Canon Canon G1 X Mark II Announced and Looks Amazing

I have the first generation G1X. It's not perfect but it's an awfully good choice for situations where you want to take just one camera. The image quality is excellent and it feels good in the hand. The biggest weakness is terrible macro focusing. AutoFocus isn't very fast but I usually take landscapes or people shots rather than action. I mention to set the level on the camera that the mark 2 is replacing. This looks very promising to me and probably worth an upgrade.
 
I guess that I'm not looking to replace an ILC system with the G1X Mk II. I still have too much use for an UWA and a fast normal and a portrait prime and occasionally telephoto to give that up. My last kit for 5.5 months of travel was four cameras and about nine lenses so minimalism is not my thing. If I decide to get the G1X Mk II it will be to replace the G1X Mk I. The reason why I have that camera is that it has an excellent (but slow) zoom lens, very effective image stabiliser, silent and vibration free leaf shutter that allows fill flash at fast shutter speeds and a "goldilocks" balance of size, balance, and handling. The other reason I have it is because it has a Canon sensor, and I say that because it works differently to an omnipresent Sony sensor. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage because it can't be pushed as far as a Sony (or Samsung) sensor in extremes, but when it's in "the zone" it sometimes has that little bit extra to make it stand out. You can check out DxOMark to see that it's headline sensor numbers are quite poor, but I have cameras with much better dynamic range, I have cameras that are better in low light (because of both sensor and access to faster lenses), but the G1X is just a little bit special and I hope that this one (the Mark II) is more of the same and with a few nice upgrades besides.
 
This is the first new camera announcement in a while that made me say "gotta have it". But the more I think about it the less sure I am.

It will have a hard time replacing my two favorite primes (17/1.8 & 45/1.8) on my E-M5. Not to mention the 40-150.

It won't replace my RX100, because sometimes size (lack thereof) really matters to me. The G just isn't pocketable.

It won't replace my V1 for shooting action.

And even in my twisted gear-loving brain I can't find a rationalization for a fourth camera. Although I may keep re-reading Nic's post until I'm nodding along with the idea that I need a Canon sensor for some variety. :)
 
In my own twisted little world the Olympus 9-18mm, 17/1.8, 45/1.8, Panasonic Leica 14-150mm and 25/1.4 are all safe (well the 9-18mm is safe from the G1X at any rate). I would still have a use for all of those even if I had, say, a 12-35mm or 12-40mm f2.8 for Micro 4/3. Canon sensor or no Canon sensor, the G1X (and the Mark II with it's faster, broader-range lens even more so) slots nicely into a high quality, standard zoom position.
 
There was some discussion earlier about the degree of lens correction that might be required on the G1X Mark II at wide angles, so I thought I'd show some examples from the original G1X. The G1X lens displays quite pronounced barrel distortion at it's widest angles which is corrected in-camera. The following are all images taken at the widest angle (15,1mm FL) where the maximum distortion correction is applied, and include a 100% crop to show how the corners are affected.

7031724643_646e6327c6_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_0098-PR Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_0098-BR_zpsd682afaa.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




7262441704_8e98867f14_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_0538-PR Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_0538-BL_zpsc0a186f5.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




7313722904_ce50143d98_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_0536-PR Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_0536-BL_zpsa279b3dc.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




6907153884_614af7f931_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_0216-P2R Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_0216-TR_zps5481eeac.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




6892050362_ebe4de60ce_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_0230-PR Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_0230-TR_zps0b37e5f1.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




11436623424_9a93bf582e_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_2587-PR Canon Powershot G1X Altiplano Bolivia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_2587-BL_zps3c25613a.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




11448636765_1159802868_b.jpg

CG1X-IMG_2837-PR Canon Powershot G1X Brisbane Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

CG1X-IMG_2837-TR_zps43191629.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




Finally, this is what an uncorrected image looks like on the G1X sensor at 15.1mm

IMG_0660-RAW.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




and this is the amount of correction that needs to be applied by the camera to remove the barrel distortion

IMG_0660-CORRECTED.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




This is the OOC jpeg that shows how much is cropped from even the corrected image. You can see that the G1X is quite conservative about using the full width of the lens at the widest angle setting.

IMG_0660-JPEG.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
The more I think about this camera, the more I like it. Wow, I can't believe I said that about a Canon.

Me too... I lost my LX7 in an airport last month, so this is a serious contender for its replacement.


A relatively fast 24-120 in an APS-C seems to be a travel camera dream. One has to wonder if Canon can get a 24-120mm f/2-3.9, can either Oly or Panasonic create something even smaller with a fixed fast zoom lens? I'd be happy with a 24-90mm, f/2-2.8!!

Your comment got me thinking about what Panasonic would do in response. Judging from the discounts on the LX7, I can't imagine that it has been very profitable for them — eventhough I loved mine. An LX7 replacement with an m4/3 sensor would make a lot of sense, especially if it had the same controls as the LX7. :)

90mm-e f/2.8 on m4/3 is 45mm/2.8 = 16.07mm pupil. On the long end, the G1X MkII is 62.5mm/3.9 = 16.03mm pupil.

Virtually identical pupil sizes, so in theory, your 24-90mm f/2-2.8 camera shouldn't be bigger than the G1X MkII, and perhaps even smaller.

Edgar
 
In a sense, the G1X II is like a Panasonic LX on steroids. And as an aside, I have no idea why the LX7 hasn't sold very well, because it is a stunning camera. I'm getting photos from this that continue to surprise me.

And I second retow's notion that a G1X II, a Sony RX1 and a Ricoh GR could be a complete high quality travel kit. Many could just use the G1X II. Others would want to add the RX1 for the full frame look and low light capabilities. Others could do with the GR as the pocket sized wide angle option.
 
if you simply and dispassionately compare features alone, it seems to me that this camera does not offer more than the always overlooked olympus xz-2: the oly is 24-100, so a tad less reach, but is way faster at the portrait end topping out at 2.5 vs 3.9; its single programmable lens ring is, like the canons two rings, capable of two distinct functions, one detented one smooth, at the flick of a switch; both have articulating screens, optional evfs and IBIS; and it appears the oly is more 'pocketable'.

so does the excitement stem from the apsc sensor alone? or am i misinterpreting something? i am constantly confounded at how this oly, which yields excellent results, generated zero excitement and is now selling for less than $300...for those who yen for this type camera, id check out the oly!
 
Yeah, I think it is mostly about the sensor. The XZ-2 is hardly unique. There are numerous high end P&S options that have been heavily discounted and are good bargains today. Fuji X10 and Panasonic LX7 jump to mind. For me, the Sony RX100 caused a bit of obsolescence in that market segment, with it's size ratio (sensor:body). A P&S has to top the RX100 for me to consider it, and the G1Xmk2 should based on larger sensor/higher IQ.
 
well, i disagree a little bit in that the oly has a unique feature set not shared by any other compact zoom. if you read through just this thread you can see excitement coming from some parts of that distinct feature set shared by the oly and not shared by other compact zooms, like dual functioning rings, larger zoom reach, fast lens at all FLs, IBIS, articulating screen with focus/fire ability. its rivals, like the lx7, share some but not all these features. that is what makes the oly unique, its that it is the only i know of that has all those features.
 
Without going back through specs, I think most of those high end compacts have unique features. Personally, I chose the X10 over the Oly and Panny options when they all were much closer in cost to the G1Xmk2. I don't view the new G as having the ideal feature set, but rather solid features with a fast and long lens in front of large sensor relative to it's small body.
 
Yup, to me the allure of new Canon G comes from a feature set similar to Oly XZ2, but in front of much bigger sensor.
While ago I contemplated XZ2 but eventually went with RX100. Wouldn't go back to XZ2, but would consider GX1M2.
 
if you simply and dispassionately compare features alone, it seems to me that this camera does not offer more than the always overlooked olympus xz-2: the oly is 24-100, so a tad less reach, but is way faster at the portrait end topping out at 2.5 vs 3.9; its single programmable lens ring is, like the canons two rings, capable of two distinct functions, one detented one smooth, at the flick of a switch; both have articulating screens, optional evfs and IBIS; and it appears the oly is more 'pocketable'.

so does the excitement stem from the apsc sensor alone? or am i misinterpreting something? i am constantly confounded at how this oly, which yields excellent results, generated zero excitement and is now selling for less than $300...for those who yen for this type camera, id check out the oly!

The achilles heel of premium compacts like the XZ2, LX7, G15, S110, etc has been the sensor size. Those sensors are pretty damn good in good light, but the DR is pretty limited and they go south pretty quickly as the ISO rises into the 800-1600 range. A couple of years ago that wasn't much of a downside because nothing short of APS was much better - the old 12mp m43 sensors struggled by 1600 also. I had the LX5 and LX7 and GRD3 and shot enough to know with the G15 and XZ2 and they all have their feature sets but the sensors are all basically quite limited by current standards. I slightly preferred the LX7, you prefer the XZ2, others prefer the G15 - all are legit choices. But the X10 and RX100 started the ball rolling pretty fast in terms of sensor improvements in this part of the small camera market. And the GR, Coolpix A, X100/100s started showing what could be done with pretty small cameras with a big sensor in a fixed focal length. And the original G1X was groundbreaking as well, but was limited by the speed and range of the lens, the lack of close focus, slow AF, etc. And it wasn't that small. But it started solving the problems of what you can do with a pretty large and capable sensor in a small all-in-one zoom camera. But this camera seems to have started overcoming the limitations of the first gen G1X with a smaller body, a lens that's both faster throughout and with a wider zoom range, better AF, a multi-aspect sensor, etc.

So, yeah, the sensor is a pretty big deal even compared to the RX100 / RX10 1" sensor, let alone the X10/20 2/3" sensor and far outpacing the 1/1.7" shared by the XZ2, LX7, G15, S110, etc, etc. Those small sensor cameras were competing on features alone for a couple of years but were all pretty close on IQ. The larger sensor cameras are expanding the IQ possibilities as well, which to me is a bigger deal than a great feature set, because that will also come along once the sensor wars settle down. But sensor wars are a GOOD thing IMHO. In terms of full frame and even down to APS and m43, sensor tech may be leveling off a bit (or maybe there are leaps and bounds not far down the road), but this compact sector is where things are in full acceleration. I'm not in the market for any of these at the moment, but I'm really excited by the possibilities (as I was when the RX100 showed up a year and a half ago - despite my distaste for that specific model). To me this G1X II is a pretty good step forward, but I'm sure there's more to come.

Personally, as much as I loved the LX5/7 and the GRD3 for as long as I did, I don't see any reason to shoot with that sensor any more when there are cameras roughly as small and handy coming along with vastly superior sensors. Once I shot with a Ricoh GR and Nikon A I knew one of those was gonna be my "pocket" camera and the LX7 headed out the door soon after. I'm happy enough without a zoom, but for those that like 'em, things are really heating up now...

-Ray
 
From dpreview, sensor size comparison:
Sensor-Sizes.png


It shows why RX100 changed the compact IQ. There was so much gap from 1/1.7" sensor to 43 sensor. Again it is hard to compare G1X to the smaller sensors esp with its fast lens and 6X bigger sensor.

Camera & Sensor Area
Nikon APS-C 367mm2 (1.53x)
Canon APS-C (Canon) 329mm2 (1.62x)
Canon G1 X Mark II (4:3 crop) 240mm2 (1.92x)
Canon G1 X Mark II (3:2 crop) 234mm2 (1.92x)
Olympus/Pana Four Thirds 225mm2 (2.00x)
Sony DSC-RX100 II / Nikon CX 116mm2 (2.72x)
Fuji X10/X20 58mm2
Canon S100 42mm2
Olympus XZ-1/2 41mm2
 
I could say that the G1X Mark II is of particular interest compared to something like an XZ-2 because I feel more comfortable shooting a camera with the characteristics of a 4/3 to APS-C sensor. Two years ago I made the same choice between the G1X, XZ-1, and you can throw the Fujifilm X10 into that mix as well and of course the Sony RX100 came out a little after that too. The other big plus in the G1X Mark II for me is perhaps the same reason why a lot of others WOULDN'T choose one, and that 's because it ISN'T pocketable. If a camera is small enough to fit in a pocket it is too small too fit in my hands. I was trying to work out why I found the G1X so comfortable to hold the other day and my Olympus E-M5 less so, and I realised that the biggest (if that is the right word) difference between the two is that the G1X is about 5mm taller from baseplate to the shutter button which means that it tucks nicely into the heel of my hand whereas the base of the E-M5 falls short and requires me to apply a firmer grip to hold it. Anything smaller than that again is a camera that I have to hold with my fingertips rather than actually grip it.

So to summarise my ramble, the G1X and G1X Mark II combine a fixed lens camera with a sensor that I am comfortable with in a body of a size that I am comfortable with. When I compare the G1X Mark I and II to other cameras they are other fixed and interchangeable lens 4/3 and APS-C sensor cameras.
 
Back
Top