1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Why the G3X did not make the cut

Discussion in 'Superzoom Salon' started by Jock Elliott, Dec 6, 2015.

  1. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott SC All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    My wife found me busy at my desk the other day, packing up the Canon G3X.

    “What are you doing?” she asked.

    “Sending it back,” I said.

    “But I thought you liked it, the pictures it took . . . I liked the pictures you showed me,” she said.

    “You’re right; it takes lovely pictures, but for this kind of money (just pennies short of a kilobuck), I need to be in love with this camera to keep it, and I’m just not.”

    So I sent the G3X back, but then I got to thinking: why was it that I was not in love with the G3X? After all, it made really, really nice pictures, better at extreme optical and digital zoom than my FZ200.

    Trying to analyze something that comes to down to a gut reaction is tough, but I think ultimately why the G3X was not a keeper for me came down to three things.

    1. Size, weight, and an add-on viewfinder = overall gestalt. With the external electronic viewfinder attached, the G3X is big, at least b y what I am accustomed to. Turned off, it’s 4.25 inches from the back of the camera to the tip of the lens, 4.5 inches from the bottom plate to the top of the EVF, and 7 inches wide. If you conceive of that as a rectangular box that must be slipped into a camera bag, it’s fairly bulky, and it would not fit comfortably in any of my camera bags (and not in the freebie camera bag that came with the G3X). With some effort, it would slide into the LLBean shoulder bag that I have for the two-camera solution. I used a piece of foam rubber to protect the EVF, but I worried that I would harm it in some way putting it in the bag or pulling it out. The G3X fit just fine with the EVF detached, but since I am an opportunistic photographer, I didn’t want to fuss with sliding the protective insert out of the hotshoe, removing the protective cover on the foot of the EVF, and then sliding the EVF into the hotshoe until it locked. I think Canon blew it in designing the G3X. They had a perfect spot for an on-board EVF where the pop-up flash is located and could have made the flash an external item that could be mounted on the hotshoe when needed.

    2. I had trouble holding the G3X steady at high magnification. I don’t know if it was the weight or the balance, but it was much more difficult to frame the shot than shooting with the FZ200 at comparable magnification. Maybe in time I would have adapted.

    3. I didn’t know where to put my left hand. This sounds stupid, I know, but with the FZ200 and the LX100, I naturally cradle the lens barrel with the palm and fingers of my left hand and can work whatever controls easily. With the G3X, having the fingers under the lens barrel didn’t feel quite right, and neither did having the fingers over the top of the lens barrel and the thumb beneath. Again, maybe this was an issue that I would have sorted out over time. Bottom line, though, is that the overall design felt big and clunky, and I wasn’t willing to invest the time. The pictures that the G3X make are nice, really nice, and perhaps I will come to regret my decision.

    Cheers, Jock
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  2. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    The lack of built-in EVF has killed more semi-pro camera purchases than lack of money.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  3. bilzmale

    bilzmale Super Moderator Emeritus

    Jul 17, 2010
    Perth, Western Australia
    Bill Shinnick
    For similar reasons I sold my RX100 - great images but slippery as a bar of soap. Added a TZ70 with small sensor but evf and plenty of zoom.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  4. drd1135

    drd1135 SC Hall of Famer

    Jul 13, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I've not been a superzoom person, Jock, but I enjoy reading your adventures. I had a Stylus 1, and the size and operation were wonderful. I just shoot too much in low light to really be satisfied with smaller sensors. I have been curious about the 1 inch superzooms, especially after seeing the output from my wife's RX100. They seem a bit large for my taste, especially if I am going to grab one instead of one of my EM5II. For now at least, I'll make due with limited FL range and have a smaller, lower noise camera. Having said that, a sufficiently cheap RX10 might tempt me.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  5. Tilman Paulin

    Tilman Paulin SC Top Veteran

    681
    Nov 15, 2011
    Dublin, Ireland
    not connecting to a camera is a perfectly valid reason to return it. Some cameras "invite" you to pick them up and use them.... Ultimately those are better cameras (on a personal level) than something with potentially better image quality but "annoying" handling. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  6. davidzvi

    davidzvi SC Regular

    180
    Apr 18, 2014
    David
    I know exactly how you feel. Exactly the same way I felt about the LX100. There are some menu / display things that bugged me, a touch screen would have solved them for the most part. But the big one that just killed it for me was the power zoom lens. I thought I could handle it, but for me even a manual collapsible like the Panasonic 12-32 or the one on the Fuji X10/20/30 would have been better.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. kyteflyer

    kyteflyer ~@¿@~

    Jan 31, 2011
    Newcastle, Australia
    Sue
    I love my P610 as some of you have already noticed, but I am still hankering for an FZ1000. Sure, it doesnt have the reach of a superzoom, and its not got the sensor of DSLR or MFT, but its a nice compromise. I went to have a fondle in the local camera store some months ago, and even though its almost as heavy and as large as my K5 with a kit lens attached, it seemed/felt much more comfortable in my hands.

    @Jock Elliott@Jock Elliott Have you considered the FZ1000 at all?
     
  8. davidzvi

    davidzvi SC Regular

    180
    Apr 18, 2014
    David
    Sue, there is one for sale over on the Mu43 board. Though I'm not sure it would be worth it with shipping.
     
  9. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott SC All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    Yes, I have, but I don't think it has enough reach for me.

    Still, I have heard wonderful things about the FZ1000.

    Cheers, Jock
     
  10. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    Here is a good comparison of f-stops and sensor sizes from dpr:
    [​IMG]

    G3X is missing in the graph, but it starts where FZ1000 and ends up where FZ200 is, so it looses its sensor advantage quickly due to slower aperture lens... RX1 and FZ1000 have better apertures, but limited zooms compared to G3X... Even m43 f2.8 zooms have f5.6 equivalence, eg close to RX10. I have gm5+14-140, starts around A6000 and ends up above FZ1000, but it is a smaller combo and have the option of faster small m43 primes... Bigger and more expensive option is a FF dslr/Sony A7 II with Tamron 28-300mm 3.5-6.3 pzd. At the end, pick your poison eg sensor/camera size vs lens speed/size:)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. kyteflyer

    kyteflyer ~@¿@~

    Jan 31, 2011
    Newcastle, Australia
    Sue
    Thanks, David. Also not worth it for the exchange rate. I stopped buying anything from the US when our dollar started its dive. IN some ways and for some things, our prices here are better than yours. Just not with camera gear :(
     
  12. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    Isn't there a Pana FZ300 now that duplicates the Canon spec of 25-600 mm and one inch sensor?
     
  13. drd1135

    drd1135 SC Hall of Famer

    Jul 13, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    According to the Google, the FZ300 has a 1/2.3 sensor.
     
  14. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    Must have been a mistake - FZ 1000 likely.
     
  15. kyteflyer

    kyteflyer ~@¿@~

    Jan 31, 2011
    Newcastle, Australia
    Sue
    If anything, Canon was playing catchup with Panasonic, given that the Panny was released first, with only 400mm... hence 600mm for Canon. I'm waiting for the next iterations with interest. 7-800mm?