Would G1XM2 with OVF have changed your decision

As we all know, G1X Mark II dropped the OVF from the original G1 X.
How many of you waiting for the G1X Mark II are now planning to change their mind to go or not to go for G1X Mark II vs G1X..

I for one would love to have the OVF mainly being SLR user. Can not handle/imagine the "arm length" photography as some call it. Yes there is a costly (but not sure how good) option of EVF.

I would have really loved if G1X Mark II had retained the OVF.

I would have been ok with a built in EVF ala NEX-6.

The lack of a built-in viewfinder on a serious piece of equipment is downright criminal...

If I hadn't already picked up an EOS M and if the price on this were lower, I'd be tempted.

That said it's too much, IMO. Otherwise I think they've made some fairly sensible design decisions. OVFs were never very good on the G series and the rear screens are good enough that even needing an EVF (which I'm not generally a big fan of) might only be an improvement some of the time.

I think the M strikes a great balance overall with these sorts of compromises but the G2X (seriously, G1X Mark II?) is close. Jam a big sensor in a small body, let the screen do the talking. If I want a good viewfinder I'll jump to my 5D3.

whtchocla7e wrote in post #16686331
I would have been ok with a built in EVF ala NEX-6.

The lack of a built-in viewfinder on a serious piece of equipment is downright criminal...

I agree, I see some people saying the option is another $299 for the VF, and makes it a very large compact?

I think that the world has moved on since it was commonplace to put squinty tunnel OVFs in compact cameras. Compare the front-on view of the G1X to the MkII and it's clear that the OVF gave way to fit the new lens; a decision that I wouldn't disagree with.

rndman wrote in post #16685368
I for one would love to have the OVF mainly being SLR user. Can not handle/imagine the "arm length" photography as some call it. Yes there is a costly (but not sure how good) option of EVF.

I would have really loved if G1X Mark II had retained the OVF.

The G1x has made "arm length photography" redundant with its tiltable screen. Most of my shots are taken with the camera against the body with the screen upwards so I look down on it.
I can adjust and see my composition from zero off the ground up to about 8 feet, now thats something I can,t do with a viewfinder or fixed screen.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #16686454
I think that the world has moved on since it was commonplace to put squinty tunnel OVFs in compact cameras. Compare the front-on view of the G1X to the MkII and it's clear that the OVF gave way to fit the new lens; a decision that I wouldn't disagree with.

The way to get small, with OVF, and a fast lens is to use a smaller sensor. Oh, wait! Canon did that! It's called the G16!

Judder Man wrote in post #16686833
The G1x has made "arm length photography" redundant with its tiltable screen. Most of my shots are taken with the camera against the body with the screen upwards so I look down on it.
I can adjust and see my composition from zero off the ground up to about 8 feet, now thats something I can,t do with a viewfinder or fixed screen.

Right you are. The tiltable screen was not a major selling point for me when I bought the G1x Mk I. I was looking for superior crystalline quality in imaging and low light excellence which is exactly what I got. So, consequently, I was absolutely delighted when I found the tiltable screen coming into its own, namely, the newfound ease in taking off-angle shots. Suddenly I don't have to be behind the camera. I can be beside it, below it, above it or all sorts of variations on that theme. It can grab candids in a crowd like nobody's business, since you don't even need to be facing your subject. Candids are suddenly much, much easier. I really fell in love with this feature.

I cut my teeth on the old film SLR's of ancient times, and so this took some... discovery on my part. But now with the hard part of the learning curve behind me I am very much in love with it all over again. I'm sorry that the G1x MkII seems to have lost the highly variable tilt screen of the Mk I. I appreciate the continued capacity for low light performance, and expect the new lens to be excellent, but I sure would miss that crazy-angle screen. I now use the OVF only occasionally when I'm in a rush. The G1X MkII would be a difficult step backward in my book, since it seems to have given up both for only a slight reduction in size.

Judder Man wrote in post #16686833
The G1x has made "arm length photography" redundant with its tiltable screen. Most of my shots are taken with the camera against the body with the screen upwards so I look down on it.
I can adjust and see my composition from zero off the ground up to about 8 feet, now thats something I can,t do with a viewfinder or fixed screen.

Good point. However I still have questions on stability (that I get pressing the OVF against my eye).. (May be it's just prejudice.. :confused

I remember the old days with my Nikon F3. Would pop the prism off and hold the camera upside down over my head to get crowd shots. With digital, I can zoom a tad wider and shoot multiple shots moving the camera between shots then crop later. I usually get what I need but it's a different process.

Gobeatty wrote in post #16686848
The way to get small, with OVF, and a fast lens is to use a smaller sensor. Oh, wait! Canon did that! It's called the G16!

And if you want a small sensor compact with an OVF that isn't horrible it's called a Fuji X20.

Canon's biggest mistake with the G1X line is keeping the G designation. Too many people can't seem to understand that this is a completely different camera than all the Gs before it.

The tunnel OVF in Canon's G series was a joke. I'll jump to the G1x2 specifically for the optional EVF. I loved my EOS M but was never satisfied because there was no viewfinder. I NEED to have the camera to my eye to enjoy what I'm shooting.

I'm happy they got rid of it. I've never used it on my G1X. Always used the LCD to compose the shot, but never at arms length, always close to my body to further reduce camera shake.

Staszek wrote in post #16688051
The tunnel OVF in Canon's G series was a joke. I'll jump to the G1x2 specifically for the optional EVF. I loved my EOS M but was never satisfied because there was no viewfinder. I NEED to have the camera to my eye to enjoy what I'm shooting.

My point exactly. Needing to have camera to my eye.
I have no experience with G1 X. So was that OVF usless (I thought other way around)

mpix345 wrote in post #16688021
And if you want a small sensor compact with an OVF that isn't horrible it's called a Fuji X20.

Canon's biggest mistake with the G1X line is keeping the G designation. Too many people can't seem to understand that this is a completely different camera than all the Gs before it.

Wandering off topic, but the X20 is the other camera I am considering. I had an X10, really enjoyed it, moved up to the XE-1 and, after the honeymoon, couldn't stand it. Odd I know, but there you go.

Looking at dpreview's widgets for higher ISO noise, it appears the G15 (G16 isn't there yet) is noticeably cleaner and more detailed. The G16 is stated to only be better than the G15, so it's tough to go X20 with such a difference in noise performance. It could be imagined, but I read another comparison review where the reviewers were not impressed with ISO 800+ on the X20 and praised the G camera for its performance. And there is that pesky exp comp dial that doesn't stay put on X cameras and horribly mottled (at times) grass due to the X-Trans configuration. But still it calls to me...