Images & Specifications For the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
298
71
Lens: converted 24-72mm f/2.8-5.6
They mean equivalent 24-72mm f/4.5-9. You can't scale up the focal length and not scale up the f-stop; the 'f/#' is literally a mathematical formula which includes the focal length. The t-stop doesn't change, but you can't alter the focal length in "focal length divided by" without also changing the result of that equation.

Same-old marketing intentional misleading.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
transpo1 said:
Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on 3 years of 4K mainstream consumer devices.
As your powers of logic seem to resemble that of a 1970s Casio wristwatch, please can you show me two things:
can you tell me what you mean by 'anti-4K crusade' and who has said it is a bad thing?
can you show me a comparison of iphone 4k vs DSLR 4k to show the iphone is anywhere near the DSLR in image quality?
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
755
103
Mikehit said:
transpo1 said:
Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on 3 years of 4K mainstream consumer devices.
As your powers of logic seem to resemble that of a 1970s Casio wristwatch, please can you show me two things:
can you tell me what you mean by 'anti-4K crusade' and who has said it is a bad thing?
can you show me a comparison of iphone 4k vs DSLR 4k to show the iphone is anywhere near the DSLR in image quality?
Aww...it's adorable how resistant you are to the future of video imaging. I was referring to that particular poster, who seems to have a terrible bias against increased video resolution, but it could just as easily refer to you. There are many examples of iPhone video quality if you care to look for them, some of them award winning feature films.

But no, I can't show you a suitable comparison to a Canon DSLR or P&S because 4K on most Canon cameras does not exist.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
transpo1 said:
Mikehit said:
transpo1 said:
Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on 3 years of 4K mainstream consumer devices.
As your powers of logic seem to resemble that of a 1970s Casio wristwatch, please can you show me two things:
can you tell me what you mean by 'anti-4K crusade' and who has said it is a bad thing?
can you show me a comparison of iphone 4k vs DSLR 4k to show the iphone is anywhere near the DSLR in image quality?
Aww...it's adorable how resistant you are to the future of video imaging. I was referring to that particular poster, who seems to have a terrible bias against increased video resolution, but it could just as easily refer to you. There are many examples of iPhone video quality if you care to look for them, some of them award winning feature films.

But no, I can't show you a suitable comparison to a Canon DSLR or P&S because 4K on most Canon cameras does not exist.

And I did not ask to compare iphone vs Canon, I asked iphone vs DSLR. You are making the claim, you support that claim by showing me a comparison.
An 'award winning feature film' has been shot on iphone - but if a film of that image quality had been shot on a Canon you would be panning it for its apalling quality. Of that I am sure.

The question is not whether increased video resolution is possible, the question is how useful is it and how many people in the camera market either need it or want it. But as usual, instead of engaging in conversation you prefer to throw insults like 'apologist' and 'fanboy'.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,796
632
Davidson, NC
It is reasonable to make the comparison between iPhone 4K and DSLR 4K, yes.

But I can easily compare results of iPhone 4K with Canon 1080p from S, G, and Rebel cameras as well as now the 6D2, since I have shot each and have seen the results on my 5K monitor.

For its size, my iPhone 6S does a remarkable job shooting 4K video. I don’t bother to shoot 1080p with it, given its limitations. And I need that resolution to compensate for its lack of a zoom lens, so I can crop in editing. My general impression is that the G7X II video is not quite as good on the raw footage as the iPhone 4K, but produces better results in the finished product. The Rebel video is a little better. The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.

All things being equal, having more pixels is a good thing, at least up to a point. But with different format cameras, all things are not going to be equal.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,796
632
Davidson, NC
Mikehit said:
stevelee said:
The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.
Exactly my point.
I'm glad I could reinforce that point from my own experience.

By now most folks who pay attention know that just having more megapixels in a still image doesn't automagically make better IQ. But somehow a lot of folks still expect that to work for video.

BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,181
stevelee said:
BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.
Oh, they did. But then Sony came out with the a7RII, with 42 megapixels, so they all want back to ILCs.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
stevelee said:
I'm glad I could reinforce that point from my own experience.

By now most folks who pay attention know that just having more megapixels in a still image doesn't automagically make better IQ. But somehow a lot of folks still expect that to work for video.

BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.
That was the Nokia 8-something. It had 41MP but output was something like 8MP maximum and that downsampling enabled them to reduce the noise and produce very decent images. I suspect we may see one of Canon's 100+MP cameras working in the same way at some point unless someone comes with a major improvement in sensor technology.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
http://j.mp/2ynDiuW

* Canon fugly vs. contemporary design
* Crop sensor vs. FF sensor
* stupid retro hump on top vs. very smart pop-up EVF

But unfortunately
* (slow) zoom covering a good bit of most frequently used FL range vs.fairly uninteresting 35mm/2.8 fixed focal
* way too high pricing vs. insane pricing

= no buy from me. Neither one. Waiting for an RX-R1-II sized FF MILC with "really right" lens mount up front. Plus Canon UI. :)
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
755
103
Mikehit said:
stevelee said:
The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.
Exactly my point.
And you know what would be noticeably better than the 6D2 1080p?

Yup- 6D2 4K 2160p.

It would even look sharp on a MacBook. ;)
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
transpo1 said:
And you know what would be noticeably better than the 6D2 1080p?

Yup- 6D2 4K 2160p.

It would even look sharp on a MacBook. ;)
I'm not arguing against that at all. And do you know what would be even better? 8K. And 8k will probably be out before 4k has even taken a hold. I was contesting your point about iphone vs 4k and I still don't see a mass market requirement or expectation of 4k in what is primarily a stills camera.

I can easily envisage cameras experiencing something like the format wars in HiFi where people will get so fed up of hearing 'Look guys here is the new 'next best thing' you gotta have it' and when they do buy it within 6 months people like yourself are shouting 'no, you bought to early you shoulda waited and bought THIS' and in the end they will shrug their shoulders and say 'what I have is good enough. I don't need your new product' and go back to their iphone images.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
while i personally don't care for video capture at all and it is no parameter in my camera buying decisions at all, I do find Canon's *4k refusal* utterly ridiculous in late 2017. And yes, it does cost them sales.

Also Mikehit, as opposed to esoteric HiFi stuff where nobody with normal ears can hear a difference, anybody with normal eyes can immediately see the massive difference between 1080, 4k and 8k video. Clearly.

So yes, I am looking forward to a world with only 4k video ... and 8k coming soon. In some ways it is really funny, that electronics manufacturers manage to cram 50 megapixel onto a small sensor 36x24mm but are unable to put a similar number of pixels onto a 50" screen. One would think that should be a hell of a lot easier, as "miniaturization is difficult" ... I would expect to see 100MP monitors much sooner than 100MP imaging sensors .. but ... stupid universe of consumer electronics. :)
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
AvTvM said:
while i personally don't care for video capture at all and it is no parameter in my camera buying decisions at all, I do find Canon's *4k refusal* utterly ridiculous in late 2017. And yes, it does cost them sales.
Evidence? How many? is it enough to change their mindset?
I am puzzled by your condemnation of Canon's refusal to incorporate full 4k whils saying you have not interest in it. You are merely strengthening my argument as to why Canon do not see an imperative to include it. And yet why I voice that you call me a Canon fanboy. You have a very weird line of logic.

Only this afternoon I cam across this comment which seems quite apt to describe your viewpoint
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices"


AvTvM said:
Also Mikehit, as opposed to esoteric HiFi stuff where nobody with normal ears can hear a difference, anybody with normal eyes can immediately see the massive difference between 1080, 4k and 8k video. Clearly.
oh, believe me they can often hear the differences. But they just don't care because what they have is good enough.
My analogy never said the couldn't hear the differences, it was whether the more vocal proponents were overestimating the importance of new formats to the general market
And I have seen enough comment from people far more experienced than myself to say that at normal viewing distances 1080p vs 4k vs 8k is not at visible as some people make out (the 'at normal viewing distances' is the important point)


AvTvM said:
So yes, I am looking forward to a world with only 4k video ... and 8k coming soon. In some ways it is really funny, that electronics manufacturers manage to cram 50 megapixel onto a small sensor 36x24mm but are unable to put a similar number of pixels onto a 50" screen. One would think that should be a hell of a lot easier, as "miniaturization is difficult" ... I would expect to see 100MP monitors much sooner than 100MP imaging sensors .. but ... stupid universe of consumer electronics. :)
Or maybe the people who make the equipment to view the output know a lot more than you about what the general market wants or will stand when they look at an image. Whereas the people who but the devices to capture the data get obsessed with capturing as much as possible for no other reason than they can.

Again, like the hifi afficonado who gets his room perfectly set up to hear every minutiae as long as they are sitting in a specific place with the speakers placed precisely so. But as soon as they start doing things like paperwork, or doing the cooking, or having more than 2 people in the room, the whole purpose of spending multiple thousands on the equipment falls apart.
BTDT, got the Tshirt and now more realistic in what is necessary.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Mikehit said:
I am puzzled by your condemnation of Canon's refusal to incorporate full 4k whils saying you have not interest in it. You are merely strengthening my argument as to why Canon do not see an imperative to include it. And yet why I voice that you call me a Canon fanboy. You have a very weird line of logic.
No. It is only your (and Neuro's) constant insinuation, that I only care for products that I - and only I - would ever buy.

So again: No, I do not care about any sort of video capture. I am not interested in it. Too much for me. All the directing stuff and post processing would drive me nuts. So for me it is stills images.

But I still find it equally ridiculous and stupid from Canon to DENY 4k to all those (potential) customers who would LOVE to have it in a camera. I don't say (4k) video should be in every camera, far from it. I always said, I would LOVE to buy a great stills camera without ANY video stuff in it. I am sure there are many others who would. BUT I think it would be much smarter and better for Canon to offer at least one fully 4k enabled camera body in every segment / at every price level of their product line-up. Powershot, Rebel, xxD, xD, M = 5 bodies. No problem, if they would price the 4k option at a (reasonable) premium - maybe 20% more expensive than stills only. So for (a minimum of) 5 select bodies there should be a "v" version, like "video-centric".

Now in what way do you think this is illogical or un-reasonable?
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
AvTvM said:
But I still find it equally ridiculous and stupid from Canon to DENY 4k to all those (potential) customers who would LOVE to have it in a camera.
It is only 'stupid' if not putting 4k in affects their sales. I am not talking about the odd one or two who decide the Sony mirrorless video suits them better - they are mere motes of dust in the environment of the global market. I am talking about a shift in notable percentages of sales, the sort of things that make an executive say 'maybe we ought to do something about it'.
It has been explained before on this forum that no company on earth would upgrade 1080p to add 4k and not charge for it. In other words, 4k would add to the price. You have no idea of how much that costs, I have no idea but the conclusion I draw is that Canon defined a price bracket for the camera and put in whatever features it thought it needed to feed the majority market at the target price and they decided to add things other than 4k video.
Canon made that decision, and their success in market position shows they know a thing or two about designing cameras for the mass market. You, on the other hand look on it as incompetence which would make me ask if they are so incompetent how are they so successful. Occam's razor.

AvTvM said:
BUT I think it would be much smarter and better for Canon to offer at least one fully 4k enabled camera body in every segment / at every price level of their product line-up.
Canon obviously have the data to disagree with you. You, on the other hand, have supposition based on zero knowledge of camera design but what 'sounds logical'.
You accuse me of being a paid shill based on nothing other than I disagree with you. I on the other hand ask at what point do the facts make you think that maybe you are wrong. I would like the option of 4k....more accurately I like the idea of having a 4k option even though I shot barely 10 minutes of video in the years since I had video capable cameras. I think 'great' if it is there but I don't care if it isn't and it seems that is pretty much your view as well.
Whether wanting it or not is 'reasonable' is not the question. No company does 'reasonable': they do what is 'profitable'. Canon, Nikon, Sony - they all do. It is just that Sony have to add all the bells and whistles to even get a foothold.
Is Canon behind Sony on 4K technology? My guess is 'yes', but it would seem that although they are trying to solve that, there is no rush to do so, and by 'rush' I mean this ,mythical 2 years in which you claim mirrorless will overtake DSLR sales and make DSLR largely redundant.

Your comment about it being 'reasonable' is somewhat of a softening from your previous pronouncements of Canon's incompetence. So I am not sure if you were trolling or just overstating your case based on frustration and incomprehension.