# Images & Specifications of Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II Leak Out



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 2, 2017)

```
Images & Specifications of Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II have leaked out ahead of the imminent announcement.</p>
<p>Specifications (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Color: Black Silver</li>
<li>Number of effective pixels: 2010 million pixels</li>
<li>10.2-30.6mm (28-84mm) F2.0-4.9</li>
<li>DIGIC 7</li>
<li>Video: Full HD</li>
<li>LCD size: 3.0-inch</li>
<li>Battery: NB-13L</li>
<li>Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC (UHS -I compatible)</li>
<li>Size: 98.0 x 57.9 x 31.3 mm</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-27821 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="powershot-g9-x-mark-ii_bl_001" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_002.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_002-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="powershot-g9-x-mark-ii_bl_002" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_003.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_bl_003-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="powershot-g9-x-mark-ii_bl_003" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_si_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PowerShot-G9-X-Mark-II_si_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="powershot-g9-x-mark-ii_si_001" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2017)

The message is very clear: If you want 4K video clips buy anything but Canon, unless you pony up with the big bucks for their top cameras


----------



## Light Sculptor (Jan 2, 2017)

Etienne said:


> The message is very clear: If you want 4K video clips buy anything but Canon, unless you pony up with the big bucks for their top cameras



Annoying but true! I wonder how long they will hold out before introducing 4K into their cheaper cameras? Will it take ever other manufacturer having 4K, in all their budget cameras, before they relent?!


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 2, 2017)

unlike the whiners and complainers.. I'm looking forward to the similar DIGIC 7 improvements from the G7X for this camera.


----------



## photonius (Jan 2, 2017)

Cool: 2010 million Pixels!!!!

What's the file size? Where can I buy a supercomputer to process this?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Tempting, essentially the same size as my S100 (now my older daughter's) but better IQ. Would prefer 24mm equivalent on the wide end, that's a significant improvement over 28mm (one reason I got the S100 to replace the S95, the latter is now my younger daughter's). 

But...I think I'll stick with the M2.


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2017)

2010 million pixels eh?

Now that''s what I call HIGH resolution!!!!


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2017)

Light Sculptor said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > The message is very clear: If you want 4K video clips buy anything but Canon, unless you pony up with the big bucks for their top cameras
> ...



I don't know how long they'll hold out, it's already an embarrassment. 
In the video world, 1080p is the old SD quality, and 4K is the new "HD standard quality." Only offering 1080p video is like putting out a stills camera with an 8 MP sensor today, when the competition is selling 24 MP cameras.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 2, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> unlike the whiners and complainers.. I'm looking forward to the similar DIGIC 7 improvements from the G7X for this camera.



From your comment here, I presume you own/owned both the G7X and the G7X II...and I surmise that the G7X II has DIGIC 7 while the older G7X has DIGIC 6?

Can you elaborate on the ways that DIGIC 7 improved the usability/responsiveness of the II (compared to the original G7X)?

Whether it is Canon's S series (such as the S95, which I own), the G series (such as the G9X, which I do not own), or the EOS M family (own and enjoy both the M and M2)...I would *pay more* for cameras with the dimensions and weights of all three of these sets of cameras...and I would even settle for LESS battery life...if Canon souped up their responsiveness with better/faster processing power and AF abilities.


----------



## countofmc95 (Jan 2, 2017)

I am hoping this drops the price of the G9X Mark I, so I can replace my wife's aging S110. I like 1-inch sensor cameras (previously had RX100, now have a Panasonic LX10), but my wife values portability more than anything else, so I've had my eye on the G9X for a while, but think the $429 price it's at right now is a tad dear for what I get.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 2, 2017)

No tiltty flippy screen = Flop...


----------



## powershot2012 (Jan 2, 2017)

Disappointment from Canon AGAIN! It long from 2013, but Canon didn't get the message.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 2, 2017)

What is the need for having 4k in a camera like this? Serious question, because I would imagine any ILC would be better suited then this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> What is the need for having 4k in a camera like this? Serious question, because I would imagine any ILC would be better suited then this.



Why? Because iPhone.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> What is the need for having 4k in a camera like this? Serious question, because I would imagine any ILC would be better suited then this.



Why do you need ISO 6400? Why do you need a 24 f/1.4 ? Why do you need an 11-24mm zoom?
If you can't figure it out yourself, you wouldn't understand or accept any explanation.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Jan 2, 2017)

???
Why is no one else troubled by the fact that these images and the specs are identical to the G9 X, save for the swap-out of a DIGIC 6 image processor. Is that it? 15+ months of R&D has resulted in Canon doing no more than a microprocessor upgrade?! 
G9 X: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-powershot-g9-x-at-canon-usa/


----------



## bart13 (Jan 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > What is the need for having 4k in a camera like this? Serious question, because I would imagine any ILC would be better suited then this.
> ...



Nice contribution!

Some reasons:
- Future proofing : You or your clients may not need 4k now but soon they will. I hate cutting in old sd footage. I will hate cutting in 1080.
- Room for post : Stabilizing footage without loss. This edit style is quite hot atm and it benefits greatly from 4k since there is alot of zooming, panning, rotating and cropping in post. https://vimeo.com/88224399 You can see some of the shots are not holding up.
- 1 camera 2 shots : Nice to have for interviews. Shoot 4k and deliver in hd so you can shoot a wide and tight shot at the same time.
- Often clients ask for still so they can make gfx like posters. 1080px is not alot to work with.
- It sells


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

bart13 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



The question wasn't, "Why 4K?" But thanks for answering that unasked question anyway! Unless you think this is a camera intended for professionals, interviews, and such. Do you routinely or even occasionally use a point-n-shoot to capture video footage for clients?

The question is highlighted above, and since the camera in question is a P&S, and smartphones are gutting the P&S market, it would seem quite reasonable to include 4K.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 2, 2017)

domo_p1000 said:


> ???
> Why is no one else troubled by the fact that these images and the specs are identical to the G9 X, save for the swap-out of a DIGIC 6 image processor. Is that it? 15+ months of R&D has resulted in Canon doing no more than a microprocessor upgrade?!
> G9 X: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-powershot-g9-x-at-canon-usa/



We are troubled, but there's nothing much left to say. We all know it's a poor update that Canon seems very good at in the entry level area.

Canon's major issue is the fact the senior management are mostly 75-85 years old. These old fossils have long lost the plot and are from an ultraconservative era. They just don't get it. The head of Sony's imaging group is in his 40's and look at the goals they are kicking. Nikon I presume is not much better than Canon as they seem to make similar crazy decisions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Canon's major issue is the fact the senior management are mostly 75-85 years old. These old fossils have long lost the plot and are from an ultraconservative era. They just don't get it. The head of Sony's imaging group is in his 40's and look at the goals they are kicking. Nikon I presume is not much better than Canon as they seem to make similar crazy decisions.



LOL... 

Yes, let's look at those goals. Sony imaging loses 25% y/y sales in 1H16 (nowhere nearly all attributable to the quake)..._score_. Sony imaging raises full FY16 projection by 4%, meaning a projected y/y loss of 21% sales...*score*. Sony loses more market share to Canon...*SCORE*. It's Sony...for the win!!

:


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 2, 2017)

Edit:

Etienne, let me ask you another question if you don't mind.

If this camera did come out with 4K, would you purchase this over other 4K options on the market? If so, why? is it only because of the pocketable package? I imagine things like the fixed lens, slow aperture, non-constant aperture, no manual focus, no manual aperture control, no flip screen etc, would make this not very desirable in the "video world."


----------



## Cory (Jan 3, 2017)

I might get this bad boy as a pocket camera for when just wanting something for the pocket (or a small belt case).


----------



## ggweci (Jan 3, 2017)

Cory said:


> I might get this bad boy as a pocket camera for when just wanting something for the pocket (or a small belt case).



For a pocket camera, a good option, but if you are considering a belt case, you may want to step up to the G7X II for the much faster lens and flip screen.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 3, 2017)

If it fits it ships (C) USPS.
I.e. if this camera fits in my pocket - it ships to my home address  Very looking forward to it. The only question is how usable the f/4.9 at the tele end... Don't care about 4k-less. None of my TVs and projectors are 4k yet. Usable 1080p is definitely better than a crappy 4k.


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 3, 2017)

You have to give that to Canon - video is only 2 Megapixels, but photo now 2000 MP even in small cams.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bart13 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You are both right. 4K is eminently useful and a necessity for professionals. Many would consider buying this cam as a backup to their higher end gear that does shoot 4K video and if it does not do 4K the money might stay in their pocket. And, as was pointed out, Canon and other manufacturers have to give consumers a good reason to shell out money on a P&S when their iPhone has the same video specs and can *literally* fit in their pocket. And Canon's just too afraid of cannibalizing themselves to do that.


----------



## pokerz (Jan 3, 2017)

Canon's just too afraid of cannibalizing themselves to do that.
So don't expect 4k movie in non Cine Cameras before 2047


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2017)

pokerz said:


> Canon's just too afraid of cannibalizing themselves to do that.
