Previous news story    Next news story

Canon PowerShot G16 Real-world Samples Gallery

By dpreview staff on Aug 26, 2013 at 17:51 GMT
Buy on GearShop$499.00

Canon's latest flagship compact camera features a 12MP CMOS sensor, 28-140mm equivalent zoom lens and built-in WiFi. The PowerShot G16 was announced just a few days ago, but we've managed to get hold of one and we've spent the weekend shooting with it in a range of different environments. There's more content on the way, but in the meantime, we hope you enjoy our quick 38-image gallery of JPEGs from the 12MP PowerShot G16. 

Canon PowerShot G16 Sample Gallery

Canon PowerShot G16 Samples Gallery - published August 26th 2013

There are 38 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

75
I own it
46
I want it
26
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: 92
CMurdock
By CMurdock (7 months ago)

I don't know what city that is across the river in image 0278, but it is horribly blurry. I have a very old Canon point-and-shoot camera that has a 7 MP sensor that can do better than that. 12 MP isn't that big, so Canon should have been able to get clearer pictures out of the sensor. In the early days I thought that Canon was the best brand, but I haven't felt that way in about seven years.

The fact is, Sigma cameras have spoiled me for other brands. Sigma images are so sharp and clear. But the images from this Canon camera seem like a throw-back to five years ago; that kind of blurriness is no longer acceptable.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
arieswar
By arieswar (8 months ago)

G16 might be better than G15 but the price can't be justified and it doesn't have enough improvements to attract existing users of G15 and even G12, and IQ still inferior to RX100. Come on man, canon do better than that

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (8 months ago)

You're tough guys! ISO3200 is nothing short of amazing noise wise (but DR is really compromised, pay attention to you histogram). Look at this example: nice tight grain, excellent colour.

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2671445.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1377605018&Signature=Hdx%2b6xoF6K4fQz3ai3I7eyYsaI4%3d

I think Canon gained half a stop of low light goodness thanks to the new combination sensor/processor.
I'm just disappointed that they didn't go as wide as 24mm, and to see purple fringing less well handled than in my S110. A lot of it around bright spots. :(
I'd still chose G16 over LX7 because of thickness, and color management in JPEGS. Yes JPEGS, we still need them for family shots. :)

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jahled
By Jahled (8 months ago)

Blimey, I was going to say something cynical about the usual comments that greet anything much posted here, but those samples are seriously dreadful. Boring and dreadful.

0 upvotes
Michael Knight
By Michael Knight (8 months ago)

still nothing to even compete with sony RX100?

I'd still choose RX100 over this. or is RX100 too compact? more resolutions? not apple-to-apple comparison? ok, fine... I'll pick LX7 then...

2 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (8 months ago)

Low light photos is Not so good in my opinion, example IMG_0364

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (8 months ago)

What really should be done here is side-by-side images of G15 AND G16.

Then run a contest: Spot the picture taken by the real G16!

Pixel zombies will have a heyday.

.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Hachu21
By Hachu21 (8 months ago)

Add RX100 I & II to the side by side too.
I know RX's will be better, but i want to evaluate the size of the step...
Just to know if the sony is such a no brainer as people like to describe it.

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (8 months ago)

What's up with the lens in your sample? It looks decentered or misaligned if you ask me. The upper right in most shots is very telling. Not impressed.

1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (8 months ago)

I don't know if those shots were taken in auto mode, but if they were, it's quite competent at exposure control, and the color balance very good. The skin color was, not analizing much, close to perfect, looking quite natural. It's the G just getting better and better, but I guess I would still get the LX7. Inferior, but for me buying a camera with a such small sensor, it has to come with a heck of a bright German lens, just for me to admire it and boast about it (may sound silly, I know). Other than that, I don't see an appeal in it, and I would rather go for a 1-inch sensor or larger.

In the film era, there were the 110 film format, and it was already considered small and DOF limiting enough, and nowadays we have this strong culture on a sensor FIVE TIMES SMALLER!

1 upvote
Max Fun
By Max Fun (8 months ago)

I haven't looked at a compact in a while and I'm actually quite amazed at the clean ISO 1600 image (IMG_0485). Would not have imaged such clean images from a compact a few years ago.

But the problem is that the sensor is still tiny, and the DOF will still be an issue.

2 upvotes
Quest21
By Quest21 (8 months ago)

Is it me or IQ of older P@S were much better...

0 upvotes
RAG64
By RAG64 (8 months ago)

It's you.

9 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Yeah, definitely just you.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

It's mainly the drab day.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

If you're talking to me, WaynDB, I'm just tired of the online commenting mindset of dropping one's mental vomit haphazardly. People say things here they probably wouldn't say in front of other human beings or they say things without thought or consideration because it's just the internet, say whatever stupid thought first pops into your mind.

3 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (8 months ago)

Regardless of the fact that you make complete sense, you have been extra sensitive lately and more likely to give yourself a stress disease than put a dent in the Berlin wall of trolls that infest. DPR.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (8 months ago)

Canon makes many good lenses, but certainly the G16 lens is not among them. The sample pictures show clearly that the G16 lens is soft wide open in the corners. Take, for example, the picture IMG_0520, with the lens at F/2.0. The center is sharp, but the foliage in the upper left corner is very fuzzy because of astigmatism and coma. Similarly, the lettering in the sign farthest from the center is considerably more blurred than other sign.

The corners are visibly worse than the center even at F/2.8, as can be seen by observing the details of the houses in IMG_0281.

As an experiment, I reduced with PS the resolution of IMG_0520 to 2000 x 1500 (3 MP), but, surprisingly, the corner softness was still evident. If the G16 lens would be marginally suitable for a 3 MP sensor, imagine how limited it is for use with the actual 12 MP sensor.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

What you're seeing is the same barrel distortion correction that every point and shoot suffers from. The lens pushes the limits of its size and that results in distortion that has to be corrected in software, which results in softer corners. Oh, and very, very few lenses are any good in the corners at f/2 anyway. Or even f/2.8. Your downsizing experiment is extremely flawed. The issue is the size of the image circle. Now take the center 3MP of the image and see how stunningly amazing it is. The edges and especially the corners that come from all but the most expensive lenses are often softer at wide apertures and short focal lengths. The corners are the worst because you have to spend a lot of money to make sure the very perimeter of the image circle stays sharp as well as distortion and vignetting free.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (8 months ago)

No, howardroark, I think we are seeiing a decentered lens. In all the shots I looked at the right was softer than the left, especially in the upper right. The upper half is softer than the lower half too. If that is the best performance that lens offers, then I wouldn't bother with this camera at all.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Whether it is decentered or not, there is distortion being corrected in-camera. The only camera that I know of put under the microscope enough to thoroughly explore the subject is the G1 X, but that example revealed a lot about what goes into the design of a point and shoot camera.

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (8 months ago)

Looks like Canon has a new approach to noise reduction. They seem to be letting more grain show through rather than try to obliterate it at high ISOs. I think it looks much better this way. Of course people will complain about the noise now. Nikon N1 cameras and the LX7 are similar at handling the noise. Much better than looking at a smeary water color mess.

5 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (8 months ago)

Hard to justify it in the days of RX 100.

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Hard to justify an RX100 in the days of the G1 X. Hard to justify the G1 X in the days of the 70D. Hard to justify the 70D in the days of the 5DIII. Hard to justify the 5DIII in the days of the 1D X.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Howard, you are kind of skipping segments here. The RX100 is also a premium compact.

0 upvotes
Jahled
By Jahled (8 months ago)

Sony software was designed by someone with a genuine grudge against mankind, hence why I avoid anything Sony unleash upon the world. That is all

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

LOL I've never heard the Sony menu system described so well.

2 upvotes
Rob Sims
By Rob Sims (8 months ago)

I agree with Jahled's comments re: Sony software on the NEX, but actually the RX100's menus are fine.

0 upvotes
Ken Rocket
By Ken Rocket (8 months ago)

I suspect Canon improved the IQ, but of course I wish to check the reviews.

1 upvote
panamforeman
By panamforeman (8 months ago)

Since I own the G15 I'm not sure I will buy the G16. But I'm open to it! Just want to see comments from owners who have had it for awhile, and also some professional reviews, i.e. dpreview.

One thing though I would like to see is a 24mm lens like the S110/120 has. Would that make the camera that much bigger?

1 upvote
quitomarez
By quitomarez (8 months ago)

It seems to me that hight iso shots are at least as good as those from the previous G15 (already very good and with excelent color rendition).. I also guess that if you use raw than you can expect to maximize dynamic range as you can do with the previous model.

Being faster is good, but not enough reason, at least for me, for upgrading from the previous G that I own, and currently use as my "allways with me" camera.

I would like to see an abatible or foldable lcd screen in the next model as some improvement in the viewfinder, especially increasing its percentage of view.

All in all, I have to say that G cameras are still very good cameras, with excellent ergonomics, bright lens, good AF and what is more important nice results, don't fool yourself with the not good comments from some people here and give it a try, I guess you could be surprised as I was after purchasing mine.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (8 months ago)

Wow, boring.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Yes, that comment was.

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

LOL, the image quality looks the same, if not worse, than the G9 I used to own. 7 years later and no progress at all in the image quality department.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (8 months ago)

You obviously havent compared the high ISO performance. I have - it's definitely an area my G9 sucked at, unlike the g16.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

Same if not worse in what way, specifics please.

1 upvote
Quest21
By Quest21 (8 months ago)

LOW ISO sucks on newer cameras...

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

I'm sure when you look at both at 100% (using an ISO 100 shot in bright sunlight) they probably don't look all that different....and then you realize that the newer image is about four times the area and contains much more detail and has much, much cleaner high ISO. People have no idea what they're looking at.

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (8 months ago)

I am quite satisfied with my G12 as a "carry anywhere" camera and has taken many reasonable, memorable shots during my travel. Like the G16, my only handicap is its lack of a 24mm field of view.

I wonder how much better is the G16 over the Lumix LX7 in terms of image quality?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

MUCH BETTER than the LX7.

1 upvote
FRANCISCO ARAGAO
By FRANCISCO ARAGAO (8 months ago)

@cgarrard
Hahaha, good one!

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RAG64
By RAG64 (8 months ago)

Probably comparable.

1 upvote
KariIceland
By KariIceland (8 months ago)

This camera disappoints greatly.

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (8 months ago)

It would be interesting if you were able to take the G15 out at the same time and do some comparison shots between the two. Based on the sample shots, one thing that the G16 is still doing is overexposing and blowing out highlights just like the G15 did. You might as well just set the exposure comp dial to -1EV and leave it there.

That said, I'll bet it was an enjoyable camera to shoot with. Especially if the Canon claims of increased speed are true. The color performance is also very nice.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

It's very fast and snappy. Even in raw+JPEG. Impressive.

4 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (8 months ago)

@Barney Britton - According to the specs on several Canon sites the G16 and S120 have a new BSI CMOS sensor. Do you knew whether that's the case or not?

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (8 months ago)

I also have to say...looking closer at IMG_480, an ISO3200 shot...very impressive for a 1/1.7" sensor. There is some visible noise but it's mostly finely grained and still a lot of detail retained.

2 upvotes
JRFlorendo
By JRFlorendo (8 months ago)

For such a small sensor P&S, the high ISO shots are unexpectedly impressive. Canon G16 will sell like hot cakes.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

And with an f2-2.8 lens, you can avoid high ISO quite often.

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (8 months ago)

it's even better f1.8-2.8

0 upvotes
Zigadiboom
By Zigadiboom (8 months ago)

Ok peoplez lets put this into perspective. To choose this camera over a Sony RX100 for around the same price is absurd. However to choose a mobile phone purely for its IQ over the G16 is even more absurd! Anyone who knows even a little about photography knows that there is no point going into explanations about this. Of the literally thousands of mobile phones out there, only a couple stand out as having the kind of IQ that would give something like the G16 a decent run. But they cost a fair bit more which puts them well into entry level dslr and mirroless territory.

The issue is not with this camera in and of itself as its essentially a slightly tweaked G15 which received solid reviews. Its when its viewed in relation to the competition and other options at the price point that it can become a potentially problematic purchase.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (8 months ago)

I'd rather save money....with the EOS-M.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

The longest EOS M lens is only 88mm equivalent, f5.6 and sticks 2.5" out from the body even when turned off. I have an EOS M and it's not a replacement for a G-series.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (8 months ago)

Right; but it is a lot cheaper with better IQ. The G is nice to handle though.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (8 months ago)

One cannot compare a G with the M. Totally different category. I have a Canon 5D MkII with some expensive Zeiss primes and L zoom lenses yet I still use a G12 for many occasions. When used properly even my G12 can give quite good photos, even at night.

The EOS M is not a successful camera because of its very slow focus, lack of built-in flash and viewfinder. The "bar of soap" design does not help when it comes to holding it. Canon certainly have not put enough thought into the overall design when they launch it.

Recently, Canon seem to be "disposing" the M at a very low price in some markets. Maybe there is something new coming.

0 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (8 months ago)

Totally agree with shadow.

G12 and M are two completely different cameras. the G beats the M in pure versatility, and the swivel screen is godly. Th eG series can be carried in hand, no bag without too much to worry about (just dont bang it).

The M feels waaaaayyyyyyy more delicate, and its small size makes it difficult to get s sure grip when you are shooting.

The G is a magical camera..moreso with the old swivel though.
Its treated me very very well and its good to see when i look for a g17, the senor will be at least as good as it is now.

Now if we could get that G1x update......

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

IMG_0211 is useful and not disappointing at all actually.

I'd have liked to see more aircraft in motion.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

I tried pushing one of them but the museum staff said I wasn't allowed.

9 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

ROFL!

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (8 months ago)

Uninspiring, same level like panasonix FZ-whatever...

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (8 months ago)

Mobile phone IQ

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Only 2 mobiles phones and they cost more than this camera by a good margin while not having ANY zoom, external controls, a hotshoe or a viewfinder

10 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

There are some situations where all cameras do a pretty good job. I'd say in 99% of picture taking situations the G16 will kick 99% of mobile phones' butts. Or are you saying that if YOU were given a mobile phone and this camera you wouldn't be able to get any more out of the G16 than your phone? Yeah, that might be true.

4 upvotes
Shahidur Rahman
By Shahidur Rahman (8 months ago)

Then go, get a mobile phone. Why bother commenting here?

7 upvotes
iShootWideOpen
By iShootWideOpen (8 months ago)

Please show me a mobile phone with this type of image quality.

7 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (8 months ago)

I could only guess that some people that use mobile phone cameras as their only camera, may not be able to tell the difference, or simply do not care about better image quality. I am impressed about the ISO 1600 of this camera and many of the clean sharp plane images. Most phone cameras are not even close.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

Newb comment.

1 upvote
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (8 months ago)

Astrophotos?

0 upvotes
W5JCK
By W5JCK (8 months ago)

I doubt it. You really need a better sensor like the Canon PS G1 X or a decent dSLR for astrophotography. I tried using a G11 for astrophotography a few years back and the photos were just too grainy. I currently use my G1 X and my 60D, both of which have their purpose in astrophotography, and both have comparable IQ. I love using the G1 X because it is quick and easy to set up, has a TRUE infinity on MF, and is easy to carry. But it is best used for capturing satellite flyovers, meteor showers, and doing time lapse of star fields. You could use the G16 in the same way, but the IQ would be very disappointing.

1 upvote
the jimmy
By the jimmy (8 months ago)

Given dark skies and good atmospheric conditions, The G16 could produce decent results, while I agree this isn't the first choice for AP. Perhaps adding this function will draw more people into pursuing this type of photography. I for one am glad to see this.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (8 months ago)

All one needs for astrophotography is a Canon 5D MkII or III and a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens on a good steady tripod.

The better micro-contrast of the Zeiss helps a lot.

If one is serious and expect to capture anything worthwhile why use the G16 or any small sensor camera.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (8 months ago)

"All you need" for astrophotography is a £2800 FF DSLR/Lens combo? Em, I'm pretty sure you can get reasonable results for a lot less than that.

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (8 months ago)

fastest made ever, of samples (coppy from G15 and paste to G16´s page !)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

time machine

0 upvotes
JWilkinson Studios
By JWilkinson Studios (8 months ago)

why would anyone want this? For the price I could go get a mirrorless and take way better pictures.

7 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

You're right, there should only be one camera that everyone likes. Choice is a B, ain't it?

7 upvotes
JWilkinson Studios
By JWilkinson Studios (8 months ago)

My Point wasnt that there shouldnt be choice. but that they are charging so much for only marginal IQ increase over top end phones and lower image quality compared to mirrorless.

Just doesn't seem worth cost to quality.

7 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

Considering the amount Canon sell there must be a LOT of reasons. I could list them for you but would that really help you at all?

C

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Top end phone: lousy high ISO, poor low light AF, no zoom, no RAW, JPEG engine smooths noise down to the point there's nothing left but an oil painting, very poor flash, no manual adjustments (and if there is an app that will what would be the point), no tripod mount without accessory, much lower detail resolution (poor noise reduction, sharpening, etc), poor if any continuous shooting, no flash hot shoe, and I'm sure there are ten other things I'm not mentioning.
I think "marginal increases" is not only extremely subjective but just plain wrong. As for "mirrorless" maybe people don't want zoom lens that makes the camera difficult to carry or they don't want to switch lenses. ILC cameras are not the camera design to end all other camera designs, and the G16 is also mirrorless. There are plenty of reasons to want a mid-size camera with all sorts of controls and features and a lens that stores flat.
I felt the same way earlier, CG. I guess I'm getting a second wind.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

There are no mirrorless options with 28-140mm lenses that fold into the body and come with a viewfinder and excellent manual control dials.

3 upvotes
W5JCK
By W5JCK (8 months ago)

Though I agree that the G16 is lackluster in nearly every way, I wish people would quit saying it is better to buy a mirrorless camera than a P&S with built in lens. These two types of cameras are NOT in the same class or design, and they appeal to buyers for totally different reasons. A person who wants a smallish P&S with built-in lens doesn't consider getting a mirrorless camera and several lenses instead of it, or vice versa. Mirrorless cameras are NOT the GD replacement for all other cameras.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (8 months ago)

It's the price. I like the G1X, but the price.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Not yet.

0 upvotes
JWilkinson Studios
By JWilkinson Studios (8 months ago)

There are obviously people that are willing to drop $600 on a point and shoot, even a good one. I'm just not one of them.

Photographers in general (or maybe I'm just weird) care more about IQ, so if Im gonna drop 600 on a camera I'm going to get something that takes high quality pictures. When Im working or going out to shoot for fun, im taking a real camera with me. When Im out and about and need to take a snapshot (amd for some reason I don't have any of my cameras with me), my phone is generally plenty.

All I was saying was it seems way overpriced for what it is... $600 for something that takes (even) ~50% better photos than a phone is ALOT.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

@HR, you did a lot more than I had energy to do. Good job. ;)

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

JW, you'd use a "real" camera or a mirrorless? Get a decent DSLR instead of a lousy mirrorless if you want a real camera. ILC or "mirrorless" (I think that is a horrible way to describe a camera) still doesn't count as real.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (8 months ago)

Pretty impressive at ISO 1600 for its sensor size, and thanks to the relatively wide aperture (especially for the mid and tele range), it'll need to go that high less often than a camera like the RX100.

Dithering is visible already at ISO 400 when viewing 1:1 of course, but still... Pretty cool what you can get from a small inch sensor nowadays.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (8 months ago)

pretty much the same as G15...

9 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

That's to be expected, though. The whole camera fits that description.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Shame that they are all grey skies. Makes the picture quality look worse than it likely is.

4 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

or more real than "studio shots"

0 upvotes
TX Photo Doc
By TX Photo Doc (8 months ago)

From my experience, I was very happy with the convenience, viewfinder, quality lens and simple layout of the dials on top of my G12. I won a lot of competitions with photos up to 20X30", but mostly 12x16 and 16x20s. (Noise terrible above ISO 400, though).
In February the lens froze while in a zoomed position. It was too expensive to repair or replace, so was unhappy with the G15 for not having a moveable LCD screen in back (though there was a lot of improvements I liked). I complained to Canon. I waited for the G16 and now even unhappier. I'm being patient. When any other new camera comes along that I like and has the moveable LCD screen, I plan to buy it. In the meantime, I have a few other cameras to use (that won't fit on my belt) but I will wait.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 92