Canon PowerShot G7 X III review: the compact camera that lets you broadcast to the world

Oh my god... It is really sad, when someone just can't face the truth... Smart phones sell much more than cameras, cameras will continue to drop in sales, namely because of Canon expensive crap... See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6irorkXCLyw

When people start talking about the 'truth', especially through a youtube link pointing at a single point in the contradictory babble of youtube, coupled with crude hyperbole to describe equipment you know there is a fixed mind set and no real discussion possible.

Now you have hurt my feelings :(. I hate smart phones, I just hate them, they are anti-social devices... I just don't wanna be forced to buy one. I always loved cameras, but right now I'm embarrassed...I'm the proud owner of one of the best mirroless cameras around, but I fear the future. Canon should take a stand, and what Canon is doing is holding back tech... No wonder people stop buying cameras, when the leader of the market is releasing worse cameras than competition, year, after year... That said, Sony cameras are still being spanked by these devices made for making phone calls... in the end, the IQ is what counts, who cares if it is all in auto...

I agree with you, with only one, single exception, with the future guaranteed by the laws of physics: the super/mega zoom cameras!

yes, you are right :) I just hope brands wake up, and start puting the same tech/processors found on the Iphone, and such on mirroless cameras. It would be awesome, because they have such a better hardware....

All except one review on there are pre-firmware update. The one post firmware update give it 4 stars saying that the AF performance in video equals that of the Mark II. Which was okay but not stellar, and that jibes with what they said in the review. I really don’t think there’s any hidden gremlins in this camera beyond that. I do think they could stand to lower the price a little, but that’s just me.

@GlobalGuyUSA
Because Sony throw money at the problem and some people can throw money at their hobby so the RX100 VII wins but how many can do that? Professional reviewers probably get it free so no skin off their noses.
The focus is not terrible on the Canon's just not the best you can get. Every fault gets hyperbolised by word of mouth to extremes on these sites.

My point is that in the past if you wanted to produce professional level stills and video you needed gigantic, conspicuous equipment. Even a GH 3 or GH4 would attract unwelcome scrutiny from nervous officials.
Now we have Canon delivering this modest little slingshot of a camera just at the time it is needed by the Davids of the world.

oh hell no, dslr, no!

Just look at the RAWs, there you see, that they're all very equal.

@cbphoto123: it is sad but entirely true. Scoring and evaluation on DPR is entirely useless. Even worse, it is misleading in many ways. Compare it to the research value of the casual blogger. But hey, it is (almost) free.

And Im sure it is not done on purpose. However it is a very strong influencer channel.

Several of the YT-ers that I follow do stream direct to YT especially for Q&A's so they can interact with viewers. Quality is usually poor, they often use phones, but if this does stream effectively it will be another good thing for live vlogging.

Can't come up with valid argument? Just make one up, nobody will notice. Right?

Cannot compete with a phone , perios.
Until they move to a more sophisticated software, it's just not there.

It will be interesting to show some images shot at 100mm with cropped phone images giving the same view from the same spot...

It will be interesting to see some videos shot with a smartphone in a waterproof housing at the depth of 30 meters.

I got that, which is why 35mm is still confusing, as it relates to film width including the non-imaging edges. Camera industry has a hard time getting rid of old habits or traditions, eh?

It's almost as bad as buying a 2x4, which isn't actually 2"x4". haha

I can only conclude that us humans are rather silly creatures who love inflicting unnecessary complexities upon ourselves.

For most people who buy this sensor size is just something that will confuse the hell out of them just (same as equivalence) like it does in phones, all they are interested in is if it suits their needs eg 4k, slow mo or what ever they need, in this case easy unloading to you tube will be a big draw

Marketing probably loves it -- making things sound bigger than they are. 1/2.3" sounds a lot more impressive than 6mm. LOL

You wonder what sensor size Sony would have used if that marketable 1" name was not to hand and it was purely based on the optimum size for digital compacts. The same could be said of 'full' frame also.

Reporting just the surface area is the worst of all possible options because it doesn't tell you anything about the aspect ratio. And if you're a photographer, that's a hugely important consideration. A wide aspect ratio can be a big selling point if you shoot lots of landscapes, or conversely if you shoot in lots of big tall objects you might want a format that tends toward square.
In my life I've seen 4:3 sensors, 3:2 sensors and 16:9 sensors. But if all you reported was the surface area, a 12 mp sensor could be 1 pixel high and 12 million pixels wide and I wouldn't know it until I got it the camera home.

But if you want confusing, stick with 35mm film. Stills cameras run film through the gate horizontally so the image area is 24x36. Movie cameras run it through vertically so the image area is 24.89×18.66 or 22×16 depending on the mechanicals in the camera.

In fairness, the current system doesn't tell you anything about aspect ratio, either. Only 'Four Thirds' (itself derived from the silly "-type naming scheme) implies anything about aspect ratio.

For me, a simpler naming scheme would be the crop factor instead. By assigning FF as 1x, apsc would be 1.5x, 1-inch would be 2.7x and so on and so forth as if you are assigning CD or DVD speeds back then.

Lightright,,,,but the crop factor don't tel you the aspect ratio like m43 crop factor is X2 but that don't tel you it has a different aspect ratio to FF....now i am going out on a limb here but folk cold just learn what the differences are between sensor sizes...i mean a child has learnt the differences between 26 letters of the alphabet by 4 years old (or 72 letters if you are Thia) and can put them in the correct order ,,,so come on guys its not rocket surgery

Davev8, aspect ratio would matter more with videographers more than the photographers. Besides, most cameras let you set how a video is shot anyway whether it be in 4:3, 16:9 or any other standard formats available. The thing with crop factor is that it gives you an idea about the size of the sensor without having to do with what units of measurement is used (imperial vs. metric), thus avoiding inconvenience with conversion and it is easier to tell its size relative to a full frame.

Pretty common in medium format, 6x6, 6X7, 6x9 are common format names that tell you everything you need to know. 645 and the digital 4433 are a bit more ambiguous but still contain the relevant information. I don't see why 36x24, 24x16, or 17x13 should be so hard to understand. All it takes is for one major publication to start using it consistently. How about it, Richard, some clarity for your audience?

so i have a FF lens with a field of view of 84 degrees ....what's the FOV if i fit it on a APS-c camera ?????

No davev8, you're not allowed to compare or consider different systems alongside one another. They're different things used for different reasons and you're just confusing people with your weird obsession.

No. It's not PC. Just say "I screwed up." Equivalence, as we can see from the endless frumphing and harrumphing it elicits, is a snare and a delusion.
The only person here who makes a lick of sense is dlb41 because the Yashica-Mat was a fantastic camera and it is a crime that no one has managed to solder together enough imaging chips to make a properly-sized sensor for that camera.

What is delusional about equivalence?

nothing.is delusional about equivalence..many use it all the time ..i spent over 30 years using film so know instinctively what results say a 50mm F2 lens will give me ...if i want the same results with say APS-c body its irrefutable that i need an equivalent lens...its not delusional its a physical fact of life so i know i need a (approximately as lenses don't fall exact in real life) a 30 to 35mm F1.4 ish ...now where the problem arises some think its a willy waving competition and get upset when you point out some facts

They actually do say how many: it’s “as many as you can afford without introducing too much motion blur and without clipping the highlights that you care about”, and that’s called “exposing to the right” (ETTR). The book I cited earlier (“Physics of Digital Photography”) has a section on that (5.8.3 “Exposing to the right”), in which it does say what the approach depends on. It basically identifies two broad classes of situations:

Situation 1: you can afford to expose more because light is in abundance or you are photographing a static subject using a tripod. In that case: do it (without clipping).

Situation 2: you are restricted in exposure (because you are shooting action or hand-held in low light). Then, at least increase the ISO setting as much as you can (again, without clipping the highlights) to minimize read noise relative to the signal.

So, yes, if you were expecting something like “expose 3 stops more”, you’re going to be disappointed. But there is a process to decide.

And you are the only equivalence proponent I've ever seen refer to an actual book. Which means you are worth listening to.
However, the equivalence leadership, not at all. Their references are all either other to forum posts or to Wikipedia—in other words they claim to be scientists but they don't even obey the basic rules of scientific inquiry. Statistical validation? It's their kryptonite.
Bottom line: Except for you and one other guy whose name escapes me, these equivalence pushers have no special insight. They've never programmed a camera operating system or spent one minute with the engineers who create cameras—they're just old men trying to relive their glory days by playacting at being experts and they think they've found their way in via "equivalence."
It would be fine if they kept to themselves in the echo chamber of what has now become the (Pseudo) Science and Technology forum but they think it's OK to peddle their nonsense in the beginner forum.

Also, that expose to the right technique, not only is it not equivalence photography, it's not even their idea.
They stole that from the late Michael Reichmann who actually was an expert and spent time with real engineers. Exposing to the right was born out discussions with Thomas Knoll. https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/

So, from what I gather, your problem is more with the equivalence “community” (that sounds a bit odd when I type it out) than with the concept of equivalence itself?

Thanks for that luminous-landscape.com link, it is rather interesting. However, it is odd to see the author insist that much on the number of encoding levels, which are not the actual main reason for using ETTR: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Or 23.976 for that matter or 29.97. The real answer is that if you're only going to shoot with this camera and never use other footage, it's no big deal in my experience.
But let's say you get ambitious and want to mix shots from your phone and your camera, some editing programs have trouble handling more than one frame rate in a project so it's good to have options.
And then, of course, there's the "cinematic" look of 24fps which is important for some people.
Bottom line: it's a little bit of everything.

Sometimes you just need more options to clear out flickering from light sources for example.

It always *baffles* me - autocorrect and no edit button here

Why do you need flexibility on shutter speed? Because sometimes power isn't transmitted at exactly 50hz or 60hz. Or possibly the clock in your camera is a little off. Or the anti-flicker setting is whacked.
And did you know that in Europe, they don't use the 180° rule? They shoot at 172.8°?
There are a lot of weird things that happen with electricity and video, especially when you're using generators. Once you've been out there and doing things for a while, you'll realize everything you know is wrong.

@DrewRick, I've made them aware several times about the lack of an edit button in mobile, but to no avail. They prefer to remain gimped in mobile. Thankfully they at least finally listened in the forum part of the site. Comments still a no-go.

redtailboas - We don't 'prefer to remain' less functional on mobile, we just haven't had the dev resources to upgrade the mobile commenting function yet.

We're aware of the problem and have it on our list of things to address.

It’s a Sony sensor, so not possible:(

I agree, it looks like shake in that F2 shot. It doesn't stop you interpreting the correct trend, but I'll see if any duplicates were shot. If not then I don't know how practical it'll be to re-shoot it.

@Richard, The edge performance doesn't follow trend and might also be related to IS. If you do reshoot these you might want to turn IS off - perhaps the camera's IS implementation isn't properly sensing tripod mounting.