Previous news story    Next news story

Head-to-Head: Canon PowerShot G15 vs Nikon Coolpix P7700

By dpreview staff on May 29, 2013 at 00:03 GMT

We've just posted our head-to-head review of the Canon PowerShot G15 and Nikon Coolpix P7700. These two 12MP zoom compacts have comparable designs and share a lot of similar features, but which one is best for you? We've run them through a series of studio and real-world tests to find out. Click the link below to find out how they stacked up. 

144
I own it
31
I want it
14
I had it
Discuss in the forums
81
I own it
20
I want it
10
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon PowerShot G15

Comments

Total comments: 154
12
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

DPR, you write in the review: "In terms of macro performance, the G15 has a minimum focus distance of 1 cm, with the P7700 right behind it at 2 cm."

It is not macro performance yet, what about FLs at which the distances are reached? It is probably at wide end and as such not quite useful. It would be much more informative to specify the size of the smallest rectangle which can fill the picture. And of course sharpness at that macro setting too.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Love the comparison format. It should be done more often, better yet always (TG-2 vs WG-3? NEX-3n vs DMC-GF6? FZ200 vs X-S1? E-P5 vs NX300?).

Just a year late.

0 upvotes
Reg Natarajan
By Reg Natarajan (10 months ago)

I remember the Nikon vs. Canon feud from the 70s. Haven't paid much attention in recent years, but it's nice to see it still going on. It's harmless enough as long as you don't let it consume you and try to fit in some actual shooting between posting about what gear is best.

0 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (11 months ago)

I could not disagree more with the results - Your own real world comparison bears that out - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-g15-nikon-p7700-shootout/10

As anyone can see.. the P7700 has superior IQ in terms of sharpness and resolving. That, and it has an additional 60mm on the long end, and 4mm at the short end. For me, how sharp and clear the picture is coupled with lens FL range .... is first and foremost over and above any additional "features". imo

The Nikon takes a sharper clearer picture... which ultimately is the goal of any camera ..... yet the other lesser machine gets the gold award. Oh well!

6 upvotes
fuland
By fuland (11 months ago)

Some factors are important for me, but missing in the comparison.
In camera distortion correction (in Nikon),
color rendering,
infinity focus mode (in Nikon).
I think if we consider these features, Nikon is the winner.

0 upvotes
clcochrane
By clcochrane (11 months ago)

Come on Nikon! Giving a quality compact a faster lens, longer reach and lower noise are all technically difficult and your engineers have done well here (still room for improvement of course). BUT having too slow a processor is UNFORGIVABLE because it is not a limitation of technology or the laws of physics, it is a tight-fisted marketing decision. SORT IT OUT in the P7800.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

I hope future models of these cameras have larger sensors. 2/3 inch or 1 inch would be great.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (10 months ago)

having used the canon G1x there are downsides to a larger sensor - to give the 35mm equivalent lens range the wide angle 28mm on a G1x compared is a longer lens and the depth of field reduces as the lens gets longer. The reason the smallest sensor camera have almost from nose to infinity depth of field. Also the overall size of the camera grows to accommodate the larger sensor. My G1x was sold and I returned to the G10 BUT the landscape images from the G1x - excellent to fantastic! My Sony NEX is a neat sized camera but it needs a large lens to work with and is no longer pockable. As with most camera choices its a balance of advantages and negatives.

0 upvotes
mad marty
By mad marty (11 months ago)

After some research I found both to be useless.
I thought about buying the p7700 for its price compared to the competitors, its very good lens and because I love how it fits in my handy. I want a pocketable 500$ cam with the best possible iq and some control over dof.

Why is it possible to make similar sized mft and aps-c cams including lens with a bit shorter but still usable all-day focal lengt (e.g. mft-body and pana pz 14-42 or nex-3n with 16-50).
size comaprison: http://j.mp/177R7d2

Why isn't it possible to build this in a cheap compact camera??? The G1X is a huge brick and the RX100 is to expensive and feels bad in hand.

I guess I will have to buy the nex but I wished to have a cheap and smaller comapct-cam alternative with big sensor.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Justin Francis
By Justin Francis (11 months ago)

Both completely outclassed by the RX100

2 upvotes
Beckler8
By Beckler8 (11 months ago)

Meaningless. It costs almost 2x as much as 7700. And half the zoom. Those are the 2 problems with rx100 I see, otherwise I'd have one by now too. Also massively inferior ergonomics, but whatever.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Piet Maartens
By Piet Maartens (11 months ago)

Not necessarily. Last year I could not make up my mind between the Canon G15 and the Sony RX100 and in the end bought them both. The G15 serves me well as an all-purpose camera with its superior ergonomics, longer zoom range and faster lens. The RX100 on the other hand is truly pocketable; it has become my favourite travel camera. All in all I can say that I am very happy with both cameras; it’s very much a question of your personal style of photography, how much IQ you need and whether you can live with the inevitable compromises inherent to both designs.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Zalllon
By Zalllon (11 months ago)

For me, the choice of getting one of these cameras is to have something better than my iPhone, and more portable than my DSLRs. Optical lens at this level is pretty much useless, so the trade off for me is to have a flippity screen. Canon is out, and Nikon would be in. Having said that, I'm very happy continuing to use my G12.

0 upvotes
zinedi
By zinedi (11 months ago)

Nikon - no camera, 'cause no VF - out of question.
Canon - lost chance for very good and balanced enthusiast portable camera - Fuji grabbed the chance.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Not that I've seen. Suckered by the X10. Won't be by the X20.

1 upvote
LGJim
By LGJim (3 months ago)

Your comment is now 8 months out of date, not the calendar, but the fact that every Fuji within this price range has since proven to be mechanically unreliable. And that is truly the deal-breaker. And if you ever want good video, Fuji is the last choice.
My choice 5,000 photos ago was the P7700 for its lens, color, tilt, zoom, and 60 or 120 fps shooting rates. Still loving it.

My wife got the smaller LX7, and said it was a close call to the G15....

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (11 months ago)

Great, a very welcomed head-to-head ... this is DPR at its best. I would not say no to either of those cameras, but admit to being very fond of the G series (though I only got to play with various friends' G series models, never owned one personally) though I am hardly unique in this respect! Who doesn't like them ... a very successful camera line for Canon.

I hope Nikon succeeds enough as well to warrant another generation after this, perhaps with built-in EVF? A kid can dream ... I do really like the looks of the ergonomics on the Nikon though. They look like they did their homework and then some. I am a bit scared to personally handle one though, lest I be forced to budget for one!

2 upvotes
Abhijith Kannankavil
By Abhijith Kannankavil (11 months ago)

g15 is almost dead (for me). Canon just made it obsolete with the g1X. there's nothing much to loose spending a little more than g15 to get a g1x.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (11 months ago)

"Almost dead is better that fully dead" - Miracle Max.

The bright lens of the G15, smaller size, faster af, better macro performance.... than the G1X, sold me on the G15 and I've got zero regrets for it.

C

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (11 months ago)

Tiny sensor.

Big body.

This is soooo Last Year.

...or maybe 5 years ago.

...No, make that 10.

.

2 upvotes
Treeshade
By Treeshade (11 months ago)

Try to look at those big sensor compact's zoom range. I guess it would be difficult to have 28-200mm collapsible zoom lens in a small body together with a big sensor.

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

The sensors are small, but they aren't tiny. Having something to grip on the camera is nice too, especially if you shoot a DSLR regularly.

1 upvote
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (10 months ago)

large sensor is not the be all and end all for everybody - if you want exhibition pics then fine - my Lumix with a 6.08 by 4.56mm 1/2.33" sensor delivers fine pictures for the 'net and A4 prints my Nikon D800 for work

0 upvotes
Shotcents
By Shotcents (11 months ago)

Interesting to read all of these comments, many from folks who have not spent time with either. I own the P7700 and I tried the G15 for a week. Bottom line: BOTH are very good compact cameras that do not have the speed to replace my DSLRs. So when people cry about the Nikon being slow I just laugh. I'd shoot myself if I was stuck with either for anything but fairly basic needs. Neither are appropriate for a wedding or really anything too important. BOTH are slow and limited.
But with that said I find the P7700 less limiting because of the 200mm lens and slightly sharper output. It's a nice little camera and the speed has NEVER EVER been an issue because I know how and when to use it. The same goes for the G12 I owned.
I can do very nice work with the P7700 and the SB800 flash set up off camera and I'm astonished by the excellent video output as well. No, my D800 is not threatened nor is my wife's D7100. Know your tools and stop sweating the little stuff. Cheers!

6 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (11 months ago)

I know that dpreview said that the image quality is better with the Nikon but subtle . I took a look at the samples of both using as a guide the originals . It was soon obvious that dp was right , but they are not subtle , as a matter of fact the detail , contrast , sharpness and dynamic range is superior in the Nikon .

3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Agreed, but only at or near base ISO. With cameras in this class it's common to need ISO 400 or 800, and there Canon was the clrar winner. For me this was pretty much a wash. The Nikon lens is also a little slower, forcing the ISO up a little sooner, though the Canon is cheating on the ISO slightly. Realistically, the IQ is pretty close on these two, and on several competitors with similar sensors and lenses. Buy the features you like. I value the Nikon's longer zoom range and articulated screen, but why is it soooo slow? That has been a problem since the P7000 and shouldn't be that hard to fix. I have a V1 that's a speed demon, so Nikon knows what to do.

1 upvote
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (11 months ago)

Now that's exactly the kind of articles a good photography gear webside should post more often. A BIG thank you and a BIG bravo !

1 upvote
Richard Poinvil
By Richard Poinvil (11 months ago)

It's so cute when camera manufacturers try to sell us these big body/ small sensor, slow camera's.
I guess maybe some of us were born yesterday.

But seriously. Slowness is the worse characteristic that any camera can have. It's unbelievable that they still put out this junk.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

I've owned a number of these small cameras (LX5, G11, S95, GR Digital, X10) and ultimately never been happy with the image quality unless I was at ISO 100. Now, if the Nikon is really so slow...for another $100 or so, you could get a G1X. The G1X is very slow, doesn't focus close, etc. But the image quality is frankly, in a different league.

5 upvotes
keysmith
By keysmith (11 months ago)

this category of cameras are overpriced and quite big. The same price can be spent on a NEX (nex 5r, 3n) with a 16-50 electric zoom lens. Same size but alot better quality. Only drawback smaller zoom, but crop can be a remedy on that. These bulky compact cameras (7700 and G15) should cost no more than 300-350€. At these price groups they make sense.
On the other hand Sony RX100 is the only compact that makes a difference today. Unfortunately it is also expensive and not that good image quality.But the consept is good. Btw I would expect a better rx100 replacement (better noise on high iso).
Anyway G15, 7700 to me are a dead category. Something like the old superzoom prosumers category we used to have (Panasonic FZ, Fuji) . Very few talk about them today because they were surpassed.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Beckler8
By Beckler8 (11 months ago)

They still have a useful purpose I think. So cropping nullifies any zoom advantage just like that? Why have zoom at all then? No, the 7700 has a very nice zoom range, while still remaining coat-pocketable. An NEX has neither of those. It's still a unique category. RX100 has no zoom either.

0 upvotes
keysmith
By keysmith (11 months ago)

Ok. extra zoom. Superzoom compacts that produce similar results exist with less than 200€. I own a s90 (1/1.7) and my sisters SX230 (1/2.3'') produce very similar results. Of course the lens is not as "fast" as a 7700/g15 (starts from f3) and it does not have all these shortcuts but still it has P/S/A/M and costs 300€ less. This G15 category is not useless i agree. It is just VERY expensive! (overpriced)So I suggest better buy a good compact superzoom (like sx260). Quality is similar (look for samples) and you carry less weight. Ok you don't get all these extras (jogs, raw etc) but do they worth 300€ more? The holly-day albums from a sx230 and a G15 look very similar in quality.

