« Happy Columbus Day... | Main | Mike at PhotoPlus Expo »

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Comments

You can't believe how interested I am in the G5x; I can't wait to test one out (which I always do before I buy, now). I was going to get an Lumix LX100, but was waiting because, of course, everything changes all the time! I'm still searching for a self-contained camera with a mild wide angle to portrait telephoto, to replace ALL my Nikon and Olympus stuff. If it shoots raw, and looks good at a double magazine page spread size, then I'm going to be there...

This is the best product announcement post ever.

>>Canon's lack of enthusiasm for mirrorless is faintly comical.<<

So is your lack of enthusiasm for their newest mirrorless cameras. (Not that I blame you.)

Mike:
I just got my first smart phone, a MotoX Pure. I didn't buy it for it's camera(20 mp), which was rated pretty good, but rather for it's large 5.7" screen, and good phone performance and low price of only $400.

I took a few pictures with it, and was quite impressed with the quality of shots it delivered, just judging from it's display.

I had commented to a photog friend how I was quite impressed with it's photos. He told me to do a side by side comparison of shots with my Nikon D800.

This morning I did just that. A shot of a rusting door by a brick wall in the alley near my studio. When I opened up the two jpeg files, one from the MotoX, the other from the D800, I was quite blown away. The image from the MotoX was shockingly close at 100% screen view in Photoshop. to that from the D800.

I guess what I'm saying, based on what I saw, the days of the dedicated camera are numbered, when it comes to point and shoot type cameras for amateurs. I can see why no one is buying them anymore.

When it comes to dslr class cameras, I don't see why anyone would want to buy a "mirrorless" camera today with all their short comings, compared to a dslr, at comparable prices or firesale prices.

The manufacturers either need to sell the mirrorless at a lower price, or raise the price of the dslr's! Isn't that pretty obvious?

You opened with not doing a great job on this review: The G9X is for the lovers of the ultra-small S series, but now with a 1"-type sensor. I have sold prints with images from my S110; it's amazing considering it's the size of a pack of cigarettes. The G9X would be an incredible upgrade for a "camera that is always with you". It's a very real camera. (And yes, I also have the usual big and small, digital and film, cameras.)

"I used to get in lots of trouble for writing things like that in magazines."

Isn't it great being your own boss!

From B&H's product page (emphasis mine): "...Canon EOS M10 bundles an apt imaging system with intuitive handling and sharing capabilities."

Odd bit of copy there.

Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, all raised the mirror less bar; Canon (once again) casually limbos underneath it. I'll save my $500-$800 and buy a good 4/3 lens.

Mike, right on. This is some of your best, more interesting writing for a long while. I'm glad to see you getting your mojo back. Photography yes, gear no.

It's probably the Keuka Lake wine. You've found it, and have been left mellow, but slightly confused. Good.

Is this the same innovative Canon, home of the F1, the company that had the balls to sink huge bucks in the incredibly styled, revolutionary T90, the game changing AE1, and everything EOS ? Are the engineers and stylists so determined to never go mirrorless that they'd create this monstrosity - a totally no features, no excitement, no style, overpriced lump of ????. (Come on Mike, tell us how you REALLY feel). Mirrorless cameras are the most exciting, desirable, innovatively designed and engineered segment of the market. Are Canon engineers really so determined NOT to be part of the future of imaging? Or are they secretly in the employ of SoNikFujOly? Only time will tell.
Damn. I'll miss them.

Mike's just sayin': "Then there's a ratty little crippled VF-less 1" camera for people who a) will buy a real camera but at the same time b) won't spring for a good one. It's called the G9X, and I just lost the three readers who are seriously considering it."

Well that's one way of looking at it. :-)

The other way is this is Canon's interesting response to the Sony RX100 and Panasonic LX100. Instead of a single "do it all" model that doesn't quite fit in your pocket (like the RX100 or LX100) they've gone for two models. Each is optimized for it's niche: one for features (faster, wider and longer lens and an EVF) and the other for size (slower lens but it fits in your jeans pocket).

This reflects the previous positioning they had with the G series (e.g. G12) and "fits in your jeans pocket but has RAW" S series (e.g. S95) but this time with type 1-inch sensors. Like the G and S series they probably share a common "platform" design in the same Sony sensor plus software and hardware too.

