The end?

RLight wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

RLight wrote:

Has the PowerShot lineup reached the end as we know it? Consider:

.

1. The iPhone 13 Pro takes better pictures than all but the G1X Mark III in terms of both quality and versatility. Not even mentioning video...

That's a strange claim for a camera that has a zoom lens, a huge sensor, and DPAF. 24MP on the G1XIII is probably about the same at ISO 3200 that the iPhone is at ISO100.....although the iPhone processes the images into the dirt in order to remove the noise while also just pulverizing detail.

Those tricks although they may be, unorthodox and perhaps detail destroying from a PSNR perspective (absolute detail) from a SSIM perspective (structural similarity / perceptual) those are effective and all folks care about frankly.

It's really too bad that people look at images mostly on their phones or other small screens.  It's also a shame that people don't realize how much better their images would be with a zoom lens, larger sensor, and LESS processing.

.

2. Canon doesn't have a PDAF on-chip AF system ala Sony.

Not any more, because they moved past it. Remember the old Hybrid sensors that they used for a while? Probably not because when DPAF came out PDAF on-sensor in the form of hundreds of individual sensors became completely unnecessary for Canon.

I had that thought recently, DPAF has become a form of pixel binning, which has advantages in readout, but disadvantages in terms of potential IQ.

I don't think it has much in the way of IQ issues.  As DPAF has been introduced and improved DR has gone up, absolute resolution has increased, and it doesn't seem color reproduction has been affected.  Collecting light in two halves of a pixel, two sub-pixels or whatever you want to call them, only really affects processing since now you either have to record those two pieces of data separately, DPRAW, or combine them after extracting the phase information relevant to the AF algorithm.  I haven't seen any evidence at all of image quality being affected.  It seems like the only real disadvantage Canon had to deal with because of DPAF was a delay in BSI implementation since that would have been a huge investment during a time that they hadn't recovered their DPAF investment yet.

It's either DPAF or CDAF.

And DPAF outperforms Sony's old Hybrid-type sensors these days. It took Canon a while to catch up on readout speed and tracking algorithms, but they've now fully trounced Sony on that front.

Given the recent G5X II using the latest non-PDAF 1" sensor, stacked-BSI at that, and the SX70, SX740 also use latest BSI sensors also with latest DIGIC8, and, the G7X III uses the latest DIGIC8 and stacked 1", there's really no-where to go.

It wouldn't be hard for Canon to create their own 1" DPAF sensor, but they probably won't because there isn't much demand for compact point and shoot bodies any more.

Bingo.

DIGICX "eats" too much power for a smaller platform.

??? I'm not sure what that is based on or really means. It runs the camera, that's all.

DIGICX I've heard is a dual DIGIC8, and thus twice the potential peak power draw. PowerShots use smaller batteries. That doesn't work so well obviously.

I'm not sure if that's true, but even if it is there's no reason it has to be used in Powershots and within a generation or two those processors will be replaced by better ones.

There's now nothing to refresh on either the SX70, SX740, G5X II or G7X III, unless, Canon is considering using their latest stacked sensor fabs for some smaller chips and doing a limited DPAF run. But, for what audience? Perhaps DPAF for the G7X IV and the vloggers? That's about all I can think of.

Nah. They have cheap, small R bodies, still some M's, and even some old DSLR's.

Yup.

.

3. The G3X "bridge" camera series is retired, unofficially.

I think all G cameras are unofficially retired at this point.

Yup.

.

4. That just leaves the possibility of a G9X III ala DIGIC8 and stacked CMOS refresh, but is unlikely due to price. And the G1X Mark IV. The problem with the latter, is there a market big enough to produce it at a price point viable for both bringing to market, and profitability?

The Mark III came out 4 years ago. Maybe there will be some new G camera, but I'd guess the most likely one would be the G7 line.

.

I think Canon may double down on some at-home tech, possibly a fixed lens, say 35mm offering perhaps, but the M200/M6II + 22 / RP + RF 35 already has that covered.

.

It really took me back to realize this may be it folks. Whatever plans Canon has at this point, that they think they can make money off of, are it, if there's any left. It's a moment for pause and reflection where things have come, and now gone.

.

It's making more sense now perhaps why Canon is rallying around the RF mount, and even ignoring the M mount. It's either the time to go big or go home, or, pretty close to it.

.

Any thoughts from the peanut gallery? What's left of it that is. That too... There's few of us left, that the smartphone hasn't claimed.

Pretty sure the G is dead. The M might be replaced with an RF-S mount and compact lenses. But heck, maybe there's enough demand to keep one or two of the G cameras alive.

You're a ways from home. Welcome in any event to our humble discussion. Used to seeing you on other forums. Any reason for joining the party?

I've owned a ton of Powershots and love my G7XII and G1X.  There's not typically a whole lot to talk about these days since they've stopped with new releases.  I come by occasionally to read the random post.