Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review

After owning a G10 for over 4 years decided to upgrade. Was SO looking forward to my new G1X! Shots at low iso levels were amazing...however auto focus lag was unbearable and macro was useless. Photos were hit and miss. Returned tried the Rx100...not as great as it's made out to be. Finally picked up the G15...the photos are incredible...even usable at high iso. We can all talk about sensor size etc but in the end it's all about the quality of the shot and the G15 outperforms the others...hands down the winner in my books!! Thanks for all your reviews!

G10 is only 2mm thinner than the G11, insignificant 2mm, because of 2mm of thickness g15 lost swivel screen.!!??

How can it be, that the canon G15 Review is finished before the Nikon P7700 Review is finished? Even when the Nikon was introduced to the market before the Canon was.

You are sure, that you are an indipendent Review Company?

Why do no enthusiast cameras get marks of 80+%? I thought cameras were judged only to their piers but those high marks seemed to be reserved for mainly higher end DSLRs.

I think that people who think of themselves as "real photographers" are fanatic about optical viewfinders.

Look at the paragraph and picture above. Here's one quote:

"It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder."

OK guys...be honest. What good is that? Can some "real photographers" tell me? It's a tiny viewfinder with a parallax error and has no shooting information on it (all problems the LCD lacks). Now look at the photo. A guy is inside a relatively dark room (not outside at noon on a clear day at the beach with lots of glare) and he's still using the tiny optical viewfinder with a parallax error instead of the back screen.

Seems a bit silly, don't you think? Alas, I can never be a "real photographer", because I often use LCD screens on cameras, and I think that flip-out screens are more important to have than optical viewfinders. I know. I'm such a noob.

A statement that holds true to this review is ' all things considered ''.

There are many comments questioning why the RX100 was not rated higher. It has a fast lens and large sensor. Very important factors. But are they the only factors? No. Price, lcd, processor speed, video etc.

So with DPR's considerable camera knowledge and 'all things considered' from their viewpoint they did this review.

Take it or leave it, but I am sure this review was given much thought and debate before it was posted.

So much partisan silliness on these forums. As I've actually proved a couple of times on the forums here, in blind taste, EXIF stripped, photo comparisons most of the worst fanboys cannot actually tell margarine from butter or one camera's output from another in real world shots. Buy a Porsche if you want to define yourself by an object.

So DP review continues its inconsistent award system... Let's see, in the past week two Gold awards in the same category--almost pocketable zooms (Canon, Panasonic).

And when the camera that virtually professional reviewer says "the best pocket camera" they give a silver. Fine. Imaging resource reviews are better anyway. They emphasize print output and are consistent.

BTW: this negative comment is directed at the "poor officiating" here not at the camera. Enjoy your pursesable camera. Being a guy I'll stick to the best pocketable camera.

Canon can do more...

For my money, this is the perfect pocket camera at this price-point. As the technology develops and sensor prices drop, they really just need to make the sensor larger, oh and maybe add in-camera panorama-stitching. That's it. It fills up my pocket perfectly and handles like a dream.

Yep ... and along the dynamic range also the chromatic aberration. As non-picture quality related issues there are the consistency of the metering system and the overall system speed.

Anyway, coming back to the subject: No G15 for me. A fixed monitor is a deal killer to me. Second point: My G11 is far not as solid as I thought it is, judging from it's weight and feel. On mine as an example the optical viewfinder has massive dust intrusion. Everywhere the hands-on quality was praised, but the real world long term quality seems is a different subject.

Peter Kroll
Singapure

I understand and appreciate that use of the excellent dpreview is free. Thanks for the excellence of the website.

I would appreciate however if the reviews of that class of camera would include information about the dynamic range (allowing me to compare the dynamic range of cameras of that class).

For me, the dynamic range (even for that type of cameras) is one of the most important criterias (other important charachteristics for me are of course the dimensions, the zoom-range, optical viewfinder, the visibility of the subject on the screen in bright/sunny environments,...)

Thank you in advance for considering that for future reviews

The Canon G series reached the limit of it's practicality genre in the G7.

With the way Canon is churning out cameras of all kinds, pretty soon there will be a new Canon camera every $100 from $300 to $3,000.

It goes the same way to Nikon too.

...and soon, Sony.

Panasonic.

Olympus.

.

An ugly camera, just as ugly as all of its predecessors.

What I would actually like (I'm a G12 owner) is a 2/3" or 1" sensor with 8 to 10 mp.

DPR puts RX100 in a different class. They claim the scores are not comparable between different classes, but yet they mention RX100 everywhere in this review. Isn't that hilarious?

RX100 should have been in the same class as S110. These cameras are competing for the same market. Same buyers.

Putting RX100 in the same class as larger -- not pocketable -- big sensor p&s (such as G1X) or cameras with a fix lens primes like Fuji X100 was really really dumb.

Obviously going to come off as an OLY fanboy, but I do not understand how your review did not mention the XZ-1 OR the newer XZ-2 as comparable competition, and have to actually resort to mentioning the Nikon 1 series or m43.

I have held the XZ-2, and its is equally built like a tank; has the fast AF akin to that of the PEN series if not the RX100, and has a nice f1.8 - 2.5 lens, albeit shorter (112 vs 140 at long end). I would expect that your reviews do mention competition in its entirety.

Oh btw, the XZ-2 is a lighter package WITH a similarly sized sensor.

"The camera feels like a mini-EOS 1D, extremely solid with soft and comfortable rubberized hand grip and thumb rest. The magnesium alloy surfaces have been very slightly roughened, giving them a quality feel. It'll be hard to find another compact camera that feels this well put together".