The G9X is a little thicker than the S120 and thinner than the RX100 mark 2. It'll probably still fit in a jeans pocket.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#475,636,332,ha,t

The G5X is thicker than the RX100 but thinner than the LX100 (but lacks the retro controls). It should fit comfortably in a jacket pocket.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,637,332,ha,t

Prices? They're better than I thought they'ed be. The trend for camera manufacturers is to increase the price of their cameras (sell fewer but make more money?). The G9X is less than the RX100 mark 4 and priced about the same as the old "S series" (and less than the NOS RX100 mark 2). The G5X is a bit more daring being priced at $150 cheaper than the RX100 mark 4. They could take some business from Sony for the people drawn by a faster lens and larger size.

The other question is "where are Nikon in this market?"

The G5X is a bit smaller than a Nikon V3 without a lens.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,637,544,ha,t

The G9X is a bit smaller than a Nikon J5 without a lens.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#332,636,614,hd,t

The Canon cameras both (probably) use the same Sony sensor as the Nikon 1 J5 so IQ should be almost identical.

The Nikon 1 range with slow lenses (but very fast AF!) look a bit weak compared to the these cameras. They do have patents for fast Nikon 1 lenses (especially fast zooms) but they haven't shipped yet.

Finally, where are the Nikon Coolpix P7xxx and P3xx with a type 1-inch sensor to compete with the G5X and G9X?

To get my groove back I will be ruthless in "thinning the heard". I cannot go without an OM and a couple of lenses. I like the Hexagon 40/1.8 too much to get rid of all the Konica gear. And I don't think I'll ever give up 4x5.

But the plan is to go with the X100-T for my "serious" digital. One lens, no choice unless a one of the auxiliary lenses is really required. When I feel like a different tool is needed, I'll use it exclusively until my gut tells me otherwise.

I'm like you, too many choices addles my brain.

Canon is boring.

A few months ago I sold my 5D as the ISO didn't go high enough, the LCD wasn't accurate, the body too big... I tried the jewel like EM-1, retro X100, even a wonderfully Zeiss equipped RX10.

Each time I was slightly wistful thinking back to the 5D, so I'd sell something and almost have enough for a 6D before some other solution caught my eye.

Ultimately I did buy that 6D. And boy howdy, I thank Canon most every time I use it for designing a camera that focuses in the dark, bangs right up to ISO 12k with perfectly usable files, and quietly goes about its business in a most transparent way.

I guess my point is there's a place for the Honda of cameras - and who knows, maybe they'll pull an NSX out of the hat someday.

Man, someone hit that camera upside the viewfinder with the ugly stick.

The G5x kind of reminds me of the E-M5 ii. Stocky little body, twist and flip LCD, small(er) sensor. The focal length of the lens looks nice - thankfully they start at 24mm equivalent and not 28 or longer. Hope the zoom is very responsive; I always get concerned when I see an electronic zoom. Looks like it'd be fun to play with, I agree. Doubt I'll ever handle one.

I think you might really like Canon's 22mm f/2, Mike. It's a gem… shame about the cameras though.

Where does canon gets the nerve to call a camera " M3" ...?

[I assume because they have mo' betta' lawyers than Leica. Leica would not have let that happen in the past. --Mike]

The problem with that G5X, as I've found with my Olympus OMD-EM10, is that it tries to be small enough to fit in a pocket but that whacking great EVF has all sorts of protrusions that catch every time you put it in or take it out. However, with my Olympus, it was a worthwhile compromise.
Anthony

Mike, sorry to continue pouring fuel… but check out the Nikon 1 V3 camera. I own it and love it… fast and excellent image quality. But the really cool feature of the camera is that it can be configured as a G9X-featured camera OR a G5X-featured camera. For me, that was the huge selling point; the Nikon 1 V3 can be a tiny pocketable camera sans viewfinder and grip, or it can be a full featured kit with the viewfinder and grip attached.

I like the small, blocky, utilitarian look of the G5X. I would not be surprised to see an EOS M version of it sometime soon.

Best product announcement\review ever.

As a Canon user I am curious to see what the G5X has to offer...but I already have a 6D & M3 (of the Eos kind) and a 'vintage' Mamiya ZD that I still occasionally use for B&W shift lens photography. But really three cameras is probably too much as it is ...although it could be very interesting to compare the four different format sensors as they are all between 20 and 24 mp and to see what actual progress has been made these last 9 years or so...

Had I not recently purchased a new-to-me Sony RX100 II, the G9X would be tempting. I've been a Canon user for a long while now and there is something to be said for all the muscle memory surrounding the layout of the controls and menus. (I continue to fumble with finding settings in the Sony UI.)

In terms of the pocketable 1" sensor with a fast lens, I've found the setup to be great. I had given up on point and shoots and was carrying either a DSLR or just a cell phone. But with this camera I find myself more engaged in photography than I have in a long while. Not trying to overstate things, but I certain feel like I've come out of a bit of a photographic slump.

At first blush, the G5X looks to me like a Fujifilm XT-1 knockoff, except for that fixed 24-105 35mm equivalent lens and that whateveritis knob below the shutter release.

When I fist saw the G5X I thought WOW!

Now I'm like --Meh!

You're right its a very lukewarm, unenthusiastic metoo offering from Canon.

Canon is definitely not serious about mirrorless cameras. How can they be as evidenced by their introducing (much less CREATING) this gawd-awful-butt-ugly thing?

The photo of the G5X reminds me of these:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/499829258616044216/

David J.Lee: Where does canon gets the nerve to call a camera " M3" ...?

They're in no violation of trademarks as they're trade name they use is "Canon EOS M3" but for Leica it's the "Leica M3".

A compound trademark can reuse "common" parts that are in use elsewhere, even in the same field e.g. the trademark is "Microsoft Windows" not "Windows". Think of all the cameras you can name that are "single letter plus a number".

As a chemistry professor of mine responded, after a student pointed out they'ed use the same variable name to mean different things in a derivation, in a thick Polish accent "Zer are only twenty six letters in z'alphabet".

I agree with Jim Julian that the G9X is for those who like the size of the S90-120 series but want higher quality photos. A lot of those people may already own Sony RX100 cameras though. The RX100 is slightly bigger than the G9X, unless you count the bulk of the extra battery that Canons of this size inevitably need. Poor battery life seems to be one feature of the S90-120 range that Canon retained in the new G9X.

I’d rather have a larger camera with better battery life - in fact I do have one, the Fujifilm X30, which I like a lot.

Could cameras get any uglier than G5X!?

Sony has a 16–50mm almost just like it

The Sony 16-50 PZ is one of the worst (modern) lenses I have ever used! Among other faults, it has about 4 stops of vignetting at the wide end.

You should read the Photozone review on that lens, just for entertainment:

"The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS broke a couple of records but unfortunately not in the positive sense. Its uncorrected distortion and vignetting figures are nothing short of insane.

Sony is an engineering company. They cut corners and fix it with in camera software correction. Then they charge a premium price, and fan boys defend it to the death: "But it's small. They had to make it crappy."

In contrast, the $75 Canon 22 mm STM is an Excellent lens. The $85 Canon 18-55 STM is a Very Good+ kit kens. The 11-22 is absolutely fantastic, if not as cheap.

I only wish I could have used those Canon lenses on my A6000. they also have the Very Good+ $125 24 mm APS-C pancake, the Excellent 40 mm full frame pancake, the new $125 50 1.8 STM. I gave up on the A6000 because of the expensive/ or crappy lenses. The A7II was worse, as the lenses cost 4x as much, and it couldn't focus in low light at all.

I'm begrudgingly shooting my Nikon D750, D5500, and D5300, while wishing I had Canon glass for it. ;)

Cheers!
Michael

Two days ago it was love at first sight. Reminds me of my first love, an old canon F1 that I bought secondhand in the seventies and that I used for more than two decades.

Now, giving it another look... What should I say to my wife? That I really need it? Isn’t it a bit expensive? One can buy a decent dslr or mirrorless for that kind of money! Why is there an ugly knob at the front? I would have to buy another coat with larger pockets as well. Maybe it’s too small for my hands. I was completely happy with my current camera and had decided not to buy a new camera for the next five years. And certainly not a Canon! And out of the blue…

@s.low: "Why is there an ugly knob at the front?"

That's the front dial control

It's aping the Contax G2

Nikon also used this style of front dial in the P7100.

"One can buy a decent dslr or mirrorless for that kind of money! "

A DSLR or mirrorless camera with a 24-105mm eq f/1.8 to f/2.8 lens for $800?

The one thing this made me realize is that I can only think of one 24-105mm eq lens for mirrorless cameras (Sony 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss lens for E-mount). I find it odd that there isn't one on microFourThirds. That seems to be a bit of a gap in the "enthusiast" zoom lens range given Sigma's 17-70mm lens for APS DSLRs is their best selling lens.

I'm pretty sure there was no '70s Nikon F3 as the F3 was introduced in 1980. The '70s model was the F2 and its variants.

['80s F3. That's what I meant. --Mike]

The comments to this entry are closed.