Updated (January 2013): Compare the Canon PowerShot N vs Nikon Coolpix S9500

Nikon Coolpix S9500 vs Canon PowerShot N

Winner
Nikon Coolpix S9500

67

Canon PowerShot N

54

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix S9500

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
OLED Screen
Screen type
Bright and vivid
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot N

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/3
Size
Really small
Compact (79×60×29 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look

galleries

Explore our gallery of 40 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix S9500.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix S9500 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix S9900

Nikon Coolpix S9900

Travel zoom

$224 - $297

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix S9700

Nikon Coolpix S9700

Travel zoom

$199

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Nikon Coolpix S7000

Nikon Coolpix S7000

Travel zoom

$197

Size Smaller
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot N Competitors

Nikon Coolpix S6900

Nikon Coolpix S6900

Travel zoom

$169 - $187

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen size Significantly larger screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Samsung NX Mini

Samsung NX Mini

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$348 body only

$280 with 9mm lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
True resolution Much higher true resolution
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot N100

Canon PowerShot N100

Pro digicam

$362

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Nikon Coolpix S9500
Coolpix S9500
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot N
PowerShot N
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments