Canon PowerShot G1X vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Tie
Canon PowerShot G1X

64

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

64

Tie

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G1X

24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1900 ms startup delay
Great color depth
Color depth
21.7 bits
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/1.4
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
120 fps
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.

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-LX7 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$580 - $798

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$498

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Pro digicam

$599

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon PowerShot G1X
PowerShot G1X
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
Lumix DMC-LX7
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments