Why can't (or won't) Cannon offer a superior point & shoot? (Page 4): I have a Canon G16, which I have found to be a decent little camera, with a very good lens, although it's a bit...

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I have a Canon G16, which I have found to be a decent little camera, with a very good lens, although it's a bit short in zoom range. I can use it as a point and shoot, or go full manual with it, and it shoots RAW. I would be fully satisfied with it if it had a 1" sensor instead of the 1/1.7" sensor. And a little more zoom, say up to 200mm (35mm eq.) would render this a great camera for all-around shooting. I haven't printed anything larger than 8x10 with it, but that one did come out nice and sharp.

therwol Loc: USA

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

Also if they made one too good it could hurt their DSLR markets sales

I don't think they care what they make money on, so long as they make money. Phones have hurt this market. They've gotten so good that most people would rather just carry a phone that takes decent pictures and forget about buying a separate camera. I would even say that the average consumer can't even see the difference between pictures taken on a good phone and pictures taken with a pocket camera. I'd love to own a point and shoot that offers near DSLR results. I'm sure the technology already exists. If the camera manufacturers thought they could make a profit on such a camera, we would already have it.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Wingpilot wrote:

I have a Canon G16, which I have found to be a dec... (show quote)

Every time you add a wish you add a cost to the camera. A 1/1.7" sensor has a crop-factor of 4.65, while a so-called 1" sensor has a crop-factor of 2.7, so making your requested sensor change means that the lens needed to meet your 200mm equivalent goes from 43mm to 74mm {in addition to needing much more glass to provide the larger image circle}

lrm Loc: Sarasota, FL

point and shoot cameras are dead, going the way of buggy whips. The cell phone has taken over that market forever. Just take a look at the sales record of point and shoots over the past 8 years. No sales, no profits, so Canon and Nikon are giving up the ghost.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

rehess wrote:

Every time you add a wish you add a cost to the camera. A 1/1.7" sensor has a crop-factor of 4.65, while a so-called 1" sensor has a crop-factor of 2.7, so making your requested sensor change means that the lens needed to meet your 200mm equivalent goes from 43mm to 74mm {in addition to needing much more glass to provide the larger image circle}

Absolutely, you're right. No doubt that would add to the price of the camera. But I also think that by doing so, the camera becomes elevated from point and shoot status to being a more serious compact camera. It would put the G16 (or however they would designate it--G17?) in the same category as the ZS100.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

lrm wrote:

point and shoot cameras are dead, going the way of buggy whips. The cell phone has taken over that market forever. Just take a look at the sales record of point and shoots over the past 8 years. No sales, no profits, so Canon and Nikon are giving up the ghost.

Just curious as to which cameras you consider true point & shoot cameras and which are more serious compact cameras. The Sony RX100 series are compact, no doubt, but are they mere P&S cameras or are they of a more serious nature. I consider point & shoots to be the inexpensive cameras that give you the option of just pressing the shutter button, and having no other controls. Some of them have some scenes selections, but most are not much beyond a cell phone camera. So yes, I think those are gradually on their way out. I think there will always be a niche for a more serious compact camera, though, for the reasons stated on UHH so many times--travel, hiking, camping, and just having a small camera handy at all times.

Had2 Loc: Long Island, NY

davyboy wrote:

Panasonic😐

Thanks. A specific model would be helpful.

Boris77

Had2 wrote:

Traveling and touring with family sometimes inhibi... (show quote)

Answer very simple:
1 - Cell Phone and its obvious near future development.
2 - Not enough people agree on features to make a "travel" camera profitable. I do not want half the features you list; but I would not buy a serious travel camera without a viewfinder!

pats

No, a point-and-shoot las limitations and in many circumstances will not give DSLR results. I've been using a G7X manual with phenomenal results. Often AUTO won't do it and learning aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, and ISO are the keys to great photos. For many, it's the "old way" with too much reliance on photoshop to do the fixing. Bulky DSLRs with larger sensors and better glass are great but when compactness is needed the G7X is a very good choice.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Had2 wrote:

Traveling and touring with family sometimes inhibi... (show quote)

They've had one for years. It's the SX50 and a great camera. Been shooting with it for a couple years. The one thing it doesn't have is Wi-Fi but that's no big deal. If you can still get one, try and get it and try it because you'll like it . I don't think it's in production anymore.

74images Loc: Los Angeles, California

Dlevon wrote:

They've had one for years. It's the SX50 and a great camera. Been shooting with it for a couple years. The one thing it doesn't have is Wi-Fi but that's no big deal. If you can still get one, try and get it and try it because you'll like it . I don't think it's in production anymore.

Dumped in 2014 for the SX 60, Which is a Dud!!!

74images

74images Loc: Los Angeles, California

digit-up wrote:

I've known a couple of folks that had the canon sx-50. Neither were very happy with the camera, slow focus , slower turn over time from one photo to the next. Lens did'nt please them either.

That's They Opinion!!!

74images

ELNikkor

@ Peterff - and better check with the neighbors and game warden before pointing and shooting at those chickadees on your feeder...however, if your neighbor has one of those noisy, always barking poodles...

Had2 Loc: Long Island, NY

therwol wrote:

I'm facing a decision on what to buy in a point an... (show quote)

I agree that the G7X Mark II is at the top of my current list, followed by the Sony DSC RX100 V.

Had2 Loc: Long Island, NY

lhardister wrote:

Had2, I am in complete agreement with you. For mor... (show quote)

I actually agree that a viewfinder is more desirable than having WiFi capability, however, manufacturers seem to be trending the other way. There are many very good cameras out there, but many responders here don't seem to understand that my first criterion is that it has to fit in a pocket. It may never exist, but I would like a small camera with big features. I started out wondering why (just to use Canon as the company I am familiar with, but there are others) if they can put a 40x lens into the SX720 HS, why can't they put a similar lens in the G7X Mk II (and maybe a viewfinder?? There's no way to duplicate the capabilities of good DSLR lenses, just like there is no way cell phones cameras can compete with something like the Canon G7X or the Sony DSC RX100 v.