Ditto what others said to please keep “throwing stuff out” like this for us Roger!!!

As a 7D/17-55 owner, I too was a bit surprised that combo didn’t fare better. Don’t believe diffraction is playing too big of role at F/5.6 (but you could run a test at F/2.8 and F/4.0 to see – hint, hint! so yea, perhaps that AA filter is blurring us here. Comparing to a “hot-rod” 7D (with AA filter removed) would be interesting.

Along those lines, please considering doing a Nikon 800 versus 800E shootout … i.e. with and without AA filter.
alek

P.S. Suggestion: Don’t know if easy to do with your graphing software, but consider adding labels those axis. I know you talk about it in the text, but makes it easier at a glance.

I prefer the wider 7.1x zoom range the P7000 has, over the Canon G12…and also I prefer the smaller size and lighter weight. The G12 feels like it is lined with lead by comparison, and seems an inch bigger in every dimension (I’m sure it’s a lot less than an inch, but it did feel like it). Noise-wise in RAW mode…well this little Nikon sort of sucks, even at ISO 100…but post editing easily overcomes all of it with little or no apparent loss of resolution. High ISO is obviously another matter.

I also personally still prefer Canon as a company, but they are becoming a bit too much like Apple. Introducing products of ever-decreasing price/performance ratio…because they know there is market demand, much of it based on their name. Unlike Apple though, at least they aren’t hording $100 billion in cash! If they did, I bet the general public wouldn’t happily ignore it, the way they are with Apple.

Kevin, very good points about the difference in pixel size, and diffraction…and about the relative increase in size of the sensor compared to the lens’ maximum aperture.

Haha @ “so photos taken in the dark of night or hand-held for 12 second exposures will give different results.”

It’s interesting that the increased sensor size of the G1x over the G12, perhaps mandated that the lens is effectively an f/5.6 rather than an f/4, at the tested distance (or equivalent effective focal length)?

One issue with using the same f/5.6 aperture on all the cameras is the G12 with the much smaller 2.0 micron pixels will be starting to see the effects of diffraction at that aperture. The G1X has 4.2 micron pixels.

Scaling for pixel size the equivalent G12 aperture to f/5.6 on the G1X (for diffraction effects only) would be f/2.7 (which you can only do at 28mm eq zoom setting).

The G12 will probably give (slightly) better results at f/4.

The other side to this coin is that much above f/5.6 (e.g. f/8) you won’t need an AA filter as diffraction with do the anti-aliasing for “free”.

The real problem Canon have is putting a compact lens into the “G11/12″ form factor. They more than doubled the size of the sensor (“two stops”) but the lens’s front aperture only increased by 140% (“one stop”) so “too small” apertures are a given with that zoom range.

So all the enthusiasts are complaining about the small lens aperture (“The X10 can do it” … the X10 has a much smaller sensor).

Enthusiasts probably would have preferred this sensor platform with either a shorter zoom (24mm to 70mm eq or 28mm to 80mm and s as fast as you can make it and still have it fold up … f/2 to f/3.5 perhaps) or a fast prime lens (28mm or 35mm or 40mm or 50mm). A Poor Man’s X100 if they priced it at $500 or $600 and it might sell well.

These solutions probably didn’t work for marketing specifying the camera as OrdinaryFolks ™ know that it’s all about zoom range and megapixels. They’re probably already wondering why this doesn’t have 10x or 20x zoom like their travel zoom** It doesn’t seem to meet their needs either. Why buy a G1X when you can buy a “flexible” mirrorless.

This I think is the root of Canon’s problem: they don’t really know who this camera is for but they knew they wanted a compact with a large sensor. It’s priced oddly too high as well. I still think the “short zoom”

One also wonders if a future “Nikon P1X” (imagine a P7100 with Nikon 1 CX sensor) might be a better combination for this idea. The slightly smaller sensor making for a smaller lens and perhaps a 28-100mm eq range.

Still the underlying systems seems good as the measurements show. Perhaps in the next revision but I can’t see a way out other than reducing the zoom range.

** Yes, I know you know. I know too. But they don’t know.

Really interesting stuff – always enjoy your thoughts and findings on the gear.

Your results confirm what I’ve seen on the sample images at DPReview too:
http://bit.ly/A9UU3X
(comparing JPEG files from the Nikon D4/NikonD3S/Canon5D2/CanonG1X)

Poor viewfinder aside, is the G1X reasonably responsive as a camera?

About the only reason I’m not instantly considering a G1X as a backup camera is that the Nokia 808 looks interesting… I guess in some ways they’re not that different – both are larger sensors than average compared to the market averages.

Speaking of cameraphones; I took some simple sample shots into my local independent camera store a couple of years back. Prints were A4/Letter size; one from my Motorola ZN5 cameraphone and one from my old 400D/XTi with the 24-105IS/f4L, both shot in auto (to level the playing field as the phone doesn’t have many camera features). All the staff preferred the ZN5 shots, as there was more detail in the grass in the foreground! Of course my test favours the cameraphone in many ways, as it’s brightly lit and a relatively small print size, but I thought it was still interesting nevertheless.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7552041385/photos