G7 X III (and maybe G9 X III) arriving in early 2019 (RUMOR)

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

There is some fish-eye-like distortion at 24mm, that's why there are black corners in RAW. But it gets "de-fished" by the camera processor. And it should be corrected by the RAW software. My software does it automatically and the images at 24mm have good sharpness, resolution, no distortion.

it is not fish eye like (fish eyes are whether 180 degrees diagonal or 180 degrees border to border) , but simply a high distortion with lens not covering the entire sensor, which means that after correction, resolution is lost!

please check imaging resource review, it is very clear about the issue, the difference between center and corners is just huge, a smartphone will have better resolution in corners!

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-g7x/canon-g7xA4.HTM

The corner performance at 24mm isn't great, but then again, the lens design makes compromises. 24-100 f1.8-2.8 is very ambitious spec for its size and price. Sure, consistency across the frame seems better on sony's 24-70mm lens, but you lose reach and the newer models are twice the price of the Canon. If you consider specs, price, and quality, the Canon is competitive.

As was said, different people will have different standards. For many, IQ at 24mm will be fine. If you don't like the 24mm sharpness, start at 28mm. If you aren't satisfied with a lens that struggles under certain conditions,  these large sensor/fast lens compacts may disappoint. Compare with, say, the Ricoh GR.

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

There is some fish-eye-like distortion at 24mm, that's why there are black corners in RAW. But it gets "de-fished" by the camera processor. And it should be corrected by the RAW software. My software does it automatically and the images at 24mm have good sharpness, resolution, no distortion.

it is not fish eye like (fish eyes are whether 180 degrees diagonal or 180 degrees border to border) , but simply a high distortion with lens not covering the entire sensor, which means that after correction, resolution is lost!

please check imaging resource review, it is very clear about the issue, the difference between center and corners is just huge, a smartphone will have better resolution in corners!

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-g7x/canon-g7xA4.HTM

You don't have the camera. Do you? I have the camera. When I look at RAW files at 24mm the distortion looks like fish-eye. And have a look who is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

"Barrel distortion. Fisheye lenses, which take hemispherical views, utilize this type of distortion as a way to map an infinitely wide object plane into a finite image area."

Since I have the camera I don't have to look up what others say. I never noticed a loss of resolution or other problems at corners at 24mm. I am not saying it's not there. But I never zoom at corners and I rarely crop so the extreme corners are magnified in a way I notice problems. When cropping the corners are often left out (not always). Also I shoot mostly RAW and process with PhotoLab 2 which does an excellent distortion correction. Maybe that helps.

telefunk wrote:

redtailboas wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

Does anyone think the G7X III will be as good as the Sony RX100VI? Especially 4K video that is always crippled on Canon. I have the first version of G7X and was about to buy the RX100VI. I may wait if the G7X III is promising.

the rumors show the same lens for G7X III which is very bad at 24mm...

The same lens as in G7 X or RX100VI? Where did you see this rumor?

Possibly same specs, highly unlikely to be the exact same lens as G7XII. Regardless [very bad at 24mm] is nonsense.

put your glasses on

Shutter speed 1/10000 and no other info? Super high ISO when not needed. But wait, the G7 X can only do 1/2000 max(min). What camera this image is from?

danm_cool wrote:

redtailboas wrote:

Possibly same specs, highly unlikely to be the exact same lens as G7XII.

for 24mm just watch the images on cameralabs for example, even a smartphone has better shapness on borders and corners... you can also see the black corners when shooting raw

the pictures of the rumored G7X III show an identical lens with identical range, so I highly doubt that the lens has been improved... Canon should had been honest on this camera and market it as a 28-100mm camera not 24-100mm...

Regardless [very bad at 24mm] is nonsense.

everyone has its own "expectations" regarding the results

Thanks for qualifying "very bad". All competing compacts have this issue and could be considered very bad. Don't pixel peep corners and you'll be much better off

😂 Surely you don't believe that because the range and aperture is the same that it's got to be the exact same lens...?

Pov2 wrote:

telefunk wrote:

redtailboas wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

Does anyone think the G7X III will be as good as the Sony RX100VI? Especially 4K video that is always crippled on Canon. I have the first version of G7X and was about to buy the RX100VI. I may wait if the G7X III is promising.

the rumors show the same lens for G7X III which is very bad at 24mm...

The same lens as in G7 X or RX100VI? Where did you see this rumor?

Possibly same specs, highly unlikely to be the exact same lens as G7XII. Regardless [very bad at 24mm] is nonsense.

put your glasses on

Shutter speed 1/10000 and no other info? Super high ISO when not needed. But wait, the G7 X can only do 1/2000 max(min). What camera this image is from?

This. I don't doubt it's G7X, but pixel peep any corner from any similar compact and you're going to be very disappointed.

danm_cool wrote:

redtailboas wrote:

This. I don't doubt it's G7X, but pixel peep any corner from any similar compact and you're going to be very disappointed.

not at all dissapointed, the Sony RX100 III-V and the Panasonic LX15 are much better...

I am, when peeping them. Stil crappy corners. And, with 30% less reach. Ugh. Don't pixel peep any of them (as a normal person would be viewing a photo) and you won't see any of it.

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

danm_cool wrote:

Pov2 wrote:

There is some fish-eye-like distortion at 24mm, that's why there are black corners in RAW. But it gets "de-fished" by the camera processor. And it should be corrected by the RAW software. My software does it automatically and the images at 24mm have good sharpness, resolution, no distortion.

it is not fish eye like (fish eyes are whether 180 degrees diagonal or 180 degrees border to border) , but simply a high distortion with lens not covering the entire sensor, which means that after correction, resolution is lost!

please check imaging resource review, it is very clear about the issue, the difference between center and corners is just huge, a smartphone will have better resolution in corners!

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-g7x/canon-g7xA4.HTM

You don't have the camera. Do you? I have the camera. When I look at RAW files at 24mm the distortion looks like fish-eye. And have a look who is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

"Barrel distortion. Fisheye lenses, which take hemispherical views, utilize this type of distortion as a way to map an infinitely wide object plane into a finite image area."

Since I have the camera I don't have to look up what others say. I never noticed a loss of resolution or other problems at corners at 24mm. I am not saying it's not there. But I never zoom at corners and I rarely crop so the extreme corners are magnified in a way I notice problems. When cropping the corners are often left out (not always). Also I shoot mostly RAW and process with PhotoLab 2 which does an excellent distortion correction. Maybe that helps.

No point to make here, fisheyes have barrel distorsion, so does the Canon G7X at 24mm, but in a much much less amount, it does not mean that the Canon's lens has "fisheye effect"??? The Canon's lens is far away from the fisheye effect, its just the fault of a marketing pushing to have a longer range for better selling, they have just forgotten to whom their are selling, those little cameras are designed for experts and not starters as a classical point and shoot...

By the way another parallel thread in the forum discussing the stupidity of the lens at 24mm, it looks like there are less than 2/3 of the pixels used and upscaled for a 24mm image... awesome

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62052936?image=0

I think you'd better get the camera before discussing it as others might get the wrong idea.

And interesting logic... It's technically a fish-eye effect but it's very little, so it's not fish-eye. I wonder if this kind of logic would work in court by saying "the person had 0.1% blood alcohol concentration but it's so little - it's not alcohol". I guess it doesn't work this way...

justmeMN wrote:

pacnwhobbyist wrote:

Sidenote: Not sure if anyone caught the lengthy interview Canon gave to Imaging Resource but not one word was mentioned about future Powershot development. More specifically they said emphasis would be on ILCs, based in recent sales trends. I do think the G7X Mark III is def. coming but any replacement of any other model afterwards would be a pleasant surprise.

From Canon's quarterly financial speech in October:

"For compact cameras, our sales in the third quarter were 720 thousand units, 15% below that of last year. For our full-year projection, we maintained our previous projection of 10.0 million units for the market and 3.0 million for our own unit sales. Under this situation, we will work to improve profitability with a continuing focus on selling premium models (G-series)."

I would bet there’s a G5 X2 before a G7 X3

I wouldn't be surprised by another G9 X update in the future.

pacnwhobbyist wrote:

Pics of the G7X III showed up Nokishita’s website and picked up by rumor sites back in Mid-December. I’m 95% sure that’s the next G series cam to be released.

Now I would love for them to release a G5X II, but am very skeptical they will. But you never know, I didn’t think an SX70 superzoom would show up after 4 years had passed but sure enough it did.

It seems the model refreshes in general are getting fewer and farther between. This makes sense if they manufacturers are selling fewer units they can stretch out the development cycle to sell more units with the same tech. For most people its fine, but for us gear geeks who got used to anticipating new models in every line year after year, its a bit of a bummer.

g3x mk ii- 2 years 8 months and counting

g5x mk ii- 2 years 3 months and counting

g7x mk iii- 2 years 11 months and counting

g1x mk ii to g1x mkiii- 3 years 8 months

g7x to g7xii- 1 year 4 months

g9x to g9xii 1 year 3 months

I would also guess a new g7x is the next up.