# Images & Specifications For the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 13, 2017)

```
<strong>*Update* 10/15/17:</strong> The PowerShot G1 X Mark II will begin shipping in late November.</p>
<p>Here are some images of the soon-to-be-announced Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III. This is Canon’s flagship point and shoot camera.</p>
<p><strong>Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III </strong>(Google translated)</p>


<ul>
<li>APS-C CMOS sensor (22.3 x 14.9 mm)</li>
<li>Dual pixel CMOS AF</li>
<li>Number of effective pixels: 24.2 million pixels (Total number of pixels: 25.8 million pixels)</li>
<li>Lens: converted 24-72mm f/2.8-5.6</li>
<li>DIGIC 7</li>
<li>Full HD 60p</li>
<li>Continuous shooting: about 9 frames / sec, servo AF about 7 frames / sec</li>
<li>ISO speed: 100-25600</li>
<li>Minimum shooting distance (from the lens tip): 10 cm (W), 30 cm (T)</li>
<li>EVF: 0.39 type 2.36 million dots</li>
<li>Back side liquid crystal: 3.0 type 1.04 million dot touch panel Bali angle angle liquid crystal</li>
<li>Wi-Fi · Bluetooth · NFC installed</li>
<li>Battery: NB-13L</li>
<li>Number of storable pictures: 200 pictures, in eco mode 250 pictures</li>
<li>Recording medium: SD / SDHC / SDXC card</li>
<li>Size: 115.0 x 77.9 x 51.4 mm</li>
<li>Weight: 375 g (body only), 399 g (including battery and SD card)</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-31697 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Canon_PowerShotG1XMark3_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Canon_PowerShotG1XMark3_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Canon_PowerShotG1XMark3_001-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Canon_PowerShotG1XMark3_001-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_2.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_2-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_2-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" /><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_5.jpg 280w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/canon_4.jpg 280w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl>
			<br style='clear: both' />
		</div>

<p>The announcement for this camera will come on October 16, 2017/October 17, 2017 depending on where you are on the planet.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 13, 2017)

Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5


----------



## clarksbrother (Oct 13, 2017)

Still no 4K...


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

-pekr- said:


> Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

clarksbrother said:


> Still no 4K...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhNM2K8cmU8


----------



## HaroldC3 (Oct 13, 2017)

No 4K...fail
Horrible battery life...fail
Ugly as heck...fail
Slow, short zoom lens...fail
Insane price...fail

They put a dial right in the way of where you grip it!

You blew it Canon.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 13, 2017)

At the rumoured price, I was kind of expecting to see a red ring around the lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

HaroldC3 said:


> Ugly as heck...fail



have you been living under a rock the last few years? it's the same as the G5X.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ugly as heck...fail
> ...



And that's an ugly camera too!


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Here are some images of the soon-to-be-announced Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III. This is Canon’s flagship point and shoot camera.



it's not bad. I'm not convinced of the look but it matches the G5X, so maybe canon knows what they are doing there.

2.8 - 5.6 could be better, however the lens is much smaller than what I thought as well, so there's that. it's certainly much smaller than a M5 and 15-45 attached. I would have perhaps liked this to be a more normal 2.8-4.0 however it is what it is. it's still faster than any EOS-M kit lens, and there's only one kit lens faster in canon's APS-C range (the 17-55 2.8 and it's huge)

the price? not sure what again, everyone's complaining about .. an X100F will set you back $1299 as well, and it has a 23/2.0 prime attached, which is bigger, has no zoom and doesn't have 4K either, yet dpreview and others consider it a great little camera. Imagine that.

there's only three APS-C compacts being made today - and one of them for all purposes is retired (the ricoh) with no updates in the last 4 years.

I'm continually amazed at how many think they know the camera industry to know if canon made a good / bad / indifferent camera.


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

Is it significantly smaller than a 200D with the kit lens? I seriously doubt that! So for me the 200D kit is the better solution. Only the macro capabilities of its lens seem an advantage to me...


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

tron said:


> Is it significantly smaller than a 200D with the kit lens? I seriously doubt that! So for me the 200D kit is the better solution.



oh god.. 

yes, it's smaller than an M5 without a lens attached, so I'm sure it would be smaller than a 200D and kit lens.
:

I can't even believe you seriously asked that .. it will be similar in size to the G5x, slightly bigger .. so:


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Is it significantly smaller than a 200D with the kit lens? I seriously doubt that! So for me the 200D kit is the better solution.
> ...


I was wondering whether it is *significantly smaller * not smaller since the 200d ith kit is small enough!

To my defence I have never seen in real life these compact cameras. But I am positively impressed with the 200D size


----------



## Stuart (Oct 13, 2017)

Wow its ugly - Jagged,


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

tron said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



yes it is. the M5 body is significantly smaller than the SL2 + kit lens. so what do you think?

see picture. good grief.


----------



## photoenix (Oct 13, 2017)

Very interesting, the microphone cutouts are much bigger.

One question remains, does it have a microphone jack? Yes or no?

G5X 23,76-99,36 4,86-7,56
G1X3 24-72 4,48-8,96

So the G1X3 will have a 1/3 stop advantage over the G5X at 24mm
BUT it will have a 1/2 stop disadvantage at the long end, which doesn't even compare since it is at 70mm for the G1X3 while the G5X stays brighter at 100mm.

Then again the G5X gets dust into the lens and only shoots 1fps RAW.

Conclusion: wait for G5X2

Also I'm curious if it supports touch/drag focus like the M5


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


As I said above:

To my defence I have never seen in real life these compact cameras. But I am positively impressed with the 200D size 

And the work's firewall stopped the previous picture from being displayed! So I have to look elsewhere. But thanks anyway.


----------



## Cory (Oct 13, 2017)

Did someone mention "bad battery life"? If so then bad battery life is bad (for travel).


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

tron said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



while the 200D is small for a DSLR, it's not that small for a mirrorless or compact. and the G1X III is pretty tiny, smaller in fact than the M5 without even a lens attached.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.640,637,ha,t


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

photomachine said:


> Very interesting, the microphone cutouts are much bigger.
> 
> One question remains, does it have a microphone jack? Yes or no?
> 
> ...



G5X 1" sensor.
G1X Mark III, APS-C sensor.

conclusion: know what you are comparing.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 13, 2017)

HaroldC3 said:


> No 4K...fail
> Horrible battery life...fail
> Ugly as heck...fail
> Slow, short zoom lens...fail
> ...



+1 exactly 

Canon manages time after time to completely underwhelm ...  :

Only positive I can see is an LCD that appears to be fully articulated ["vari-angle"] rather than those stupid flip-flap ones that are totally useless in portrait orientation.


----------



## tron (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ...
> while the 200D is small for a DSLR, it's not that small for a mirrorless or compact. and the G1X III is pretty tiny, smaller in fact than the M5 without even a lens attached.
> 
> http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.640,637,ha,t


Thanks for the link. I didn't know that site.


----------



## FreshPicsUK (Oct 13, 2017)

Seriously?! I realise that physics dictates the size of the lens on this camera, so the unbelievably poor lens choice can be forgiven, but the rest of the spec is so bad that Canon should hang their heads. It's not 2006 any more. There's more choice than ever with regards to cameras, and the rumoured price is getting on for Fuji X-T20 and kit lens money, or maybe the X-E3 with the same 18-55mm f/2.8-f/4. or the Sony A6500 with 16-50mm kit lens. Which will all be roughly the same size and offer a much faster/better lens choice (as far as the Fuji's go anyway) and won't cost a lot more. I'm amazed that Canon think they can get away with these specs in the current market.


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 13, 2017)

-pekr- said:


> Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5



OH PLEASE.

If the M5 is "ugly", then god help your pictures, because you obviously can't see straight.


Good luck with that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

FreshPicsUK said:


> Seriously?! I realise that physics dictates the size of the lens on this camera, so the unbelievably poor lens choice can be forgiven, but the rest of the spec is so bad that Canon should hang their heads



Fuji X100F sells for $1299. it's the only competitor. how does the specs compare to that?

none of those cameras you mention are as small. do you understand the term, compact camera?

and PS .. the 16-50 kit lens on the Sony is a joke.


----------



## slclick (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> FreshPicsUK said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?! I realise that physics dictates the size of the lens on this camera, so the unbelievably poor lens choice can be forgiven, but the rest of the spec is so bad that Canon should hang their heads
> ...



Well in certain ways certainly not the lens. The fuji is a fixed focal length. That in itself makes most similarities a non starter.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > FreshPicsUK said:
> ...



sure if you ignore the fact that it's the only current production APS-C sensor based compact camera.

the only real differences are rangefinder OVF and fixed lens versus zoom.

the rest of the camera is remarkably similar.


----------



## Canoneer (Oct 13, 2017)

I don't really see this being good enough to justify an upgrade from my Oly E-PL7 with the 14-42 EZ Pancake lens. My Oly is smaller (can actually fit in my pocket), and the ED 40-150 lens is also small enough to fit in another pocket.

I do like the resolution and DPAF of the G1 X III, but it needed to have a little more reach for me to consider upgrading. Maybe a 24-120mm?


----------



## FreshPicsUK (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> FreshPicsUK said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?! I realise that physics dictates the size of the lens on this camera, so the unbelievably poor lens choice can be forgiven, but the rest of the spec is so bad that Canon should hang their heads
> ...



Yeah, I reckon I've got a grasp on what a compact camera is, thanks for asking. But have you ever held an X-E1/2/3? I own one and can tell you now, just by looking at it, that this isn't that much smaller. Oh, and at no point did I compare it to the X100F. And if you want to go really small there's the Sony RX100IV. I'm just pointing out that the specs on this are terrible in comparison to the competition.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ...I'm continually amazed at how many think they know the camera industry to know if canon made a good / bad / indifferent camera.



+1. 

I'm also amazed at how many are so quick to declare a camera that they never intended to buy in the first place a failure, simply because it doesn't meet their own personal preferences. 

This isn't the camera for me. So what? There are plenty of other options out there and I presume that Canon is not in the business of making cameras that it can't sell.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> At the rumoured price, I was kind of expecting to see a red ring around the lens.


Pro1 was the last Powershot with Red ring, Canon is just too stubborn in "protecting" its "high" end cameras.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Here are some images of the soon-to-be-announced Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III. This is Canon’s flagship point and shoot camera.</p>
> <p><strong>Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III </strong>(Google translated)</p>
> 
> <ul>
> ...



Haha. This is by far the ugliest camera I have ever seen. Plus, no 4K and high price = epic fail. Is Canon just making fun of themselves at this point? I picture some engineer or PM playing a joke on an executive and trying to convince them it's good....


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 13, 2017)

A close-up of the camera with its lens retracted, courtesy of Digital Camera Info:

http://digicame-info.com/2017/10/powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-5.html


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 13, 2017)

FreshPicsUK said:


> Yeah, I reckon I've got a grasp on what a compact camera is, thanks for asking. But have you ever held an X-E1/2/3? I own one and can tell you now, just by looking at it, that this isn't that much smaller. Oh, and at no point did I compare it to the X100F. And if you want to go really small there's the Sony RX100IV. I'm just pointing out that the specs on this are terrible in comparison to the competition.



The only comparable APS-C not-interchangeable lens camera is Fujifilm X100F.
Is X100F really smaller and lighter than G1X III? 
At least spec sheet tells something different than what the eyes may perceive. 

X100F: 126.5mm (W) x 74.8mm (H) x 52.4mm (D) Approx. 469g (including battery and memory card)
G1X III: 115.0mm (W) x 77.9mm (H) x 51.4 mm (D) Approx. 399g (including battery and memory card)

They are two different camera types but as far as spec says they are very similar.
Not a surprise that they are similarly priced either.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> sure if you ignore the fact that it's the only current production APS-C sensor based compact camera.
> 
> the only real differences are rangefinder OVF and fixed lens versus zoom.
> 
> the rest of the camera is remarkably similar.



There's also the Ricoh GR II. Even then, I fail to see the advantage of this camera over something the G5XII, it seems like a downgrade. You'll get a very slight increase (~1/3rd stop) in base ISO DR and about a stop increase in mid tone SNR at base ISO, but almost everywhere else you'll be worse off due to the effectively faster, and wider range, lens in the older camera. That lens is going to have to be an absolutely stellar performer for this camera to make any sense at all.

G5XII equivalent parameters ==> 23.76-99.36mm f/4.86-7.56
G5XIII equivalent parameters ==> 24-72mm f/4.48-8.96


----------



## gmon750 (Oct 13, 2017)

-pekr- said:


> Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5



I care about what the camera can do, and zero about how it "looks". Are you expecting the appearance of the camera to swoon the ladies or something?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 13, 2017)

Lets see the camera in the wild before writing it off. Sure the battery performance look poor from the leaked spec. but no one knows how good the lens is or how well it feels in your hand and what the picture quality is like. 
Its expensive that much I will agree on so it will need to be good.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 13, 2017)

OK after the initial shock of the new, I kinda like the looks of the thing. Yeah it's a bit lumpy but also funky in a cool-ish way--it would grow on me I think. And it's a camera after all--not jewelry as some buy cameras for. I think the specs are great for a relatively tiny camera that you can keep hung around your neck all day. I would have preferred a rangefinder-style bump-less top--but I'm sure the view through this is better than that would have been.

So yeah.

A


----------



## okaro (Oct 13, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> photomachine said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting, the microphone cutouts are much bigger.
> ...



The sensor size difference has been counted in these. The APS-C might benefit from lower base ISO though. One inch has ISO 125 which is equivalent to ISO 350 in APS-C.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 13, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some images of the soon-to-be-announced Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III. This is Canon’s flagship point and shoot camera.</p>
> ...



If you can't figure out how to properly quote a post; are too lazy to look at the preview; and can't be bothered learning a few basic HTML codes...quit wasting valuable Internet space. We could run out.
http://hmpg.net/


----------



## countofmc95 (Oct 13, 2017)

I don't really have a huge issue with the specs of this camera. Slightly disappointed no 4k, but not a deal-breaker personally. I think it's quite a feat to squeeze an APS-C sensor in this size body with a zoom lens.

What I do have an issue with is the value proposition. This seems to be the exact same price as an EOS M5 with 15-45 AND adding the 22mm f/2. So this G1XIII is about 1/2 stop faster on the wide end, but same speed at the longer end as the 15-45. Not sure if that is compelling enough personally for me to pick over the M5 with the 2 lenses mentioned.

Ultimately the small size is impressive, but again this kind of goes back to the question I've wrestled with maybe the last 5-6 years. If a camera is not truly pocketable (and the G1X III is not for me, it's a small bag camera), then why not just carry a small mirrorless setup with 1-2 lenses instead, since you are carrying a bag anyways. In that case again, I'd prefer the EOS M5 with 15-45 and 22 f/2.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 13, 2017)

HaroldC3 said:


> No 4K...fail
> Horrible battery life...fail
> Ugly as heck...fail
> Slow, short zoom lens...fail
> ...



Let s wait - if the price IS insane the market will correct it down to a sane price.
Remember EOS M classic, a good camera which was not accepted by the
market and was available at insanely low prices a year later.

And I do not understand the hype around 4k for such a camera. If I would do 4k
I would do that for a premium cinema movie for a full length documentary or
other kind of movie. Then I would prefer a 4k movie camera ...


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 13, 2017)

It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution. All specs aside I will not buy another travel compact without 4K video. After all these years Panny LX100 seems like a much better all around choice at half the price. Go figure.
I do hope those who are not interested in video will be happy with this camera. For me, other than the sensor in a small body this camera doesn't seem too impressive. Maybe the actual camera will be better than the rumors.


----------



## Talys (Oct 13, 2017)

ablearcher said:


> It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.



While 4k prices have certainly come down, this statement is just not true.

For me, it's more like... it's October 2017, and there still isn't enough 4k content that I'm interested in watching to make a 4k TV upgrade worthwhile. I have fiber to my home with available 4k, yet the only content is some sports stuff that I have no interest in, and House of Cards if I'm willing to pay more money each year.


----------



## powershot2012 (Oct 13, 2017)

Agree, with no 4K??? 

Costing over $1300?

And design is nothing more than poor selling G5X....



-pekr- said:


> Oh man, this is even uglier than the M5


----------



## powershot2012 (Oct 13, 2017)

Looks like you summed it up VERY accurately. 




HaroldC3 said:


> No 4K...fail
> Horrible battery life...fail
> Ugly as heck...fail
> Slow, short zoom lens...fail
> ...


----------



## Act444 (Oct 13, 2017)

The image quality will tell the story. For that price I would have high expectations for IQ...but given the performance of their stand-alone EF-M 15-45 (subpar at best), it’s kinda tough to imagine this being any better really. Hopefully we don’t have to imagine much longer...

Honestly w/$1300 I can’t see why I wouldn’t just get an M5/15-45 combo instead, and the 22mm for low light. Yes, the G1X has a slimmer profile, but unless it can truly be squeezed into a pocket...

Having said all that though, I like where this is going. Next up, an RX1R II competitor please


----------



## unfocused (Oct 13, 2017)

Talys said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.
> ...



I was also unaware that:


4K TVs are unable to play 1080p content;
That everyone who owns a 1080p television is now mandated to toss it and buy a new 4K television;
That to really appreciate video content on tiny tablets and smart phone screens (which represent the bulk of video consumption) it must be in 4K; and 
That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 13, 2017)

Talys said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > It is October 2017 and one will have a hard time finding a new TV on sale with 1080p resolution.
> ...



Well, its been a while I saw a large screen on sale with 1080p. In any event, look me in the eye and tell me that you would consider buying a 1080p TV if you were buying a new TV today. As for the content - well this is why having a 4K camera is important for me, especially if I'm planning to take it along for travel. This is how you will CREATE the content for the new 4K screen. Also, quite a number of new movies are coming out in 4K discs these days. 1080p was fine but seriously - this is the past and not worth the investment at the moment. Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ablearcher said:
> ...



No need to exaggerate my post. Enjoy your 1080p screen. I guess I'm old enough to remember similar discussions when 1080 just came to the market. I'm glad I didn't listen to those who said 640 × 480 was more than enough (same comments about content, etc) and got myself a 1080 video camera (photo cam with 1080 was not even an option yet). In the past few years I created enough content to enjoy it on my 1080p screen. I'm just moving on now.

I have enough heavy camera gear for studio and location shoots, so this COULD be a nice travel camera for me. But without 4K I will be looking elsewhere. As simple as that.


----------



## Andreasb (Oct 13, 2017)

Well I seem to be in the minority. I like: 
The "looks" of this camera (not from the beauty perspective, from a usability and feature set). It has a real grip to hold on to (how many dropped RX100 are there?), a viewfinder (a must for me) real controls, it is a mini dslr, that I would learn quickly and have an easy time to move back to a bigger DSLR, a real hot shoe, I assume a tiltable display, 24 MP. 

What I don't like as much:
The lens seems slow, but we have not seen edge to edge sharpness shots yet, Maybe it is really good? Time will tell, I wont buy anything until I see a couple of reviews. I think they choose the lens this way to make the whole package really small, and that they did with this lens. Now if we want shallow dept of field, an M5 with a 22mm and or an SL2 with any fast Canon lens is a better but bigger choice... The M5 is not much bigger though....
Battery life seems low...
Price? Now if it is $1299, why not buy an M5? (I forgot, Canon hardly has any enthusiast lenses for it....) The G5 X I is $729 USD or so? Why not wait for the G5 X II? Cant be far out (?)

My I don't care section:
4K. I'm not into video but now if you really want good IQ video why would you use this little camera for it? There are plenty of really good cameras that can do that much better, I can just see this little cam with 4k and a 1.5 crop factor on top of the AP-C crop factor, no one would be happy with that (?) If the 1080p is good at 60 fps, I would be happy with that, but then again I don't really care....

What I have been looking for is a mini dslr with real controls, quality camera with good IQ, and AF, I did like the look and feel of the G5 X I but the performance was lacking, and the corners where soft. Is the G1X III it? I dont know. I will be waiting for the G5 X II and reviews before I decide. Now if Canon made some better lenses for the M5, it would make it much more of an interesting proposition.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 13, 2017)

This may set a record for the worst battery life of any camera on the market.
Oh, and no 4K.

I sure would have liked that fully articulating screen on the M6 though


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 13, 2017)

Andreasb said:


> The G5 X I is $729 USD or so? Why not wait for the G5 X II? Cant be far out (?)


Considering how slow they made the lens on this (basically no advantage against the 1" cameras, even the other way around), you may have to wait for a while... I don't think there's a G5X II coming.


----------



## gmon750 (Oct 13, 2017)

ablearcher said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I too don't find the attraction to 4K video given today's environment. From a consumption point most watch their videos on mobile devices. I don't have a 4K TV simply because I don't find a need to toss my old 1080P that's already 10 years old. The content is just not there and most shows on cable (Comcast) broadcast in 720. I'm big into Netflix and iTunes and no 4K yet. 

From the camera perspective, shooting in 4K consumes batteries like they're going out of style and obviously... storage requirements. Cameras like these will most certainly start running hot as well and frankly, I just don't see the need yet.

My 1080p videos will look exactly the same as 4K videos as viewed from my phone and/or iPad.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 13, 2017)

I shoot 4K video with my iPhone. It lacks a zoom lens, so I can edit the video in FCP or Premiere and in effect zoom in manually. I can then output the video to 1080p or 720p. But I find a better solution is to take a real camera with me. Nothing else I have will shoot 4K, but everything else can zoom in. So in editing, I don't need to enlarge the picture so often, and native output looks great. If I'm aiming for 720p, that's even better. 720p is as much information as 1080i, and looks about the same on TVs. That may be counterintuitive, particularly if raw specs impress you more than anything else.

My main TV is an 8-year old 1080p 46" Sony. I sit 13 feet away from it. I have 20-20 vision. The picture looks great still. I will replace it when it conks out, but I don't want a bigger screen dominating the room, and I have no plans to move my chair to the middle of the floor to take advantage of higher resolution. I am in no rush to replace it. The 43" Samsung plasma set in my bedroom has perhaps a better picture, but I would not move it to the living room because of all the window light. I do like the 4K OLED TVs I've seen in stores, and when the Sony goes, that's probably what I will buy, particularly if the prices keep coming down and there is something available at 55" or under. I still will not move my chair, though, and won't feel any need to get a 4K disc player or higher level streaming. I'm skeptical anyway of the quality of streamed 4K, given the compression involved. I would be interested in a blind (so to speak) test of streamed 4K vs. 1080p. My guess is that data rate would determine which is better. (IOW, at some point compression artifacts obliterate any resolution advantage.)

I say all this to suggest why I am not moved by all the pearl clutching here about lack of 4K on various cameras. I recently bought a 6D2, and I realize that makes most of you guys think I'm an idiot. I shot some video at a garden at night with it, and posted it to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOngTVJUVE&feature=youtu.be Even after their processing, the 1080p doesn't look bad even seen in full screen mode on my 5K computer monitor from two feet away. 

I recognize that there are legitimate needs for people to shoot 4K or higher. Those needs would often suggest investment in a real video camera. I don't see 4K as *the* determining criterion in choosing a still camera, especially a PowerShot.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 13, 2017)

Someone sent me some videos of equipment shot on an iPhone in 4K. What a pain in the butt downloading it and up loading it to others. And the quality of it looked no better than anything else to me.


----------



## LDS (Oct 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I was also unaware that:
> 
> That your friends, family and neighbors will find it much more enjoyable to sit through a two-hour video of your kid's school talent show if it is shot in glorious 4K



LOL!

I believe this is a "photo first" camera - the zoom range itself doesn't make it a great video camera. Yet, from a marketing perspective, being unable to write "4K" on the specs sheet may hurt.

In some ways it looks a "strange" camera for today's standards. It may be the product of too many compromises, or maybe a right mix of useful features? Let's see....


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 13, 2017)

Expensive
Short Focal Length
Not a nice looking camera.
Missing 4K which is not an issue for me.
This would want to have stellar image quality to save it.
I think it's not going to do well.


----------



## IOS46 (Oct 13, 2017)

I don't think this is going to sell well.


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2017)

Solid!

Rugged!

Tank like!

Strong!

Overpriced!


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 14, 2017)

I wish it didn't stop down all the way to f/5.6.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 14, 2017)

Lots of carping here.
The looks of the camera are similar to the rest of the family. Frankly, I like the look. We need more interesting looking cameras rather than less.

Slow lens? Maybe, but not too slow and what really matters is how sharp is it?
The camera is extremely compact for an APS-C camera and answers the complaints of so many who decry the lack of compactness on mirrorless cameras with ILC.

For me the key is the leaf shutter. This is the first camera since the Leica X-Vario to have an APS-C sensor, a leaf shutter and a 24-70 zoom. In the case of the Leica the superb, but even slower, lens was attached to a body with no EVF and only 16 MP.

Now we have an up to date sensor, an EVF and the promise of a decent lens. 
This could serve to replace my 5dmkIIIs for a ton of my outdoor flash work. No more working at f11 or 13 just to get some balance in the bright desert sun I work in. No more dragging big lights to push fill out 15 to 20 feet. And no more fooling with the profound kludges of HSS or hypersync.
Oh yeah, no noisy flipping mirror.

Totally worth it for me.


----------



## pokerz (Oct 14, 2017)

Thanks Canon, we all know that Digi7 too weak to handle 4k
let's wait 5 more years


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 14, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> For me the key is the leaf shutter. This is the first camera since the Leica X-Vario to have an APS-C sensor, a leaf shutter and a 24-70 zoom. In the case of the Leica the superb, but even slower, lens was attached to a body with no EVF and only 16 MP.



lef shutter - missed this . is it conformed in specs or you just assume because of G1X I and II ? What X-sync does it have?


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 14, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Someone sent me some videos of equipment shot on an iPhone in 4K. What a pain in the butt downloading it and up loading it to others. And the quality of it looked no better than anything else to me.



Don't you realize that shooting 4k on a 2mm sensor for display on a 4 inch screen is the wave of the future?! Duh!


----------



## Wizardly (Oct 14, 2017)

"It's so ugly." Huh??

It quite sensibly uses the space over the lens to store the flash. Thank goodness it doesn't have the "fake pentaprism" bulb on the top. Fuji and Sony put their viewfinder too close to the lens mount to use this space, and Olympus "glue a square to a triangle" is just idiotic.

The grip actually makes sense. Its almost like someone studied ergonomics. News flash camera makers, when the buttons are on top the fingers don't curl around the front of the camera, they angle forward. The major flaw I see here is the front control wheel (yay, it's continuous instead of recessed!) is too close to the grip.

AF assist lamp is on the left, where the fingers aren't. Camera makers get this wrong all the time.

Flash it out of the way of the hot shoe. I wonder if it's high enough to not be obscured by the fully-extended lens. Hopefully. 

Threaded front of lens! Yay!

Locking mode dial. Nice.

Exposure comp dial is recessed. So many cameras get this wrong.

Back is cramped. Small camera, but really cramped. Would have liked a levered drive ring under the mode dial.

Missing the image sensor plane mark.

Fully side-articulating LCD. None of the tilt crap.

One hopes the tripod mount is center-mounted (wtf Fuji?) and that the card slot is side entered (probably not, probably just sockets under a door).

Look at those enormous microphone slots next to the viewfinder.

Speaker on the left...should be on the back. The viewfinder is between the user and the microphone for playback.

Manual flash. Literally pull it up to use. Interesting choice. Saves on pointlessly spring loaded flashes I suppose, but I guess I still want one.


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2017)

Wizardly said:


> "It's so ugly." Huh??
> 
> It quite sensibly uses the space over the lens to store the flash. Thank goodness it doesn't have the "fake pentaprism" bulb on the top. Fuji and Sony put their viewfinder too close to the lens mount to use this space, and Olympus "glue a square to a triangle" is just idiotic.
> 
> ...



I agree with many of your points, esp the exp dial (on my Pen F it's my biggest gripe)


----------



## wildwalker (Oct 14, 2017)

unfocused said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'm continually amazed at how many think they know the camera industry to know if canon made a good / bad / indifferent camera.
> ...



Exactly, as this is a fixed lens camera, it's not even like you are tied in from a lens/accessories perspective. A compact camera is a perfect purchase where you can try any manufacturer you like.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 14, 2017)

slclick said:


> Wizardly said:
> 
> 
> > "It's so ugly." Huh??
> ...



I agree as well, but damn, it's the ugliest camera I've seen in a long time ;D ;D ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 14, 2017)

I dont see why some find this "ugly". It's not to your taste perhaps but Canon making a modern version of their classic A1 and F1 (which I still own 35 years later) is what this looks like to me. I really like the body style and the camera specs overall. I just get nauseous at the price tag at this moment.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 14, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> I dont see why some find this "ugly". It's not to your taste perhaps but Canon making a modern version of their classic A1 and F1 (which I still own 35 years later) is what this looks like to me. I really like the body style and the camera specs overall. I just get nauseous at the price tag at this moment.



If the camera is rugged and sealed than the price - still high - can be somehow justified. 
Anyway - the price should have been the least concern: the higher it starts the faster it falls.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 14, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> I dont see why some find this "ugly". It's not to your taste perhaps but Canon making a modern version of their classic A1 and F1 (which I still own 35 years later) is what this looks like to me. I really like the body style and the camera specs overall. I just get nauseous at the price tag at this moment.



I find the entire "retro styling" design stuff totally absurd. One of the reasons other than price and no FF, that i totally ignore Fujifilm gear. 

Why on earth should a digital camera in 2017 look like some mechanical camera from 50 years ago? The entire user interface that made sense back in the steampunk mech & film days and could not be implemented better back then - like mono-functional dials for shutter time, aperture rings, exposure comp, stop-down key etc. - has been replaced with way superior possibilities. Freely assignable, multi-functional dials, wheels, controllers, joysticks, buttons plus a large touchscreen LCD and clear menu system [Canon! not Sony!]. 

I would like to get a camera that is "100% solid state inside" with a user interface befitting the 21st century. 

For example, instead of stupid "dumb" buttons/wheels and stupid shoulder LCDs that I never ever look at I'd rather like multi-functional dials with context-sensitive display, e.g. like this:






For body styling I really liked the Panasonic Lumix L1 back in 2006. Something along those lines, but slimmer, with FF sensor inside, a fully articulated LCD in back, a well-chosen Canon EF-X mount up front and a built in pop-up EVF [like Sony RX1R II and some other RX cameras] would be totally my camera.





Also, I only buy cameras in all black, preferably matte-black. Even in the analog manual days I did not like silber+black cameras and got me a Minolta XD-7 in chrome black instead. Not to speak of brown, white or hello-kitty-pink deviations from hell. 

Of course looks are personal preference and YMMV.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 14, 2017)

ablearcher said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ablearcher said:
> ...



I bought a tv a couple of weeks ago and it wasn't 4K, because I wanted a cheap option and there is essentially no 4K content available at present in the UK even now. No point spending more for something I'm not able to use. And shopping around, plenty of lower res tvs are still on sale, even "HD ready", which I think means 720p? Not everyone wants or needs the highest spec devices, or can even tell the difference.

And how many people buying a small compact camera are creating, or wanting to create 4K content - and how many are actually going to use their tv to enjoy it? I'd bet they are a tiny minority.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > For me the key is the leaf shutter. This is the first camera since the Leica X-Vario to have an APS-C sensor, a leaf shutter and a 24-70 zoom. In the case of the Leica the superb, but even slower, lens was attached to a body with no EVF and only 16 MP.
> ...



I am assuming it is a leaf shutter as a FP shutter is needed for interchangeable lenses. They are bulkier, noisier and have limited sync so the leaf shutter would be the inexpensive way to implement a shutter.
The maximum sync would be the maximum speed of the shutter. I don't know what that amy be but as the max sync /shutter speed on the x-100F is 1/2000 sec I would bet on that.


----------



## okaro (Oct 14, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Normalnorm said:
> ...



One needed FP shutter with film. In digicameras one could put a leaf shutter in every lens instead if one started from scratch.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 15, 2017)

So many ugly haters in this thread...


----------



## deleteme (Oct 15, 2017)

okaro said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


Nope. FP shutters were created in the 19th century to achieve high speeds unavailable with competing in-lens shutters of the time.
Leitz used a FP shutter in its 35mm cameras to allow easy interchangeability of lenses and lower cost.
Flash sync was not an issue until the advent of electronic flash where the flash was so brief that it could only expose properly at speeds that did not use a traveling slit.

Leaf shutters were used in view camera lenses, simple cameras such as Brownie's and even enthusiast amateur cameras such as Yashica, Canon and Argus. Hasselblad and Rollei were premium cameras that used leaf shutters. While Rollei had fixed lenses in their Rolleiflexes, Hasselblad adopted leaf shutters in their classic 500C designs.

Digital has nothing to do with whether a camera will use a leaf or focal plane shutter. Lower cost, fixed lens cameras use leaf shutters while interchangeable lens cameras (with very few exceptions) use focal plane shutters.

Incorporating leaf shutters into each lens for an interchangeable lens system has a lot of drawbacks. The lenses are bulkier, more expensive and can have lens to lens speed variations. More importantly, if you have a shutter failure (and they do fail more frequently than FP shutters) you lose the use of a lens that may be critical on a job. Witha system using an focal plane shutter you just switch bodies.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 15, 2017)

scyrene said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I have bought a 40inch *4k* TV 2.5 years ago, NOT to produce and see 4k content as primary application.
BUT
- to have a film like look because monitor pixels are not visible from a distance of 1.5m or more.
- to have a display to view my photos in a higher resolution (7Mpix in 3:2 format)
- to use it as a computer screen optionally (therefore the smaller 40inch chosen)

The difference in price was about 10% between 2k and 4k.

About video on photo oriented cameras: EOS 600D was quite good at producing 2k movies but after doing some
"technical" video with the 200D I see a strong improvement less in terms of usable resolution but in terms of
natural reproduction. It took ~8 years to mature 2k in these cameras.

Maybe it is the same with 4k on 4k oriented cameras: Current sensors / processors handle it 
just but without any headroom - so compression and other types of data manipulation etc. are set to suboptimal values.

I would prefer very good 2k video over 4k AT THE MOMENT.


----------



## okaro (Oct 15, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> Nope. FP shutters were created in the 19th century to achieve high speeds unavailable with competing in-lens shutters of the time.
> Leitz used a FP shutter in its 35mm cameras to allow easy interchangeability of lenses and lower cost.
> Flash sync was not an issue until the advent of electronic flash where the flash was so brief that it could only expose properly at speeds that did not use a traveling slit.
> 
> ...



With film one has to protect the film while changing lenses. If one used leaf shutters one would have to have additional manual shutter to protect the film. With digital that is not a problem. On my EOS M the sensor is visible when I remove the lens.

"You just switch bodies". Most people have more lenses than bodies. If you have just one body, your system becomes in case until you buy a new one and it can take time if you do not have money. Using a lens just limits your options.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 15, 2017)

leaf shutters vs. focal plane/curtain shutters ... the ultimate RETRO discussion. wake up, analogue steampunks! we live in 2017! time to finally get mechanics-free global electronic shutter im every camera (not in lens, of course). any X-Sync we want. 1/32.000 exposure time no problem. shutter life likely 100 Mio actuations, not 100.000. Silent image capture instead of motors whirring to cock shutters and springs cracking to move leaf or shutter blades! no oil splattering onto (Nikon) sensors any longer. no vibrations, no blur! 

solid state rules supreme. i like! 8)


----------



## padam (Oct 15, 2017)

I'd bet that it will be on the TCSTV worst cameras of 2017 list if they manage to review it, because it looks ugly and very expensive (for what it is), unless the lens turns out to be very sharp with this narrow range (but it only matters for photos, for video it will be soft anyway).


----------



## LDS (Oct 15, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> Leaf shutters were used in view camera lenses, simple cameras such as Brownie's and even enthusiast amateur cameras such as Yashica, Canon and Argus. Hasselblad and Rollei were premium cameras that used leaf shutters. While Rollei had fixed lenses in their Rolleiflexes, Hasselblad adopted leaf shutters in their classic 500C designs.



Many non interchangeable lens cameras had leaf shutter, often bought from a third party - most good leaf shutter were made by Compur (part of Zeiss, IIRC) or Copal, and incorporated into the lens or camera design.

IIRC Hasselblad tried first with a FP shutter, but it proved not enough reliable, and switched to a leaf one. That's why the Kiev (which was a copy of the original Hasselblad), had a FP shutter. Larger FP shutters (bigger formats) were more difficult to build than smaller one for 35mm. 

IIRC again, leaf shutter in MF and large format lenses allowed for complete sync speeds, but weren't very fast shutters either - reaching at most often only 1/500, or even less. Anyway, they weren't camera designed for action photography.


----------



## BasXcanon (Oct 15, 2017)

Ok but the first grobalshutter Powershot will be even more $$$$ than this one.

But for me there is no way back, I listened my 80D and 2 EFS lenses on Ebay today.
I will snag the G1xM3 before anyone else!


----------



## swblackwood (Oct 15, 2017)

BasXcanon said:


> Ok but the first grobalshutter Powershot will be even more $$$$ than this one.
> 
> But for me there is no way back, I listened my 80D and 2 EFS lenses on Ebay today.
> I will snag the G1xM3 before anyone else!



Why did you do that? The camera will not even ship until late November. Also still a bunch of unanswered question. Mic jack? ND filter?


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 15, 2017)

ablearcher said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ablearcher said:
> ...


you're obviously not looking hard.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Televisions/zgbs/electronics/172659/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_2_1266092011

quite a few 1080p's on that list .. there's even 720p's on that list.

People forget that not everyone WANTS or NEEDS a big tv, which precludes 4k for alot of people. there will always be places for less than 4K tv's simply because of that fact.

that's all beside the point. there's no compelling evidence that 4K needs to be on every single stills camera.

Considering that canon is selling as many cameras as they did a year ago, without 4k and the vendors that sell 4K equipped cameras, aren't experiencing a renaissance in sales, it would suggest that the entire hyperbole is overblown.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 15, 2017)

swblackwood said:


> BasXcanon said:
> 
> 
> > Ok but the first grobalshutter Powershot will be even more $$$$ than this one.
> ...


maybe the video crap isn't necessary for him .. just a hunch.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 15, 2017)

I like how compact it gets when its shut off. I also think the sensor will be good. But, the price and the lack of focal length range is a little tough to handle. I suppose there are some significant tradeoffs to be had for keeping it small though.


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2017)

Jopa said:


> So many ugly haters in this thread...



Well, yeah. Ugly is on the tops of many persons hate list as opposed to the whole pretty category which is on top. For example, I give you Hedy Lamarr, if only she was a Canon camera.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 15, 2017)

The award for the ugliest camera of the year goes to.....

Lol...is this the only area Canon be "best of class" in?


----------



## Tugela (Oct 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Go to the average electronics outlet, such as Best Buy, and see what they are selling. There may be some 1080p sets over in the corner, but almost all of their floor space is for large 4K panels


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 16, 2017)

Tugela said:


> The award for the ugliest camera of the year goes to.....
> 
> Lol...is this the only area Canon be "best of class" in?



Am I the only one who actually likes the look of this camera? Its way nicer then the M5 in my opinion.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 16, 2017)

Tugela said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ablearcher said:
> ...



if i go into the average walmart, bestbuy, it's quite easy to find 1080's for sale.

of course if you ONLY go looking for 50+ inche displays, they are 4K - but not everyone wants or needs that. didn't read too hard did you?


----------



## dak723 (Oct 16, 2017)

Tugela said:


> The award for the ugliest camera of the year goes to.....
> 
> Lol...is this the only area Canon be "best of class" in?



Since photographers are looking through the camera and not at the camera, the large number of folks commenting on the looks reveals a lot. I have a hunch that over 99% of photographers don't really care what the camera looks like. I guess gear-heads do.

Based on all the comments here - and how wrong the CR user group usually is when it comes to predicting a camera's success - this one will probably be both popular and take excellent pics.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 16, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> leaf shutters vs. focal plane/curtain shutters ... the ultimate RETRO discussion. wake up, analogue steampunks! we live in 2017! time to finally get mechanics-free global electronic shutter im every camera (not in lens, of course). any X-Sync we want. 1/32.000 exposure time no problem. shutter life likely 100 Mio actuations, not 100.000. Silent image capture instead of motors whirring to cock shutters and springs cracking to move leaf or shutter blades! no oil splattering onto (Nikon) sensors any longer. no vibrations, no blur!
> 
> solid state rules supreme. i like! 8)


Yeah, we've been waiting for global shutters almost as long as flying cars.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 16, 2017)

LDS said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Leaf shutters were used in view camera lenses, simple cameras such as Brownie's and even enthusiast amateur cameras such as Yashica, Canon and Argus. Hasselblad and Rollei were premium cameras that used leaf shutters. While Rollei had fixed lenses in their Rolleiflexes, Hasselblad adopted leaf shutters in their classic 500C designs.
> ...


Hasselblad FP shutters in the 1600 were unreliable because Hasselblad were unreliable. The switch to Compur shutters in the lenses offloaded the engineering to Zeiss and added the benefit of all speed sync. When talking about ISO 64 film and professional photography, action stopping speed was hardly a concern. Note a lot of 35 mm cameras at the time with FP shutters maxed out at 1/500 also. 1/2000 was first seen on the Leicaflex SL In about 1972 and was unaffordable to most.
Typical LS shutters go to 1/2000 today in smaller format (APS-C) cameras and 1/1600 in MF lenses. Action is not a huge part of commercial photography. Commercial photography is frequently about flash with a FL usually falling in the 24-70 range.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 16, 2017)

okaro said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. FP shutters were created in the 19th century to achieve high speeds unavailable with competing in-lens shutters of the time.
> ...


A pro has multiple bodies. A lens without a shutter rarely fails. Shutters are the weakest link in any camera. I have 5 bodies and multiple fixed lens LS cameras just so I am not left high and dry on a job.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 16, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The award for the ugliest camera of the year goes to.....
> ...



Reminds me this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M
Nobody cares what pictures the camera can take. The look is everything, right? CR hipsters disapprove.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on *3 years* of 4K mainstream consumer devices.


----------



## BasXcanon (Oct 16, 2017)

Sold my 80D and 2 lenses over night. 2 More EFS's to go.
I just finished fill out my pre order.

I gonna love this camera, 4 Aspherical elements in that thing!!!


----------



## Talys (Oct 16, 2017)

I don't know why there are so many people panning the looks. It looks like a camera, it's got a functional grip (though I don't know how it will feel at its size), buttons and dials look solid and in the right places, and the flippy lens looks to maximize the back. I mean, at the end of the day, who cares what it looks like... For something like this, I would care more about how it will fit in a wee slot in a bag than what it looked like.

Either way, not a camera for me -- it would have had to support a decent magnification macro, to interest me at this price point, but then the lens would likely be too bulky. But I can certainly see how it could be useful.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 16, 2017)

> Lens: converted 24-72mm f/2.8-5.6



They mean equivalent 24-72mm f/4.5-9. You can't scale up the focal length and not scale up the f-stop; the 'f/#' is literally a mathematical formula which includes the focal length. The _t-stop_ doesn't change, but you can't alter the focal length in "focal length divided by" without also changing the result of that equation.

Same-old marketing intentional misleading.


----------



## clicstudio (Oct 16, 2017)

F5.6 at 70mm? This is really dumb in my opinion. At that price, the lens needs to be at least a fixed 2.8...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 16, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on *3 years* of 4K mainstream consumer devices.



As your powers of logic seem to resemble that of a 1970s Casio wristwatch, please can you show me two things:
can you tell me what you mean by 'anti-4K crusade' and who has said it is a bad thing?
can you show me a comparison of iphone 4k vs DSLR 4k to show the iphone is anywhere near the DSLR in image quality?


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Your anti-4K crusade is getting harder, isn't it? Again, given Canon's reputation of world-class imaging and their current tag line of SEE IMPOSSIBLE, it is a bit comical that they haven't begun to include competitive 4K in their line of cameras. The iPhone has had 4K for years now- that's not just 1 year, that's 2 years and 3 cycles, which means we are now going on *3 years* of 4K mainstream consumer devices.
> ...



Aww...it's adorable how resistant you are to the future of video imaging. I was referring to that particular poster, who seems to have a terrible bias against increased video resolution, but it could just as easily refer to you. There are many examples of iPhone video quality if you care to look for them, some of them award winning feature films.

*But no, I can't show you a suitable comparison to a Canon DSLR or P&S because 4K on most Canon cameras does not exist.*


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 16, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...




And I did not ask to compare iphone vs Canon, I asked iphone vs DSLR. You are making the claim, you support that claim by showing me a comparison.
An 'award winning feature film' has been shot on iphone - but if a film of that image quality had been shot on a Canon you would be panning it for its apalling quality. Of that I am sure. 

The question is not whether increased video resolution is possible, the question is how useful is it and how many people in the camera market either need it or want it. But as usual, instead of engaging in conversation you prefer to throw insults like 'apologist' and 'fanboy'.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

It is reasonable to make the comparison between iPhone 4K and DSLR 4K, yes. 

But I can easily compare results of iPhone 4K with Canon 1080p from S, G, and Rebel cameras as well as now the 6D2, since I have shot each and have seen the results on my 5K monitor. 

For its size, my iPhone 6S does a remarkable job shooting 4K video. I don’t bother to shoot 1080p with it, given its limitations. And I need that resolution to compensate for its lack of a zoom lens, so I can crop in editing. My general impression is that the G7X II video is not quite as good on the raw footage as the iPhone 4K, but produces better results in the finished product. The Rebel video is a little better. The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage. 

All things being equal, having more pixels is a good thing, at least up to a point. But with different format cameras, all things are not going to be equal.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.


Exactly my point.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.
> ...



I'm glad I could reinforce that point from my own experience.

By now most folks who pay attention know that just having more megapixels in a still image doesn't automagically make better IQ. But somehow a lot of folks still expect that to work for video.

BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.



Oh, they did. But then Sony came out with the a7RII, with 4*2* megapixels, so they all want back to ILCs.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> I'm glad I could reinforce that point from my own experience.
> 
> By now most folks who pay attention know that just having more megapixels in a still image doesn't automagically make better IQ. But somehow a lot of folks still expect that to work for video.
> 
> BTW, years ago there was a phone that had a 41 megapixel camera. I don't recall hearing that people traded their DSLRs in for the phones.


That was the Nokia 8-something. It had 41MP but output was something like 8MP maximum and that downsampling enabled them to reduce the noise and produce very decent images. I suspect we may see one of Canon's 100+MP cameras working in the same way at some point unless someone comes with a major improvement in sensor technology.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 17, 2017)

http://j.mp/2ynDiuW

* Canon fugly vs. contemporary design 
* Crop sensor vs. FF sensor 
* stupid retro hump on top vs. very smart pop-up EVF

But unfortunately 
* (slow) zoom covering a good bit of most frequently used FL range vs.fairly uninteresting 35mm/2.8 fixed focal
* way too high pricing vs. insane pricing 

= no buy from me. Neither one. Waiting for an RX-R1-II sized FF MILC with "really right" lens mount up front. Plus Canon UI.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D2 1080p is noticeably better than the iPhone 4K even in the raw footage.
> ...



And you know what would be noticeably better than the 6D2 1080p?

Yup- 6D2 4K 2160p. 

It would even look sharp on a MacBook.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> And you know what would be noticeably better than the 6D2 1080p?
> 
> Yup- 6D2 4K 2160p.
> 
> It would even look sharp on a MacBook.



I'm not arguing against that at all. And do you know what would be even better? 8K. And 8k will probably be out before 4k has even taken a hold. I was contesting your point about iphone vs 4k and I still don't see a mass market requirement or expectation of 4k in what is primarily a stills camera. 

I can easily envisage cameras experiencing something like the format wars in HiFi where people will get so fed up of hearing 'Look guys here is the new 'next best thing' you gotta have it' and when they do buy it within 6 months people like yourself are shouting 'no, you bought to early you shoulda waited and bought *THIS*' and in the end they will shrug their shoulders and say 'what I have is good enough. I don't need your new product' and go back to their iphone images.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 17, 2017)

while i personally don't care for video capture at all and it is no parameter in my camera buying decisions at all, I do find Canon's *4k refusal* utterly ridiculous in late 2017. And yes, it does cost them sales. 

Also Mikehit, as opposed to esoteric HiFi stuff where nobody with normal ears can hear a difference, anybody with normal eyes can immediately see the massive difference between 1080, 4k and 8k video. Clearly. 

So yes, I am looking forward to a world with only 4k video ... and 8k coming soon. In some ways it is really funny, that electronics manufacturers manage to cram 50 megapixel onto a small sensor 36x24mm but are unable to put a similar number of pixels onto a 50" screen. One would think that should be a hell of a lot easier, as "miniaturization is difficult" ... I would expect to see 100MP monitors much sooner than 100MP imaging sensors .. but ... stupid universe of consumer electronics.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> And you know what would be noticeably better than the 6D2 1080p?
> 
> Yup- 6D2 4K 2160p.



It might. There is no way of knowing at this point.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> while i personally don't care for video capture at all and it is no parameter in my camera buying decisions at all, I do find Canon's *4k refusal* utterly ridiculous in late 2017. And yes, it does cost them sales.



Evidence? How many? is it enough to change their mindset? 
I am puzzled by your condemnation of Canon's refusal to incorporate full 4k whils saying you have not interest in it. You are merely strengthening my argument as to why Canon do not see an imperative to include it. And yet why I voice that you call me a Canon fanboy. You have a very weird line of logic.

Only this afternoon I cam across this comment which seems quite apt to describe your viewpoint 
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices"




AvTvM said:


> Also Mikehit, as opposed to esoteric HiFi stuff where nobody with normal ears can hear a difference, anybody with normal eyes can immediately see the massive difference between 1080, 4k and 8k video. Clearly.


oh, believe me they can often hear the differences. But they just don't care because what they have is good enough. 
My analogy never said the couldn't hear the differences, it was whether the more vocal proponents were overestimating the importance of new formats to the general market 
And I have seen enough comment from people far more experienced than myself to say that at normal viewing distances 1080p vs 4k vs 8k is not at visible as some people make out (the 'at normal viewing distances' is the important point)




AvTvM said:


> So yes, I am looking forward to a world with only 4k video ... and 8k coming soon. In some ways it is really funny, that electronics manufacturers manage to cram 50 megapixel onto a small sensor 36x24mm but are unable to put a similar number of pixels onto a 50" screen. One would think that should be a hell of a lot easier, as "miniaturization is difficult" ... I would expect to see 100MP monitors much sooner than 100MP imaging sensors .. but ... stupid universe of consumer electronics.


Or maybe the people who make the equipment to view the output know a lot more than you about what the general market wants or will stand when they look at an image. Whereas the people who but the devices to capture the data get obsessed with capturing as much as possible for no other reason than they can.

Again, like the hifi afficonado who gets his room perfectly set up to hear every minutiae as long as they are sitting in a specific place with the speakers placed precisely so. But as soon as they start doing things like paperwork, or doing the cooking, or having more than 2 people in the room, the whole purpose of spending multiple thousands on the equipment falls apart.
BTDT, got the Tshirt and now more realistic in what is necessary.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I am puzzled by your condemnation of Canon's refusal to incorporate full 4k whils saying you have not interest in it. You are merely strengthening my argument as to why Canon do not see an imperative to include it. And yet why I voice that you call me a Canon fanboy. You have a very weird line of logic.



No. It is only your (and Neuro's) constant insinuation, that I only care for products that I - and only I - would ever buy. 

So again: No, I do not care about any sort of video capture. I am not interested in it. Too much for me. All the directing stuff and post processing would drive me nuts. So for me it is stills images. 

But I still find it equally ridiculous and stupid from Canon to DENY 4k to all those (potential) customers who would LOVE to have it in a camera. I don't say (4k) video should be in every camera, far from it. I always said, I would LOVE to buy a great stills camera without ANY video stuff in it. I am sure there are many others who would. BUT I think it would be much smarter and better for Canon to offer at least one fully 4k enabled camera body in every segment / at every price level of their product line-up. Powershot, Rebel, xxD, xD, M = 5 bodies. No problem, if they would price the 4k option at a (reasonable) premium - maybe 20% more expensive than stills only. So for (a minimum of) 5 select bodies there should be a "v" version, like "video-centric". 

Now in what way do you think this is illogical or un-reasonable?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> But I still find it equally ridiculous and stupid from Canon to DENY 4k to all those (potential) customers who would LOVE to have it in a camera.


It is only 'stupid' if not putting 4k in affects their sales. I am not talking about the odd one or two who decide the Sony mirrorless video suits them better - they are mere motes of dust in the environment of the global market. I am talking about a shift in notable percentages of sales, the sort of things that make an executive say 'maybe we ought to do something about it'. 
It has been explained before on this forum that no company on earth would upgrade 1080p to add 4k and not charge for it. In other words, 4k would add to the price. You have no idea of how much that costs, I have no idea but the conclusion I draw is that Canon defined a price bracket for the camera and put in whatever features it thought it needed to feed the majority market at the target price and they decided to add things other than 4k video. 
Canon made that decision, and their success in market position shows they know a thing or two about designing cameras for the mass market. You, on the other hand look on it as incompetence which would make me ask if they are so incompetent how are they so successful. Occam's razor.



AvTvM said:


> BUT I think it would be much smarter and better for Canon to offer at least one fully 4k enabled camera body in every segment / at every price level of their product line-up.


Canon obviously have the data to disagree with you. You, on the other hand, have supposition based on zero knowledge of camera design but what 'sounds logical'. 
You accuse me of being a paid shill based on nothing other than I disagree with you. I on the other hand ask at what point do the facts make you think that maybe you are wrong. I would like the option of 4k....more accurately I like the idea of having a 4k option even though I shot barely 10 minutes of video in the years since I had video capable cameras. I think 'great' if it is there but I don't care if it isn't and it seems that is pretty much your view as well.
Whether wanting it or not is 'reasonable' is not the question. No company does 'reasonable': they do what is 'profitable'. Canon, Nikon, Sony - they all do. It is just that Sony have to add all the bells and whistles to even get a foothold.
Is Canon behind Sony on 4K technology? My guess is 'yes', but it would seem that although they are trying to solve that, there is no rush to do so, and by 'rush' I mean this ,mythical 2 years in which you claim mirrorless will overtake DSLR sales and make DSLR largely redundant. 

Your comment about it being 'reasonable' is somewhat of a softening from your previous pronouncements of Canon's incompetence. So I am not sure if you were trolling or just overstating your case based on frustration and incomprehension.


----------

