Canon PowerShot G1X vs Canon PowerShot G16

Winner
Canon PowerShot G1X

72

Canon PowerShot G16

70

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G1X

24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Tunnel
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G16

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
1800 ms startup delay
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
314 ms shutter lag
Longest exposure
Long exposures
250 seconds

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G16.

competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X Competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Boutique

$649

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
Supports 24p No 24p support
Fujifilm X-A10

Fujifilm X-A10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$499 - $500 with 16-50mm lens

Size Smaller
Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
External flash No external flash support
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$448

Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Supports 24p No 24p support

Canon PowerShot G16 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$689

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G9 X

Canon PowerShot G9 X

Pro digicam

$399

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Overall image quality Better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Entry-level DSLR

$799 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon PowerShot G1X
PowerShot G1X
Canon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot G16
PowerShot G16
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments