What do m4/3 users think about the Canon G1X II?

Started Feb 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,054
Different strokes for different folks

tron555 wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

I think most M4/3 users want a camera that takes interchangable lenses, but if there are any who were yearning for a fixed lens camera.. then Canon just created a nice one for them.

If the Canon really is $800, then it will help sell a lot of Panasonic GM1 and Olympus EM10 cameras.

Marty… since you have been around awhile and I value your opinion, check out my post (3 hours after yours) and let me know what you think. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53104547

I was (and still am) one of the people considering the EM10, but have some reservations now.

Sometimes having so many good choices creates buyer paralysis. Each of these cameras is very good, and each will have some advantages over the other. It really comes down to the buyer's own preferences.

I don’t have unlimited funds for quality m4/3 lenses and don’t like the idea of always carrying a bag with multiples lenses. If all reviews will be as good as I think they will be on the G1X MkII and its IQ are outstanding, well, it might just sway my opinion.

Without a doubt, interchangeable lens cameras generally cost a lot more than fixed lens cameras once you go beyond a few kit lenses. They are usually a lot bigger and heavier too. Once you start buying lenses, you need a camera bag, no matter how tiny that camera is. It will never be as convenient as a fixed lens camera is, assuming you can live with the focal length range.

Image quality is not an issue here.

Large sensored fiixed lens cameras like the Ricoh GR, Fuji X100s, Sigma Dp, or Canon G1X can equal or exceed the IQ you will get from any M4/3 camera. As long as you will never need a focal length that falls outside their range. Many people are happy with using screw in teleconverters, many others aren't. It just depends.

People buy ILCs for versatility. You are buying into a system, and the EM10 is the entry point into the OMD system. Anyone who buys an ILC then brags about "I never take this lens off my camera" probably wasted their money buying an interchangeable lens camera. They might have been better off with a fixed lens camera, assuming one was available in the focal length range they want.

I never could understand the point of buying a high end ILC, then slapping a slow mediocre superzoom lens on it. What is the point of spending so much for a camera that can use a wide range of lenses, then putting a relatively slow 15X superzoom lens on it so they will never have to change lenses? Yet, this is precisely what some people will do.

I think Oly/Pany will not make a m4/3 camera with a fixed lens because it will cut into their lens profits. Also, I think their quality (Pro) lenses are ridiculously priced, especially if the lens on the G1X MkII matches or exceeds all of them. Now, if Oly/Pany could make a 24-120mm (FF equivalent) lens with the specs of the G1X MkII, then maybe things would be different.

I think you are right. A fixed lens camera is a one time sale. An ILC is a gift that keeps giving for the manufacturer.

The truth is.... most cameras you read about here are overpriced . These are all very expensive toys for people who can afford them. Cost is a relative term that relates very closely to means, needs, and interests. Some of the high end M4/3 lenses cost more than a good mid level DSLR does. But they can still be a relative bargain when compared to their APS-C and FF counterparts, because they are smaller, lighter and cheaper. As long as you get the image quality and the features you want.

The PRO lenses are even a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 4/3 SHG lenses they seem to have replaced.

With cameraphones destroying the entire market for cheap cameras, I think Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji were very wise to move upmarket. There will always be a demand for expensive goods, which is why Leica, Rolex and Porsche can be very profitable despite minuscule market shares.

Companies that go upmarket tend to do a lot better than those who go downmarket. I really don't think Sakar, Vivitar, Polaroid or the new Kodak are doing that well.

I would rather get the EM10 with that kind of lens, but Oly/Pany can’t/won’t make one, for some strange reason. Maybe they like the profits they are getting from all the different (expensive) lenses they are selling? It seems to be a good alternative for someone like me with an aging G12 that is looking for better IQ at a reasonable price, what are your thoughts?

It's not that they refuse to make one, they certainly could have made one if they thought it would sell well. It's all about quality. You just can't build quality lenses that are fast, have large zoom ranges and are cheap. It defies the laws of physics. They can be good, they can be fast and they can be cheap, but they cannot be all three things at the same time.

Olympus made an outstanding 12-60mm lens for 4/3. But the M4/3 12-40mm lens is smaller, lighter, faster and sells for the exact same price. Both lenses are well made and weather sealed. The M4/3 lens has a smaller zoom range, which was the compromise needed to keep the price down.

In your particular case a high quality fixed lens camera might be the ideal choice. And like I said, even though Olympus doesn't make such a camera, Canon does. And it has something very similar to a 4/3 sensor!

Good luck with your next camera! Whatever it is.

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow