Images & Specifications For the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III

[countofmc95]

I don't really have a huge issue with the specs of this camera. Slightly disappointed no 4k, but not a deal-breaker personally. I think it's quite a feat to squeeze an APS-C sensor in this size body with a zoom lens.

What I do have an issue with is the value proposition. This seems to be the exact same price as an EOS M5 with 15-45 AND adding the 22mm f/2. So this G1XIII is about 1/2 stop faster on the wide end, but same speed at the longer end as the 15-45. Not sure if that is compelling enough personally for me to pick over the M5 with the 2 lenses mentioned.

Ultimately the small size is impressive, but again this kind of goes back to the question I've wrestled with maybe the last 5-6 years. If a camera is not truly pocketable (and the G1X III is not for me, it's a small bag camera), then why not just carry a small mirrorless setup with 1-2 lenses instead, since you are carrying a bag anyways. In that case again, I'd prefer the EOS M5 with 15-45 and 22 f/2.

 

[mb66energy]

No 4K...fail
Horrible battery life...fail
Ugly as heck...fail
Slow, short zoom lens...fail
Insane price...fail

They put a dial right in the way of where you grip it!

You blew it Canon.

Let s wait - if the price IS insane the market will correct it down to a sane price.
Remember EOS M classic, a good camera which was not accepted by the
market and was available at insanely low prices a year later.

And I do not understand the hype around 4k for such a camera. If I would do 4k
I would do that for a premium cinema movie for a full length documentary or
other kind of movie. Then I would prefer a 4k movie camera ...

 

[ablearcher]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution. All specs aside I will not buy another travel compact without 4K video. After all these years Panny LX100 seems like a much better all around choice at half the price. Go figure.
I do hope those who are not interested in video will be happy with this camera. For me, other than the sensor in a small body this camera doesn't seem too impressive. Maybe the actual camera will be better than the rumors.

 

[Talys]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.

While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.

 

[powershot2012]

Agree, with no 4K???

Costing over $1300?

And design is nothing more than poor selling G5X....

Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5

 

[powershot2012]

Looks like you summed it up VERY accurately.

No 4K...fail
Horrible battery life...fail
Ugly as heck...fail
Slow, short zoom lens...fail
Insane price...fail

They put a dial right in the way of where you grip it!

You blew it Canon.

 

[Act444]

The image quality will tell the story. For that price I would have high expectations for IQ...but given the performance of their stand-alone EF-M 15-45 (subpar at best), it’s kinda tough to imagine this being any better really. Hopefully we don’t have to imagine much longer...

Honestly w/$1300 I can’t see why I wouldn’t just get an M5/15-45 combo instead, and the 22mm for low light. Yes, the G1X has a slimmer profile, but unless it can truly be squeezed into a pocket...

Having said all that though, I like where this is going. Next up, an RX1R II competitor please

 

[unfocused]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.

While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.

I was also unaware that:

• 4K TVs are unable to play 1080p content;
• That everyone who owns a 1080p television is now mandated to toss it and buy a new 4K television;
• That to really appreciate video content on tiny tablets and smart phone screens (which represent the bulk of video consumption) it must be in 4K; and
• That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K

 

[ablearcher]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.

While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.

Well, its been a while I saw a large screen on sale with 1080p. In any event, look me in the eye and tell me that you would consider buying a 1080p TV if you were buying a new TV today. As for the content - well this is why having a 4K camera is important for me, especially if I'm planning to take it along for travel. This is how you will CREATE the content for the new 4K screen. Also, quite a number of new movies are coming out in 4K discs these days. 1080p was fine but seriously - this is the past and not worth the investment at the moment. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[ablearcher]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.

While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.

I was also unaware that:

• 4K TVs are unable to play 1080p content;
• That everyone who owns a 1080p television is now mandated to toss it and buy a new 4K television;
• That to really appreciate video content on tiny tablets and smart phone screens (which represent the bulk of video consumption) it must be in 4K; and
• That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K

No need to exaggerate my post. Enjoy your 1080p screen. I guess I'm old enough to remember similar discussions when 1080 just came to the market. I'm glad I didn't listen to those who said 640 × 480 was more than enough (same comments about content, etc) and got myself a 1080 video camera (photo cam with 1080 was not even an option yet). In the past few years I created enough content to enjoy it on my 1080p screen. I'm just moving on now.

I have enough heavy camera gear for studio and location shoots, so this COULD be a nice travel camera for me. But without 4K I will be looking elsewhere. As simple as that.

 

[Andreasb]

Well I seem to be in the minority. I like:
The "looks" of this camera (not from the beauty perspective, from a usability and feature set). It has a real grip to hold on to (how many dropped RX100 are there?), a viewfinder (a must for me) real controls, it is a mini dslr, that I would learn quickly and have an easy time to move back to a bigger DSLR, a real hot shoe, I assume a tiltable display, 24 MP.

What I don't like as much:
The lens seems slow, but we have not seen edge to edge sharpness shots yet, Maybe it is really good? Time will tell, I wont buy anything until I see a couple of reviews. I think they choose the lens this way to make the whole package really small, and that they did with this lens. Now if we want shallow dept of field, an M5 with a 22mm and or an SL2 with any fast Canon lens is a better but bigger choice... The M5 is not much bigger though....
Battery life seems low...
Price? Now if it is $1299, why not buy an M5? (I forgot, Canon hardly has any enthusiast lenses for it....) The G5 X I is $729 USD or so? Why not wait for the G5 X II? Cant be far out (?)

My I don't care section:
4K. I'm not into video but now if you really want good IQ video why would you use this little camera for it? There are plenty of really good cameras that can do that much better, I can just see this little cam with 4k and a 1.5 crop factor on top of the AP-C crop factor, no one would be happy with that (?) If the 1080p is good at 60 fps, I would be happy with that, but then again I don't really care....

What I have been looking for is a mini dslr with real controls, quality camera with good IQ, and AF, I did like the look and feel of the G5 X I but the performance was lacking, and the corners where soft. Is the G1X III it? I dont know. I will be waiting for the G5 X II and reviews before I decide. Now if Canon made some better lenses for the M5, it would make it much more of an interesting proposition.

 

[Etienne]

This may set a record for the worst battery life of any camera on the market.
Oh, and no 4K.

I sure would have liked that fully articulating screen on the M6 though

 

[Proscribo]

The G5 X I is $729 USD or so? Why not wait for the G5 X II? Cant be far out (?)

Considering how slow they made the lens on this (basically no advantage against the 1" cameras, even the other way around), you may have to wait for a while... I don't think there's a G5X II coming.

 

[gmon750]

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.

While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.

I was also unaware that:

• 4K TVs are unable to play 1080p content;
• That everyone who owns a 1080p television is now mandated to toss it and buy a new 4K television;
• That to really appreciate video content on tiny tablets and smart phone screens (which represent the bulk of video consumption) it must be in 4K; and
• That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K

No need to exaggerate my post. Enjoy your 1080p screen. I guess I'm old enough to remember similar discussions when 1080 just came to the market. I'm glad I didn't listen to those who said 640 × 480 was more than enough (same comments about content, etc) and got myself a 1080 video camera (photo cam with 1080 was not even an option yet). In the past few years I created enough content to enjoy it on my 1080p screen. I'm just moving on now.

I have enough heavy camera gear for studio and location shoots, so this COULD be a nice travel camera for me. But without 4K I will be looking elsewhere. As simple as that.

I too don't find the attraction to 4K video given today's environment. From a consumption point most watch their videos on mobile devices. I don't have a 4K TV simply because I don't find a need to toss my old 1080P that's already 10 years old. The content is just not there and most shows on cable (Comcast) broadcast in 720. I'm big into Netflix and iTunes and no 4K yet.

From the camera perspective, shooting in 4K consumes batteries like they're going out of style and obviously... storage requirements. Cameras like these will most certainly start running hot as well and frankly, I just don't see the need yet.

My 1080p videos will look exactly the same as 4K videos as viewed from my phone and/or iPad.

 

[stevelee]

I shoot 4K video with my iPhone. It lacks a zoom lens, so I can edit the video in FCP or Premiere and in effect zoom in manually. I can then output the video to 1080p or 720p. But I find a better solution is to take a real camera with me. Nothing else I have will shoot 4K, but everything else can zoom in. So in editing, I don't need to enlarge the picture so often, and native output looks great. If I'm aiming for 720p, that's even better. 720p is as much information as 1080i, and looks about the same on TVs. That may be counterintuitive, particularly if raw specs impress you more than anything else.

My main TV is an 8-year old 1080p 46" Sony. I sit 13 feet away from it. I have 20-20 vision. The picture looks great still. I will replace it when it conks out, but I don't want a bigger screen dominating the room, and I have no plans to move my chair to the middle of the floor to take advantage of higher resolution. I am in no rush to replace it. The 43" Samsung plasma set in my bedroom has perhaps a better picture, but I would not move it to the living room because of all the window light. I do like the 4K OLED TVs I've seen in stores, and when the Sony goes, that's probably what I will buy, particularly if the prices keep coming down and there is something available at 55" or under. I still will not move my chair, though, and won't feel any need to get a 4K disc player or higher level streaming. I'm skeptical anyway of the quality of streamed 4K, given the compression involved. I would be interested in a blind (so to speak) test of streamed 4K vs. 1080p. My guess is that data rate would determine which is better. (IOW, at some point compression artifacts obliterate any resolution advantage.)

I say all this to suggest why I am not moved by all the pearl clutching here about lack of 4K on various cameras. I recently bought a 6D2, and I realize that makes most of you guys think I'm an idiot. I shot some video at a garden at night with it, and posted it to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOngTVJUVE&feature=youtu.be Even after their processing, the 1080p doesn't look bad even seen in full screen mode on my 5K computer monitor from two feet away.

I recognize that there are legitimate needs for people to shoot 4K or higher. Those needs would often suggest investment in a real video camera. I don't see 4K as the determining criterion in choosing a still camera, especially a PowerShot.

 

[Sporgon]

Someone sent me some videos of equipment shot on an iPhone in 4K. What a pain in the butt downloading it and up loading it to others. And the quality of it looked no better than anything else to me.

 

[LDS]

I was also unaware that:

• That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K

LOL!

I believe this is a "photo first" camera - the zoom range itself doesn't make it a great video camera. Yet, from a marketing perspective, being unable to write "4K" on the specs sheet may hurt.

In some ways it looks a "strange" camera for today's standards. It may be the product of too many compromises, or maybe a right mix of useful features? Let's see....

 

[Hector1970]

Expensive
Short Focal Length
Not a nice looking camera.
Missing 4K which is not an issue for me.
This would want to have stellar image quality to save it.
I think it's not going to do well.

 

[IOS46]

I don't think this is going to sell well.

 

[slclick]

Solid!

Rugged!

Tank like!

Strong!

Overpriced!