Canon Officially Announces The PowerShot G1 X Mark III

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,244
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
Mikehit said:
I am not sure if it is me not explaining myself properly or your wilfully ignoring what I am saying.
Nowhere have I said that sensor performance does not matter. No-one I know who has bought a higher res camera has ever said 'Dang, I don't need those pixels. I wish they had kept it at 8MP of the 30D'. Likewise for dynamic range

What I am saying is that sensor performance is not a factor that in itself defines the success or failure of a camera. Because if it was, Sony would be #1.

I would say Sony AF to Canon AF is about the same as Canon sensor performance to Sony sensor performance.

Which sort of goes against your criticisms of Canon.

So what you really seem to be doing is comparing the A9 to the whole range of Canon cameras including the xxxxD models.
So tell me, as an 'ecosystem' it seems Canon still rocks it.
Canon's overall product is good enough not to leave for most people because switching is really expensive as you need to rebuy the Sony equivalent of all your Canon or Nikon gear. Some lenses Sony doesn't really have at all like say the 200/2.0, 800/5.6 or 400/2.8.

So you get a lot of complaints and few switchers because no system is complete or perfect.

After sales support is another plus with Canon that Sony needs to learn.

Image sensor may be awesome but Sony takes its sweet time to repair something you may as well just go with something more timely and reliable.

This is in contrast to the smartphone market. Sony offers the top half of all smartphone image sensors used. Quality varies from model to model depending the image sensor used, what hardware is matched to it, quality of software, cloud support and after sales support. If a consumer has a bad experience with brand ABC they can easily switch to a Google Pixel 2 or iPhone X because the accessories are relatively cheap.

The A9 is the sports camera of Sony and is priced at $4,999 to reflect this. 1DX2 and 5D4 does not make up the whole body lineup of Canon and the A9 is priced to slot between these two full frame bodies.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,441
5,658
AvTvM said:
1. After about 7 years Canon of lagging dramatically behind [1 to 2 stops poorer performance] Canon has even now still not managed to fully catchup to Sony sensors, not even with their latest and most expensive models [5d4, 1dx2]. Not to mention, Canon being able to *innovatively leapfrog* Sony sensors ... as a matter of fact, Canon is only now being able to make ADC sensors ...

2. there is no indication that Sony sensors should have "reached a technological limit". There is no reason to believe Sony cannot further develop their sensors and maintain the lead ovr Canon sensors in a number of crucial parameters.

3. BSI has very visible practical performance advantages for both video and stills image capture. It is definitely not "underwhelming" in any way.

4. If anything then the much hyped canon DP-AF technology is way overrated and has limited advantages in practical use - and those only for video capture (AF), not for stills. As evidenced by the fact, that AF performance of even the latest and most expensive Canon mirrorless cams with DP-AF [M5, M6] is still well behind what Fujifilm, Sony and Olympus deliver in AF performance - specifically tracking AF, face/eye-AF etc. -
by using "regular hybrid" AF [on-sensor PD-AF plus CD-AF]. Sony A6300/6500, Fuji XT-2, X-20 draw circles around any Canon EOS M in terms of AF performance.

1: That simply isn't true when you compare comparable products. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-9

2: Except for the fact that they have plateaued. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7,Sony%20ILCE-9 As have Nikon. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5

3: For small sensors that is true, for larger senses it doesn't seem to be so far. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7R,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

4: I tend to agree that dual pixel tech has limited value for stills shooters using primarily phase detection AF, which is one of the strongest plus points of the SLR design.

