# A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 8, 2013)

```
<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=13443"></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=13443">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Not a G2X

</strong>We’re told that a rethink of a large sensor PowerShot is coming in 2013. It won’t be a G2X and will be designed more like a larger PowerShot S110. It will have a fast short zoom lens and the new 18mp APS-C sensor along with a DIGIC 6 processor. It won’t have an OVF or EVF and will be priced less than the G1X was.</p>
<p>We’re told it will be a late summer announcement along with the regular updates to the PowerShot lineup.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dswatson83 (May 8, 2013)

Canon needs it. I have the SL1 right now and it is actually smaller than I thought with pretty good quality. Paired it up with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and it works nicely. However, I still long for that Fuji X100s. It just looks unbelievable. Take a look at those High ISO files too, Amazing. You can download the RAW files from the review at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/9-other/137-fuji-x100s-review

Canon should be able to do this if they wanted to although I'm wishing for a viewfinder. Big help on the Fuji so I'd like it there unless it means a way bigger camera.


----------



## vtechproductions (May 8, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> Canon needs it. I have the SL1 right now and it is actually smaller than I thought with pretty good quality. Paired it up with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and it works nicely. However, I still long for that Fuji X100s. It just looks unbelievable. Take a look at those High ISO files too, Amazing. You can download the RAW files from the review at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/9-other/137-fuji-x100s-review


I like the fuji. I think the biggest advantage for Canon will be with interchangeable lenses because so many people already have Canon lenses. This is not as big for Fuji because most people would have to buy new lenses. I think the M has a bigger chance of making it big if Canon devotes more time & energy into making it the best and prices it less than usual.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

Sounds interesting


----------



## Etienne (May 8, 2013)

Why change the form factor? The s110 is finicky. They should keep the nice big dials and buttons even if the body needs to be a little larger


----------



## SwampYankee (May 8, 2013)

Same old 18GB sensor? They are putting this in everything. EOS, M-series, new powershot, smallest SLR, Ti whatever. Same old sensor just with different packaging. not interested


----------



## RGF (May 8, 2013)

vtechproductions said:


> dswatson83 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs it. I have the SL1 right now and it is actually smaller than I thought with pretty good quality. Paired it up with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and it works nicely. However, I still long for that Fuji X100s. It just looks unbelievable. Take a look at those High ISO files too, Amazing. You can download the RAW files from the review at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/9-other/137-fuji-x100s-review
> ...



+10

A great M would be a real winner with those of us who have EOS lenses


----------



## wjm (May 8, 2013)

SwampYankee said:


> Same old 18GB sensor?



You clearly didn't read the first post ...


----------



## Quasimodo (May 8, 2013)

RGF said:


> vtechproductions said:
> 
> 
> > dswatson83 said:
> ...



+ 10

Fast AF and OVF would do it for me!


----------



## Rocky (May 8, 2013)

Hope its AF speed is on par with Sony Rx-100 or the Panasonic LX 7. Fixed lens is fine with me. That will make it lighter and smaller. just give us the FAST AF.


----------



## SpaceGhost (May 8, 2013)

Ironically, a larger sensor (APS-C) in the G-X type body would be awesome.
M


----------



## FunPhotons (May 8, 2013)

Well it's certainly not going to have interchangeable lenses (that would be the M series). This is their answer to the Sony large sensor compact. I'd buy one in a second probably, assuming it's got some AF speed like the S100. 

CR1 so eh ... but it would fit their lineup pretty well. Of course Canon seems a little stretched right now with all their cameras but what do I know.


----------



## TeenTog (May 8, 2013)

Excellent. Now I can have an inexpensive backup camera that produces good results, instead of using my crappy old Powershot A590 IS...... Looks like canon is doing something right for once. I hope they'll keep up the good work with the 70D.


----------



## hoodlum (May 8, 2013)

I hope they are not referring to the "new sensor" from the SL1.


