*UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

[Dave92F1]

Even if the sensor is FF or even close... doesn't make much sence to "give" that much power to a non-lens changable camera... at least in my opinion.

I have to disagree there.  The best camera is the one you have with you.  If all I have room for is a G13, then I wan t the best G13 I can have (within the limits of size, weight, cost, etc.).  Sure, it may be pricey compared to an interchangeable lens camera, but if it's a lot smaller, then it's worthwhile - to some people anyway.

I would buy a T3 before I spent THAT kind of money on a P&S. (and it's cheaper and expandable... IE lenses!!!)

Perhaps you would, but other people (perhaps with bigger budgets) are willing to pay something extra for portability. 

IQ and flexibility are great, but they're not worth a thing if you don't have the camera with you.

[Tallyhawk]

We know this Powershot is the answer to M4/3, Nikon, Sony, et al, with all those Canon statements about how they're not convinced mirrorless compacts are the way to go, and that they're totally revamping the G series.

Why isn't it feasible for the G1X to have a 1.5" sensor instead of the 1/1.5?  $800 is totally nuts unless it can compete with the $1000 (at this point) Fujifilm - doesn't the X100 have an aps-C?

It does seem kinda silly to throw on a zoom lens instead of a prime on the G1X, but whatever, zoom appeals to the mass market.

There's no such thing as a "$500-$800" price point on point-and-shoots.  For $800, it's gotta be something completely different.

I'm not a pro (I don't usually get paid to take photos), so I can't justify any ILC because of the cost of lenses, and I'd much rather buy from Canon than Fuji.  If it's comparable, this camera sounds great.  For $800, there's no way it's just an S100 with external controls.  Right?

[elflord]

OK, maybe I'm wrong and it's not a 1.5x crop sensor.  Then how do you explain the $800 price (the G12 was $600), the f/16, and the reduced zoom range (compared to the G11/G12)?  (I'll ignore the shallow DOF promise as marketing nonsense.)

Re the shorter zoom range, they could have gone for faster or better quality glass. We still don't know what the aperture spec of the lens is (e.g. how big is the aperture at 112mm) Most of Canon's L lenses have a zoom ratio of no more than 3.

I agree that the pricing seems odd, but then, it's their flagship compact. My opinion is they really needed to go with a substantially larger sensor to keep the G line competitive, but it doesn't look like they've done that here.

Why isn't it feasible for the G1X to have a 1.5" sensor instead of the 1/1.5?  $800 is totally nuts unless it can compete with the $1000 (at this point) Fujifilm - doesn't the X100 have an aps-C?

That would basically make it the same size as an APS-C sensor. It's not plausible that they could build an APS-C zoom lens with the stated specs. Fuji X100 has a normal length prime -- if it had  a 17-70 zoom with f/2.5 at the wide end, it would be much larger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Compact_digital_camera_formats

[moreorless]

We know this Powershot is the answer to M4/3, Nikon, Sony, et al, with all those Canon statements about how they're not convinced mirrorless compacts are the way to go, and that they're totally revamping the G series.

Why isn't it feasible for the G1X to have a 1.5" sensor instead of the 1/1.5?  $800 is totally nuts unless it can compete with the $1000 (at this point) Fujifilm - doesn't the X100 have an aps-C?

It does seem kinda silly to throw on a zoom lens instead of a prime on the G1X, but whatever, zoom appeals to the mass market.

There's no such thing as a "$500-$800" price point on point-and-shoots.  For $800, it's gotta be something completely different.

I'm not a pro (I don't usually get paid to take photos), so I can't justify any ILC because of the cost of lenses, and I'd much rather buy from Canon than Fuji.  If it's comparable, this camera sounds great.  For $800, there's no way it's just an S100 with external controls.  Right?

The G series isnt "Point and Shoot" though, that would be the S series.

I can certainly see a larger sensor size than the X10 being possible but going beyond ASPC doesnt seem likely to me.

One area the rumours havent said anything about either is the viewfinder. If the G1X had a much larger viewfinder with better coverage and maybe some display info then that could make a massive difference.

[kapanak]

I am not going to say it will happen, but ruling out the possibility of a 1.5" sensor (24mm diag.) completely is naive. There have been compacts with very similar sensor size in the past. Of note, the Sigma DP1 and DP2 both had a sensor that is just a hair larger than this alleged G-series future sensor (1.7x vs 1.8x). They were also quite compact and took great photos. Also, they both started at $800.

[polpaulin]

This powershot has no interest art all  when Fuji, Sony and Ricoh, are making small  APS-C

[neuroanatomist]

But given the f/16 spec...

So...here's a question.  Even a very low (<6) MP APS-C sensor is diffraction-limited at f/16.  Why can EF-S lenses be stopped down to at least f/22 and in many cases to f/38?

Of course, the press release could simply be fake, or wrong...

Isn't it fun to speculate when we'll find out who is right in a few days?

Absolutely right on both counts!   

[I Simonius]

I too want a wee camera I can carry round easily BUT if it focusses as slowly as Canons other small offerings it's not for me. The panasonic focusses SO much faster on similar type models.

Just saying.....

[elflord]

I am not going to say it will happen, but ruling out the possibility of a 1.5" sensor (24mm diag.) completely is naive. There have been compacts with very similar sensor size in the past. Of note, the Sigma DP1 and DP2 both had a sensor that is just a hair larger than this alleged G-series future sensor (1.7x vs 1.8x). They were also quite compact and took great photos. Also, they both started at $800.

The DP1 and DP2 had pancake primes -- 16.6mm f/4, and 24mm f/2.8.  The G series according to the press release has a 4x zoom which is f/2.5 at the wide end.

It's possible to make a big sensor compact, but not with that lens spec.

[Richard8971]

I have to disagree there.  The best camera is the one you have with you.  IQ and flexibility are great, but they're not worth a thing if you don't have the camera with you.

Touche' I would have to agree with you on that. I carry a Powershot A590IS with me at all times for that possibility. I was just suggesting that 800 bucks is A LOT of money to spend on a pocket camera that cannot be "expanded" and more than likey will not have a lens that will bring true justice to a larger sensor. The lens is everything. That being said, there are plenty of less expensive Powershots out there that will fit the need.

[Lee Jay]

But given the f/16 spec...

So...here's a question.  Even a very low (<6) MP APS-C sensor is diffraction-limited at f/16.

No, they aren't.

Why can EF-S lenses be stopped down to at least f/22 and in many cases to f/38?

Because sometimes DOF or correct exposure are more important than preservation of detail.

Note that many planetary astrophotographers use 40D-sized pixels, and shoot at f/30 or so for maximum detail (they get the slow f-numbers by using barlows [teleconverters], not by stopping down - the aperture is always wide open on most telescopes).

[neuroanatomist]

But given the f/16 spec...

So...here's a question.  Even a very low (<6) MP APS-C sensor is diffraction-limited at f/16.

No, they aren't.

Why can EF-S lenses be stopped down to at least f/22 and in many cases to f/38?

Because sometimes DOF or correct exposure are more important than preservation of detail.

You're saying images taken using a dSLR with a typical APS-C sensor are not affected by diffraction at f/16?  Can you provide some evidence to back up that claim? 

BTW, the question about why diffraction-limited apertures are available was rhetorical.  Your examples illustrate my point - diffraction resulting in loss of sharpness is not a reason for Canon not to make f/16 available on a 1/1.5" sensor, which was the argument being made to support the idea of an APS-C-sized sensor in the G1x.

[neuroanatomist]

The best camera is the one you have with you.

That being said, there are plenty of less expensive Powershots out there that will fit the need.

+1

If Canon comes up with some clever way to flout the laws of physics and mate a large sensor with the rumored lens, and manages to sidestep the compromises and deliver excellent IQ from the G1x, it will be very interesting.  I think it's a pipe dream, but hey...dreams are good!

But for decent IQ in a truly portable package, I like my S100 (had an S95, which my wife now carries in her purse).  The S100 fits in my pocket, which is ideal if I can't bring a larger camera.  A G series or m4/3?  Might as well bring the 5DII and 24-105mm, at least.  Fortunately, my wife has grown very tolerant of me carrying lots of gear around on family outings, and also to me shooting frequently at home. The key, for those with wives and kids, is taking great shots of the kids.  The proof in the pudding was in early December - my wife was heading out to do some shopping, and said she wanted to take some family portraits for cards later that day.  She returned and walked into the living room, to find a 9' backdrop set up, and three light stands with a pair of 24" softboxes (430EX II's in them), and a monolight with a 48" octabox.  All I got was a raised eyebrow. 

[Richard8971]

I think it's a pipe dream, but hey...dreams are good!

If people didn't dream where would we be? I am sure everyone on here is here because we want some "inside" information on the technology that will be offered in the new cameras! Canon will produce whatever they think will sell and of course, we might get insights because a couple of reps sneek info now and then based on prototypes. Part of the business I suppose. How many rumors have you heard that were 100% accurate? Just about every camera that has been rumored has MOSTLY been true... so think about it.

I welcome a new  high-end powershot. $800 bucks? Personally, I will never buy it. Canon... if you are listening. A "point and click" no matter HOW advanced you make it, should NEVER cost as much as a DSLR. Just my opinion guys.

It's all in the lens... don't forget that... (Why? Show me a SMALL [point and shoot size] "L" quality lens... Which of course you WILL need for a FF or similar sized sensor!!!)

D

[Dave92F1]

You're saying images taken using a dSLR with a typical APS-C sensor are not affected by diffraction at f/16?  Can you provide some evidence to back up that claim?

Some quick work with Excel:

The Airy disc at f/16 is about 21 microns across (at 550 nm wavelength; that's greenish-yellow).

The 60D sensor has a pixel pitch of 4.28 microns, so it's definitely diffraction limited at f/16 - the Airy disc is about  5 pixels in diameter.  In fact it's diffraction limited starting around f/8 (generously).

A hypothetical Gx 1/1.5" sensor with 14.3 Mpixels (per the press release) would have a pixel pitch of about 1.53 microns (assuming it's a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor, as in all prior PowerShots).   

If you assume a sensor is "diffraction limited" when the Airy disc gets to be 2 pixels wide, that sensor would be diffraction limited starting at f/2.3 !!!   Which would be a crazy way to design a sensor - if you're diffraction limited even wide-open, why not reduce the number of pixels on the sensor?   You wouldn't lose any resolution at all, and you'd improve the low-light sensitivity.

Which makes me think, again, that the sensor is probably bigger than 1/1.5".

BTW, the question about why diffraction-limited apertures are available was rhetorical.  Your examples illustrate my point - diffraction resulting in loss of sharpness is not a reason for Canon not to make f/16 available on a 1/1.5" sensor, which was the argument being made to support the idea of an APS-C-sized sensor in the G1x.

OK, another interpretation is that they figured the best lens they could make for a 1/1.5" sensor is f/2.5 wide open, and they use a definition of diffraction-limited of slightly more than 2 pixels.

If you follow that logic, then they picked 14.3 Mpixels as the most they could fit in and still have them be useful (at least wide-open).   And it's true that compacts are used wide-open a lot (small lenses can still be extremely sharp wide-open; unlike DSLR lenses which almost always get sharper a stop or two down from wide-open).

A "point and click" no matter HOW advanced you make it, should NEVER cost as much as a DSLR.

I don't see what the price of a DSLR has to do with it, because a DSLR doesn't compete with a compact - the compact does things a DSLR can't (namely, fit in a small space).

I can imagine Gx cameras that I wouldn't pay $800, or even $500 for.

I can also imagine a (buildable) Gx camera that I'd happily pay $800 for.  It would have to have the flippy screen, a viewfinder (any viewfinder; electronic or optical, but not just the screen), faster focus than the G12, and be no larger than the G12.  The GPS and high-speed video features of the S100 would be a bonus.  If it had all that, I'd happily fork over the $800 even if the sensor is only 1/1.5".  I'd like more low-light capability as much as anyone, but in truth the G12's biggest weakness isn't in that department.

It's all in the lens... don't forget that... (Why? Show me a SMALL [point and shoot size] "L" quality lens... Which of course you WILL need for a FF or similar sized sensor!!!)

It's not all in the lens once you're diffraction-limited.  Once you've resolved all the detail that physics will let you resolve, you're done with resolution.  But you can still improve other things (focus speed, light sensitivity, etc.).

And I think the G11/G12 does have a L-quality lens already.  It is always much easier to make really sharp lenses for small sensors - the lenses are smaller and you can do things when making small lenses that aren't practical on larger ones.