Canon PowerShot G1 X

Woah!  What a big sensor you have!

This camera marks Canon's first timid step toward what has now become known as the mirrorless camera segment.  In it's slightly bulkier-than-a-G12 body it houses a nearly APS-c sized sensor with a 4:3 ratio, which is a dramatic step up from the relatively tiny sensor in the previous G-series bodies. That means that with this camera you can get DSLR image quality out of one of these cameras at any ISO setting, and because the sensor appears to be basically a cut down version of the 18mp sensor that appears all they way up the line to the EOS 7D, you ought to be able to achieve similar image quality.  All this from a camera that fits in a jacket pocket, and still retains the highly successful design ethos of the G-series cameras.

So why does it seem so many people in forums are displeased with this camera? Well, it seems to me that a lot of folks wanted something more akin to the Sony NEX7, and I'll admit, I'd like to see something like that come from Canon, but this ain't that camera.  

The biggest problem for the G1X is that there are a lot of other cameras on the market, often for less money, and with the potential of interchangeable lenses. Up against those cameras people often worry that they'll be disappointed with a single built-in lens. That maybe true, but for someone like me, the 28-112mm-equivalent f/2.8-5.6 lens covers a lot of the range that I usually work with, and it's certainly of higher optical quality and faster aperture than most kit zoom lenses in that range for entry level DSLRs, so when I look at this camera, I think about how it would fit in with how I shoot, and I think it'd be great for a lot of things.

So who is this camera really for? If you're a super fan of the G-series cameras you'll probably like the G1X. The only thing you might miss using the G1X is that it won't focus as closely as you might be used to with the smaller sensored G-cameras, but you should notice that your pictures look somewhat better, especially as light levels fall. If you're looking for a travel camera that won't force you to compromise on the picture quality of your DSLR, the G1X might be a good replacement if you're shooting with something like a Rebel and a kit lens. If you're a street photographer, the G1 X is probably worth taking a look at, depending on how you work with your cameras. I know Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape doesn't care for the fully articulated screen of the G1 X when he's trying to be discreet, but there are other ways of shooting where this doesn't matter.

What don't I like about it? I do think there are better screen designs for this type of camera that would save some space and clean up some of the button layout. I also don't care for the optical viewfinder, and I wish they'd either get rid of it, make it nicer, or replace it with an electronic one. I also don't much care for the scroll wheel on the back of the camera as it's a bit fiddly, but the front dial is pretty nice in comparison. I don't really mind the increase size and weight compared to the other G-series cameras, but it may be a consideration for some people.

So all in all, I find a lot to like about the G1 X, but it might be a tougher call for some people, and certainly, if you're looking at this camera, the nicer Micro Four-Thirds cameras are probably worth a good look as well.

Canon PowerShot SD1000 Digital ELPH

Best looking point and shoot...ever!

I purchased this camera new in early 2007 for almost $400, and looking back now, I can't believe I spent so much money on a point and shoot. This was actually the first brand new camera that I'd purchased since 1996, and I bought it because I needed something to take with me when I traveled visiting friends, going to shows, for taking snapshots when I really just didn't feel like dragging out the big DSLR. I came very close to buying the G7, but when I saw the first press images of this camera, I knew immediately that I was going to buy this as soon as it was available. I'm not usually the sort of person that's terribly image conscious, but the original Canon Elph (back when APS was a film format rather than a sensor size) was what I considered the best looking point and shoot of the 1990s, and here was a wonderful little digital point and shoot that brought back everything I loved, style-wise, from the original.

Of course, aesthetics aside, I do expect a camera to have some basic performance capabilities. I knew from borrowing this camera's predecessor (the SD600) that these little cameras were to a level that I felt the picture quality all the way through the ISO scale was what I considered good enough for a pocket camera. I didn't really need a camera like this with manual control, because I don't honestly see the point in a camera with this small of a sensor (DOF wide open is already tremendously deep, and there's not much benefit with respect to resolution from stopping down). At the time, things like 24mm equivalent wide-angle lenses, HD video, image stabilization, sweep panoramas, and the like didn't exist--or at least didn't exist in anything but the top tier of cameras--and weren't even on my list of criteria for picking a camera. The only thing I wished this camera had was RAW capability to get the most flexibility out of it's files, and I still wish it had it.

I took this camera on several vacations and looking back through the photos that I got with it, the daytime snapshots are pretty much what you would expect, with good exposure, low noise, and nice colors. My camera's lens has always been kind of soft at the edges, but for your typical snapshots there wasn't anything wrong with them.

The photos that stand out to me are the ones that are far from perfect. Many of them are motion blurred, taken at high ISO in very low light, and sometimes slightly out of focus. None of that's the camera's fault of course, since I was shooting in some difficult situations: at night on the street, in bars, at shows, late night trips to the supermarket, places that I really should have had a DSLR for the best picture quality. And that's the thing, I would have never taken these photos without the SD1000, because I wouldn't have bothered to have the DSLR with me. Instead I just felt more free to snap away, because I wasn't using a serious camera and didn't expect much of it. And because of that I think these photos capture a much better sense of the feeling of being there than a more perfect photo would have. And some of these...I almost hate to say...are some of my most favorite photos that I took in those years.

So you know, it's worth considering whether you really need to be purchasing all this bulky, complicated photo equipment, when possibly you'd be taking pictures that you'd be happier taking with something much cheaper, and much less fussy. Naturally, I've had people look at those photos and say, "oh, these are terrible, too bad you didn't have a better camera," but they're the photos that I wanted to take, and I'm always happy to look at them again.

Would I buy this camera again?  If it were still 2007, absolutely. Today in 2011, I'd probably be looking at something like the Canon S100 or the Ricoh GR Digital IV, but not for the manual control, mostly just for the RAW capability and a better quality lens with less CA and unsharp edges. I'll always have a special place in my heart for the SD1000, however, and it still works as good today as it did a few years ago even if today's cameras easily out-shoot it.