These guys aren't in the wild but I had fun photographing them anyway.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't think that's as sad as the fact that lately the most anticipated lenses on a Canon rumor site aren't Canon lensesOr even Canon Cameras.
I think they know that the vast majority of users never go to print and will view only on a monitor. As for the video, it probably still looks great on a 50" TV. Yes it is expensive but the tech in it is head and shoulders above a lot of other cameras even if its sensor is "only" 1 inch.
As they have developed the camera and the system, I am noticing a trend - they are less concerned with IQ and more with speed.
Would I like an extra 2 stops of DR in my camera, in every shot? Hell yes.
Do I sometimes shoot HDR with tripod and 3-7 Images? Hell Yes.
Do I sometimes cheat and use HDR processing on a singe RAW image? Yes, but don't tell anyone.
Well maybe Canon is repositioning the G1X brand to compete with the RX100 II. The new design and control logic seems to be leaning towards that direction. I don't mind losing the top dial if the functionality is transferred to the second lens barrel ring - this would make it faster especially if you're looking thru the EVF or the screen. But 12 or 13 megapixels is too small for me as I like to isolate and crop details. This should have been 18 megs at least. Better DR would be welcome. Better implementation of HDR and pano would also be welcome. NFC is definitely for sharing pics. Wi-Fi is cool too. That optional grip does not look cool. Lensmate has an opportunity here. Can't wait to see sample pics to compare. The G1X.2 might seem like a step back, but then maybe Canon has something else brewing that's meant to duke it with the retro-mods (X100S, OM-DE-M-what?, Nikon Df, etc.). More waiting...
I hope this one will go to production.
Agree but want it to rival the Nikon 14-24 for IQ
I'll settle on 'well justifies an upgrade from the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II', which I think will have to be the same as 'rivals the Nikon 14-24mm's IQ'.
I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
The EF-S 18-55 on the left has a 'plastic mount', the EF 17-40L on the right has a 'metal mount'. Very few of us disassemble lenses, so we have no idea what's behind that mount surface. Roger is talking about how the screws that that attach that visible surface piece to the lens are connected - do those screws go into metal screw-holes that are attached to the frame of the lens, or are the screw-holes plastic?
'Plastic' can be quite strong, so for a 'light' lens (most lenses under 100mm, with the exception of the 'magic cannonball' 85L), I agree with Roger that I wouldn't expect any issues, and 'professional' could apply. However, for the bayonet 'teeth' of the mount, plastic wears down more easily than metal (vs. the screw-holes, which aren't subjected to routine 'wear'). That means a lens with a plastic mount (as I'd say is the common definition pictured above, not Rogers's use of the term), would be able to tolerate fewer mount/unmount cycles than a lens with metal bayonet teeth. Since a professional lens would be expected to last years and most 'pros' own several lenses and change them frequently, it makes sense to associate a metal mount (as pictured above, regardless of how it's screwed in) with 'professional' build.
Kind of hoping for a new chip that competes with the Sony/Nikon overall quality.