As well as being compared against other travel zooms, the Kodak EasyShare Z915 is also often compared to super zooms, entry-level DSLRs and pro digicams. The Kodak EasyShare Z915's top rivals come from Canon (such as the PowerShot SX110 IS and the PowerShot ELPH 140 IS) and Nikon (such as the Coolpix L320)

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, compared to other travel zoom competitors the Kodak Z915 has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 28 mm), has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), has a significantly smaller screen (2.5" vs 3") and is older (january 2009 vs february 2014).

Canon PowerShot SX110 IS

Canon PowerShot SX110 IS
4 months older

Significant advantages of the SX110 IS (vs the Z915)

  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/3.5
  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the SX110 IS (vs the Z915)

  • None found

common strengths of the SX110 IS and Z915

  • None found

Canon PowerShot ELPH 140 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 140 IS
5 years newer

Significant advantages of the ELPH 140 IS (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 28 mm vs 35 mm

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 140 IS (vs the Z915)

  • None found

common strengths of the ELPH 140 IS and Z915

  • None found

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS
1 year newer
$320

Significant advantages of the SX130 IS (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 28 mm vs 35 mm
  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the SX130 IS (vs the Z915)

  • None found

common strengths of the SX130 IS and Z915

  • Inexpensive: $319.95 vs $197.31

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Z915 compared to super zoom competitors include: it is slightly smaller (compact (90×64×39 mm) vs professional size (124×85×105 mm)), is thinner (1.5" vs 4.1"), is slightly lighter (194 g vs 540 g) and is slightly less expensive ($197.31 vs $750.00).

However, on average it has a significantly narrower aperture (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 22 mm), has a significantly smaller screen (2.5" vs 3"), is older (january 2009 vs march 2013) and doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital).

Nikon Coolpix L320

Nikon Coolpix L320
4 years newer
$353

Significant advantages of the L320 (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 22 mm vs 35 mm
  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the L320 (vs the Z915)

  • Thicker: 3.3" vs 1.5"
  • Slower max shutter speed: 1/1500 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second

common strengths of the L320 and Z915

  • Very small: Prosumer size (111×76×83 mm) vs Compact (90×64×39 mm)
  • Very light: 430 g vs 194 g
  • Thin: 3.3" vs 1.5"

Kodak EasyShare Z981

Kodak EasyShare Z981
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the Z981 (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm
  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/3.5
  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the Z981 (vs the Z915)

  • Significantly larger: Professional size (124×85×105 mm) vs Compact (90×64×39 mm)
  • Significantly thicker: 4.1" vs 1.5"
  • Heavier: 540 g vs 194 g

common strengths of the Z981 and Z915

  • Fairly small: Professional size (124×85×105 mm) vs Compact (90×64×39 mm)
  • Light weight: 540 g vs 194 g
  • Thin: 4.1" vs 1.5"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35
6 months newer
$750

Significant advantages of the DMC-FZ35 (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 27 mm vs 35 mm
  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/3.5
  • Has a viewfinder: Digital vs None

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FZ35 (vs the Z915)

  • Significantly thicker: 3.5" vs 1.5"

common strengths of the DMC-FZ35 and Z915

  • Fairly small: Prosumer size (118×76×89 mm) vs Compact (90×64×39 mm)
  • Very light: 367 g vs 194 g
  • Thin: 3.5" vs 1.5"

compared toEntry-level DSLR competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Z915 compared to entry-level DSLR competitors include: it has image stabilization (lens vs none), is much smaller (compact (90×64×39 mm) vs professional size (130×100×78 mm)), is slightly less expensive ($197.31 vs $393.99), is thinner (1.5" vs 3.1") and is significantly lighter (194 g vs 459 g).

However, on average it records lower quality movies (480p @ 30fps vs 720p @ 30fps), has a significantly smaller screen (2.5" vs 2.7"), takes much lower resolution photos (9.8 MP vs 12.2 MP), doesn't shoot as fast continuously (1.5 fps vs 3 fps) and has a much smaller sensor (1/2.3" 6.16x4.62mm vs APS-C 22.2x14.7mm).

Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3
2 years newer
$394 18-55mm lens

Significant advantages of the T3 (vs the Z915)

  • Much higher true resolution: 12.2 MP vs 9.8 MP
  • Has a viewfinder: Pentamirror vs None
  • Significantly larger screen: 2.7" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the T3 (vs the Z915)

  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Lens
  • Much larger: Professional size (130×100×78 mm) vs Compact (90×64×39 mm)
  • Much thicker: 3.1" vs 1.5"

common strengths of the T3 and Z915

  • Inexpensive: $393.99 vs $197.31

compared toPro digicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Z915 compared to pro digicam competitors include: it is significantly lighter (194 g vs 271 g).

However, on average it has a marginally smaller sensor (1/2.3" 6.16x4.62mm vs 1/1.6" 8.3x6.2mm), has a significantly narrower aperture (f/3.5 vs f/2), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 24 mm), has a slightly smaller screen (2.5" vs 3") and has a slightly lower resolution screen (230k dots vs 460k dots).

Leica D-LUX 5

Leica D-LUX 5
1 year newer
$78

Significant advantages of the D-LUX 5 (vs the Z915)

  • Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm
  • Significantly wider aperture: f/2 vs f/3.5
  • Larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the D-LUX 5 (vs the Z915)

  • Significantly heavier: 271 g vs 194 g

common strengths of the D-LUX 5 and Z915

  • Inexpensive: $78.15 vs $197.31