Canon G1X--Almost Right

By all accounts, on paper anyway, the G1X appears to be a stunning little camera for the non-pro, high-level enthusiast. Howver, with a widest apperture of f2.8 we can just barely squeeze in some low-light photography--as long as the light isn't too low. Then there's the other problem: finely blurred backgrounds for portraits. At f5.8, well, blurred just ain't gonna happen and I'm pretty sure the photographer doesn't want to get right up into the subjects face witht the lens wide open, although I could be wrong. It's would seem that, if Canon wanted to, they could put a very high-quality lens on this camera with f2.0 (plus IS) throughout the focal range. Consider: if that were the case, we just might have one of the most perfect little cameras ever available to the enthusiast at a price range that is achievable by most. So...why not?

Hoosier Man said:

By all accounts, on paper anyway, the G1X appears to be a stunning little camera for the non-pro, high-level enthusiast. Howver, with a widest apperture of f2.8 we can just barely squeeze in some low-light photography--as long as the light isn't too low. Then there's the other problem: finely blurred backgrounds for portraits. At f5.8, well, blurred just ain't gonna happen and I'm pretty sure the photographer doesn't want to get right up into the subjects face witht the lens wide open, although I could be wrong. It's would seem that, if Canon wanted to, they could put a very high-quality lens on this camera with f2.0 (plus IS) throughout the focal range. Consider: if that were the case, we just might have one of the most perfect little cameras ever available to the enthusiast at a price range that is achievable by most. So...why not?

Click to expand...

I disagree with your statement "barely squeeze in some low-light photography". IMO, the G1X is as good as any non-full-frame DSLR out there, as long as you don't need to stop motion .

F/2.8, combined with 1/8th second handheld shutter speed (thanks to the IS) makes for some great lowlight possibilities. You need a Canon DSLR with the 17-55 F/2.8 IS (or a Nikon DSLR with Tamron or Sigma's 17-50 stabilized lens) to even come close.

Where you lose out is at longer focal lengths, and if you need to stop motion. But if your subject isn't moving (say, the interior of a dark museum), and you can live with shooting only at 15mm, you can rival the best of DSLR's handhelsd with this lens.

Hoosier Man said:

By all accounts, on paper anyway, the G1X appears to be a stunning little camera for the non-pro, high-level enthusiast. Howver, with a widest apperture of f2.8 we can just barely squeeze in some low-light photography--as long as the light isn't too low. Then there's the other problem: finely blurred backgrounds for portraits. At f5.8, well, blurred just ain't gonna happen and I'm pretty sure the photographer doesn't want to get right up into the subjects face witht the lens wide open, although I could be wrong. It's would seem that, if Canon wanted to, they could put a very high-quality lens on this camera with f2.0 (plus IS) throughout the focal range. Consider: if that were the case, we just might have one of the most perfect little cameras ever available to the enthusiast at a price range that is achievable by most. So...why not?

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what your background is so I could confirm my suspicions about various aspects of your life. How old are you? How long have you been shooting? How many years of film and how many years of digital? This is your first post so I can only guess.

Okay, now that my curiosity is out in the open, I'd like to give you my opinion on everything you just said.

Low-light photography: With a high ISO range and excellent image quality with low noise across the board, that f/2.8 is not going to hold you back. Shoot at ISO 6400, and shoot in RAW. The other guy talking about IS is right about reducing hand-shake, but if you want to freeze motion don't be afraid to crank the ISO up.

f/5.8: As you zoom in to that maximum aperture, you're continuing to narrow your depth of field with increased focal length while the smaller aperture is increasing it. I'm not going to do the math, but if you want razor thin depth of field you'd better go get a DSLR and a really nice Macro lens. Okay, I'll do the math -- at f/5.8, 60mm (using the 7D as the closest camera in the DoF Calculator database), your depth of field is 1.51 feet at 10 feet; at five feet DoF is 0.37 feet. Like I said, Macro lens.

Canon's wants and desires: Ah yes, the default argument that the Genie will appear from smoke as by magic when the lamp is rubbed. I bet Canon could have put that f/2.0 lens on the camera. I don't know how many units would sell with a lens protruding another couple of inches that has twice the diameter and making the camera weigh another half a pound. I also don't know that people would want to pay the extra $300 to get that lens, but most people forget that cameras aren't made by magic Genies who care nothing for money or physics.

