G3X compared to FZ1000

[phazelag]

I was sort of worried about a backlash on this forum pointing out a shortcoming of the G3X, but it seems like most people are looking at the G3X with objective eyes. Probably because people willing to spend that kind of money are fairly educated I guess.

 

[Speedex Folder]

Phaze, I too find the g3x compelling, much respect for Canon.

But it's a non-starter for me and I'll tell you why: For it's roughly thousand-dollar price tag, I also get to spend another 200 or so bucks on the EVF that I think it SHOULD have had to begin with . . . . and when I do, I give up all chance of using Canon's excellent EOS Speedlights.

For a bit less money, I COULD have the FZ1000 and a dedicated Panny speedlight, and for me the difference in IQ is far less than the difference in aggravation.

For the life of me, I do NOT know why these designers think you should have one or the other but not both when it comes to an EVF and a flash. I can only chalk it up that they think the 'intended customers' are not that knowledgeable (it would go a long way as to explaining why they think I'm going to shoot 600mm from the rear LCD only I'm guessing) and they'd never need a built-in EVF or use a speedlight.

I understand them 'tiering' features to drive you to their DSLR's, but this is to me exactly why 'bridge' cameras get short shrift: The designers under-estimate the end user. Hats off to the engineering crews at Panny and Sony for not following that path. I usually don't buy into the 'just how clueless are CaNikon in this new world' theme, but sometimes this sort of thing makes me believe it just a little.

 

[NWT]

People are happy to spend the same amount of money for one without hot shoe at all.

 

[NWT]

An educated person would comment and criticism based on first hand experience, definitely not when a product is not yet available on the market.

 

[jst13]

Its available here in germany. Mine will arrive on monday

 

[NWT]

Looking forward to hearing your first-hand experience. It won't arrive in Australia until later in the months.

 

[meland]

Phaze, I too find the g3x compelling, much respect for Canon.

But it's a non-starter for me and I'll tell you why: For it's roughly thousand-dollar price tag, I also get to spend another 200 or so bucks on the EVF that I think it SHOULD have had to begin with . . . . and when I do, I give up all chance of using Canon's excellent EOS Speedlights.

For a bit less money, I COULD have the FZ1000 and a dedicated Panny speedlight, and for me the difference in IQ is far less than the difference in aggravation.

For the life of me, I do NOT know why these designers think you should have one or the other but not both when it comes to an EVF and a flash. I can only chalk it up that they think the 'intended customers' are not that knowledgeable (it would go a long way as to explaining why they think I'm going to shoot 600mm from the rear LCD only I'm guessing) and they'd never need a built-in EVF or use a speedlight.

I understand them 'tiering' features to drive you to their DSLR's, but this is to me exactly why 'bridge' cameras get short shrift: The designers under-estimate the end user. Hats off to the engineering crews at Panny and Sony for not following that path. I usually don't buy into the 'just how clueless are CaNikon in this new world' theme, but sometimes this sort of thing makes me believe it just a little.

I think many posters on this forum make the mistake in assuming the total market is as interested or as 'educated' as they like to consider they themselves to be.

I'm not suggesting Canon's specification is right for everybody, certainly it doesn't seem to be for you, but perhaps their product planners do know a little bit about the market and probably more than we do.

And I suspect the things that make it a non-starter for you may have no impact on the people whatsoever who end up buying the product. For example your point about not being able to use a Speedlight with the EVF in place - well that's one of the choices the designers have made based on their knowledge that a tiny percentage of likely users will ever use a separate Speedlight on such a camera, ever.

And as for a built in EVF, well yes I, and obviously you, would like one. But personally I wouldn't want it if it was crap (and most tiny built in EVFs tend to be fairly poor), nor would I want the camera to be any bigger in size. And also it would appear that most younger users who have grown up with smartphones don't feel the need of an EVF at all, whether built in or separate.

With regard to pricing - it might sound harsh but if you don't like the price then the choice is always yours not to buy it. There's nothing to say Canon 'SHOULD' price it the way you personally think they should, or what should be included in the price, but of course I respect your opinion.

