Updated (September 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot G15 vs Nikon Coolpix P7100

Canon PowerShot G15 vs Nikon Coolpix P7100

Winner
Canon PowerShot G15

77

Nikon Coolpix P7100

66

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G15

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.8
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
922k dots
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P7100

External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds
Screen resolution
High resolution screen
921k dots
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G15.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P7100.

competitors

Canon PowerShot G15 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 V

Pro digicam

$1,010

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Pro digicam

$700

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Sensor size Slightly larger sensor
Sensor type Has a CCD-family sensor
Nikon D3100

Nikon D3100

Entry-level DSLR

$329 body only

$550 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm lenses

Battery life Much longer battery life
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Nikon Coolpix P7100 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix P7000

Nikon Coolpix P7000

Pro digicam

Weight Slightly lighter
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Travel zoom

$430

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Aperture Narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot G11

Canon PowerShot G11

Pro digicam

Battery life Much longer battery life
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Canon PowerShot G15
PowerShot G15
Canon

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix P7100
Coolpix P7100
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments