Updated (September 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot G15 vs Nikon Coolpix P7700

Nikon Coolpix P7700 vs Canon PowerShot G15

Tie
Nikon Coolpix P7700

78

Canon PowerShot G15

77

Tie

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P7700

Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Many focus points
Focus points
99
Long exposures
Longest exposure
60 seconds
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G15

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/1.8
Size
Really small
Mid size (107×76×40 mm)
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Light sensitivity
High ISO
12,800 ISO

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G15.
Explore our gallery of 13 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P7700.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix P7700 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix P7100

Nikon Coolpix P7100

Pro digicam

$630

Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Battery life Longer battery life
Sensor type Has a CCD-family sensor
Nikon Coolpix A900

Nikon Coolpix A900

Travel zoom

$218 - $397

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Zoom More zoom
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Canon EOS 80D

Canon EOS 80D

Entry-level DSLR

$999 - $1,498 body only

$945 - $1,049 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Size Significantly larger

Canon PowerShot G15 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G1X

Canon PowerShot G1X

Boutique

$595

Sensor size Much larger sensor
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Pro digicam

$522

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Wider aperture
Light sensitivity Worse maximum light sensitivity
Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$544

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Battery life Much shorter battery life

discussion

Nikon Coolpix P7700
Coolpix P7700
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot G15
PowerShot G15
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments