# Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15853"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15853">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Reviewed.com has their camera staff at CP+ in Tokyo and have taken some time to write a pretty extensive preview of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028804-REG/canon_9167b001_powershot_g1x_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon PowerShot G1 X II</a>. On the surface, they appear very positive about the camera. Keep in mind, these thoughts are without actual real world image samples and usability tests.</p>
<p><strong>Some thoughts from reviewed.com</strong>

<em>“The retooled Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II is a clear shot at the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II—a camera that currently enjoys an undisputed reign atop the pocket cam hierarchy. And in some key specs, the Canon is a superior offering. Its lens is both brighter and has more reach, and the sensor’s a lot bigger, too. All of that ought to translate to higher image quality, especially in low light.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review" target="_blank">Read the full article</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028804-REG/canon_9167b001_powershot_g1x_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon PowerShot G1 X II at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><em>image credit: reviewed.com</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Triggyman (Feb 14, 2014)

Tempting camera to get - I've been looking for a smaller camera just to take with me and enjoy taking pictures with. However the price tag is too steep for me, I think this will appeal to consumers who have more money to spare - so I think I'm not part of the market Canon has set its sights on


----------



## traveller (Feb 14, 2014)

The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger. The G1X II is actually larger than the full frame RX1 in most dimensions, though it is slightly shallower over the lens (the body itself is a bit chunkier).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

traveller said:


> The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger.



Yeah - I don't really consider something to be 'pocketable' if I'm required to wear a coat or cargo pants to have a sufficiently large pocket. By that definition, in at least one of my coats the 1D X + 40/2.8 is also 'pocketable'.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 14, 2014)

Am I the only one who is more excited about Canon finally getting into EVFs than for the G2X itself? 

Nice camera though. Unfortunately here in EU the price will be around 650€. Too much for me to consider it a sensible investment.


----------



## ajndesign (Feb 14, 2014)

It seems the thing that this review marks as a disapointment, being bigger than the RX100, is a pro for me! I've tried the RX100 II and found it to be too small and fiddly! I like to have something substantial in my hand, and it is still tiny compared to a DSLR and lens. 
The G1x Mark II wins for me, despite its price!


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Feb 14, 2014)

The G1X-II looks to me to be a collossal waste of time and money for Canon development. If they had wanted to
hit a home run, they should have used M lenses, priced it at $499.00 and pushed it as a new mirrorless system.
Now they just have two turkeys on their hands and will have a hard time selling either.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 14, 2014)

This camera is way more interesting to me than an M. I don't want to have to invest into another lens system & the 24-120 built-in lens on this looks pretty rad! The price will drop a bit once all the G1X models are gone.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 14, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> This camera is way more interesting to me than an M. *I don't want to have to invest into another lens system* & the 24-120 built-in lens on this looks pretty rad! The price will drop a bit once all the G1X models are gone.



A pointed disputed by the fact that EOS-M + 18-55 + 20 pancake is still cheaper than the G2X.


----------



## traveller (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger.
> ...



I've never come across a coat that would comfortably be able to fit a 1D-series in its pocket; I'm sure they exist, depending on your definition of "comfortable". My old G12 felt very big and bulky in my coat pocket and the G1X II is even bigger; at least it is far more capable camera. Besides, if you lived in Britain you'd find that you were pretty much "required" to wear a coat for 90% of the year anyway.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 14, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This camera is way more interesting to me than an M. *I don't want to have to invest into another lens system* & the 24-120 built-in lens on this looks pretty rad! The price will drop a bit once all the G1X models are gone.
> ...



You're comparing a pre-order price to a close out price.


----------



## traveller (Feb 14, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> The G1X-II looks to me to be a collossal waste of time and money for Canon development. If they had wanted to
> hit a home run, they should have used M lenses, priced it at $499.00 and pushed it as a new mirrorless system.
> Now they just have two turkeys on their hands and will have a hard time selling either.



Really? I think that if you took the lens off this camera, it would be pretty ordinary. What would be the advantages over the current EOS M2? (assuming you can get your hands on one!)


----------



## ajndesign (Feb 14, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> This camera is way more interesting to me than an M. I don't want to have to invest into another lens system & the 24-120 built-in lens on this looks pretty rad! The price will drop a bit once all the G1X models are gone.


I'm glad someone thinks the same as me! People keep on about how an M is cheaper and all the other M43 cameras are cheaper etc etc... What they don't seem to get is that there are people out there who DON'T WANT a camera with separate lenses!
I am willing to pay extra for the G1X II so I don't have the hassle of separate lenses. 
Anyway, a M43 camera may be cheaper to start with, but there will then be a need to buy other lenses. So for me at least, the G1X II is more or less my ideal camera!


----------



## smozes (Feb 14, 2014)

After owning the s90 I stopped believing there's such a thing as a pocketable compact. 

Even that camera was not comfortable to walk around with or store along with anything else in a pocket. I can't imagine what it's like to walk around with the RX100 in your pant pocket.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 14, 2014)

This is definitely on my short list as my SX100 IS take everywhere cam replacement, though the true successor (SX700 HS) announced at the same time is also tempting...


----------



## traveller (Feb 14, 2014)

smozes said:


> After owning the s90 I stopped believing there's such a thing as a pocketable compact.
> 
> Even that camera was not comfortable to walk around with or store along with anything else in a pocket. I can't imagine what it's like to walk around with the RX100 in your pant pocket.



The G12 was far worse, even in my jacket pocket it felt like I was carrying a brick. 

On a different note, I was watching one of the Canon preview videos and it looks like the G1X MkII retains the same crappy menu structure as the rest of the G-series; why can't they bring the high end Powershots into line with EOS, so we wouldn't have to learn a whole new system?


----------



## biggiep (Feb 14, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This camera is way more interesting to me than an M. *I don't want to have to invest into another lens system* & the 24-120 built-in lens on this looks pretty rad! The price will drop a bit once all the G1X models are gone.
> ...



And your point is disputed by the fact that the EOS-M tops out at 55mm at the long end with a lame f/3.5-5.6 aperture.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2014)

traveller said:


> The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger. The G1X II is actually larger than the full frame RX1 in most dimensions, though it is slightly shallower over the lens (the body itself is a bit chunkier).



Yeah for me I always use a DSLR unless I need something truly pocketable. I don't personally see the point of something half-way, if it's not truly, utterly pocketable it won't get used since I'd be using either something pocketable or a DSLR.

So for me it's RX100 II + DSLRs.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 15, 2014)

biggiep said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



An this point is disputed by the fact that the G1 X II has a fixed lens and the EOS-M in an interchangeable lens camera. Granted the current EF-M mount lens options are limited (currently 3), but with the EOS adapter, all EF and EF-S lenses can be used with the EOS-M, so a huge range of potential focal lengths and apertures. 

Note the G1 X II lens is 24-120mm *35mm film (FF) equivalent* . With the 1.92 crop factor, the lenses aperture is FF equivalent to f/3.8-7.5, not exactly fast! You can use a f/1.2 or 1.4 primes on the EOS-M and for FF equivalent apertures of f/2 to f/2.2, something the G1XII can't get close to.

The larger APS-C sensor (1.6 crop factor) on the M also should have better resolution and IQ than the 1.92 crop factor sensor in the G1XII, although I haven't seen any test data on the new sensor yet.

All factors considered, the EOS-M has lots more to offer than the G1 X II for less than 1/2 the cost.


----------



## melbournite (Feb 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger. The G1X II is actually larger than the full frame RX1 in most dimensions, though it is slightly shallower over the lens (the body itself is a bit chunkier).
> ...



Me too. I bought the 100D/SL1 thinking I could use it as a 'pocketable' to my DSLR's but when I used and tested a RX100II, I bought two (one for a wedding gift) and sold the 100D/SL1 (and my Lumix LX3). Now 'pocketable' is a very loose term and even the RX100II doesn't fit in my jean pocket but it does fit in my man bag without taking up all the space that the 100D did.


----------



## weixing (Feb 15, 2014)

bholliman said:


> Note the G1 X II lens is 24-120mm *35mm film (FF) equivalent* . With the 1.92 crop factor, the lenses aperture is FF equivalent to f/3.8-7.5, not exactly fast! You can use a f/1.2 or 1.4 primes on the EOS-M and for FF equivalent apertures of f/2 to f/2.2, something the G1XII can't get close to.


 The f-ratio of the lens didn't change... the field of view is equivalent to 24-120mm 35mm FF.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Roark (Feb 15, 2014)

I may sound silly but I am thinking about buying this camera. Because it´s form factor is even smaller than my travel mft setup (I use three mft lenses) and a 24-120mm is all I really need for casual stuff. The big question is how it´s iq compares to the Olympus OMD lineup. It should be better in low light and maybe even better in the DR department.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 15, 2014)

weixing said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Note the G1 X II lens is 24-120mm *35mm film (FF) equivalent* . With the 1.92 crop factor, the lenses aperture is FF equivalent to f/3.8-7.5, not exactly fast! You can use a f/1.2 or 1.4 primes on the EOS-M and for FF equivalent apertures of f/2 to f/2.2, something the G1XII can't get close to.
> ...



I didn't say the f-ratio changed, that is the ratio of the focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. However, the *equivalent* f/stop is different when comparing cameras with different sensor sizes.

The attached article explains it much better than I can. Note the "Depth of Field Equivalents" calculator and explanation half way down the page. 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Canon apparently created a new sensor size for the G1XII (according to this description from their website: "Focal Length - 12.5mm (W) - 62.5mm (T) (35mm film equivalent: 24-120mm)". So, this would be a 1.92x crop factor, which is very close to the micro 4/3 sensor on the chart (2x crop factor).

This is a quote from the Cambridgeincolour article:


> As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective).



Have a good day!


----------



## Roark (Feb 15, 2014)

Who cares about dof with a camera like the G1 X II? The exposure is exactly the same as you would get with a full frame or Crop sensor, only the dof roughly doubles because of the crop factor. Anyone who really needs thin dof should buy something else - different strokes for different folks.

(The Sony RX 100 and all the other super zoom compact cameras are much "worse" in regard to dof due to their even smaller sensors.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2014)

Roark said:


> Who cares about dof with a camera like the G1 X II? The exposure is exactly the same as you would get with a full frame or Crop sensor, only the dof roughly doubles because of the crop factor. Anyone who really needs thin dof should buy something else - different strokes for different folks.



Canon states, "_a circular, 9-blade aperture for stunning blurred background._" Maybe they meant stunning, not-very-blurred backgrounds.


----------



## infared (Feb 15, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> The G1X-II looks to me to be a collossal waste of time and money for Canon development. If they had wanted to
> hit a home run, they should have used M lenses, priced it at $499.00 and pushed it as a new mirrorless system.
> Now they just have two turkeys on their hands and will have a hard time selling either.



+100
I find it especially interesting that Canon offers a $300 EVF for a fixed-lens P&S camera and offers no such option for an interchangeable-lens "system" camera like the M. They did not even get that right on the M2?

GOBBLE....GOBBLE!


----------



## Roark (Feb 15, 2014)

I hope that they pull the plug on their M system. I don´t want to buy new lenses and I don´t want to lug them around. Make a good compact zoom cameras and concentrate on FF format.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

Roark said:


> I hope that they pull the plug on their M system. I don´t want to buy new lenses and I don´t want to lug them around. Make a good compact zoom cameras and concentrate on FF format.



And why do you think producing the M series and good compact zoom cameras are mutually exclusive. You don't have to lug anything around because you don't *have* to buy it.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 15, 2014)

bholliman said:


> With the 1.92 crop factor, the lenses aperture is FF equivalent to f/3.8-7.5, not exactly fast!





neuroanatomist said:


> Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about dof with a camera like the G1 X II? The exposure is exactly the same as you would get with a full frame or Crop sensor, only the dof roughly doubles because of the crop factor. Anyone who really needs thin dof should buy something else - different strokes for different folks.
> ...



I was thinking about this misleading marketing statement when I made my point about the lens not really being all that fast. Sure, you will get a small amount background blurring, something most P&S and phone cameras are nearly incapable of, but certainly not *"stunning blurred background(s)"*. Very misleading.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 15, 2014)

.
The more I think about this camera, I can't help but wonder...

Is it really just a toy for the dilettantes?

Who pays $800 + (the EVF toy, lens hood, etc. don't forget) for a point & shoot camera in a vanishing market segment?

It's small enough to be "not a DSLR," yet it's not really small enough to put in a pocket (like my venerable S95).

I don't see anyone buying this as a sole camera. It has to be a second camera, and it really only makes sense as a second to the FF DSLR models. Everything in the APS-C realm (Canon's anyway) will perform rings around it.

Since it doesn't really fit into any Canon "system," it has to compete directly with similar products being produced by Sony, etc. The EOS-M at least had a system connection and relation. I don't see it doing well against similar, perhaps more innovative products.

As usual, I have more questions than answers. Perhaps over the next few months reliable reviews will start being published and the true pedigree of this camera will emerge.


----------



## ajndesign (Feb 19, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> The more I think about this camera, I can't help but wonder...
> 
> Is it really just a toy for the dilettantes?
> ...


I've ordered one, and it will be my only camera.


----------

