Further Confirmation of the PowerShot G1 X Mark III

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,268
2,053
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
We’ve been eagerly awaiting detailed specification confirmation for the PowerShot G1 X Mark III, which is scheduled to be announced in mid October.</p>
<p>We’ve been told to think of the camera as an EOS M5 with a fixed lens. That should tell us it will be equipped with the 24mp APS-C DPAF sensor as well as utilizing the DIGIC 7 processor. We’ve been told previously that the lens will be a 24-120mm 35mm equivalent, though we don’t know the speed of the lens at this time. I think you should be able to piece together what the rest of the specifications for the camera will be.</p>

<p>The previous iterations of the PowerShot G1 X did not have EVF’s, but I think it’s likely the new camera will if it’s modelled after the EOS M5, though we have not yet confirmed that bit of information.</p>
<p>We’ll update as soon as we receive more specifications.</p>
<p>Just a reminder that we’ve been told that this will be the only PowerShot G series camera announced for the remainder of the year. We’ll likely see more ahead of CES in January of 2018.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

bludragon

I'm New Here
Aug 24, 2017
11
0
United States
Getting closer :)
I guess we know that this is coming [CR3], but that the specs are still quite open to interpretation [CR1]...

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-specifications-cr1/

"EOS M5" with a fixed lens is pretty open to interpretation, unless you got more details with that... DIGIC 7 + 24mp APS-C DPAF sensor seem quite a likely combination at this point, and that alone could be enough to fit the description.

Adding an EVF, and having a 24-120 equivalent lens covering the full sensor seems like it would add quite a bit to the overall size of the camera, which seems unlikely to me. Possibly the EVF is more of a wish item? The 24-120 could come with a crop of the APS-C sensor, or otherwise a redesign with a smaller aperture.
 

gmon750

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 30, 2015
128
82
I'm eagerly awaiting this camera. I'm looking for a worthy successor to my trusty Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I can't haul my 5DM3 and its housing.

If this new G1 does indeed come with an APS-C sensor, it's as good as sold for me!
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
gmon750 said:
I'm eagerly awaiting this camera. I'm looking for a worthy successor to my trusty Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I can't haul my 5DM3 and its housing.

If this new G1 does indeed come with an APS-C sensor, it's as good as sold for me!

And the lens? Or is that not important to you? How about a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom? ;D ;D ;D
 

gmon750

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 30, 2015
128
82
traveller said:
gmon750 said:
I'm eagerly awaiting this camera. I'm looking for a worthy successor to my trusty Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I can't haul my 5DM3 and its housing.

If this new G1 does indeed come with an APS-C sensor, it's as good as sold for me!

And the lens? Or is that not important to you? How about a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom? ;D ;D ;D

It's a Powershot camera and my expectations are in line given that I'm looking for an upgrade to my S100. My S100 has a 24-120mm lens and I was quite happy with it. If the G1 has that same range along with an APS-C sensor, with the same general size, then it's everything I could want.

Lets get real for a moment. If I want 15mm-62mm lens, I'll use my 5DM3 with my 8-15 fisheye lens. Powershot cameras are great to throw in a bag with a small underwater housing. I'm not looking for some kind of grand lens scheme.
 

Proscribo

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
266
148
gmon750 said:
traveller said:
gmon750 said:
I'm eagerly awaiting this camera. I'm looking for a worthy successor to my trusty Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I can't haul my 5DM3 and its housing.

If this new G1 does indeed come with an APS-C sensor, it's as good as sold for me!

And the lens? Or is that not important to you? How about a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom? ;D ;D ;D

It's a Powershot camera and my expectations are in line given that I'm looking for an upgrade to my S100. My S100 has a 24-120mm lens and I was quite happy with it. If the G1 has that same range along with an APS-C sensor, with the same general size, then it's everything I could want.

Lets get real for a moment. If I want 15mm-62mm lens, I'll use my 5DM3 with my 8-15 fisheye lens. Powershot cameras are great to throw in a bag with a small underwater housing. I'm not looking for some kind of grand lens scheme.
I'm pretty sure it's going to be way bigger than a S100, mainly the depth.
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
134
15
it will weight probably three times what S100 weights. If you want replacement for S100 look G9 X Mark II and G7 Mark II.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#534,661,140,697,ha,t
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
gmon750 said:
traveller said:
gmon750 said:
I'm eagerly awaiting this camera. I'm looking for a worthy successor to my trusty Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography when I can't haul my 5DM3 and its housing.

If this new G1 does indeed come with an APS-C sensor, it's as good as sold for me!

And the lens? Or is that not important to you? How about a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom? ;D ;D ;D

It's a Powershot camera and my expectations are in line given that I'm looking for an upgrade to my S100. My S100 has a 24-120mm lens and I was quite happy with it. If the G1 has that same range along with an APS-C sensor, with the same general size, then it's everything I could want.

Lets get real for a moment. If I want 15mm-62mm lens, I'll use my 5DM3 with my 8-15 fisheye lens. Powershot cameras are great to throw in a bag with a small underwater housing. I'm not looking for some kind of grand lens scheme.
I feel I should apologise, I was being a bit mean by repeating a discussion that came up on a recent thread without its original context. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33480.30 [End of page 3 and onto page 4]

At the risk of labouring the point:

"There is no difference between a fixed lens camera with a 1" sensor with a 8.8-36.8mm f/1.8-2.8 zoom (e.g. the G5X) and one with an (Canon) APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom or a full frame fixed lens camera with a 24-100mm f/4.9-7.6 zoom. They will all have exactly the same field-of-view range, capture exactly the same amount of light and have exactly the same depth of field control. They will also probably be exactly the same size. The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions."

If the new G1Xiii has an APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom, there is not really any point waiting for it, as you could buy the G5X or G7Xii now and basically have the same camera (4MP less resolution, but I doubt anyone would notice) -probably a lot cheaper too.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
24-120 FOV equivalent would be 15-75mm lens on Canon APS-C sensor (crop 1.6x) ... right? Unlikely for it to be f/3.1-4.8 though. Even starting at f/3.5 and quickly degrading to f/6.3 for the longer half of the focal range, it will be a challenge to fit such a lens into an G1X sized body I think. More so, if it also comes with an EVF ... which would be my expectation when reading "think of EOS M5".

Overall APS-C sensor with DPAF + (hopefully) decent AF performance + 24-120 eq. FOV zoom - sounds like a reasonable package. Possibly the only chance for a camera of this type to succeed: "coat-pocketable all-in-one with clearly better IQ than iPhone 8+ and 5x zoom ... at a premium price".
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
traveller said:
The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the main advantage of APS-C over a smaller sensor is the larger size of the individual sensor pixels (assuming equivalent megapixels) meaning greater sensitivity and less noise.

The main DISADVANTAGE is that a f/3.1-4.8 zoom isn't as marketable as a f/1.8-2.8 zoom even if they are, as you say, identical.
 

Proscribo

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
266
148
jolyonralph said:
traveller said:
The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the main advantage of APS-C over a smaller sensor is the larger size of the individual sensor pixels (assuming equivalent megapixels) meaning greater sensitivity and less noise.

The main DISADVANTAGE is that a f/3.1-4.8 zoom isn't as marketable as a f/1.8-2.8 zoom even if they are, as you say, identical.
Doesn't matter, the amount of light is still the same.
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
AvTvM said:
24-120 FOV equivalent would be 15-75mm lens on Canon APS-C sensor (crop 1.6x) ... right?

Even starting at f/3.5 and quickly degrading to f/6.3 for the longer half of the focal range, it will be a challenge to fit such a lens into an G1X sized body I think. More so, if it also comes with an EVF ... which would be my expectation when reading "think of EOS M5".

Overall APS-C sensor with DPAF + (hopefully) decent AF performance + 24-120 eq. FOV zoom - sounds like a good package or rather like about the only chance for a camera of this type to succeed. "Coat-pocketable all-in-one with clearly better IQ than iPhone 8+ and 4x zoom ... at a premium price".

You are correct, too much jumping backwards and forwards between the 1.5" sensor on the G1 Xii and APS-C has got me confused!

The point is that you have to be careful about the speed of the lens, otherwise you end up paying a premium price for a camera that has the same image quality potential as a much cheaper camera. Remember that, unlike with an EOS-M5, you cannot ever change the lens (obviously), so you must pay careful consideration to the lens it has and not get dazzled by the sensor specification alone.

Whilst a slow 'normal zoom' might be enough for you 90% of the time, an interchangeable lens camera gives you the option to switch to a faster lens when you need to (assuming that there is one available for the system and that you've bothered to carry it!).

Rather than list combinations of equivalent lens-sensor pairings here, I suggest that anyone considering buying a fixed lens camera checks out the Cambridge in Colour website's calculator before making their final decision.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,065
521
traveller said:
If the new G1Xiii has an APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom, there is not really any point waiting for it, as you could buy the G5X or G7Xii now and basically have the same camera (4MP less resolution, but I doubt anyone would notice) -probably a lot cheaper too.

Sorry. I own the G7X II and the M3, ballparkish comparable sensor to what is rumored to be going into the G1X III. I notice the IQ difference.

Don't get me wrong, the IQ from the G7X II sensor is impressive, but the output from the M3 sensor is better. This is more pronounced at high ISO, but there circumstances where it true at low ISO as well. That is practical experience, if nothing else, see (using G7x as a stand in for the G7x II, but all accounts I have heard, same sensor):

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-M3-versus-Canon-PowerShot-G7-X___1019_978

I actually would consider the rumor G1X as more comparable to M series, not the G7X II (which I own for its size)
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
traveller said:
...
The point is that you have to be careful about the speed of the lens, otherwise you end up paying a premium price for a camera that has the same image quality potential as a much cheaper camera. Remember that, unlike with an EOS-M5, you cannot ever change the lens (obviously), so you must pay careful consideration to the lens it has and not get dazzled by the sensor specification alone.

Whilst a slow 'normal zoom' might be enough for you 90% of the time, an interchangeable lens camera gives you the option to switch to a faster lens when you need to (assuming that there is one available for the system and that you've bothered to carry it!).
..

agree 100%. Cameras without lens mount generally have very little appeal for me. I'd always take an EOS M over any Powershot.

My earlier statement was more along the lines: IF Canon wants to sell G1X Mk. III at (undoubtedly) "premium price" in any numbers ... then the rumored specs are the only ticket to do so. Plus, I always wondered why they used the 1.5" sensor - should have been APS-C all along. After all, Sony manages to put an FF sensor plus EVF into a package as small as the RX1R II ...
http://j.mp/2xGayeh
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Proscribo said:
jolyonralph said:
traveller said:
The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the main advantage of APS-C over a smaller sensor is the larger size of the individual sensor pixels (assuming equivalent megapixels) meaning greater sensitivity and less noise.

The main DISADVANTAGE is that a f/3.1-4.8 zoom isn't as marketable as a f/1.8-2.8 zoom even if they are, as you say, identical.
Doesn't matter, the amount of light is still the same.

That's all good in theory, but in practice no it's not. For example, there are gaps between the pixel sensors where the transistors live, etc. So on larger sensors you're maximising the space for actual sensor as opposed to overheads. THe smaller your pixel pitch, the more light you lose 'through the gaps'.
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,065
521
jolyonralph said:
Proscribo said:
jolyonralph said:
traveller said:
The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the main advantage of APS-C over a smaller sensor is the larger size of the individual sensor pixels (assuming equivalent megapixels) meaning greater sensitivity and less noise.

The main DISADVANTAGE is that a f/3.1-4.8 zoom isn't as marketable as a f/1.8-2.8 zoom even if they are, as you say, identical.
Doesn't matter, the amount of light is still the same.

That's all good in theory, but in practice no it's not. For example, there are gaps between the pixel sensors where the transistors live, etc. So on larger sensors you're maximising the space for actual sensor as opposed to overheads. THe smaller your pixel pitch, the more light you lose 'through the gaps'.
Micro lenses when a long way to addressing the gaps between pixels. I have not seen results on how effective they are, but I have seen some references years ago looking at sensors before and after and the sensors did make a significant improvement. This is most evident in sensor efficiency that has been quantified and bottom line is that all sensors are getting pretty efficient in capture all the light that comes their way.

http://sensorgen.info/

There is absolutely something to the total amount of light gathered argument. That is a reason I own the G7X II. It has a f/1.8-2.8 lens. It can gather a good amount of light to offset the size of the APS-C sensor especially considering M series lenses are pretty slow.

However, there is still a "quality" of pixel argument. The best discussion I have seen on it was clarkvision, but the bottom line is that pixels can and do get small enough that "waves" of light enter the pixels less efficiently.

Also, I do fall back on my pragmatic experience. I believe in using wider apertures on a smaller sensor to help compensate for light gathering ability, but bottom line, I prefer the images coming off my M3 (and 5DIII). The G7XII is really very good. But there are improvements with larger sensors.
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
Sorry, but I'm not buying into the subjective "quality of pixels" argument. You can either measure it, or you can't: if you can't measure it then it isn't real. Sensor performance scales pretty well with area down to quite small pixel sizes and 1" sensor fall within this range:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Sony-A6300-versus-Canon-PowerShot-G7-X___1076_1072_978

I've chosen a comparison between the G7X (the Sony RX100 V is very similar in performance) and the best performing APS-C sensors from Canon and Sony. The difference in the SNR should be about 1.66-1.76 stops, based upon the difference in sensor area and this is more or less exactly what we see in the graphs (click on the 'Measurements' tab). There is an advantage for the larger sensors in terms of dynamic range where light levels are not a limiting factor (i.e. you can use low ISO and narrow apertures), but this is unfortunately offset by the fact that the current Canon 24MP APS-C sensor underperforms compared to Sony sensors in this respect by between 0.5-1 stop.
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,065
521
traveller said:
Sorry, but I'm not buying into the subjective "quality of pixels" argument. You can either measure it, or you can't: if you can't measure it then it isn't real. Sensor performance scales pretty well with area down to quite small pixel sizes and 1" sensor fall within this range:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Sony-A6300-versus-Canon-PowerShot-G7-X___1076_1072_978

