skip to Main Content

This is the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III, specification list, announcement October 16 (APS-C sensor, yes!)

powershot g1 x mark iii

Ahead of next week’s announcement of the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III, some pictures of the new camera leaked over the web. The PowerShot G1 X Mark III seems to have the APS-C sized, 24MP sensor we anticipated some weeks ago.

So far we know about these features (machine translated):

  • APS-C CMOS sensor (22.3 x 14.9 mm)
  • Dual pixel CMOS AF
  • Number of effective pixels: 24.2 million pixels (Total number of pixels: 25.8 million pixels)
  • Lens: converted 24 – 72 mm F 2.8 – 5.6
  • Video engine: DIGIC 7
  • Video: Full HD 60p
  • Continuous shooting: Approximately 9 frames per second, about 7 fps at servo AF
  • ISO sensitivity: 100-25600
  • Minimum shooting distance (from the lens tip): 10 cm (W), 30 cm (T)
  • EVF: 0.39 type 2.36 million dots
  • Display: 3.0 type 1.04 million dot touch panel Bali angle angle liquid crystal
  • Wi-Fi · Bluetooth · NFC installed
  • Battery: NB-13L
  • Number of storable pictures: 200 pictures, eco mode 250 pictures
  • Recording medium: SD / SDHC / SDXC card
  • Size: 115.0 x 77.9 x 51.4 mm
  • Weight: 375 g (body only), 399 g (including battery and SD card)

Announcement is expected for October 16, 2017. Stay tuned!


  • Vertex

    i am a canon shooter since the A1.

    i bought such a camera two years´s called A6000.
    and i payed only 649 euro not 1200 euro for it.

    canon need to stop to play catchup and be a leader again….

    • Michal Rosa

      If you look very closely at this camera, I know it can be difficult to spot, you will notice perhaps that is has this thing called “lens”. Now, you see, your A6000 (a very fine camera in its own right) does not come with a lens as such. You actually need to buy one. Buying a lens requires one to spend money – somewhat above and beyond the 600 euro you have already spent. So you see, to get a Sony equivalent of this camera you need to spend considerably more than 600 euro.

      Having said that, I don’t think that it is a particularly good camera and I don’t see it selling well. It’s really hard to fathom, why one would spend this much money on a camera with non-interchangeable lens instead buying a mirrorless camera. Very strange Canon move.

      • Narren Rot

        Actualy for 649 you get the sony with 2 lenses…

        • Jam005

          But it’s an A6000 series camera. Even it’s name say’s “lower level”. It’s branded and marketed to be a cheap camera. Doesn’t matter what it’s got inside. Like saying “She’s or He’s got a nice personality”

          • Sacher Khoudari

            Wait for the Sony Alpha A9999, that will be cheapest camera ever made!

          • Narren Rot

            You sir, talk nonesense now…

          • Jam005

            Marketing departments are shrewd people. I deal with marketing directors daily. They aren’t concerned with what you’re concerned with. A name isn’t something that’s an afterthought. the A6000 series cameras aren’t marketed and branded as the A7 series cameras. That’s just reality. Nikon and Sony nearly have the same scheme, with Nikon being the worse with with it’s “advanced entry” tier.

          • Narren Rot

            So sony a6000 is a cheap camera but canon g1x mark 3 is not? :P

          • Vertex

            he is a typical canon fanboy.
            and epson makes most EVF

            i shoot canon but i am alwys amused by the total lack of reality these guys live in.

            if you tell that canons sensors are not that good compared to sonys.
            they will tell you “but look at the marketshare”
            who cares.. about marketshare? i am a photographer not a shareholder.

            then tye will talk about supertelephoto lenses, most of them don´t own any.
            but it´s their only argument againts sonys lens lienup, that often offers better quality then canons.

            try a A7R or R II with a GM lens and you are blown away.

          • Vertex

            boy you guys are completely clueless are you?

        • Joey

          Bingo! Another disappointing Canon announcement…

          Yawn. Bored and Tired… You obviously haven’t used the Canon G1X III.

      • Jam005

        Not strange at all. Pricing for the most part for high value items ($1000 and above) have little to do with options. It’s called “Perceived Value marketing”. It’s what “value” the company has determined that the consumer has placed on it’s items. Smartphones have now reached the $1000 point this comming fall for certain brand cameras. Canon has been viewed by the consumer as on of “the” camera brand to purchase, for decades. With various priced tiers. Value conscience consumers don’t always purchase according to the # of options or what a competing brand has. $1000 items are considered “high value” items. As is with “Nike”. Branding. They price whatever they’ve determine that the consumer will pay. Because of their brand.

        • Vertex

          read a few reviews before you make yourself look like a clown.

          the A6000 beats canons xxD dslr cameras in image quality.

    • Panacea

      I had the A6000. It has only a grainy 1.4m-dot EVF and no environmental sealing. The better point of comparison is either the A6300 or A6500. The A6500’s IBIS is moot in this comparison.

      And once you slap on the SEL1650 (to achieve anything close to as compact as the G1X Mk III), the camera is no longer environmentally sealed, as the lens is definitely not sealed. Plus the lens is slower, with gobs of native distortion that has to be adjusted electronically.

      Trust me, I had an A6000 I wanted to use as a casual/casual hiking camera. The grainy EVF made me enjoy shooting less (and inevitably, shot less) than I did when I was using the NEX-5N with the 2.3m-dot add-on EVF. And I would always be paranoid that it would be destroyed by salty sweat, not to mention environmental wetness.

      The Sony A6XXX cameras are nice in their own right, but don’t be dense. If you want to pick a comparison fight, pick one that won’t fall apart at the first tug of a loose thread, ok?

      • Robert Grayston

        to be honest the a6000 probably has a better sensor in it.

        • Jam005

          However the sensor doesn’t function in a vacuum separate from the other active devices around it, which are mostly outdated and pretty darn slow by todays standards.

          • Narren Rot

            You all got hung on the a6000, and that was just an example from Vertex. What if instead sony a6000 he said – fujifilm xt20 with the fantastic 18-55 f2.8-4 lens which costs 1199 now? Would you even start to argue? The only thing this canon camera has over xt20 is the small factor and canon logo, everywhere else it fails short…

          • Vertex

            exactly. these guys just missing the point.
            the a6000 is now 2 years old and is still better than this canon product.
            and it was cheaper (649 euro) when it was released.

        • Joey

          A 3 year old Sony always has a better sensor than a new Canon.

      • Vertex

        more nonsense … i have a arca swiss l plate. you are just telling obvious lies.

      • Vertex

        you are paranoid.. that is the only intersting thing in your comment.

        all other stuff is debunked in countless reviews about the A6000…..

      • Vertex

        the a6000 kit lens is slower (f3.5-5.6).. but unlike to this camera.. you can CHANGE it. you may did not know that.

        you can buy a faster lens and still pay less than this canon costs.
        and be more flexible in doing so.

        • Joey

          Yes, another outdated Canon model before its even announced.. Same thing happened to the G1X II… See the pattern here?

          It’s called Canonitis.

    • Jam005

      A6000 is not considered a “High Value” camera by consumers. No matter how good it is. It just hasn’t reached that status yet or ever will. Sony never intended to market as such. It’s model number is a “low value” label (A6000). GX1 on the other hand is labeled properly for pricing.

    • Jam005

      Leader? …..Think “Displays”. Think EVF… Think OLED. Super OLED. They are mostly manufactured by the leading manufacturer of the majority of OLEDS that exist. Samsung. On CVD systems that are produce by………..Canon

      • Vertex

        too much time at your hands?

        we are talking about cameras and photographer here… in case you did not notice.
        not people using smartphones for snapshots.

        i care more about best image quality for the price than touchscreen functionality.
        i don´t need a touchscreen on a camera.
        it´s nice to have one…but i lived decades without one.

  • Narren Rot

    So they went from being Canon to Cannot…

    • Joey


      • Narren Rot

        or can-but-won’t ;)

      • Jam005

        Only a small minority of consumers ignore marketing and branding. Proper branding is essential. Disregard all the other technical mumbo jumbo which may or may not be even true of relevant. Cameras, all of them, are so far behind the smartphone segment it’s not even funny anymore.

        • Vertex

          so you defending the uneducated plebs. then you may join them!

          if you think a smartphone can hold its ground outside vertical videos and snapshots.. you are just not someone who needs a good camera.

          nothing wrong with that, smartphones are good enough for 95%

          but for a birder, serious landscape photographer and studio photographer…. a good camera is a must.

          i own a good smartphone. with one of the best smartphone cameras.
          but the image quality is no match to a aps-c camera like the A6000.

    • Jam005

      Nike, Apple, Canon, Mercedez, Gucci…..Do you get it?

      • Johann Specht

        Or Leica – it is for sure not that much better as the price would suggest.

    • Vertex

      with canon you cannot 4K.