----------



## 2n10 (May 8, 2013)

SwampYankee said:


> Same old 18GB sensor? They are putting this in everything. EOS, M-series, new powershot, smallest SLR, Ti whatever. Same old sensor just with different packaging. not interested



Do you have proof of your claim?


----------



## 2n10 (May 8, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> I hope they are not referring to the "new sensor" from the SL1.



Most likely one and the same.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 8, 2013)

Full frame G10 with fixed 40mm pancake, where are you?


/dreaming


----------



## Dylan777 (May 9, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Full frame G10 with fixed 40mm pancake, where are you?
> 
> 
> /dreaming



Keep on dreaming......................... :'(


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 9, 2013)

Sounds to me like Canon is in Panic Mode. Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for. First the lack-luster M without an EVF, and now an APS-C Super Zoom (without an EVF). Keep throwing things at the wall, something will stick ... Yeah Right!!


----------



## RGomezPhotos (May 9, 2013)

Interesting. Though at this price point.. Not sure I'd be interested... For fixed lens... I'd probably go something cheaper like the G15 or Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7... On the high-end, I'd probably go with the Fuji X100 S. The G1X/G2X is right there in the middle... I just don't think the GXX would offer enough over the smaller cameras and not be cheap enough to sway you from the Fuji. That Fuji is takin' numbers...


----------



## rico (May 9, 2013)

I pray that this camera has a superior EVF or competition beating viewfinder.

With the mirrorless sector going like gangbusters Canon is soo late to this party I hope they try and improve on what Fuji, Nikon, Ricoh, and the M4/3rds people are offering which is darn good.

You're Canon...it's time for an exciting new camera that is not a DSLR behemoth,


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 9, 2013)

rico said:


> I pray that this camera has a superior EVF or competition beating viewfinder.



From the admin's original post. *"It won’t have an OVF or EVF ..."*



> With the mirrorless sector going like gangbusters Canon is soo late to this party I hope they try and improve on what Fuji, Nikon, Ricoh, and the M4/3rds people are offering which is darn good.
> 
> You're Canon...it's time for an exciting new camera that is not a DSLR behemoth,



I feel the same. But I would NOT hold my breath


----------



## bholliman (May 9, 2013)

I might be interested, if the price isn't too high. I currently have a S100 that I use as a back-up and pocketable camera for when I don't want to lug a DSLR and lens around, but want pictures better than my cell phone takes. I'd like to replace this with a P&S with larger sensor and good manual controls.


----------



## infared (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> rico said:
> 
> 
> > I pray that this camera has a superior EVF or competition beating viewfinder.
> ...



TELL ME ABOUT IT,?.I love my Canon FF kit...it rocks..but when it comes to small POWERFUL cameras MFT has my vote and my money. I have no idea who would pay these absurd prices for the G series camera when you can own a kickass MFT for less than Canon's silly asking price for a small sensor camera with essentially no viewfinder. Arrogance is the only reason I see.
Now they have this new one coming with a larger sensor and are not even making a lame attempt to include a VF. They just eliminate it??? The M release has no VF or option for one and also has antique AF... I think Canon needs to scrap all of the above and introduce one compact meaningful mirrorless product line...They are a mess in this area.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 9, 2013)

Mirrorless FF with interchangeable lens. Please Canon...


----------



## dslrdummy (May 9, 2013)

I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.



That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, hardly anything to get very excited about.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 9, 2013)

What is a short zoom? Are we talking about a narrow zoom range or a short focal length?

Something like. 24-70 or something like 16-35? (Equivalents).


----------



## wickidwombat (May 9, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> Canon needs it. I have the SL1 right now and it is actually smaller than I thought with pretty good quality. Paired it up with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and it works nicely. However, I still long for that Fuji X100s. It just looks unbelievable. Take a look at those High ISO files too, Amazing. You can download the RAW files from the review at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/9-other/137-fuji-x100s-review
> 
> Canon should be able to do this if they wanted to although I'm wishing for a viewfinder. Big help on the Fuji so I'd like it there unless it means a way bigger camera.



