Canon PowerShot G1X vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3

Winner
Canon PowerShot G1X

64

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3

32

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G1X

24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Great color depth
Color depth
21.7 bits
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Tunnel
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
1400 ms startup delay
3D
Takes 3D photos
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3.

competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X Competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Boutique

$499 - $699

Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Wide angle Better wide angle
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G16

Canon PowerShot G16

Pro digicam

$500

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Supports 24p No 24p support
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$498

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

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$300 body only

$450 with 14-42mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Larger
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$750 with 14-42mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$500 body only

$798 with 14-42mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Size Larger

discussion

Canon PowerShot G1X
PowerShot G1X
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3
Lumix DMC-G3
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments