As well as being compared against other pro digicams and compacts, the Fujifilm XQ1 is also often compared to mirrorless, travel zooms, digicams and super zooms. The Fujifilm XQ1's top rivals come from Canon (such as the PowerShot G7 and the PowerShot ELPH 170 IS) and Fujifilm (such as the XF1 and the XQ2)

compared toPro digicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to other pro digicam competitors include: it is significantly less expensive ($119.99 vs $1,330.59) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/4000 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second).

However, on average it takes slightly lower resolution photos (12 MP vs 20 MP), significantly lower maximum light sensitivity (3,200 ISO vs 12,800 ISO), has a slightly shorter battery life (240 shots vs 320 shots) and doesn't support an external flash.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III
7 months newer
$510 - $748

Significant advantages of the DSC-RX100 III (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly larger sensor: Nikon CX 13.2x8.8mm vs 2/3" 8.8x6.6mm
  • Better maximum light sensitivity: 12,800 ISO vs 3,200 ISO
  • Much higher true resolution: 20 MP vs 12 MP

Significant disadvantages of the DSC-RX100 III (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly thicker: 1.6" vs 1.3"
  • Significantly heavier: 290 g vs 206 g
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the DSC-RX100 III and XQ1

  • None found

Fujifilm XF1

Fujifilm XF1
1 year older
$395

Significant advantages of the XF1 (vs the XQ1)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the XF1 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly lower resolution screen: 460k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the XF1 and XQ1

  • Inexpensive: $394.58 vs $119.99
  • Fast max shutter speeds: 1/4000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

Fujifilm XQ2

Fujifilm XQ2
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the XQ2 (vs the XQ1)

  • Better maximum light sensitivity: 12,800 ISO vs 3,200 ISO
  • Faster autofocus: Phase detection vs Hybrid detection

Significant disadvantages of the XQ2 (vs the XQ1)

  • None found

common strengths of the XQ2 and XQ1

  • Light weight: 206 g vs 206 g
  • Fast max shutter speeds: 1/4000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120
similar age
$1,331

Significant advantages of the S120 (vs the XQ1)

  • Better maximum light sensitivity: 12,800 ISO vs 3,200 ISO
  • Has a touch screen

Significant disadvantages of the S120 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second
  • Shorter max exposures: 15 seconds vs 30 seconds

common strengths of the S120 and XQ1

  • Light weight: 217 g vs 206 g

Nikon Coolpix P340

Nikon Coolpix P340
3 months newer
$328

Significant advantages of the P340 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much longer exposures: 60 seconds vs 30 seconds

Significant disadvantages of the P340 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the P340 and XQ1

  • Light weight: 194 g vs 206 g
  • Inexpensive: $328.46 vs $119.99

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100
1 year older
$403 - $448

Significant advantages of the DSC-RX100 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly larger sensor: 1" 13.2x8.8mm vs 2/3" 8.8x6.6mm
  • Much longer battery life: 330 shots vs 240 shots
  • Much higher true resolution: 20 MP vs 12 MP

Significant disadvantages of the DSC-RX100 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 28 mm vs 25 mm
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the DSC-RX100 and XQ1

  • Light weight: 213 g vs 206 g
  • Inexpensive: $403.11 vs $119.99

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to other compact competitors include: it has a significantly wider aperture (f/1.8 vs f/2.8), has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 36 mm), has a slightly larger screen (3" vs 2.5"), has a much higher resolution screen (920k dots vs 230k dots) and has image stabilization (lens vs none).

However, on average it is slightly larger (compact (100×59×33 mm) vs compact (93×57×28 mm)) and is thicker (1.3" vs 1.1").

Fujifilm FinePix F31fd

Fujifilm FinePix F31fd
7 years older
$480

Significant advantages of the F31fd (vs the XQ1)

  • Thinner: 1.1" vs 1.3"

Significant disadvantages of the F31fd (vs the XQ1)

  • Much worse wide angle: 36 mm vs 25 mm
  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS

common strengths of the F31fd and XQ1

  • Wide aperture: f/2.8 vs f/1.8
  • Each has a built-in flash

Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom

Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom
7 years older

Significant advantages of the F30 Zoom (vs the XQ1)

  • Thinner: 1.1" vs 1.3"

Significant disadvantages of the F30 Zoom (vs the XQ1)

  • Much worse wide angle: 36 mm vs 25 mm
  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS

common strengths of the F30 Zoom and XQ1

  • Wide aperture: f/2.8 vs f/1.8
  • Each has a built-in flash

compared toMirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to mirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors include: it records higher quality movies (1080p @ 60fps vs 1080p @ 30fps), has image stabilization (lens vs none), is newer (october 2013 vs may 2013) and has a built-in flash.

However, on average it has a much smaller screen (3" vs 3.7"), has a slightly lower resolution screen (920k dots vs 1,152k dots), takes significantly lower resolution photos (12 MP vs 20 MP), doesn't have a touch screen and doesn't record movies in 24p.

Samsung NX2000

Samsung NX2000
5 months older

Significant advantages of the NX2000 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much larger screen: 3.7" vs 3"
  • Has a touch screen
  • Supports 24p

Significant disadvantages of the NX2000 (vs the XQ1)

  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • No built-in flash

common strengths of the NX2000 and XQ1

  • Fairly small: Mid size (119×65×36 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very light: 228 g vs 206 g
  • Thin: 1.4" vs 1.3"

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to travel zoom competitors include: it has a significantly wider aperture (f/1.8 vs f/3.6), has a significantly higher resolution screen (920k dots vs 460k dots), takes slightly higher resolution photos (12 MP vs 9.6 MP), shoots faster continuously (12 fps vs 2.5 fps) and has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD).

