4/400 DO II, Nikon 4/300 VR PF). But I don't think the technology is suitable for this type of consumer cameras yet, probably still too expensive.

Also in my experience DO lenses have significantly reduced sharpness requiring processing for acceptable results.

 

[freediverx]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9634942175/canon-announces-plans-to-produce-g3-x-with-25x-zoom

Will this be the RX / FZ killer camera?

Cheers,

looks like it will go into my jacket pocket. Yay !

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

24-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 for 1 inch sensor is possible with current optics technology, assuming a size similar to FZ1000. If they want a much smaller size, it is probably going to be slower indeed, and have a more compromised lens with 'software magic' like on the G7X, which isn't good at least for those who want decent image quality throughout the frame. Or they would have to use DO technology but that is probably too expensive for a camera in this price range.

Also, it's not reassuring that the presentation has been postponed several times, maybe they have trouble realizing the combination of image quality and small size that they were aiming at? Just from the specs this should be an FZ1000-killer, and that will be difficult if it doesn't have an EVF and at least the same image quality.

I don't see why people keep repeating comments about the G7X having a "compromised lens". I own a G7X and I get excellent images with it. I have no problem with the lens quality at all. The biggest weakness of the camera is that it doesn't have a viewfinder. It's got a fast lens and very good IS. The appeal of the G7X is in its very small size - 4 inches and 10 ounces. That's also its biggest limitation - you can't make a tiny camera without making compromises. The Sony RX100iii has a compromised lens - a very small zoom range. $800 for a compact that only goes to 70mm on the long end - that's a huge compromise. Think of how limiting that is. No small camera will do what a big camera can do. That's the limitation that comes with a camera that fits in your pocket.

I tried out the G7X but ended up returning it. The build quality was superb, image quality was great, very fast lens, and the touch screen interface was simply fantastic, especially for controlling focus while shooting video. But the ergonomics were just terrible. It's simply too heavy and too small to maintain a confident grip, eespecially for one handed shooting. Also the lack of an EVF made for frustrating shooting in bright sunlight.

The fact that they seem to be taking the same design and adding a grip plus a crazy zoom lens is very enticing. As others have pointed out, the huge questions are how fast will the lens be and how quickly and reliably will it autofocus, especially at the far end of the zoom range.

 

[Helmut Eder]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9634942175/canon-announces-plans-to-produce-g3-x-with-25x-zoom

Will this be the RX / FZ killer camera?

Cheers,

looks like it will go into my jacket pocket. Yay !

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

24-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 for 1 inch sensor is possible with current optics technology, assuming a size similar to FZ1000. If they want a much smaller size, it is probably going to be slower indeed, and have a more compromised lens with 'software magic' like on the G7X, which isn't good at least for those who want decent image quality throughout the frame. Or they would have to use DO technology but that is probably too expensive for a camera in this price range.

Also, it's not reassuring that the presentation has been postponed several times, maybe they have trouble realizing the combination of image quality and small size that they were aiming at? Just from the specs this should be an FZ1000-killer, and that will be difficult if it doesn't have an EVF and at least the same image quality.

I don't see why people keep repeating comments about the G7X having a "compromised lens". I own a G7X and I get excellent images with it. I have no problem with the lens quality at all. The biggest weakness of the camera is that it doesn't have a viewfinder. It's got a fast lens and very good IS. The appeal of the G7X is in its very small size - 4 inches and 10 ounces. That's also its biggest limitation - you can't make a tiny camera without making compromises. The Sony RX100iii has a compromised lens - a very small zoom range. $800 for a compact that only goes to 70mm on the long end - that's a huge compromise. Think of how limiting that is. No small camera will do what a big camera can do. That's the limitation that comes with a camera that fits in your pocket.

I tried out the G7X but ended up returning it. The build quality was superb, image quality was great, very fast lens, and the touch screen interface was simply fantastic, especially for controlling focus while shooting video. But the ergonomics were just terrible. It's simply too heavy and too small to maintain a confident grip, eespecially for one handed shooting. Also the lack of an EVF made for frustrating shooting in bright sunlight.

The fact that they seem to be taking the same design and adding a grip plus a crazy zoom lens is very enticing. As others have pointed out, the huge questions are how fast will the lens be and how quickly and reliably will it autofocus, especially at the far end of the zoom range.

The fact that it says "Ultrasonic" might hint towards a newer (better) AF system...

 

[VisionLight]

The fact that it says "Ultrasonic" might hint towards a newer (better) AF system...

Yes, hopefully a new improved version, since Canon has been using Ultrasonic motors in its Powershots at least since the S5 IS about eight years ago. If you look at an SX50, you'll see it's written right on the lens tube. But there have been more recent improvements to USM in their "L" lenses that hopefully will trickle down.

 

[Henry Falkner]

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

I have been using three 16 MB pocket travel zooms with 25-600mm lenses since the 24th September 2011 (Olympus SZ-30MR, SH-50, SH-1). What makes them all work with the slow lenses is the BSI-CMOS sensor.

The larger sensor in the G3X is of the BSI-CMOS type, so the lens speed will be less of an issue still.

I am however concerned about reliability issues. The reports about the battery life in the G7X are ambiguous. Also, will the G3X suck in dust? With Olympus, it is generally the 'enthusiast' compacts that do (My last FOUR TRAVEL zooms did not suck in dust).

If the G3X does NOT suck in dust, it may also tolerate showers without giving up on you.

Will the G3X save your video in progress and retract its lens before shutting down with a flat battery? It matters when you are 14 minutes into a video clip, you are a participant in a concert and almost at the end, and the organiser has just said her thanks to you -

If the G3X has the features AS WELL AS the reliability, I may be able to convince Sandra to let me buy one (My travel zooms will JUST print to A! size (33x23 inch), if I don't reach for a magnifier.

Henry

--
Henry Falkner - SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

 

[0lf]

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

I have been using three 16 MB pocket travel zooms with 25-600mm lenses since the 24th September 2011 (Olympus SZ-30MR, SH-50, SH-1). What makes them all work with the slow lenses is the BSI-CMOS sensor.

The larger sensor in the G3X is of the BSI-CMOS type, so the lens speed will be less of an issue still.

The bigger the sensor, the less benefits you have by using BSI. See RX100 I/II : may be 1/3 stop at much.

 

[freediverx]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9634942175/canon-announces-plans-to-produce-g3-x-with-25x-zoom

Will this be the RX / FZ killer camera?

Cheers,

looks like it will go into my jacket pocket. Yay !

It would be very attractive if it could fit in a jacket pocket. That said, I'd be shocked if Canon managed to build a 600mm lens for a 1 inch sensor with those dimensions that's not ridiculously slow. I'm guessing the lens is going to be something like 24-600/f4-7?. I hope I'm wrong.

24-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 for 1 inch sensor is possible with current optics technology, assuming a size similar to FZ1000. If they want a much smaller size, it is probably going to be slower indeed, and have a more compromised lens with 'software magic' like on the G7X, which isn't good at least for those who want decent image quality throughout the frame. Or they would have to use DO technology but that is probably too expensive for a camera in this price range.

Also, it's not reassuring that the presentation has been postponed several times, maybe they have trouble realizing the combination of image quality and small size that they were aiming at? Just from the specs this should be an FZ1000-killer, and that will be difficult if it doesn't have an EVF and at least the same image quality.

I don't see why people keep repeating comments about the G7X having a "compromised lens". I own a G7X and I get excellent images with it. I have no problem with the lens quality at all. The biggest weakness of the camera is that it doesn't have a viewfinder. It's got a fast lens and very good IS. The appeal of the G7X is in its very small size - 4 inches and 10 ounces. That's also its biggest limitation - you can't make a tiny camera without making compromises. The Sony RX100iii has a compromised lens - a very small zoom range. $800 for a compact that only goes to 70mm on the long end - that's a huge compromise. Think of how limiting that is. No small camera will do what a big camera can do. That's the limitation that comes with a camera that fits in your pocket.

I tried out the G7X but ended up returning it. The build quality was superb, image quality was great, very fast lens, and the touch screen interface was simply fantastic, especially for controlling focus while shooting video. But the ergonomics were just terrible. It's simply too heavy and too small to maintain a confident grip, eespecially for one handed shooting. Also the lack of an EVF made for frustrating shooting in bright sunlight.

The fact that they seem to be taking the same design and adding a grip plus a crazy zoom lens is very enticing. As others have pointed out, the huge questions are how fast will the lens be and how quickly and reliably will it autofocus, especially at the far end of the zoom range.

The fact that it says "Ultrasonic" might hint towards a newer (better) AF system...

I take Canon's marketing terms with a grain of salt. I learned my lesson the hard way, many years ago, when they introduced the Powershot Pro 1 boasting an Ultrasonic L lens. Altough image quality was fine, the camera's real world performance was abysmal with autofocus and shutter response so slow they rendered the camera useless for anything more dynamic than still life and landscape photos. It sat unused in a drawer until I pawned it off on eBay.

Canon makes some great products, but they often make terrible design decisions clearly driven more by their marketing team than by their engineers. They are terrified of canibalizing pro SLR sales, which often leads them to artificially cripple the capabilities of their other offerings.

 

[freediverx]

I am however concerned about reliability issues. The reports about the battery life in the G7X are ambiguous.

I used one for about a week and found the battery life to be acceptable. As I previously mentioned, I think that camera's main shortcoming was the decision to sacrifice ergonomics for portability. Battery life inevitably suffered as well due to the need for a smaller battery, but I had no difficulty taking many dozens of shots without approaching the battery's limits.

 

[freediverx]

Looks to me like it has a similar fold out screen to the G1XM2

I hope not. People who have been G series users really like the fully articulated tilt/swivel LCD. Why Canon dropped this is puzzling given its popularity.

To be honest, I really love Canon products and am willing to wait until the full spec is released shortly on the G3X. But the FZ1000 has a beautiful tilt/swivel LCD, a first-rate EVF and its image quality is excellent. It's size and price are also not off-putting to me.

As many others have stated, different cameras are targeted at different audiences and we buy the ones that fit our requirements the best. I'm just hoping that the G3x would be an exciting product like the FZ1000...something that the G7x wasn't.

We'll see soon enough.

Jim

I had the original G1X with the tilt/swivel LCD, and certainly enjoyed that feature. I now have the G1X-II with the fold-out screen, and actually like this design better. For my uses, the fold-out design is much simpler and faster to deploy when needed. "My uses" would be, generally, any time I wish to shoot from a high or low angle. I realized when I began using the fold-out LCD that the vast majority of the times I extended the LCD on the G1X, I actually pulled it all the way out to the side and tilted it up or down -- I rarely had need for any other angle. Obviously, others have different needs, as several have mentioned the advantage of the tilt-swivel for shooting in portrait orientation from waist level, but I think you have over-generalized people who have been G series users based on your preference.

Dan

Could be, but there is nothing that the tilt-only LCD can do that a fully tilt/swivel LCD can not do. The reverse is not true. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask people if they would prefer a fully tilt/swivel LCD or one that's tilt-only, the fully tilt/swivel LCD would win hands down. If tilt-only were that great, the latest Rebels and XXD models, G1X Mark 1, and the SX40/50/60 series would all have tilt-only...and they don't. Only the G1X Mark II was downgraded from having one. In my view, that's both unfortunate and somewhat strange.

...just my take.

Jim

Couldn't agree more. Not only do the fully articulated LCDs offer more versatility in viewing angles, but they can also be reversed to completely cover the screen so it's protected when not in use. The hinge mechanisms on the fully articulated LCDs are also simpler and more robust, while the tilt only variants seem overly complex and fragile. Tilt-only screens are an inferior design.

 

[freediverx]

Looks to me like it has a similar fold out screen to the G1XM2

I hope not. People who have been G series users really like the fully articulated tilt/swivel LCD. Why Canon dropped this is puzzling given its popularity.

To be honest, I really love Canon products and am willing to wait until the full spec is released shortly on the G3X. But the FZ1000 has a beautiful tilt/swivel LCD, a first-rate EVF and its image quality is excellent. It's size and price are also not off-putting to me.

As many others have stated, different cameras are targeted at different audiences and we buy the ones that fit our requirements the best. I'm just hoping that the G3x would be an exciting product like the FZ1000...something that the G7x wasn't.

We'll see soon enough.

Jim

I had the original G1X with the tilt/swivel LCD, and certainly enjoyed that feature. I now have the G1X-II with the fold-out screen, and actually like this design better. For my uses, the fold-out design is much simpler and faster to deploy when needed. "My uses" would be, generally, any time I wish to shoot from a high or low angle. I realized when I began using the fold-out LCD that the vast majority of the times I extended the LCD on the G1X, I actually pulled it all the way out to the side and tilted it up or down -- I rarely had need for any other angle. Obviously, others have different needs, as several have mentioned the advantage of the tilt-swivel for shooting in portrait orientation from waist level, but I think you have over-generalized people who have been G series users based on your preference.

Dan

Could be, but there is nothing that the tilt-only LCD can do that a fully tilt/swivel LCD can not do. The reverse is not true. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask people if they would prefer a fully tilt/swivel LCD or one that's tilt-only, the fully tilt/swivel LCD would win hands down. If tilt-only were that great, the latest Rebels and XXD models, G1X Mark 1, and the SX40/50/60 series would all have tilt-only...and they don't. Only the G1X Mark II was downgraded from having one. In my view, that's both unfortunate and somewhat strange.

...just my take.

Jim

As I have explained to you before, that was not the reason Canon went to the tilt LCD on the G1X-II. It was because a fully swivel type LCD, when it stuck out to the side, interfered with the left hand running the very close lens control rings. I even copied and pasted what the original design engineer said as the reason.

There was no need for that on the latest Rebels or the G1X-I or the SX40/50/60 series. Canon explained that in one of their writeups when the camera was released. Why are you unable to grasp that? I own the camera and it seems totally obvious to me.

 

[freediverx]

Crap. What happened to several powershots being introduced on the 6th.... Now it's the 12th. And only one...

Anyways... It looks good. Any idea on apertures?

It's now March and still nothing.

 

[freediverx]

Canon on has more knowledge of the market that you and other nay-Sayers do. They know what sells better than you do. This design is for a reason ( not yours)

Smaller size and lower cost take precident. They sell a ton of cams ... And for a good reason.

You really think so?

"Canon Inc. (CAJ) has posted mixed earnings results for its third quarter ended September 30, 2014. The company reported a fall in both net income and revenues, since traditional cameras are falling out of favor, while strong competition in other areas kept earnings growth at bay... The Image System unit, which makes digital cameras and other photography products, had revenues that fell a hefty 9.4% to $2.8 billion. Operating profits declined 24% to $398 million... The global market for interchangeable-lens digital cameras is in a secular slump as consumers prefer smartphone cameras, which are getting more and more advanced."

So as digital camera sales continue to fall due to the growth of smartphones with ever-improving camera features, Canon's strategy is two-fold:

1) Keep making compact cameras smaller, despite the fact that they are nowhere near as small as a smartphone,

2) Strip compact cameras of ergonomics and advanced features, further blurring the distinction in what they can do compared to smartphone cameras.

I don't see how this paves the way for success, unless Canon thinks they can make a camera as small as a smartphone with gimmicky features that rival the versatility of a pocket computer with always-on internet connectivity and telephony.

I may not be qualified to tell Canon how to run their business, but to my untrained eye this seems like a strategy doomed to failure.

In my view, a better strategy would be to focus on making cameras that are just "small enough" to be easy to carry and pack, while delivering superior ergonomics, controls, and features that put smartphone cameras to shame. Anyone already spending $600-800 every year or two on a new iPhone is not going to make a camera purchase decision based on a low price. The only thing that will make them even consider a camera purchase is if said camera can let them do things they want to do but can't using their iPhone.

 

[jonrobertp]

Canon on has more knowledge of the market that you and other nay-Sayers do. They know what sells better than you do. This design is for a reason ( not yours)

Smaller size and lower cost take precident. They sell a ton of cams ... And for a good reason.

You really think so?

"Canon Inc. (CAJ) has posted mixed earnings results for its third quarter ended September 30, 2014. The company reported a fall in both net income and revenues, since traditional cameras are falling out of favor, while strong competition in other areas kept earnings growth at bay... The Image System unit, which makes digital cameras and other photography products, had revenues that fell a hefty 9.4% to $2.8 billion. Operating profits declined 24% to $398 million... The global market for interchangeable-lens digital cameras is in a secular slump as consumers prefer smartphone cameras, which are getting more and more advanced."

So as digital camera sales continue to fall due to the growth of smartphones with ever-improving camera features, Canon's strategy is two-fold:

1) Keep making compact cameras smaller, despite the fact that they are nowhere near as small as a smartphone,

2) Strip compact cameras of ergonomics and advanced features, further blurring the distinction in what they can do compared to smartphone cameras.

I don't see how this paves the way for success, unless Canon thinks they can make a camera as small as a smartphone with gimmicky features that rival the versatility of a pocket computer with always-on internet connectivity and telephony.

I may not be qualified to tell Canon how to run their business, but to my untrained eye this seems like a strategy doomed to failure.

In my view, a better strategy would be to focus on making cameras that are just "small enough" to be easy to carry and pack, while delivering superior ergonomics, controls, and features that put smartphone cameras to shame. Anyone already spending $600-800 every year or two on a new iPhone is not going to make a camera purchase decision based on a low price. The only thing that will make them even consider a camera purchase is if said camera can let them do things they want to do but can't using their iPhone.

I'd still like to know if someone has determined the size & Wt. of this new cam vs what's out there now ?

it has to be somewhat smaller and lighter or no deal from me.

 

[freediverx]

Canon on has more knowledge of the market that you and other nay-Sayers do. They know what sells better than you do. This design is for a reason ( not yours)

Smaller size and lower cost take precident. They sell a ton of cams ... And for a good reason.

You really think so?

"Canon Inc. (CAJ) has posted mixed earnings results for its third quarter ended September 30, 2014. The company reported a fall in both net income and revenues, since traditional cameras are falling out of favor, while strong competition in other areas kept earnings growth at bay... The Image System unit, which makes digital cameras and other photography products, had revenues that fell a hefty 9.4% to $2.8 billion. Operating profits declined 24% to $398 million... The global market for interchangeable-lens digital cameras is in a secular slump as consumers prefer smartphone cameras, which are getting more and more advanced."

So as digital camera sales continue to fall due to the growth of smartphones with ever-improving camera features, Canon's strategy is two-fold:

1) Keep making compact cameras smaller, despite the fact that they are nowhere near as small as a smartphone,

2) Strip compact cameras of ergonomics and advanced features, further blurring the distinction in what they can do compared to smartphone cameras.

I don't see how this paves the way for success, unless Canon thinks they can make a camera as small as a smartphone with gimmicky features that rival the versatility of a pocket computer with always-on internet connectivity and telephony.

I may not be qualified to tell Canon how to run their business, but to my untrained eye this seems like a strategy doomed to failure.

In my view, a better strategy would be to focus on making cameras that are just "small enough" to be easy to carry and pack, while delivering superior ergonomics, controls, and features that put smartphone cameras to shame. Anyone already spending $600-800 every year or two on a new iPhone is not going to make a camera purchase decision based on a low price. The only thing that will make them even consider a camera purchase is if said camera can let them do things they want to do but can't using their iPhone.

I'd still like to know if someone has determined the size & Wt. of this new cam vs what's out there now ?

it has to be somewhat smaller and lighter or no deal from me.

At this point, "smaller" is a deal breaker for me. My iPhone provides a great still and video camera with the ultimate in portability. Therefore, when I consider the purchase of a dedicated camera, portability is a lower priority than performance, versatility, and ergonomics. I tried and returned a G7X precisely because it was so small that its ergonomics were terrible. Size-wise, I just need something small enough to fit in comfortably in a backpack or messenger bag without adding any noticeable weight.

 

[NWT]

For the same reason, I chose G1X2 over all RX100s.

 

[cgarrard]

Size-wise, I just need something small enough to fit in comfortably in a backpack or messenger bag without adding any noticeable weight.

Like a smartphone

Carl
http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear Reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best Photographs Compilation)