But why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Mikehit said:
So tell me, as an 'ecosystem' it seems Canon still rocks it.

no, you are not a fanboi ... ;D ;D ;D

some days i really believe you are paid in some way by Canon. Hard to believe a normal person would so persistently and doggedly defend any gear supplier and all its shortcomings including blatant, factual, measurable and practice relevant deficits ...

btw: Sony A9 AF is absolutely on par with 1DX II - and both are (slightly) behind Nikon D5. Just saying. :)
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
AvTvM said:
Mikehit said:
So tell me, as an 'ecosystem' it seems Canon still rocks it.

no, you are not a fanboi ... ;D ;D ;D

some days i really believe you are paid in some way by Canon. Hard to believe a normal person would so persistently and doggedly defend any gear supplier and all its shortcomings including blatant, factual, measurable and practice relevant deficits ...

btw: Sony A9 AF is absolutely on par with 1DX II - and both are (slightly) behind Nikon D5. Just saying. :)


Where have I ever denied the deficits of Canon gear? Please show me three quotes to support that. You on the other hand have absolutely no data to support your contention that Canon is suffering in the market place because of a supposedly inferior sensor. That Canon is suffering due to lack of FF mirrorless cameras.
So by your criteria it seems you are a Sony fanboy so completely blind to what really matters to the camera-buying market. You are waffling on about your personal desires believing they are what everyone else prioritises and yet have zero evidence to support it.

Show me a review that the Sony A9 with 400mm f2.8 is on par with Canon 1Dx2. Or with a 400mm f4. Or 500mm f4+1.4tc. I would be interested to see those reviews.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,614
3,959
AvTvM said:
Mikehit said:
So tell me, as an 'ecosystem' it seems Canon still rocks it.

no, you are not a fanboi ... ;D ;D ;D

some days i really believe you are paid in some way by Canon. Hard to believe a normal person would so persistently and doggedly defend any gear supplier and all its shortcomings including blatant, factual, measurable and practice relevant deficits ...

Gee, I guess the people who have bought 90 million EOS cameras and 130 million EF lenses, and kept Canon as the #1 ILC manufacturer for 14 years and counting, have just turned a blind eye to, are are simply too dumb to care about the, "...shortcomings including blatant, factual, measurable and practice relevant deficits."

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't know what you're talking about and as an ecosystem Canon does, indeed, continue to rock it. :p
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
dolina said:
See the text in bold on the earnings related to cameras.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-q1-2017-results-canon-raises-annual-profit-outlook/

what's your point? the industry as a whole as been under declines YoY. Canon has been overperforming with respects to the declines though.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
MrFotoFool said:
It looks like a fine camera (I do use a point and shoot M and do not own a cell phone). However I cannot imagine who would pay this much for this camera. It seems to me the price should be at least half.

Agree, it's pricey, but that's what this fixed lens APS-C market is.

Current fixed lens APS-C cameras you can buy new @ B&H (filter = point & shoot and APS-C):

  • Fuji offers two at $799 (16 MP, f/2.8 prime, EVF) and $1299 (24 MP, f/2 lens, hybrid OVF / EVF)
  • Ricoh GR2 for $600 or so (16 MP, f/2.8 prime, no viewfinder)
  • Odd, pricey and 'not remotely your normal camera' cameras (Leica Typ 113, Sigma dp0/1/2/3 Quattro models, etc.)

I'm not sticking up for a $1299 asking price by Canon, but I guess I'd coach to look for the value of these rigs above and beyond the cheaper APS-C ILCs out there. For a moment, throw the perceived value of an APS-C ILC out the window and instead add value to the notion that a fixed lens rig is:

  • Considerably smaller to carry: possibly not requiring a dedicated bag, could fit in a coat pocket, etc.
  • Considerably smaller to shoot with: doesn't make people gunshy from a large camera, better for street, etc.
  • Has a leaf shutter (if you care about that)
  • Won't get turned away by security at a concert or sporting event

...and maaaaaybe a small premium over an M5 + EF-M 15-45 is warranted.

- A
 

Aglet

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 26, 2012
1,728
15
AB
Mikehit said:
What I am saying is that sensor performance is not a factor that in itself defines the success or failure of a camera. Because if it was, Sony would be #1.

considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years vs decades of history, competition and promotion by the likes of Nikon and Canon that's a very weak argument from a marketing side. The incumbents are hard to dethrone even when they're potentially inferior.

As for Canon's latest sensor tech... the 5D4 has almost caught up to the D800 from 2012 in sensor metrics. (now less than a stop behind at base ISO)
So it's pretty good, plenty good-enough, IMO, but I would not state that they've caught up.
Canon. Have. Pretty. Much. Caught. Up. On. Sensor. Performance.
Rather, they have managed to improve enough that those remaining disadvantages in sensor metrics are much less relevant in that particular body.
 

Jopa

EOS R
Dec 11, 2015
1,054
0
ahsanford said:
  • Won't get turned away by security at a concert or sporting event

The lens is too dark to shoot at a concert IMHO. And probably too short?
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
Aglet said:
considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years vs decades of history, competition and promotion by the likes of Nikon and Canon that's a very weak argument from a marketing side. The incumbents are hard to dethrone even when they're potentially inferior.

In any other forms of technology, and the main ones that come to mind are cars and computers, a superior technology very quickly takes the top spot in new purchases, and by superior I mean one that offers real world advantages and not personal preference. And yet not a single Sony mirrorless product outsells its DSLR counterpart. Not a single one since Sony overtook sensor technology 7+ years ago. I know what you mean by dethroning incumbents, but this period is an age in technology.
What are the possible reasons -
People have already bought into the Canon environment and it is too expensive to change. I am not convinced. Canon have been behind on sensor technology for years and people complain repeatedly about how Canon do not innovate and never will, how they will always be behind yet still they don't switch. Surely if owning Canon is causing so much grief then it is worthwhile to take the short term financial hit on selling up and buying a system you will enjoy than year after year use a system you feel is inadequate from a manufacturer who is taking you for a ride. Maybe the differences are not so great as to make it worthwhile.
Another possible is the Canon environment. They have lenses that other manufacturers do not have. They have a range of products that few others have. Taking a picture involves than just the sensor
Then there is the intangibles: they have a quality and reputation of service others do not have. The have a reliability, a kudos (which is just as valid as any other reason) or a line of progression that others do not have.

Owning a product about such as a camera is more than just about the sensor. Spending your money on a system is about cost/value and given the number of potential points in a photographers evolution where it is cost effective to switch, many do not seem to be doing so. Nor do people seem to be buying into Sony at the lower end, the one where people really start their life with a brand.
So the only conclusion I can draw (and it is the only one I have ever really made) is that is that sensor performance is not as important as some people think it is. The fact that some people like it, the fact that some people need it, is irrelevant to a marketing man - what they are bothered about is whether adding or leaving out a functionality will have a measurable effect on sales, and it seems sensor performance does not.
Will it come? Yes. Is it urgent? No.

And I think you touched on one point when you said "considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years " maybe they need to make some lower models to get people into the environment rather than rely on experienced photographers switching. Stupid Sony.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Mikehit said:
And I think you touched on one point when you said "considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years " maybe they need to make some lower models to get people into the environment rather than rely on experienced photographers switching. Stupid Sony.

i agree. High prices for cameras and lenses are what limit Sony sales. First gen A7 was priced about right, Mk. II was too much of a hike. An A7 III priced like the first A7 would sell a lot better.

And a bare-bones Sony "A5" with same FF sensor priced at USD/€ 999 would sell like hotcakes. it would be repeating Canons' big bang success with the EOS 300D in 2003 - first DSLR for a grand - and now in 2017 time for "first FF ILC for a grand". It would likely really tip the scales for Sony in terms of market share ... and later lens sales. But, stupid Sony.

In addition Sony really needs to reconsider their FF lens pricing. FE lenses at any level at a 20-40% price premium over corresponding Canon and Nikon glass is seriously limiting Sony sales.

For APS-C, Sony A6500, A6300 are priced high as well, and lens selection sucks. Either decent [eg 16-70/4.0] but way more expensive than Canon/Nikon crop lenses or totally sub-par performance (e.g. 16-50 and still not cheap). Add a truly inferior UI and service availability / issues and you have the full explanation why Sony/MILC systems have made some inroads, but not taken over the market by storm.

Similar story for Fujifilm: good products, but retro-styling and sky-high "FF prices for crop-only gear". Good for Fuji's profitability, bad for their marketshare. Their decision to go for "pseudo medium format" instead of offering a really great FF sensored lineup (at reasonable prices) is absolutely dumb in my business economics book. It may well end up as "prototypical case study for misjudgement of market demand" at business schools.

So, dumb Fuji, dumb Sony. Had they gotten it right, myself (and many others) would never have bought a Canon EOS M system plus 5D3 mirrorslapper but one nice, compact, universally useful FF MILC system.

1299 for G1X III are also way overpriced. should have been 999 max or even 899. no reason why it should cost so much more than an SL-2 plus kitlens.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
AvTvM said:
1299 for g1X III are also way overpriced. should have been 999 max or even 899. no reason why it should cost so much more than an SL-2 plus kitlens.

My first response was 'SL2 plus kittens?? I know the internet is run by cats but that is taking things too far.....'. Then I saw you wrote 'kit lens'. Time for a coffee methinks.

Yes, 1299 seems high and I wonder how long that will last.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Jopa said:
ahsanford said:
  • Won't get turned away by security at a concert or sporting event

The lens is too dark to shoot at a concert IMHO. And probably too short?

Forgive me, I don't mean professional concert work in the pit. I mean personal photography from the crowd. I'm in Southern California and I go to concerts often -- 90% of venues' security see a lens mount (or even a stout-lensed, higher zoom 'bridge' camera) and it is not allowed inside. X100s, RX100s, P&S, etc. get in just fine almost every time.

So, what's worse? An f/2.8 long end of an RX100 V on a 1" sensor shooting at ISO X for proper exposure or an f/5.6 long end of a G1xM3 APS-C sensor having to shoot at ISO 4X due to f/5.6?

For sports it's a complete mixed bag. Major venues (MLB, NBA, etc.) have clearly printed policies but often are interpreted differently when you walk into security. For instance, Dodger Stadium is A-OK with a FF SLR provided the lens is under 6", while the nearby Staples Center prohibits any camera with an interchangeable lens or telephoto lens (targeting bridge / superzooms). But a fixed lens rig with a modest lens will get in.

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,614
3,959
ahsanford said:
Forgive me, I don't mean professional concert work in the pit. I mean personal photography from the crowd. I'm in Southern California and I go to concerts often -- 90% of venues' security see a lens mount (or even a stout-lensed, higher zoom 'bridge' camera) and it is not allowed inside. X100s, RX100s, P&S, etc. get in just fine almost every time.

For sports it's a complete mixed bag. Major venues (MLB, NBA, etc.) have clearly printed policies but often are interpreted differently when you walk into security. For instance, Dodger Stadium is A-OK with a FF SLR provided the lens is under 6", while the nearby Staples Center prohibits any camera with an interchangeable lens or telephoto lens (targeting bridge / superzooms). But a fixed lens rig with a modest lens will get in.

Maybe all you need is a printer and a laminator...

FU9F2NAG9NHGV87.MEDIUM.jpg
 

Jopa

EOS R
Dec 11, 2015
1,054
0
ahsanford said:
So, what's worse? An f/2.8 long end of an RX100 V on a 1" sensor shooting at ISO X for proper exposure or an f/5.6 long end of a G1xM3 APS-C sensor having to shoot at ISO 4X due to f/5.6?

The surface sq size difference is 2.83x, theoretically shooting at ISO 4X would be still worse. I think it would be beneficial only if both cams shoot at the same ISO or at least 2X (1 stop diff).

ahsanford said:
For sports it's a complete mixed bag. Major venues (MLB, NBA, etc.) have clearly printed policies but often are interpreted differently when you walk into security.

Haha :) I use to live in Dallas and several times managed to carry my A7r2 + 55/1.8 through the security (American Airlines Center). An RX-100 size cam won't be a problem either.

The G1-3 is a little bigger than the RX100, I wish they would make it a fraction bigger but put a 1 stop brighter lens, it would be an instant pre-order from me.
 

Attachments

  • size.png
    size.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 217