A sneak peek at the Canon Powershot G1X

I got to play around with the soon-to-be-released Canon Powershot G1X on Saturday. This is a new camera in the now almost legendary G range of "pro" point and shoot cameras from Canon.

The series has so far had 11 iterations. One version usually differs only marginally from the previous, although if you look at all of them at once you will see that the evolution has been significant from the first G camera to the last G12. This model, however, is if not cosmetically then technically very different from any previous G camera -- including the G12.

At the base of the G1X you'll find an 1,5 inch sensor, vastly bigger than the 1/2.33" and 1/1.5" sensors powering the previous versions. Although Canon doesn't say it explicitly, the G1X sensor is more or less the same size as the 4/3 sensors powering the micro four thirds mirrorless cameras from Olympus and Panasonic, and also the DSLR cameras from Olympus. (Yes, I know that the sensors are not 100 % identical in size, but close enough that I think the difference is academic at best)

What this means is, in short, that the G1X promises SLR level image quality from a camera not much larger than yesterday's point and shoot cameras.

So, does it deliver on that promise?

Since I had the camera for only a few hours and hardly got to scratch the surface of what it can do, I think it'd be unfair of me to pass any bombastic judgement on the IQ now. What I can say, however, is that based on what I saw, the camera produces nice images. The JPEG files, as produced by the camera in the standard setting, are in my opinion very conservative. I.e. they're a little flat for my taste. But this also means that the JPEGs have plenty of room for post processing.

As you can see on the right here, the slight flatness is easily remedied (click on the photo to see a larger version or click here). Here you can see the photo as it looked as a straight out the camera JPEG, and also after being run trough Canon's DPP software for RAW conversion (mostly exposure related: I had slightly overexposed this file; then I converted to 16 bit TIFF and finished contrast, sharpening, etc., in Lightroom 4).

Based on what I could achieve by processing the RAW files trough Canon's own software, I'd say that there are plenty of room to produce well saturated and contrasty files (the photo at the beginning of this post is processed from RAW). If you prefer shooting JPEG only, I've been told that there's an option to upload different picture styles to camera using the USB cable and some piece of software on the CD (I didn't spend enough time with the camera to verify this).

If not a prince of darkness, then at least a baron of it...

One thing is for certain, though: It delivers *very* well when it comes to high ISO. I did a quick comparison to my Olympus E-PM1 micro four thirds camera. If you click on the figure on the right here (or here), you can see a comparison of 100 percent crops of those images.

A quick note on how I shot these: I set both cameras to JPEG, standard settings, since I didn't have a RAW software that can handle RAW files from both cameras. That's a little problematic, though, since the JPEG engines probably have different levels of sharpness, contrast, saturation, white balance interpretation, etc. I'm sure many of you will spot those differences before you spot the ISO differences. So have that in mind when looking at the comparison.

My subjective view is that the G1X has the edge from ISO 1600. After ISO 1600 the E-PM1 starts falls apart. First when it comes to color, and then when it comes to detail. In comparison the G1X keeps going impressively until ISO 6400. It's not that it's noise free at that point, but not bad either. As for ISO 12800 I wouldn't use it for serious stuff, but I'd say it would be usable in a pinch. At that point the E-PM1 files has long since lost not only detail but colors are way off. Considering that the two sensors are just about identical in size, and the Canon's sensor has a higher resolution to boot, I'd say the G1X delivers very well!

It doesn't seem to be as good as the EOS 5D mark II, and I didn't expect it to be either. But it's certainly not that much worse either. In all I'm impressed of how good the G1X actually is when it comes to high ISO.

High speed flash sync

I haven't used the G series since the mid-2000's. At that time I wasn't too interested in flash photography, so I actually don't know whether the high speed flash sync capability of the G1X is new or not. In any case I was impressed by the fact that the camera can sync flash up to a shutter speed of 1/2000.

The photo at the top of this blog post was taken using the built-in flash at 1/500. It enabled me to preserve color in the sky while getting detail in the boy at the same time.

The camera also seemed to be good at fill-flash, as the photos came out with a good balance between ambient light and flash when I tried it (click on the photo or click here for a larger version).

I also shot photos consisting mainly of highly reflective surfaces (snow and white cardboard), and the fill flash still exposed impressively well.

I'm looking forward to be able to continue testing this feature when the camera is officially released. Based on my initial tests this little camera seemed to outdo the Canon EOS 5D mark II and (the aging) Speedlite 550EX combination I had for three years (a hit and miss combination to be quite honest).

If you own flashes in Canon's Speedlite range, please note that according to DPReview flash sync maxes out at 1/250 when using external flash. Why there's a difference between the built-in and an external flash when it comes to this, I don't know. It sure'd be nice to have a camera that could sync external flashes at almost any shutter speed without having to resort to the high speed stroboscopic mode, a mode I personally have never gotten to expose well.

The strange business of the minimum focusing distance

What surprised me the most was the close focus ability of the camera. In the beginning I thought the camera had the worst contrast based autofocus I've encountered, including the abysmal Fuji X100. But after a while of playing around I understood two things:

1. Unless you're resorting to a dedicated macro mode, close focusing isn't too good to begin with.
2. What the nearest focus distance actually is, varies according to zoom level.

Does this sound confusing? Well, I'm not trying to be too recursive here, but maybe that's because it's just as confusing as it sounds.

Have a look at the graph on the right (click on it to see it larger). The blue dots shows the nearest you can focus at a given focal length. As you can see this varies from 40 cm at 28mm to 150cm at 70mm. It stays at 150cm until you reach the end of the zoom range, where it drops to 130cm at 112mm.

I guess this may be a consequence of the lens' compactness when the camera is turned off (it expands significantly when turned on) or a combination of starting at an impressive f/2.8, the compactness *and* the relatively impressive zoom range. But no matter what the reason is, I find the minimum focusing distance when zoomed in a little to be a slight drawback of the G1X. I don't think I've ever used a P&S with a close focus limit at 1.5 meter zoomed in.

Canon's solution is to provide a dedicated macro setting. This improves the close focusing range somewhat, from 20cm at 28mm to 85cm at 112mm (the red line). The drawback is that this mode introduces a max focusing distance as well; from 70cm at 28mm to 180cm at 100mm or 160cm at 112mm (the blue line).

In my opinion this limits the usefulness of the macro mode, especially since it makes the somewhat pedestrian contrast auto focus even slower. To make it worse, the macro mode really is no macro mode, as maximum magnification isn't even remotely near anything resembling macro.

Not all is bad, however: If you're the kind of person that likes to put the camera on "GREEN" and shoot away, you won't find this limiting at all: It seemed to me as if the camera understood which mode to choose automatically, and that certainly takes some of the hassle out of it. My suggestion would be to introduce a focus mode with automatic detection of macro/not macro in the PASM modes as well.

Final words

Overall I'm positive, though. The image stabilizer worked well for me, the menu system seems to be logically laid out, as does the direct access buttons and dials. The LCD screen is great as well -- great colors and good visibility even outdoors. The hinged construction makes it easy to take photos from every conceivable angle. All of this LCD goodness is a good thing, because the built in optical viewfinder is crammed and not very useful at all. Personally I wouldn't have missed it if Canon omitted it in the next iteration of this class of point and shoot. In a dream scenario Canon would have replaced the optical viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder, but I guess that would have added not only cost but bulk as well.

The camera's biggest selling point, in every sense of the word, is its sensor. Being (for the moment) a m43 shooter I have to say that Canon's similarly sized sensor trounces the Panasonic manufactured equivalent. Particularly when it comes to high ISO. In any case the RAW files have lots of latitude for post processing (or abuse, depending on your point of view), and even the somewhat flat and unexciting standard JPEGs seems to have good room for improvement in your photo editor of choice.

As for size, the G1X is quite small. But it's really no marvel of miniaturization. Just for fun I snapped a cell phone photo of the G1X next to an Olympus E-PM1. The E-PM1 camera body is significantly smaller. Even with the fairly large 14-140mm attached to the E-PM1, the combo's really not that much bulkier than the G1X is when on (the G1X's lens extends when it powers on). What the additional bulk of the G1X brings you are more direct access buttons and easier handling if you prefer doing things manually or semi manually. And the sensor, as I said above, is significantly and visibly better.

The built-in ND filter is an unexpected and added bonus, as it helps you reduce shutter speeds -- or enable wide open apertures in broad daylight. January in Norway doesn't have a big problem of bright daylight, so personally I used it to slow shutter speeds even further, enough for me to do a few panning shots outdoors (my panning technique is not very good, but I've posted an example of it at the bottom of this post).

Some people have said they find the zoom lens too slow (f/2.8-f/5.5). To those guys I just have to say good luck in finding a DSLR lens of a diminutive size like this that starts at f/2.8 and has a similar zoom range. The combination of sensor size and high ISO abilities gives you the ability to get pleasing out of focus background, even though the lens is "only" f/2.8-5.8.

All in all: If you're after a compact DSLR alternative, this may be what you're looking for. Just make sure that you're not too fond of closeups. If you are, you may find the close focus abilities to be a showstopper.

PS: This is not a review. What I've written here are just my impressions after having spent a few hours using the G1X. You should wait for thorough reviews and of course try the camera for yourself before making a buying decision.

Comments

[Chris]

Thanks for your (non) review! I wondered what your impression was of perceivable shutter lag - this is one of my least favourite things about point-and-shoot cameras but so far nobody has commented on experience of this with the GX1. Thanks...

[Jo Christian Oterhals]

Hi Chris. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by shutter lag. If you by shutter lag mean after focus is achieved and until the shutter is released, it felt fast. As for focus speed, I felt that it became a little slow when zoomed in. For me personally this is not an issue, since I'm a "one shot focus, pre focus" kind of photographer, but I wouldn't imagine anybody using a camera like this for sports (or any p&s AND mirrorless camera for that matter, perhaps with the exception of Nikon's 1 series of cameras).

[Tom]

No discussion of the price? $799 is kind of steep. Sounds like you're paying a lot for a better sensor.

[Jo Christian Oterhals]

Yes, $799 is not cheap, and you're basically paying premium for a better sensor and improved image quality. But I dot think that price is too bad compared to other large sensor compact cameras (Leica X1, Fuji X100, Sigma DP2x, etc.).

What'll be interesting to see, though, is whether consumers understands what the improvement is all about, and whether they're willing to pay that price.

While playing with it I tried to think about who I thought this camera would be ideal for. Current DSLR owners -- perhaps even high end DSLR owners -- came naturally to mind. I think that group will find it interesting and probably willing to pay for what they get.

But I also started thinking that had the design been a little less boxy and masculine, it would have been a good camera for young fashion/lifestyle bloggers (mostly teenage girls and young women: I don't know if you have that kind of bloggers where you live, but here in Norway we have lots of them). Whether that group, for which photography is a secondary activity, is willing to pay the price remains to be seen.

[Larry]

Re. Price:

I bought the original G1 when it first appeared...cost $7-800 to the best of my memory. Also bought the G6 when it came out.

Anyone with accurate knowledge of the original cost and intro dates of these G models can find a bit of satisfaction, I believe, by comparing inflation effects on the US$ between those dates and today.

Unless I miss my guess, the G1-X would cost $1000 or more if priced relatively as high as those earlier models. The performance and features, of course are much more impressive.

Increased value for the money IMO.

Corrections welcome, of course ;-)

[Jo Christian Oterhals]

@Larry: I think you're right in saying that you relatively speaking get more for your money now. I also think people should compare the price of the G1X not with other P&S cameras, but with similarly specced DSLRs and mirror less.

[Tim]

Hi Jo,

thanks for your review.
Because I'm quiet interested in this camera I downloaded a couple of RAW photos taken with the G1X from a different website.
RAW capability is very important for me as I use to shoot in RAW to get the most out of the pictures in post processing.

You wrote:
"Here you can see the photo as it looked as a straight out the camera JPEG, and also after being run trough Canon's DPP software for RAW conversion"

I tried the latest available version of Canon's DPP (3.11.1) but this version is not able to open the G1X RAW files.
Could you please tell what version of DPP you used to convert your RAW files and were I can get the software?

Thanks for your help!

Tim

[Jo Christian Oterhals]

@Tim: I don't know what's the latest official release, but the version of DPP I used is 3.11.2. This software came with on a CD with the camera.

I used DPP for conversion from RAW to 16-bit TIFF. I did the rest of the post processing in Lightroom, as that's the software I normally use for my workflow.