1 upvote
Beckler8
By Beckler8 (11 months ago)

I don't understand why video gets basically no coverage in these reviews. Quick sample clips with no mention of camera settings. No zooming, testing of AF or AE, and no low-light. No comparison or treatment of audio. This is completely negligent IMO.

In the case of the 7700, most videos I see on youtube have unusable AE 'fluttering' when you zoom in/out. AF doesn't work too well either. So I can't even consider it anymore. Anyway I guess no one cares about video.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
RichardAB
By RichardAB (11 months ago)

The P7700's in-camera raw processing facility is perhaps understated, on the P7100 I find it to be excellent. The G15 doesn't seem to offer that facility.

The P7700 offers monochrome shooting, i.e. LCD may be viewed in black and white and shots made either as jpegs or raw. It has yellow, orange, red and green filters to apply for those looking to shoot B&W traditionally. However, shooting in raw enables the filters to be applied if desired during in-camera raw processing, to compare the tone-differenciations they make. Also, shooting in raw enables colour, B&W or both to be processed in-camera. The raw images can of course be processed using computer software if preferred (particularly useful for those preferring to obtain B&W images by means of conversion - rather time consuming though imho).

I don't think the G15 offers sophisticated/controlled B&W shooting in either raw or jpeg.

I think these are significant differences between the cameras.

5 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (11 months ago)

Good review , but i get a strong feeling of deja vu, both these have been reviewed before by this site. Not that this head to head is a bad thing to do, its just that with so many other cameras sitting perpetually in the limbo land of a "hands on preview" there would be better way's to spend your time.

How about nailing down the quickly becoming a classic X100s for example?

1 upvote
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (11 months ago)

Both cameras were included in the enthusiast group test. We wanted to give the P7700 a proper review (and a score), so we decided to do this head-to-head.

The X100s review is in progress, and will hopefully be up in the not-too-distant future.

6 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (11 months ago)

I am a little surprised that then Canon's optical viewfinder "offers a view of the lens when it's at the wide-angle position". My old Ixus70 zoomed in approximate synchrony with the lens. Did the reviewers really check this?

2 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (11 months ago)

You might be misinterpreting this comment. You can see the lens through the viewfinder at wide-angle. When you zoom, so does the viewfinder, and you can no longer see the lens in the corner of the frame.

3 upvotes
Maverick_
By Maverick_ (11 months ago)

It's incredible that it took Nikon several years to be able to produce a compact that can come close to Canon digicams. I am not a fan boy of either brand, but for a long time Nikon's focus had been their lucrative DSLRs with little attention to making their compacts world class. Glad with this new camera that they have something to brag about.

But too little too late. This particular market is dead, if not already, it will be in a year or two. With mobile phones, micro43 and larger sensor compacts from all brands, including Nikon and Canon, this expensive tiny sensor segment is a goner.

7 upvotes
compay
By compay (11 months ago)

if you want a real "compact" camera only those tiny sensor camera's (and sony rx100) fulfill your needs....try to put a m43 camera in your jacket....a G15 is really compact because the lens doesn't stick out...also those camera's are almost with no shutter sound.....try to find an m43 without sound

5 upvotes
Maverick_
By Maverick_ (11 months ago)

There are plenty of options. For example you can get a 12-14 retractable lens from Pana and put it on a variety of their MF3 cameras and it will be pocketable. I have the G9, by pocketable you mean coat pocket of course. This class of cameras with tiny sensors are dead. I know some will continue to believe otherwise. Canon itself made the G15 obsolete with the GX1.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

Maverick, the 14-42 zoom alone costs almost as much as my P7700. The GX1 costs 50% more with the current sale (regularly 75% more), has a more limited zoom range, and can't focus nearly as close. Regardless of your close-minded approach to what someone wants in a camera, there are plenty of reasons to choose one of these smaller-sensor compacts over a m4/3 or a larger sensor compact.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Maverick_
By Maverick_ (11 months ago)

are we discussing cost or pocketability? I am not talking cost, I am commenting on the death of a format that no one wants any more. Frankly, if you want 1/1.7 that's pocketable the Canon "S" is the best option, as long as they'll still make it.

3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

I'm discussing, cost, size, and features, all three of which need to be considered together when making a buying decision (at least for me).

Reasons why I didn't go with an S110 (though it was on my list):
limited zoom range
very few external controls
slow lens
no hot shoe
no tilt LCD

For me, not the best option by a long shot. It's *more* pocketable than a P7700 but that isn't the be all and end all factor for choosing a camera for me. I can get a P7700 in a large pocket, a tiny camera bag, or my wife's purse which is what matters to me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Maybe in theory, but this has been one of the most active market segments for model intros. A couple of years ago here were four ot five advanced compacts (if that) and now there are t least a dozen. I suspect they are making them for a reason.

0 upvotes
servic
By servic (11 months ago)

There is a tiny error in the conclusion stating:

"The Coolpix P7700 offers a bigger zoom lens, with a focal range of 24-200mm, but it's slower, with a max aperture range..."

I'd wish Nikon camera were a 24-200 indeed.

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (11 months ago)

Fixed, thanks!

0 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

p.s. a lot of people expected nikon to put 1-series sensor into P7000\P7100 successor - but nikon brought 1.7" instead... so the struggle continues =)

p.p.s. I would rather have P7700\G15 ~alike camera with raw with me for traveling instead of dSLR with kit~like lens

the last stand of compact cameras vs. "cameraphones"

5 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

Good comparison!

Still, the outcome is a bit strange

P7700 MAKES BETTER PICTURES , but because G15 is faster and has better body design - it receives gold ??? Does it matter that raw file is written 3 seconds quicker but has blurry image?

WHAT???

Still, I would say that cameras are really equal and the choice is a question of religion, strongest point of P7700 is 28-200mm lens which is more versatile and ViewNX software that is really to use and to get nice results. If there is necessity to have viewfinder - there is only way to go to G15. As simple as that.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (11 months ago)

Also remember that the awards aren't intrinsically related to the scores, and the G15 was scored and given an award last year, by another reviewer.

2 upvotes
compay
By compay (11 months ago)

in the summary you can read about image quality that

the nikon wins by a hair......

when i see the photo's and examples by the dynamic range.....i think the canon G!5 does a much much better job......

2 upvotes
skiphunt13
By skiphunt13 (11 months ago)

Although I can't completely disagree with this assessment, I still chose the P7700 for my particular needs. I have a couple of Nikon strobes that the P7700 can control wirelessly. That's a big plus. The articulating screen and the not-insignificant extra reach of the sharp zoom, and it was an easy decision for me.

Looked at both in a shop for nearly an hour, making images with both, etc. The Canon was only slightly more responsive, but it made a difference if I was using the Nikon's Active D-lighting. Focus was similar on both at the same focal lengths. Both good compacts, but the areas where the Nikon beat the Canon were areas right in my personal niche.

Regarding those who can't figure out why anyone would buy one of these... I can say that I want a compact that can do pretty much everything I need it to do for travel via motorcycle or hiking. I don't have that much space to store stuff as you can see in this image of my bike: http://skiphuntphoto.com/moto-southwest-2013/

9 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (11 months ago)

Nice bike, enjoy!

1 upvote
skiphunt13
By skiphunt13 (11 months ago)

Thanks! Will do. Was thinking of leaving today, but there's a lot of weird weather forecast from where I'm at all the way up to where I was headed. Figured I'd wait a day for at least a shot at a dry start without tornadoes and hail. ;)

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (11 months ago)

Thanks DPR. I love these types of comparisons and appreciate the work that goes into your doing them.

The G15's ergonomics really work for me. We bought one for days when both my wife and I want to carry lite. I take the RX100 and she brings the G15.

Point and shoots have come a long way.

