*UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

[KyleSTL]

Re: *UPDATE* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

What does that mean in terms of the lens? The quoted spec is 'f/2.5-16' and if that's as correctly quoted as the 1.5" sensor, then based on how apertures are printed on the lens, it means f/2.5 max aperture at the wide end and f/16 max aperture at the long end. I really doubt they'd release a camera that only opens to f/16 at the long end, so I believe that that spec is indicating the total aperture range (i.e. f/2.5 max aperture at the wide end, some unknown max aperture at the long end, and a minimum aperture of f/16 throughout the range - that improves on the G12 which is f/2.8 max and f/8 min).

So, if the Wells Fargo analyst isn't relating the information on the aperture in the standard/conventional way, what makes it certain that the sensor is being specified properly?

Bigger than m4/3? Ok, conservatively slot it between that and the Canon APS-C and give it a 1.9x crop factor. That means a 28-112mm FF-equivalent lens is really a 15-59mm lens, with f/2.5 at the wide end. That means it's got to be substantially bigger than the m4/3 kit lenses, the smallest of which (Oly 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6) is 2.5" long when retracted. The PowerShot G12 is 1.9" deep - do you think Canon will release a G1X that's well over 3" deep, probably closer to 4" deep? If it has a sensor bigger than m4/3, it would have to be...

I completely understand what you're saying neuro, but I'd like to add this for arguments sake:

Canon 510HS:
1/2.3" sensor
28-336mm equivalent (5.0-60mm f/3.4-5.9)
12x
dimensions: 99 x 59 x 22 mm (3.9 x 2.3 x 0.9 in)

equivalent older camera

Canon SX200 IS: (2009)
1/2.3" sensor
28-336mm equivalent (5.0-60mm f/3.4-5.3) slightly faster on the long end
12x
dimensions: 103 x 61 x 38 mm (4.1 x 2.4 x 1.5 in)

even older camera

Canon S3 IS: (2006)
1/2.5" sensor smaller sensor
36-432mm equivalent (6.0-72mm f/2.7-3.5) a little longer, and faster (1 full stop) throughout the range
12x
dimensions: 113 x 78 x 76 mm (4.5 x 3.1 x 3 in)

I know the physics of lens design has not changed, but they have managed to cram larger range zooms into smaller cameras.

and the Pro 1 that was mentioned earlier in this thread:
2/3" sensor
28-200mm equivalent (7.2-50.8mm f/2.4-3.5) slightly faster than S3, much faster than SX200 and 510HS
7x shorter zoom range
dimensions: 118 x 72 x 90 mm (4.6 x 2.8 x 3.5 in)

Neuro, I completely agree with you, though, that this is definitely NOT a constant aperture zoom lens.

 

[Loswr]

Re: *UPDATE 2* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

I know the physics of lens design has not changed, but they have managed to cram larger range zooms into smaller cameras.

That's entirely consistent. Which are the two deepest cameras you list? The S3 IS and the Pro1, both 3" or deeper. The one with the smaller sensor has a longer tele end, the one with the bigger sensor has the shorter tele end. Granted, this may be a total redesign of the G series, but all of the recent G's have been less than 2" thick. The 1/1.5" (2/3") is the same size as the Pro1's sensor, but the reduced focal range, non-L optics (presumably; the Pro1 had UD and fluorite elements), and the trend toward smaller lenses supporting the same zoom range will allow it to be in the 2" depth range, rather than over 3".

 

[gmrza]

Re: *UPDATE* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

Bigger than m4/3? Ok, conservatively slot it between that and the Canon APS-C and give it a 1.9x crop factor. That means a 28-112mm FF-equivalent lens is really a 15-59mm lens, with f/2.5 at the wide end. That means it's got to be substantially bigger than the m4/3 kit lenses, the smallest of which (Oly 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6) is 2.5" long when retracted. The PowerShot G12 is 1.9" deep - do you think Canon will release a G1X that's well over 3" deep, probably closer to 4" deep? If it has a sensor bigger than m4/3, it would have to be...

This is the main consideration that makes me question the concept of a sensor that is bigger than m4/3 in a Powershot. 1/1.5" does sound more realistic.

 

[takeapic]

Re: *UPDATE* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

Agree.

Is it just me, but this is something Canon could of and should come out with years ago instead of all the pointless G series updates.

The problem now is the market keeps moving and we already have the G1X...it's the X10. Same zoom and lens range.

Now what looks more promising is the LX5 successor.

Sorry Canon, but the G1X, like most Canons lately, is too late to the market.

Bigger than m4/3? Ok, conservatively slot it between that and the Canon APS-C and give it a 1.9x crop factor. That means a 28-112mm FF-equivalent lens is really a 15-59mm lens, with f/2.5 at the wide end. That means it's got to be substantially bigger than the m4/3 kit lenses, the smallest of which (Oly 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6) is 2.5" long when retracted. The PowerShot G12 is 1.9" deep - do you think Canon will release a G1X that's well over 3" deep, probably closer to 4" deep? If it has a sensor bigger than m4/3, it would have to be...

This is the main consideration that makes me question the concept of a sensor that is bigger than m4/3 in a Powershot. 1/1.5" does sound more realistic.

 

[PowerShotG2]

This will be a 2/3" sized sensor (close to the 8.8 x 6.6 mm Fuji X10) looking at the optical range and price.
If it were APS-C, then it would be around $1100-$1300. Canon won't let this cannibalize Rebels.

The key is for the camera lens to remain compact to be truly pocketable. The X10 feels about as bulky as MFT w/ pancake prime. If Sony improves the NEX kit lenses, then that would affect the market.
I'm still excited to learn more about this new Canon.

 

[kapanak]

For the price, I still feel that it would be a total rip-off.

 

[OvelhaMacho]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

 

[marinien]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor??? Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3 8)

 

[unfocused]

Looks like Wells Fargo pulled the release off their site.

I'm guessing someone didn't see the Jan. 10 release date, although I'm surprised it didn't have an "EMBARGOED UNTIL (Time) JAN. 10, 2012" which is the usual convention for news releases that aren't supposed to be printed before an official announcement/event.

Or, if it did, someone in the Wells Fargo office ignored it. Same thing happened with the Fuji camera (same release date), so I wouldn't be surprised if an intern at Wells Fargo just posted the releases without paying any attention to the dates/embargo.

 

[pwp]

Oh oh...no viewfinder either optical or EVF on the G1X. I know plenty of Gxx owners who made their choice because of the viewfinder. Viewfinders on compacts are few and far between these days. Much better for refined composition, use in bright sunlight and especially holding steady at slow shutter speeds.

Are you a viewfinder aficionado? Quick! Snap up a bargain G12 today and secure your (compact) viewfinder future.

The price of the G1X? The G's are always high priced on release to cash in on the upgrade tragics. (Me!) Wait just a few months and see meaningful price drops.

Paul Wright

 

[takeapic]

Close in size to the LX5.

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

 

[takeapic]

Good point. Already starting to happen with the S100.

Oh oh...no viewfinder either optical or EVF on the G1X. I know plenty of Gxx owners who made their choice because of the viewfinder. Viewfinders on compacts are few and far between these days. Much better for refined composition, use in bright sunlight and especially holding steady at slow shutter speeds.

Are you a viewfinder aficionado? Quick! Snap up a bargain G12 today and secure your (compact) viewfinder future.

The price of the G1X? The G's are always high priced on release to cash in on the upgrade tragics. (Me!) Wait just a few months and see meaningful price drops.

Paul Wright

 

[Loswr]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???

Ummmm...not quite. What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H. Decimal point, not fraction. It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size. The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.

Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3

It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho. :

 

[marinien]

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???

Ummmm...not quite. What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H. Decimal point, not fraction. It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size. The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.

Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3

It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho. :

Neuro, I am disappointed :-\. Of course I knew he meant decimal point and not fraction. I was just teasing him while saying 1.9 is bigger than 1.3. I said that he wasn't reading because you, among others, have said in this thread that a 1.5" sensor is smaller than APS-C and bigger than 4/3" sensor. Besides, you are the first in this thread who mentioned the 1.9 crop factor. See ... I was reading

 

[davidlog]

This so called “pre-release” announcement might be a way that Canon is doing some survey for what kind of pro DC camera people like you are waiting for.

Why there is no such question asked how this announcement was found, who found it?

If this is true, your guys are doing good trying to answer Canon’s long list of questions…

 

[kirispupis]

Dear Canon,

I am a huge fan of your cameras and currently own a 5D2, 7D, and G11. I also have a 1D-X on preorder. I never bought the G12 because it did not appear to be a huge step up from the G11 and rececently I picked up the X10 finally to replace it. At the time I was a bit worried that Canon would release some 'supercompact' in the G12 space that would make me regret picking up the X10.

After the news on the GX1 today, I no longer regret my choice. From the specs the X10 still appears superior in almost every way.

When I was growing up I lived in the same town as Eastman Kodak. Many of my friends' parents worked there and we used to tour the factory every year as kids. It is very sad that due to management oversight they will likely no longer exist by the end of the year.

Please wake up and look at what your competition is doing out there. Do not become another Kodak.

 

[WoodyWindy]

Those saying Canon can't put a large sensor and a fairly long zoom in a compact camera are forgetting that it used to be done all of the time with film:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/compact_film_cameras/sure_shot/sure_shot_classic_120#Specifications

- Woody -

 

[dougkerr]

Hi,

This will be a 2/3" sized sensor (close to the 8.8 x 6.6 mm Fuji X10)...

Yes, I assume that this is the case.

This is the size that started this whole absurd sensor size designation scheme in the days of the "2/3 inch" Vidicon!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[dougkerr]

Re: *UPDATE* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

Hi, Freak,

Yerry - just checked that link. Wow - 1/1.5" is pretty close to APS-C size (at 1.5 crop)!

This absurd system of specifying sensor sizes goes back to the "2/3 inch" Vidicon tube (so-called because of the diameter of its "bottle"), which had a target (sensor) 8.8 x 6.6 mm in size. That relationship was continued, proportionally, for small-sensor digital cameras (since stating the actual size would have worried the consumer by seeming "terribly small").

But because even those numbers sounded so small (still worrying the marketing people), the further convention was adopted of specifying the "size" as the reciprocal of a number larger than 1 (to make the stated number bigger).

Thus the "2/3 inch" size became the "1/1.5 inch" size.

And that is the size presumably being discussed here - implying a sensor size of about 8.8 x 6.6 mm.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Lee Jay]

For reference, a 2/3" (1/1.5", whatever...) sensor should be about 1 full stop better than the sensor in my little Elph 500 HS. Now, my Elph is f/2 at 24mm-equivalent and if the new camera is indeed 2/3" and 28mm-equivalent and f/2.5, it would only be a little bit faster than my Elph is already at maximum wide angle.

I'm actually pretty impressed with what Canon has done with the tiny sensor in my little Elph, and I am a 5D and fast prime owner so I do have a solid reference point. But for this camera to be interesting to SLR owners, in my opinion, it has to be as fast as, or faster across the whole range than something like the S90/95/100 cameras are, since they are already f/2 at the wide end, are pocketable, and have bigger sensors than the one in my little Elph. To do that, f/2.5 at the wide end probably won't cut it with a 2/3" sensor. So it either needs a faster lens or a bigger sensor. If it really has an almost-APS-C sized sensor and f/2.5 at the wide end, well that's something.