 

[PORTRAIT]

I do find the G3X compelling. I am an FZ1000 owner, but I have always been a fan of Canon colors and the Canon flash systems even for small compact cameras. I like to do creative lighting with my small cameras.

I know many people have complained about the lack of an EVF and full swivel screen on the G3X. The FZ1000 has both of these and is only 3.4 ounces heavier. Add the Canon EVF-DC1 which weighs 1.5 ounces and now the Canon only saves 2 ounces of weight.

I am not one who has to have an EVF or swivel screen. I think the tilt screen is fine on the Canon just as my tilt screen on my RX100M3 is fine for my uses.

The FZ1000 is bulky for sure but it feels light in the hand or on your neck and when you add the EVF to the G3X the bulk savings of the Canon is not great. The FZ1000 Lens hood is big but can be turned around for storage.

But where the Canon G3X is disappointing to me is on the AFS and AFC Speeds.

From DPReview First Impressions Canon G3X AFS

Performance-wise, the G3 X can shoot at up to 5.9 fps in One Shot (single) AF, with that frame rate dropping to 3.2 fps in AI Servo (continuous) AF. These figures are for JPEG only, though, and in Raw the continuous shooting rate drops to ~1 fps (like the G7 X).

This is DPreviews Explanation of the FZ1000 AF speeds.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/

I find that with my 95MBS cards the FZ1000 buffer clears pretty fast in Raw plus JPEG but I will generally shoot in RAW only since the FZ1000 has in camera RAW processing and if I want a JPEG it's only a few clicks away. The FZ1000 DFD Autofocus technology works. Its great in low light and good light.

Being able to shoot 11.8 FPS in RAW if I want it of 5.6 FPS in Raw with full live view is very nice and far superior to 1 FPS of the Canon.

I think the reason this is a consideration for those looking at the Canon is because the 600MM focal lengths is going to tempt you take wildlife, stage/theater, air shows, and sports photos. If the light is low and you're counting on RAW 1 FPS is not enough and 3.2 JPEG is also not ideal for catching the peak moment. Or the Stage lighting or indoor lighting is weird and you want to shoot in Raw for white balance reasons this is another limitation.

If your subject is Moving forward or back, AF-S will also leave you with blurry photos. I do feel like Canon has crippled this G series as it did with my previous G series cameras by leaving the AF system a decade behind.

I would like the extra 200mm on some occasions but not at the expense of the amazing AF system on the FZ1000.

And if price is a concern the FZ1000 can be purchase for $200 to $280 less and if you add the cost of the EVF on the Canon you're saving almost another $240 plus tax on that savings.

Here is my FZ1000 gallery: http://www.scottzinda.com/Point-and-Shoot-Cameras/Panasonic-FZ1000/i-7XPxWzb

I think there are a few shots in here the Canon would have struggled with.

I don't blame anyone for being interested in the Canon as I also am, but for this price I think the Canon doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Speedex Folder]

I have no doubt that Canon is spec-ing this piece so as to obviously not cannibalize sales of the consumer DSLR's, and that I'm NOT the 'target consumer' for this camera, and the features I'd prefer are outside the box of its' intended market. I agree with Portrait that Panasonic has no concerns (and that Sony sees a place for the RX outside of their constantly changing interchangeable lens lines) as they have no legacy market to dilute, so an FZ1000 is a 'net plus' to their bottom line with no impact on GH4's or G7's in their plans.

I suppose I just really wanted this camera to suit me, and disappointed it doesn't, but again, I'm hardly the person they had in mind as an end user. But for the life of me, Smartphone generation or not, I can't for the life of me imagine shooting 600mm at arms' length, nor ponying up another 200 bucks for an add-on finder, and while their pricing is not a problem for me, it's just a disappointing feature set that leaves me out. But again, obviously I'm NOT the guy they had in mind for this. I've had previous G's, and I go all the way back to Canonets, but . . . . . maybe next time.

 

[meland]

I have no doubt that Canon is spec-ing this piece so as to obviously not cannibalize sales of the consumer DSLR's, and that I'm NOT the 'target consumer' for this camera, and the features I'd prefer are outside the box of its' intended market. I agree with Portrait that Panasonic has no concerns (and that Sony sees a place for the RX outside of their constantly changing interchangeable lens lines) as they have no legacy market to dilute, so an FZ1000 is a 'net plus' to their bottom line with no impact on GH4's or G7's in their plans.

I suppose I just really wanted this camera to suit me, and disappointed it doesn't, but again, I'm hardly the person they had in mind as an end user. But for the life of me, Smartphone generation or not, I can't for the life of me imagine shooting 600mm at arms' length, nor ponying up another 200 bucks for an add-on finder, and while their pricing is not a problem for me, it's just a disappointing feature set that leaves me out. But again, obviously I'm NOT the guy they had in mind for this. I've had previous G's, and I go all the way back to Canonets, but . . . . . maybe next time.

I think it is highly unlikely that Canon is pricing the G3X so as not to cannibalize their DSLRs. At present they sit in two distinct markets, although that may change in future years as many non enthusiast customers, e.g. 'soccer moms', realise they don't really need a DSLR and there ceases to be any kudos in owning a DSLR (and I'm not suggesting there is much now).

 

[phazelag]

An educated person would comment and criticism based on first hand experience, definitely not when a product is not yet available on the market.

I think some of us have bought enough cameras to know from the spec sheet if it meets our needs. Know the the RAW Continuous FPS is enough to know it won't meet my needs.

I can only speak for myself, but there seem to be others with experience who agree. If you think it will meet your needs I totally get that. I realize it will be great for some. But there was some shooting situations I thought I would point out in my original post I think some should consider before spending the money.

 

[phazelag]

Phaze, I too find the g3x compelling, much respect for Canon.

But it's a non-starter for me and I'll tell you why: For it's roughly thousand-dollar price tag, I also get to spend another 200 or so bucks on the EVF that I think it SHOULD have had to begin with . . . . and when I do, I give up all chance of using Canon's excellent EOS Speedlights.

For a bit less money, I COULD have the FZ1000 and a dedicated Panny speedlight, and for me the difference in IQ is far less than the difference in aggravation.

For the life of me, I do NOT know why these designers think you should have one or the other but not both when it comes to an EVF and a flash. I can only chalk it up that they think the 'intended customers' are not that knowledgeable (it would go a long way as to explaining why they think I'm going to shoot 600mm from the rear LCD only I'm guessing) and they'd never need a built-in EVF or use a speedlight.

I understand them 'tiering' features to drive you to their DSLR's, but this is to me exactly why 'bridge' cameras get short shrift: The designers under-estimate the end user. Hats off to the engineering crews at Panny and Sony for not following that path. I usually don't buy into the 'just how clueless are CaNikon in this new world' theme, but sometimes this sort of thing makes me believe it just a little.

I think many posters on this forum make the mistake in assuming the total market is as interested or as 'educated' as they like to consider they themselves to be.

I'm not suggesting Canon's specification is right for everybody, certainly it doesn't seem to be for you, but perhaps their product planners do know a little bit about the market and probably more than we do.

And I suspect the things that make it a non-starter for you may have no impact on the people whatsoever who end up buying the product. For example your point about not being able to use a Speedlight with the EVF in place - well that's one of the choices the designers have made based on their knowledge that a tiny percentage of likely users will ever use a separate Speedlight on such a camera, ever.

And as for a built in EVF, well yes I, and obviously you, would like one. But personally I wouldn't want it if it was crap (and most tiny built in EVFs tend to be fairly poor), nor would I want the camera to be any bigger in size. And also it would appear that most younger users who have grown up with smartphones don't feel the need of an EVF at all, whether built in or separate.

With regard to pricing - it might sound harsh but if you don't like the price then the choice is always yours not to buy it. There's nothing to say Canon 'SHOULD' price it the way you personally think they should, or what should be included in the price, but of course I respect your opinion.

I agree Canon Marketing probably knows something we don't. I think this camera will meet some peoples needs. As far as small EVFs you may want to try some of the newer ones. My FZ1000 EVF is outstanding and my Olympus OMD EVF is even better. My FZ200 was not great but that was a low quality EVF. My Sony RX10 EVF was also excellent.