This passage from this review seems a bit over-enthusiastic. I get what the reviewer is trying to say, but an EOS 1D is a completely weather sealed tank of a camera. That level of build isn't found in any compact, and just because this camera is made by Canon doesn't make similar as far as build. A P7700 is all magnesium alloy and few would say it's like a mini-D4.

Lastly, i haven't handled a G15 (I have handled other G series cameras), but the reviewer thinks "it'll be hard to find another compact as well put together". The all metal Fuji X10 and GRD IV are about as good as it gets for build quality and I assume DPR remembers them. Maybe he meant "put together better"?

Perhaps in their next release Canon can adopt the following features into one highly competent camera. That is the G15's fast lens, AF speed, macro capabilities and 5X optical(modify to 24mm) combined with the G1X's large sensor, optics and articulating display. Price it between the G1X and G15, include a decent OVF and improve the movie recording capabilities and then I'm sure the other manufacturers and brand loyalists will have no choice but to take notice.

OVF on compact camera might be rare these days, but considering how good are EVFs today I really cant understand reason for using it. Except it might be cheaper.

Image quality seems ok, so its probably usable. Just cant find reason for buying it.

I have always been a huge fan of the G series, and this one looks quite drool-worthy, and more than capable of bearing all of the expectations that come with that esteemed G letter name. I helped convince a friend to get a G9 not too long after it came out a few years back, and he still shoots with it and loves it. These cameras are as tough as they seem.. their build quality is no joke. And that Canon is one of the very few still using an optical viewfinder, is something I commend them for. I am not a Canon fanboy by any means (if I had the money, my bags would be chock full of Zuiko Super High Grade glass, so that lets you know which side of the fanboi fence I sit on, in case my moniker did not tip you off!) BUT, I can definitely give credit where it is due, bravo Canon, and bravo DPReview for another great review. Don't ever change that studio scene comparometer, it is so warm and familiar (and full of utility) .. we NEED it!

By scoring RX100 and G15 in different classes do you mean to say that your scoring of both cameras will be of little use for those who are considering one out of the two? Or the potential buyers have to decipher the fact that RX100 is a better camera by drawing parallel lines from equivalent points on the spectra of different classes of cameras ( the only geometric solution to your scoring system ).

No - I would not like

Limited zoom range fixed lens. "Viewfinder" is basically totally useless (I tried the camera, that's how I know). Nikon P7700 gives plenty more features and better specs for about the same dough. Of course, this one has the word "CANON" emblazed on it, so for some, that may be worth a few hundred bucks right then and there, huh?

Not rugged enough to take with me to the trail. The collapsible lens is nice for putting in my pocket but if any sand or dust get in the mechanism, the camera is done.

175 replies in a few hours? I think this tells something about G15, right? :)

Best pocket-sized Canon I've ever owned. Worth the price.

I shoot about 95% with articulated screen so I am really disappointed that Canon would "upgrade" by REMOVING the articulated screen. It is something they helped pioneer and they did it well and some of us actually NEED it for what we do. So why would they reduce their own potential market by removing this? Makes no sense to me. They have already developed it. There is very little extra cost to add it. And how much camera thickness does it really save to remove it? Likey not much.

RX100 repeatedly stamp to the ground by G15. G15 is the Ferrari in its category. No weak link in its packaging........Canon is owning the competition!

No articulated screen no consideration by me.

Thank you for the review. As usual I found it to be informative, precise and well written. Almost absolutely agree whith your views respect to the camera.

As a G15 recent user (before it, I had a G12) I love its results & usability (yes, ergonomy is a big factor here as, for example, I never will consider purchasing a camera without some kind of ovf/evf in it).

I am sure thet there are another good compacts out there but the G15 is clearly a very serious contender. As for me, DPR's review makes justice to that.

Quito, from Spain

I am only quessing but I suspect that the average age of DPs commentators is fairly young.Many photographers,amateur at least,are over 50 and need reading glasses to view rear screens. The poor visibility of these screens(yes I have tried the Sony) in good light added to the fact that one needs to put on glasses means that viewfinders are much the better option, apart from anything else the camera can be held much more steadily . One can also get a much better "feel " for the composition.I have never understood how people can take great photos with a camera at arm's length. The Sony is a great camera but with no viewfinder ,not even an option of one ,so sensibly offered by panasonic/olympus on their expert compacts,is a serious omission,and will put off many "senior" photographers. The Canon vewfinder is far from ideal but is certainly better than nothing. A built in EVF would be great and hopefully considered for a future model.

The G15's image quality is simply incredible... An absolutely stellar high ISO performer...

Totally kills the P7700 for sheer IQ ... RAW write times... focussing... f2.8 at max zoom... and from what i gather the G15's video is superior too - at least sharper, more pronounced details... & better optical stabilization too...

Nikon always seems to be playing catch up to Canon with every iteration of its P series cameras... sadly this year the trend continues...

Love your extensive camera reviews.

Having said that: what is the shutter lag on the G15?

I own a G10 and its lag is one of the cons in an otherwise terrific compact.

Sooo...one important performance spec for me in deciding whether to upgrade is how much shorter, if at all, shutter lag on the G15 is compared with the G10.

Excellent Image Quality. Very sharp and bright Lens. Well done Canon. It's time for me to ditch my S100 and Pick up a G15. After all the comparisons I have, I truly believe the G15 did outperform in a lot of area's to my eyes!!!

Given the RX100 and the G1X, why does this camera exist? The RX100 has pocketable with great IQ nailed perfectly. The G1X is larger with an articulating screen. The G15 is large with a small sensor and no articulating screen. Also, giving the G15 a gold and the RX100 a silver looks very much like favoritism.