As well as being compared against other travel zooms, the Nikon Coolpix S9500 is also often compared to pro digicams, waterproofs, compacts, ultra compacts, super zooms and digicams. The Nikon Coolpix S9500's top rivals come from Nikon (such as the Coolpix S9700 and the DL24-85) and Sony (such as the Cyber-shot DSC-S950 and the Cyber-shot DSC-W690)
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to other travel zoom competitors include: it has a built-in GPS and has an OLED screen (OLED vs LCD).
However, on average it slightly lower maximum light sensitivity (1,600 ISO vs 6,400 ISO), doesn't have a touch screen and has a slower max shutter speed (1/1500 of a second vs 1/3200 of a second).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to pro digicam competitors include: it has a slightly larger screen (3" vs 2"), is slightly smaller (compact (110×60×31 mm) vs large (128×93×129 mm)), has better image stabilization (lens vs none), has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD) and has an OLED screen (OLED vs LCD).
However, on average it has a slightly smaller sensor (1/2.3" 6.17x4.55mm vs nikon CX 13.2x8.8mm), has a much narrower aperture (f/3.4 vs f/2), takes slightly lower resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 20.7 MP), slightly lower maximum light sensitivity (1,600 ISO vs 12,800 ISO) and doesn't have a touch screen.
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to waterproof competitors include: it has a slightly wider aperture (f/3.4 vs f/3.9), has significantly more zoom (22x vs 5x), has a significantly wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 28 mm), shoots faster continuously (7.5 fps vs 1.9 fps) and has an OLED screen (OLED vs LCD).
However, on average it has a significantly shorter battery life (230 shots vs 300 shots), is older (january 2013 vs february 2014), is thicker (1.2" vs 1.1"), is not waterproof and slightly shorter exposures (4 seconds vs 15 seconds).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to compact competitors include: it has significantly more zoom (22x vs 4x), has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 33 mm), has a slightly larger screen (3" vs 2.5"), has a slightly higher resolution screen (614k dots vs 230k dots) and has better image stabilization (lens vs none).
However, on average it is slightly larger (compact (110×60×31 mm) vs compact (90×57×26 mm)), is thicker (1.2" vs 1.1"), is slightly more expensive ($417.39 vs $159.99), doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel) and has fewer storage slots (1 vs 2).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to ultra compact competitors include: it has significantly more zoom (22x vs 3x), has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 35 mm), has a significantly larger screen (3" vs 2"), has a significantly higher resolution screen (614k dots vs 118k dots) and has better image stabilization (lens vs none).
However, on average it has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.4 vs f/2.8), is significantly larger (compact (110×60×31 mm) vs ultra compact (86×54×20 mm)), is thicker (1.2" vs 0.8"), is slightly heavier (205 g vs 135 g) and doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to super zoom competitors include: it has a slightly higher resolution screen (614k dots vs 460k dots), is slightly smaller (compact (110×60×31 mm) vs prosumer size (114×83×99 mm)), has better image stabilization (lens vs sensor shift), has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD) and has an OLED screen (OLED vs LCD).
However, on average it has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.4 vs f/2.8), doesn't have a screen which flips out, doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital) and has a slower max shutter speed (1/1500 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Nikon S9500 compared to digicam competitors include: it has a slightly higher resolution screen (614k dots vs 460k dots), has better image stabilization (lens vs sensor shift), has a CMOS-family sensor (CMOS vs CCD), has an OLED screen (OLED vs LCD) and is newer (january 2013 vs january 2012).
However, on average it has a significantly shorter battery life (230 shots vs 300 shots) and is slightly more expensive ($417.39 vs $197.59).
