 |
| G1X Mk3 Photo courtesy of Imaging Resource |
Someone in the product development hierarchy wants Canon to have a compact camera with a full sized Canon made APS-C sensor.
Fair enough I guess.
If nothing else it gives Canon a unique selling point (USP) and bragging rights to having the BIGGESTsensor in any compact camera with a zoom lens, built in EVF and fully articulated monitor.
And they get to use one of their own sensors. Which might be important to the execs at Canon given that they have to outsource the sensors (mostly from Sony) for all their compacts other than the G1X series.
I don’t know how many potential buyers care about any of this. Some, perhaps.
A full sized Canon APS-C sensor measures 22.3x14.9mm giving a diagonal of 27mm.
The G1X Mk1 used a cut down version of an older Canon APS-C sensor with a diagonal measurement of 23.4mm.
The G1X Mk2 uses a crop of this giving a diagonal of 22.4mm, which by the way is only marginally larger than a Four Thirds sensor which has a diagonal of 21.6mm.
The Mk2 has an (equivalent) 24-120mm f2.0-3.9 lens. This is a very desirable specification having both a wide aperture (small f stop numbers) and a very useful 5x zoom range.
Now we see the G1X Mk3 with Canon’s latest and best full sized (27mm diagonal) 24 Mpx sensor with the nifty dual pixel AF capability and improved image quality.
That all sounds good BUT
In order to cover the considerably larger sensor the lens has to be larger if aperture and focal length range are to be preserved.
And this is where Canon’s product development people made a decision which seems very strange to me.
They decided to give the G1X Mk3 a “mini DSLR” humptop shape just like and only 2mm taller than the G5X.
Maybe the G1XMk3 is intended by Canon to be the update to the G5X. Who knows.
But it is not possible to fit a lens housing under the flash overhang of the G1XMk3 large enough to accommodate an optic with anything approaching the aperture and equivalent focal length range of the Mk2. There is just not enough vertical height there.
So the G1XMk3 has ended up with a lens which is one stop slower (f2.8-5.6) and with a smaller zoom range (3x) than the Mk2.
If you compare the Mk3 to the Mk2 and pretend that the photographic world consists entirely of Canon cameras then all is well.
Looking a DXO Mark sensor scores we see
Camera | Color depth | Dynamic range | High ISO score | Total score |
G1X Mk2 | 21.5 | 10.5 | 581 | 58 |
G1X Mk3 (using data for the EOS M5)* | 23.4 | 12.4 | 1262 | 77 |
*The G1X Mk3 is said to use the same sensor as the EOS M5 and several other Canon ILCs.
So we see the Mk3 loses one stop in aperture and gains extra dynamic range, a stop more high ISO score and almost twice as many pixels.
So the Mk3 is an improvement over the Mk2, assuming the optical quality of the lens is good.
BUT
Poke one’s head outside the Canon tent and behold we see the Sony RX100 series of models and the Panasonic LX100. These cameras have smaller sensors but considerably wider aperture lenses. I have both the RX100Mk4 and the LX100 and have discovered that the lenses on these cameras give sharp results right from the widest aperture of f1.7 (LX100 and f1.8 (RX100Mk4).
The Canon sensor has approximately a one stop ISO advantage over the two smaller sensor compacts but a 1.5-2 stop lens disadvantage.
So the G1XMk3 is going to be struggling to produce better or even equal low light picture quality than the Sony and Panasonic models. We shall see in due course when user feedback about lens quality and high ISO noise levels starts to come in.
 |
| Mockup #15 front. This has the same box volume (width x height x depth) as the G1XMk3 but the flat top design with the lens right over to the left side (as viewed by the user) allows a lens housing of greater diameter to be fitted together with a much taller, fatter, anatomical handle with quad control set on top. |
What it could have been
I show here my Mockup 15 which I actually made a couple of years ago as an exercise to discover the largest camera I could comfortably carry in a belt pouch.
By chance it demonstrates rather well what Canon could have done with the G1XMk3.
The mockup is a flat top 76mm high. The G1XMk3 is 78mm high.
The diameter of the lens housing on the mockup is 70mm and could be as much as 72mm if desired.
But the diameter of the lens housing on the G1XMk3 is only 60mm (as measured on camerasize.com). It cannot be any larger because of Canon’s decision to use the ‘Mini DSLR” humptop shape and to keep the whole thing very small. Even so it is still higher than the mockup.
 |
| Mockup #15 rear. This design allows for large buttons everywhere, rear dial above the contoured thumb support easily operated by the thumb, thumb stick (JOG lever) easily accessed by the right thumb, full sized fully articulated monitor and full sized EVF. You can see how this approach to the design opens up space above the monitor for location of key controls. |
A camera built to the shape and dimensions of the mockup could house a lens of substantially greater aperture or focal length range or both.
The mockup design brings many other advantages. It has a much larger, anatomical inverted L shaped handle with shutter button forward with front control dial behind the shutter button in familiar Canon fashion instead of the oddly placed control dial on the G5X and G1XMk3.
There is a quad control set on top and at the rear a thumb stick and a properly located rear dial where the thumb can reach and operate it easily.
Altogether the mockup is a much more coherent realisation of the concept than the actual camera.
 |
| The mockup is very comfortable and secure to hold. It is easily driven by the right index finger and thumb with the left hand supporting the lens and doing zoom duty. |
Pricing and target user demographic
Canon is pricing the G1XMk3 above both the EOS80D and EOSM5 with kit lens.
That price point will only attract enthusiast photographers who expect something rather special for their money.
Canon has made the G1XMk3 a bit special in that it has a full sized APS-C sensor in a small compact camera.
But it could have been considerably more special with a different approach to the design enabling a wider aperture lens and more ergonomic body and controls.
Comment
My assessment of Canon’s compacts over the last ten years or so, having owned and used many of them, is that they are half baked, underperforming things and I have to wonder why.
Why, when presented time and again with opportunities to produce a REALLY interesting compact for the enthusiast user they come up with mediocrities. Cameras that aren’t totally awful but fall well short of a complete and fulfilling package.
Are they afraid that a really excellent compact would take sales from their DSLRs and MILCs ?
And if it did why would they care ?
Surely if the buyers choose a Canon they will be happy especially at the price point of the G1XMk3.
Or is there just some deep seated culture at Canon which says that compacts have to be less capable than ILCs ? And if so why ?
It’s a mystery.