    • Joe Blow

      or Canon … Can-off

  • IgnoranceIsBliss

    For me, the main reason I bought the G1X II (twice actually) was the zoom range (24-120) as it was perfect walk around range for me. The reason I sold it (twice) was the slow performance.

    I’m sure the ‘III’ will improve on the performance side of things but 50 mm less on the zoom range is a big negative for me. And if the price estimates are real, I guess I was holding out for the wrong camera.

  • Richstum Salada

    What disappoints me here is that it is essentially a M5 with a slightly better kitlens stucked on the body. A G1X II with Dual Pixel AF and overall faster operation would already be enough for me to buy a Mark III but this is just a turn-off for me.

  • stretchsje

    So it’ll be smaller in two dimensions and only 1mm larger in the other, weigh less, and be nearly a stop faster (equivalent). That’s impressive. Really, the 48mm of reduced range is compensated for somewhat by the increased resolution (larger sensor) and shallower depth of field at 72mm. The lack of 4k is extremely disappointing but expected. Battery life is dismal, worse than before. What is a “bali angle” LCD, I assume this means vari-angle (ie, it swivels out)? If that’s the case, I’m guessing there won’t be room for a microphone input.

    • Robert Grayston

      It will barely out perform a rx100 mk3…

    • Panacea

      Yikes to your edit. That *is* pretty slow.

      But at the same time consider the bulk of a 18-35mm f/1.8 lens (Sigma) to cover an APS-C light circle. I don’t think it was realistic to expect anything in that size range.

    • Panacea

      Consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art as an example of what it would take to result in a normal-ish zoom to cover an APS-C light circle at a 135-format equivalent aperture of f/2.8. Then consider the kit lenses of virtually all APS-C cameras. I don’t think your expectations were realistic.

      Consider Canon’s existing APS-C kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, 135-format-equivalent of 29-88mm f/5.6-9) and see that they’ve made it into a pancake, slightly faster at the wide end and with a decidedly better focal length range (15-45mm f/2.8-5.6, 135-format-equivalent of 24-72mm f/4.5-9). That’s nothing to scoff at.

      Don’t let the focal length range and apertures of what can be done with 1″ sensors (the diagonal is almost 1/2 the length of that of the 1.6x crop APS-C sensor!) mislead your sense of what is realistically possible in terms of a manufactured product.

    • Sacher Khoudari

      I also got confused in one former announcement, that the lens is not an f2.8-5.6 35mm equivalent one, so unfortunately the autor is quite misleading and does not know what he writes. It lead to a longer discussion two weeks ago…

  • krisak

    The M100 with lens is less than 1/2 the rumored price. What am I missing?

  • Joey

    The failed and Discontinued G5X has morphed into the “new” G1X III. LOL

  • BBNN

    If the image quality is good I may buy it. I like the idea of having such a small and lightweight APS-C camera. And its supposed to be weather sealed wich is a big + too. Perfect for hiking!

    • Joey

      Just good?

      For $1300 it better be outstanding and best in class, but you still have to deal with a poor battery, no 4k, and a super slow lens.

  • Robert Grayston

    hahahah id rather have the 3 year old sony rx100mk3 with its F1.8-2.8. I cant believe I was actually excited about this camera… How can they not sort out 4k video for a premium travel cam.. its mental. As for an apsc sensor? whats the point really? F2.8? it will be on par with a 1 inch F1.8 but the came is 50% bigger… what a joke….

    • Panacea

      The general rule is that bigger sensor = higher resolving power, even given the same megapixelage, probably due to the limits (the surfaces achievable with polishing, tolerances of the moving focus/zoom/stabilization mechanisms, etc.) of what you can achieve with lens manufacturing.

      If it was just aperture equivalence, then there would be no point to medium-and-larger format, whose lenses are considerably slower than what you can get in 135-format lenses.

      But no, light gathering won’t be improved over the Sony, and it won’t be a better low-light camera. We can only wait to see how good (or bad) the optics end up being.

      • Patrick Lafont

        When I saw the price and specs, I thought, no way. Then I just remembered the Ricoh GR was one of the best cameras I had ever owned, APS-C + fixed 28mm f2.8 lens. No IS. So zoom lens, IS, higher resolution for a 400g body is not bad at all. If the lens is good, it could be interesting. Pricing is bad though, you could buy the EOS M5 with that kind of money, not to mention the Fuji X-T20 or X-E3 + 18-55 f2.8-4.

        I guess I’ll buy a used one in 3 years or so, like I did with the G1x II. Overall it was slow and it didn’t feel enough of an upgrade to the RX100m3 I used to have, but in the little time I had it I made some winter night shots in difficult light and they were sharp and there was a warmth I didn’t get with other cameras…

      • Robert Grayston

        Yea you also get marginally better dynamic range and colour depth the bigger the sensor, but the gap now is getting really small… This camera makes little sense.. Unless the lens is amazingly sharp… Why not go for longer lens?… 24-120 or something… make it a little bigger… $1300 is a premium price for a camera that is not very small and not very technical advanced.. If anything its just 1-2 years too late…

        • Vertex

          if you want better dynamic range then buying canon sensors is not a clever move.

    • Vertex


  • ED

    So far not so good :(

  • Dima135

    If the canon wants to oppose “brute force” to innovations and functional of RX 100 V – I’m generally not against it. This is also a competition. Why not ? But if the price is right, then it is $ 300 more expensive. And part of the “brute force” is eaten by diference between 1.8-2.8 and 2.8-5.6 . In addition, the difference in technology is just crazy. It’s like 5-7 years.

  • rckstflbn

    24 – 72 mm F 2.8 – 5.6 5.6? Yup, I read that right… 5.6 LoL!

  • Naacryl

    $1300 and no 4k

    go f yourself please canon

    • Wade Marks

      The lack of 4K again rears its ugly head. 4K should be standard on all cameras, esp. on ones above $1000. And no longer can one say that no one has a 4K TV or monitor. They are becoming far more common, and prices have dropped significantly. It’s easy to find 4k TV’s under $500 now.

      Heck, there are plans to broadcast the 2020 Olympics in 8K, so that future is already being created.

      We are getting to a point where soon there will be an inflection point and voila, 4K will be the standard, just like it happened with HDTV. And those cameras without 4K will be seen as obsolete, just like now any camera not capable of recording in 1080 is seen as obsolete.

  • KD9

    Only 24-72mm paired with 2.8-5.6, and at the low, low price of $1200-$1300, NOPE, no way.

  • Sacher Khoudari

    That viewfinder bump makes it less pocketable, which is quite disappointing. A rangefinder style (i.e. put that EVF on the upper left edge, reduce overall height) would had some benefits. Now it is somewhere in between the EOS M5 and the G1Xm2 (89mm vs. 78mm vs. 74mm height).

  • Charles

    The lens is a bit slow at the long end but that was to be expected with such a large sensor. Seems like a fine camera – I´d buy that for my parents that don´t want to change lenses (though 72mm is slightly short for a all purpose travel camera).

  • Joey

    Canonitis: Noun/Latin origin – To never go the full step you really need to innovate and take over the market.

  • Wade Marks

    I just don’t get the price. Why would someone pay $1299 for this? Why not pay for an EOS M5 with lens? Still less money. And we aren’t even getting into small dslr’s like the SL2. The SL2 plus kit lens is about half the price and far more capable. And we aren’t even getting into comparing with other companies products.

    The only way this sells to anyone if the person doesn’t do any comparison shopping at all, and doesn’t care about money.

    • Jam005

      Consumers most often dont do comparison shopping for $1000 plus items. Or “high value” items. Smartphone this fall have broken the $1000 barrier. Iphone X = hight value item

      • Wade Marks

        First, as you allude to, for someone who doesn’t want to carry a larger dedicated camera, they have their smartphones. Why bother with a super expensive point and shoot?

        Second, regarding people making comparisons in shopping: some will, some won’t, some will be more detailed and analytical than others. You are correct in that most shoppers make decisions based more on emotion rather than strict analytical logic. But those shoppers will just see a super expensive $1300 point and shoot sitting next to the ones far less expensive and move along.

        Ironically, the only way any shopper will even begin to understand any justification for this type of price is if they know something about camera tech, specs, etc…and the idea of a larger sensor. But those people will find the price to be a nonstarter. The rest will probably not even consider this camera, and if so, will reject it on price outright.

        In sum, the price is just an insult to the market.

  • Jam005

    “Number of storable pictures”. Why is that on the list, is it refering to file size or image quality? What exactly does that mean? It has “Recording medium” slots. Only two file sizes or image quality formats? If they ever decided to actually include real internal memory as do smartphones, that would be interesting.

  • Henrik Jansberg

    Canon g1x mk3 rumored 24-72mm f/4.5-9
    Panasonic LX100 24-75mm f/3,7-6,2
    Sony RX100mk4 24-70mm f/4,9-7,6

    If just the canon could be a little brighter at the long end…

  • whensly

    I want to come back to Canon but that’s one ugly camera and slow lens. :(

Back To Top