I haven't used the Canon EVF so I am not sure how good that one is. I do share your thoughts on not needing one for this camera. I mentioned that in my original post. But I understand other wanting one.

 

[phazelag]

I have no doubt that Canon is spec-ing this piece so as to obviously not cannibalize sales of the consumer DSLR's, and that I'm NOT the 'target consumer' for this camera, and the features I'd prefer are outside the box of its' intended market. I agree with Portrait that Panasonic has no concerns (and that Sony sees a place for the RX outside of their constantly changing interchangeable lens lines) as they have no legacy market to dilute, so an FZ1000 is a 'net plus' to their bottom line with no impact on GH4's or G7's in their plans.

I suppose I just really wanted this camera to suit me, and disappointed it doesn't, but again, I'm hardly the person they had in mind as an end user. But for the life of me, Smartphone generation or not, I can't for the life of me imagine shooting 600mm at arms' length, nor ponying up another 200 bucks for an add-on finder, and while their pricing is not a problem for me, it's just a disappointing feature set that leaves me out. But again, obviously I'm NOT the guy they had in mind for this. I've had previous G's, and I go all the way back to Canonets, but . . . . . maybe next time.

I think it is highly unlikely that Canon is pricing the G3X so as not to cannibalize their DSLRs. At present they sit in two distinct markets, although that may change in future years as many non enthusiast customers, e.g. 'soccer moms', realise they don't really need a DSLR and there ceases to be any kudos in owning a DSLR (and I'm not suggesting there is much now).

Its not about the price, its about not giving features that compete with their DSLRs. But in my opinion the prices is way too high for the features it has.

Speedex explains why the FZ1000 has features that compete with DSLRS because Panasonic and Sony aren't worried about cannibalizing DSLRs sales or even M43 sales.

And I think soccer moms would do better with an FZ1000. The FZ1000 has super fast Auto focus and stays open to f4 at 400mm for night games. And can shoot at a fast enough FPS to get the shot.

I have thought for a long time that most regular people who would never spend a few thousand on lenses might be better off with a camera like the FZ1000 than a DSLR with a kit lens for most uses.

 

[meland]

I have thought for a long time that most regular people who would never spend a few thousand on lenses might be better off with a camera like the FZ1000 than a DSLR with a kit lens for most uses.

--
http://www.scottzinda.com
https://instagram.com/scottzinda

Absolutely right! And I think that is the way the market will move, to the possible detriment of Rebel class DSLRs and certain ILCs that only ever get used with the standard kit lens. But what that may also mean is a drop in volume of ILCs and in turn a rise in price of enthusiast ILCs due to that market shrinking.

 

[pacnwhobbyist]

No offense, but frankly, I find it silly that anyone would consider an enthusiast compact P&S primarily for action photography. Don't get me wrong, it was mistake on Canon's part to hobble it as they did, but I guess if I was really into that kind of photography, I would spend the bucks on a 7D Mark II or something like that.

Basically this is going to be a lumbering brick of a camera that will take great photos, have a good usability factor, but will not be especially fast. I'm sure it will have its fans. I am curious to try one even with its perceived shortcomings.

The big question mark on this camera is the optical quality of the lens. How much does the quality deteriorate at the long end? If the lens is reasonably sharp all the way through to 600mm then it might be worthwhile despite the lousy aperture.

 

[phazelag]

No offense, but frankly, I find it silly that anyone would consider an enthusiast compact P&S primarily for action photography. Don't get me wrong, it was mistake on Canon's part to hobble it as they did, but I guess if I was really into that kind of photography, I would spend the bucks on a 7D Mark II or something like that.

Basically this is going to be a lumbering brick of a camera that will take great photos, have a good usability factor, but will not be especially fast. I'm sure it will have its fans. I am curious to try one even with its perceived shortcomings.

The big question mark on this camera is the optical quality of the lens. How much does the quality deteriorate at the long end? If the lens is reasonably sharp all the way through to 600mm then it might be worthwhile despite the lousy aperture.

It's all about budget. A soccer mom or even someone like me. I have done pro work but I don't need my kids sports shots to be taken with a 7D mark 2 I am quite happy carrying a much lighter and inconspicuous camera to my kids events. I don't need to be "That guy" all the time

I see people all the time with DSLRs even high level ones like 5d 6D with a 70-200 out there and there shots are not as good as what I get with my FZ1000 or micro four thirds.

I actually get to enjoy the event and not carry 6 lbs around on me. Of course the DSLRs are more capable but the reality is 90% of the people who buy them don't know how to use them. And most never buy more than the an a cheep 3.5-5.6 zoom.

Most of those people would have been better putting an FZ1000 on sports mode and just have fun. And I include myself in that group. And I know thoroughly how to use a DSLR.

I just get tired of seeing my friends buy the Costco T6i combo pack with two cheep lens and have them sit in the closet. When they would have been better off with an FZ1000. I don't say RX10 because mine is super slow to focus. But that is a fine camera too.

I do wish my FZ1000 was waterproof.

 

[NWT]

If from the very beginning that you had already known G3X was not good for for you why on earth do you start this thread and pretend you want a genuine discussion, trying to show you paper based knowledge.

 

[phazelag]

If from the very beginning that you had already known G3X was not good for for you why on earth do you start this thread and pretend you want a genuine discussion, trying to show you paper based knowledge.

I am interested in it, but the Raw FPS was a huge turn off. Sometimes these threads give another point of view on how to do something a different way.

 

[jonrobertp]

No offense, but frankly, I find it silly that anyone would consider an enthusiast compact P&S primarily for action photography. Don't get me wrong, it was mistake on Canon's part to hobble it as they did, but I guess if I was really into that kind of photography, I would spend the bucks on a 7D Mark II or something like that.

Basically this is going to be a lumbering brick of a camera that will take great photos, have a good usability factor, but will not be especially fast. I'm sure it will have its fans. I am curious to try one even with its perceived shortcomings.

The big question mark on this camera is the optical quality of the lens. How much does the quality deteriorate at the long end? If the lens is reasonably sharp all the way through to 600mm then it might be worthwhile despite the lousy aperture.

It's all about budget. A soccer mom or even someone like me. I have done pro work but I don't need my kids sports shots to be taken with a 7D mark 2 I am quite happy carrying a much lighter and inconspicuous camera to my kids events. I don't need to be "That guy" all the time

I see people all the time with DSLRs even high level ones like 5d 6D with a 70-200 out there and there shots are not as good as what I get with my FZ1000 or micro four thirds.

I actually get to enjoy the event and not carry 6 lbs around on me. Of course the DSLRs are more capable but the reality is 90% of the people who buy them don't know how to use them. And most never buy more than the an a cheep 3.5-5.6 zoom.

Most of those people would have been better putting an FZ1000 on sports mode and just have fun. And I include myself in that group. And I know thoroughly how to use a DSLR.

I just get tired of seeing my friends buy the Costco T6i combo pack with two cheep lens and have them sit in the closet. When they would have been better off with an FZ1000. I don't say RX10 because mine is super slow to focus. But that is a fine camera too.

I do wish my FZ1000 was waterproof.

--
http://www.scottzinda.com
https://instagram.com/scottzinda

I'd pay 30 cents for the heavy Panny.

Canon... wait a bit till the second price reduction.

 

[Jim]

"I have thought for a long time that most regular people who would never spend a few thousand on lenses might be better off with a camera like the FZ1000 than a DSLR with a kit lens for most uses."

While I agree with you, I'm puzzled why Canon would compromise on the G3X's features when those who would purchase this camera either: 1) aren't interested (at least at the time of purchase) on a DSLR, or 2) are purchasing it as a compliment to a DSLR they already have. Maybe they'll decide that a DSLR is for them at a later date and, as already being a Canon customer would give them a first look. If not, at least Canon would have a customer rather than having nothing.

It seems to me that the fear of cannibalizing DSLR sales seem a bit overblown.

Jim