new ideal all in one? Canon g3x

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5670927493/canon-powershot-g3-x-what-you-need-to-know

I have often railed against most super-zooms, as being huge sacrifices in image quality, in order to get a meaningless long zoom range.

To me, the image quality from the Sony 1" sensor, found in several cameras across brands, was kind of the minimum for "dSLR-like" image quality.

But being a larger sensor, you can't really achieve the SUPER SUPER zoom of small sensor cameras. The first "super zoom" with the 1" sensor was the Sony RX10, which just got a refresh. Still an amazing camera, with a fast 24-200/2.8 lens. And it just added 4k video and super fast burst shooting. 200mm on the long end is certainly enough for 90% of uses for 90% of people. But there are indeed times, where I admit, someone might want to go longer. Shooting sports and wildlife, a 300-400mm range, or even higher, can be useful.

There is the Panasonic FZ1000. 25-400, 2.8-4 lens. In the 100-200mm range, the FZ1000 is a bit slower than the RX10. The 25mm vs 24mm difference is not a major issue, but it is noticeable. There are build quality differences and feature differences... but it is undeniable that the 25-400 range is very appealing as an "all in one."

Now comes Canon's answer --- The G3x, 24-600/2.8-5.6. It even looks fairly compact, but pictures may be deceiving. Not very fast at the long telephoto end, but neither are most dSLRs. A very reasonable 2.8 at the wide end -- just like the RX10 and FZ1000. My main criticism is the lack of a built in viewfinder... and it is difficult to shoot long telephoto subjects in an LCD. A viewfinder decreases camera shake.

It costs a little more than the FZ1000, costs the same as the original RX10 (but the original RX10 has a viewfinder), and a bit less than the newest RX10 upgrade.

But the key is... even for sports and wildlife, unless you are professionally shooting an African safari, 24-600 is a sufficient range for 99.99% of ordinary consumers, 99.99% of the time. Yes, there are small sensor superzooms with 1200mm range, but that's only useful for parlor tricks (see that dot long off in the distance... seeeeeee... I can zoom all the way in and get a mediocre quality image and you can see what it is!).

So looks like we can add another camera onto the list for those who want high quality, without interchangeable lenses. Though I do wish it incorporated a viewfinder.

I bought the G7X when going on a short break to Paris at the start of the year. It produces rather lovely images - detailed and sharp, and the RAW files can handle a lot of editing. It can be carried in a belt pouch, but produces great pictures.

The G3X, built on the same sensor, looks a massively exciting camera. Compact enough to carry around, great images and a wonderful zoom range.

I go on holiday next week, but the G3X isn't available until July. That's probably a good thing; that way I'm not going to be asking the financial controller for a purchase approval before going on holiday!

Isn't "ideal all-in-one" an oxymoron?

Maybe, "all-in-one with fewer/different compromises"?

:)

Dave

Isn't "ideal all-in-one" an oxymoron?

 

 

Maybe, "all-in-one with fewer/different compromises"?

 

:)

 

Dave

You know I agree with you... But there are those who dread the idea of changing lenses (or changing cameras!).

How often do we see someone asking for a camera with amazing low light performance, long zoom, easy to use, and they want to stick to under $200?

Well... this camera isn't cheap. And it won't rival a ILC+prime lenses... But it has the zoom range that is really really pretty darn long... It should have low light performance that can kick the pants off other P&S cameras, and can even rival kit-dSLR combos for low light performance. And the opening day price of $999 is not absurd when you look at the market.

Perfect camera.. definitely not. And I personally wouldn't want to use any long zoom without a viewfinder.

But maybe possibly the single camera that could serve the most needs, without changing lenses.

The P&S shooter that this type of camera is a good solution for is likely not going to use a tripod. That makes zoom much beyond 300mm eq. (or even less in anything but good light) more of a marketing checkbox than a truly useful feature. (Not theorizing...I shot for years with a Minolta A2 that had a 28-200 zoom and an optional 1.5x teleconverter.) It is sitting smack between the Panasonic superzooms with their smaller sensors and price and the RX10 with it's new stacked memory sensor and deeper feature set...and higher price. I'm sure there will be a market for it, but I don't see it as the Next Big Thing.

Someone out there will. :)

Dave

The P&S shooter that this type of camera is a good solution for is likely not going to use a tripod. That makes zoom much beyond 300mm eq. (or even less in anything but good light) more of a marketing checkbox than a truly useful feature. (Not theorizing...I shot for years with a Minolta A2 that had a 28-200 zoom and an optional 1.5x teleconverter.) It is sitting smack between the Panasonic superzooms with their smaller sensors and price and the RX10 with it's new stacked memory sensor and deeper feature set...and higher price. I'm sure there will be a market for it, but I don't see it as the Next Big Thing.

 

Someone out there will. :)

 

Dave

NOTHING is the next big thing in photography. Nothing will stop the migration to smart phones by many users. Even the "mirrorless revolution" won't be much of a revolution, but I simply expect that mirrorless will eventually mostly replace traditional for enthusiasts.

Certainly, at $999... this camera isn't going to call to the masses looking to spend $200 or less.

But for those willing to spend the money, who really don't want to change lenses, and want a long range, this might be the camera.

I agree that longer zooms are generally meaningless. But with stabilization, I have shot handheld at 600mm with some decent success. Needs to be good light.

On the other hand, with a tiny handheld Nikon J3, with an equivalent of 900mm lens on it.... I got nothing but wild shakiness.

So to me, for longer focal lengths... with a viewfinder plus good stabilization, I can do 600mm. But you are getting to diminishing returns.

Handheld at 600mm:

Grackle by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Cardinal by Adam Brown, on Flickr

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5670927493/canon-powershot-g3-x-what-you-need-to-know

 

I have often railed against most super-zooms, as being huge sacrifices in image quality, in order to get a meaningless long zoom range.

 

To me, the image quality from the Sony 1" sensor, found in several cameras across brands, was kind of the minimum for "dSLR-like" image quality.

 

But being a larger sensor, you can't really achieve the SUPER SUPER zoom of small sensor cameras. The first "super zoom" with the 1" sensor was the Sony RX10, which just got a refresh. Still an amazing camera, with a fast 24-200/2.8 lens. And it just added 4k video and super fast burst shooting. 200mm on the long end is certainly enough for 90% of uses for 90% of people. But there are indeed times, where I admit, someone might want to go longer. Shooting sports and wildlife, a 300-400mm range, or even higher, can be useful.

 

There is the Panasonic FZ1000. 25-400, 2.8-4 lens. In the 100-200mm range, the FZ1000 is a bit slower than the RX10. The 25mm vs 24mm difference is not a major issue, but it is noticeable. There are build quality differences and feature differences... but it is undeniable that the 25-400 range is very appealing as an "all in one."

 

Now comes Canon's answer --- The G3x, 24-600/2.8-5.6. It even looks fairly compact, but pictures may be deceiving. Not very fast at the long telephoto end, but neither are most dSLRs. A very reasonable 2.8 at the wide end -- just like the RX10 and FZ1000. My main criticism is the lack of a built in viewfinder... and it is difficult to shoot long telephoto subjects in an LCD. A viewfinder decreases camera shake.

It costs a little more than the FZ1000, costs the same as the original RX10 (but the original RX10 has a viewfinder), and a bit less than the newest RX10 upgrade.

But the key is... even for sports and wildlife, unless you are professionally shooting an African safari, 24-600 is a sufficient range for 99.99% of ordinary consumers, 99.99% of the time. Yes, there are small sensor superzooms with 1200mm range, but that's only useful for parlor tricks (see that dot long off in the distance... seeeeeee... I can zoom all the way in and get a mediocre quality image and you can see what it is!).

 

So looks like we can add another camera onto the list for those who want high quality, without interchangeable lenses. Though I do wish it incorporated a viewfinder.

A recent review of some superzooms!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7192763593/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup

Handheld at 600mm:

 

I assume that was not shot with a relatively small, lightweight camera handheld at reading distance so you can frame with the LCD... ;)

Dave

I assume that was not shot with a relatively small, lightweight camera handheld at reading distance so you can frame with the LCD... ;)

 

Dave

Exactly. Balancing with a viewfinder makes a HUGE difference. And even with a viewfinder, I wouldn't want to go any longer handheld.

I'm debating for Alaska, in 2 months, do I use my 300mm with 1.4 converter or 2x converter, for whale watching, etc.

A recent review of some superzooms!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7192763593/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup

Problem with articles like that.... As a photography publication, in bed with the photography industry, they will never come out and say, "this whole class of cameras is meaningless."

They write up reviews, really only comparing the cameras across the same class. So when they say, "Camera XYZ has impressive low light performance and is very responsive" -- They are only comparing it to other cameras, that generally are poor in low light and unresponsive. Though you may see a quick little reference, they generally don't stick in big bold print, "This is pretty good for a superzoom, but truly stinks compared to better cameras."

So you may see a review of a $1500 big sensor camera, and the reviewer says, "Low light performance was disappointing." And then a review of a $200 bridge camera with a statement that says, "Excellent low light performance" and come to the incorrect conclusion that the $200 camera has better low light performance than the $1500 camera.

I wish reviews were written in a more universal way, not just comparing across similar cameras. Do both -- "The performance of this camera is very poor compared to ______________, but does surpass many other cameras within the category."

In fairness, this review set is a bit better than others I've seen.. For example, they make this statement about the SX60:

"Simply because image quality is quite limited to begin with because of the small sensor, small pixels, limited lens capability, and things like atmospheric distortion at the telephoto focal lengths"

Exactly. Balancing with a viewfinder makes a HUGE difference. And even with a viewfinder, I wouldn't want to go any longer handheld.

 

I'm debating for Alaska, in 2 months, do I use my 300mm with 1.4 converter or 2x converter, for whale watching, etc.

You have the pixels. Shoot at 300mm for speed and crop.

70-200 f/2.8 - f/5.6 - 1/640s - ISO 100 shot at about 135mm (200mm eq.) on A77

cropped 2x

70-200 f/2.8 - f/5.6 - 1/1000s - ISO 100 shot at about 200mm (300mm eq.) on A77

Cropped 3x

The one shot at 135mm would have been tough if I had a 300mm x 1.4 on the camera! It popped up close! :)

Dave

To be fair, skill and experience, youth, and strength, all play a big part in being able to handhold extreme focal lengths. I had long time experience in the earlier days of digital shooting with superzooms that had 420mm equivalent reach, before migrating to DSLRs and mirrorless. Having been a wildlife and bird shooter for 14 years has allowed me to build up good experience, develop good technique, and no small part of the fact that I am a large, middle-aged male with some build up of muscle over the years. I have regularly shot with DSLRs and 200-500mm lens, 300mm F4 plus 1.4x converter, 400mm F4.5, and a 150-600mm lens, all on APS-C bodies - so my equivalent focal range goes all the way to 900mm for every-day shooting, and I have mounted a 1.4x TC to the 150-600mm, as well as a 2x TC to the 200-500mm, so I've handheld up to 1500mm equivalent. I never use tripods or monopods...all handheld.

So it CAN be done. It just takes experience and practice and good technique...and a little bit of strength certainly helps. Nearing 50 years old, I can't guarantee I'll always be able to handhold these 8-10Lb rigs that extend out 3 feet...but I can for the moment, so I'll keep doing it until I can't!

With superzooms like these, the same essential technique is needed - shooting at 600mm to 1200mm equivalent focal lengths even with stabilized lenses and nice compact bodies still generally requires good camera holds, good elbow bracing, good foot stance, good breathing technique, and of course to me one of the MOST important things - a viewfinder tucked up nicely to your face!

Isn't "ideal all-in-one" an oxymoron?

 

 

Dave

"Ideal" is in the eye of the beholder. Best solution within a set of constraints! :D

As you noted it does not have a viewfinder - even a lousy one. I would never buy any camera that did not have a viewfinder. However, your kids and the young folk will probably buy is as they do not know any better or any different.

DON

You have the pixels. Shoot at 300mm for speed and crop.

 

70-200 f/2.8 - f/5.6 - 1/640s - ISO 100 shot at about 135mm (200mm eq.) on A77

 

cropped 2x

 

 

70-200 f/2.8 - f/5.6 - 1/1000s - ISO 100 shot at about 200mm (300mm eq.) on A77

 

Cropped 3x

 

The one shot at 135mm would have been tough if I had a 300mm x 1.4 on the camera! It popped up close! :)

 

 

Dave

Great shots. Ok... I'll stick the 1.4 in the bag, but game plan will be the 300 alone. It is super sharp, so plenty of cropping room.

I have a g1x which I love. So if they have kept the quality n this they will have a winner. But I question the lens quality, guess time will tell.

As you noted it does not have a viewfinder - even a lousy one. I would never buy any camera that did not have a viewfinder. However, your kids and the young folk will probably buy is as they do not know any better or any different.

 

DON

It does have an optional EVF but I do agree that even a basic optical viewfinder would set it off perfectly.