Actually I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, Dennis, but I break the difference that I see between the two cameras down to both the measurable and unmeasurable elements of IQ. Measurable things like dynamic range and ISO noise should put the Fuji well ahead of the Canon, and you do notice the influence that either of those measures has on the images from the two cameras...It's an easy comparison.
I might disagree with Nic here because to my mind images from the G1X are superior (14bit RAW files) and the tele lens is as good as the Leica Elmarit 35mm on my Leica X1.
It even "beats" my Zeiss 16-80mm on my Sony DSLR but I guess that the sensor and Digic 5 probably play a large part in the end results.
What a shame that the body is clunky and that real Macro use requires an additional close up filter(lens).
For the purpose that you describe, I would agree that it perhaps not the G1X's area of speciality. In that sort of environment I would want something with a faster lens, faster reflexes and even more flexible set of shooting options. The X100 might be a better choice in that sort of environment, but I still couldn't nominate anything over the top of the Olympus E-M5 if you are comfortable using more modern features like a tilting screen and touchscreen shutter release, albeit it will be more expensive once you add a lens or lenses.Hi, Thank you very much for all of your kind and considered contributions. I do like the Canon however I wish to become more involved with street / reportage and indoor photography. I feel that the X100 with its superb view finder may suite - Futhermore a fixed focal length appeals - Strange I know but we all have our own thoughts on this particular matter. Thanks again. Adam.