Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 vs Canon PowerShot G15

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

53

Canon PowerShot G15

49

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.4
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
11.7 EV
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G15

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Tunnel
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G15.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$80 - $698

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$398

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Pro digicam

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization

Canon PowerShot G15 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G16

Canon PowerShot G16

Pro digicam

$490

Longest exposure Much longer exposures
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G1X

Canon PowerShot G1X

Boutique

$498

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G12

Canon PowerShot G12

Pro digicam

$650

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
Lumix DMC-LX7
Panasonic

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot G15
PowerShot G15
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments