G5X, G9X coming?

Dale Buhanan wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Thanks for the link

Looks like it may be announced Monday

Price 's a bit steep IMHO

USD 500.00 would be in the 'right' ballpark

Cheers,

Apparently people are still buying it at that price though. When I posted that link, you could buy it. Now it shows that it is back ordered. They sold out already in one day!

Are you sure about that? I looked early in the day, and it said back ordered. I can't remember ever seeing this happen - that the Canon store had stock and was selling it - when the camera hasn't even been announced yet.

damian5000 wrote:

Agreed, the g9x looks to be the true replacement for the s series. I haven't compared sizes yet, but I'll trade some light for a more pocketable body!

Me as well. Still getting f2 wide and significantly more versatile with the 1" sensor and 20mp.

Won't be great for portrait bokeh, but neither was the s120.

Rumored size of g9x
98 x 58 x 31mm 209g (battery?)

S120
100 x 59 x 29 mm 217g (w/battery)

Whoa, so this is going to be almost same size as the S120?  I have hung on to the original RX100 for years now because every new 1 inch sensor compact has gotten larger and larger.

Plus I want fast lenses on these cameras not for portrait bokeh, which I find to be fairly lacking on any 1 inch sensor camera anyways, but rather for low light performance.  The f/2 here coupled with IS and the 1 inch sensor should be fine.

Lee Jay wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I skipped on the Sony RX10 MkII (24-200) solely because it wouldn't work with the close up lenses I wanted to use on it (which the G3X does in spades). But that focal length range was soooo tempting.

Well, I skipped it because it's huge. I have that range in my 7DII + 18-135STM, and it's really not significantly larger, yet has a larger sensor and an optical viewfinder. In other words, if I'm going to go that big, I'm going to need something else, like range (FZ1000 or SX50) or interchangeable lenses.

Now, a 24-200 that would fit in my pocket would be interesting, and in fact it is as I mentioned. I'd give up sensor size and lens speed to get it.

If you are willing to give up sensor size AND lens speed to get range, I thought there are some compact cameras that fit the bill?  Like the Canon SX series?  Maybe too much of a compromise in sensor size?

I do agree with you guys as well though. I'd love something with at least a 1 inch sensor with that kind of range that is pocketable.  It's weird that you have something like that G7X that goes to 100mm, but to go to 200mm it jumps to RX10 size, which is basically an SLR size.  I guess it's just hard as you get  into more telephoto range to pack that kind of lens into a smaller body.

I have, for now, found an interesting compromise though.  I picked up a Panasonic GF7 dual lens kit at Costco.  Micro 4/3 sensor, pancake 12-32 kit lens, and then the 35-100 (70-200 equiv) f/4-5.6 that they have optimized for small size.  It's ridiculous how small the lens is when you see it in person.  So the package gives me that range, has IS for low light (to compensate for the relatively slower lenses).  And I was able to fit the GF7 with 12-32 in 1 pocket and the 35-100 in another.

Lee Jay wrote:

thechoson wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I skipped on the Sony RX10 MkII (24-200) solely because it wouldn't work with the close up lenses I wanted to use on it (which the G3X does in spades). But that focal length range was soooo tempting.

Well, I skipped it because it's huge. I have that range in my 7DII + 18-135STM, and it's really not significantly larger, yet has a larger sensor and an optical viewfinder. In other words, if I'm going to go that big, I'm going to need something else, like range (FZ1000 or SX50) or interchangeable lenses.

Now, a 24-200 that would fit in my pocket would be interesting, and in fact it is as I mentioned. I'd give up sensor size and lens speed to get it.

If you are willing to give up sensor size AND lens speed to get range, I thought there are some compact cameras that fit the bill? Like the Canon SX series?

I have an SX260HS - too big, too slow, sensor too small. I'll give up the 200-500 range.

Maybe too much of a compromise in sensor size?

As I've said, the LF1 is almost all the way there, so it's possible. It's 28-200 equivalent, f/2 at the wide end, and 1/1.7" sensor size. And it's the size of the S120.

1 inch sensor is a lot larger than the 1/1.7", so there might still be design/manufacturing constraints.  Or it might not make much business sense.  24-200ish range is nice for enthusiasts like us who like the traditional 24-70/ 70-200 range.  But for your everyday consumer that still thinks of optical zoom, they want more "bang".  I figure if it could be made, a company like Sony would have tried it already, as they seem to make every type of camera under the sun until something sticks.

So far,  I find Micro 4/3 (esp the new Panny models) to be a good compromise of size and reach.

Lee Jay wrote:

thechoson wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

thechoson wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I skipped on the Sony RX10 MkII (24-200) solely because it wouldn't work with the close up lenses I wanted to use on it (which the G3X does in spades). But that focal length range was soooo tempting.

Well, I skipped it because it's huge. I have that range in my 7DII + 18-135STM, and it's really not significantly larger, yet has a larger sensor and an optical viewfinder. In other words, if I'm going to go that big, I'm going to need something else, like range (FZ1000 or SX50) or interchangeable lenses.

Now, a 24-200 that would fit in my pocket would be interesting, and in fact it is as I mentioned. I'd give up sensor size and lens speed to get it.

If you are willing to give up sensor size AND lens speed to get range, I thought there are some compact cameras that fit the bill? Like the Canon SX series?

I have an SX260HS - too big, too slow, sensor too small. I'll give up the 200-500 range.

Maybe too much of a compromise in sensor size?

As I've said, the LF1 is almost all the way there, so it's possible. It's 28-200 equivalent, f/2 at the wide end, and 1/1.7" sensor size. And it's the size of the S120.

1 inch sensor is a lot larger than the 1/1.7",

I didn't ask for a 1" sensor. I'm saying giving up the 24-28 and the 85-200 range for a 1" sensor is not a good trade-off for me.

so there might still be design/manufacturing constraints. Or it might not make much business sense. 24-200ish range is nice for enthusiasts like us who like the traditional 24-70/ 70-200 range. But for your everyday consumer that still thinks of optical zoom, they want more "bang". I figure if it could be made, a company like Sony would have tried it already, as they seem to make every type of camera under the sun until something sticks.

Well, Panasonic tried it. I don't know how it did, but overall they have a lousy user interface, a lousy channel, and a lousy in-camera processor. So how the LF1 did might not be indicative of how a Canon would do with similar specs.

So far, I find Micro 4/3 (esp the new Panny models) to be a good compromise of size and reach.

For me, it has to fit in my pocket or I might as well take my SLR.

Oh well.