> So don't expect 4k movie in non Cine Cameras before 2047



So Canon will still be selling cameras in 30 years? I had no idea you were such an optimist.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mr Majestyk said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's major issue is the fact the senior management are mostly 75-85 years old. These old fossils have long lost the plot and are from an ultraconservative era. They just don't get it. The head of Sony's imaging group is in his 40's and look at the goals they are kicking. Nikon I presume is not much better than Canon as they seem to make similar crazy decisions.
> ...



Hey I'm no Sony fan boy, but the camera market is a tough gig now. Everybody is struggling; sale figures for 2016 are grim across the board, and that has nothing to do with how good or bad Sony's cameras per se.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2017)

Mr Majestyk said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Majestyk said:
> ...



Granted that this is a P&S thread, but for ILCs this year, Canon is predicting only a 1% drop, which given the overall market decline means big market share gains for Canon.


----------



## pokerz (Jan 3, 2017)

Jopa said:


> If it fits it ships (C) USPS.
> I.e. if this camera fits in my pocket - it ships to my home address  Very looking forward to it. The only question is how usable the f/4.9 at the tele end... Don't care about 4k-less. None of my TVs and projectors are 4k yet. Usable 1080p is definitely better than a crappy 4k.


True, and just refilm everything once your tv and projectors are upgraded.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2017)

pokerz said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > If it fits it ships (C) USPS.
> ...



Yeah, because when you pop a DVD into a Blu-Ray player and watch it on an HDTV, it's just totally, horribly unwatchable. :


----------



## bart13 (Jan 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bart13 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I decided to copy the question to not confuse you even more.

_Do you routinely or even occasionally use a point-n-shoot to capture video footage for clients?_
Yes. here are some examples
-Placing a small camera as a wide shot on a tripod or magic arm while shooting the rest of the footage on the a cam. For example covering a opening ceremony of a event.
-Using it as a off angle bcam for interviews while being the only shooter.
-Sometimes directors shoot some extra footage or angles with a handy cam, this could also be done with a point and shoot or a mirrorless camera. 
-Use it as a gorpo with higher quality.
-Set it up to timelapse.
-Some clients shoot their own content and send it in for the edit(small business).

I think this will cover most of the arguments I posted earlier.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2017)

bart13 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bart13 said:
> ...



Thanks, that nicely explains why *you* think a camera like this should have 4K. I suspect only a very (very!) tiny minority of potential buyers would be using it in a similar way.


----------



## bart13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Oh yes, small market for sure. Most people would prefer a m5/a6500 over a p/s for this purpose too. I have been looking at the sony rx100v to pair with the fs5 for some jobs where space and weight really is a concern.


----------



## bart13 (Jan 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bart13 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Oh btw, I highlighted something red


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 3, 2017)

NokiS___a Camera also published two pictures of *Canon IXUS 185* without any specifications:

http://www.nokiS___a-camera.com/2016/12/powershot-g9-x-mark-ii_31.html

_(damn politically correct policies that automatically modifiy some strings of letters; you have to replace S___ by the proper letters)_


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 3, 2017)

Seriously all you people troubled by the omission of 4K go buy a video camera. On a tiny sensor like this what kind of a 4K image do you think your going to get? 
Gone it seems are the days we buy P&S cameras to take PHOTOGRAPHS no we want to be Hollywood directors instead and if we don't get 4K then hey ho were sulk. 

Many Hollywood films are shot on Arri Alexa camera NOT ONE is 4K so they must be inferior!


----------



## pokerz (Jan 3, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Seriously all you people troubled by the omission of 4K go buy a video camera. On a tiny sensor like this what kind of a 4K image do you think your going to get?
> Gone it seems are the days we buy P&S cameras to take PHOTOGRAPHS no we want to be Hollywood directors instead and if we don't get 4K then hey ho were sulk.
> 
> Many Hollywood films are shot on Arri Alexa camera NOT ONE is 4K so they must be inferior!


Can Arri Alexa camera put into your pocket?
Rx 100 & LX10 do great 4k movie, it kicks 5dm3 1080 CRAPPY movie away.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 3, 2017)

pokerz said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously all you people troubled by the omission of 4K go buy a video camera. On a tiny sensor like this what kind of a 4K image do you think your going to get?
> ...



actually the RX100 cannot do *4K* movie "great"

they even call it 4k "clips" because it's limited to 5 minutes or less.

and the RX100 IV and above are considerably larger than the G9X, and the LX10 even more so.

there's the argument to be made that the G7x and upcoming G3x should have 4k clips of some sort.

however it's dramatically idiotic to think the G9x should considering it's diminutive size.

the three formentioned cameras:





in other words.. Good grief.


----------



## powershot2012 (Jan 4, 2017)

Seriously, you are even trying to put the G9X in the same league as the LX10, let alone the RX100 IV and V???

Now that is funny.   :




rrcphoto said:


> pokerz said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...


----------



## pokerz (Jan 4, 2017)

To be fair with Canon, let's compare RX 100 (2012) vs G9x2 (2017)
28-100mm vs 28-84mm
F1.8 - 4.9 vs F2.0-4.9
10FPS vs 8FPS
bounce flash vs touch screen

Innovative Canon 8)


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

powershot2012 said:


> Seriously, you are even trying to put the G9X in the same league as the LX10, let alone the RX100 IV and V???
> 
> Now that is funny.   :



reading is hard I see. : :


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

pokerz said:


> To be fair with Canon, let's compare RX 100 (2012) vs G9x2 (2017)
> 28-100mm vs 28-84mm
> F1.8 - 4.9 vs F2.0-4.9
> 10FPS vs 8FPS
> ...



Okay.. the only thing the RX100 has going for it is 1/3 EV at 28mm 28-100 and 1.8 FPS more. I heard lots of complaints about RX100's IS? no?

let's see on the G9X Mark II.

added a touchscreen, wifi/nfc and BLE, UHS-I support, ND filters,etc.

oh and is:

Canon PowerShot G9 X is 4% (3.6 mm) narrower and 0% (0.2 mm) shorter than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II.
Canon PowerShot G9 X is 20% (7.5 mm) thinner than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II.
Canon PowerShot G9 X [209 g] weights 26% (72 grams) less than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II [281 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Yeah .. damn that canon for doing something well.

: :


----------



## pokerz (Jan 4, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> pokerz said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair with Canon, let's compare RX 100 (2012) vs G9x2 (2017)
> ...



ok, you are comparing Rx 100 (2013) vs G9x2 (2017)
Flipping screen and hotshoe vs touch screen, that's all.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

you're right, camerasize doesn't have the RX100

Canon PowerShot G9 X is 4% (3.6 mm) narrower and 0% (0.2 mm) shorter than Sony Cyber-shot RX100.
Canon PowerShot G9 X is 13% (4.9 mm) thinner than Sony Cyber-shot RX100.
Canon PowerShot G9 X [209 g] weights 13% (31 grams) less than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 [240 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Happier? the point still stood.

Against the RX100 II? the RX100 II only had 3.9fps, but had a non touchscreen tilt screen and a hotshoe.

yeah .. that's real innovation there .. right?


----------



## pokerz (Jan 4, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> you're right, camerasize doesn't have the RX100
> 
> Canon PowerShot G9 X is 4% (3.6 mm) narrower and 0% (0.2 mm) shorter than Sony Cyber-shot RX100.
> Canon PowerShot G9 X is 13% (4.9 mm) thinner than Sony Cyber-shot RX100.
> ...


RX100 123 does 10FPS, RX100 4 does 14FPS and Rx 100 5 does 16FPS

I bet u never use any Rx100 and start discussing lol


----------



## powershot2012 (Jan 4, 2017)

Thinking, for others. 

Only thing worse than the G9X is the G9X II.

28-84mm F2.0-4.9 End of story. ;D



rrcphoto said:


> powershot2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, you are even trying to put the G9X in the same league as the LX10, let alone the RX100 IV and V???
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2017)

powershot2012 said:


> Thinking, for others.
> 
> Only thing worse than the G9X is the G9X II.
> 
> ...



The RX100 is ~5 mm thicker and a few decagrams heavier. 

It's ok if you don't understand physics, not everyone does.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

powershot2012 said:


> Thinking, for others.
> 
> Only thing worse than the G9X is the G9X II.
> 
> 28-84mm F2.0-4.9 End of story. ;D



the funny thing is .. that once you get to 28mm the RX100's are at or over f2.0

the main comment was that you have compromises when you are attempting to make something smaller than optimal and maintain around a $500 price point at release.

hard concept I guess for some to gather.


----------



## alxair (Mar 13, 2018)

Would like to see a g9x mark III with a sharper lens (edge,corner sharpness). Maybe even with a 1.8-4.9 aperture lens but only as long as they could still make it weight less and be smaller than original rx100.


----------

