The Canon G1 X Mark III is what would happen if someone crammed a Canon 80D or M5 into a Powershot G5 X body, which is pretty cool. The body is impressively small and light weight, given its large sensor and useful 24-70mm equiv. zoom range, even if the F2.8-5.6 aperture is a tad slow. We're excited to get it in and get shooting, but for now, here's a look into some of its main features and specs.
When I'm asking myself what can my camera do better than my smartphone, one of the obvious things would be the zoom range. It does not have to be a monster zoom, the one from G1X is actually quite ok. With better sensor resolution and 1 stop better light gathering capacity Mark II would have been a perfect camera. I would be ready to pay 1,5k$ for this, but not for this cripple
I had a play with a pre-release model today in my store, kindly supplied by a Canon rep. In the hand it feels like a small OM-D. Great EVF, solid body. The touch UI is very user friendly (better than my E-M5 II), simple to change settings. With 3 dials (one on lens, one in front of trigger and one around rear buttons) you get heaps of manual control. Coming from an Oly fanboy, I found the total package of the G1X III the most compelling small canon I've used yet. I'm not so concerned about the lens, it's basically the same as a high quality Fuji X series kit lens but built into a tiny body. Customers who bought the XE-1 and XE-2 kept using that kit lens for years. Almost impossible to make an APSC mirror-less camera this small. It should be judged by what it does well, it's a good replacement for entry level DSLR's (too chunky and heavy) and for people looking for better quality in a small package. Fantastic grey nomad / retiree camera. More comfortable than a RX100
In this day and age, Canon puts out a $1300 camera that does not have 4K video, has a short zoom range (less than 3X) and small apertures throughout its zoom range. What is Canon thinking?
What used to be said may not apply anymore. As an example, the 25X Zeiss zoom lens on the Sony RX10 IV is an excellent lens, despite it having eight times the range of the Canon.
I would pay $400 more to buy the Sony instead of Canon's expensive and feature-lacking PowerShot G1X III.
Typically for canon: There is always something missing. A little longer zoom (okay, let it be ...), no 4K video, and most importantly, there is sony that has far better and sharper jpg image processing.
...Was just comparing IQ from Canon M5 ( I presume G1X III uses the same sensor ) and Lumix LX100 ! To my astonishment the noise levels on both are basically identical even on high ISO levels ! So for me at least this is no brainer I would gladly wait for Lumix LX200 with 16Mpx sensor ( I think they are going to use the full size M3/4 20Mpx sensor but slightly cropped for multi aspect ratio ) With the lens going from 1.7 to 2.8 this camera is absolutely incredible. I can shoot in very dim light and have almost 2 stop advantage over G1X III . If only Panasonic would include tilting screen and full square format which would take advantage of the multi aspect ratio sensor I could easily forgive slightly lower resolution.
If you are a landscape photographer and only shoot still scenes with a large depth of field, does it matter that this camera has a 'slow lens'? I currently have a G7X Mkii and looking to upgrade, but still want a fixed lens camera.
If this had 4k and maybe a SLIGHTLY faster lens, I may be drooling over this one. I'd be okay with an f/2.8-4 or maybe even a fix f/4 aperture lens for the range and sensor size combo. Just something about f/5.6 that I hate as being as wide open as I could get at the tele end...this kills the camera for me. I do have an RX100 m3 with it's f/1.8-2.8 lens, but that only has to cover the 1" sensor. I get it, Canon can't quite do that with an APS-C. Fine. Go for and f/4 fixed and make life easier. The omission of 4k is unforgivable. It is SO handy, no just for video, but for pulling still from video, I can't imagine not having it now.
That has already happened, it had an f1.8 lens, could do 4K and all kinds of superfast shooting modes...and with on sensor pha'-se detection. So yeah, drooling accomplished.
The 1" sensor cameras are much smaller and yet the lens is still equivalent to this Canon plus those cameras have more features. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why dpr might drool over the obviously better option regardless of the brand. If you want dpr to drool over the Canon then get Canon to wake up. Canon has a lot of brand equity but they are spending a lot of that equity every time they release another camera that misses in too many key areas. The G1X Mark III I'm sure will be an enjoyable camera to use... just don't compare it to the competition and expect any drooling.
