http://www.mpaprofessionals.com/canon-l ... l-compact/

The new G1 X with 14.3 megapixel CMOS nearly-APS-C size sensor (14 x 18mm). I'm waiting for pictures of it to appear on Canon's press site.

David

The G line is well regarded, and it was a hit until Olympus and Panasonic launch their mirrorless cameras. But I think that, with this camera, Canon is doing the same mistake Fuji did with the X100: no interchangeable lens... Fuji will probably been introducing a interchangeable system, based on the X100, today at CES (follow Brandom Remler, the Fuji guy for the Nort East coast: http://twitter.com/#!/brandonremler ) that, if rumors are right, have everything I want: one nice, old fashion body, 3 primes... but we have to see if they redress all the issues the X100 have.

Regards

I wonder if they will put the same sensor and almost same lens design in the Elph model like in the past for the SXX and the GXX series.

For me this camera is a very good item. The price is good, but this is very bad that canon limit the possibility of the camera to satisfy its Rebel line up and camcorder. Why they not put a very good film performance in 60p.

One thing I'm jealous from my NEX 7 pre-order (still waiting ) is that Canon put a decent flash sync of 1/250 ... (where I still don't understand why Sony was not able to do so with the NEX 7 -> I need that for my macro photography ).

Impressive lens for the size, probably 24mm will be better ... but losing the F2.8 ...

The LCD movement is till the best in the industry also to my taste.

With the underwater setting built in, and the usual price of about 250$ for the 40 meter case, this camera will probably be in the look for serious diver ...

Frank

All these Xs - panasonic GX1, NEX, Fuji X-etc and now the Canon G1-X. Good job Nikon didnt put an X on the end of its Nikon 1 - It would have become the N1X...

The larger sensor is a step in the right direction. However, a "compact" camera that is even bulkier than the G12 with only a 28-112mm equivalent zoom range simply does not light my fire. Further, if the reported $799 price is accurate, I just can't picture myself spending that much for a camera that does not accept interchangeable lenses.

I concur that the G1 X name is big on confusion and short on creativity.

Andy

I've said so elsewhere already, but I'll repeat it here: I think this is not only a poor idea, but a truly evil one.

It's one thing to discard the tiny lens in a typical compact camera after a short time just because the sensor and features are obsolete. It's quite another (at least in my opinion) to build a lens this size with the expectation of its being discarded that lightly.

While I doubt that lens-making is the most ecologically damaging industry on earth, the fact remains that this is a step in the wrong direction. In my opinion, using a camera like this to take pictures of nature is nothing short of outright hypocrisy. If I were 25 years younger, I think I'd probably work at trying to organize a boycott of Canon for designing and announcing such a travesty.

Although I haven't seen fit to buy one personally, one of the things I've found particularly pleasing about the MFT and NEX cameras has been the support (whether intentional or otherwise) for putting lots of older glass back into useful service. Although it hasn't happened to any degree yet, it sees likely that much the same will happen with the Nikon 1 series. Canon's doing the opposite is truly shameful.

Although I lack the time or energy to do any organizing, I'd encourage anybody to avoid Canon products in general (and let them know why) until this misbegotten product is removed from the market.

Totally agree.

I can understand the sentiment of ecological outrage that the lens will be discarded along with the camera sometime in the future, but I don't understand why the outrage just started today. For example, the wonderful CZ lens on the Sony DSC-R1 is also discarded as are lenses on quite a few other cameras, both digital and film. Also, I don't quite understand the sudden outrage about the lens, but not the built-in flash and whole bodies. Just an observation.

It's not really sudden or new at all, it just happened to arise as a topic. For another example, I find laptops, tablet computers and all-in-one desktops (e.g., iMac's) objectionable for many of the same reasons. It just happens that those have never arisen as topics here.

I can't really comment intelligently about a DSC-R1 (never owned or used one, and not sure I've ever even seen one), but this uses a lens considerably larger than most digicams, simply because of its larger sensor.

Ultimately, making things disposable can be a tradeoff -- it can gain quite a bit in the way of size, weight, cost and/or convenience. In this case, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Just for an obvious example, the NEX C3 with kit lens is smaller, lighter and less expensive. Some may find the G1X more convenient (hard to say) but if so, it seems unlikely that the fixed lens will contribute significantly to that.

The DSC-R1 has a larger sensor than the G1X and the lens is also larger. You can see it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

Yup -- does look pretty nasty. Doing a quick check, it appears that it is off the market though, so there's probably no longer much to do about it. On the other hand, doing some looking it appears that the DSC-HX100V and Nikon Coolpix P500 are in the same ballpark.

Maybe I was being a bit harsh on Canon, and should really point my ire at higher-end P&S cameras in general instead.

Is there a seeping landfill full of old lenses that we should know about?

The problem here isn't with disposing of the lenses after use (most glass is fairly inert) but the energy put into creating a lens in the first place. A food jar might easily contain as much or more actual glass, but the energy to create one is quite small. The expenditure to create lenses is high enough that (at least IMO) handicapping one by building it into a product with an otherwise extremely limited useful life span is shameful. The energy expenditure involved is at least roughly proportional to the size and number of elements.

that's nothing compared to just making the aluminium that holds the rest of it together. I just found it off that you pointed out the glass in the midst of all the aluminium and magnesium that's in these things.