UPDATED: Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Specifications


Jan 16, 2015
PureClassA said:
I'm actually pretty jazzed about this one. I have an original EOS M and have been considering upgrading. This might be my purchase right here since they are going to an APSC sensor with what appears to be (as of now) a good bit of bells and whistles. Perfect compact camera. Wondering if price will remain around $700 like the current model.

from 700 to 1200, dang!
Oct 13, 2017
Re: Updated Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Specifications

Fatherof5ive said:
Quirkz said:
rrcphoto said:
powershot2012 said:
24-70mm f/2.8-5.6 :'( :'( :'(

if you can't handle a 2.8-5.6 on a 1.6 crop camera, you have a problem.

They kind of have a point. Someone correct me if my math is wrong, but aps c vs 1" type sensor is about 3 times as much light, or vaguely around 1 and a half stops. The Sony rx 100 v is a 24-70mm equivalent, 1.8-2.8. 2.8 is two stops larger than the 5.6 of the new canon, while the larger apps-c sensor only claws back 1.5 of those stops of lost light.

Is there much of a benefit to the larger sensor in this case? Can anyone explain why a larger sensor might still be better here?

I believe the aperture referenced for the G1X M3 has already been converted to a 35mm equivalent.

The Sony RX100 V has a 35mm equivalent 24-70mm f/4.9-7.6 lens.

The G1X Mark III may have a 35mm equivalent 24-70mm f/2.8-5.6 lens.

I believe that was never the case for canon if you were saying from DoF's point of view, at least on canon's EF-S line up.

For example,

F2.8 is equivalent to F4.5 for DoF, but on EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM it's written as F2.8 and for the DoF effect you get is equivalent to F4.5 on 35mm format.

Therefore, if this logic applies, the G1X Mark III should be equivalent to F4.5-F9 on the 35mm format, speaking from DoF's point of view.

Even the Sony RX100 V shows F1.8-2.8 in its spec.


I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
Re: Updated Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Specifications

neuroanatomist said:
Proscribo said:
Canon Rumors said:
24-70mm f/2.8-5.6 (approximate 35mm equivalent) <em>Previously reported as 24-120mm</em>
Maybe the aperture is 35mm equiv. too. ???

So it'd be 15-44mm f/1.8-3.5... I mean, otherwise it's a bit sad IMO. I'd rather go with M5 and a couple of lenses.

Wishful thinking...

Me ol' da had something to say about wishing..."Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first."