People in this thread should look up what the G1X actually is!
It is not a normal P&S it has a sensor about the same size as an APS-DSLR and about six times larger than the sensor of a normal P&S like the G-Series. Therefore you can work with Depth-of-field and the image quality is equal to a DSLR.
The G1X-series looks similar to the G-series on the outside but the inside is totally different.

It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.

What? Someone posts a photo from a G-9 vs 5D to argue against a G1x MkII? Lets use a VW to see if a Porsche is better. I mean they both have four wheels and come from the same company?

It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.

There's the answer. You can add more lenses when you get more money. Sue is right, it's not the same, but also your G1x MKII has one lens and will always have only one lens.  DSLR allows you to have options and make changes, depending on what you want to do.

In round numbers a Canon Rebel T5i 18MP with an 18-55 kit lens will give you more control and better images, than the G1x MkII, 12.2MP. The T5i costs $100 less. Why would you want the G series camera?

Let me toss in a monkey wrench in this discussion. EOS-M less expensive, interchangeable lenses. Pocketable APS-C. I like mine, and if they ever come out with a mirrorless Rebel size or Prosumer camera, I'd buy that. Hopefully it will use the standard EF lenses.

But if you are going to have one camera and are serious about stock and photos, don't bother with the G1x. It's a great little bridge camera, I've had at least a few G series cameras. EOS-M replaced that, but none of the little cameras, P&S or Bridge, are up to the quality and results from a DSLR.

Can you recommend me a good dsrl + kit lens? My budget is 1300 dollars. Thank you.

I'm on a tight budget and I don't plan to invest in a dslr camera,lens and other upgrades in the near future. That's the reason I want to invest in a very good p & s camera for the moment. I plan to use it for shooting landscapes, nature, food, isolated objects, textures like rusty doors, old walls.

I think we should take a step back.
I'd have to say that these subjects are pretty much done to death on all of the agencies - take a look at any of the agencies, do searches, and ask yourself what you can bring to the table which is new.
Secondly, what are you shooting with now? What's wrong with the equipment you have? When you've identified the weaknesses or gaps in what you already have, you'll know what you need to get.
Thirdly, it's very, very difficult for newbies to get established nowadays. What the market really wants is model and/or property released images, but even they are pretty saturated. If I were starting now, with your range of subjects (which would have done well ten, maybe even five years ago) I wouldn't expect to recoup $1300 any time soon. (I'm assuming you don't have a vast, stockworthy backcatalogue. If you have, why not upload these first and see how they do?)

But don�t you enjoy photography? Do you take pictures of family and friends and travel?

I would just buy the camera you would want to use for daily life or your own projects anyway and then test stock.

Like someone here said, just because there are pizza restaurants everyhwere, it doesn�t mean yours can�t be successful.

The subjects you mention have been done to death, but as a graphic designer, maybe you can come up with trends that are missing. usually graphic designers do well, at least among my friends, because they know what the clients need.

Making the money you invest back, won�t be easy. But if you already have portfolios and people come to check you out, I would at least try it and then see what happens.

Personally nowadays I wouldn't get involved unless I was already a photographer. Might have been OK coming in cold 5 years ago. Now I reckon you'll still have the steep learning curve, and will be hard pushed to make back the money spent on your gear in a reasonable amount of time. Most people here will have been at least competent amateurs with gear before they started in this business, and will have been doing it for several years at this time.
Graphic designers do tend to do better than average though.
As said by Stocked I'd at least look at the K5 II. Good kit lens. All water resistant. You get more for your money.

Graphic designers do tend to do better than average though.

I have to agree with this If I would be good at graphics I wouldn't bother with photos for microstock, unfortunately I'm only good with photography.

A friend of mine has a Sony Rx100 ( the first one ) as a second camera and most of his photos get accepted.
I tried it a few days ago and i am seriously thinking of buying one ( its quite cheap now ) so i can carry it always in my bag , and don't miss subjects.
The 7D + lences are too heavy to carry around everywhere i go everyday.
Plus it has 20 mp , so you can downsize a little bit. 

But i wouldn't recommend the RX100 or the G1x as a main camera for stock. As people said above , go for a dslr ..

Good for stock is what you do with it. Quality of the images are fine and the lenses are adequate.

Same sensor as the T4i/T5i and digic 5 processor, but EOS-M has, no built in flash, no viewfinder, lens choices are limited.

Let me say this again: get the T5i DSLR not a pocket camera, you will have more control and be much happier over time.

Canon EOS Rebel T5i DSLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens $699 (if you can find a deal on a T4i it's almost identical!) Dial change, different texture and custom settings preview. Problem is for some odd reason, they are priced higher than the T5i? For a discontinued model? I don't understand.

EOS-M $329, 18-55 $109, Flash $59 = $497

As much as I like my EOS-M, for anyone serious, the DSLR has better control and options, I'm also partial to cameras with viewfinders.  Images should, in theory, be identical, because the sensor and processor is identical. Built in flash is fine for parties and snapshots, either camera you will want something better.

And if you aren't married to Canon like I am, look at Nikon.

I plan to but a canon M (not canon M2) with 1855 and 22 lens.
ANY buddy know canon M.
Is it good for stock?