I've chosen a comparison between the G7X (the Sony RX100 V is very similar in performance) and the best performing APS-C sensors from Canon and Sony. The difference in the SNR should be about 1.66-1.76 stops, based upon the difference in sensor area and this is more or less exactly what we see in the graphs (click on the 'Measurements' tab). There is an advantage for the larger sensors in terms of dynamic range where light levels are not a limiting factor (i.e. you can use low ISO and narrow apertures), but this is unfortunately offset by the fact that the current Canon 24MP APS-C sensor underperforms compared to Sony sensors in this respect by between 0.5-1 stop.
There is a lot going on, of course, but a higher density of pixels means more information moving through smaller spaces which has heat build up faster. The actual pixel size we are talking about with many high density sensors is actually approaching the size of the wavelength of certain bands of light. Pixels that can fit an entire wavelength are more efficient. Pixels that don't, are less. Microlenses are not perfectly efficient. Then there is the size of the bucket argument. If you have a 1 gal bucket and a 5 gal bucket, there is no difference if you are measuring 0.5 gals of water. They are both great. But try to measure 3 gal of water, the water overflows from the smaller bucket, but can still be quantified by the larger bucket.

Taking a step back, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. To a very large extent, aperture can be used to offset sensor size and smaller sensor cameras can have faster lenses. This is literally one of the reasons why I bought the G7X II. This is actually supported by these articles. As I said earlier, I think Clarkvision has some of the more interesting write ups on this subject. You might like these:
http://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
and he continues it here:
http://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter2/
Basically, the sensors on these two (abeit older) cameras are different sizes but give very similar S/N ratios once normalized to size. So, they test out similarly (hence the DXO test results). Yet the smaller sensor was visibly nosier results. Why? If you read, it is actually because of the smaller lens having a smaller aperture diameters which, when set to the same aperture, is actually letting in less overall light.

So, another way to state this is if you set an aperture diameter to be the same, and if the sensor behaves ideally, then sensor size becomes irrelevant.

But to think that sensors behave ideally or even the same is incorrect. There are minor differences. The one I see most often when going through photos is I simply have less headroom with the G7X II. I attribute that to the "bucket" size being exceeded with smaller pixels. But in midtones, I see very similar results.
 

traveller

EOS R
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
docsmith said:
There is a lot going on, of course, but a higher density of pixels means more information moving through smaller spaces which has heat build up faster. The actual pixel size we are talking about with many high density sensors is actually approaching the size of the wavelength of certain bands of light. Pixels that can fit an entire wavelength are more efficient. Pixels that don't, are less. Microlenses are not perfectly efficient. Then there is the size of the bucket argument. If you have a 1 gal bucket and a 5 gal bucket, there is no difference if you are measuring 0.5 gals of water. They are both great. But try to measure 3 gal of water, the water overflows from the smaller bucket, but can still be quantified by the larger bucket.

Taking a step back, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. To a very large extent, aperture can be used to offset sensor size and smaller sensor cameras can have faster lenses. This is literally one of the reasons why I bought the G7X II. This is actually supported by these articles. As I said earlier, I think Clarkvision has some of the more interesting write ups on this subject. You might like these:
http://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
and he continues it here:
http://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter2/
Basically, the sensors on these two (abeit older) cameras are different sizes but give very similar S/N ratios once normalized to size. So, they test out similarly (hence the DXO test results). Yet the smaller sensor was visibly nosier results. Why? If you read, it is actually because of the smaller lens having a smaller aperture diameters which, when set to the same aperture, is actually letting in less overall light.

So, another way to state this is if you set an aperture diameter to be the same, and if the sensor behaves ideally, then sensor size becomes irrelevant.

But to think that sensors behave ideally or even the same is incorrect. There are minor differences. The one I see most often when going through photos is I simply have less headroom with the G7X II. I attribute that to the "bucket" size being exceeded with smaller pixels. But in midtones, I see very similar results.
You should be careful when you compare different cameras because there is a lot going on behind the scenes in the RAW converter software. Unless you are comparing in a program like Rawdigger (https://www.rawdigger.com/main), it is quite dangerous to draw conclusions, especially about things like "headroom": are you really getting more headroom with camera A vs camera B, or is the manufacturer playing games with their ISO ratings and tone curves?
 

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
134
15
ElBerryKM13 said:
Who is this camera really targeted to? Whatever it does it might be on par to an iphone 8 or any latest phone.
Wish canon focused more on the pro market and release more 4k cameras or a new 80d with 4k.

Come in, I phone has some 7 mm sensor. APS-C sensor is way superior. Sure it may lack some gimmicks like artificial background blurring but in basic photography there is no comparison.