Previous news story    Next news story

Canon PowerShot G16 updated with test scene samples

By dpreview staff on Oct 28, 2013 at 19:12 GMT
Buy on GearShop$499.00

We just updated our first impressions review of the Canon PowerShot G16 with our studio test scene showing image quality in both JPEG and Raw capture modes. It includes downloadable Raw files of both the daylight and low light scenes. As usual this allows you to compare the G16 with other cameras. 

76
I own it
45
I want it
25
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon PowerShot G16

Comments

Total comments: 350
123
Infared
By Infared (7 months ago)

I can't get over how U.G.L.Y. that is!!!!!! LOL!

3 upvotes
arieswar
By arieswar (7 months ago)

If only they use bigger sensor for G16, i would probably eat my G15... :D

1 upvote
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (7 months ago)

Yawn!

0 upvotes
Dr Aref
By Dr Aref (7 months ago)

I guess it is time for Canon to come up with a EOS M II with the 70D sensor, an articulated LCD and of course with an option of plug in electronic viewfinder. Removing the articulated LCD from G series was not a wise step.

2 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (7 months ago)

You mean the Eos M was not a flop?

2 upvotes
Stelios
By Stelios (7 months ago)

I would by this camera tomorrow if it had an Articulating screen

stelios

7 upvotes
achim_k
By achim_k (7 months ago)

...and I would buy it tomorrow, if it had a hi-res EVF!

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

If you search all that one specific camera has and that you take as the reference object to comment like you do, just buy that reference camera and do not consider this one. You have an enomous choice, non of all of them has it all, but there would be certainly one that has most of what you look for. If not, keep on waiting ... till the end of days.

2 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

Stelio Canon G1X has both articulating screen and APS-C sensor

2 upvotes
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (7 months ago)

I wanted a RF type Canon for so long... G7, G9, G11... they always seemed to fall short of what I wanted and those tiny plasticky peephole viewfinders... YECH! Then came Fuji with the X100 and XPro1 ... ahhhh

Sorry Canon... your SLRs are first rate and I have many, but I can't see any point in your G series.

2 upvotes
Riquez
By Riquez (7 months ago)

You simply missed out then. I had the G7 (still do own it) & it was a really fun camera to use & easy to get impressive results. Now I have moved on, but don't underestimate the ability of this G series just because of some compromises.
G isnt the same league as X100.

2 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

Why did it have to be a Canon?

0 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (7 months ago)

if i am shooting Large JPG,
would i be able to transfer only small jpg for social media
on the wifi ?

that would be useful, since social media don't need
large files

0 upvotes
ludwik123
By ludwik123 (7 months ago)

Don't know about Canon. But the sony wifi system gives a choice of file sizes to send by wifi.

2 upvotes
lem12
By lem12 (7 months ago)

If Canon improves G1X's DR to match T2i's and do something about that Panorama feature too, I will buy that camera no questions! Even if price will go up $200 or so. I've previously owned Canon's compacts and they are great!
Advanced compact from Canon with larger sensor... G1X??

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (7 months ago)

...and, I hope that wi-fi logo may be removed, what a ugly logo, really. lack of taste for the design/aesthetics, if it exists.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
nevada5
By nevada5 (7 months ago)

This makes me say, "Funny, you'd think that'd be interesting."

I loved the IQ from my G1X - it amazed me. But DR was just not up to the task. Why not tweak that sensor, tweak the lens, add a great EVF and win over a lot of M43 owners? I don't care if it's bigger, it's still much more compact and convenient than a bag of lenses.

They proved, with the G1X, that it can be done. Then they quit. Pity.

6 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (7 months ago)

At least they made the G1X, I dont' see anyone else making anything like it.

4 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

@cgarrard, I agree. The G1X is an awesome camera and the sensor is special. I have been hoping for a G2X that is actually slightly smaller and streamlined. It would still be large enough to meet all the requests we are reading about..EVF, tilt screen on and on.

Come on Canon!

We also have the G15. Great ergonomics but it really does need a sensor update.

3 upvotes
hulsbosjc
By hulsbosjc (6 months ago)

G2 X, please!
My beloved G12 feels old and weary (yes, scratches on its lens)
HanHul

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (7 months ago)

I wouldnt be suprised if this was last Gxx they made.

Canon again made product which is obsolete even brand new.

Maybe time for that mirrorless train? Or at least some decent PnS camera ala Sony?

That OVF made laugh. Dont get me wrong, I love OVF on dSLRs, but on G series (which should be premium PnS) its laughable since Panasonic made its G1. And thats been few years now..

2 upvotes
KW Phua
By KW Phua (7 months ago)

People prefer better IQ can go RX___ or even G1X. People prefer pocketable, macro, faster and better change to capture moment go G16. Some people enjoying taking good picture, some enjoying comparing high IQ picture. Go for your choice. All camera can take good picture, only how much is the chances. That is why Pro go 1DX or D4.

1 upvote
Jeffery1987
By Jeffery1987 (7 months ago)

pocketable huh?

2 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (7 months ago)

Those 2 cameras are great low resolution, fast cameras.

0 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (7 months ago)

G16 pocketable... I dont think so, if yo want pocketable and similar IQ get a S110 or S120

2 upvotes
RAG64
By RAG64 (7 months ago)

Jostian, unfortunately there's a big difference between "similar IQ" and "same IQ". Not to speak of a fast lens on the tele side.

1 upvote
Wim1964
By Wim1964 (6 months ago)

Is it me or is the Nikon Coolpix P7700 sharper in the lower ISO-values?

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (7 months ago)

"The PowerShot G16 features the same sensor as the previous-generation G15"

First sentence page 2 of article.

Switched off and clicked on another more interesting page.

.

27 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

agree, the G15's high ISO performance needs work.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

IMHO what they should do is dump the sensor completely, put 1" inside, redesign body to be smaller, but still retaining VF (although this time - a bigger one). That should allow this camera to stand a chance against the competition. Cause right now? Making it was a waste of resources.

5 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

I agree. That's the problem with these cameras. Their small sensors demand progress with each new generation for them to keep competing or fall behind so much that even the better zoom range isn't enough.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Neal Hood
By Neal Hood (7 months ago)

Canon needs to bring their line up to date. For a viewfinder camera, its big and heavy. I would opt for one of their (or Nikon) DSLR, or get something like the Sony RX100 or Fuji for a top shelf small camera.

0 upvotes
Hachu21
By Hachu21 (7 months ago)

To DPR :
What about focus peaking?
What about handheld HDR?
What about the exposure time up to 250s and the new nightscenes?
And the background defocus mode? Is it a useless gadget or not?

Even for a "first impression", please speak about the new functions.

And... are you sure the sensor is the same?
Canon's sites are making a difference
- G15 = CMOS sensor
- G16 = BSI CMOS sensor

Thanks for the review.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

Peaking is discussed in the fourth paragraph - we hope to include some examples soon.

There's a question mark over the sensor. We've gone back and asked Canon US about it - they're insisting it's the same as the G15 (FSI). Canon Europe's website says BSI CMOS.

We have already amended our text to reflect this inconsistency, but the simple answer is that we can't be sure. Our testing shows little difference between the G15 and G16, but we're only at the beginning of testing.

6 upvotes
Hachu21
By Hachu21 (7 months ago)

I missed the peaking passage. Thanks for your reply.

0 upvotes
b534202
By b534202 (7 months ago)

Shouldn't this site be big enough to sacrifice a G15 & a G16, and actually open them up and compare the sensors physically?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

@b534202 - It's a lovely idea with just two downsides:

1) We don't own the cameras and they're all returned after we've reviewed them.

2) It's much harder to review a camera when you've ripped it to pieces.

3) I haven't got an ST microscope to assess the pixel architecture, even if I were feeling destructive/investigative.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (7 months ago)

I´m also interested who much the HDR is improved (if it´s improved at all). Still a fully automatic mode with no control over ISO, shutter speed or aperture or even AF area? Sony RX100 does it lovely with full manual controls. I use it often. My Canon s95 HDR mode is worthless.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it says BSI here:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/dcam/lineup/powershot/g16/spec.html

0 upvotes
RAG64
By RAG64 (7 months ago)

Elaka, unfortunately the G15's HDR mode was also worthless - completely unusable without a tripod and no control over the tiny exposure range. :(

0 upvotes
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (7 months ago)

The Canon G15 viewfinder is not a serious composition tool, nor do I believe it was ever intended to be so. Only a very few of its competitors offer a "tunnel view" viewfinder. It is a handy thing to have when grabbing a shot and due to it's narrower FOV, you are bound to get the subject. It should be compared to cameras in the same price range that have no viewfinder. Let's face it. The only viewfinders worth a damn come in the Leica M's, The Fuji X100's and the Fuji X-Pro-1 and so forth and they are priced accordingly. So, it is unfair to criticize the G15 for the limitations of it's viewfinder.

For what it is, the G15 (CMOS) is a great little camera. Nice to take along when I don't care to take a premium camera outfit with it's greater bulk. With the right settings, I have made some very good 13 X 19 prints with it.

The GX1 is priced higher than the G15. The G15, and I suppose the new G16 are good cameras for the purposes intended. And no one is forced to use the viewfinder.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

In college, I remember saving up the $300 for a Leica 28mm finder. That would be about $500 today and on the high side even for an outstanding, metal, optical finder. Of course it didn't have multiple focal lengths let alone zoom automatically but those things would have cost a lot more. So, when I hear criticism of these compact camera finders (by the same people are perfectly happy with more expensive cameras that lack a finder entirely).

1 upvote
Chuckmet
By Chuckmet (7 months ago)

I use the OVF on my G9 quite often. Is it 100% accurate, no but then again neither are most SLR's. OVF's are very handy in certain lighting conditions, quick grab shots or conserving battery life. You will have to crop final image to replicate what you saw in viewfinder but at least you will have a image to crop!

2 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (7 months ago)

My wife has made the excellent point that composing on a screen is not so great once you need reading glasses. A simple tunnel is way better than screen that too blurred to see

2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (7 months ago)

Adding weatherproof to this brick might be interesting. My old idea, refurbished. Cheers! :)

1 upvote
Musicjohn
By Musicjohn (7 months ago)

The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.

I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.

The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.

8 upvotes
austin design
By austin design (7 months ago)

What utter nonsense. Canon's G-series is unquestionably superior in both flexibility and, more important, image quality to just about anything similarly priced or cheaper. Maybe that's why it sells so well.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
20 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (7 months ago)

I have a G10, and I love it. It feels serious and not like most other compact cameras, by far to cheap. It is just the right size and have just the right controls.

3 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (7 months ago)

As a Canon user with about $30K worth of their equipment they have been to me like the Toyota of P&S and compacts, so boring and I have never ever entertained the idea of one of their compact cameras, in the same way I wouldn't touch a Toyota bar the 86.

I'm not sure why they even bother with the G16, just fix the myriad of issues with the G1X, make it overall more compact, fit a good EVF and lower the price and then I might be interested in anything they have outside of a DSLR.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
JacobSR
By JacobSR (7 months ago)

Why thx1138? Was that your favorite movie or something?

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (7 months ago)

@bored rich person
Was 86 a good year for Toyotas? Probably wet pebbles with a dash of blackberry and camellia petals suffused with delicate oak flavours.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (7 months ago)

The car they make called the 86 is brilliant, most un-Toyota like. Best car since the Supra and GT4.

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (7 months ago)

The First impression: Hmmm this camera feels so familiar !

Dude, its a G15 + wifi ...

(Olmypus XZ-2 rocks ;) with eye-fi cards it even rocks the other rocks !)

1 upvote
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (7 months ago)

Why would Canon continue with this line up when they the G1 X platform? Why not improve that one. This one (1/1.7" sensor) makes no sense. And what about the EOS M platform? Small sensor cameras are done. That sensor size has been conceded the smart phone industry! It would seem to me that the 1" sensor is a minimum for point and shot in this day and age. Comment?

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

think we just need a case/housing, like a G17 that one can put in a SX120 or EOS Mini in it and maintain the same ergonomic operation, mostly for seniors.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

A guess would be that a G1X with a faster lens and much more processing speed would be $1200+ and those customers would buy Fuji instead. An improved EOS M is on the way but looks like they're in no hurry.

2 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (7 months ago)

All the G1X really needs is a better viewfinder (EVF?) and to throw away the silly folding screen. They could fix some details but nothing too serious. I continue to be amazed at the image quality from such a small (zoom lensed) camera.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (7 months ago)

To AbrasiveReducer, I could see the price possibly moving up to $700, but I don't think it has to be pushed to $1200 to make it a top notch player in its class.

0 upvotes
David Hardaway
By David Hardaway (7 months ago)

Agree 100%. At minimum this camera should have 1 inch sensor. If they pulled the g16 and focused on g1x they would make more money. The eos m is a jewel. But not everyone has desire for interchangeable lenses. Canon would rock the market with a g1x in g16 body with skooth mp4 1080 video.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Why would Canon continue with this line up? - because it still sells well.

There are not too many PowerShot cameras left that do.

0 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (7 months ago)

That's a pretty damn good shot of the guitarist at 12,800!

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (7 months ago)

In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

The JPEG comes out of the camera tweaked six ways from Sunday. The RAW must have some adjustment applied in order to be viewable, but the main difference is one can choose to maintain detail in RAW post processing while the JPEG is usually aggressively smoothed to reduce noise. In addition white balance correction, tone mapping, and other changes made to RAW files can be done more effectively than changes made to an already processed JPEG file.

2 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

The point was tweaking the jpeg for a more level comparison, not how much you can tweak.
I find in practical application, especially with Camera Raw 7, jpegs can be tweaked quite a bit. The file size is a hint as to how far you can push.
File:Open As:Camera Raw for those who don't know. PS Elements 11 Camera Raw will bring up shadows just the same as PhotoShop or Lightroom as far as I know. Be sure to open in 16 bits, the latest Camera Raw 8 setting looks like a web link, I didn't want to go on the web so didn't click there until I searched the internet. It also sets to 8 bit by default. Another "What were they thinking?" The setting is at the bottom center left.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

8 bits per channel is all the JPEG encodes, therefore they were thinking that they would open an 8 bit image in 8 bit color space. 8 bits per channel, meaning a total of 24 bits. RAW color is 14 bits per channel. The size of the JPEG reveals absolutely zero about how much it can be tweaked. The file size only reveals how efficiently the JPEG was compressed. For example, if you take a picture of a smooth black surface at ISO 100 your file size will be extremely small. Crank it up to ISO 3200 and your file size will increase because you have increased the noise, making compression much less efficient.
A RAW file can be processed to look exactly like the JPEG. That is by no means fair because the reason you shoot RAW is so you can choose how to edit your images without first having to deal with everything the JPEG has baked in and can not be undone. JPEG is more easily edited when all processing settings are set as low as they will go and there are still changes made.

0 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

" The size of the JPEG reveals absolutely zero about how much it can be tweaked." As it makes no difference I should reset all my cameras to the highest compression / smallest file size.

Didn't I say "hint"? Of course this is not an absolute. With similar scenes at the same ISO I believe I am correct. You can go shoot black walls all you want. The quality of compression also does indeed vary from camera to camera. For reasons of my own I almost always set the camera to the largest file size.

"A RAW file can be processed to look exactly like the JPEG." Uh, isn't that turned around bacKwards from what was intended? We want the best tweaked jpeg compared to the best tweaked RAW.

I often compare the full size least compressed jpeg to the raw when the camera will shoot raw + jpeg. If the jpeg is better I'm doing something wrong (again). I open the jpeg in DPP and compare side by side with what I (am attempting to) edit in Camera Raw.

0 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

Also editing a jpeg in 16 bit will do a better job. Try it, it shouldn't hurt. Adobe doesn't know best, they just think they do.

I use Elements because I can afford it and know the workarounds. That means I open in Camera Raw even if I do no changes there just to force 16 bit editing. I would probably go minus one or two in Clarity because it looks better to me when at 100 per cent or higher.

0 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

I apologize. I didn't think to click on the jpeg and when I did the large file came out, probably the original, I didn't check.

I opened it in Camera Raw and got nowhere with the White Balance Tool on his shirt. Then I saw a bit of white in the upper right and one click did what I thought could be done. Better but not as good as the raw as usual.

Was the camera set to AWB? If it estimated the shirt to be white this could have thrown it off. The exif seems to have been stripped (which is what I would do, my name and phone are in there for security).

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

I said the file size makes no difference, and that does not refer to the compression being used. Of course lowest compression with highest res is best. Did I really need to say that? Any way, no it doesn't even hint because settings like sharpening, contrast, white balance, and noise reduction don't really have a direct and predictable correlation to the file size. Detail, color variation, and other things related only to what is being photographed have a much greater impact....more detail, more color, more variation means bigger files. Anyway, I think we agree on this point. And large superfine (lowest compression) is always the way to go....or RAW.
Yes on the best of both tweaked types of files. However, the assumption is that a vast majority of the tweaking of JPEGs will be done in-camera rather than post processing the JPEG. RAW must be PP, but people want to see what the camera can do with a JPEG not what the reviewer can do in PS.

0 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

Many of my cameras will not shoot in raw or shoot too slowly in raw for some situations. I edit the jpegs in Camera Raw and they seem to me to get better. Sometimes much better.

Must I do what others do?

"I said the file size makes no difference, and that does not refer to the compression being used."

I don't understand this.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

No, edit as you see fit. The file size gives no indication of how many tonal levels exist within the file to which adjustments can be made. Yes, compression level and resolution settings will change file size, but using the same compression setting and resolution setting will yield many file sizes of a very wide range. RAW files are larger because they maintain all captured data in 14 bits per channel. JPEG compresses and discards data, yielding smaller file sizes. JPEG also take advantage of patterns, so the smoother and less varied an image is the smaller the file size will be. RAW does compress data but without any loss of data...lossless compression. JPEG is lossy because it discards a great deal of data in order to achieve much greater compression. So, do as you will using your best methods. If you enjoy editing JPEG you will get better results if you turn sharpness, contrast, etc. to their lowest setting then adjust in post.

0 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

The one other subject is saving the jpeg after editing. I now save at the highest resolution. I know that I could probably not see a difference higher than 10 (Adobe) but what can the printer see?
Also I may want to do a quick edit for something I missed and at 12 I should lose less opening and saving. Storage is cheap. The edited file may be bigger than the original but that is fine with me. For cameras under 8 megapixels (love the Fuji S6000 shot in raw at ISO 100) I double the resolution right after opening from Camera Raw (x1.5 in dimensions) as they edit a little better. Fuji's software for Super CCD did that too.

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (7 months ago)

Unfortunately, it appears the the G15's wi-fi does not do the one thing that many photographers would find far more useful than uploading images to the web: It doesn't let the user control the camera from a smartphone screen (with the help of a dedicated smartphone app). It seems to me that this is the killer feature made possible by the addition of wi-fi.

