*UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

[PowerShotG2]

This will be a 2/3" sized sensor (close to the 8.8 x 6.6 mm Fuji X10) looking at the optical range and price.
If it were APS-C, then it would be around $1100-$1300. Canon won't let this cannibalize Rebels.

The key is for the camera lens to remain compact to be truly pocketable. The X10 feels about as bulky as MFT w/ pancake prime. If Sony improves the NEX kit lenses, then that would affect the market.
I'm still excited to learn more about this new Canon.

[kapanak]

For the price, I still feel that it would be a total rip-off.

[OvelhaMacho]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

[marinien]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor??? Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3 

[unfocused]

Looks like Wells Fargo pulled the release off their site.

I'm guessing someone didn't see the Jan. 10 release date, although I'm surprised it didn't have an "EMBARGOED UNTIL (Time) JAN. 10, 2012" which is the usual convention for news releases that aren't supposed to be printed before an official announcement/event.

Or, if it did, someone in the Wells Fargo office ignored it.  Same thing happened with the Fuji camera (same release date), so I wouldn't be surprised if an intern at Wells Fargo just posted the releases without paying any attention to the dates/embargo.

[pwp]

Oh oh...no viewfinder either optical or EVF on the G1X. I know plenty of Gxx owners who made their choice because of the viewfinder. Viewfinders on compacts are few and far between these days. Much better for refined composition, use in bright sunlight and especially holding steady at slow shutter speeds.

Are you a viewfinder aficionado? Quick! Snap up a bargain G12 today and secure your (compact) viewfinder future.

The price of the G1X? The G's are always high priced on release to cash in on the upgrade tragics. (Me!) Wait just a few months and see meaningful price drops.

Paul Wright

[takeapic]

Close in size to the LX5.

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

[takeapic]

Good point.  Already starting to happen with the S100.

Oh oh...no viewfinder either optical or EVF on the G1X. I know plenty of Gxx owners who made their choice because of the viewfinder. Viewfinders on compacts are few and far between these days. Much better for refined composition, use in bright sunlight and especially holding steady at slow shutter speeds.

Are you a viewfinder aficionado? Quick! Snap up a bargain G12 today and secure your (compact) viewfinder future.

The price of the G1X? The G's are always high priced on release to cash in on the upgrade tragics. (Me!) Wait just a few months and see meaningful price drops.

Paul Wright

[neuroanatomist]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???

Ummmm...not quite.  What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H.  Decimal point, not fraction.  It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size.  The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.

Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3

It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho.   

[marinien]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???

Ummmm...not quite.  What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H.  Decimal point, not fraction.  It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size.  The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.

Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3

It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho.   

Neuro, I am disappointed  . Of course I knew he meant decimal point and not fraction. I was just teasing him while saying 1.9 is bigger than 1.3. I said that he wasn't reading because you, among others, have said in this thread that a 1.5" sensor is smaller than APS-C and bigger than 4/3" sensor. Besides, you are the first in this thread who mentioned the 1.9 crop factor. See ... I was reading 

[davidlog]

This so called “pre-release” announcement might be a way that Canon is doing some survey for what kind of pro DC camera people like you are waiting for.

Why there is no such question asked how this announcement was found, who found it? 

If this is true, your guys are doing good trying to answer Canon’s long list of questions…

[kirispupis]

Dear Canon,

I am a huge fan of your cameras and currently own a 5D2, 7D, and G11.  I also have a 1D-X on preorder.  I never bought the G12 because it did not appear to be a huge step up from the G11 and rececently I picked up the X10 finally to replace it.  At the time I was a bit worried that Canon would release some 'supercompact' in the G12 space that would make me regret picking up the X10.

After the news on the GX1 today, I no longer regret my choice.  From the specs the X10 still appears superior in almost every way.

When I was growing up I lived in the same town as Eastman Kodak.  Many of my friends' parents worked there and we used to tour the factory every year as kids.  It is very sad that due to management oversight they will likely no longer exist by the end of the year.

Please wake up and look at what your competition is doing out there.  Do not become another Kodak.

[WoodyWindy]

Those saying Canon can't put a large sensor and a fairly long zoom in a compact camera are forgetting that it used to be done all of the time with film:


http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/compact_film_cameras/sure_shot/sure_shot_classic_120#Specifications

 - Woody -

[dougkerr]

Hi,

This will be a 2/3" sized sensor (close to the 8.8 x 6.6 mm Fuji X10)...

Yes, I assume that this is the case.

This is the size that started this whole absurd sensor size designation scheme in  the days of the "2/3 inch" Vidicon!

Best regards,

Doug

[dougkerr]

Hi, Freak,

Yerry - just checked that link. Wow - 1/1.5" is pretty close to APS-C size (at 1.5 crop)!

This absurd system of specifying sensor sizes goes back to the "2/3 inch" Vidicon tube (so-called because of the diameter of its "bottle"), which had a target (sensor) 8.8 x 6.6 mm in size. That  relationship was continued, proportionally, for small-sensor digital cameras (since stating the actual size would have worried the consumer by seeming "terribly small").

But because even those numbers sounded so small (still worrying the marketing people), the further convention was adopted of specifying the "size" as the reciprocal of a number larger than 1 (to make the stated number bigger).

Thus the "2/3 inch" size became the "1/1.5 inch" size.

And that is the size presumably being discussed here - implying a sensor size of about 8.8 x 6.6 mm.

Best regards,

Doug