Canon introduces PowerShot G1 X, new VIXIA camcorders, Elph 520 HS and 110 HS

[Chris Hurd]

The new Canon G1 X sports a relatively large 1.5" CMOS sensor... 18.7mm x 14mm.

Press releases (with pics) here:

Canon Introduces PowerShot G1 X and Elph 520 HS, 110 HS at DV Info Net

and here:

2012 Canon VIXIA Camcorders Announced at DV Info Net

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

BEWARE THE NUMBERS DO NOT SUM UP

There must be a mistake. From school calculus we know that the hypotenuse of a right triangle can be derived from the sum of the squares of its sides.

18,7X18,7+14X14=545,69 The square is 23,36 millimeters or 0,92 inches!!! Certainly a far cry from the quoted 1,5 inches.

This number can also be misleading, because is the total area of the sensor and not the image area which traditionally is smaller.

Even if we assume that they coincide, we must not forget that the ratio of the sensor is 4:3 and not the traditional 3:2 of photo DSLRs or the 16:9 of HD.
If we calculate accordingly the results are 22,47mm (0,88inch) and 21,47mm (0,84inch)
That must also have an impact on the wide angle coverage, meaning that if the 28 equiv. is for 4:3 ratio, it becomes 29,2 and 30,43 for 3:2 and HD respectively.
For comparison:
micro4/3rd sensor has a diagonal of 22,5 (0,88inch) at the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Essentially Canon introduced its own flavor of Panasonic's micro 4:3rd format.

I just hope I didn't do any mistakes in calculation.

[Chris Hurd]

Time to dust off my old article about image sensor sizes... from Canon Optura DV Camcorder Lineage, Pt. 1

Written before CMOS was common, not that it makes any difference to my key points. Basically, I'm railing
about the use of mixed fractions, such as 1/2.8" and so on, but the main ideas to take away from this article are:

1. Sensors should be described by their actual physical dimensions, in metric, such as 18.7mm x 14.0mm, and

2. The "equivalent image circle size if it were a tube camera" system should have been abolished ten years ago.

Traditionally, common CCD sizes have been expressed in fractions of an inch, such as 1/3, 1/4, 1/6 and so on. However within the last couple of years there has been a disturbing trend to express CCD sizes as a fraction mixed with a decimal, such as 1/3.4, which was a particular size for the 2.2 megapixel CCD that Canon used for a broad range of Optura camcorders for nearly two years. This practice continues now with new CCD sizes of 1/2.8 and 1/3.9. Frankly I think it's in bad form to mix a fraction with a decimal, so I've put together this chart which might explain these odd sizes a little better. The closest approximate proper fraction is given, along with the actual decimal measurement in inches if you were to go ahead and divide 1 by 3.4, and finally the measurement in millimeters. I've also included an approximate short-hand metric size for easy referral.

CCD	        Date	Mixed	Proper	Dec. Inches	Millimeters	call it...
4.3mp	Aug 2005	1/2.8"	23/64"	0.35714"	9.0713mm	9.1mm
2.2mp	Aug 2003	1/3.4"	19/64"	0.29117"	7.3957mm	7.4mm
2.2mp	Sep 2005	1/3.9"	17/64"	0.25641"	6.5128mm	6.5mm

An easy way to think about these fractions mixed with decimals is that 1/2.8 is only slightly larger than one-third inch, and 1/3.4 is roughly halfway between one-quarter inch and one-third inch, while 1/3.9 is just a tiny bit bigger than one-quarter inch.

The nomenclature used in video camcorders is outdated, archaic and inaccurate, but for some reason the industry insists on hanging onto them. Your DV camcorder is referred to as a one-third-inch camera and lens because that's the size of the CCD image sensors inside the camera head. Except it really isn't. They're actually a bit smaller than that. One-third inch, one-half inch, etc. are tube diameters back from the days before CCD technology when video cameras used orthicon, plumbicon and saticon tubes for creating images. To make an image plane the same size as those tubes used to make, the CCD needs to be only as big as a 4:3 rectangle that would fit inside the diameter of that tube. Therefore, a one-third-inch CCD is actually a bit smaller than one-third of an inch. Then there's also the appalling practice of expressing other CCD sizes as mixed fractions, such as 1/3.4 of an inch. If the industry would simply switch to an actual millimeter measurement of the CCD diagonal, we'd all be so much less confused.

Hope this helps,

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Since the bigger tube was 4/3inch, 1,5inch refers to a tube size that never existed. Amazing!!!

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

The F5.9, especially in the tele end where DOF is more useful, almost negates the benefits of a larger sensor. I'd rather see a slightly smaller zoom range, let's say up to 90, and an F-stop of 4.5 like the old model.
Nevertheless, for it's size is a very promising camera and I dont think the lack of lenses is important in pocketable cameras anyway.

[Daymon Hoffman]

Damn.. you got me excited Chris. But no "HF Gxx" (XAxx) model listed in there.. drats! lol

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Daymon Hoffman

Damn.. you got me excited Chris. But no "HF Gxx" (XAxx) model listed in there.. drats! lol

Funny you should mention that. I looked at the sensor, then the 58mm filter thread size, and thought, is this heading to the consumer camcorders sometime soon? Like next year?

[Chris Hurd]

They're keeping last year's HF-G10 as the flagship VIXIA camcorder for the time being.

[Jason Garrett]

Maybe you guys can answer to this here. Please forgive me for being a novice with this if you will. I am just a hobbyist for the most part and not a particularly talented hobbyist in photography/videography at that LOL. I like tech and enjoy using and learning about the tools probably as much as anything.

So, I’m a G series guy sort of. Had a G6, G12 (on eBay if interested) and just pulled the trigger on a G1X this week awaiting delivery. I’ve read all the critical reviews and am getting it anyway. I want to see how the bigger sensor performs and I’m not on a budget for DSLR lenses right now. Plus, I love the compactness for what I use it for a lot riding my Harley around taking landscape shots of my travels that I occasionally print off 13x19’s on a Pixma Pro 9000II to hang.

Anyway, to the point – the video on this thing was not really a deciding factor; although I did notice it was 1080p vs. 720p on my G12. I have noticed a forum post on DP Review about the firmware upgrade to the 7D and what might be brought to the table if there was a G1X firmware upgrade.

So, they say the video capability on this is pretty limited. Strictly auto mode – no manual control at all, etc. 1080p only with 24fps – not sure if that’s a big deal particularly. Could there be more unleashed in the video capabilities with this camera? Would Canon just not do it to keep it from being a threat to their DSLR lineup? Just curious.

[Zach Love]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

1. Sensors should be described by their actual physical dimensions, in metric, such as 18.7mm x 14.0mm, and

2. The "equivalent image circle size if it were a tube camera" system should have been abolished ten years ago.

+1 x a million

Please Chris, dust off the old part on chip sizes, post it, flag it, tweet it, put it on the front page. This is something that should be common understanding for all people serious about video.

[Lee Mullen]

Nice video from the G1 X anyhow.

Canon PowerShot G1 X - video test 3 - YouTube