However, on average it has slightly less zoom (4x vs 20x), doesn't have a built-in GPS, is slightly larger (compact (100×59×33 mm) vs compact (97×57×28 mm)) and is thicker (1.3" vs 1").

Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 170 IS
1 year newer
$158

Significant advantages of the ELPH 170 IS (vs the XQ1)

  • Smaller: Compact (100×58×23 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Much thinner: 0.9" vs 1.3"
  • Lighter: 141 g vs 206 g

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 170 IS (vs the XQ1)

  • Much narrower aperture: f/3.6 vs f/1.8
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Much lower resolution screen: 230k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the ELPH 170 IS and XQ1

  • Very small: Compact (100×58×23 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 1.3"
  • Very light: 141 g vs 206 g

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS
2 years newer
$179 - $249

Significant advantages of the PowerShot SX620 HS (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly more zoom: 25x vs 4x
  • Significantly longer battery life: 295 shots vs 240 shots
  • Thinner: 1.1" vs 1.3"

Significant disadvantages of the PowerShot SX620 HS (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly narrower aperture: f/3.2 vs f/1.8
  • Shoots slower: 2.5 fps vs 12 fps
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the PowerShot SX620 HS and XQ1

  • Very small: Compact (97×57×28 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.1" vs 1.3"
  • Very light: 182 g vs 206 g

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7
3 years older

Significant advantages of the DMC-ZS7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Has a GPS
  • Much longer exposures: 60 seconds vs 30 seconds

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-ZS7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly narrower aperture: f/3.3 vs f/1.8
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Significantly lower resolution screen: 460k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the DMC-ZS7 and XQ1

  • Fairly small: Compact (103×60×33 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.3" vs 1.3"
  • Very light: 218 g vs 206 g

Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
1 year older

Significant advantages of the ZS20 (vs the XQ1)

  • Has a GPS
  • Has a touch screen
  • Thinner: 1.1" vs 1.3"

Significant disadvantages of the ZS20 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly narrower aperture: f/3.3 vs f/1.8
  • Significantly lower resolution screen: 460k dots vs 920k dots
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/4000 of a second

common strengths of the ZS20 and XQ1

  • Very small: Compact (105×59×28 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very thin: 1.1" vs 1.3"
  • Very light: 206 g vs 206 g

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR3
3 years older

Significant advantages of the DMC-ZR3 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly thinner: 1" vs 1.3"
  • Much longer exposures: 60 seconds vs 30 seconds

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-ZR3 (vs the XQ1)

  • Significantly narrower aperture: f/3.3 vs f/1.8
  • Has a CCD-family sensor: CCD vs CMOS
  • Much lower resolution screen: 230k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the DMC-ZR3 and XQ1

  • Very small: Compact (98×55×26 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very thin: 1" vs 1.3"
  • Very light: 159 g vs 206 g

compared toDigicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to digicam competitors include: it has a much wider aperture (f/1.8 vs f/2.8), has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 35 mm), has a significantly larger screen (3" vs 2.5"), has a much higher resolution screen (920k dots vs 207k dots) and shoots faster continuously (12 fps vs 2 fps).

However, on average it doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel) and doesn't support an external flash.

Canon PowerShot G7

Canon PowerShot G7
7 years older
$553

Significant advantages of the G7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Supports an external flash
  • Has a viewfinder: Tunnel vs None

Significant disadvantages of the G7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much worse wide angle: 35 mm vs 25 mm
  • Much narrower aperture: f/2.8 vs f/1.8
  • Much lower resolution screen: 207k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the G7 and XQ1

  • Wide aperture: f/2.8 vs f/1.8
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm XQ1 compared to super zoom competitors include: it has a much wider aperture (f/1.8 vs f/3.4), has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 36 mm), has a slightly larger screen (3" vs 2.5"), has a much higher resolution screen (920k dots vs 114k dots) and is slightly smaller (compact (100×59×33 mm) vs prosumer size (120×82×92 mm)).

However, on average it doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital).

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7
7 years older
$556

Significant advantages of the DMC-FZ7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Has a viewfinder: Digital vs None
  • Significantly longer exposures: 60 seconds vs 30 seconds

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FZ7 (vs the XQ1)

  • Much worse wide angle: 36 mm vs 25 mm
  • Much narrower aperture: f/2.8 vs f/1.8
  • Much lower resolution screen: 114k dots vs 920k dots

common strengths of the DMC-FZ7 and XQ1

  • Very small: Standard size (113×72×79 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very light: 340 g vs 206 g
  • Thin: 3.1" vs 1.3"

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS
9 months newer
$239

Significant advantages of the SX520 HS (vs the XQ1)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the SX520 HS (vs the XQ1)

  • Much narrower aperture: f/3.4 vs f/1.8
  • Much lower resolution screen: 461k dots vs 920k dots
  • Shoots significantly slower: 1.6 fps vs 12 fps

common strengths of the SX520 HS and XQ1

  • Fairly small: Prosumer size (120×82×92 mm) vs Compact (100×59×33 mm)
  • Very light: 441 g vs 206 g
  • Thin: 3.6" vs 1.3"