Canon PowerShot G16 vs Nikon Coolpix P7800

Winner
Canon PowerShot G16

52

Nikon Coolpix P7800

47

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot G16

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
Great battery life
Battery life
360 shots
Great macro
Macro focus
1.0 cm
Long exposures
Longest exposure
250 seconds
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P7800

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
120 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot G16.
Explore our gallery of 6 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P7800.

competitors

Canon PowerShot G16 Competitors

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$528 - $649

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range More dynamic range
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot G1X

Canon PowerShot G1X

Boutique

$446

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Sensor size Much larger sensor
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$699

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range More dynamic range
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Nikon Coolpix P7800 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix P7700

Nikon Coolpix P7700

Pro digicam

$460

Low light performance Slightly more noise at high ISO
Canon PowerShot G5 X

Canon PowerShot G5 X

Pro digicam

$709 - $749

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
Wide angle Much better wide angle
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Olympus Stylus 1

Olympus Stylus 1

Pro digicam

$527

High-speed framerate Higher speed movies
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture

discussion

Canon PowerShot G16
PowerShot G16
Canon

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix P7800
Coolpix P7800
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments