Canon PowerShot G16 updated with test scene samples

The lack of articulating viewfinder is a deal-breaker. I'm holding on to my Powershot A640, it uses standard AA batteries that also work my mouse, phone, remote, Wii remote, etc. Proprietary batteries are the reason I stopped buying Sony.

I hope the leaf lens cover stops scratching the lens … a la the G10 and G12

100D become smallest DSLR, so I am waiting for the smallest APEC G1X mk2. Dual pixel AF, Dual pixel exp, f/1.4 ~ f/2.8, 24 ~ 150 mm, switchable macro filter. 20 fps.

I think Canon did a good job here....... protecting their entry level dslrs.

The Nikon P7700 is much better, now the P7800 even better. Sorry Canon.

NEX-3N spanks the PowerShot G16 from the value side and the image quality side.

The compact camera market, specifically the ones with the auto retracting lenses, collapsed many months ago, Canon.

Is this your model to try to sweep away the last remnant of that quagmire?

Well, somebody has to clean up the mess... might as well be you.

.

@ Ajax2u

You are right. After all the hype about the RX100M2, I tested the camera a few days ago. Despite all the good things people say about it, I find the camera is not as user friendly as my G12 or the G16. What's very good about the G12 is you get all the important dials (controls) like ISO, mode and exposure compensation up front and not in the menu. Sometimes, I wish my DSLR has that too. You get to change those variables in an instant. The grip is also better. 10Mp on the G12 is more than enough. I shot a night scene resting the camera on a rail and could make an A3 enlargement with it using ISO100, f/4.0 and 5sec exposure.

The G series has much better macro capabilty, useful for casual closeup shots of flowers and still life. Battery life is longer.

One can get an underwater housing for the G series but I am not so sure about the RX100M2.

So, even if the G series has a smaller sensor, it is a more versatile camera to use.

The only reservantion against this camera is that it should have EVF instead of OVF. It alone would make the camera probably smaller and certainly much more usable.

Re "ridiculously small sensor" comments: you guys are ridiculously uninformed. Despite the RX100 1" sensor, it can provide serious IQ advantage over 1/1.7" on wide end only. The lens is not bright enough at mid-to-tele, and does not resolve closeups well enough

I thought these studio shots were already available for a month. They were included in RX100 II review comparison

Whrere, oh, where is the tilt and swivel screen, eh?

Panasonic GX-7, LF-1 and Nikon's P7800 all have accurate EVFs leaving the Canon with a highly inaccurate glass tunnel to roughly guess what you are getting. As I need corrected vision close up, a VF is essential so this means the Canon Gs are still off the list. Pity, as I like Canon products overall and would have bought the G15/16 had it come with a decent OVF or EVF. One other thing, Canon have a shorter zoom range than the competition so why can't they give us a 24-140mm to compete with Nikon and Panasonic's 28-200mm?

As long as people continue to buy GXX cameras, Canon will continue to make them. Minor updates mean continued sales, with minimal R&D expenses.

Surprised at how Canon keeps ignoring the market overall. Still one more iteration without a 24mm wide lens, still just 12mp and a small sensor compared to the now leading RX-100 cameras. Still too heavy, still too big.

Just my opinion.

I actually think the G16 might compete well with my RX100II.

In favor of the G16:

1) Built in viewfinder
2) No buffer at 9 fps!
3) IQ will be pretty close at the tele focal lengths because the lens is almost 2 stops faster at the tele end.
4)Better ergonomics ( I always prefer a smaller lens to body ratio)
5)A second custom setting on the dial
6)longer telephoto reach
7)A remote cable switch

In favor of the RX100II:

1) Better IQ at wide focal lengths and lower light
2) Pocketable
3) 20MP
4) tilting LCD

I thought the G1X was the worthy successor to the G-series cameras. Coming out with the G16 when the G1X and the Sony RX100 are already out seems odd.

Why so big the physical size??

Bring back the 200mm on the tele-end and I'm sold. Been waiting to upgrade my G7 since like forever, but 140 is not enough for me, and I don't dare to switch to Nikon.

The G-series was a serious contender during the early boom of DCs but with the advent of MILC, I find it increasing difficult to find a justification for this line. There are M4/3 and NEX cameras that offer better quality and performance with less bulk and comparable prices, and compact DCs that fit in your pocket with similar image quality, which makes me wonder what benefit the G-series offers in today's market.

Most people would never be able to see any differences in prints between the current small sensor cameras and the load of apsc cameras flooding the market. You are better off investng in a great printer and fine art grade paper if results are important to you.

PS: we need a "dislike" button.

Panasonic LF-1, GX-7, Nikon P7800 all have electronic viewfinders and the Fuji X20 has more than an inaccurate tunnel a la Canon G series. The market appears to be moving toward accurate viewfinders and for me not having an EVF or a reasonably accurate OVF is a deal breaker. Pity the G16 didn't catch up with Nikon and Panasonic in this area.

5x lens? Nikon beats it.
No tilt-swivel screen? Nikon beats it.
But the Nikon is infuriatingly slow to use.

Can someone come out with a mash up?
Great image quality, 10x bright lens, very zippy, 10MP enough- use big pixels to gather lots of light, WiFi, = great travel zoom.

G17 = no conspicuous, ugly (yes, ugly) WiFi sticker, a tilt screen and a better sensor. ...so hang on.

Amazing so much criticism for a camera that performs so well for the price. Wifi-sticker ugly, really? lol

I'm seriously amused and smiling when reading the comments, so don't confuse this comment as whining, It's seriously amazing to me to read some of the criticisms and comparisons to cameras that are in another class or price range entirely.

Not impressed. Canon needs to step up their game as of late.

I still dont get why Canon got back to a G camera with fixed LCD :/

G2x please

ugly cyclop of the camera!

The most interesting compact camera with such a feature set is neither the G16 nor the P7800, while the Nikon would, for my purposes, come closer than the Canon, but rather the Panasonic LF1, which includes both a 28-200mm (eq.) lens and an electronic viewfinder, and it's so small that it's indeed pocketable, something neither the Canon nor the Nikon really is.

It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.

I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.

That ugly Wi-Fi sticker would be the first thing to go. Makes the camera look cheap.

DPR should give this camera a Gold, just to torture fans of Sony RX100 II. :-)

Sigh, Canon is too comfortable with their sales with no upgrade yet with the image sensor. By now, the G series should have been at the level of the Nikon 1 and Rx100, in terms of sensor size.

Like others -- I see the removal of the articulated screen as an omission for sure. Otherwise, a good tweak to the G series and a possible acquisition if you haven't owned one in quite a while. My G3 was an incredible camera -- and the shots I got from it are still among some of the best pictures I have taken.

Admittedly the RX100 is probably the better all-round camera.