Someone posted this in another thread. It looks like Canon hosted an event for the press to take photos with the G1X III. RAW files are available to download if you click on the photo (don't click on Download Original). It's really hard to gage the performance of this camera with these pics though.
Yes. But where does a G1X II user go from here. The new camera has inherited the name but nothing else going from f3.9 at 62.5 mm to f5.6 at 45mm and to replace it a mini EOS-M fixed lens clone. 1" is hopeless on shallow field unless you go super zoom. Canon gave us a tantalising glimpse of what you can do with a fixed lens camera with all the depth of field advantages of a large sensor but they then produce a Mark III version where the link is rather tenuous with the old one. You will have to forgive the current users chewing brick dust at the moment.
No matter which G1X Mark III thread I open, I find an army of morons that ask "why not just get a mirrorless and put a lens on it and save money". This camera is not for everyone, but you can put it in your pocket and take it with you to harsh conditions with moisture and dust. Just use Dpreview comparison tool and you'll see that this camera beats G7X /G5X/Sony RX100 in image quality. That's why you get this camera. Its portability can not be compared to mirrorless camera with a lens on it, it's much smaller. And when it comes to small portable cameras with a zoom, to me it seems like the best one available right now.
Is there already image comparisons on DP? I'm waiting for the review and to be able to compare image quality with other cameras. I think the image quality of this camera will be close to Canon's SL2.
"I find an army of morons that ask "why not just get a mirrorless and put a lens on it and save money". "
The morons are right though. The Panasonic GX85 is smaller than this Canon with 4K recording, dual 5 axis stabilization, competitive autofocus system and better DR than any thing Canon offers even for a micro 4/3. Indulge yourself with $500 saved for lenses.
The pancake kit lens attached adds in very little on its overall size so it doesn't really affect its portability that much. The 'smaller' sensor of panasonic can rival today's apsc offering when it comes to dynamic range performance and image quality to the point that its moot and academic and the megapixel count only matters to people who plans to print billboard sizes which comes down to what is practical. Sorry but nothing on this camera is compelling enough to justify its price tag when other alternatives offers so much value for much less.
I should've said in my original post that the idea is to be able to put the camera in your pocket, which is my own fault. There isn't currently a mirrorless camera that fits in jean pockets, so in that sense G1X Mark III is unique being just 2 inches thick and comes with many other attractive features.
The 12-32mm pancake lens has such small aperture that there's practically no bokeh. You can criticize G1X Mark III for having "only" f/2.8-5.6 but Panasonic's f/3.5-5.6 on a smaller sensor is much much worse than that. Sure you can get bokeh if you take a picture of a coke can but that's about it.
Price is lower, absolutely - but quality in many department is worse as expected. Value is a subjective thing. You get what you pay for. If you're ok with less quality, you will certainly save money.
"Price is lower, absolutely - but quality in many department is worse as expected. Value is a subjective thing. You get what you pay for. If you're ok with less quality, you will certainly save money."
Actually, you are getting more value for a better quality than what Canon offers at a reasonable price.
If you want to compare image quality, canon rep told me it uses the same sensor as the 80D. No contest for micro 4/3, much better in low light, not at all bad at being tiny.
No problem. Enjoy being a serious photographer! As my nickname suggest, portability is my number one priority and I don't even pretend to be a serious photographer.
I am a serious photographer. But, as I've said elsewhere, I used to lug a Pentax 6x7 around. Have you ever seen what that looks like? It's like a HUGE 35mm camera. And, with a lens, it's really, really heavy. I even had a special backpack for it. The weight was wrecking my back. And, I wasn't enjoying photographing any longer. So, I look for as best a camera I can get in as small a container as possible. I've had both the original G1x and the Mark II. I want portability too. But, to me that means something I can put in my backpack and light. I use my backpack everyday. Not too big. Commuter size. That works for me.
The aperture gets smaller as you zoom in. Just guessing these numbers in between but it's gonna be something like this: 24mm @f2.8 35mm @f3.5 50mm @f4.5 72mm @f5.6
Keep in mind, those are f-numbers at 1.6x crop. If you want to calculate full frame dof equivalence, you have to add about 1 stop.
I'd be more impressed if the lens were faster at the long end. As opposed to 2.8-5.6, it should have been 1.8-4.0, especially since it's a $1,300 camera. I will stick with my Sony A6500, Sony rx10 lll, and Canon G5X. for the time being.
Yeah. Those specs appear to be a bit pice/performance disappointing.
At different times, I had both the G1X Mark II and the G5X ... much preferred the G5X ... until it was trashed with a splash of water from my kayak. My bad.
But can hardly wait for a G5X Mark II. Or maybe I should go Olympus TG5 waterproof ;-)
Another camera that is repackaging what's already "old" on the market in a slightly different config. 3 years ago would be interesting... maybe, if not for a5100 AND a6000 at half the price or less. Another breakthrough! offering from Canon, LOL. Good cameras, but zero innovation, trailing almost everyone. Feels like yesterday's burger. Don't they read papers? ...and this is what they offer for 2018? 24 MPix and 1080/60p... Looks like this is ALL they got.
thee quality and style that the x100 possesses compared to the Frankensteinian mess this is is strong
this is canon making an expensive slow point and shoot telescoping zoom it looks like it was designed by a committee never to make a corner evf compact from canikon ever
hahaha hahaha.... the canon has a smaller than normal apsc , is housed in perhaps the clunkiest god awful bodies ever made .... it is a profoundly ugly creation with a slow zoom.... I'm sure the dynamic range of the sensor will be in typically pathetic canon fashion
the Fuji is an exquisite prime lens based compact with clearly marked controls .. the lens is embedded deep within the body leading to incredible compactness in a camera of this type unlike the giant pseudo prism of the canon ..the fuji has and an amazing hybrid ovf\evf the canon is more the Edsel of camera design ... cant wait to see how poor that zoom is .....5.6 slow at the long end ... some enthusiest slant there
This camera should have existed in 2004 (minus the EVF and weather sealing). No reason for the 13 year delay. It should have cost about $900 then and should cost about $500 now.
If you believe that rebels would not have sold then you're admitting that Canon isn't offering what customers would have preferred (or that they're significantly overpriced).
My first reaction was Oh My, look at that large impressive price - I can't afford that, at least not today. But my hope is that eventually Sony, Panasonic, and heck even Nikon if they ever get to making a larger sensor compact, will follow Canon's path. If this is even somewhat successful then other manufactures will compete, improving the technology and price. Look at what happened 1" sensor market.
The combination of a large, high res sensor, weather sealing, EVF and flexibility of a zoom lens make this potentially a good choice for people who like to trek/climb to remote places to do landscape without compromising too much on image quality. A DSLR may be too bulky and heavy and even compared to most mirrorless options you still get smaller size and slightly higher image quality potentially. The relatively slow aperture and limited zoom range would not be much of a problem in this case. The poor battery life would be a pain, but this could be worked around with a few spare batteries. I say potentially because it really all depends on the lens - currently an unknown quantity. It would need to be very good across the frame and through the zoom range to make it a worthwhile proposition for this kind of scenario. Can't say I think that's very likely though...
It also might be attractive to those of us who enjoy picture taking and believe in the adage: the best camera is the one you have with you. After lugging around the huge and heavy Pentax 6x7 for years, I love being able to put my Mark II in my commute backpack. It's there for when I need it. Depending on the real world examples and comparisons when DPReview gets its hands on one, this may be a good step for me, despite the smaller optical zoom.
Why is ugly? In Havana people are taking images with camera made of cans and scrap metal...that is ugly but functional.I do not see ugly. I see competitor to Sony camera lineup having a better deal...
there is a charm and sense of personal industry from the way cubans can retask and keep technology alive thru sheer force of will and ...."scraps of metal"
i think this is cool as well
but this canon is the ugliest cameras ever made ... i fi nd canikon as a "brand " c annot make a compact that makes any sense to me .... this hump and slow cheaply telescoped lens barrel... leave me baffled
Unrelated, New Honda-CRV price has jumped 10 000$ in Canada in past 8 years. 26 000$ to base model to 36 000 to base model. They say inflation is 2% per year but likely it is 8% in north America. so trickle down this to camera market that is what is reflected in price..
The best of this camera is the concept, oher brands will imitate that soon, and then we Will have FZ200 APSC , Lx100 APSC sucesor... I have one A6000 with 4 lenses, y hate to change lens, I don,t enjoy that, i travel for discover and learn, i don,t travel only for make photo, chage lenses is a este Of time, all for make some bad shoots, i love dof in my 1.8 and my macro lens and i will continues use it but i ordered an FZ1000 for the casual shoots in travel, despite its small 1" sensor.
