*UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

[takeapic]

I think you nailed it. The G1X is nothing more than what Canon could and should have done years ago. Looks like Canon is now trying to play catch up to Fuji and has taken all of the attention. Next up, their XS-1 and just going to keep it going.

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.

 

[ippikiokami]

I think you nailed it. The G1X is nothing more than what Canon could and should have done years ago. Looks like Canon is now trying to play catch up to Fuji and has taken all of the attention. Next up, their XS-1 and just going to keep it going.

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.

Are you guys kidding? If you are talking about cameras in the G11-G12 class + most of the point and shoot line up Canon had the best or close to the best until just recently. Fuji's X10 just recently came out. Up to that and the x100 point you could easily say Fuji hasn't released anything of note for years. We don't even know the real specs of this camera yet.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I could care less about the sensor size, but I do care about the sensor's performance. This camera fits in that
"too big to fit in a normal pocket, too small to be taken seriously" category, at the high end of the usual $350-$700 price range, and with nothing to make it stand out from the crowd. Canon might have done better
with a fixed, fast lens (think QL1.7 from film days) in a more compact package to compete with the Fuji x100.
This particular offering strikes me as something only a product manager could love unless the images blow away
a Rebel XT (which I could buy and save $250). This stands pretty poorly against the m43 and NEX offerings in
the price range.

 

[Dave92F1]

"too big to fit in a normal pocket, too small to be taken seriously" category, at the high end of the usual $350-$700 price range, and with nothing to make it stand out from the crowd.

Some of us carry things like backpacks, briefcases, or computer bags everyday. If you're one of those, there's a huge difference between carrying a Rebel + lens and something the size of a G12.

It doesn't have to fit in a pocket, but it does have to be a lot smaller than the Rebel. If it can do that, and come close to DSLR quality, they'll get my $800.

BTW, my theory is that the "1.5inch" sensor is neither 1.5 inch (that would be almost full-frame, unaffordable at $800) nor 1/1.5" (because that's incompatible with f/16 and "shallow depth of field").

I think it's a 1.5x crop sensor. That would make it a little bigger than APS-C. Which would be very exciting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

BTW, my theory is that the "1.5inch" sensor is neither 1.5 inch (that would be almost full-frame, unaffordable at $800) nor 1/1.5" (because that's incompatible with f/16 and "shallow depth of field").

I think it's a 1.5x crop sensor. That would make it a little bigger than APS-C. Which would be very exciting.

Shallow depth of field is marketing terminology in this case. Canon said exactly the same thing about the PowerShot S95 and S100, claiming they were great for portrait photography. That was with f/2 and a 1/1.7" sensor, so it's no surprise that they would say the same thing about f/2.5 and a 1/1.5" sensor. As for f/16, what is incompatible about that? There will be a lot of potential buyers who have not even heard the term diffraction. It's marketing again - the G12 can be stopped down to f/8, so this would be bigger, and bigger is better.

BTW, a 1.5x crop is APS-C, just not Canon's. Nikon, Pentax and Sony all use 1.5x APS-C. But don't get excited - the G1x won't have APS-C, it'll have a 1/1.5" sensor.

 

[elflord]

"too big to fit in a normal pocket, too small to be taken seriously" category, at the high end of the usual $350-$700 price range, and with nothing to make it stand out from the crowd.

Some of us carry things like backpacks, briefcases, or computer bags everyday. If you're one of those, there's a huge difference between carrying a Rebel + lens and something the size of a G12.

Sure, but the problem for the G12 and similar is that they are similar in size to Sony NEX, Micro 4/3 and similar, but in terms of performance it's basically another small sensor compact. What makes the S100 a strong product is that it is a solid performer for its size.

BTW, my theory is that the "1.5inch" sensor is neither 1.5 inch (that would be almost full-frame, unaffordable at $800) nor 1/1.5" (because that's incompatible with f/16 and "shallow depth of field").

Olympus which has a slightly smaller (1/1.6") sensor make the same claim about the XZ-1. The numbers for the XZ-1: the 112 'effective' is a real focal length of 24mm, so at f/2.5, that's a 9.6mm aperture. That is bigger than 50mm/5.6 aperture of a kit zoom for an APS-C SLR.

I think it's a 1.5x crop sensor. That would make it a little bigger than APS-C. Which would be very exciting.

That would be a 17-70mm f/2.5 APS-C lens -- kind of like a big brother to Canon's 17-55mm EF-S lens.

 

[Dave92F1]

But don't get excited - the G1x won't have APS-C, it'll have a 1/1.5" sensor.

We'll see in a few days, but Canon isn't crazy and although the marketing folks do love to exaggerate (like all the vendors), I really don't think Canon's engineers would offer f/16 on a 1/1.5" sensor (because of diffraction, as you implied).

And how will they justify a 1/3 price hike for a tiny increment of sensor size?

For me, a 1/1.5" sensor would still be OK (I don't think the small sensor is the G12's biggest problem), but I was expecting something closer to the Nikon 1's 1.0 inch sensor.

But given the f/16 spec, the price hike, and the 4x zoom (instead of 5x on the G12), I think there's a considerably bigger sensor in there.

 

[Dave92F1]

Sure, but the problem for the G12 and similar is that they are similar in size to Sony NEX, Micro 4/3 and similar, but in terms of performance it's basically another small sensor compact. What makes the S100 a strong product is that it is a solid performer for its size.

I agree the S100 is a great camera for its size (at least, it will be once they iron out their QC problems), but that's in a different size class than the G-series.

The G11/G12 is actually much smaller than the Sony NEX or 4/3 cameras when you include a similar range zoom lens. To me, those cameras are nearly as big as a Rebel - not something I'd carry every day, as I do with the G11.

That would be a 17-70mm f/2.5 APS-C lens -- kind of like a big brother to Canon's 17-55mm EF-S lens.

And the 17-55mm EF-S is a huge lens - bigger than the whole G12 camera - despite covering a smaller zoom range than claimed for the Gx.

So either the Gx has a smaller than APS-C sensor, it's huge, or there's a big size advantage from not having to do backfocus past the mirror box... (I hope the latter.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hold on now - it's not going to be an f/2.5 constant aperture lens. Consider - the 17-55/2.8 and 18-55/3.5-5.6 have essentially the same focal range, and look at the difference a variable aperture and reduced optical quality make in the size. Point is, if it really does have an APS-C sized sensor, the relevant comparator lens is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 (a little wider and longer, but also slower). Now, who wants to argue that a lens nearly 4" long when retracted and weighing close to 2 lbs. will be seen in a G-series PowerShot? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[elflord]

I agree the S100 is a great camera for its size (at least, it will be once they iron out their QC problems), but that's in a different size class than the G-series.

The G11/G12 is actually much smaller than the Sony NEX or 4/3 cameras when you include a similar range zoom lens.

Much smaller when you attach a prime, right ? btw, the new Panasonic X lens is pretty small -- about the same size as the 20mm pancake prime when retracted

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6/images/1442vs20.jpg

To me, those cameras are nearly as big as a Rebel [
- not something I'd carry every day, as I do with the G11.

The panasonic GF2 is about the same size as the G11 -- weight 310gm+lens to the G11's 375gm. Most of the smaller lenses for the GF2 are about 100gm. Body dimensions 112x76x48 mm for the G11, versus 113x68x33 mm for the GF2. The 20mm pancake or the X lens brings that to 113x68x58mm (these lenses are about 25mm deep).

So either the Gx has a smaller than APS-C sensor, it's huge, or there's a big size advantage from not having to do backfocus past the mirror box... (I hope the latter.)

Smaller flange distance helps make small wide to normal lenses, one can review specs of rangefinder lenses to see how this plays out.

One hurdle is that there is no easy way to make a lens with a big aperture -- if it were APS-C, it would need a 28mm aperture, and that requires some glass. Even the micro 4/3 kit zooms and pancake primes need to keep the aperture to about 10mm or smaller.

 

[elflord]

Hold on now - it's not going to be an f/2.5 constant aperture lens. Consider - the 17-55/2.8 and 18-55/3.5-5.6 have essentially the same focal range, and look at the difference a variable aperture and reduced optical quality make in the size. Point is, if it really does have an APS-C sized sensor, the relevant comparator lens is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 (a little wider and longer, but also slower). Now, who wants to argue that a lens nearly 4" long when retracted and weighing close to 2 lbs. will be seen in a G-series PowerShot? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

f/2.5 at the tele wouldn't be unprecedented (Olympus XZ-1 is f/1.8-f/2.5), but I suppose a constant maximum aperture in a point and shoot would be unusual. If it's f/4 or so, I think it would be a stretch to get shallow depth of field with the ~6mm aperture unless one took advantage of the tiny MFD, but applying that approach to portrait photography is not a good way to make friends.

 

[Richard8971]

After reading the spec list, I would have to say that IF the starting price is $799.99 (or anywhere close to it) I would have to say NO. Wait, make that a H*** NO!

P&S are great cameras and everyone should have one. (I have a couple) I have even taken (or seen) some awesome photos that came out of P&S's. But 800 bucks? Now THAT is a lot of money to spend on a camera that you cannot change lenses on... I would hope Canon rethinks this one, or at least the rumors are false.

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. Besides ANY lens Canon gives it CANNOT give justice to the sensor, at least anything that they can squeeze into THAT small of a package. Guys sorry, lenses are better than sensor, period. Great sensors REQUIRE great lenses... without them the body is nothing.

Don't believe me? Pick up even the cheapest "L" lens and think about the fact that it IS in fact more expensive than the G1X and weighs more. APS-C, APS-H and esp FF sensors benefit greatly from good glass, no matter what the MP is. Remember we are talking about $800 bucks!!! Wow... You can get a 60D (body only) for that!!!

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

D

 

[Dave92F1]

Point is, if it really does have an APS-C sized sensor, the relevant comparator lens is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 (a little wider and longer, but also slower). Now, who wants to argue that a lens nearly 4" long when retracted and weighing close to 2 lbs. will be seen in a G-series PowerShot?

Excellent point.

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.)

The only way that makes sense to me is if the sensor is considerably bigger than the 1/1.7" sensor in the G12. I don't think 1/1.5" is enough to explain those.

I think 1/1.0" (ala Nikon V1) would, overall, make more sense in a compact than an APS-C sensor, but I don't see how that fits with the "1.5inch" sensor comment in the press release.

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?

 

[Richard8971]

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

Of course.

 

[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