Canon PowerShot G1X vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10

Winner
Canon PowerShot G1X

73

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10

31

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G1X

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1900 ms startup delay
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10

Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Lens availability
Slightly more lenses available
108 lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10.

competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X Competitors

Canon PowerShot G16

Canon PowerShot G16

Pro digicam

$726

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G12

Canon PowerShot G12

Pro digicam

$644

Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Size Smaller
Overall image quality Significantly worse image quality
Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II

Boutique

$649 - $799

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
Supports 24p No 24p support

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Weight Slightly heavier
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,074 body only

$587 with 14-42mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$627 with 18-55mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Canon PowerShot G1X
PowerShot G1X
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10
Lumix DMC-G10
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments