# Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Coming Mid October [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 18, 2017)

```
We’ve finally have an approximate announcement date for the upcoming Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III, we’re told that it will be announced in mid October. Looking at the calendar, Tuesday, October 17, 2017 looks like a good “mid October” guess. Give or take a week on either side of this date. Canon generally announces on a Tuesday, but sometimes does so on a Friday as well.</p>
<p>While we’ve nailed down when we can expect to see it announced, specifications are still not [CR3].</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-specifications-cr1/">Rumored Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Specifications</a>: [CR1]</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>24mp APS-C Sensor (The PowerShot G1 X Mark II was 1.5″ sensor)</li>
<li>Dual Pixel AF</li>
<li>DIGIC 7</li>
<li>24-120mm lens (35mm equivalent)</li>
</ul>
<p>We do not know for sure if another G series PowerShot will be announced alongside the PowerShot G1 X Mark III.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 18, 2017)

That's a good sensor, so Canon might as well use it in as many cameras as possible. I'm going to give the Mark III some serious consideration as an upgrade from my old S100 pocket camera. 

But first I will need to see the price and actually hold one in my hand to see if the size and weight are within the range I need for a casual carry camera that will shoot RAW.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Sep 18, 2017)

60p 4K and 120p 1080p would be really useful...


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 18, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> That's a good sensor, so Canon might as well use it in as many cameras as possible. I'm going to give the Mark III some serious consideration as an upgrade from my old S100 pocket camera.
> 
> But first I will need to see the price and actually hold one in my hand to see if the size and weight are within the range I need for a casual carry camera that will shoot RAW.



Agree. I'm also a (happy) S100 owner. I use mine primarily for casual underwater photography when I'm not in the mood to haul my 5DM3 and it's huge housing. My S100 is showing its age, and while it's been a great performer, it's time to upgrade to a larger sensor. I'm keeping an eye on this new model as it has everything I'm looking for in a point and click.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 18, 2017)

That may be a great travel camera provided: 1. lens is as good as the 18 to 150 EF-M. 2. Aperture at 15mm is at least f4.0. 3. Noise level is as good as the M6.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 18, 2017)

APS-C sensor is a huge selling point. I had a couple other point and shoots just to carry around, but was never happy with the small sensor image quality until I got the original M on sale (with pancake lens). Very happy with quality and build, but lack of viewfinder and built-in flash is somewhat annoying.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 19, 2017)

More details about the lens please. It sounds like a h3lluva camera so far.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 19, 2017)

gmon750 said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > That's a good sensor, so Canon might as well use it in as many cameras as possible. I'm going to give the Mark III some serious consideration as an upgrade from my old S100 pocket camera.
> ...



This is Canon- of course they're going to use it in as many cameras as possible! I'd buy it if it shoots decent 4K. Used to love my S100 until it died.


----------



## okaro (Sep 19, 2017)

Rocky said:


> That may be a great travel camera provided: 1. lens is as good as the 18 to 150 EF-M. 2. Aperture at 15mm is at least f4.0. 3. Noise level is as good as the M6.



f/4.0? Anything worse than f/2.4 would be going back.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 19, 2017)

A G1X 3 with DP-AF APS-C sensor and a decent zoom lens is the only option i see in late 2017 for such a camera. Basically an EOS M& or M100 without lens-mount.

interested to see the choices Canon makes:
* probably no built-in EVF [like EOS M6/M100] ... 
* lens? focal range / aperture / size ? My guess: "re-used" EF-M 15-45 /3.5-5.6 ... no way it's going to be a f/1.8-2.8 APS-C zoom or an EF-M 18-150 bolted onto a Powershot body
* what overall size / weight? can it possibly be much more compact than EOS M100 with 15-45?
* user interface: control points: still no front wheel and no multi-functional ring around lens base?
* user interface: flippy LCD ... presumably the same as in G1X II [= not fully articulated]
* 4k for sure, but "how much, how good"? [not that I personally would care ;-) ]
* price ... depending on options chosen and compared to EOS M100/M6/M5 ... and compared to Sony RX100 V and other 1" sensored zoom cams ...


----------



## okaro (Sep 19, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> A G1X 3 with DP-AF APS-C sensor and a decent zoom lens is the only option i see in late 2017 for such a camera. Basically an EOS M& or M100 without lens-mount.
> 
> interested to see the choices Canon makes:
> * probably no built-in EVF [like EOS M6/M100] ...
> * lens? focal range / aperture / size ? My guess: "re-used" EF-M 15-45 /3.5-5.6 ... no way it's going to be a f/1.8-2.8 APS-C zoom or an EF-M 18-150 bolted onto a Powershot body



So slow a lens would make no sense. Currently G1 XII 6.25 mm aperture at 24 mm equiv. G7 X II has 4.9 mm. The EF-M 15-45 mm has 4.3 mm. Choosing f/3.5 would mean one stop loss compared to mark II. It has to be better than f/2.8, ideally f/2.0. 

There are extra freedoms in making a lens for a compact camera as one has not to worry about distortions. They are fixed with software. This is what the original G1 X produced (the one in right):

https://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_canon_powershot_g1_x_lens/degree_of_distortion.jpg

Note that there is no reason why same could not be done on MILCs as long as the issue is decided when the mount is introduced. Introducing it lager would require updates to old cameras. On a DSLR it would create problem with the viewfinder image. There is no way to correct it.

Because of the software correction the camera will probably have some extra crop.


----------



## okaro (Sep 19, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> That's a good sensor, so Canon might as well use it in as many cameras as possible. I'm going to give the Mark III some serious consideration as an upgrade from my old S100 pocket camera.
> 
> But first I will need to see the price and actually hold one in my hand to see if the size and weight are within the range I need for a casual carry camera that will shoot RAW.



Isn't that a pretty strange upgrade. The G1 X III is probably in the 600 gram range when S100 is about 200 grams.


----------



## traveller (Sep 19, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> A G1X 3 with DP-AF APS-C sensor and a decent zoom lens is the only option i see in late 2017 for such a camera. Basically an EOS M& or M100 without lens-mount.
> 
> interested to see the choices Canon makes:
> * probably no built-in EVF [like EOS M6/M100] ...
> ...



I think you're correct with the camera Canon _will_ produce and I'm sure it will go down well with their target audience. For _me_ to purchase this camera, I would require: 

Decent EVF
Wide aperture prime or zoom lens (I can't see the advantage of an APS-C over a 1" sensor, if they pair it with a slow zoom)
Dump the Powershot interface for EOS interface (what's the point of buying a Canon if the controls & menus are different to my DSLR?)


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 19, 2017)

okaro said:


> * lens? focal range / aperture / size ? My guess: "re-used" EF-M 15-45 /3.5-5.6 ... no way it's going to be a f/1.8-2.8 APS-C zoom or an EF-M 18-150 bolted onto a Powershot body



So slow a lens would make no sense. Currently G1 XII 6.25 mm aperture at 24 mm equiv. G7 X II has 4.9 mm. The EF-M 15-45 mm has 4.3 mm. Choosing f/3.5 would mean one stop loss compared to mark II. It has to be better than f/2.8, ideally f/2.0. There are extra freedoms in making a lens for a compact camera as one has not to worry about distortions. They are fixed with software. 
...
[/quote]

Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 19, 2017)

traveller said:


> I think you're correct with the camera Canon _will_ produce and I'm sure it will go down well with their target audience. For _me_ to purchase this camera, I would require:
> 
> Decent EVF
> Wide aperture prime or zoom lens (I can't see the advantage of an APS-C over a 1" sensor, if they pair it with a slow zoom)
> Dump the Powershot interface for EOS interface (what's the point of buying a Canon if the controls & menus are different to my DSLR?)



Well, even as "flagship" and sold at "premium" price, it WILL be a Powershot ... with a dumbed Powershot user interface. No expectations along those lines. 

As far as lens goes ... say a 4x zoom for APS-C ... e.g. 15-60mm [24-90mm FOV eq.] ... now how small would that be, when rear element is stuck into camera body right back to the sensor and all sorts of in-camera electronic image corrections are applied ? 

A. f/2.8-f/5.6 ... mainly for marketing purposes "F/2.8 !"
B. f/4.0 ... constant aperture ... good for video
C. f/3.5-5.6 ... for smallest size & weight 

I expect Canon to implement option C., although I'd personally prefer B.


----------



## okaro (Sep 19, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > So slow a lens would make no sense. Currently G1 XII 6.25 mm aperture at 24 mm equiv. G7 X II has 4.9 mm. The EF-M 15-45 mm has 4.3 mm. Choosing f/3.5 would mean one stop loss compared to mark II. It has to be better than f/2.8, ideally f/2.0. There are extra freedoms in making a lens for a compact camera as one has not to worry about distortions. They are fixed with software.
> ...



Then they should make it bigger. It makes no sense to make a camera twice the weight of G7 X without it significantly outperforming it. G7 X has APS C equivalence of f/3.0-4.7. G1 X II has f/2.4-4.6. They would need to get to the f/2.5-4.5 range at minimum for it to make sense.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 19, 2017)

tianxiaozhang said:


> 60p 4K and 120p 1080p would be really useful...



LOL.
for you maybe.. for the rest of the world, not so much.

it's not going to have 4K.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 19, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.



the 15-43 2-4 patent looked like it could be small enough, but it's also a matter of weight.

however if it's a 24-120mm - it's going to be slow, it has to be. that's around the 15-85mm size of lens. even the M 18-55 is too big when you think about it, and it gets to around 10mm to the front of the sensor.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> tianxiaozhang said:
> 
> 
> > 60p 4K and 120p 1080p would be really useful...
> ...



LOL- speak for yourself. Despite those on this forum who are disinterested in 4K, one of the biggest consumer electronics companies in the world just released a 4K TV product. Knowing Canon's conservative mindset, this camera probably won't have 4K, but it's a shame because myself and many other Canon fans will not buy it and it will not be future proof. For me, it will be DOA.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > tianxiaozhang said:
> ...



ahhh so?

what does that have to do with a compact aps-c camera? nothing.

it won't it. no current generation asp-c has it. this won't. it's common sense, versus continually whining.

Get over yourself and 4k. go get a 4k camera and just. leave. there's lots out there. if 4K was so important to you, why don't you move and have one already? since you haven't. and you stick around here all the time, it's obviously not that important to you and you just like to sound important.

and if you think apple is one of the largest electronic consumer companies in the world you really need the brain cells to be firing a little faster. Consumer electronics are more than just smartphones. FYI. and apple TV? important? oh please.

and this is a compact camera for photographers. not for 4k wannabe's.


----------



## traveller (Sep 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Even then I don't think a 15-45 / 16-50 / 18-55 zoom lens for APS-C with f/2.8 could be made small enough for a G1X type camera. Even less so with f/2.0 or greater focal range.
> ...



I'd like to see 22-44mm f/2.8 -ideal for a pocket street camera (for me anyway). I can understand other preferring something wider, e.g. 15-30mm, but you'd then have to trade off anything beyond normal to keep an f/2.8 lens pocketable. 

It ain't going to happen, because Canon believes most users want at least a 5x zoom on a fixed lens compact and they are probably correct!


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 19, 2017)

traveller said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



do you mean 22-44 normal focal adjusted for crop factor?

15-43 is around 24-75mm including crop factor.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Nice response. I'll let your vehemence speak for itself. There's a lot of people who are threatened by video, since it's starting to explode on the web. We can let everyone else decide whether Apple, Netflix, and YouTube supporting 4K are important. 

I could say the same and ask you to just leave, but I won't because: it's going to be *extremely funny* to see you change course and extoll the virtues of 4K once Canon starts to include it in their cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> There's a lot of people who are threatened by video, since it's starting to explode on the web. We can let everyone else decide whether Apple, Netflix, and YouTube supporting 4K are important.



4k is great, trouble is web based 4k isn't anywhere mature enough to offer any kind of service at all to the vast majority of people, it just isn't. So we have the cameras that can shoot it, we have the content providers who are happy to push it, we have the TV manufacturers who are so ready for it they practically won't let you buy anything else. 

We still don't have the computers to process our own 4k footage in anything like a timely manner and we still don't have a nationwide bandwidth capacity to stream it. It will get ever more popular, but it will be hamstrung for many years or we rely on compression codecs that leave us with footage not much better than good quality 1080.

Don't get me wrong, it is inevitable and will be in and on everything, I have DSLR's capable of filming slow motion DCI 4k, I have a 75" 4k TV, I like 4k. But dealing with the file sizes is not going to allow the universal breakthrough other technologies have enjoyed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> and if you think apple is one of the largest electronic consumer companies in the world you really need the brain cells to be firing a little faster. Consumer electronics are more than just smartphones. FYI. and apple TV? important? oh please.



Apple *is* a consumer electronics company. Apple is the 9th largest company in the world by revenue, and it's *the* largest company in the world by market cap. 

So if you think Apple is _not_ one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world, your brain cells are apparently not firing at all.


----------



## traveller (Sep 20, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would _like_ to have, not what I think Canon _will_ produce.


----------



## asl (Sep 20, 2017)

tianxiaozhang said:


> 60p 4K and 120p 1080p would be really useful...



Off course it would, but not gonna happen.
Maybe the 90d gets 4K or 7d..


----------



## okaro (Sep 20, 2017)

traveller said:


> No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would _like_ to have, not what I think Canon _will_ produce.



Before Digic 4 it was common that compact cameras had zooms that started from 35 mm. Now that would be considered way too narrow. There is no problem in making better lenses. Before the introduction of Digic 4 7 % of Canon compacts had a wide angle (28 or wider) lens, since introduction (to the end of 2015) it was 84 % and from 2011 all.


----------



## traveller (Sep 20, 2017)

okaro said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > No, I really meant 22-44mm, i.e. equivalent to a 35-70mm on 35mm sensors/film. Like I wrote before, some would like wider, but I prefer to have a short tele option that can give an option for some perspective compression. You ain't gonna get that with a 24mm equivalent wide end, unless you go quite a bit slower (like f/4) bigger, or accept much lower image quality. Again, this is what I would _like_ to have, not what I think Canon _will_ produce.
> ...



Are you suggesting that by the Digic 4 generation, processing power had increased enough to permit software distortion corrections to under-designed lenses? This possibly is one factor in the emergence of wider lenses, but you should also note that at that time, the long end started getting longer too. It's the talking dog scenario: the first time you see one (i.e. bought a digital camera), it didn't matter what the dog said but the fact that it could speak at all. Once the digital compact camera market became commoditised (and eventually eroded by the growth of smartphones), the camera makers were forced to look for new ways to distinguish their products. 

To return to the original point, (what is left of) consumer digital cameras in the current market tend to have very large zoom ratios, as they are catering for the 'must cover every scenario' superzoom fallacy that the camera makers find it easy to sell to the casual buyer. Enthusiast compact cameras on the other hand, tend to have larger sensors coupled with smaller zoom ratio (or prime) lenses of larger aperture, as they are bought by people who have a more specific idea of what they want the camera to do (pocketable, discreet, fast, up-close, low-light and depth of field control are the more likely action words). My idea for a 22-44mm (i.e. 35-70 equiv.) with a fast aperture is to bridge the gap between the prime lens enthusiast cameras (Fuji X100 & 80, Ricoh GRII, Nikon Coolpix A) and the 3-5x zooms of moderate fast aperture. To be honest, perhaps my target of f/2.8 was too modest, but I was trying to go for a constant aperture design: some might prefer 22-44mm f/2-2.8 and I can understand their reasons too. A constant f/2 lens would be ideal, but I think that this would probably be trading off too much, either in terms of pocketability, or image quality. 

At the end of the day, there's always the tradeoff with all lens designs: coverage (sensor size), aperture, zoom ratio, size, cost, image quality must all be balanced. Far too often the outcome is slow, cheap, high zoom ratio lenses that appeal to a mass market, but actually often serve them poorly. Why does this happen? Probably because the benefits of a huge zoom range are easier to explain in a sound bite than the benefits of a wide aperture.


----------



## okaro (Sep 21, 2017)

traveller said:


> Are you suggesting that by the Digic 4 generation, processing power had increased enough to permit software distortion corrections to under-designed lenses?



Yes, it is important t note that the correction is done in real time. This makes it mostly invisible to the user especially as most cameras do not give out raw images. I found it out with CHDK. If the camera has a CCD sensor one can see it by pointing the camera to a lamp. This produces s straight line on the sensor. The correction causes it to be concave at the edges. One can also record it on video (but on on still images)



> This possibly is one factor in the emergence of wider lenses, but you should also note that at that time, the long end started getting longer too. It's the talking dog scenario: the first time you see one (i.e. bought a digital camera), it didn't matter what the dog said but the fact that it could speak at all. Once the digital compact camera market became commoditised (and eventually eroded by the growth of smartphones), the camera makers were forced to look for new ways to distinguish their products.



Dedicated superzoom cameras (SX-series and before that S-series) had a trend of increasing zoom but in basic cameras like Ixus the lengthening began only later in 2013 as a result of decreasing sales and competition with smart phones. At the same time they went back to CCD to cut costs. On the G-series they actually went back in Zoom. G9 was 35-210 and G10 28-140. G9 was Digic III and G10 Digic 4.



> To return to the original point, (what is left of) consumer digital cameras in the current market tend to have very large zoom ratios, as they are catering for the 'must cover every scenario' superzoom fallacy that the camera makers find it easy to sell to the casual buyer. Enthusiast compact cameras on the other hand, tend to have larger sensors coupled with smaller zoom ratio (or prime) lenses of larger aperture, as they are bought by people who have a more specific idea of what they want the camera to do (pocketable, discreet, fast, up-close, low-light and depth of field control are the more likely action words). My idea for a 22-44mm (i.e. 35-70 equiv.) with a fast aperture is to bridge the gap between the prime lens enthusiast cameras (Fuji X100 & 80, Ricoh GRII, Nikon Coolpix A) and the 3-5x zooms of moderate fast aperture. To be honest, perhaps my target of f/2.8 was too modest, but I was trying to go for a constant aperture design: some might prefer 22-44mm f/2-2.8 and I can understand their reasons too. A constant f/2 lens would be ideal, but I think that this would probably be trading off too much, either in terms of pocketability, or image quality.



The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom. SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions. Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra. The fact that you prefer 35 mm is no reason to start with that. A fixed lens camera needs to be versatile.

It would be little effort to modify the current lens to APS-C which would give f/2.5-4.8. People want wide angle. When S120 -> G9 X switch went from 24 mm to 28 mm people complained.


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2017)

okaro said:


> The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom.


Really? Why is it acceptable for a prime lens compact, but not if it's a zoom? 



okaro said:


> SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions.


Yep and with modern lens designs, we should be able to keep a modest zoom like this much faster than the current batch of "enthusiasts' compacts" that are dog slow at the long end and do little to enthuse me. Check out the comparison graph in this DPreview article:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundup-compact-enthusiast-zoom-cameras



okaro said:


> Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra.


Too little extra? Other than being able to compress the perspective into the short tele range without cropping out half the pixels? 



okaro said:


> The fact that you prefer 35 mm is no reason to start with that. A fixed lens camera needs to be versatile.


Nor is it a reason not to, like I stated in my first post, some will prefer a range that starts at 24 or 28mm, but the comprise you have would be a shorter long-end, or a bigger lens (which starts to push the boundaries of pocketable). 'Versatile' can mean other things than having a wide focal length range, like maintaining good depth of field control and low light shooting abilities. 



okaro said:


> It would be little effort to modify the current lens to APS-C which would give f/2.5-4.8.


Your modified lens offers no advantages over the current one on the G1XII. I agree that f/2.5 is decent on APS-C, but f/4.8 is pretty much DSLR kit-zoom territory.Look at the DPreview graph again -see how quick the lens' apertures crash after 24mm equivalent? 



okaro said:


> People want wide angle.


Which people? Oh, the same people that always buy Powershots. 



okaro said:


> When S120 -> G9 X switch went from 24 mm to 28 mm people complained.


Because the current Powershot buyer wants a 24-120mm slow kit zoom equivalent, because that's the market that Canon targets every single bloody Powershot at, then claims that this market segment is stagnant/in decline? 

I accept that Canon is simply going to make a G1XII clone but with an APS-C sensor and a rehash of the same lens. The point that I made in my first post was that this wouldn't be a camera that I would buy, which is why I don't own any of Canon's Powershot range: if you don't need a 600mm equivalent lens, then they're all basically the same camera!


----------



## okaro (Sep 21, 2017)

traveller said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that 35 mm is way too narrow if you make a zoom.
> ...



Because a zoom is a zoom and a prime is a prime. 35 mm is adequate indoors but nit ideal. 28 mm or 24 mm is better. The idea of a zoom is to be more versatile, to give what a prime cannot give.



okaro said:


> SRLs used to be shipped in 50 mm and then they went to 35-70 as that gave extra on both directions.


Yep and with modern lens designs, we should be able to keep a modest zoom like this much faster than the current batch of "enthusiasts' compacts" that are dog slow at the long end and do little to enthuse me. Check out the comparison graph in this DPreview article:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundup-compact-enthusiast-zoom-cameras
[/quote]

Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.



> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras like Fuji X100 already have 35 mm so you cannot compete with them with 35-70. It offers too little extra.
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 21, 2017)

okaro said:


> Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
> 
> 
> > fully agree! Has a lot to do with smartphone lenses having around 24-28mm equivalent FOV and people having gotten used to that capture perspective.
> ...


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
> ...



APS-C 18mm is 28mm equivalent, not 35mm. I don't think there have been 35mm (eqv) zooms since the 80s.

Apropos, it's interesting to me how 28-~85mm zooms evolved to the now-standard 24-70mm range, but standard crop zooms are, for the most part, still 18-~50mm. With some exceptions like the 15-45mm EF-M which is pretty exactly 24-70mm equivalent.


----------



## okaro (Sep 21, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> Apropos, it's interesting to me how 28-~85mm zooms evolved to the now-standard 24-70mm range, but standard crop zooms are, for the most part, still 18-~50mm. With some exceptions like the 15-45mm EF-M which is pretty exactly 24-70mm equivalent.



It is harder to make so sort lenses small and cheap with the 44 mm flange focal distance, for EOS M with 18 mm it is simpler. The 15-45 mm is much smaller than the 18-55.


----------



## okaro (Sep 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Note how none of those start at 35 mm, most start at 24 mm.
> ...


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2017)

Arguing at what focal length a fixed lens camera zoom should start at was not my original intent. Fine, if 24 is desirable, how about a 24-50 equivalent, but you can't really get 24-70 and a decent aperture (barring some new technology) without the lens becoming too large to be pocketable. So there are three options: 

1) A long zoom, with a marketable fast aperture number at the short end, quickly dropping off very quickly. 
2) A prime lens
3) A short, but fast zoom 

Canon and everyone else has done option 1 to death. It's popular enough to keep the line iterating, but I don't think that there's any new business to be had now -you're mainly selling to upgraders. 

Many have now tried option 2 and for some, it has also been a success. The issue is flexibility, you only have one focal length and the wider you go the more you have to crop if you need long (yes you can buy a teleconverter, or a wide angle converter, but these are heavy and bulky to the point that you might as well buy an ILC). Still, I wouldn't complain if Canon had one in their lineup. 

Option 3 is another option for a compromise. Limit the zoom ratio to 2x (I think even 3x is pushing it), just like Sigma did with the 18-35 f/1.8 Art. Obviously, it needs to be much smaller than the Sigma, _only some of which_ can come from the lens design freedom that a fixed lens camera can have, compare: http://j.mp/2fDs9eN. So you would still need to trade aperture somewhere to get from the camera system on the right, to closer to that on the left http://j.mp/2xj8QSg. Can it be achieved? Don't know, I'm not a lens designer or I'd be working on the problem for Canon, not writing on this forum. 

My point is that it would be nice to see Canon do something different, but to do this they have to first get away from the idea that every Powershot must have a twenty-something to one hundred and something zoom, or they will only ever end up with a slow zoom design. Perhaps they could have one base body with different lens options (non-interchangeable): a conventional 24-120 equiv. zoom, a couple of primes and a couple of short fast zooms (a 24-50 equiv. & a 35-70 equiv?), maybe the ultra wide zoom compact that Nikon recently talked themselves out of producing (why limit ourselves to a 24mm wide end?). But I know that I'm dreaming, Canon will release the same old slow zoom Powershot that they always have and they will sell it to the same customers they always have and I still won't be one of them


----------



## Rocky (Sep 22, 2017)

This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2017)

Rocky said:


> This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.



full ack! 8)

It is also why i prefer EOS M series over any camera without lens mount, including any Powershot.


----------



## photoenix (Sep 22, 2017)

Rocky said:


> This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question. Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size. The reason for 24mm starting point is based on personal experience. I used to have a 17-40mm L on 40D. After I switched to the M, I have a 18-55mm. There are a lot of time I feel that 18mm is not wide enough and I end up doing a lot of stitching. After a few trips to Asia and Europe, I finally getting tired of stitching and brought the 11-22mm from Canada. I have hardly doe any stitching except for 120 degree plus Panoramics. Looking back at the pictures I found out that I shot a lot of scenery using 14 to 16 focal length. Therefore 24mm (equivalent) is a good starting point for a travelling camera and whatever tele that comes with it makes it versatile.



It's changing from 1.5" to APS-C not from 1"


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2017)

photomachine said:


> It's changing from 1.5" to APS-C not from 1"



correct. But 1.5" to APS-C is still a rather significant change in diameter of imaging circle.


----------



## okaro (Sep 22, 2017)

Rocky said:


> This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question.



The G1 X is already hardly pocketable. Compare it to G15:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#534,383,ha,t

It is a pure example of a compact camera, not a pocket camera. Nobody is talking about a superzoom. That would be insane.



> Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size.



First G1 X is not an one inch sensor. The sensor crop ratio is about 1.85 though the way it is used creates a crop ratio of 1.95. What you describe is basically what it already has.


----------



## traveller (Sep 22, 2017)

okaro said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > This is a G series camera. I think one of the requirement is "coat pocketable" and versatile. Therefore long Super zoom is out of question, fast medium zoom is out of question, may be even fast short zoom is out of question.
> ...



Nonsense. Of course you can fit a G1XII in a _coat_ pocket, (not your _jeans_ pocket -your down to Sony RX100 size for that requirement) how else are do you carry the camera about? Oh, don't tell me -you use one of those straps with "Canon Powershot" written on it? I bet you think that this looks cool! 







Lots of people fit the Fuji X100 series or the EOS-M with the EF-M 22mm f/2 in their pocket, so why shouldn't the G1XII fit? http://camerasize.com/compact/#534,599.349,383,705,ha,t



okaro said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Couple with changing from 1" to APS-C, that put a lot more restriction on the size. Therefore I do not expect the G1 X III will have a fast lens or long zoom. As for the starting point of the lens. I personally prefer start from 24mm (equivalent) and take what ever short lele I can get with a reasonable size.
> ...



There is no difference between a fixed lens camera with a 1" sensor with a 8.8-36.8mm f/1.8-2.8 zoom (e.g. the G5X) and one with an (Canon) APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom or a full frame fixed lens camera with a 24-100mm f/4.9-7.6 zoom. They will all have exactly the same field-of-view range, capture exactly the same amount of light and have exactly the same depth of field control. They will also probably be exactly the same size. The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.


----------



## okaro (Sep 22, 2017)

traveller said:


> Nonsense. Of course you can fit a G1XII in a _coat_ pocket, (not your _jeans_ pocket -your down to Sony RX100 size for that requirement) how else are do you carry the camera about? Oh, don't tell me -you use one of those straps with "Canon Powershot" written on it? I bet you think that this looks cool!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure yiou can fit but I do not think a camera weighting over half a kilo is comfortable in a pocket. The G1 X II is much heavier than EOS M with the prime. 



> There is no difference between a fixed lens camera with a 1" sensor with a 8.8-36.8mm f/1.8-2.8 zoom (e.g. the G5X) and one with an (Canon) APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom or a full frame fixed lens camera with a 24-100mm f/4.9-7.6 zoom. They will all have exactly the same field-of-view range, capture exactly the same amount of light and have exactly the same depth of field control. They will also probably be exactly the same size. The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.



True, but the G1 X is already f/2.0-3.9 with 1.95 crop. That s effectively 2/3 stops faster than the G5 X.


----------



## traveller (Sep 22, 2017)

okaro said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between a fixed lens camera with a 1" sensor with a 8.8-36.8mm f/1.8-2.8 zoom (e.g. the G5X) and one with an (Canon) APS-C sensor with a 15-62mm f/3.1-4.8 zoom or a full frame fixed lens camera with a 24-100mm f/4.9-7.6 zoom. They will all have exactly the same field-of-view range, capture exactly the same amount of light and have exactly the same depth of field control. They will also probably be exactly the same size. The only advantage would be if the 1" sensor and lens combo was cheaper than the APS-C or full-frame versions.
> ...



Only at 24mm equivalent. Beyond that, things aren't so clear cut: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0226934452/Equiv_Ap.png

P.S. Note how superior the much overlooked LX100 lens is on this chart -this is currently the only zoom lens compact that has tempted me...


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2017)

Explain to me how a lens at f/7.6 lets in the same amount of light as at f/2.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Explain to me how a lens at f/7.6 lets in the same amount of light as at f/2.8.



That's easy.

Take an 8mm f2.8 lens = aperture opening of 8/2.8 = 3.6 mm aperture opening.
Take a 27mm lens set to f7.6 = aperture opening of 27/7.6 = 3.6 mm aperture opening.

They are the same sized hole so they let the same amount of light in.


----------



## okaro (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how a lens at f/7.6 lets in the same amount of light as at f/2.8.
> ...



Assuming they gather that light from same angle.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2017)

I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?

Even with the same lens and lens opening you don’t always get the same amount of light, such as with extension tubes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

okaro said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...


No, the aperture is at the focal point of the objective in a simple lens, the light path in a complicated one, so the angle of the light is not that relevant. Same hole size, same amount of light.



stevelee said:


> I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?
> 
> Even with the same lens and lens opening you don’t always get the same amount of light, such as with extension tubes.



Because the sensors are a different size so each section of sensor by area takes the same amount of time to receive the same amount of light. Ergo, if your sensor is twice as large it will take twice as long to get the same amount of light per area.

But that isn’t the end of it, iso, or sensor sensitivity, means that if you double the sensitivity you get the ‘same’ end result from twice the sensor area, in reality you get a touch more.

So if you use that 8mm lens at f2.8 and the 27mm at f7.6 on two cameras with equivalent sized sensors ( such that the fov from both is the same) you will get the same noise characteristics from both at compensated iso values. So to get two ‘identical images’ from two systems whereby identical mean same fov, dof, noise, shutter speed (for subject movement) etc etc when printed or viewed at the same size from the same place you’d use these camera settings.

8mm f2.8, iso 100, 1/60 sec.
27mm f7.6, iso 1000, 1/60 sec.

These settings will give you equivalent pictures from different sized sensors. To get the definite article on all this read here. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

P.s. don’t start introducing complex things like extension tubes into the mix, they can be explained, but are just side issues. 

An extension tube effectively changes the focal length of the lens, as does focusing closer than infinity but the differences are so small at greater than macro magnifications as to not mess with the basic equations enough to make a visible difference, there fore the focal length/aperture relationship changes so the equivalence calculation changes. It’s all explained much more thoroughly in the linked article.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2017)

OK I follow a lot of that and have said some of the same things myself in this forum. It does seem that the article uses some sleight of hand in saying that there is less exposure on a larger sensor because you have the same light spread over a larger area, and then the more intuitive idea that a crop sensor will get less light since it occupies a smaller part of the circle of light coming from the lens. But if I spend more time with the article, I can probably sort out what he means by the apparent contradiction. 

But I don’t follow at all how it is meaningful to say it is the same amount of light when one requires ISO 100 and the other ISO 1000.


----------



## okaro (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming they gather that light from same angle.
> ...



Totally incorrect. A wide angle lens gathers much more light from same size of aperture. Think about aperture of 10 mm. That could be a 20 mm wide angle at f/2 or a 160 mm Tele at f/16. The former gathers much more light.


----------



## okaro (Sep 23, 2017)

stevelee said:


> I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?
> 
> Even with the same lens and lens opening you don’t always get the same amount of light, such as with extension tubes.



Exposure is determined by light per square area of the sensor. If the light is spread to a larger sensor then one needs a higher ISO for the light to produce correct image. Of course the larger sensor can tolerate that so the overall image qualify is same.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

okaro said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > okaro said:
> ...



Not when talking about it in relation to equivalence, which we were and in retrospect I don't make clear in my followup answer. When talking about equivalence the fov from the different focal lengths is the same, so the angle of light captured is the same.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2017)

okaro said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?
> ...



Except that the larger sensor covers more of the circle of light that the lens projects, and a smaller sensor covers a smaller portion of it.


----------



## pokerz (Oct 13, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Explain to me how a lens at f/7.6 lets in the same amount of light as at f/2.8.







To achieve F2.8 in wide end, Canon's trick maybe here (has been implemented in G7x, G1x)


----------



## Archbob (Dec 7, 2017)

So I have one of these on my desk right now for testing and review right now and I can't seem to open the RAW files in anything. The Adobe DNG converter won't convert them and I can't open them in the latest version of photoshop or view them. 

What do you guys use to process these RAW files?


----------