3 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (7 months ago)

The starting price should stay the same as last year. I have no problem with Canon continuing on using a 1/1.7" sensor but the Sony RX line should be putting downward price pressure on cameras like the G16 and the P7800 as they represent the low end of the enthusiast compact market now. The G15 started at $500 but settled to $450 and has sold at that price for most of its lifespan. And that's the pricepoint I think the G16 should be sold at as well.

I remember when the Olympus XZ-2 came out last year, Olympus had the nerve to charge $600 for that camera to start out and I don't think that camera has sold very well as a result.

This looks like a very solid camera, but Canon needs to be a little more realistic with the MSRP.

6 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (7 months ago)

So buy a G15 now or pay the extra to be on the cutting edge. Early adopters always get the worst prices. Me, I wait till cameras are in the bargain bins or even buy used DSLRs (two of them so far) when they get insanely cheap. The k-5 I bought for 900 a year ago? Now worth $500 at best and not much more for a new copy. I'm really more than ok being a year or two behind the curve, but yeah if you need the latest and greatest and have to have it now, then better be prepared to spend a premium and companies are fully aware of this and let prices settle on their own. The pentax Q was originally $700 when it came out.

0 upvotes
randalusa
By randalusa (7 months ago)

Does it still have the worst viewfinder since the throwaway paper cameras of yesteryear? What I remember from the G12 and giving up on the series right then was a tiny plastic square with NO information inside, no focus ability, just a tunnel showing the other side of the camera that frames an approximate size of what the photo is going to be.

Now I see here and backwards one number (G15) absence of the articulating screen. Plus you're still dealing with a measly 5x zoom. Waste of an idea. At least Nikon and some others continue trying to make what photogs actually want.

What once looked like an attempt to offer a useful tool for pros (G6) now appears to be a psychology study in turning off all enthusiasm among the faithful. That way when ultimately curtailing production altogether, the CEO can tell shareholders that sales were too low. What he won't be telling anyone on that day is that money from customers walked away after investment and innovation were withdrawn by the company.

4 upvotes
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (7 months ago)

Sorry, Canon, I've just bought a Sony RX100 II to replace my aging G9.

12 upvotes
Master Yoda
By Master Yoda (7 months ago)

If Canon ever upgrades the G1X it will kill the G15/16 and that is why we probably won't see a G1X upgrade . . . ever. The G16 has no 24mm, no articulating screen, no large sensor and no chance of being taken as seriously as this series once was taken.

4 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (7 months ago)

The marketplace decided which of the two cameras would continue to be developed. The GXX series vastly outsold the G1 X, and the G1 X was a sales flop.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jadmaister2
By jadmaister2 (7 months ago)

whats funny about a metal body containing a full frame sensor, a viewfinder, a focusing system that works, no gimmicks and a choice of the best glass in the world?
Oh...apart from the cost.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

In a way, the G1X is like the EOS M. Serious image quality in a relatively small package and currently not that expensive. These cameras have not done well because consumers are not willing to give up convenience and "essential" features like sweep panorama, just to get better image quality.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

I really, really want to see the research showing what a huge flop the G1 X was. Can I get a link? Someone? Anyone?
I don't think Canon would have invested so heavily in a new design (lens, body, sensor) just to abandon it almost immediately. A G2 X certainly would not kill its lower cost brethren. A G2 X with Dual Pixel PDAF would compete in the high-end P&S market very well, and would not necessarily invade the M or the G16 segments too deeply. It is a market segement that appeals to people with high standards for IQ but also need a self-contained, small camera. An M2 and a G2 X could easily cost the same but still appeal to two different users.
Not only that, but Canon would probably get all of the G1 X users to updgrade. Most of us love our G1 X but would gladly pay again for a big jump in AF technology. I don't think this was necessarily in Canon's play book because it did need to release the G1 X before another year of DP PDAF development went by.

5 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (7 months ago)

If Canon upgrades the G1X, they need to get rid of all the useless bloat that afflicts the current model. The forte of the G1X is its excellent image quality. This is what matters. Canon should have marketed the camera as a serious photographic tool. Canon really need to sack their marketing dept and put their engineers in charge.

2 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

Have to agree that the G1X is terrific but too big. Make a G2X smaller and it will be a big seller.

Time for a larger sensor in the G15-16 series. We have both the G15 and the RX100 and image quality wise the Sony wins handily.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

mcshan, the RX100 has a considerably smaller sensor than the G1 X so comparing the size of those isn't of much use. Canon has no interest in 1" sensors so far, but who knows if they might in the future. As for making the G2 X smaller, that's never going to happen. They've pushed their limits with the lens already, so making the body smaller isn't really an option.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (7 months ago)

I do not think G1x is a flop. It has been sold a very long time now. It is always in stock. I think it has a steady customer stream. Maybe not super high sales, but reliable.

The main problem with G1x is its outdated focussing. It is slow and unreliable. If it were not for that little problem, I would have bought one a long time ago.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

It is neither slow nor unreliable. It isn't blazing fast and in certain situations it is not as reliable as my 7D, but I have had no issues with speed or reliability when used appropriately. It can't be used in all situations like a DSLR like the 7D can. Take it from someone who did buy one a long time ago....and many, many others.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (7 months ago)

Canon must make G1X faster AF first by releasing G2x and then see what people response.
Current condition slow AF is not good for G1X

1 upvote
OBI656
By OBI656 (7 months ago)

When Canon will break "ice" and start to make serious cameras like Leica do ... I wonder ...

0 upvotes
electrophoto
By electrophoto (7 months ago)

Like Leica?

I am pretty sure you wanted to say "like Panasonic"...

(sorry, but leica has become a somewhat decadent sad joke)

3 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (7 months ago)

I tought he meant "Leica"
;)

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Konrad Lefkon
By Konrad Lefkon (7 months ago)

I've got a 'Leicanasonic' TV and it's great ;)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

electrophoto:

Let's see Panasonic has nothing to do with either the M body or the Leica S system DSLR+lenses. Both are plenty serious if expensive.

Even the best Canon lenses for SLRs can't don't approach the optical quality of good Leica M lenses, or S lenses.

Then of course the Panaleica LX5 and now the LX7 are stiff competition for this Canon G16.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

Interesting that Nikon and Canon are going to battle it out to see who can make the best camera with a sensor that's too small. Although I didn't care for the Sony, assuming the G16 is the same price, I'd definitely take the Sony.

Please Canon, give us an updated G1X. The image quality is already there; it just needs the computer stuff.

4 upvotes
inohuri
By inohuri (7 months ago)

Sensor that is too small for what?
This is my favorite size, small enough for deep depth of field, just big enough for quality. My A640 has too often outdone my Xsi/450D with prime Nikkor or Canon lenses especially if shot in dng raw with CHDK.

0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

Yeah, sensor too small? According to DPR themselves, the RX100 have sensors that are too small.

0 upvotes
mecadeus
By mecadeus (7 months ago)

It's just junk without an articulating screen. Shame on Canon.

11 upvotes
jonte0
By jonte0 (7 months ago)

But how long is it between shot and picture displayed on screen? This was a major issue with the older models.

0 upvotes
Stefan Gunnarsson
By Stefan Gunnarsson (7 months ago)

I left Canon G12 & S95 and went for Sony RX100. I am not looking back until bigger sensor.
Still happy with my Canon 7D and are awaiting 7D Mark II.

11 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (7 months ago)

The picture title "JPEG, ISO 3200" look like a typo error (the portrait on page 2), it is probably ISO 80.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (7 months ago)

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.

2 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (7 months ago)

Yes, it is too good to be true :)

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (7 months ago)

Spent all this time since the launch of the RX100 series, which still has no competition. RX100 series continues to be years ahead of the competition. And I say unfortunately.

13 upvotes
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (7 months ago)

Or maybe just until RX10 comes out next month, that is.

4 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (7 months ago)

Small sensor compact cameras don't really have to carry a built in vf,vast number of external controls,etc,etc,i.e.being small.
Canon has the s series which have similar sized sensor and they are REALLY small.What's more in G series?..and that design?..for so long? Every single year the same and the same with minor adjustments (Canon's philosophy).
Discontinue G series,evolve Gx series!..If somebody needs i/1.7 size sensor he'll get the s120.
..Once Canon discontinues,Nikon will the P series (immense afterall!).

3 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (7 months ago)

Give it a 1 inch sensor - EVF and it might become relevant again, oh and a touch-screen facility would be good too - Canon are market leaders in that department.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
misha marinsky4
By misha marinsky4 (7 months ago)

I have a G1X. I won't go to a smaller chip. I live the OVF, rather than an EVF.

4 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (7 months ago)

I forgot about the G1X - good camera, but Canon's G-series OVF's can't compare to the latest batch of high-res EVF's with their full coverage and no tunnel-vision effect. Give them a high frame-rate and your pretty much golden, except maybe in very low light.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

The only thing the G1X has going for it is a big sensor and really high image quality. In all other respects, it's primitive.

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (7 months ago)

I think that's the way to go. Take a camera like this one, and scale it up till its big enough to cram a 1" sensor in. The size isn't the biggest issue with these as they already aren't pocketable, and the improved IQ will set them apart from cell phones.

1 upvote
gpsgps
By gpsgps (7 months ago)

G1X + twist&swivel screen (can be touch sensitive) + better battery + solid macro + brighter lens + remote flash control + tripod socket distanced from battery/card door + ISO/EXPOSURE ADJ on wheels + quick 5/10x magnified pre/after-shot focus confirmation + time-lapse + custom self-timer + more protruding grip (slightly) - and you have got a winner.

2 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (7 months ago)

agree with Abrasive, the G1X had brill IQ and great built but I had mine 6 months and got rid of it, the SLOOOW AF and less than stellar operational speed irritated me no end. That said, the photos it produced were awesome!

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (7 months ago)

I see no reason for the camera to exist while the Sony RX100 is on the market.

I can think of no possible reason to choose it. This is a good thing - it will make Canon work harder and raise their product standards.

Its gotta be said, the reasons for getting a compact camera are getting fewer and fewer, so they have to be exceptional.

13 upvotes
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (7 months ago)

I'd pick the Canon over Sony. I would probably take better pictures with the G16 due to the ergonomic interface. It look so much more enjoyable.

5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (7 months ago)

Ergonomics and usability. I would also pick this Canon over the Sony. In fact, I picked the Pentax Q7 over the Sony RX100 MKII. (yes, *I did try* the Sony)

7 upvotes
SWSF14
By SWSF14 (7 months ago)

Just a guess, but it exists because it outsells the RX100. It looks more "Pro" and has a cheaper price, which is what consumers in the big box stores will look at.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

I am pretty sure it doesn't outsell RX100. Not even close. It's still $550 camera. The street prices of RX100 M 1 are around the same.

According to flickr stats most popular p&s camera on their site is RX100

8 upvotes
Jostian
By Jostian (7 months ago)

yip RX100 mk2 is brilliant IQ wise, but its ergonomics and price are real let downs...

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (7 months ago)

I question whether this camera merits review with so many other exciting products being introduced. Regardless, it is disappointing that cameras of this size and cost haven't migrated to at least the sensor size of the Nikon 1, RX100 cameras. Develop the GIX. This model was ready for retirement.

12 upvotes
Pitbullo
By Pitbullo (7 months ago)

Good review!
I am thinking of buying this camera to my wife for christmas. I guess it is a good choice no matter what, and she can also use my Canon flashes if she need to.

4 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (7 months ago)

If your wife likes a lot of buttons and knobs, yes, but if she likes a simple user interface on a small camera that takes good photos, and good video, I'd say go with the RX100 (no essential difference in street price).

3 upvotes
Pitbullo
By Pitbullo (7 months ago)

Yes, that is a good point. I do want a hotshoe, and she is quite a capable photographer. Though, the camera would spend most of its time in full auto... I´ll let her choose herself :)

1 upvote
gtixlr8r
By gtixlr8r (7 months ago)

Compromise, compromise. I replaced a beyond repair G11 with a Nikon 7700 and miss the optical viewfinder dearly. One feature from Canon, Sony and Nikon will get my money: External controls and optical viewfinder, articulating LCD and a large sensor. Is it really too much to ask???

1 upvote
rpm40
By rpm40 (7 months ago)

This camera really should have an articulating LCD- the minimal size increase would be worth it. People aren't stuffing it in their pants pockets anyway.

The Nikon p7100 had everything you mention too (if you consider these 1/1.7 sensors large...). The Nikon p7800 looks even better, and seems like the most complete all around compact right now to me- nice IQ, good zoom range with a fairly fast lens, good controls, articulating lcd and EVF. If you can live with an EVF instead of an OVF (and they are getting much better lately and have their own inherent advantages) it could be an attractive choice. Or you could always step up to the big boy G1X.

1 upvote
Andrew Butterfield
By Andrew Butterfield (7 months ago)

A comparitive review of these two cameras would be interesting.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (7 months ago)

I hope canon reduce the needed of the APP. and also try improve the low light photo quality

0 upvotes
Kwick1
By Kwick1 (7 months ago)

Since when do DP Review's reviews contain this disclaimer: "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies. "?

10 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (7 months ago)

Since the Gear Shop opened, I would presume.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

It's there on anything written in the 'articles' section of the site, because that part of the site can also be used by external contributors and members such as yourselves, whose opinion do not necessarily...

At the moment there's no means of removing that when the content it written by dpr staff. It's been there for about two years now.

1 upvote
Konrad Lefkon
By Konrad Lefkon (7 months ago)

I feel comparing this G16 with a Sony RX100M2 with the 20+MP sensor is a bit tricky. However, from the studio scene comparison in the RX100M2 review the G16 (as well as all the other cameras available in the comparison) seems to have sharper/better IQ in the corners than the Sony. For me, and don't shoot me for saying so, I'm not so convinced the Sony is the automatic choice others seem to think it is.

I'm looking forwards to seeing the Nikon P7800 with its 28-200 equivalent lens and the electronic viewfinder/movable viewfinder screen.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

The Sony is a lovely camera. Looks great, lots of technology and very good image quality for it's size. As the young folks say "I wanted to like it". But the corners were soft at the wide setting. I tried two, and DPRs test chart shows the same. Obviously, this isn't a problem for most people.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (7 months ago)

@AbrasiveReducer: Not for me, definitely. I love the low light capability it offers, like shooting our family Christmas dinner at the candlelight.

1 upvote
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

Isn't that simply a direct function of the Sony lens having to cover a larger image circle?

0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (7 months ago)

DPR wrote:
" Nikon has announced the Coolpix P7800, a camera intended fairly clearly as a 'G-series killer' "
IMHO there's already a Canon G AND Nikon P killer, called Sony RX100 MII ( even the RX100 does that ), by far.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
21 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

!!!!

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (7 months ago)

I don't think it's that simple. The rx100s clearly have the edge over other compacts in the IQ/size ratio, and will have the edge for low light IQ at wide angle. IQ in good light should be close enough to not make a difference, particularly with the p7700/7800s nice lens.

On the other hand, the Nikon gives you a viewfinder, better grip, better controls, and more zoom range. Plus, the lens is faster zoomed in, so the IQ should be close there in low light as well.

If size is key, and you want something pocketable, the rx100 is probably the best you can buy. If size isn't a big concern for someone, there are other alternatives that are just as good, and for many, better.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tarmov
By tarmov (7 months ago)

Sony RX100 (and MII) are a very good sidekick pocketable choice for low light, zoom and video, while Sigma DP Merrill (any of the 3) is for the ultimate picture quality.

I don't see any Canon models as useful any more in such a combo mix, although I still admire the workhorse strengths (and the chdk upgrades) of Canon A610.

1 upvote
Jostian
By Jostian (7 months ago)

pity about the RX100 mk2's crappy ergonomics though, EVERY review has mentioned this, the inability to 'connect' with the camera, its feels "sterile" to use... produces great results yes but as engaging as watching paint dry! that non clickable front ring is one example, its feels horrible, no tangible feedback at all...as a photographic too no thanks as a great P&S fine!

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (7 months ago)

This is a great travel camera when used outdoors or where you can keep the ISO's low. I have to agree with those who say that the price of admission is a bit too much when you consider what else is out there these days.

1 upvote
h2k
By h2k (7 months ago)

I think in a list of "Key Features" you should mention whether the screen is tiltable or not - it used to be signature feature of many G-PowerShots and was missed when a G model came without a vari-angle screen (which is essential for composing more varying images).

I think mentioning this feature (or the absence of it) is even more useful in this article here where the pictures close to the "Key Features" don't reveal the kind of monitor built into the G16 (aware that i can use the provided link to the press release).

1 upvote
SWSF14
By SWSF14 (7 months ago)

Agreed about the mentioning of tilting screen. It would seem that whoever ok'd this article has very little actual experience with this lineup. Puzzling as this range has been relevant for a long time.

1 upvote
garyknrd
By garyknrd (7 months ago)

Hopefully I am going to start traveling again next month. I have been looking at small cameras. But when I see the sensor of the rx100 II against this or the gs15. Right now I think I am going with the Sony?

13 upvotes
tokajilover
By tokajilover (7 months ago)

I do like the pictures from the RX100, yes i really do.
maybe, i am a highly "haptical guy", but the longer i have it - the less i like it.
The Grip is a shame, it is slippery as it gets (i glued anti-slippery stickers arround) and the programmed user interface imho is not helping the photographer.
the filming-button is so close to were the thumb has to grip the camera that i started unintentionally many "films" - sometimes i wanted to take a pic but i was allready filming.

from the using point, imho the canon is sublime, and yes, unfortunately (maybe intendet) the canaon delivers less good pictures (manly in less perfect lighting situation witch in my case is 70% of the pics i take)

summary i use today the sony but really love to get a canon g16.
newer owned both at the same time, so newer had the momently coice - but that would be interesting - for witch % would i had chose wich camera.
my guess is the canon.

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

@toka, We have the G15 and original RX100. The ergonomics of the Canon are better BUT to me image quality tops the list and images from the Sony are much better.

Canon needs to take a look at sensor size.

1 upvote
AlexBakerPhotoz
By AlexBakerPhotoz (7 months ago)

These cameras are really nice but there are getting to be so many new small pocketable cameras with significantly larger sensors that I can't picture a serious enthusiast buying one in this category anymore. I'm in the market for a new small camera to have with me all the time instead of my bulky DSLRs, but am tilting to the 1" or APS-C sensor small cameras now available for not too much more $$.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (7 months ago)

You don't need to picture it- they are buying them. That's the reality despite our personal wish lists. Canon wouldn't produce them if they weren't buying, or for that matter Nikon, or Panasonic, or Leica, or or or or or

I'm not coming to their defense, the big sensor of the RX100II is nice, but it comes at a cost. Everything comes at a cost.

3 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (7 months ago)

Exactly.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (7 months ago)

Insightful.

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

Indeed.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

The 1080p @ 60 FPS would be a great addition if it actually had anywhere near that resolvable resolution. When zoomed in the video looks fairly detailed. When zoomed out it looks more like 480p than 1080p.

Still a good camera though. Price is a bit high at launch but I am sure it will come down.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 350
123