Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Coming Mid October [CR3]

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
rrcphoto said:
AvTvM said:
Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.
the 15-43 2-4 patent looked like it could be small enough, but it's also a matter of weight.

however if it's a 24-120mm - it's going to be slow, it has to be. that's around the 15-85mm size of lens. even the M 18-55 is too big when you think about it, and it gets to around 10mm to the front of the sensor.
I'd like to see 22-44mm f/2.8 -ideal for a pocket street camera (for me anyway). I can understand other preferring something wider, e.g. 15-30mm, but you'd then have to trade off anything beyond normal to keep an f/2.8 lens pocketable.

It ain't going to happen, because Canon believes most users want at least a 5x zoom on a fixed lens compact and they are probably correct!
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
traveller said:
rrcphoto said:
AvTvM said:
Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.
the 15-43 2-4 patent looked like it could be small enough, but it's also a matter of weight.

however if it's a 24-120mm - it's going to be slow, it has to be. that's around the 15-85mm size of lens. even the M 18-55 is too big when you think about it, and it gets to around 10mm to the front of the sensor.
I'd like to see 22-44mm f/2.8 -ideal for a pocket street camera (for me anyway). I can understand other preferring something wider, e.g. 15-30mm, but you'd then have to trade off anything beyond normal to keep an f/2.8 lens pocketable.

It ain't going to happen, because Canon believes most users want at least a 5x zoom on a fixed lens compact and they are probably correct!
do you mean 22-44 normal focal adjusted for crop factor?

15-43 is around 24-75mm including crop factor.
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
755
103
rrcphoto said:
transpo1 said:
rrcphoto said:
tianxiaozhang said:
60p 4K and 120p 1080p would be really useful...
LOL.
for you maybe.. for the rest of the world, not so much.

it's not going to have 4K.
LOL- speak for yourself. Despite those on this forum who are disinterested in 4K, one of the biggest consumer electronics companies in the world just released a 4K TV product.
ahhh so?

what does that have to do with a compact aps-c camera? nothing.

it won't it. no current generation asp-c has it. this won't. it's common sense, versus continually whining.

Get over yourself and 4k. go get a 4k camera and just. leave. there's lots out there. if 4K was so important to you, why don't you move and have one already? since you haven't. and you stick around here all the time, it's obviously not that important to you and you just like to sound important.

and if you think apple is one of the largest electronic consumer companies in the world you really need the brain cells to be firing a little faster. Consumer electronics are more than just smartphones. FYI. and apple TV? important? oh please.

and this is a compact camera for photographers. not for 4k wannabe's.
Nice response. I'll let your vehemence speak for itself. There's a lot of people who are threatened by video, since it's starting to explode on the web. We can let everyone else decide whether Apple, Netflix, and YouTube supporting 4K are important.

I could say the same and ask you to just leave, but I won't because: it's going to be extremely funny to see you change course and extoll the virtues of 4K once Canon starts to include it in their cameras.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,199
3,428
120
transpo1 said:
There's a lot of people who are threatened by video, since it's starting to explode on the web. We can let everyone else decide whether Apple, Netflix, and YouTube supporting 4K are important.
4k is great, trouble is web based 4k isn't anywhere mature enough to offer any kind of service at all to the vast majority of people, it just isn't. So we have the cameras that can shoot it, we have the content providers who are happy to push it, we have the TV manufacturers who are so ready for it they practically won't let you buy anything else.

We still don't have the computers to process our own 4k footage in anything like a timely manner and we still don't have a nationwide bandwidth capacity to stream it. It will get ever more popular, but it will be hamstrung for many years or we rely on compression codecs that leave us with footage not much better than good quality 1080.

Don't get me wrong, it is inevitable and will be in and on everything, I have DSLR's capable of filming slow motion DCI 4k, I have a 75" 4k TV, I like 4k. But dealing with the file sizes is not going to allow the universal breakthrough other technologies have enjoyed.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,649
2,181
rrcphoto said:
and if you think apple is one of the largest electronic consumer companies in the world you really need the brain cells to be firing a little faster. Consumer electronics are more than just smartphones. FYI. and apple TV? important? oh please.
Apple is a consumer electronics company. Apple is the 9th largest company in the world by revenue, and it's the largest company in the world by market cap.

So if you think Apple is not one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world, your brain cells are apparently not firing at all. :eek:
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
rrcphoto said:
traveller said:
rrcphoto said:
AvTvM said:
Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.
the 15-43 2-4 patent looked like it could be small enough, but it's also a matter of weight.

however if it's a 24-120mm - it's going to be slow, it has to be. that's around the 15-85mm size of lens. even the M 18-55 is too big when you think about it, and it gets to around 10mm to the front of the sensor.
I'd like to see 22-44mm f/2.8 -ideal for a pocket street camera (for me anyway). I can understand other preferring something wider, e.g. 15-30mm, but you'd then have to trade off anything beyond normal to keep an f/2.8 lens pocketable.

It ain't going to happen, because Canon believes most users want at least a 5x zoom on a fixed lens compact and they are probably correct!
do you mean 22-44 normal focal adjusted for crop factor?

15-43 is around 24-75mm including crop factor.
No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would like to have, not what I think Canon will produce.
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
traveller said:
No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would like to have, not what I think Canon will produce.
Before Digic 4 it was common that compact cameras had zooms that started from 35 mm. Now that would be considered way too narrow. There is no problem in making better lenses. Before the introduction of Digic 4 7 % of Canon compacts had a wide angle (28 or wider) lens, since introduction (to the end of 2015) it was 84 % and from 2011 all.
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
okaro said:
traveller said:
No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would like to have, not what I think Canon will produce.
Before Digic 4 it was common that compact cameras had zooms that started from 35 mm. Now that would be considered way too narrow. There is no problem in making better lenses. Before the introduction of Digic 4 7 % of Canon compacts had a wide angle (28 or wider) lens, since introduction (to the end of 2015) it was 84 % and from 2011 all.
Are you suggesting that by the Digic 4 generation, processing power had increased enough to permit software distortion corrections to under-designed lenses? This possibly is one factor in the emergence of wider lenses, but you should also note that at that time, the long end started getting longer too. It's the talking dog scenario: the first time you see one (i.e. bought a digital camera), it didn't matter what the dog said but the fact that it could speak at all. Once the digital compact camera market became commoditised (and eventually eroded by the growth of smartphones), the camera makers were forced to look for new ways to distinguish their products.

To return to the original point, (what is left of) consumer digital cameras in the current market tend to have very large zoom ratios, as they are catering for the 'must cover every scenario' superzoom fallacy that the camera makers find it easy to sell to the casual buyer. Enthusiast compact cameras on the other hand, tend to have larger sensors coupled with smaller zoom ratio (or prime) lenses of larger aperture, as they are bought by people who have a more specific idea of what they want the camera to do (pocketable, discreet, fast, up-close, low-light and depth of field control are the more likely action words). My idea for a 22-44mm (i.e. 35-70 equiv.) with a fast aperture is to bridge the gap between the prime lens enthusiast cameras (Fuji X100 & 80, Ricoh GRII, Nikon Coolpix A) and the 3-5x zooms of moderate fast aperture. To be honest, perhaps my target of f/2.8 was too modest, but I was trying to go for a constant aperture design: some might prefer 22-44mm f/2-2.8 and I can understand their reasons too. A constant f/2 lens would be ideal, but I think that this would probably be trading off too much, either in terms of pocketability, or image quality.

At the end of the day, there's always the tradeoff with all lens designs: coverage (sensor size), aperture, zoom ratio, size, cost, image quality must all be balanced. Far too often the outcome is slow, cheap, high zoom ratio lenses that appeal to a mass market, but actually often serve them poorly. Why does this happen? Probably because the benefits of a huge zoom range are easier to explain in a sound bite than the benefits of a wide aperture.
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
traveller said:
Are you suggesting that by the Digic 4 generation, processing power had increased enough to permit software distortion corrections to under-designed lenses?
Yes, it is important t note that the correction is done in real time. This makes it mostly invisible to the user especially as most cameras do not give out raw images. I found it out with CHDK. If the camera has a CCD sensor one can see it by pointing the camera to a lamp. This produces s straight line on the sensor. The correction causes it to be concave at the edges. One can also record it on video (but on on still images)

This possibly is one factor in the emergence of wider lenses, but you should also note that at that time, the long end started getting longer too. It's the talking dog scenario: the first time you see one (i.e. bought a digital camera), it didn't matter what the dog said but the fact that it could speak at all. Once the digital compact camera market became commoditised (and eventually eroded by the growth of smartphones), the camera makers were forced to look for new ways to distinguish their products.
Dedicated superzoom cameras (SX-series and before that S-series) had a trend of increasing zoom but in basic cameras like Ixus the lengthening began only later in 2013 as a result of decreasing sales and competition with smart phones. At the same time they went back to CCD to cut costs. On the G-series they actually went back in Zoom. G9 was 35-210 and G10 28-140. G9 was Digic III and G10 Digic 4.

To return to the original point, (what is left of) consumer digital cameras in the current market tend to have very large zoom ratios, as they are catering for the 'must cover every scenario' superzoom fallacy that the camera makers find it easy to sell to the casual buyer. Enthusiast compact cameras on the other hand, tend to have larger sensors coupled with smaller zoom ratio (or prime) lenses of larger aperture, as they are bought by people who have a more specific idea of what they want the camera to do (pocketable, discreet, fast, up-close, low-light and depth of field control are the more likely action words). My idea for a 22-44mm (i.e. 35-70 equiv.) with a fast aperture is to bridge the gap between the prime lens enthusiast cameras (Fuji X100 & 80, Ricoh GRII, Nikon Coolpix A) and the 3-5x zooms of moderate fast aperture. To be honest, perhaps my target of f/2.8 was too modest, but I was trying to go for a constant aperture design: some might prefer 22-44mm f/2-2.8 and I can understand their reasons too. A constant f/2 lens would be ideal, but I think that this would probably be trading off too much, either in terms of pocketability, or image quality.
The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom. SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions. Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra. The fact that you prefer 35 mm is no reason to start with that. A fixed lens camera needs to be versatile.

It would be little effort to modify the current lens to APS-C which would give f/2.5-4.8. People want wide angle. When S120 -> G9 X switch went from 24 mm to 28 mm people complained.
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
okaro said:
The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom.
Really? Why is it acceptable for a prime lens compact, but not if it's a zoom?

okaro said:
SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions.
Yep and with modern lens designs, we should be able to keep a modest zoom like this much faster than the current batch of "enthusiasts' compacts" that are dog slow at the long end and do little to enthuse me. Check out the comparison graph in this DPreview article:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundup-compact-enthusiast-zoom-cameras

okaro said:
Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra.
Too little extra? Other than being able to compress the perspective into the short tele range without cropping out half the pixels?

okaro said:
The fact that you prefer 35 mm is no reason to start with that. A fixed lens camera needs to be versatile.
Nor is it a reason not to, like I stated in my first post, some will prefer a range that starts at 24 or 28mm, but the comprise you have would be a shorter long-end, or a bigger lens (which starts to push the boundaries of pocketable). 'Versatile' can mean other things than having a wide focal length range, like maintaining good depth of field control and low light shooting abilities.

okaro said:
It would be little effort to modify the current lens to APS-C which would give f/2.5-4.8.
Your modified lens offers no advantages over the current one on the G1XII. I agree that f/2.5 is decent on APS-C, but f/4.8 is pretty much DSLR kit-zoom territory.Look at the DPreview graph again -see how quick the lens' apertures crash after 24mm equivalent?

okaro said:
People want wide angle.
Which people? Oh, the same people that always buy Powershots.

okaro said:
When S120 -> G9 X switch went from 24 mm to 28 mm people complained.
Because the current Powershot buyer wants a 24-120mm slow kit zoom equivalent, because that's the market that Canon targets every single bloody Powershot at, then claims that this market segment is stagnant/in decline?

I accept that Canon is simply going to make a G1XII clone but with an APS-C sensor and a rehash of the same lens. The point that I made in my first post was that this wouldn't be a camera that I would buy, which is why I don't own any of Canon's Powershot range: if you don't need a 600mm equivalent lens, then they're all basically the same camera!
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
traveller said:
okaro said:
The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom.
Really? Why is it acceptable for a prime lens compact, but not if it's a zoom?
Because a zoom is a zoom and a prime is a prime. 35 mm is adequate indoors but nit ideal. 28 mm or 24 mm is better. The idea of a zoom is to be more versatile, to give what a prime cannot give.

okaro said:
SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions.
Yep and with modern lens designs, we should be able to keep a modest zoom like this much faster than the current batch of "enthusiasts' compacts" that are dog slow at the long end and do little to enthuse me. Check out the comparison graph in this DPreview article:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundup-compact-enthusiast-zoom-cameras
[/quote]

Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.

okaro said:
Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra.
Too little extra? Other than being able to compress the perspective into the short tele range without cropping out half the pixels?
One can get a Tele adapter to the Fuji but my point is that you get nothing to the wide angle.

okaro said:
The fact that you prefer 35 mm is no reason to start with that. A fixed lens camera needs to be versatile.
Nor is it a reason not to, like I stated in my first post, some will prefer a range that starts at 24 or 28mm, but the comprise you have would be a shorter long-end, or a bigger lens (which starts to push the boundaries of pocketable). 'Versatile' can mean other things than having a wide focal length range, like maintaining good depth of field control and low light shooting abilities.
G1 X is nit meant to be pocketable G7 X and G9mX are for that. You lose depth of field control if you end at 44 mm. You will need f/2.6 to match the G1 X aperture size

People have different needs you apparently do not need wide angle, most do.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
okaro said:
Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
fully agree! Has a lot to do with smartphone lenses having around 24-28mm equivalent FOV and people having gotten used to that capture perspective.

