Canon G1X Mark II, Thoughts about the concept

Sydney, Circular Quay, early evening.

 

Engineering triumph or missed opportunity ?

One of Photography's Really Good Ideas:   Consider the following:

1. According to data from camera makers, occasionally revealed by one or other photo commentator, the average number of lenses purchased for each  DSLR is 1.4 and for each MILC 1.3.  A few buyers purchase many lenses which means the majority buy their camera with a kit zoom and never remove it. This majority is not utilising the benefits of an interchangeable lens system. This substantial number of users would be better served by a camera with fixed, built in zoom lens IF  that option delivered tangible benefits such as greater zoom range, larger lens aperture, smaller size or lower price.

2. Without the impediment of a lens mount between the lens and body, a fixed, built in zoom lenses can collapse back into the body of the camera. With good design this could possibly  enable any or all four of the benefits cited above.  

This is the  really good idea.  A fully featured camera with picture quality,  performance  and ergonomics equal to a DSLR or MILC but in a smaller package offering a better  (greater zoom range, wider aperture, smaller size)  lens than your average kit zoom.  This camera would have a fully auto mode  suitable for novices but would also have the performance to appeal to expert and professional users.

If this concept camera can be built and really is such a good idea where are all the models built to this specification ?  They are distinguished only by their almost complete absence.

Olympus has the Stylus 1 which appears to be headed in the direction which I suggest but it's small sensor means picture quality is not in DSLR/MILC territory.

Maybe designing and building the lens is more difficult than one might imagine. Maybe the manufacturers don't want to take sales away from their own ILC's.

Photo courtesy of imaging-resource.com
G1X top view

 

Canon's interpretation, the G1X   The first version of this model was announced in January 2012.   Canon's promotional literature at the time touted  the G1X as  "creating a prestigious new category".....  it was....  "the finest compact Canon has ever produced" ....."revolutionary"....."designed to produce DSLR levels of image quality and performance in a highly portable metal body"...... "the perfect  complement to a Professional DSLR"..... and on and on for several pages of  extravagant  prose. 

It all sounded pretty good so our family bought one. OOPS !   Big mistake.   After all the hype, the reality was  extremely disappointing.  All aspects of operation were frustratingly sluggish including autofocus, shot to shot times and all adjustments.  Close ups were not possible. The optical viewfinder was a carry over from many previous G cameras. It revealed only about 60% of the area of the actual captured picture, had parallax error and provided no camera data at all. There were ergonomic issues. The front control dial was inaccessible without completely changing grip with the right hand.  The picture quality was OK but nothing special.  Highlight clipping of JPG's was common.  The lens was decently sharp but slow of aperture and slow in operation. The video button often got pressed accidentally.  I wrote a review of the camera for this blog but found myself unable to identify more than one  positive thing to say and never published it.

The G12 also in the house at the time was a more user friendly device.

Canon's material  read  as though they were trying to implement a realisation of my really good idea  but somewhere along the way they lost the plot and produced a half baked disappointment instead.  My list of improvements which I wanted to see in any follow up model  included  almost everything.

The G1X DXO Mark score was 60 which is reasonable but several cameras with smaller sensors scored higher. The thing desperately needed a good EVF, improved operating speed, a lens with wider aperture, faster operation and closer focus, a more ergonomic handle, better control layout  and better ergonomics. The one thing the G1X did get right was the fully articulated monitor.

Now the G1X (II)  It seems Canon is having another try at the same concept. Again there is a wealth of promotional literature, this time in the form of an  illustrated brochure entitled  "Story of the PowerShot GX1 Mark II Development"  This time the promotional material  talks about  the  creative efforts of the "large team" at Canon headquarters to solve various technical problems. Apparently putting two dials on the lens and making one of them clicky and the other one smooth was one of those problems.

The brochure  says that ..."unrivalled technology was used to create the new flagship model"....... Since the erstwhile flagship model sank even before encountering rough seas, let's follow the brochure further........."with the birth of the Powershot G1X MarkII, Canon's philosophy and technology are embodied in one camera".....

....."Photographers and survey results from users provided a vast amount of feedback and Canon's engineers improved everything they could".....There is a lot of explanation and praise for the engineers on the subject of the lens the sum of which appears to be that they increased the zoom range (both wider and longer), increased the aperture by about 1 stop (a bit more at the long end) across the range and got it to focus both closer and faster.  All this sounds very good and just what the customers ordered.

The brochure then goes on ...."Canon's  R&D team was particularly conscious of the camera's viewfinder operation".... ..."the optical viewfinder does not necessarily lead to great viewer satisfaction. The EVF was introduced to solve this: it offers 100% coverage and it can display a variety of shooting information"   All this might be true if the camera actually had a viewfinder. They got rid of the totally inadequate old OVF from the G series and replaced it with...........nothing.  For a team "particularly conscious of the.....viewfinder operation.." this seems like an extraordinary decision.  Now you have to buy a large, expensive accessory item if you want a viewfinder.  With the EVF mounted the camera's height is 114mm which is greater than most mid level DSLR's.   Compact ???

Now the brochure moves on to the control rings around the lens. The original G1X had a control dial in front of and below the shutter button. This was poorly positioned and difficult to operate with the right index finger. The course of action which seems most ergonomically logical to me would have been to raise and deepen the handle, put the shutter button front left on the handle  and a control dial just behind the shutter button,  Canon DSLR style. Canon has been doing layouts this way for years, why not continue the same theme on the G1X ??  Maybe because it's "DSLR Style" not "Compact Style"  I don't know.   What actually happened is they removed the control dial altogether. So now they had to find some place for a replacement and selected the lens barrel. Why the lens barrel ? Maybe because they reduced the size of the right side of the camera and handle so much there was no place else for it to go.  The brochure says    "With composing the image through the EVF in mind, it is easier to shoot if the controls are around the lens"   My comment on this:

a) the camera actually doesn't have an EVF and

b) who says it is easier to shoot if controls are centered around the lens ?  My ergonomic studies would preference using a well positioned control dial just behind a forward located shutter button, just like a Canon DSLR.  Presumably Canon doesn't believe it's DSLR's are difficult to use.

The brochure then spends several pages detailing the development of the lens and image processor which all sounds fine and perhaps an opportunity for the engineers to come out from the back rooms for a moment of recognition.

There is reference to  the multi aspect ratio sensor which is an excellent idea and one I appreciated on my Panasonic GH2  several years ago, but why did they not include 16:9 ratio ?

The brochure concludes with reference to ergonomics  ....."Ergonomically strong emphasis is placed on handling and in particular the operation and material quality of the dual control rings"   We are back on the clicky and smoothy rings again  which appear to have provided great exercise for the design team.  

Unfortunately, on the subject of ergonomics, they forgot the handle. Well, they included just a flat little quasi handle. If you want a handle which provides actual grip you have to buy it separately (in some markets but apparently it's included in other markets, go figure).  Why don't they just put a proper handle on the thing and stop messing around ?  It would not add any depth which is already determined by the lens.  If properly designed it would make the camera much easier to hold and operate.  Olympus is another maker which does this silly dance with the handles.  They  make some cameras (for instance EM5, EM10 but not EM1 which they got right, go figure)  with the shutter button  in the rearward position on top of the body  (instead of the more ergonomically logical position  on the handle)  then deprive the body of a proper handle but offer one as an accessory.  When the accessory handle is fitted the right index finger and third finger are pulled apart as the third finger tries to go forward on the handle and the index finger tries to go back onto the shutter button.  I do keep going on about this  and the reason is the camera maker's (several of them) persistent use of sub optimal ergonomic layouts.

The mockup referred to in the text below.  The design is such that anyone from men with large hands, women with long fingernails to children from age around 10 can hold and operate it comfortably. With a lens having the specifications of that in the G1X a camera like this could appeal to a wide spectrum of users.

 

Camera design as football     It looks to me as though Canon has brought the ball to the half way line, sent the entire "large (engineering) team" out to lunch and brought on the marketing team. 

Camera design as camera design   The original G1X  was a depressingly half baked device. The only thing I felt positive about was the fully articulated monitor.  The Mark II version needed and got a complete re design. Unfortunately they stopped half way through the process and to make matters worse downgraded  the fully articulated monitor to the less versatile  flip up/down type. There is no built in EVF, no built in handle and there is insufficient space on the right side of the body for a comprehensive suite of controls to suit  the camera's target, expert/enthusiast user group.

I think they half baked it. Again.

It appears the Mark II  has landed uncomfortably in the same no man's land as the original. It is not really compact in the sense that the Sony RX100 is compact. But neither does the whole camera fully exploit the potential benefits of the lens (assuming the lens is as good as it's maker claims). Without the EVF viewing will be unsatisfactory in sunny conditions. I have never yet encountered a camera with a monitor capable of  providing a clear view on a sunny day in Sydney. With the EVF it will be as expensive as and taller than a DSLR. In any configuration it will not be as comfortable in use as a camera with a well designed ergonomic handle. 

Another way  I would like to see the G1X cameras grow up a bit in size and a lot in usability. The orange mockup shown in the photo is 3mm wider, 6mm taller (but with a built in EVF) and the same depth from the monitor to the front of the lens. The EVF eyepiece protrudes back another 6mm. The lens shown on the mockup has a diameter of 55mm, that on the G1X is 65mm in diameter. There is plenty of space on the front of the mockup for the larger diameter lens. Although slightly larger than the G1X(II) without EVF the mockup fits my criteria for a Proper Camera.  It has a fully anatomical ergonomic handle, comfortable thumb support, forward shutter button and control dial, built in EVF, fully articulated monitor and a full suite of controls for expert use.

I do not understand why Canon has not configured the G1X  like the mockup.  Although it would be about the same size as a small MILC with kit lens, no existing ILC kit lens has the combination of 5x zoom range, wide aperture and compact dimensions found in the G1X.  The approximately comparable EF-S 15-85mm lens for Canon DSLRs with 28mm diagonal sensor is a much larger, heavier, expensive lens and still only manages an aperture range of f3.5-5.6.

Maybe Canon does not want to compete with it's own DSLR's.  The problem is that the G1X (II) might not compete with anything.  There are plenty of  compact Micro Four Thirds cameras out there many of which perform very well with a kit zoom and make a more compelling case for the expert user.  Maybe Canon has gotten hung up on the "compact" concept and a set of design conventions  (habits ?)  which traditionally express the compact camera genre.

I think there is a large market segment out there which is Canon's for the taking but might be grabbed  by another  maker while Canon is slowly half cooking the G1X.