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic or harsh. I'm trying to make the point that just because you want it doesn't mean it will ever exist on this Earth, especially in the free market where money still exists and we can't beam from one country to another...or directly to our spaceship. And with regards to things other than the practical concerns of paying for such a lens or lugging it around, I think learning the camera system a little better will make you realize what it is truly capable of.

Hoosier Man wrote:

if Canon wanted to, they could put a very high-quality lens on this camera with f2.0 (plus IS) throughout the focal range. Consider: if that were the case, we just might have one of the most perfect little cameras ever available to the enthusiast at a price range that is achievable by most. So...why not?

Because it would not be small. It would be much bigger and at that point you might as well have dslr size body. There was an interesting post awhile back showing simulated size of a 2.0 lens on G1X.

So you want a lens TWICE the size and weight of a 24-70 2.8???? Really, sorta kills the whole idea of a compact. Hmm or maybe twice the size and wieght of a 17-55 2.8 EFS and thats only a 3.2 - 1 ratio so it have to bigger then 2 times.

Dave

howardroark said:

Hoosier Man said:

By all accounts, on paper anyway, the G1X appears to be a stunning little camera for the non-pro, high-level enthusiast. Howver, with a widest apperture of f2.8 we can just barely squeeze in some low-light photography--as long as the light isn't too low. Then there's the other problem: finely blurred backgrounds for portraits. At f5.8, well, blurred just ain't gonna happen and I'm pretty sure the photographer doesn't want to get right up into the subjects face witht the lens wide open, although I could be wrong. It's would seem that, if Canon wanted to, they could put a very high-quality lens on this camera with f2.0 (plus IS) throughout the focal range. Consider: if that were the case, we just might have one of the most perfect little cameras ever available to the enthusiast at a price range that is achievable by most. So...why not?

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what your background is so I could confirm my suspicions about various aspects of your life. How old are you? How long have you been shooting? How many years of film and how many years of digital? This is your first post so I can only guess.

Okay, now that my curiosity is out in the open, I'd like to give you my opinion on everything you just said.

Low-light photography: With a high ISO range and excellent image quality with low noise across the board, that f/2.8 is not going to hold you back. Shoot at ISO 6400, and shoot in RAW. The other guy talking about IS is right about reducing hand-shake, but if you want to freeze motion don't be afraid to crank the ISO up.

f/5.8: As you zoom in to that maximum aperture, you're continuing to narrow your depth of field with increased focal length while the smaller aperture is increasing it. I'm not going to do the math, but if you want razor thin depth of field you'd better go get a DSLR and a really nice Macro lens. Okay, I'll do the math -- at f/5.8, 60mm (using the 7D as the closest camera in the DoF Calculator database), your depth of field is 1.51 feet at 10 feet; at five feet DoF is 0.37 feet. Like I said, Macro lens.

Click to expand...

Good point. A larger sensor and a longer focal length can really compress the depth of field even with a lens stopped down. Here is an example of f8 at 230mm on an APS-C sensor (Sony A55). The bird was about 10 feet away (the photo is cropped). The lens is a Sigma 70-300mm. The bokeh still came out pretty well and the subject separation is good. There was a tree about 8 feet directly behind the bird (in other words in the blurred area).

Member said:

Canon's wants and desires: Ah yes, the default argument that the Genie will appear from smoke as by magic when the lamp is rubbed. I bet Canon could have put that f/2.0 lens on the camera. I don't know how many units would sell with a lens protruding another couple of inches that has twice the diameter and making the camera weigh another half a pound. I also don't know that people would want to pay the extra $300 to get that lens, but most people forget that cameras aren't made by magic Genies who care nothing for money or physics.

Click to expand...

Only $300 more would be a hell of a deal.

Member said:

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic or harsh. I'm trying to make the point that just because you want it doesn't mean it will ever exist on this Earth, especially in the free market where money still exists and we can't beam from one country to another...or directly to our spaceship. And with regards to things other than the practical concerns of paying for such a lens or lugging it around, I think learning the camera system a little better will make you realize what it is truly capable of.

Click to expand...

The post I was thinking of was actually for constant 2.8 aperture not 2.0:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&thread=40462708

2.0 makes it even bigger.

Thank you. I've learned something valuable!