skip to Main Content

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III rumored specifications update [CW4]

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Rumored Specifications Update [CW4]
Next PowerShot G1 X to feature an APS-C sensor?

A new, updated specification list for the PowerShot G1 X Mark III emerged from the web.

  • 24.2mp APS-C Sensor
  • DIGIC 7
  • 24-70mm f/2.8-5.6 (35mm equivalent)
  • Dynamic IS
  • Touch AF
  • Dust & water resistant
  • OLED Electronic View Finder (EVF)

We already knew the PowerShot G1 X Mark III was going to have an 24MP APS-C sensor. The 24-70mm lens makes perfectly sense. The EVF is a welcome feature. If this specs get confirmed it will be a well rounded small camera with fixed lens and a large sensor. I add to the list above that the G1 X Mark III will also have Dual Pixel AF.

It was about time for Canon to beef up the PowerShot line-up. Previous rumors suggested more upcoming PowerShot G-series cameras might have an APS-C sensor. At the time of writing I would be a bit cautious with that. Likely the top of the line PowerShot G1 X Mark III might be the only new PowerShot with an APS-C sensor.

Stay tuned…

  • Narren Rot

    70mm and f5.6? :/ bit of a let down…

    • Sacher Khoudari

      f3.5 @44mm is ok for a APS-C zoom lens. Look at the Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, it’s much worse. Same FoV but two stops slower!

      • CCD FTW

        What? Where do you get f3.5 from?

        • Sacher Khoudari

          Look at the article! it says:

          24-70mm f/2.8-5.6 (35mm equivalent)

          That’s 15-44 / 1.8-3.5 in APS-C

          • CCD FTW

            And the old one was a 24-120mm f2-3.9 ‘equivalent’, see how they only change the focal length?

            There is no way it is a 15-44mm f1.8-3.5, it will be a 15-45mm f2.8-5.6.

          • Sacher Khoudari

            I don’t think so. In this case they would have written

            24-70mm (35mm equivalent) f/2.8-5.6

            instead, “f/2.8-5.6 (35mm equivalent)” means f1.8-3.5 in APS-C

          • CCD FTW

            You’re dreaming. Literally no manufacturer does that. Are people really this blind?

          • Sacher Khoudari

            I’m not dreaming. But some manufacturers did in the past. I think it was Olympus who once claimed that their MFT 12-40/2.8 was equivalent to a full frame 24-70/2.8. That’s obviously not true, that full frame lense creates pictures with a much shallower DoF. Fortunately, some reviewers corrected that and apparently Olympus withdraw their claim. Since then, I am not aware of any manufacturer who puts aperture and equivalence in one sentence. Reviewers still do, of course.

            Probably this article is wrong in that sense that this lense is not equivalent to an 24-70/2.8-5.6, but rather a 15-45/2.8-5.6, equivalent to 24-70/4.5-9 in 35mm. Unfortunately, this would make it no faster than the G7X’s lens.

          • Patrick Lafont

            I’m a bit disappointed about the range but obviously it won’t be a f/1.8-3.5 lens. Looking at the size of a constant f2.8 zoom I don’t see how it could fit. Besides, aperture remains the same no matter what sensor is behind, equivalence is only about DoF you can’t just say it will be equivalent to a 24-70/4.5-9 because exposure-wise it won’t be correct. So I’d guess 24-70 f2.8-5.6 is accurate.

          • Sacher Khoudari

            Right, I am talking about equivalence regarding DoF. At the end, we always set the aperture (shot in Av mode) to control DoF, right? The images made with my G7XmII won’t have the same DoF as if they were made with a 100/2.8 FF lens, but will rather have a DoF comparable to that produced by a 100/8 FF lens.

            Equivalence is all about producing images that look the same, regardless of the crop factor of the cameras used. Nothing else. You won’t be able to guess the exposure setting by looking at an image, as long as you don’t know the camera used.

          • Patrick Lafont

            I agree when shooting people or close objects. Otherwise, setting aperture is also a way to use your lens when it’s at its sharpest. With Micro 4/3 lenses are usually sharp wide open or after one stop, while some FF lenses shine when stopped at f/8.
            Besides, if you want to keep low ISO or high shutter speed, it can be a way to prevent your camera from making strange choices and end up with a blurry or noisy picture.

            As you mentioned later I’ve never seen any mentions of aperture equivalence from manufacturers, so we can only assume that it is the actual aperture that is given here.

          • Sacher Khoudari

            Manufacturers don’t provide that equivalent apertures, but the specs above are not provided by Canon – right? At least, Canon would have never advertise a compact camera that way (they wouldn’t want to compete with their own 24-70/4 FF lens). Instead they will only advertise the equivalent focal length. But I have seen a couple of reviews and other websites that publish the equivalent apertures.

            BTW: If I want to control the shutter speed but don’t care about the aperture, I shoot in Tv mode ;) Most people shoot in Av mode to control DoF.

          • Patrick Lafont

            Of course, anything can happen, but one has to be realistic, that’s all. You are very welcome to tell me ‘I told you so’ if Canon releases a 24-70 f1.8-3.5 fixed lens on their APS-C compact.
            Afraid I would be the only one using Av for odd purposes I searched for ‘Most people shoot in Av mode to control DoF’ and ended up with this interesting article:
            https://www.lightstalking.com/aperture-priority-most-preferred-shooting-mode-by-photographers/

          • Sacher Khoudari

            I agree, if you don’t want to risk underexposing while freezing action, you can use Av. I didn’t consider that case (usually I use M and auto ISO in these situations, but that’s personal preference).

            But this is a good example on how arbitrary f-numbers can be, because in that case you won’t choose *one special* f-number. You choose the fastest aperture of the lens, or maybe one or two stops slower for better IQ. It doesn’t matter if the lens’s fastest aperture is 1.4, 4, 11, pi or what ever. Goal is to freeze action without underexposing.

            Back to topic: For DoF, this number matters. You want to shoot a group of people and want all of them to be sharp when printed out on e.g. A4? Estimate the distances, get a DoF calculator and there you are. And if you play around with them you will notice, that FF, APC-C, MFT and 1″ are all about 1 f-stop apart. That’s where equivalent aperture come in.

          • Patrick Lafont

            Again, you also might want to choose one special f-number or maybe avoid a specific f-number because you know your lens is softer wide open and you’re ok with increasing the ISO. For landscape it doesn’t make sense to shoot at f2.8 even if your shutter can do 1/16000s and maybe you don’t want to shoot f22 because it is sunny outside.

            I’m not saying the equivalent f-stop number is not useful ; dpreview puts a comparison chart in some reviews especially for compact/bridge cameras as there are many sensor sizes. Obviously people on forums are using it too, but for many it is confusing

          • Sacher Khoudari

            That 35mm equivalence thing is only another way of saying “the 8.8mm lens on that 1 inch sensor will give you the same FoV as a 24mm lens on a 35mm sensor”. Let two photographers take a picture from the same scene with different cameras (and crop factors – e.g. a FF against my G7XmII). Challenge: The pictures shall look the same (=equivalent).

            But at f/1.8, the pictures will still look different! Why? Because a 24mm @ f/1.8 lens will have a much shallower DoF than a 8.8mm @ f/1.8 lens. If you want comparable results, you have to compare the pictures from that 8.8mm @ f/1.8 lens to those made with a 24mm lens @ f/5. That’s all I want to say. And btw, this is what dpreview (and others) want to express in their reviews as well :)

            ISO sensitivity is a special topic. There seem to be different methods on how to define ISO 100, and each manufacturer seems to interpret that different. Anyway, one word on that: There is also equivalent ISO sensitivity :) With the FF 24mm @ f/5 lens you will have to shoot at ISO 1000 while you can use ISO 125 on the 1 inch sensor with the 8.8mm @ f/1.8 lens (with the same exposure time(*)). ISO 125 on a 1 inch sensor is gives you a very similar result as a FF sensor at ISO 1000. This has also been proven by a couple of reviewers. Sadly, there is no ISO 16 for 1 inch sensors, this is the advantage of a FF sensor that can shoot at ISO 100 and give even better IQ.

            I agree that you may choose a specific f-number for best IQ – but again, this is an arbitrary number that depends on the lens itself. For most lenses it will be X*2 or 2.8, for any X being the fastest aperture of that lens. There is no deeper meaning behind the f-number you choose. You may even call A all fastest aperture of each lens and B, C, D… the next stops. For landscapes this will only affect IQ, DoF and Bokeh are irrelevant for most landscape photographers. But for me, this is off topic in this discussion.

            (*) Of course we may prolong the exposure time for FF and keep ISO sensitivity the same, but on some scenes this may introduce motion blur or even camera shake. Or maybe we even want two pictures with the same motion blur. Then we’ll have to adjust the sensitivity.

          • Patrick Lafont

            After that many posts on the topic, I don’t think a reminder on how DoF varies on different sensors is really necessary.
            However this notion of ‘equivalent ISO sensitivity’ is not correct. First of all, there is no difference between f5 1000 ISO and f1.8 125 ISO on the same sensor exposure-wise. You can get the same exposure on the 1″ sensor, no need to bring the FF sensor in the discussion. The same combination of aperture shutter speed and ISO on different sensors will give the same exposure, give or take light transmission on the lens, ISO accuracy.
            The only thing that changes is the amount of noise but that depends on how the sensor is made, you can find different performances for a given sensor size.
            In the end it just proves my point, equivalence is useful for focal length and DoF but talking about equivalence without mastering basics is what gets people confused. Best way to make sure is to take out your camera and shoot. I just took my G7x II and my A7 II to make sure my point wasn’t only based on theory, reviews or forums.

          • Sacher Khoudari

            Of course, f5 ISO 1000 and f1.8 ISO 125 give you the same exposure. Would have been a bad example from me if they wouldn’t :) The challenge was to make pictures with different systems that look the same, this includes the same exposure.I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

            Bottom line is that ISO 125 on 1-inch is equivalent to ISO 1000 on FF – exposure-wise if you consider equivalent aperture, as well as regarding the noise level (very roughly).

            As you noted, noise level still depends on manufacturer and sensor technology. This applies quite well to my Olympus E-P5 and Fuji X-T1, my G7X II seems to be slightly better. The Oly’s and Fuji’s sensors are both from 2013, the G7X II’s sensor from 2015 or 2016. Sony seems to work hard on sensor technology :) And of course I love that tiny little beast!

          • Patrick Lafont

            Ok, what’s the equivalent of f1.8 ISO 125 on FF for a 1-inch sensor following your equivalence rule ? it doesn’t exist in real life because you want to maintain the same DoF, here is another reason why equivalence is a bad and confusing idea for aperture, or ISO as you tried to do earlier.
            Exposure is invariant no matter what the sensor size is. What changes is DoF and noise.

            To go a little off topic, let’s take the exemple of the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 for M43. If we talked only with equivalence, we’d have an unimpressive 50mm f/2.4 but with a 2 stops exposure advantage over its equivalent for FF. On a E-M1 II you will get a few more stops with IBIS, if your subject is static, and ISO 3200 is usable, which means that you’d need ISO 12800 on FF.
            I think one has to be aware that they won’t get the DoF from FF (again, some need it, some don’t), but the f/1.2 on this lens is an actual f/1.2 in every other aspects.

          • Jón Ingólfur Hermannsson

            what ???? manufacturers always list in 35mm terms in their specs – wishful thinking sir :) i would hope you are right but unfortunately reality is different :(
            the focal length and aperture is a total let down – I suspect Panasonic will updated their LX100 soon – and they have a 24-75mm F1.7-2.8 in 35mm eqv – and it has 4k – so although a bit smaller sensor aperture will be faster and camera will be smaller and lighter –
            Canon just wanting to save by using sensor from the Rebel series – vs updating the 1.5 inch sensor and keeping the focal length –

            Sony makes the RX1 – with FF – but only way to keep the size down is with a fixed focal length – :(

          • Sacher Khoudari

            Manufacturers list *both*, the actual focal length and the equivalent focal length in the specs (equivalent meaning same FoV). I haven’t seen any listing the equivalent aperture, through (equivalent meaning same DoF and total light gathering).

            On most lenses, only the actual focal length will be printed. E.g. I have never seen a 18-55 or 15-45 APS-C lens with the equivalent focal length printed on it.

    • Joey

      Total disappointment!

  • CCD FTW

    That’s a huge letdown. The previous model had a 24-120mm equivalent lens and was f2-3.9. Now this sensor is bigger yes, but isn’t much bigger. The size difference between 1.5″ and 1.6x APS-C is pretty small and mostly down to a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than 3:2.

    I really wish they’d left it with the same lens and had the multi aspect ratios like the older one.

    • Narren Rot

      Thats what im saying f5.6 but at 120mm I wouldn’t mind

  • Jeff

    water resistant?
    How can it be with a zoom lens?
    But if ture, this is a must buy

    I like my TG-5 but it is a small sensor

    Can admin please explain how can a zoom lens camera be water resistant?

    • Adam North

      Fujifilm make zoom lenses that are Water Resistant, they contain rubber gaskets to keep the water out.

      • Jeff

        So this is a TG-5 type camera with APS-C sensor?
        sounds too good to be true

        • Adam North

          Sorry, whats TG-5?

          • Jeff

            Olympus TG-5, currently the best small sensor waterproof camera

          • Adam North

            Well it won’t be like the TG-5, which is waterproof, shockproof, freeze proof etc. Water Resistant doesn’t mean Waterproof exactly, it means you can shoot in light rain ok, but wouldn’t be recommended for dropping in a deep puddle.

          • Jeff

            Even if it can shoot in light rain and can tolerate light shower
            that would be very good to me

  • KD9

    Very disappointed in the range.

    Unfortunately, it looks like I’ll be saving some money by passing on this, at 24-120mm this was an instant buy, day one pre-order.

  • Robert Grayston

    It better have 4k. 3 years after the lx100…

    • Jón Ingólfur Hermannsson

      LOL – I will not hold my breath :) – no indication so far – not even their 1 inch models have 4k like the G7xm2 which is fairly new –
      I suspect the LX200 is coming this year – with 20MP sensor and no AA filter – and no more cropping for aspect ratios – and it might have the GH5 sensor so it might have 16MP 4//6K cropping – likely a tilt lcd and it will have Touch LCD –
      The big letdown for the LX100/LX200 will be tracking AF as it is just Contrast based – and yes DFD helps a bit – but nothing like Phase AF or DPAF –
      Panasonic loads their cameras with features vs Canon is usually cheap on features :(
      but the only redeeming feature with this new G1xm3 is the DPAF – as the rest will be cheap on features – slow lens – and possibly no 4k –
      One might just as well buy a Rebel :) with a kit lens – for $449 – as I am sure the G1xm3 will be around $800-1000 – yes it will be mirrorless with EVF and a bit smaller then a rebel – but same stuff processor and sensor

  • Jón Ingólfur Hermannsson

    lens is the big big let down – Canon saving money by using same sensor – dumping the 1.5 inch sensor – therefore having to dump the 24-100 zoom range
    I really had considered getting it – but not now as I have 1 inch and m43 with 24-70 f1.8-2.8 –

  • Patrick Lafont

    While I hoped for a G1X III I don’t see where this would fit if it doesn’t have anything special. Canon make it too good and it will harm the EOS M or 1xxxD sales. If it is not good enough, why bother with a high price tag and a fixed lens… Then again, a compact camera with an actual APS-C sensor and zoom is interesting ; so far we’ve only had fixed lenses on Ricoh GR, Coolpix A and RX1 (FF, I know). Keep it around 500g and give it good glass, and I’ll buy it.

  • Corky

    What is being missed here is that if the rumours are accurate, a small-ish APS-C camera with a 24-70 equivalent leaf shutter lens and an EVF would be a killer camera for the bulk of many pro’s flash work.
    The IQ of APS-C is superb these days despite carping about Canon’s lagging in comparison to Nikon and Sony.

    An LS zoom like this would solve most of my commercial work shot with flash and if it was as responsive as a 7DII I would be overjoyed.
    F5.6? No problem. That still gives me huge range outside for fill with a small flash. Near silence would not suck either.
    Too many are hung up on shallow DOF as if it is the defining spec for a credible camera. For most commercial photographers the added DOF is needed for the images they shoot. If you look at the majority of photos done for money, they have significant DOF not the opposite.

Back To Top