Would you pay $1299 for the G1X.3 'L' ?

G-D wrote:

All in all pretty disappointing specs. I prefer tilt screen over vari angle, zoom is too short and quite slow (really liked the 24-120 eq. of the MkII), still no 4k, 200 shots battery life (could that be an error?), flash once again doesn't bounce, and most of all: that price is simply arrogant.

It just really only needed a new 1.5" sensor which is probably too expensive to develop in isolation for just one camera. The camera that is being shown at the moment looks like something cobbled together from bits already sitting in the workshop drawer.

It may be an excellent camera in its own way if this is for real but this Mark designation of something completely different does stretch credulity a bit and make it difficult for existing owners to see the advantages against disadvantages.

I would not like a lens collapsing completely in to the camera as I like the bridge format of the G1X with a fixed lens mounting extension as they seem less prone to dust problems. Even the Panasonic bridges have very few sensor dust postings if any at all.

G-D wrote:

flash once again doesn't bounce,

My Mk II flash tilts and bounces. Clock knitted by my clever wife from an Alan Dart design.

KeepCalm wrote:

G-D wrote:

flash once again doesn't bounce,

My Mk II flash tilts and bounces. Clock knitted by my clever wife from an Alan Dart design.

I was referring to more recent cams like G5 X, eos M5, which don't have a bouncing flash. Once again Canon could have, but didn't (happens too often, lately IMHO).

Your picture is a great example of the usefulness of a bounce flash.

Jansberg wrote:

The rumored specs with the 15-44 1.8-3.5 lens and 4k looked intrigueing.

The rumored specs with the 24-120 equiv lens and evf looked even more interesting.

Now I guess I am just keeping my lx100

Your LX100 has a maximum aperture of 12mm but this pictured camera has a maximum aperture of 8mm so they would be feeding light in to a larger sensor camera through a smaller hole in the lens.

This cannot be real.

nnowak wrote:

At no time in the history of camera rumors have I ever seen the aperture also quoted as equivalent.

Thank you! More than once, I've been told on this board that the aperture along with zoom range has been converted. They never do that. Imagine how the F/1.8 lens would look like on a 1" camera if it was 35mm equivalent?

Venkat S wrote:

I am confused. Why would anyone with a EOS M system pay $1299 for this? What can this do that the EOS M system can't?

You can put it in your pocket. Hopefully you're less confused now.

PortableLover wrote:

Venkat S wrote:

I am confused. Why would anyone with a EOS M system pay $1299 for this? What can this do that the EOS M system can't?

You can put it in your pocket. Hopefully you're less confused now.

Yes, but it's not truly pocketable is it. I can put an eos M with a smaller lens in a pocket too, but neither of these cams will leave me with a comfortable feeling in MY jeans. Besides, for the cameras sake, I don't think it's recommendable to put any camera's in your pocket, esp. when they're as overpriced as these.

But to each his own pockets of course.

NO !

No compact, even with an APS-C sensor, is worth that much money.

I'll pay up to $800 and that's well paid.

Andy010 wrote:

NO !

No compact, even with an APS-C sensor, is worth that much money.

I'll pay up to $800 and that's well paid.

I suppose this is part of the never ending project to get an affordable compact fast zoom aps-c camera and nobody is anywhere near succeeding yet. aps-c as a compact format is just a non starter as far as I can see unless you like primes and then an ILC holds all the cards.

G-D wrote:

Yes, but it's not truly pocketable is it.

I've had G7 X in my pocket for years and I can keep it there and forget it. G1X Mark III is 0.4 inches thicker so yes, I expect it to fit my pocket just fine because I've had G7 X and my Samsung Galaxy in the same pocket as well and together they're as thick G1 X Mark III. Of course if you already convince yourself that it's not going to fit, that's fine.

Besides, for the cameras sake, I don't think it's recommendable to put any camera's in your pocket

Not recommended by who? You? Canon?

PortableLover wrote:

G-D wrote:

Yes, but it's not truly pocketable is it.

Besides, for the cameras sake, I don't think it's recommendable to put any camera's in your pocket

Not recommended by who? You? Canon?

Like I said: "I" don't think it's recommendable. Lots of dust'n'stuff in MY pockets. Yours might be squeekie clean, nice for you. Oh, I never asked Canon so can't comment on their position on this, sorry. I'm just stating my opinion which, as it turns out, is different from yours.

Like I said: to each his own pockets.

G-D wrote:

Like I said: "I" don't think it's recommendable.

My recommendation is to relax and put a camera in your pocket and stop worrying about damaging it. I've owned countless cameras and not one has gotten damaged in my pocket. I don't know anyone either who's managed to do that.

My wallet and my cellphone are thicker combined than G1X Mark III and I carry them around every single day. Having G1X Mark III in my pocket when I travel few weeks a year does not concern me one bit. This camera's going to be awesome!

PortableLover wrote:

G-D wrote:

Like I said: "I" don't think it's recommendable.

My recommendation is to relax and put a camera in your pocket and stop worrying about damaging it. I've owned countless cameras and not one has gotten damaged in my pocket. I don't know anyone either who's managed to do that.

I know someone who had a problem with it: me. It was with a small Canon sx720, while I was on holiday. I kept it in my jacket pocket all the time. Then I noticed 2 spots in every picture I took: dust on the sensor and in the lens as well. Back home, Canon repaired it under warranty. While waiting on the repair, I patiently edited all the spots out of many of my holiday pictures.

Sensors and (air sucking) zoom lenses attract dust, they do. Some cameras (for ex. the pana LX100 and the rx100 I and II) are more prone to it than others. The sx720 cost a couple hundred $ so I wasn't too worried about it at the time. Now, with the G1 X III rumored at 1300$, I would advise against keeping it in your pocket, even when it's supposed to be wheather and water "resistant". Good luck.