thanks for the review
I'd be interested to see a head to head review vs the sony rx1

just some feedback
- these reviews have improved light years from when they started - good job
- I particularly like how you are integrating close ups more and more of features buttons screens etc while talking and not having such long period of the video just focused on the speaker.
- more cut in's of images is good to show things
- still not quite there yet though there is still too much screen time of the dude juggling the camera or lens or whatever from hand to hand, this is just not interesting to watch for too long and it gets boring really quick.
- you had a crazy exposure change half way through this one
- wearing sunglasses is annoying especially with so much time of the view on the speaker.
- maybe make the reviews more dynamic, move around I think having a seperate person to take the vid my make it more interesting rather than the selfie style video.
- some features weren't mentioned x-sync speed?

but overall good information and good to see these reviews improving


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.
> ...



*F/1.8 is ALWAYS f/1.8!!* Some people are more interested in shooting in Low Light than having oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF. *YMMV.*


----------



## dslrdummy (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.
> ...


Yeah, well, for excitement I'll just have to settle for my 70-200 2.8 ii on a FF. But for something that will fit in my pocket and take reasonable pics virtually anywhere, the Sony's not bad. Have you tried it?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> Sounds to me like Canon is in Panic Mode. Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for. First the lack-luster M without an EVF, and now an APS-C Super Zoom (without an EVF). Keep throwing things at the wall, something will stick ... Yeah Right!!


 :


----------



## funkboy (May 9, 2013)

The concept is very nice; a potential competitor for the RX1 and other large-sensor compacts.

But I question the accuracy of the rumor that states that the sensor will be APS-C. In a one-piece compact I think the sensor is much more likely to be the same format as the G1X, if not the same unit (at the very least I'd think it would include phase-detect AF on-chip like their other new sensors).

The whole point of using the "APS-C with the sides chopped off" sensor in the G1X was to be able to use a much smaller lens than possible with a 3:2 format sensor, as a lot less of the image circle of the lens is "wasted" (i.e. doesn't land on pixels) in close-to-square format sensors (like μ4/3 & G1X). Somewhat smaller sensor, much smaller lens.

The other reason I think they wouldn't go full APS-C for such a camera is simple: is there really much difference between this concept and simply releasing a short fast large-aperture zoom for the EOS-M system (perhaps along with an "enthusiast" body)? The sensor size would be the same, there's no mirror box or backward compatibility to worry about so it's not like the size of the lens would be much different vs. a one-piece compact. Panasonic's "power zoom" lenses have proven that there doesn't have to be much size discrepancy for interchangeables vs. built-in lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dslrdummy said:
> ...



Me:100mm f13.2; You:_ "oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF"_ Hmm, methinks we have different ideas completely with regards dof. Besides, if low light is your muse, why use a camera with a 2.6 times worse noise factor? 



dslrdummy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dslrdummy said:
> ...



No, but I wasn't trying to make a big point about an f1.8 P&S, I have a G10 I hardly use, why would I buy another equally limited sensor sized camera?


----------



## SwampYankee (May 9, 2013)

wjm said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Same old 18GB sensor?
> ...



I'm sure it's just a variation of the same , tired, old, 18 GB sensor that is in so many of their cameras. If they really had anything new do you think they would debut it in a powershot? Why not the the 70 or 7D? The sensor will grade out the same, nothing new here. Sensor innovation is not coming from Canon. Have you seen what Nikon and Sony are putting out in this sensor size? For less money?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> *F/1.8 is ALWAYS f/1.8!!* Some people are more interested in shooting in Low Light than having oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF. *YMMV.*



So, my compact starts at f/2. Is f/2 on my compact just as good in low-light as f/2 on my 5D? Nope! The 5D has the same noise at ISO 3200 as my compact does at ISO 200. So I can really shoot at 16 times faster shutter speed with the 5D at f/2 compared to my compact at f/2 if I want the same image quality.

So not all f/2's are equal!


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > wjm said:
> ...


----------



## eric_ykchan (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for.



+1


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2013)

eric_ykchan said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for.
> ...



Huh? I am asking for it. I believe I am someone.


----------



## KyleSTL (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dslrdummy said:
> ...



+1

I think DOF equivilents are important, but they are not everything. I would venture to say a modern 1" sensor good results at ISO 800 (similar to an APS-C sensor from 3 or 4 generations back), and a modern 1/1.7" sensor (like the BSI-CMOS in the S110) likely gives acceptable results at ISO 400 (similar to an APS-C 4 to 5 generations back).

In a given era different sized sensors will never be able to compete against each other, but looking back you might be able to get the same image quality from an S110 @ ISO 400 & f/2.0 as a 10D or 20D at the same ISO and aperture (and have all the modern features of a new camera and many more MP to boot).

The same could probably be said for a RX100 @ ISO 800 & f/1.8 and a 30D or 40D.

*Depth of field does not an image make.*


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I've been using my g15 quite a bit lately and It gets some nice shallow DOF for a small sensored compact. Infact, I see little need for a camera like the g1x with a slow aperture when I get f/1.8-2.8 on the g15.

The flower shot is @ ISO 3200. The mailbox is ISO 100.

Edit: It seems that CR forums is stretching the photos, making them seem worse than they are.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.

Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.

The second and third shots illustrate that even if you want to output at 800x600px the image quality is severely compromised by noise and aberrations at any kind of iso much above base.

I have a G10 and really like it, on well illuminated scenes with lower dynamic range when shot at base iso where I am not fussed about selective dof, the camera is great and gives results much better than most people gave it credit for. But cameras with those sized sensors, which are far "better" per area than anything in a DSLR, are still severely compromised in their output when pushed, even gently. 

This is a great link putting P&S performance into perspective http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml The trouble is, if you are after something more, which most of us are most of the time, then small sensored P&S's can't cut it, they have to obey the laws of physics for noise and dof.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.
> 
> Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.
> 
> ...



I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor. It delivers the goods, gives me a fast aperture, decent zoom range, and is well... compact.

Afterall, thats the point of a compact, versatility with decent performance. If you want to shake the stick, let's see some of your ISO 3200 compact sensor photos.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

ISO 1600 W/ G15


----------



## hgraf (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> Sounds to me like Canon is in Panic Mode. Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for. First the lack-luster M without an EVF, and now an APS-C Super Zoom (without an EVF). Keep throwing things at the wall, something will stick ... Yeah Right!!



Panic mode? They are number 1 in the market, yup, time to panic...

Personally, I would LOVE to have a P&S camera with the 18MB sensor in the T4i/60D/SL1/whatever. Some many people here deride that sensor, probably because they are fortunate enough to have the $1500+ it takes to go for a 6D/5DII setup.

For those of us with much less money the 18MB APS-C sensor is VERY good. Having that picture quality in a P&S body (don't need exchangable lenses, don't need a super zoom) would be heaven. 

I dread it every time I go somewhere where instead of pulling out my T4i I have to pull out my P&S. I just know my P&S will do OK during the day, but in lower light it's always been very dissapointing, especially after being used to the images coming out of my T4i.

My only concern of course with Canon is cost, I don't see why they'd make this camera affordable, I wish they would though.

TTYL


----------



## iowapipe (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.
> 
> Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.
> 
> ...



I might be missing something in your thread of postings on this subject: but it seems the article you link to, which I read the entirety of, gives credence to the original posting made about being happy with the rx100.
Of the pocketable cameras I have owned, I have always found low-light conditions to be the ones I most often shoot in. You are right, the laws of physics can only be toyed with artificially, but the newest pocketable cameras perform quite well up to a certain point. And as the article deftly illustrated; even those with a well trained eye can find themselves drawn to aesthetics which go beyond the 'physics' involved. 
The original poster to this thread made a point which holds merit, even if anyone can find a slew of technical reasons to argue the minutiae.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

> "I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor."



I believe we are looking at different images then. The one I am seeing is severely compromised from a noise, aberration, dynamic range and detail (there is none of either) point of view, all at the massive reproduction size of 600x800px.

For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.

Of course different people have different needs and expectations. But consumers have a poor track record of choosing devices based on output quality, just look at VCR's, audio, etc etc. The main thing compacts have going for them, they are compact. That is what people want and they are prepared to put up with severe output quality compromises to get it. I am not. That is just a personal preference and carries no more weight or importance than anybody elses, but don't try and convince me that P&S output is anything above severely compromised the vast majority of the time.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > "I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

> "Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are."



Why? There isn't a small sensor made that I would use most of the time, and none at 1600 iso. I said they are all bad so don't have any high iso sample images, as I said I'd rather try and remember the scene than suffer the horribly compromised P&S rendition of it. Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

All this boils down to is personal opinion on _"great for what they are"_ to me they are worthless so I have no interest in taking them.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > "Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then you have no experience in using compact cameras at the limits? That's a shame, They offer a-lot of advantages but usually not to pixel-peepers but you know, like photographer's who look at the bigger picture. 

I disagree, I get great ISO 1600-3200 photos out of my g15 as long as I do my job on the other side. Are they technically the best? No, but neither would a 5D3 if I didn't bring it.

Lol @ you, you'd rather not get a photo at all than capture something that's alittle grainy.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

So because I don't have exactly the same values as you my opinion is worthless?

We have a difference of values, that is all. To you the output of a P&S in less than ideal circumstances is _"great for what it is"_ for me *it* might be great for what* it* is, but *it* has no value.

I have plenty of P&S experience, so what? I know what I like and need and I also know that no small sensor yet made delivers it, I also know that even when it does, and it will eventually, I will still find the lack of selective focus a severe limitation. As a record of a situation with no "photographic" value, a phone stacks up pretty close to a P&S, and there are millions of people who agree, just look at the advances in phone cameras and the decrease in the P&S market.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> So because I don't have exactly the same values as you my opinion is worthless?
> 
> We have a difference of values, that is all. To you the output of a P&S in less than ideal circumstances is _"great for what it is"_ for me *it* might be great for what* it* is, but *it* has no value.
> 
> I have plenty of P&S experience, so what? I know what I like and need and I also know that no small sensor yet made delivers it, I also know that even when it does, and it will eventually, I will still find the lack of selective focus a severe limitation. As a record of a situation with no "photographic" value, a phone stacks up pretty close to a P&S, and there are millions of people who agree, just look at the advances in phone cameras and the decrease in the P&S market.



I find this ironic, as I never said your opinion was "worthless". I was simply reasoning with you, and you came to that conclusion yourself. :

An iphone, while a good camera, still can't do what my G15 does and that's why I carry it so much now. I find that you must have been the type who looked at their negatives with a 30x microscope to see how the grain pattern changed over reciprocity failure on the slides.

WHY!?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.



If so, I find it strange for someone as yourself to be so harsh on a few sample's of ISO 1600 & 3200 shots I did recently with a g15. Which are perfectly acceptable by my normal terms, and would print a nice 8x10. Any larger? Probably not, but its a compact camera that has everything that I need.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.
> ...



That is my point, I wasn't being harsh on "your photos" I was saying that, for me, the fact that you might be able to get an 8x10 out of it but no more means that I have no value for *that camera*, that is all, it just doesn't fulfill a photographic requirement that I, personally, have. The only people who could take offense are Canon, after all they made it! 

Like I said, on a purely personal level, even when small sensor output does dramatically increase in quality, I will still have a major issue with the limits imposed on selective focus by the physics of the thing. Surely somebody who places so much value on an f1.8 over an f2 (1/3 of a stop) could understand that.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Straight from the horses mouth

"For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it."

Not a pixel peeper... Right..... That statement is equal to an honest politician.


----------



## KyleSTL (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.



I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am trying to state, in a fairly objective manner, that a modern mid- to high-end fixed lens camera can produce noise levels similar to that of DSLR cameras that was produced several years back. You're making extremely subjective comments that seem to indicate some sort of gearhead complex, and from everything you've stated absolute lack of noise and shallow depth of field are the only things that make a photograph, and without them the image is absolutely worthless. I will not validate your opinion, but you certainly have a right to have it.

