The New Canon PowerShot G7 X

[l_d_allan]

BSI sensor? n/t

no text

 

[josephandrews222]

Not sure, but I wouldn't care about stuffing a camera in my pocket. Given the smaller sensor, lack of EVF, lack of Hotshoe, lack of 4K, etc. I wouldn't know or care as the Four Thirds camera offers superior IQ.

Once again, too late to the game as the field has already changed. LX100 is the new authority...anything less than Four Thirds sensor, no thanks

If the G7 X has the S120 form factor, it will fit in a jeans pocket. Is that true of the LX100?

Some in this thread talk about the essential nature of a viewfinder (for their style of shooting). I suspect that the vast majority of those folks who post on this board who own a full-featured DSLR (a 5D Mk whatever) as well as the EOS M and maybe even an S90-120 or whatever...view 'pocketability' as essential--FOR CERTAIN USES.

Mark me down in that category--when examining our Adorama 8x8" books, some of the best vacation shots I have ever taken were with a Canon S95. Its small size was purrrrrrfekt for our needs. No viewfinder.

I've thought about starting a separate thread for the following topic...my guess is it is already on here somewhere.

Specifically, most of my best pics involve family travels and/or sports. My philosophy is this: I want to take the LEAST sophisticated camera/lens combination possible. This generally translates to the smallest possible, too.

As I've posted here before, I find the 11-22mm lens for the EOS M invaluable. I also find the Canon XYX-270 flash indispensable, on the M as well as the 5DMkIII.

Since I purchased the M, I have found less use for the S95. Its larger sensor enables more cropping as well as all of the other advantages you all know about.

What is troublesome about both the M and the S-series of cameras...is their lack of responsiveness. If Canon builds this new one to be as responsive as a DSLR I think I will buy one.

And, assuming it is pocketable, I will use it. A lot. Not for the same shots as a full-field or APS-C...but for when it suits my needs at the time.

And sometimes, when traveling, pocketable is GOOD.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Once again, too late to the game as the field has already changed. LX100 is the new authority...anything less than Four Thirds sensor, no thanks

If the G7 X has the S120 form factor, it will fit in a jeans pocket. Is that true of the LX100?

I don't know why you favor Canon over Sony, you're looking for an argument to make it a better camera!
Sony's not a perfect Camera (RX 100 III), and i am a Canon user, but BE objective and accept what is real.
Anyway we're just talking about something we just saw a picture.

"Fit in a jeans pocket" vs "small enough to store it + EVF + better DR + better ISO"

Actually we don't know anything about the DR and ISO, but knowing the current line of Canon DSLR's we don't expect much.

I've been tempted by the RX100 since the first one. The series are very nice cameras.

"Fits in a jeans pocket" is an important priority in some some situations, which is why I got the S95 then the S100. The EOS M has better IQ (especially in low light or when a fast shutter is needed), but it's bigger and sometimes the 18-55 isn't wide enough, whereas 24mm FFeq would be (that happened today).

The current line of Canon dSLRs is quite possibly irrelevant as far as this camera goes, as Canon most likely bought the Sony sensor (my S95 has a Sony sensor, too).

 

[Frage]

Lens conversion 24-100mm F1.8-2.8

This might be not completely accurate. Shouldn't we multiply the aperture as we do with the focal length?

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

[123Photog]

Lens conversion 24-100mm F1.8-2.8

This might be not completely accurate. Shouldn't we multiply the aperture as we do with the focal length?

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

I normaly do.

 

[tayassu]

The lens is a 8,8-36,7/1,8-2,8. It gives us the the same field of view like a 24-100mm lens and the same DoF like a 4,9-7,6 lens with the FL of 24-100mm. However, the brightness in the picture is the same like a 1,8-2,8 lens on FF, because you have to factor in that the ISO must be multiplied by the crop factor Square, which makes ISO 100 on the G7X look like an ISO 744 on a FF sensor that is made with the exact same technology, assuming something like that is possible.

 

[Jamesy]

"Fits in a jeans pocket" is an important priority in some some situations, which is why I got the S95 then the S100. The EOS M has better IQ (especially in low light or when a fast shutter is needed), but it's bigger and sometimes the 18-55 isn't wide enough, whereas 24mm FFeq would be (that happened today).

You should try the ef-m 11-22 - you can get it here in Canada through Canon for $399. It is a fantastic lens - I used it %70 of the time on a recent NYC vacation trip.

My S90 is a little long in the tooth and has not seen the light of day since I got the M but this little G7 X seems interesting. The latest RX III seemed a tad short on the long end though at 70mm.

Correct me if I am wrong, don't the G series all have hot shoes whereas this one does not?

 

[powershot2012]

But the RX100 III has smaller dimensions than the larger G7X?????

LX100 competes with the G1X given the advanced features and much larger sensor doesn't it?

Once again, too late to the game as the field has already changed. LX100 is the new authority...anything less than Four Thirds sensor, no thanks

If the G7 X has the S120 form factor, it will fit in a jeans pocket. Is that true of the LX100?

 

[powershot2012]

Maybe the G9X will address the shortcomings of the G7X?

Does seem to be aimed directly at the Sony RX100 family, but like many others beforehand I would have liked EVF.

Even Sony realised their mistake by selling the EVF as an extra on the Mark II only to incorporate one (very cleverly) into the Mark III.

The video on this seems to be lacking as well, when compared to the Sony RX100 Mark III.

For Canon users, the main advantage to not buying Sony as a pocketable camera, is the menu system. I guess Canon uses a similar system on these smaller cameras as they do on their DSLRs?

When it comes out I will definitely go and take a look, but I do not have the same expectations or excitement as I did when I first saw the RX100 Mark III.

I doubt Sony are worried, which is a shame. How long is it until the RX100 Mark IV comes out?!! ;-)

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the RX100 III has smaller dimensions than the larger G7X?????

LX100 competes with the G1X given the advanced features and much larger sensor doesn't it?

Once again, too late to the game as the field has already changed. LX100 is the new authority...anything less than Four Thirds sensor, no thanks

If the G7 X has the S120 form factor, it will fit in a jeans pocket. Is that true of the LX100?

Perhaps you missed the part in red, or the fact that when I posted that, we had only a picture and no specs. The RX100-III is the same size for all practical purposes (0.1" in two dimensions aren't really significant). Canon managed to fit a much better spec'd lens in the same size body, we'll see about the IQ.

 

[Rocky]

Dimension of G7X: 103 x 60 x 40 mm (4.06 x 2.36 x 1.57″)
Dimension o fLX100: 115 x 66 x 55mm
That makes the LX100 even less pocketable than the EOS-M with 22mm lens.

 

[powershot2012]

Far easier to fit a Sony RX100 III into a pocket than a Canon G7X, but if your talking about the LX100, then compare it to the G1X II at 4.6 x 2.6 x 2.9 inches which is more an appropriate competitor given the sensor size and features.

EOS-M??? Do they still make those things?

Dimension of G7X: 103 x 60 x 40 mm (4.06 x 2.36 x 1.57″)
Dimension o fLX100: 115 x 66 x 55mm
That makes the LX100 even less pocketable than the EOS-M with 22mm lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Far easier to fit a Sony RX100 III into a pocket than a Canon G7X

WTF??

Sony RX100-III: 4.0 x 2.3 x 1.6" / 101.6 x 58.1 x 41.0 mm
PowerShot G7 X: 4.1 x 2.4 x 1.6" / 104.1 x 61.0 x 40.6 mm

Far easier? Care to share whatever it is you're smoking/drinking/injecting that makes you think 2.5mm more width, 1.9mm more height, and 0.4mm less depth makes any sort of significant difference that would mean it's far easier to fit the RX100-III into a pocket than the G7 X?

 

[AvTvM]

Sony RX100 III vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compare/#555,573
Canon Powershot S-120 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compare/#475,573
Canon EOS M2 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compact/#496,573,ha,f
Canon EOS M2 w/ 22/2.0 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compact/#496.349,573,ha,t
Canon G1X II vs. EOS M2 vs. G7 X vs. S120: http://camerasize.com/compact/#534,496,573,475,ha,f

Panasonix LX100 vs Canon G7 X: not available yet

 

[9VIII]

Lens conversion 24-100mm F1.8-2.8

This might be not completely accurate. Shouldn't we multiply the aperture as we do with the focal length?

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

It might help if you read the thread.

If my calculations are correct it's a 35mm equivalent to f4.9 to f7.6.

So, that's 100mm f7.6 in normal exposure values.

Might be a semantic thing, but to be clear...it's f/7.6 in terms of DoF, but f/2.8 in terms of exposure (until you factor in ISO noise, anyway).

Very interesting.
So to be clear, a 1DX with a 100mm f2.8 lens at ISO 100 and the G7X at ISO 100, zoomed all the way in (maximum telephoto) and wide open, will produce images with the same brightness?

Yes. Exposure (aperture + shutter speed) is determined by light per unit area hitting the sensor. An f/2.8 lens with a given shutter speed (say 1/100 s) and a given ISO (say ISO 100) will give the same 'brightness' (within a reasonable variation due to different meters) whether the sensor is an iPhone or a Hasselblad medium format.

