G1X Mk2 - First sample images ... (PICS)

Started Feb 12, 2014 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: Ha! Mk: II - the G1X Mk II = G1X

rpm40 wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

howardroark wrote:

So to accomplish that goal you resurrect a thread that is weeks old? If someone is going to speak with authority about a subject he has absolutely no unique knowledge of and then goes on to further establish his own sense of infalability by claiming a new camera is an update instead of an entirely new model (since he said there wouldn't be a successor) then he deserves whatever he gets. If people like him and you would simply shutup about the subject, it would simply vanish. He should have been humble and admitted he was wrong and you should quit propogating an already dead discussion that it just so happens you wish would....die. Irony.

The problem here is that the Canon PowerShot G1X is not a G2X, it is a G1X Mk II

Ugh.  So did you say "there won't be a G2 X" or did you say "the G1 X was a proof of concept and no work is being done on a successor"?  Not a direct quote I know, but I'm not going to go hunting for what we both know you said.  There is no reason for you to try to lawyer your way out of something as trivial as this, which is the part I don't understand.  I've been accused of being way too technical almost to the point of being a lawyer, but when it comes to details and technical processes that's kind of what I'm paid to do and my choice of profession is based on my natural tendencies rather than being pure coincidence.

This is the same as assessing the last lens I bought: The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Mk II lens.

No, it really isn't.  That lens had very minor aesthetic changes and maintained the focal length, maximum aperture, filter size, and they made internal changes to improve image quality.  Yep, they took the same lens and improved it rather than radically changing it.


Its the same as the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM lens (now defined as the Mk1 or "original" lens).
Same lens, but later edition. The MkII addresses several issues which were resolved or corrected to a greater degree in the second edition.

Yes, but it's still a lens and it's major attributes, name f/1.4 and 24mm (spec metrics, admittedly) remain exactly the same.  In the case of the lens they didn't have any choice but to use the Mark II designation, which is why I think you're so set on that being extremely meaningful in the case of the G1 X II because they did have a choice.  They also had a choice with the 1D and 5D but when it comes to a flagship product or a product that is somewhat name-constricted (Canon's own wacky conventions being to blame) then the Mark name changes only mean it's the new camera in that particular line.  That and they expect high-end consumers to be smart enough to be able to handle a "Mark" designation instead of an entirely new model number and still remember that it is a whole new camera.

Canon are treating the G1X Mk II as a simple retooling of the original (Mk1) version. Anything else would have been denoted by a new numerical name. Just like every other G-series camera... just like every other PowerShot camera. Even the EOS-M MkII is so similar to the original Mk1 that nobody could be bothered to sell the Mk II in the USA at the moment. The two models look physically identical. You'll notice that this only warranted a "Mk II" designation.... not an EOS-M2

It doens't have the same lens with improved detail resolution and reduced flare, it has an entirely different lens.  If the lens alone were being discussed here would you claim that the 15.1-60.4 f/2.8-5.8 is now the 15.1-60.4* f/2.8-5.8 Mark II (* now 12.5-62.5 f/2-3.9)?  And the G1 X shares part of the G name but was always intended as its own line, so it's really a G1 line camera and not a G camera....subtle, but Canon's own way of being wildly original while still telling people not to be afraid of the G's big sensor cousin.  And in the case of the M compared to the G1 X II, if you'll notice the G1 X II isn't nearly physically identical -- different and larger lens, wacky new flash, no removable accessory mounting ring, two dial controls on the lens barrel, no OVF, different articulating display, and all this is obvious.

The G1X Mk II is simply a re-tooling of the G1X. If anything, this is what I said the G1X should look like when it was first released... before everyone became cranky about the OVF (I said there should never have been one to begin with).

Yeah, the guy below is a thousand percent correct.  And I'll go on to add that this is one reason I keep pointing out your wildly disconnected ego being the reason for these types of opinions.  If you would only admit you're wrong when you're wrong then maybe I'd stop picturing you as a petulent five year old throwing a tantrum when someone says something he disagrees with.


-- hide signature --

Marco Nero.

Come on, you can't be serious. Its ok to be wrong. I didn't think there would be a follow up to the G1X either, no biggie. But you can't say it's "a simple retooling of the original (Mk1) version."

And there are topics that are a little more plainly a matter of opinion and some that are visible to the naked eye like this one.

Canon's new model/mk nomenclature has nothing to do with how much a product changes. The S100 gets a touchscreen and swaps GPS for Wifi and it becomes the S110. The G1Xii has carried over almost nothing from the G1X, aside from possibly the sensor. New lens, new body, new screen, new lens wheels, new processor, new interchangeable grip, new lens cover, new controls... If it was a minor upgrade, like you usually get with just about every iteration from canon, be it S series, G series, Rebel, etc., I would agree in principal, but it's not even close. Its a total overhaul.

The Rebel T4i went to the Rebel T5i with the following changes:

  • Real-time preview of Creative Filters in Live View mode
  • Redesigned new mode dial that turns 360 degrees
  • New 'upmarket' textured body finish.

Wow, Canon's name changes really have a lot of significance.

The only sense I see in Canon using the Mk is that they want to make the product seem like a high end line, to differentiate it from the G Series. The EOS 1D has gone through II, III, IV, and X, but not much has changed since 2001, right? But the Rebel is a cheaper model, so Canon decides to go to the 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, etc. with each successive, relatively modest evolution. What's in a name? Not much.

If you don't want to say you're wrong, ok, just move on and forget about it. If you keep at it you're just going to sound silly, and you won't convince very many people in the process.

I think it was me saying to either leave it alone or admit he was wrong that provoked the response more than anything else.  I have no vested interest in him the way some around here seem to, so I can say in the same breath that in many ways he contributes to teaching new people about their cameras but he also attempts to intstil his own values on some subjects rather than making a sincere attempt to be objective.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow