Updated (September 2011): Compare the Canon PowerShot S95 vs Nikon 1 J1

Canon PowerShot S95 vs Nikon 1 J1

Winner
Canon PowerShot S95

60

Nikon 1 J1

32

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot S95

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon 1 J1

Overall image quality
Great image quality
56.0
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
1,200 fps
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
60 fps
Color depth
Great color depth
21.5 bits

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot S95.
Explore our gallery of 46 sample photos taken by the Nikon 1 J1.

competitors

Canon PowerShot S95 Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Canon PowerShot SX620 HS

Travel zoom

$249

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110

Pro digicam

$379

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon PowerShot SD780 IS

Canon PowerShot SD780 IS

Ultra compact

Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Size Slightly smaller
Screen size Much smaller screen

Nikon 1 J1 Competitors

Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$350 body only

$630 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Overall image quality Worse image quality
Nikon 1 J5

Nikon 1 J5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$361 - $497 with 10-30mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$499 with 15-45mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon PowerShot S95
PowerShot S95
Canon

Report a correction
Nikon 1 J1
1 J1
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments