Why Oh Why Did They Make The Canon PowerShot G3X So Ugly?
by Anura Guruge
Other Related posts:
++ Canon G3X: 80% my next camera.
** ‘Camera Labs’ review of Canon G3X.
** Sony RX10 II vs Canon PowerShot G3X.
** I bought Sony stock, rather than RX10 II.
** Sony’s 2 new cameras: A7 RII & RX10 II.
** BuyDig offering Sony RX10 II.
>> Search ‘camera’, ‘Panasonic’, ‘Canon’ & ‘Samsung’ for other related posts >>>>
That 20% uncertainty on my part as to getting a Canon G3X, that I talked about 2 days ago, is in my world a pretty BIG margin of latitude. I am still struggling mightily, within that 20% wiggle-room, as to whether I will be happy with the Canon G3X.
If nobody else will say it I will say it. I struggle with the fact that it is not an attractive camera. Actually it is a pretty ugly looking beast, made worse when you stick on the external, viewfinder. It then looks like something that was really badly cobbled together. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera.
John Keats, the poet, in 1818, said in the opening line of one of his poems: “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Fifty years ago, as a boy growing up in Ceylon, that was one of the first English ‘sayings’ I had to learn. It resonated with me, and it often comes to mind. “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Well you will be hard pressed to call the Canon G3X a thing of beauty.
Don’t kid yourself. People notice the camera you use. Since I have been using the Canon T3i I can’t tell you the number of people who have asked me whether I was a photographer or commented on the camera. The G3x looks like a 1980s, $12 Kodak box camera. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera. Did I already say that.