Is Canon done making powershots?

Swerky wrote:

Rohith Thumati wrote:

gaul wrote:

If only Canon would read our mind and treat us with a G1x Mk iv on Steroids (baby R7)

I can go back to sleep and have sweet dreams... but that would be awesome

Gaul

What does a "G1x Mk iv on steroids” mean to you, a G1X III with the R7’s sensor and processor?

I like my G1X III a lot, but a Mk IV needs a brighter lens,

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

and possibly a larger zoom range.

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

Canon certainly knows how to make longer zooms (remember the wonderful Pro1?) but with an APSC sensor, physics would turn the whole cam into a much larger item, definitely not pocketable.

Otherwise, it’ll get the same market response as the Mk III did, unfortunately.

That's entirely Canon Marketing's fault. Nothing to do with the cam itself.

A combination of the Mk III’s features (articulating screen, EVF, weather sealing), the R7’s processor and sensor, and G1X Mark II’s lens spec (in terms of full frame-equivalent focal length range and f-stop) and size would be an amazing travel/hiking camera. Personally, I’d be fine with using a crop of the sensor (like the LX100’s do) to get a smaller camera if need be, since that’d still be ~27 MP, which is plenty.

Of course, it’d be a $1,300+ camera at that point, probably ...

I'd go with that for the only reason that a faster zoom lens doesn't exist on Canon crop sensor mirrorless, not ef-m nor rf-s, and probably never will. The G1X III's 15-45 f2.8-5.6 is unique to it. And also the G1X III is entirely weather resistant, including the lens. No sealed lens on all crop sensor Canon mounts lenses (except on some third party). I've been taking my G1X III on hikes, to the beach,...so far worry free.

Same experience here, and across my large photo community as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And also the G1X III is entirely weather resistant, including the lens. No sealed lens on all crop sensor Canon mounts lenses (except on some third party). I've been taking my G1X III on hikes, to the beach,...so far worry free.

Yep, the G1X III is by far my favorite hiking camera, for those same reasons.

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.

Swerky wrote:

I would like to see a potential G1X IV with a 24-100 f2.8-4 lens, with newer processor and 32mpx APS-C sensor, and wouldn't mind a larger and heavier (around 600g) body

Hm, I wonder if it could be kept at 600g, but this surely would be an interesting cam.

with a larger capacity battery with that.

Could not agree more. That minuscule battery is the one real design blunder on the G1X3. All they have to do is extend the grip to match the front of the lens (which would much improve the grip, although it's not bad right now) and stick a larger batt in there.

I keep spare batts, but still, this would be an easy fix!

Chris 222 wrote:

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.)

No, i mean the hunting of focus, which can’t really be helped with flash. And flash isn’t always right for a setting. It’s not about being “forbidden” but makes for a worse image, or is annoying to people. Taking photos of kids indoors typically results in ISO’s in 4000-6400 very fast if you want a shutter speed fast enough to not get blur, and constant flashes popping off gets people annoyed at a photographer really quickly.

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.

Sure, on the wide end, but it closes down really fast to 5.6.

Fair point again, although for me, obsessing over an aperture figure is more geek talk than anything else, especially when there are easy workarounds.

There’s no replacement for aperture when it comes to keeping ISO down and shutter speeds reasonable for the situation. Also, brighter apertures = faster focusing, since it’s all light dependent. Most cameras open up their aperture all the way for focusing before closing to the shooting aperture because of that is often dependent on light levels - brighter aperture lenses can acquire focus faster and more reliably.

The obsession in the community with large apertures has gotten out of hand to me and way past the point of diminishing returns, but somewhere between f/2.8 and f/5.6 we’re still in the realm of increasing returns.

Chris 222 wrote:

Swerky wrote:

I would like to see a potential G1X IV with a 24-100 f2.8-4 lens, with newer processor and 32mpx APS-C sensor, and wouldn't mind a larger and heavier (around 600g) body

Hm, I wonder if it could be kept at 600g, but this surely would be an interesting cam.

with a larger capacity battery with that.

Could not agree more. That minuscule battery is the one real design blunder on the G1X3. All they have to do is extend the grip to match the front of the lens (which would much improve the grip, although it's not bad right now) and stick a larger batt in there.

I keep spare batts, but still, this would be an easy fix!

yes, now that you mention it seems so obvious - when one compares to the battery of the G16 for example - and that is a pretty small footprint camera.