Canon PowerShot G3 X Now Shipping

[EdB]

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/

 

[scyrene]

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.

Who keeps a camera in their shirt pocket? Doesn't it fall out when you lean forwards?

 

[dswtan]

EVF is available for $250.

Or $0 -- since I already have a bundled one that came with the M3 that I hardly use anyway. Nice!

 

[Mr_Canuck]

+

 

[casperl]

Really don't get with all the people complaining Canon's lack of innovation and want to switch to other brand. It's not like getting a "better" camera instantly make people take better photos. If it's not a camera for you for whatever reason just don't buy it and use the one you enjoy to take good photo isn't that's all what photography is about

 

[JimS]

Response to Dilbert re: Luminous Landscape article

See someone else read that article. I thought it was interesting. I am glad he was impressed by the G3X.

However, I was surprised in the reviewer's conclusions, he (rather glibly) states that the G3X "gets more from the same sensor and has a superior performing lens [than the Panasonic FZ-1000], not to mention somewhat greater reach." [well, actually he DID mention the greater reach].

The Canon lens is no doubt good, but the Panasonic has a Leica lens that has gotten rave reviews.

I went to the studio shot comparison on the dpreview.com website and compared their shots from these two cameras, and to me the Panasonic sensor/lens combination gave a much cleaner, more high contrast image at comparable ISO settings than the Canon G3 X. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_g3x&attr13_1=sony_dscrx10&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr13_3=oly_stylus1&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

The DPreview.com review of the FZ-1000 commented on how sharp they thought the Panasonic lens was very sharp at the telephoto end of its focal length "Sharpness-wise, the FZ1000 is a tad soft at wide-angle, but improves as you zoom in.". http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/11

I think one can value the greater ruggedness of the Canon and the 200mm of extra focal length, but would not have thought the lens would be that much better.

Any thoughts?

 

[JimS]

TechRadar also gives Canon PowerShot G3 X a very positive review

The reviewer liked this camera, and was particularly enamored of the 600mm telephoto length, seeing that as a major advantage over the 400mm telephoto of the Panasonic FZ-1000. Given all the comments about image quality, the quantitative graphs of many different measures show the Panasonic better in some regards and the Canon better in others, but it did not strike me as one camera being obviously better or worse than the other in terms of image quality.

But read the review for yourself and tell us what you get out of it: http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/canon-g3-x-1297064/review

 

[bholliman]

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.

 

[Proscribo]

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.

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

I'm with you on the price, for my use, it would be well overpriced.

I question the slow lens comment.

With the G3 X at f/5.6 and 600mm, are you saying most people buy a 600mm f/4? There seem to be a lot with the Sigma and Tamron lenses at 600mm f/6.3 (It lies to the camera and claims to be f/5.6. Or, there is my 100-400mmL II which is f/5.6 at 400mm and with TC its f/8 at 560mm.


AF remains a unknown, but I expect it to be poor and would like to be surprised. Its going to be for static or very slow moving wildlife. No tracking BIF.

I carry a SX50HS in my car just in case I see some wildlife. Its always available and takes little space. At $179, it was cheap enough to use like that. There may be a few carrying a 5D MK III and 100-400mmL +TC around in their car everywhere they go, but not many.

 

[JimS]

Re: Canon PowerShot G3 X "Slow Lens" & Wildlife

Mt Spokane Photography is right that f/5.6 is not particularly "slow" for a 600mm lens. However, the point made in the preview at DPreview is that the lens is substantially slower than its peers at lesser focal lengths. As for wildlife, you have to hope they are fairly stationary, because the AF does not seem good at following moving objects.

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.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4788790204/shooting-with-the-canon-powershot-g3-x?slide=3

 

[AlanF]

Despite the criticisms from the usual naysayers, the G3 X looks like a useful piece of kit with a very good lens and well controlled noise. Has anyone who bought one any comments or have any images to share?

 

[AlanF]

G3 X First Impressions

The G3 X has indeed had mixed reviews. The most positive has, as discussed here, come from the Luminous Landscape’s Michael Reichmann https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/, who claimed it outperformed the Sony A7II and Tamron 150-600mm and is a truly remarkable camera. Others reviewers have made scathing comments about the lack of an electronic viewfinder and the difficulty of handholding at 600mm, and the rivals that have shorter focal lengths are better value for money.

Some of those reviews are clearly silly, not appreciating the importance of a long zoom for some of us and overstating the “lack”of an evf. Other manufacturers have given up evfs, for example Sony on new models and Nikon on their 1” sensor Nikon 1 range, both J and V, where they provide an optional evf for the V3 but not the J series. Canon does have the option of adding an evf, albeit rather expensive.

I need a lightweight travel camera with long zoom to replace my old SX50, which can give good results but has a long shutter lag and lots of light. So, I ordered a G3 X plus electronic viewfinder from Digitalrev on Friday. It arrived yesterday, all taxes prepaid in Hong Kong, at 75% of the UK price – if you can get it here.

The initial impressions are that Michael Reichmann is absolutely right. The camera is very well built and designed, a class piece of kit. The first test shots of my usual street targets show that at iso 400 and 600mm the G3 X out-resolves the Sigma 150-600mm C at f/6.3 on the 5DIII at iso 640, and is comparable to and if not better than the Sigma at f/8. (Processing RAW in DPP – the in-camera jpegs are ok but I don’t like it.)

The focusing is very responsive and reproducible – using just the small centre frame so far. The shutter lag is indeed very short (stated to be 0.044 s). I found it easy to handle at 600mm with the evf. The noise is far better than that from the SX50, but I need DxO to upgrade so the G3 can be processed on DxO Prime, which I need to do with lenses on the 7DII at iso 640 for heavy cropping.

OK, it’s not the 100-400mm II on the 7DII in terms of being able to do birds in flight easily and do pinpoint focusing of a small bird half hidden in foliage, and won’t do high speed continuous with its low frame rate. But, it will be taken on every trip I do when I can’t take my 100-400, and it will be a lightweight for my wife to carry on longer hikes. And in half-decent light for bird portraits it will give comparable quality – but take a pocketful of spare batteries.