In a dimly venue the following cameras will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels, whether one is happy with the noise level or DOF is for each individual to decide:

6D/5D Mark III @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 35mm
7D/60D/550D/600D/650D/700D/100D/EOS M @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 20mm or 24mm (slightly wider or narrower)
G1X @ ISO 5000 f/3.5 1/60 18.9mm
G15 @ ISO 1600 f/2.0 1/60 7.6mm
S110 @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 7.6mm


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.
> ...





> Me:100mm f13.2; You:_ "oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF"_ Hmm, methinks we have different ideas completely with regards dof.



You can't change horses in the middle of the stream  You are the one who said *"That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, ..."* The implication was that you thought that f/1.8 was only exciting on a DSLR, NOT on a RX100. 



> Besides, if low light is your muse, why use a camera with a 2.6 times worse noise factor?



Depends on what you mean by low light. Are you talking about shooting in a broom closet (with the door closed  ) or in a living room lit by several table lamps, or maybe on a urban street at night (like Time Square or the Ginza).

BTW 2.6 times more noise mean little when the photo will be posted on FaceSpace or showm to friends on an iDevice. You have to remember that not everyone is a *Very Serious Photo Enthusiast* like yourself


----------



## KyleSTL (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The *5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them*.
> 
> I come from a *25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years*, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.



Then why are you even here? Clearly nothing physically possibly will mean your demands (especially something not medium format).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

> " will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"



Therein lies the difficulty in any kind of meaningful discussion.

If it has a different dof, or noise characteristics, *it is not the same image*. We might attach different importance to the various metrics, but it seems all P&S proponents decide they mean nothing just so long as they have a camera with them, I don't. Which is, in actual fact, much more in line with the majority of threads here that go on for ever about the miniscule differences between, for instance, an f2 vs f2.8 at different subject distances. I don't have selective myopia and I don't change my standards just because a camera is small. The output is either up to my personal standard or it is not, I have never seen a smaller than 135 format digital sensor that is though I will be very interested in the next generation of APS-C cameras.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > " will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I could only imagine hanging out with PBD.

RLPhoto - OMG! a once in a lifetime photo of a shark riding a dragon through the air, shooting flames out its mouth! *immediately pulls out g15 and get's some good frames.

PBD - I rather not take the photo as I don't have the optimum equipment to capture this moment. I'd rather just remember with my brain and tell others about it some other time.

RLPhoto - *Hangs up Phone. Hey PBD, I sold the grainy but decent pic for a million to NYTimes and Will be published this month on TIME magazine

PBD -  ..........

Edit: I don't see a 800x600px output PBD?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dslrdummy said:
> ...



I don't understand where you see a contradiction in my comments.

As to your second point, I agree, and have said the same repeatedly during my posts! To me a 600x800px output has so little value as to be inconsequential.

Having said that, my last editorial newspaper image was under 300kB and ran across four columns, it earned me $15 (basically inconsequential).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The *5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them*.
> ...



No, I shoot 1Ds MkIII's at 400 iso and under, basically the same as when I shot 1VHS's with 400iso or under film.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years ...



Did you shoot any Tech Pan ??? You seem like the type who would've


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > > " will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"
> ...



No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Lol, wrong your crappy phone would set the shutter speed too slow and your photos would be a garbled mess and my g15 photos would be crisp because I have a Expo Comp dial and a zoom lens. Your crappy phone doesn't zoom and said subject would be flying.

Oh and It's called an Eye-fi card to my phone.

*Game Over PBD.*


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years ...
> ...



No, never did. Used to buy Pan F in tin rolls by the 400ft though and roll my own 

I don't quite understand the irritation I have caused here. I said I have a G10, I linked to an article that shows when a P&S can vastly out perform most peoples expectation of it, and I 100% agree with that article. But I also well understand the inherent limitations of P&S cameras and as a personal opinion I find them very limited in actual use. Many millions of people agree with me too, P&S sales, despite the options and innovation in the market, are declining, rapidly.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection. I have EyeFi cards! Meanwhile I ordered us up some cappuccinos and paid for it with my utility belt phone. 

Look, this has all gotten silly, and is a bit of fun, but my original point was P&S cameras have inherent limitations that some people can work with, some people can't or don't want to and most, going by sales numbers, just ignore and use their phone.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection. I have EyeFi cards! Meanwhile I ordered us up some cappuccinos and paid for it with my utility belt phone.
> 
> Look, this has all gotten silly, and is a bit of fun, but my original point was P&S cameras have inherent limitations that some people can work with, some people can't or don't want to and most, going by sales numbers, just ignore and use their phone.



http://support.eye.fi/features/direct/direct-mode-faq/

It's called Direct Mode. Your incredibly naive and presumptious to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S .

Yes, you would have your grainy, slow shutter speed blurred, badly composed images on your phone with un-recognizable subjects and I would have Press Gold. 8)


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

> "It's called Direct Mode."



And that is what I described above, clearly you haven't used the device about which you preach. I have.



> "Your [sic] incredibly naive and presumptious [sic] to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S ."



I didn't, what I said was given your pathetic excuse for an imaginary scenario I would get the scoop, CNN, NYT, etc wouldn't give a damn if the dragon riding shark was shot with an iPhone or a G15, the first one to get the images to them would be the one. Similarly, if I unexpectedly bump into some long missed friend in a cafe in BKK completely by coincidence (true story), I wouldn't care if the image to remember the event was a bad grainy phone image or a slightly less grainy P&S image, for ShitFace and MyBlog they are both equally adaquate.


----------



## hgraf (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.



Now I really wondering if you're just trolling.

My P&S (and it's a cheap one) powers up easily as fast, if not faster then any cell phone I've used.

The pictures it produces are VASTLY better in lower light then ANY cell phone. Physics can't be escaped from here, the cell phone sensor is smaller then pretty much any P&S.

As a result, your picture will very likely not be in focus, have tons of motion blur, and will be monster grainy. I'm not sure if you've used modern P&S cameras, but focus speed and accuracy is actually quite good. Yes, not as good as a DSLR, but VASTLY better then any smartphone camera.


----------



## hgraf (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection.



No laptop needed. My eyefi is tethered to my smartphone. Moment I take a picture it's transferred to my phone. It's as easy as a photo take with the cell phone camera?

You say you have eyefi cards? You obviously not researched what these cards can do. You are missing out.

As for battery life? I think something is wrong with your setup. My eyefi card vs. any other SD card I've used has had pretty much zero impact on my battery life.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > "It's called Direct Mode."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



U mad Bro? It's apparent that I'm not the only one here who's factually disputed your arguments in this hypothetical scenario.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

hgraf said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.
> ...



It might power up faster from off, but when is a cellphone off? Taking a picture with one is much quicker than using a P&S if you are confronted with a dragon riding shark.

It is funny though because now you are raising the exact same points for your argument in support of a P&S vs a cellphone that you are lambasting me for daring to mention about P&S's vs DSLR's. 

Take a moment to formulate your thoughts, then get back to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

hgraf said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection.
> ...



Well you have a magic EyeFi, my battery drainage, and as reported by many others, is pretty high. I am not missing anything at all. I used the EyeFi for a good while, decided it didn't work for me and don't use it anymore. I shoot RAW, EyeFi RAW transfer speeds are pathetic.

But you are piling side distraction upon side distraction. EyeFi cards to transmit the images of a dragon riding shark to your phone so you have better IQ for CNN and NYT than me! Is that really the best defense you can put up for a P&S?

As I said, take a moment to gather your thoughts, then get back to me, but try to come up with something insightful and practical, I have had enough of dragon riding sharks.

This all started because I pointed out a 100mm f13 equivalent lens wasn't anything to get too excited about; is it? Really?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > > "It's called Direct Mode."
> ...



Sorry in this factual discussion about dragon riding sharks I missed something! Duh!

Like I have said, this is all beyond silly, I fail to see how anybody who regularly extols the dramatic benefits of a 135 f1.8 over a 135 f2 or 100 f2.8 can possibly stand up against my opening comment, _"a 100mm f13 is nothing too exciting"_, but like your other threads, you believe if you shout loud enough and long enough you are right.

Whatever. You guys enjoy your 100mm f13 with noise like its shot through a sieve, I have better things to do than point out your contradictions.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I fail to see how anyone as stubborn as yourself, who not only refuses to understand the point made by not only myself but several other users, continues to strive on about 1000% magnification and how the gear is the most important to getting an image. Its strange how you'll never use a P&S but yet, continue to post on about them in a thread about P&S.

I rest my case, other users can clearly discern enough from these posts who is really using the equipment.


----------



## hgraf (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> It might power up faster from off, but when is a cellphone off? Taking a picture with one is much quicker than using a P&S if you are confronted with a dragon riding shark.



OMG, seriously? Fine, I'll feed this last piece of troll food just to make you happy:

by "off", I meant standby. To take my phone, press the power button, swipe it to activate the "camera" app EASILY takes as long, if not longer then pressing the actual "power" button on my P&S and waiting for it to be ready to take a picture.

I can do both in about the same amount of time. I just tried it. My P&S was ready to take a picture in about 1.5 seconds (hard to time more accurately then that). My smartphone took about 2 seconds. Both pretty meaningless it total time and IMHO equivalent.

With a response like what you just gave me, I've decided that you are trolling. As such, I will no longer "debate" with you. To others: please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

And once again both of you fall into the trap of worrying about irrelevant side issues that you yourselves raised.

Which of you disputes my original point, _"a 100mm f13 equivalent lens is nothing to get too excited about" _, and why?

@hgraf,

You don't see the paradox of you extolling the virtues of a P&S over a phone using exactly the same metrics, faster, more responsive, better IQ etc, that I used to dismiss the P&S output most of the time, for my use, when compared to a DSLR? Comical.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 10, 2013)

Back to original post, I think that sounds great. I would love an upgrade for my S100. Pocketable, faster AF and higher resolution then I am likely to ask my wife get me one for Christmas.


----------



## lopicma (May 10, 2013)

I wonder how this camera will compare against an EOS M with a similar lens configuration?

This would be an interesting Head-to-Head.


----------



## simonxu11 (May 10, 2013)

Canon follows Nikon's step?? Well Done!


----------



## Lee Jay (May 10, 2013)

There was a quote from a Canon-Japan guy that he still though the S100 (or one in that series) was huge. That's great news to me because my Elph 500 HS is a great size and still f/2 at the wide end, but with a smaller sensor and the lens is slow at the long end. If they could manage a high-end compact in a size smaller than the S100 (like the size - and shape - of my Elph), that would be interesting. But I do need some zoom range. The 24-105 range on my Elph is pretty nice.


----------



## hiplnsdrftr (May 10, 2013)

I am a professional photographer who loves small P&S cameras, my favorite being the Contax T3.

I have used multiple Canon S70, G9, G10 and S95 to shoot catalogs, magazine covers and a huge portion of my personal projects.

While I was able to make good images using these small cameras and I in fact earned thousands and thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars using these P&S cameras, at this point in time I wish I had been able to use a compact camera with a bigger sensor. The P&S images simply lack dynamic range, high ISO capability and there is essentially no control over DOF.

Even the MFT sensor in my Panasonic GF1leaves me wanting for more.

In terms of ISO, I never shot the S70 or G9 above the base ISO as anything above that looked horrible. The S95 I allow to creep a little higher. Even the GF1 above 800 is terrible. I say this despite the fact that I love these cameras.

While I do have an iPhone 5 I do not consider it to be a serious camera under any circumstances other than an emergency. That said I use it's camera daily, specially for images I plan on emailing or using on Instagram.

At this point in time I believe the Nikon A is the best camera for my needs (large sensor, flash, wide angle lens... as I don't care about zooms, flip screens or viewfinders).

If Canon releases a simple, straightforward APS version of something like an S110 without purposely crippling it in fear of it's dSLR sales it would hopefully be a very tempting camera.


----------