An APS-C Powershot with 18-55 zoom [35 eq. FOV on the wide end] is unceivable by now. Canon also changed the kitzoom for their EOS M lineup from previously EF-M 18-55 to wider EF-M 15-45.
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,346
1,150
Turku, Finland
AvTvM said:
okaro said:
Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
fully agree! Has a lot to do with smartphone lenses having around 24-28mm equivalent FOV and people having gotten used to that capture perspective.

An APS-C Powershot with 18-55 zoom [35 eq. FOV on the wide end] is unceivable by now. Canon also changed the kitzoom for their EOS M lineup from previously EF-M 18-55 to wider EF-M 15-45.
APS-C 18mm is 28mm equivalent, not 35mm. I don't think there have been 35mm (eqv) zooms since the 80s.

Apropos, it's interesting to me how 28-~85mm zooms evolved to the now-standard 24-70mm range, but standard crop zooms are, for the most part, still 18-~50mm. With some exceptions like the 15-45mm EF-M which is pretty exactly 24-70mm equivalent.
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
Sharlin said:
Apropos, it's interesting to me how 28-~85mm zooms evolved to the now-standard 24-70mm range, but standard crop zooms are, for the most part, still 18-~50mm. With some exceptions like the 15-45mm EF-M which is pretty exactly 24-70mm equivalent.
It is harder to make so sort lenses small and cheap with the 44 mm flange focal distance, for EOS M with 18 mm it is simpler. The 15-45 mm is much smaller than the 18-55.
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
AvTvM said:
okaro said:
Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
fully agree! Has a lot to do with smartphone lenses having around 24-28mm raequivalent FOV and people having gotten used to that capture perspective.

An APS-C Powershot with 18-55 zoom [35 eq. FOV on the wide end] is unceivable by now. Canon also changed the kitzoom for their EOS M lineup from previously EF-M 18-55 to wider EF-M 15-45.
I think the choices of 24 mm and 28 mm have more to do with the fact that those were common wide angles in the film era. Once the processor technology was developed enough to correct the distortions those became popular. Here is a graph that plots every Canon compact camera by announcement date and shortest focal length. The effect of Digic 4 at the end of 2008 is clearly visible:

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AnbuyJQ_1z6kkKocAsszPMoVBoffvQ
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
Arguing at what focal length a fixed lens camera zoom should start at was not my original intent. Fine, if 24 is desirable, how about a 24-50 equivalent, but you can't really get 24-70 and a decent aperture (barring some new technology) without the lens becoming too large to be pocketable. So there are three options:

1) A long zoom, with a marketable fast aperture number at the short end, quickly dropping off very quickly.
2) A prime lens
3) A short, but fast zoom

Canon and everyone else has done option 1 to death. It's popular enough to keep the line iterating, but I don't think that there's any new business to be had now -you're mainly selling to upgraders.

Many have now tried option 2 and for some, it has also been a success. The issue is flexibility, you only have one focal length and the wider you go the more you have to crop if you need long (yes you can buy a teleconverter, or a wide angle converter, but these are heavy and bulky to the point that you might as well buy an ILC). Still, I wouldn't complain if Canon had one in their lineup.

Option 3 is another option for a compromise. Limit the zoom ratio to 2x (I think even 3x is pushing it), just like Sigma did with the 18-35 f/1.8 Art. Obviously, it needs to be much smaller than the Sigma, only some of which can come from the lens design freedom that a fixed lens camera can have, compare: http://j.mp/2fDs9eN. So you would still need to trade aperture somewhere to get from the camera system on the right, to closer to that on the left http://j.mp/2xj8QSg. Can it be achieved? Don't know, I'm not a lens designer or I'd be working on the problem for Canon, not writing on this forum.

My point is that it would be nice to see Canon do something different, but to do this they have to first get away from the idea that every Powershot must have a twenty-something to one hundred and something zoom, or they will only ever end up with a slow zoom design. Perhaps they could have one base body with different lens options (non-interchangeable): a conventional 24-120 equiv. zoom, a couple of primes and a couple of short fast zooms (a 24-50 equiv. & a 35-70 equiv?), maybe the ultra wide zoom compact that Nikon recently talked themselves out of producing (why limit ourselves to a 24mm wide end?). But I know that I'm dreaming, Canon will release the same old slow zoom Powershot that they always have and they will sell it to the same customers they always have and I still won't be one of them ;)
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
970
62
This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Rocky said:
This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.
full ack! 8)

It is also why i prefer EOS M series over any camera without lens mount, including any Powershot. :)
 

photomachine

EOS M50
Sep 4, 2017
25
8
Rocky said:
This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.
It's changing from 1.5" to APS-C not from 1"