Is Canon done making powershots?

Rohith Thumati wrote:

Chris 222 wrote:

Why?! I shoot quite a bit in low light and I've never had a problem with this.

Three reasons. For me, the camera takes a lot longer to focus and misses focus more than I’m used to with any of my other cameras in lower light. I take my LX100 II over the G1X III when I know I’ll be in dimmer conditions because of that. Getting 1-2 stops of aperture back help make up for the noise difference.

Ami I assuming correctly that you are referring strictly to low-light conditions where flash is forbidden, like in some museums?

I'm asking because when I got my first G1X3 I was quite stunned at how good the flash is, particularly in fill-flash situations (I remember actually doing some tests because in certain shots the amount of flash was so tiny that I could not see it through the EVF, yet my pics were perfectly exposed, and at F2.8 or F4.)

For reference, I also know of at least two spelunking groups that use G1X3s as their primary pocket-sized, super-rugged cams while doing expeditions deep underground.

Two, subject isolation flexibility. I’m not a bokeh-obsessive, but the difference between what I can do with my LX100 II and the G1X III for portraits is pretty stark.

That's a fair point. I find separation to be quite decent at 2.8, but we all know that this is highly personal and subjective.

And marketing is the other reason. I think it’s fair to say that the f/5.6 aperture is a big reason the camera didn’t get market traction. At this price, a camera that’s not a superzoom and costs per $1K can’t have a ‘kit lens-level maximum aperture.’ Selling a new camera with the same lens spec is a recipe for market failure.

Fair point again, although for me, obsessing over an aperture figure is more geek talk than anything else, especially when there are easy workarounds. The real issue here is the poor way in which Canon has been marketing this cam. To take just one example, I've never seen them do a direct comparo with the fake-premium RX100 Sony line. Every single time folks in my community took both cams out for testing, the first comment was something like: "the Sony feels like a toy, the Canon feels like a professional tool."

This reminds me quite a bit of what's happening with backpacks. When you see shop owners print and post my articles that explain the differences between TMP and PP packs because not a single manufacturer has bothered to ever provide them with such ()basic, really) info, you know that marketing has failed. Just failed miserably.

A 20-60 lens equivalent would be ideal, and still compact enough.

20mm would be great, especially for the vlogger market that every camera seems to need to appeal to nowadays, but I have a hard time seeing 60mm on the tele end being ideal. That’s just too short for a fixed lens camera. The reviews would kill it as being too limited.

They would but they'd be 100% wrong, which is not uncommon. I don't vlog much, but at 20mm it sure would be easier to frame groups or mountain subjects, without risking falling off a cliff when backing out. At the long end, I've always found it ridiculously easy to zoom in my my feet. Plus, with nice fat pixels and a sensor that's 4 times the area of the 1" cams, the G1X3 offers a ton of leeway with cropping, post work, etc.