G1 X ii - excellent go-anywhere camera

OzarkAggie wrote:

It's not "marginally smaller" than an aps-c either as the OP claimed. It's barely larger than a 4/3rds sensor.

I'm just pointing this out for the last time.

Canon opted for a wider and longer lens and increased the crop factor thereby reducing resolution. That's why I'm sticking with G1X instead of downgrading to the Mark II.

I take your point that the sensor in the G1xii is a bit closer in size to 4/3 than to APS-C. But there is no misrepresentation. The sensor in the G1xii is the sensor universally known as a 1.5" sensor. It is not a 4/3 sensor. It may be functionally equivalent to a 4/3 sensor, but that is not the same thing as being the same size.

Some of the available formats in the G1x ii use less than the full area of the sensor. Canon is not deceiving anyone here either. The exact dimensions of the various formats (in pixels) and their Mp counts are openly published for anyone that cares to read them.

Linear resolution varies as the square root of the number of pixels. As a result any differences in linear resolution between the G1x and the G1x mark ii are trivially small and probably irrelevant to most photographers.

I am glad that you are happy with the G1x. I prefer the G1x ii mainly because of its EVF, though the faster lens is also worth having. But of course if the G1x does what you want there is no reason to change. Why should you? And who is usggesting that you should? Certainly not me! I am still using a 1Ds mark ii as my main DSLR because althought the 5Diii and 1Dx are undoubtedly much better cameras there is nothing I would want to do with them that I cannot achieve (if with a bit more effort and marginally less technical excellence) with my "ancient" gear.

But as you say in your tag-line "It's not the camera"