Canon Superzoom G3X 1" sensor

emptysensor

Regular
Nov 11, 2014
Joe
I thought I might be interested in this, but I'd rather have a zoom range/aperture similar to the RX10 and an EVF. The Sony and Panasonic versions don't really appeal to me. I guess the Canon won't either. 600mm just seems kind of silly.
 

kyteflyer

~@¿@~
Jan 31, 2011
Newcastle, Australia
Sue
I've lost interest because of the apparent lack of EVF. Back to the Panny. 200mm is a bit short for me, and the cost is too darned rich. The sony is good, but its not that good.
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
I'm another one who decided that clip-on EVFs just aren't happening for me. They make a given camera larger than it would be with an integrated viewfinder and when it's not mounted, they're a fiddly accessory that's prone to being lost. I felt that way with both the Olympus VF2 and VF3, and the small clip-on flash units that came with the E-PM1 and E-PM2.
 

kyteflyer

~@¿@~
Jan 31, 2011
Newcastle, Australia
Sue
I think if you don't care about an EVF, its a good buy. (Though I'd wait til the price dropped). I want a built in EVF and thats kinda where I'm at. I didnt realise until reading Michael's review, that it was weather sealed. Nice touch. And to my eyes, it outstripped the A7 in terms of IQ, at least on screen.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
Michael says he bought it and intends to use it. The performance is amazing at 600 mm.
 
Nov 11, 2011
Milwaukee, WI USA
Luke
It might run counter to what a lot you superzoom .cam fans think, but I could get behind the idea of this replacing my long zoom lenses and just being part of a 2 cam solution. I'll need to wait until the release the next one though and they're blowing these out for $500. Because I would want the EVF, and I don't value this camera at $1,300
 

kyteflyer

~@¿@~
Jan 31, 2011
Newcastle, Australia
Sue
Doesnt run counter to anything that I think. I'm still in the market for a larger sensor superzoom and the Panasonic is still top of that list. If Canon ever get with the program and include the EVF as part of the build, and do that before I get the FZ1000 (or FZ2000 as it likely to be by then) then its likely to be there at the top, instead.
 

nippa

Top Veteran
Aug 7, 2010
Cheshire UK
Dennis
It's interesting that looking at the DPReview studio test shots the actual image quality isn't much to write home about compared to my existing ageing Sony RX100 and Canon G1X.
The old Canon G1X remains a king of the compact club at all ISOs up to 3200 even with it's limited Dynamic Range of about 11 stops.
From the AP review , the DR of the new camera appears no better , high ISO noise is worse and lens resolution a less than the G1X which might be OK if I needed the focal length range.

Strange how progress isn't automatic these days.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
It's interesting that looking at the DPReview studio test shots the actual image quality isn't much to write home about compared to my existing ageing Sony RX100 and Canon G1X.
The old Canon G1X remains a king of the compact club at all ISOs up to 3200 even with it's limited Dynamic Range of about 11 stops.
From the AP review , the DR of the new camera appears no better , high ISO noise is worse and lens resolution a less than the G1X which might be OK if I needed the focal length range. Strange how progress isn't automatic these days.
Those results are way different from Reichmann's. I'd tend to go with Luminous Landscape.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
I watch the arms-length shooters with amusement, because I'm nearsighted and I hold the LCD screen about 4-5 inches from my eyes. I have to wonder, since I've been doing this for 40-plus years, why people who aren't nearsighted can't have a bifocal or whatever that lets them see the LCD. And I've seen LCD shades for sunlight too.
 

serhan

Hall of Famer
May 7, 2011
NYC
The G3X range goes with Michael's photography, 2 articles from Lula:
A Preference for Long Lenses
https://luminous-landscape.com/make-it-long/
From researching my digital images, stretching back more than 15 years, what I’ve discovered is that the majority of my photographs, landscapes as well as general nature and also documentary street shooting, are done with medium to moderately long focal lengths – say 35mm to 200mm. This isn’t surprising. What I somewhat anticipated as well is that a high percentage of my best work is with longer lenses – in the 300mm to 600mm range. Of course, this is often what the doctor ordered when shooting wildlife, but also landscape, as with the moonrise image above.
A New Perspective On Landscape Photography
https://luminous-landscape.com/a-new-perspective-on-landscape-photography/
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
The G3X range goes with Michael's photography, 2 articles from Lula:
A Preference for Long Lenses
https://luminous-landscape.com/make-it-long/
A New Perspective On Landscape Photography
https://luminous-landscape.com/a-new-perspective-on-landscape-photography/
Interesting how just as Reichmann discovers his love for the ~600 mm G3x, another landscape photographer is featured who discovered his own neglected need for a long or longer lens for landscapes. I'd guess that this is no coincidence, i.e. that this photographer's essay is intended to buttress Reichmann's. I have to wonder about the longer focal lengths for landscapes though, since the sheer distances involved usually mean much more air between camera and subject than with bird photography etc., and that air isn't always sparkly clean.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom