G1X Prime?

[BaconBets]

I love using telephotos on SLR's. but when I use a point & shoot I rarely use the zoom at all. I suppose this is partially because the long end of P&S zoom lenses are often crap, but also because when I pull a P&S out of my pocket its usually just for a spontaneous social pictures with not a ton of thought going into composition.

Which brings me to the G1X. I know its not "just" a point and shoot camera, and it certainly isn't something I would be pulling out of my jean pockets. I am sure the long end of its zoom is better than all P&S...but it doesn't look that strong on paper for portraits and it's kinda slow. I sorta wish Canon just released the G1X as a 35mm or 50mm with a 1.8 prime. This would never fly with the average consumer, but I think the crowd that this is geared towards (us) would accept the tradeoff for the gains in speed, IQ, reliability, etc. Wouldn't mind a larger sensored s100 prime either.

Does anyone think there is any value to this?

 

[elflord]

Does anyone think there is any value to this?
[/quote

Apparently, Fuji do. Why not get an X100 ?

 

[BaconBets]

Elflord - I'm thinking about it. The X100 does cost 50% more and lacks Canon's video prowess, but it looks intriguing.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

I sorta wish Canon just released the G1X as a 35mm or 50mm with a 1.8 prime.

[...]

Does anyone think there is any value to this?

I fully agree with you in terms of usability of a compact cam with large sensor and a moderate wide angle with high aperture.

SLRs with telephoto lenses are perfect: Using both hands and the bones behind the eyebrows to stabilize the cam helps a lot.

I really fell in love with the 2.8 100 macro I bought before it might be discontinued (meant as preparation of full frame & a "less-number-of-lens-elements-approach" compared to the IS version, I like contralight!).

A compact but serious cam with e.g. a 1.8 35 (as you proposed) or a 2.0 40mm equiv with 1:3 close focus capability would be a great lens to complement a 100mm equiv (or 160mm equiv) telephoto macro lens.

EDIT:
But I think such a camere would be a hot seller if EXCHANGEABLE COMPACT HIGH quality primes would be combined with a G1X like body. That's what I understand of system compatibility and sustainable decisions:

• APS-C sensor size (please no more diversification in sensor sizes ...)
• A G1X-XS with the low profile EF-XS mount allowing really neat pancake lens to create a cam which can be stowed away easily (in a belt pocket) or hang around your neck without adding to much weight or protrusions.
• An adaptor EF-XS2EF which is compatible with EF and EF-S lenses for the use of the EF/EF-S range of lenses - think about an "intelligent rear-cap" for seldom used lenses with should be available without an unavoidable time lag.
• A fast ultrawide prime - let's say 2.8 / 16mm equiv ... taking benefit from the EF-XS mount: Lens design without constraints due to a mirror box. Perhaps no tiny lens but of excellent quality straight from wide open and across the frame - the second is in my opinion the major criterion for wide angles ...

I am planning to buy a 600D just for its video capabilities - but it will be an interim solution for roughly 500 Dollars/Euros. I like my 40D cams for photography and I don't want to replace them soon.

The above mentioned Cam + adaptor shoud be around 1000 Dollars/Euros ... I would prefer this combination compared to a EOS 600D body because it would be the sustainable solution with a multi use character: Compact Cam + secondary body with full lens compatibility + movie cam.

 

[alipaulphotography]

As already mentioned - you are pretty much describing the niche the X100 is sat right in.

It is an excellent camera and price drops are imminent with the announcement of the X-Pro.

Unfortunately not enough low end consumers care for primes and low light capability. When ever people have a play on my SLR they always ask 'how do I zoom?', to which I reply 'with your feet' - they look at me confused.

I think the G1X should have had a smaller zoom range and slightly brighter lens - but I didn't build it, so I'm sure there would have been complications.

I like what Fuji are doing - and I'm looking at the X-pro or the future full frame model (probably hopefully)

 

[elflord]

Elflord - I'm thinking about it. The X100 does cost 50% more and lacks Canon's video prowess, but it looks intriguing.

I suspect you'll be able to get one much cheaper than the current list price if you wait a little. If you're prepared to buy used, current prices are around 900 or so.

 

[Viggo]

But, the x100 is so slow.... almost as bad as the X1...

 

[wickidwombat]

But, the x100 is so slow.... almost as bad as the X1...

can you elaborate on this a bit more?

 

[Edwin Herdman]

If the G1 X had a prime lens, say 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 (which would be beyond 80mm equivalence - it's not a simple crop factor anymore because the new sensor is a different image ratio, I believe), the lens would still be too large for a compact camera - in fact it would be larger, because not only would the front element still have to extend as far from the sensor (60.4mm), it would have to be much wider around, meaning that the lens would probably have to be wider around than the camera is tall (considering that even on many "fast" primes the front element is nowhere near the total diameter of the actual lens housing)!

The essential fact of cameras with smaller sensors, while they may have fast apertures and narrower fields of view (same nominal field of view as a longer focal length on a larger camera), there is still less depth of field control. And while you can get an equally "fast" aperture with a shorter focal length while keeping the same field of view with a smaller sensor, the total amount of light hitting the sensor is only equivalent to that of a longer focal length lens at a smaller aperture in a system with a larger sensor - meaning that if you have the same focal length, the larger sensor can receive more light even with a smaller relative aperture (remembering for a moment that f-numbers are a ratio, not a fixed size).

If the larger format has a longer focal length and the same aperture, it actually is at a significant advantage in terms of the amount of light reaching the sensor. This will mean that you get greater control over depth of field (see how deep depth of fiels is with a wide lens versus a super telephoto of the same focal length) and, crucially, the image can be cleaner.

Going to a small format does not give you a free lunch here.

Since it has a sensor closer in size to APS-C cameras, to get the same depth of field and light intensity you need a lens much closer in size to APS-C cameras. The genius of the G1 X is that it is taking what is essentially the usual DSLR and kit lens combination and putting it in a smaller and probably more rugged package.

 

[BaconBets]

Going to a small format does not give you a free lunch here.

Since it has a sensor closer in size to APS-C cameras, to get the same depth of field and light intensity you need a lens much closer in size to APS-C cameras. The genius of the G1 X is that it is taking what is essentially the usual DSLR and kit lens combination and putting it in a smaller and probably more rugged package.

I'm pretty sure the G1X lens is already physically as long or longer than the 35mm and 50mm slr primes. Rangefinder type primes tend to be fairly compact.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Of course that is the case. Focal length is merely the distance from the sensor to the rear nodal point (and if the lens is the same type of design on both systems, as is likely to be the case, there will be no difference in length to account for telephoto or reverse telephoto designs). It is the relative aperture that is the problem here. However, as I have stated, you are still likely better off when using a nominally slower aperture lens of a longer focal length on a larger sensor. The smaller sensor cameras must rely on photosites of a much smaller pixel pitch to have as high a megapixel count; given the same level of technology, larger photosites will do better. Sorry if I made my original reply overly complicated.

 

[elflord]

If the G1 X had a prime lens, say 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 (which would be beyond 80mm equivalence - it's not a simple crop factor anymore because the new sensor is a different image ratio, I believe), the lens would still be too large for a compact camera -

Yes, it would have to be about 12mm aperture max -- about 35mm f/3 or 24mm f/2 or similar, like existing pancake primes

 

[Edwin Herdman]

12mm for the entrance pupil, right? 12mm doesn't seem like much, but it has to be matched with a larger front element. Pancake primes for m4/3rds have tended to be much shorter focal length than the OP is asking for - remember that he's stating that at f/5.8 or so the 50-60mm range is a bit slow for portraits. You can't really do a pancake prime for 50mm or beyond while keeping up a fast aperture.