If FZ1000 had APSC sensor and 2.8 constant, maybe woldn't need my a6000 with all the lenses.
Maybe this little Canon it,s the beginning of something. I never understood why Rx10 and FZ series don,t includes an APSC sensor, seeing their size and price....
If it was priced at 899 USD it would be a replacement for my trusty LX100. I'd be happy to pay their asking price if this had an L lens. But unfortunately the only parts of this camera that have red rings are the dials.
I'm looking for a new replacement for my old (and trusty) Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I don't want to haul my 5DM3 and its huge housing along.
This camera has all the right stuff. Sure, the price is quite a bit higher than I have been expecting but considering the tech inside, it's very much what I've been looking for. Just waiting for the serious reviews to come in, and hopefully Ikelite making a housing for it.
It's small with an dSLR sensor in it. That's perfect for me.
To those who are bitching about the slow lens. Apperture wise it is comparable to the Panasonic-Leica 2.8-4.0 in the Micro-Four-Thirds system, considering the larger sensor of the Canon. So, what is not to like?
This camera is surprisingly small. In size, it's almost identical to the 1" sensor Canon G5 X. The only difference is that this camera is a little thicker.
@justmeMN the LX100 has a bigger lens. If cannon had gone with the same size lens they would have had a faster lens than they do now for very little extra size. I think many people here would have made that trade off. If Cannon had been willing to make the G1X III's lens the same size as the lx100 it would have been 1/2 stop wider at the wide end and a stop faster at the tele-end. And judging by the official example photo's it would have delivered better quality as well.
Cannon made an apsc camera that is smaller than the LX100, but it seems most people would have been happier to see it be the same size with a faster lens. It wouldn't be much bigger than it is now.
Again camera manufacturen gone mad with price tag.... Simply insane!!! It should cost around 700€. And please don't explain me why it have to cost that much because there ist nothing.
If you live in a humid environment you know that dslrs are not fast when it comes to dehumidification. This camera is weather sealed and time waiting for the lens fog to clear will be substantially less. Just like my G3 X but without the magnesium alloy.
I live in Spain, it,s all about borring sunny skyes.... For my it,s very expensive, even considering its unique features. But it,s not the only one. Rx100v is ridiculously pricely, Rx10 III, FZ2500, X100T, Leica (all of them..). No cost what it costs. "Photographers" are very little pragmatic when buying our cameras, they cheat us with tricks of magic and smoke.
Canon could easily charge $1,500 for this if it had an exceptional piece of glass. I don't think the lens is up to par here. It's really as simple as that.
Not really, there is no lens with that zoom range, so slow, for 1000 €, the rest of the camera is not worth more than the 500 € you propose. It's too expensive.
Not so small actually, http://camerasize.com/compare/#723,535 , it´s small compared to a DSLR body but not poketable in any case, the only poketable cameras for mi are Rx100, G9X and LX15, I always carry my rx100 (the original) with me, I had a Fuji X70, even the rx100iii (disappointing for me next to the original) was bulky for me and could not replace the original.
Today there are options of mirrorless cameras with more or less the same size, for less money and with the possibility of putting a prime lens, fast, for portrait or macro dedicated lens, which are photographs that I at least appreciate a lot, and I am sure not they will be too good in this camera. Not even the wide angle that at first looks attractive with 24mm, as it will have to correct a lot of distortion of the lens due to the compact size.
I'd expect a 1" sensor camera to be smaller than an APS-C based. But expecting a 2.8 zoom on a APS-C body to pocketable seems unrealistic. Or at least it should include a jacket with big pockets.
Again we hear the lamentations and groaning in the land. I wanted 60p 4K! I wanted at least a constant f2 zoom! I want pocketability! I want it for $300!!!!. "let me show you the equivalence shame".
Even my 3 1/2 year old Samsung phone had 4K is it too much to ask for in a device dedicated to photography and video ? And since the G1X Mark III isn’t anywhere near pocketable why not make it a little bit larger and add a F2-4 aperture instead? Now it just looks like a Sony A6000 with the kit lense glued to the body.
