skip to Main Content

Canon Powershot G9 X Mark II specification and images leaked [CW5]

Color: Black / Silver - Number of effective pixels: 2010 million pixels - Lens: 10.2 - 30.6 mm (converted 28 - 84 mm) F 2.0 - 4.9 - Video engine: DIGIC 7 - Video: Full HD - Liquid crystal size: 3.0 type - Battery: NB-13L - Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC (UHS-I compatible) - Size: 98.0 x 57.9 x 31.3 mm

The upcoming Canon Powershot G9 X Mark II leaked at Digicame-Info, specs and images.

  • Color: Black / Silver
  • Number of effective pixels: 2010 million pixels
  • Lens: 10.2 – 30.6 mm (converted 28 – 84 mm) F 2.0 – 4.9
  • Video engine: DIGIC 7
  • Video: Full HD
  • Liquid crystal size: 3.0 type
  • Battery: NB-13L
  • Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC (UHS-I compatible)
  • Size: 98.0 x 57.9 x 31.3 mm

Powershot G9 X II

Powershot G9 X II

Powershot G9 X II

[via Digicame-Info]
  • gf

    wow what kind of sensor is inside this camera. It must be a real big sensor with 2010 million pixels!

  • Andrei

    Struggling to find a difference between this and the G9X mark 1.

    • gf

      Didn’t you look at the sensor? It is a 2010megapixel sensor, tell me that is not innovative … :)

    • Rick

      Difícil 7 improvements such as with the G7x. Speed, fps and af

      • Kallai Iosif Gavril

        100x more resolution. 2010 megapixel. WOWOW.

  • Iki

    Why get this over sony / nikon / Panasonics version?

    • Prabawa

      Size, mainly. I have the G7x and even I’m considering buying the G9x because of how pocketable it is.

      • Iki

        Other than being 3mm less wide, and 7mm thinner than the Sony…
        I wouldn’t say that’s much.

        • Prabawa

          7mm is a LOT, especially since we’re talking thickness, which is the main issue with pocketability (and thus portability). I don’t know about the Sony but it’s only 2/3 as heavy as my G7x, which again helps with portability.

          All in all, it’s a very specific tool for a very specific purpose, and the price does reflect that, IMO.

          • Iki

            Sony is 281g while the Canon is 209. So again, extremely small difference.

          • Prabawa

            Yeah, that’s almost 2/3.. I wouldn’t call it small, not at all. Again, we’re talking about pocketability / portability. If you don’t think it’s a big difference then you’re not the target market for this camera, simple as that.

          • Iki

            If it was 2/3 of a significant weight then it would be a big difference.
            But 80 grams? You wouldn’t notice a difference after carrying it for a day.

          • Prabawa

            It’s not about being tired, it’s about not having a paperweight in your jacket pocket (especially a thin jacket). I really do mean no offense, but if the difference isn’t great to you, then you’re not the target market. We all live differently, shoot differently, and have different expectations.

            It’s like 50/1.8 vs 1.4. The difference matters for some, but not others.

          • Iki

            A 50 1.4 offers something you would notice.
            71 grams is not something that makes any difference in the effect it puts on your pocket.

          • Prabawa

            Well, that’s exactly why I brought that up as an example. I’m sure many people (myself included) won’t be able to tell the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 without a side by side comparison. If you can, good for you.

            And I’m sure some people (myself included) would like a 30% decrease in what our pocket camera weighs. It matters when you bring it in a (thin) pocket.

          • Iki

            1/3 of 9 kg would be quite noticeable, as that would be 3kg less weight.
            3 kg is easily felt in your pocket, and would make a difference after carrying it for some time.

            1/3 of 280 grams is not something you would notice. As that is 93 grams. (the old Canon g9 x is 71 grams less than the Sony rx100 mk2)

            I’m fact, looking at the specs, the Canon could be compared against the Sony mk1. Which is 240 grams.
            And 36mm thick.

            That is 5mm thicker and 31 grams heavier…
            If you could notice that after a day of shooting, then you need to see a doctor…

          • Andrei

            I would say it’s quite a difference and noticeable, for example when going out in town with friends or wearing a jeans and t-shirt and need the slimmest camera but something better than a phone.
            Also it is a lot cheaper than a G7X or Sony R100 X

          • Iki

            The Sony is $400 or less…

          • Prabawa

            You’re not listening to what I’ve been saying. This is not even a camera for “a day of shooting.”

          • Iki

            Then it’s even less of a problem…

          • Prabawa

            I didn’t say it was the end of the world. The camera has features I want, so I want it.

          • Iki

            I have no problem with you wanting it.
            I’m just stating that it doesn’t offer anything more than the Rx100 mk1, other than 70 grams and 6mm.

          • Prabawa

            Them’s the numbers.

          • Patrick Lafont

            hmm… touchscreen, wireless? and although the advantage in size and weight doesn’t seem much, in a pocket it does matter and when you’re shooting a five minutes video above a crowd, for instance, 70g less is something you might value. As usual, it comes down to what you do with the camera…

          • Iki

            Having a touchscreen would be good, if not for the fact that they removed all the buttons. (it has 4)

            Wireless is an advantage, yes. But for $131 more? You could get a wireless sd card.

            If 70g makes a difference when holding the camera for 5 minutes, I would suggest going to the gym a few hours each year… ;)

            I don’t see those few mm bigger being a problem, as both cameras are still too big for a normal pocket.
            Only larger pockets would be wide enough, and then the Sony would most likely fit just as good.

          • Patrick Lafont

            it actually has 5 buttons, considering the one on the top. I understand this won’t fit everyone’s expectation but the target customer is used to a touchscreen, having wifi/sharing capabilities and so on… since P&S are not selling so easy these days, I see it as a plus, but of course maybe some of us do know better, or don’t value it, and it’s ok too.

            Regarding size, I have owned both camera, and it never felt like the RX100 would fit in my pocket but the G9x did. I must admit I sold it just a few days ago, as I value the 10x on my TZ100 more than size and weight, but this one is harder to conceal when going through security at a concert…

            Yes, I would not buy one at its regular price, but I got mine for maybe $30 more than the Sony I had bought one year earlier.

          • Iki

            I’m not unfamiliar with touchscreens nor sharing from a camera. But I have always valued precision.
            I find that in most cases a button works better than a screen.

            Sharing over WiFi is quite useful, and this generation would certainly appreciate it. But in in point and shoot market I feel the price is to high for a “less pro” camera. (compared against sony)

            I am able to fit the Sony in all my pockets, from pants to jackets.
            While my sister can’t even fit a flat phone in her…

          • Patrick Lafont

            I agree on the price being too high, but I would see it as a general comment. Most camera makers can’t afford to make a cheap 1″ sensor camera because they’re selling 1/10th of the cameras they were selling 8 years ago, and need to make a profit (if they get the “smartphone user who would have bought a P&S 8 years ago” to consider buying one) and all that without killing the more expert models (which means slower lens, no evf, etc…).
            We can’t blame Canon for trying, same goes for Panasonic, from my consumer point of view the 1″ sensor has to get out of the expert P&S class, simply because what is remaining from the P&S market can’t compete with the average smartphone. And Sony is only bringing faster, more expensive models every year, and the RX100 should get a well deserved update…

            By the way, my local store in Switzerland was selling the G9x for about $350 today, the best deals I’ve seen for the RX100 are around $300.

          • Iki

            The Rx100 has a lot better iq than smartphones, even the smaller sensor cameras 1/1.7 and such, are still above the phones.

            The newer rx100’s are quite a large update from the first model, and compares nicely against a dslr… So It’s still a useful sensor when it comes to it’s use.

          • CameraGuy

            Iki, why are you even here? If you are so disappointed with Canon products head on over to your buddies at Sony and rejoice. No point crying and whining over here because no one is listening let alone Canon who doesn’t even acknowledge you. The only real change that will happen is you leaving :)

          • Iki

            I used to like Canon.
            And still like their lenses.

            I’m not really a Sony fan either.

            I’m a innovation / spec for the cost fan.

        • Rick

          it’s a noticeable difference when it’s in a jacket pocket, or in a tighter pair of jeans that simply a bulkier camera will not be as suitable.

          it’s really not that hard to figure out. trolling?

          here’s dpreview’s thoughts on it.

          • Iki

            Again, it’s such a small difference that it wouldn’t be noticeable for any person unless they were using both cameras at the same time.

            Going from one to the other wouldn’t be noticeable.

          • Rick

            Actually it would be .. it’s pretty dramatic when you are carrying it in jeans, and weight certainly makes a difference if you are carrying it in an inside pocket.

          • Iki

            I have an rx100 and it fits all my pockets.
            The only pockets that I have seen in which it wouldn’t fit, were so small that a few mm wouldn’t matter at all.

            70 grams. Not 700.

            Notice how your sample of a review also stated that you would be able to fit the Sony in a pocket.

            And again, this is comparing the Canon against Sony’s first rx model, not any of the new ones.

          • Rick

            it’s your opinion that size isn’t a consideration.

            against the original RX100, it has a touchscreen, nd filter, UHS-I, wifi/nfc, BSI sensor (that was in the II not the original) – and is smaller to boot.

            you are confusing thickness with other dimensions, thickness of a camera adds far more significantly to volume, than does the width or height. 7mm is significant -maybe not to you but to alot of others, it is.

            also the weight.. obviously it’s not going to be 700g different. troll much?

            however a 15% weight savins is still a 15% weight savings, especially if you carry it in a jacket, suit or shirt pocket. for jeans or holding, probably not much. but again, this is an important consideration for some.

            canon has four different GxX cameras – all for various shapes and weights and sizes

          • Iki

            No pockets that would fit the Canon would not fit the Sony.
            Those extra mm are around the lens, not the whole body, making it easy for any pockets large enough to fit the canon’s other dimensions to fit the Sony.

            Obviously. 70 grams is a lot less than 700. 500-1000 grams is often the difference when comparing cameras and lenses (other than point and shoots) and then it actually makes a difference.

            Find something weighing 70 grams and try holding it for 5 minutes, if that is too much weight for you…

            And sony has 11 different rx cameras…

          • Rick

            okay .. whatever .. lol.

            you obviously have a problem with reading as well, because I said nothing about the hand holding weight.

            The size and weight makes a difference for those of us in the real world.

            sony makes 2 different RX 1″ camera lines. the RX100 which for all purposes is the same form factor, and the RX10. They also make a full frame RX1 line.

            Canon’s G3,5,7,9 are all very different from each other and serve different uses and all use the 1″ sensor.

            I’m sorry if you can’t comprehend the difference.

          • Iki

            Sony has 5 different rx100 cameras in production, all with different specs (size, lenses, sensors etc)
            Then they have 3 rx10 cameras.
            And 3 rx1 cameras.

            Again, unless you specifically go out of your way to make your pockets a mm smaller (it would have to be the hight of the camera body and not the thickness for the Sony not to fit, because of how pockets are designed with stitching around the edge, and not through the centre)
            Then you wouldn’t have any problem fitting the Sony in your pocket.

            And when it comes to the statement about size and weight.
            Panasonic has a 21mm thick, 204 grams heavy, 1″ sensor camera.
            With a touchscreen and WiFi.

            That is thinner than the Canon by 10mm and 5g lighter.

          • Rick

            you clearly aren’t listening.. you should go back to SAR.

            if you want the smallest 1″ sensor compact zoom camera, then the G9X is it. that’s why it exists.

            there’s no point in arguing about it. your question was answered a long time ago. it doesn’t matter what size your pockets are.

            do you actually understand english?

            if you put a priority on size and weight over function, then the G9x fulfills that niche.

            it’s really not hard to figure out.

          • Iki

            If the lens is what’s important then the Canon looses against sony, Panasonic and Nikon’s offering.

            If you put the priority on size and weight then the Panasonic wins.
            If it’s put on the lens then Panasonic wins again.
            If it’s put on performance then sony wins.

            You can’t argue for one thing but go against that argument when it doesn’t suit you.

          • Rick

            I’m not .. you are changing the goalposts. there’s alot of compromises to the CM1 not withstanding it’s a prime lens only.

            the G9X is the smallest compact zoom camera with a zoom lens.

            period. no matter how much fanboying you want to do

          • Iki

            So, the lens IS more important than size?

            Cause, other than the lens, the cm1 doesn’t loose much against the Canon.

            And the g9 x isn’t the smallest zoom camera by far… It’s the smallest 1″ sensor zoom.

  • reginald

    canon is really pushing it with a 2 billion pixel sensor…..

  • I just hope that they fixed the white balance issues of the 1st revision. I LOVED the size, the colours and the features of the G9x Mk1. But I hated the fact that it was necessary to alter the auto white balance settings all the time (according shooting indoors, outdoors & under different light conditions). Quite annoying if you also want to use the OOC JPEGs (with auto WB) – Which is quite essential for an “everyday-camera”.

  • animalsbybarry

    I am guessing this camera has 20.10 million pixels, not 2010 million pixel
    Thier highest resolution sensor Canon has ever claimed to have is 250 mp …. if these specs are true this camera has 10x that

Back To Top