Reichmann has a lot of good things to say about this camera. He even compares it to the A7II with the Tamron 150-600.
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:Will not even consider G3X and don't see, why anyone would buy it. Too large for shirt pocket. No viewfinder. Sony Rx100 IV far superior in every way. Even if its got to be by Canon, then similar-sized EOS-M3 offers larger APS-C sensor and lens mount. However, No EVF either ... So yet another fantastic camera by oh so innovative Canon ... for photographic masochists.
Or $0 -- since I already have a bundled one that came with the M3 that I hardly use anyway. Nice!dilbert said:EVF is available for $250.
dilbert said:It is interesting to see the reaction from people on CR.
No response it all in the thread I started on the Luminous Landscape review. I don't know if that's stunned silence (nobody knows what to say) or just that nobody cares because it isn't a DSLR (which would be a pity.)
And here a bunch of people are acting bored (they obviously haven't read the review.)
Why shouldn't people be bored?
Go read the review.
I don't think there's much need for fast af when the 35mm equiv. dof is 600mm f/15.2 and if (when) the ISO needs to be pushed a bit you can't really tell what's exactly in-focus and what is not. So it pretty much is about whether people are happy with the IQ at higher ISOs.. and I think quite many are.bholliman said:Most of the people who need 600mm FF equivalence, are going to want it for sports or wildlife, something I don't think this camera would would excel at, with a slow zoom lens and limited autofocus capability compared with a DSLR like the 7DII, 5DIII or 1DX.
bholliman said:dilbert said:It is interesting to see the reaction from people on CR.
No response it all in the thread I started on the Luminous Landscape review. I don't know if that's stunned silence (nobody knows what to say) or just that nobody cares because it isn't a DSLR (which would be a pity.)
And here a bunch of people are acting bored (they obviously haven't read the review.)
Why shouldn't people be bored?
Go read the review.
I read the review and found it interesting. Personally, I'm not interested in this camera, but it sounds like a nice option for somebody who is looking for a fairly small camera with decent IQ and excellent focal length range.
Most of the people who need 600mm FF equivalence, are going to want it for sports or wildlife, something I don't think this camera would would excel at, with a slow zoom lens and limited autofocus capability compared with a DSLR like the 7DII, 5DIII or 1DX.
Seems overpriced compared with the Sony and Panasonic competition.
With its 24-600mm equivalent, F2.8-5.6 zoom, the G3 X has the longest reach amongst its peers but also the slowest of the lenses. The equivalent aperture graph not only shows that the Canon is nearly 2 stops slower than the Sony and a stop slower than the Panasonic at everything above around 150mm equiv onwards, but it also shows that 600mm equiv isn't quite as big a leap up from the FZ1000's 400mm equiv as the numbers imply. The most important practical consequence of the G3 X's slower lens is that you'll end up being forced to use higher ISO sensitivities (or rely more on image stabilization) than you would when shooting with its peers.