Your phone does not have an APS-C sensor. As for questioning the price, sure. But you need to compare against a market segment competitor. Kind of like saying “My John Deere tractor is a much better deal than your Porsche”.
BS, lots of whining about lens speed yet they complain it doesn't fit in the pocket. Some are comparing it on price to the Sony Nex-3. Look at the comments. Plenty of unrealistic notions.
@Photomonkey How many people are really complaining that it doesn't fit in the pocket? What percentage of people? How many people are really comparing it to an NEX 3? What percentage of people? You're really making some ridiculous generalizations.
@T3, Let's see.... This thread has almost no defenders of this camera. The topics of criticism center on price, lens, lack of 4K and size. The size is addressed in several ways. "The lens is too slow, fail". Ignoring that the camera and collapsible zoom is extremely compact because of the speed. Some have commented on its unsuitability for travel because they can't put it in their pocket like an X-100. The list of complaints and whining is endless in this and other threads. Yet almost none of these people will ever shoot with one or the vast bulk of cameras they comment on. I actually have shot with a large variety of cameras and can comment on those I have used. For the vast bulk of these people they will not see a difference between a 12MP P&S and a Nikon D850 when looking at JPGs on their iPad or phone and yet will declaim loudly on every camera or lens ever made.
@Photomonkey - I think you should probably count yourself as a complainer. Except that you're not complaining about any concrete feature or spec. You're just complaining about the complainers, lol.
I think people are perfectly reasonable to voice what they don't like about a product. I'm less supportive of people who are simply complaining about those who are voicing what they don't like about a particular product as if that product is their own child or something.
Well I've shoot a Canon G3 550D Pentax KX K30 K500 Nikon D5100 D5500 Panasonic Fz1000 G3 Gx7, Gx8, LX100 Fujifilm X-F1 X-E2 X-T20 Sony A6000 and Rx100 MK3
And I just don't see the added value of this new product. Honestly I don't think it's people complaining here at fault. But the market researchers and marketing of Canon themselves.
They don't seem to look at what's available beyond their own brand. And this is objectively depending on how you look at it either overpriced or underspecced.
Which samples sold you on it? I wasn’t impressed by Canon’s official shots, but I’d consider it ignorant someone has great samples on display somewhere.
Except for a very small handful of people who have a very specific use for this camera, I think this camera is aimed at people who know just enough about cameras to make them dangerous to their wallet. The price tells me that people who are buying this camera are planning to buy this camera as a long-term investment and get serious about photography. And they think they are essentially getting a DSLR with all the most common focal ranges covered with a decent lens. It is definitely not the case
It doesn't have the reach for sports.. 72mm is a bit short for portraits but more importantly at 72mm, you can only shoot at f5.6 (on a crop sensor, that's f/8 full frame dof equivalence). You're not going wow anyone including yourself. It's not bad for landscapes but you'll be itching to go wider. Lastly, 80D sensor is mediocre outside of ISO 100. It gets grainy very quickly because of it's high pixel density, and you won't be shooting too many photos at ISO 100 due to its slow lens.
mmmm Michael my wife just gave me a Eos M6 as a surprise present and although I'm not crazy over apsc sensors I find up to 800iso the image quality is more than good enough and 1600 iso is also good depending on subject matter and lighting - I have to do more tests though. If the G1Xmk3 is anything like the M5 or M6 then it will make a kick ass travel camera...although the price might be a bit steep initially, but I'm sure it will drop in due course...but perhaps you and I iare not the intended market ... my son just splurged more than the price of a 80D on a cellphone, for me it is unthinkable but clearly the manufacturers know their market a lot better than I (or you)...and I think perhaps we have to admit that Canon as market leader knows their market very very well...as for f8 portraits...I use that and F5.6 all the time and I have yet to have a client complain.....some of us need a bit more in focus than just the eyelashes....
I think people willing to spend $1300 for this camera (enthusiast) will outgrow this lens very quickly. It's a terrible place to be having just spent $1300 with zero room for flexibility. M5/M6 is a much better buy.
I taught college level photography for 23 years. I still have my Pentax 6x7 that I lugged around until my back started to hurt. Good quality: yes. Pain to carry around: yes. I stopped enjoying taking photos.
