[Macworld]

Post your comments for Canon PowerShot G1 X offers amazing photos, troubling limitations here

[pawhite524]

Thanks for your efforts towards providing an even handed article of pluses and minuses. One of the Cons mentioned- price, begs the question of how this camera compares with the very fine Canon Rebel series and the Nikon 3200 with their standard lenses as these package can be had for the same or less than the G1 X and provides platforms to build upon. I place a premium on an optical viewfinder therefore did not include the ILC camera competitors.

[pcharles]

pawhite524, on 09 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Thanks for your efforts towards providing an even handed article of pluses and minuses. One of the Cons mentioned- price, begs the question of how this camera compares with the very fine Canon Rebel series and the Nikon 3200 with their standard lenses as these package can be had for the same or less than the G1 X and provides platforms to build upon. I place a premium on an optical viewfinder therefore did not include the ILC camera competitors.

It is pointless to compare a fixed lens camera to a removable lens camera, especially for pricing purposes. It needs to be compared to cameras in its category such as the zx-1, s100, rx100, LX7, samsung, and fuji. On sensor terms and image quality, it beats all of them, but as a general purpose advanced point and shoot, the rx100 beats the lot.

It frustrates me to read the P&S to SLR comparison, particularly on price, because you might buy a basic DSLR with 18-55 lens for $800, but to do anything useful you then need to buy more lenses and something to keep them in. Now you are up to a backpack full of gear just to cover the range of what fits neatly in to a point and shoot or super zoom.

It is not a matter of either/or. These cameras are designed for people who want a top quality p&S, and probably own a decent SLR.

This post has been edited by pcharles: 10 August 2012 - 04:05 AM

[IanGosso8n5]

*… relatively narrow F2.8 aperture …*? I have heard of *wide*, but never *narrow* referring to a, well, wider aperture. This is an inexperienced photographer.

*You simply won't find better all-around image quality from a fixed-lens camera.* Fuji X100?

*The circumference of the lens is quite a bit larger than what you'll find on other premium compact cameras …*. And the point of this statement?

I shall avoid the name * Moynihan* in future.

[gslusher]

"; for the price and for the usability hiccups, though, you might as well buy a DSLR or a mirrorless model."

For a lot more money. Adorama sels the G1 X for $699. The G1 X is the equivalent of 28-112mm, f/2.8-5.6. The same range on a Canon APS-C DSLR would be 17.5-70mm. To get a good Canon lens with roughly that range would mean the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS--a bit wider and longer, but not as fast on the wide end. That lens (which I have and use a lot) sells on Adorama for $734--more than the G1 X. Add a decent DSLR and you're at %1300+. Also, that lens is actually 1 ounce HEAVIER, by itself, than the G1 X. And, guess what? It's minimum focus distance is over a foot. (That's measured from the sensor plane; from the front of the lens, it would be more like 7 inches.)

[gslusher]

One more thing: there's another possible use for the G1 X. I have a G9. (Well, I also have a G2, my first digital camera.) Its major weakness is not-so-good performance in low light. In good light, though, it's very good. So good, in fact, that I often carry it instead of another lens for my 50D. It is the 35mm equivalent of 35-210 mm, f/2.8-4, which translates to 22-131 mm on my 50D. It weighs abou 13 oz with the battery. When I'm doing nature photography, I'll usually have my Sigma 120-400mm on the 50D. I could carry the 15-85mm lens, but it weighs about half again as much and requires that I switch lenses. It's much simpler to carry the G9 in my pocket and pull it out when the 120-400mm is too long. If I want to cover wider angles, I can carry a Sigma 10-20mm or 8-16mm--but I'd have one of those with the 15-85mm, as well.

I also use the G9 mounted on the flash shoe of the 50D with a little $5 adapter to shoot video of horse events while I'm shooting stills with the 50D. Like most point-and-shoot cameras, the G9 can't zoom while shooting video, but that's not a problem, as I couldn't be fiddling with the zoom anyway. (IMy Canon S3 and SX20 both DO zoom while taking video.)

[gslusher]

pawhite524, on 09 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Thanks for your efforts towards providing an even handed article of pluses and minuses. One of the Cons mentioned- price, begs the question of how this camera compares with the very fine Canon Rebel series and the Nikon 3200 with their standard lenses as these package can be had for the same or less than the G1 X and provides platforms to build upon. I place a premium on an optical viewfinder therefore did not include the ILC camera competitors.

The kit lens on most Rebels is nowhere near as good as the G1 X. It's not even close. The most common kit lens (18-55mm) also has a narrower zoom range. To get roughly the same quality will require a more expensive lens, like the 15-85mm I mentioned.

[pawhite524]

pcharles, on 10 August 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

pawhite524, on 09 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Thanks for your efforts towards providing an even handed article of pluses and minuses. One of the Cons mentioned- price, begs the question of how this camera compares with the very fine Canon Rebel series and the Nikon 3200 with their standard lenses as these package can be had for the same or less than the G1 X and provides platforms to build upon. I place a premium on an optical viewfinder therefore did not include the ILC camera competitors.

It is pointless to compare a fixed lens camera to a removable lens camera, especially for pricing purposes. It needs to be compared to cameras in its category such as the zx-1, s100, rx100, LX7, samsung, and fuji. On sensor terms and image quality, it beats all of them, but as a general purpose advanced point and shoot, the rx100 beats the lot.

It frustrates me to read the P&S to SLR comparison, particularly on price, because you might buy a basic DSLR with 18-55 lens for $800, but to do anything useful you then need to buy more lenses and something to keep them in. Now you are up to a backpack full of gear just to cover the range of what fits neatly in to a point and shoot or super zoom.

It is not a matter of either/or. These cameras are designed for people who want a top quality p&S, and probably own a decent SLR.

I find your response to be a bit too hot and with its fair share of assumptions not based upon facts but your own experience and conclusions. Deriding my question about considering the most bang for the buck as "pointless" makes me wonder when you were voted the most knowledgable person in the world by someone other than yourself. Thank you for coming down from Mt Olympus to tell me the way it is. And yes, the Mt Olympus comment contains a pun.

[trichardlin]

pcharles, on 10 August 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

It is pointless to compare a fixed lens camera to a removable lens camera, especially for pricing purposes. ....

If I have money burning a hole in my pocket, I want to consider all options. I don't see why it's pointless to compare different categories. Consumers make that comparison all the time.

[nfiertel1]

Considering the new EOS-M, this camera is going to disappear soon..n

[pcharles]

trichardlin, on 11 August 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

pcharles, on 10 August 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

It is pointless to compare a fixed lens camera to a removable lens camera, especially for pricing purposes. ....

If I have money burning a hole in my pocket, I want to consider all options. I don't see why it's pointless to compare different categories. Consumers make that comparison all the time.

I am all for considering options, but I said I thought it was pointless because I really I doubt very much if someone out shopping for a DSLR would settle for a P&S instead. They are completely different beasts, and have completely different uses. Sure, someone may consider a DSLM (micro 4/3), instead of a DSLR, if they do not already have money invested in SLR lenses. However, I would never consider exchanging my EOS and L-Glass for a pocket camera or DSLM.

I do have a Lumix Superzoom and pocket camera in addition to my DSLR. The DSLR is used for very specific purposes when I need really good image quality or low light performance, the super-zoom is used for general travel and for when I need a big zoom on the road and do not want to carry a backpack full of SLR gear, and the pocket camera for times when I do not need a big zoom or need ultra portability.

Right now, I am looking at upgrading all three. I am hoping that Canon releases the 7D MkII soon, and have my eyes on the Lumiz FZ200 and the Sony RX100 to fulfill my needs in each category. If you add up the cost of that lot, I doubt If I will have any pockets left!

[pcharles]

pawhite524, on 10 August 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

pcharles, on 10 August 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

pawhite524, on 09 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Thanks for your efforts towards providing an even handed article of pluses and minuses.

It is pointless to compare a fixed lens camera to a removable lens camera, especially for pricing purposes.

I find your response to be a bit too hot and with its fair share of assumptions not based upon facts but your own experience and conclusions. Deriding my question about considering the most bang for the buck as "pointless" makes me wonder when you were voted the most knowledgable person in the world by someone other than yourself. Thank you for coming down from Mt Olympus to tell me the way it is. And yes, the Mt Olympus comment contains a pun.

At least I stuck to my thoughts on the cameras instead of resorting to personal attacks. If you have something useful to add, that counter my arguments, you should do that. I stand by my assertion that someone who is seriously interested in a DSLR would not consider a "P&S" as an alternative, even one like this. However, they might consider the two of them as a working pair and a super-zoom to round out the trio. My superzoom, A lumix, and my point and shoot, a fuji 3D, are kept for travel because hauling a bag full of SLR gear around Disney and other such places is (IMHO) insane. The EOS is saved for occasions when image quality and low light performance is essential.
'
The other problem with comparing an EOS to this camera is that it negates the huge expense associated with buying lenses. You may spend $600-800 on a base Rebel with the 18-55 kit, but then you need to spend a lot more to get good lenses. It is the sensor size and quality glass that gives a DSLR its edge over compact systems and DSLM's. This may just be my misguided opinion, but I see not point paying good money for an DSLR, and crippling it with crappy lenses, or using it as a point and shoot. If you want a point and shoot, I really feel you should buy a good point and shoot (RX100 for example). Again, just my opinion from my ivory tower of camera knowledge and the Holiday Inn!

This post has been edited by pcharles: 21 August 2012 - 01:13 PM