G1X Mark II

^yep def. clunky looking...not that heavy though. If there is a savings grace it is that second battery ready to go.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16697813
What about a 'true' battery grip like this one:
http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …ery-grip-made-by-ownuser/
I actually use one on a Nex 6 and really like it.
I think I'd like one for the G1X as well.

Actually I shouldn't have used the blanket term "NEX". I had the 5N which is very short in the body. I think that the 6 is somewhat taller and probably better handling.

Just for fun this morning I hefted the Nex-6 with battery grip and then hefted a 5Diii...like there is no comparison. I think many wanted the G1X and its successor to be truly pocketable as in pants pockets. Harsh reality for the noobs, F2.8 or esp. F2 is not going there with the zoom ranges presented, most likely even with a shorty prime. Given that I accept the larger form factor and will stand that an added grip giving me a tot. of 400+ images is not an appreciable increase compared to DSLRs. Even my lightest, the T2i is still beyond what would be in a gripped G1X.
Not that it's going to happen anyway...just a mental exercise I suppose.........

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16697813
What about a 'true' battery grip like this one:
http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …ery-grip-made-by-ownuser/
I actually use one on a Nex 6 and really like it.
I think I'd like one for the G1X as well.

Personally, I would never purchase or use a grip for the G1X (I or II) -- even if (unlike this one in the link) the one for the G1X were sleek and sexy.

For me, the G1X is just an alternative camera for when I have no plans (or minimal plans) to shoot. When I will need the battery life, or the comfort, of a grip; I will be using my DSLR.

I also don't think a grip would sell well for this camera.
I believe the target market for the G1X is about 50/50: 1. people that want an alternative to their full size DSLR and 2. people that will use this as their primary.

I suspect that number of people using this as an alternative, that will want the grip, is very small: it defeats the purpose.

I also believe the percentage of people that use this as a primary, that would want a grip is also lower than, for example, the percentage of 5DIII users that would want a grip. The 5DIII users are more likely to be a power hungry (figuratively and literally) group of people.

This is not to say that I won't, sometimes, have a spare battery in my pocket.

I would also think it unlikely to see a battery grip add-on for the G1X II. The addition of size and weight hasn't been an impediment to the popularity of the add-on grips for a camera like the Olympus E-M5 however. The difference in functionality is plenty of reason to use a compact system camera (CSC) over a DSLR, and it's the combined weight and volume of the overall kit that still makes the CSC the more portable system even with an add-on gip.

From the information that was released, there is no battery grip add-on.

To swap out the grip, I believe it will require a hex tool of some sort. Thats what I saw holding the grip on the side.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #16697556
It's interesting that you mention the E-PL1, because with the exception of the E-M1, it was the last Olympus Micro 4/3 camera that felt truly comfortable for me to hold. It was only recently that I got a tape measure out and found that the key dimension for me is the measurement in height from the baseplate to the top of the shutter button, even over and above the presence of a grip. This is because the base of the camera tucks into the heel of my hand if it is high enough. The Sony NEX cameras were great anti-examples of this because while they did have a substantial grip the cameras were so low I still found them uncomfortable to hold. The baseplate to shutter button dimension appears to be similar between the new and old G1X cameras so I hope that the new model is as comfortable to hold as the old one is.

I agree. Despite being a bigger guy 6'3" I find the E-PL1 remarkably easy to hold. The Fuji X100S and X-E1 or the E-P2 were not nearly as comfortable for me which I attribute to the more prominent grip on the E-PL1 (so for me the grip was of great benefit). If you compare the E-PL1 and G1X II on camerasize.com they lay on top of each other nearly identically from all dimensions (apart from the lens obviously).

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16698504
Just for fun this morning I hefted the Nex-6 with battery grip and then hefted a 5Diii...like there is no comparison. I think many wanted the G1X and its successor to be truly pocketable as in pants pockets. Harsh reality for the noobs, F2.8 or esp. F2 is not going there with the zoom ranges presented, most likely even with a shorty prime. Given that I accept the larger form factor and will stand that an added grip giving me a tot. of 400+ images is not an appreciable increase compared to DSLRs. Even my lightest, the T2i is still beyond what would be in a gripped G1X.
Not that it's going to happen anyway...just a mental exercise I suppose.........

My question is bud why did they go down in MP? From a 14 to a 12.8? There has to be a reason behind it, i just dont know enough to know why. Any ideas?

Actually total effective MP is 15 on the mark II. It's the crop ratio that lowers the resolution. I've read the reason why is because at 24mm, the lens is too wide and the corners of the sensor would be very dark to just black. So to compensate they made a user selectable ratio of either 4:3 or 3:2. These ratios would never use the corners of the sensor thus never able to use the total effective MP. Did this help?

^good answer above...thought that is not the whole story.
I think a better question is why they didn't increase the number of pixels which could lead into a discussion on pixel density. This Mk II does have a remarkably wide angle FL for its size and I've lived the angst of a crop sensor crammed fulled of pixels in the Nex-7 (24mp)...so crammed full the wide angle lens(es) just couldn't get the light to the majority of pixels, or enough to do a good job.
I also remember a Canon 1Ds, 16.7mp and in its day it was cutting edge.
Maybe someone here will be printing at 4 foot x 6 foot. In the roughly 75,000 pictures I've taken over the last 3 years I've printed two of them (on metal by the way), and I just read a couple days ago for computer display 2-3mp is plenty!
Last thoughts. I don't think they've changed the sensor at all from the Mk I, like RallyMan pointed out, they've just changed to crop area. Knowing the IQ of the Mk I sensor I'm perfectly good with that.
I do wonder though if the engineers at Canon at least considered using the dual sensor from the 70D line!
But in the meantime Two G1X Mk I's are on the SkyTracker and starting Saturday evening between the two of them by Sunday morning should have taken close to 8000 pictures. So please cross fingers for good weather this weekend.

The Mark I G1X actually has very good control of light fall-off until the very edge of it's image circle at the widest focal length. The Mark II will almost certainly follow the same concept of having a lens that has strong wide-angle barrel distortion that is corrected in-camera and then interpolated back to the advertised sensor resolution.

From the G1X, this is what the sensor see through the lens...

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16705233
I don't think they've changed the sensor at all from the Mk I, like RallyMan pointed out, they've just changed to crop area. Knowing the IQ of the Mk I sensor I'm perfectly good with that.

I think they probably did tweak the design a bit, but not enough to really talk about it in their literature.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16705233
I do wonder though if the engineers at Canon at least considered using the dual sensor from the 70D line!

The manufacturing line might not be able to make enough sensors for both lines, or they are preparing to utilize the yields for another DSLR (maybe for the 7D mkII)

I just thought about something else. I know in the car industry there is budgets for each part of the car, engine, interior, exterior and so forth to meet a certain price point. Even in my industry we have to make compromises on what will get a major upgrad and what will get tweaked only (I design high-end kitchen appliances). Perhaps Canon decided to allocate more resources on the lens design and camera control vs the senor.

Yes the loss of MP is due to how the crop factor was decided on. I guess the sensor must be pretty much the same as the G1X but with improvement in Digic 6 processing. Would of course be great to have a brand new sensor that has the sensitivity of the large pixels of the G1X but many more pixels without sacrificing ISO performance. If Sony is able to do it on the Nikon D800 sensors I don't see why this can't also happen with the Canon sensor. But really it does seem like this is going to be an important release and I will certainly buy it. Again I feel this will be like the 5DII to 5DIII transition, and if that is so then there will be a lot of happy G1X MKII owners.

There was obviously some press material from Canon indicating that the Mark II has a new sensor (see below), but it's rare that a camera is released that doesn't claim to have a "new" sensor in it, with the mystery always being what exactly that means. For example, Olympus claimed a few generations worth of new 12mp sensors that always performed largely similar to the last.

http://www.cnet.com.au …g1x-mark-ii-339346610.htm

http://www.dpreview.co​m …x-mark-ii-a-quick-summary

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16705233
^good answer above...thought that is not the whole story.
I think a better question is why they didn't increase the number of pixels which could lead into a discussion on pixel density. This Mk II does have a remarkably wide angle FL for its size and I've lived the angst of a crop sensor crammed fulled of pixels in the Nex-7 (24mp)...so crammed full the wide angle lens(es) just couldn't get the light to the majority of pixels, or enough to do a good job.
I also remember a Canon 1Ds, 16.7mp and in its day it was cutting edge.
Maybe someone here will be printing at 4 foot x 6 foot. In the roughly 75,000 pictures I've taken over the last 3 years I've printed two of them (on metal by the way), and I just read a couple days ago for computer display 2-3mp is plenty!
Last thoughts. I don't think they've changed the sensor at all from the Mk I, like RallyMan pointed out, they've just changed to crop area. Knowing the IQ of the Mk I sensor I'm perfectly good with that.
I do wonder though if the engineers at Canon at least considered using the dual sensor from the 70D line!
But in the meantime Two G1X Mk I's are on the SkyTracker and starting Saturday evening between the two of them by Sunday morning should have taken close to 8000 pictures. So please cross fingers for good weather this weekend.

OK i get what your saying now. It would be nice to have one with the 70D sensor in it. Lol