I've had the G1x Mark I and Mark II cameras. I love the convenience of being able to put this size camera into my daily backpack. I don't need a high end DSLR to take good and interesting photos. I want decent quality with portability. Will I buy this camera: it depends on the real world comparisons when someone gets their hands on one.
The new 24MP Canon sensor delivers better image quality (with the 18-55mm kit lens, which is worse than this specifically designed and corrected 15-45mm for the sensor one) than any 1" camera, from Sony or Canon.
Depth of field never was 50mm f/1.8 league in Canon rebels + their kit lens but it was always pretty much enough for most of the world taking pictures that never buy a second lens out there, from beautiful landscapes to great portraits. The sensor low ISO DR is great and the high ISO performance is top notch.
Not defending this camera because I think any buyer would be stupid if they don't get the M5 + 15-45mmm bundle and an EF converter + 50mm f/1.8 (85mm f/2.8 equiv) and still have 100$ for a used 10-18mm or a 55-250mm!
Ebrahim: This is what i wanted to say too. The sensor is just so much bigger that im sure it will have better image quality in low light than any 1 inch sensor camera, even with the slower lens.
I was just trying to address that the lens is not that slow comparing to Sony RX100. I never said that the Sony RX100 is better... No one that I know is going to take model pics with this camera! You don't want to take family or group vacations pics using f2.8 as well, too! That is why I said that this will be a good vacation camera!
At the long-end this lens is F5.6 Vs F2.8 That means a Sony rx100 or Panasonic LX would have 4 times the light intensity.
An 1 inch sensor is 1/3rd the size and a bit more efficient (bsi) In the end in low light the 1 inch compacts win by a squeeze.
Just math and physics.
Now resolution/detail at base iso is another discussion. There the larger sensor with more megapixel will win. Could be by a decent margin if the lens is solid. But samples don't look that inspiring unfortunately.
Richard Canon Apsc has a crop factor of 1.62x not 1.5 like Sony or Nikon. Which makes it an F9 at the long end.
And then the one inch sensors are just a hair more sensitive for the given size. Because they use back side illumination instead of front side like this one.
BarnET, you are correct. Canon has a 1.6X crop factor.
My point was that the Canon lens is not that slow compare to the Sony RX100V 1.8-2.8 lens! People are complaining about the Canon lens and was just trying to show that it's about the same. The Sony numbers look great, but it's the same after you calculate the lens factor to a full frame (only a 1/3 of a stop difference).
I think the Canon has the edge since it has a larger sensor with larger pixels. My Panasonic LX100 has great low light capability compare to other advanced point and shoots thanks to it's larger pixels.
I'm just trying to say that it's going to be a great travel camera for it's physical size and sensor size. For me, I'm going with the compact Fujifilm X-E3 which I just got. It's perfect for me with the pancake lens and a few extra lenses for travel.
A crappier sensor with a faster lens doesn't make it better. It is what it is. You can watch samples from Canon 1" 2.8 and g1xiii/any new aps-c canon + kitlens.
Seems like the reasonable first thing to do instead of running EV stop math right?
This site has a comparison tool too I believe. Go look their make your conclusion.
@Ebrahim Saadawi You are correct. My point is both cameras have about the same lenses (as far as light passing in). Some were saying that this camera lens was a disappointment. Sensor on the Canon is bigger so it has bigger pixels and that is what makes it better in low light etc. I rather purchase this camera vs any 1" sensor camera.
if you have a faster lens you can use lower ISO's. At which these smaller ones will outperfom the bigger one.
A faster lens allows the user to work arround the smaller sensor limitations and get a final image with LESS grain and MORE dynamic range nad less depth of field = more background blur.
Simply physics in the real world which doesn't seems to apply in Canon fanboy world.
@BarnET Correction! I am not a Canon fanboy! I'm actually a Sony fanboy who sold all my Canon gear to convert to Sony... However, I actually know what is good and what is bad with 25 year of shooting from Canon AE1, Minolta X700, Nikon F4s, F5, Mamiya 645, Nikon D1hs, D200, D70, Canon 30D, 40D, 50D, 1dmrkiis, 7D, 7Dmrkii, Sony a6000, a6300, a6500, a7r, a7rii...
I can develop my own film and also able to develop color film. I use to print my own prints bw or color.
I know dynamic range and dof more than you can imagine. Please don't insult me by trying to educate me.
oh hey Barnet just set us all straight. We totally forgot about how lens speed affects image and didn't talk about that in the conversation at all anywhere. Wow, faster lens is better? Cool stuff
Miss my FZ200 more than I thought I would. The K-50 is a big upgrade in almost all areas but the FZ200 is a lovely camera. May one day get the FZ330 to replace it.
Have you considered a Stylus 1/1S? Not APS-C but it's 1/1.7 with an f2.8 constant lens.
If I wanted a dinky little camera with proper dials on it... oh, and a large choice of interchangeable lenses, 4K video, very good dynamic range, likely firmware updates, and all for much less $ than this Canon will ever be... I'll take the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III please! Far, far, more versatile and still tiny.
Depends of whether the Canon is really smaller than Oly. I have Oly M10 II but I'm looking for even smaller camera with roughly the same capabilities, especially video.
Considering the price of Sony RX100 V, I think that the price of G1 X Mark III is reasonable, *only if* everything works as advertised. It looks very nice, and "Full Manual Control" and "Moisture and Dust" resistance body are good features I would like to have. I wish it were F4 at 70mm end, but would it make the camera so big? I don't know....
Show me a collapsible f/2.8 zoom for that is equally diminutive... (because really, that is what sets the G1 X III apart) I can be wrong, but I even think that doesn't exists for MFT either, right?
I don't know, how much do I know about photography and dollar spent :) Sony a7ii with the kit is 1800. Ricoh GRii is 600. Is this Canon somewhere in the middle? I mean who is doing anything with fast action with a 24-70? I just see the G1Xiii for street photographers who need small for discrete. School me please.
Certainly looks like the new Canon is capable for BIF ha! Really Tommi this new body is touted as 7fps capable, 9 with fixed focus, but where do I need this frame rate and the also touted AF-tracking (dual pixel AF) at 70mm ?? Hey, color me stupid if you want, I've got thick skin, I just see this as a wonderful Canon but severely focal length challenged.
It would be good to have from time to time a technical explanation of how a certain camera works on the inside. For instance it would be interesting to have a blueprint of the G1X Mark III if available. To explain how the shutter leaf mechanism is implemented on it and what are the advantages and disadvantages for example.
A versatile APS-C compact that just about fits in your jacket pocket? We couldn't pass up the chance to shoot with a pre-production Canon G1 X III when it rolled into the office.
Canon's new PowerShot G1 X Mark III combines a 24MP APS-C sensor and hybrid autofocus system in an impressively compact body. Canon has been showing it to us at the Photo Plus Expo show in New York.
With the arrival of the PowerShot G1 X III, there are now seven Canon cameras built around the 24MP Dual Pixel sensor and Digic 7 processor. We take a look at the differences and what might prompt you to choose one over the others.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
The weather and has most definitely taken a turn toward fall here, and our shooting opportunities have followed suit. We brought the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 along to a harvest festival of sorts and a few of our usual haunts.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has signed House Bill 1346 into effect, which imposes a fine upwards of $300 to drone operators who invade the privacy or harm the physical wellbeing of citizens.
Sigma is a company in flux, but CEO Kazuto Yamaki is undaunted by the upcoming prospect of developing lenses for eight lens mounts. The challenge will be keeping the company's identity along the way.
If you've been meaning to convert all of your old photos, video, and audio to digital formats, but simply lack the time or willpower to get through it all, a new service from Kodak will help you get the job done.
Almost all new cameras include impressive video features, but for the best results you'll often need an off-camera recorder. Chris and Jordan take a look at the brand new Ninja V from Atomos, and explain why it might just be one of the most useful tools you can add to your camera.
Sick of using your plain ol' keyboard to edit your photos in Lightroom and Photoshop? TourBox is hoping to expedite your post-production workflow using a clever combination of dials, buttons, and knobs.
We sat down with the Google Pixel camera team to learn about key new camera features on the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL, and an explanation of the sophisticated software advancements that power them.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The FAA has issued a warning to drone pilots in anticipation of disaster response following Hurricane Michael, noting that fines for interfering with emergency operations can exceed $20,000.
At a time when manufacturers are adding triple and even quad-cameras to their flagship smartphones, Google is sticking with one main camera. But given the sophistication of the company's computational efforts, we think it's the right approach for now.
Comments