However...the image noise is determined by the total light collected, so at a given aperture + shutter speed + ISO, the larger the sensor the lower the noise.

For the same framing with a smaller sensor, you're either using a shorter FL or you're further away, resulting in a deeper DoF. That's why a 'crop factor' applies to DoF as well as FL. If you need that deeper DoF with the larger sensor, you simply stop down and you have it. If you need to keep the shutter speed up, you raise ISO; the lower noise from the larger sensor means when you match DoF, you match noise and you're no worse off.

Basically, larger sensors give you the option of thinner DoF if you want it (and lower noise if you do), or the same DoF with no penalty.

For further reading: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/.

 

[Jamesy]

Is the G7X the first G-Series without a hotshoe?

 

[powershot2012]

Yes that's correct, if you wanted a pocketable camera, the dimensions of the RX100 III fits the criteria much better and you get an EVF.

Far easier to fit a Sony RX100 III into a pocket than a Canon G7X

WTF??

Sony RX100-III: 4.0 x 2.3 x 1.6" / 101.6 x 58.1 x 41.0 mm
PowerShot G7 X: 4.1 x 2.4 x 1.6" / 104.1 x 61.0 x 40.6 mm

Far easier? Care to share whatever it is you're smoking/drinking/injecting that makes you think 2.5mm more width, 1.9mm more height, and 0.4mm less depth makes any sort of significant difference that would mean it's far easier to fit the RX100-III into a pocket than the G7 X?

 

[AvTvM]

In reality the G7 X is more of a Powershot S-series with a less dwarfy-sensor ... basically a S-130 ... rather than a G-series.

G1-X II should be the last G-series with a sensor smaller than APS-C. To be succeeded - if at all - by a version of a future EOS-M3 without lens mount but hi-performance 4x zoom bolted-on, EVF, hotshoe and fully articulated LCD. It could then be designated as Canon Powershot G-M1.

 

[jamiewednesday]

I got a G7X (or G7 X) yesterday. It's nice. It may not be especially sharp though.

This is what I put in thread on DP Review, if it helps.



Had a try out with it in the late afternoon/early evening.

Firstly it's slightly bigger than the S95 it's replacing. Not significantly, but noticeably. It's more LX3 in size. The S95 is quite svelte and slips in your jeans pocket, the G7X fits in the pocket, but is a bit lumpy. It feels very industrial in the hand too, I don't think anything's going to break on it.

At first I found it a bit awkward to hold, with the pad of my thumb on the thumbrest, the 'heel' of my thumb kept hitting the record button and I found it awkward to reach the shutter button. But I then moved the heel of my thumb to the thumbrest and now my finger was over the shutter button and I didn't press 'record', much more sense and it now felt good in my hand. The record button is customisable though and can be switched off entirely if easier.

I really like a tilt screen, especially in combination with the touch/drag focus point on this one. I like using tilt screens at 90 degrees, like a TLR as it gives a different perspective and is also useful for low down shots and shading the screen from the sun too. The touch focus works very well in combination with this and is quick.

The operation and menus will be familiar to any Powershot user, nothing much has changed from what I can see so far.

The pictures look like they do from other Powershots too, all that Canon colours stuff.

So far images have come out pretty well, I've only just downloaded DPP update from Canon HK today so all images from yesterday are jpeg so far and seem OK to me. You can get a decently shallow depth of field at wider apertures and the bokeh circles look alright too.

IQ. This is the 'hum' part. I think the images are fine for what I expected. In terms of sharpness, well I've perhaps been spoiled by my other larger sensor 'small' cameras like the GR and I don't think this is up there. I know this will be a 'deal breaker' for some who expect all things from a camera with a larger price tag.

However I don't think that stops it from being a really nice tool to make nice pictures with. Also, this is just an initial impression from first use in the gathering light. I'm also firmly convinced that after use, many electronic items get 'better', whether that's because the user gets better at using them and/or they need 'running in'. So with more use in better light incoming days, I'm looking forward to it and I may well think IQ is better than OK, certainly the detail in some initial cat pictures look alright.

In short, it's a decent, chunky but still quite small camera with that great tilt/touch screen.

Some images on flickr which may help:

https://flic.kr/p/pnZdc6

https://flic.kr/p/pohChy

https://flic.kr/p/p6QXfr

https://flic.kr/p/pojX8Z

 

[dufflover]

Only have a quick Q here I haven't been able to get conclusive hits on Google with.

Does this camera have an IR receiver to use any existing Canon IR remotes, e.g. the RC-6?

Part of my whole weigh up between RX100 III or G7X. (wanting to step up from RX100 mk1)