7 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (11 months ago)

I wanted to get one of these and I tested both in the shop for quite a long time. Nikon is WAAY better fits a hand. (a friend of mine also tested both and had same opinion).
Those 4 seconds for Nikon to process a file is total BS. Although Nikon Is slower, it is just 0,5sec longer than Canon.
Optical viewfinder by Canon has no sense - it is so tiny, on the other hand, Nikon tiltable screen can always be rotated so that sun doesn't block the whole image.
For me, real disadvantade of Nikon is its slower lens, at was mentioned they have a whole 1 stop difference at 140mm equiv.

3 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (11 months ago)

Both are good cameras. I like the P7700 for the image quality and extra reach of the zoom. I'm disturbed that the Canon was so soft in the city scape shot.

OTOH, having the Nikon J1 that is very fast to use, I'm not sure I can deal with the slower P7700. When I use my compacts I get frustrated with their slowness after using the J1.

2 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (11 months ago)

Tough choices to make! You might find one camera to have a set of features that you like better, or one that suits your specific needs better, but neither is a bad choice. No clear winner. Personally, I lean towards the G15, I like viewfinders, even mediocre ones, will I ALWAYS use it? Probably not, but I like to know it's there.

I'd love to see this sort of head to head between the G15 and the Fuji X20. What I'd like to know, is the difference in quality in VF's worth an extra $100 or so? Is it good enough that I might use it more often than otherwise?

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (11 months ago)

A camera needs to be a pleasure to use, sexy in my hand. At this level with air splitting image quality difference? I take the G15. Look at them side by side, no contest. No mentioning about responsiveness and faster lens.

3 upvotes
flektogon
By flektogon (11 months ago)

In spite of the conclusion that the Coolpix P7700 has a better lens:

"While both cameras produce some of the best photo quality of any small-sensored compacts, we were especially impressed with the results from the Coolpix P7700 - at least at low ISOs. What stands out the most in the P7700's photos is just how sharp they are (for JPEG and Raw), which is a testament to the quality of the lens..."

the "Optics" bar at the graphic comparison is far shorter for the Coolpix. It looks like those graphic comparisons are meaningless.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (11 months ago)

Optics may include the faster aperture of the g15? Just a guess.

0 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (11 months ago)

Group reviews can help a lot. Head-to-heads merely leave one scratching one's own, pondering why other brands' entries were left out of the contest. Duopoly may rule in the end, but bit players may offer some valuable alternatives--while they last.

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

Head-to-heads are really useful. Thank you.

5 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (11 months ago)

Really useful review and not too much emphasis on metrics. More head-to-heads please!

5 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (11 months ago)

"As you can see, in terms of design philosophy, Canon hasn't changed the fundamental recipe much in 13 years."

Please! Look at al the Gs between them! After G6 the Gs got worse. Where is the articulating rear screen gone?

P7700 vs G15 is essentially VF vs articulating rear screen.

1 upvote
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (11 months ago)

Oh, and G15 has got a brighter Lens.

1 upvote
RickS
By RickS (11 months ago)

Plus the G15 is noticeably more responsive. Which is also a big deal, considering thats been the biggest complaint by Pros and casual shooters alike for years regarding digital cameras.

Not exactly just OVF vs. Articulating screen.

1 upvote
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (11 months ago)

Useless for me because of the size. You could easily put micro 4/3 or APS-C sensor inside even if the zoom range would be limited. Ricoh GR is first good news, next logical step would be 24-72mm,(24-50 or 28-60) f2.8-4.0....I will have to keep my s95 and NX 10 with pan cake for a long time.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (11 months ago)

they serve a different purpose. If you want that zoom range and speed now way you could package it this small with a micro 4/3.

5 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (11 months ago)

Good, honest comparison review here. Few punches held back.
I agree about the questionable market for these models nowadays. Too large for most pockets, yet they approach the price & size of the smaller micro-4/3rds & 1-inch models. I guess zoom range, controls, retractable lenses with no caps are draws that fill this market niche.

I replaced my P7000 with an S100, and could not be happier. Though not super-fast nor super-sharp, it's truly shirt-pocket sized, and has good color-- even in limited light.

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

The Sony RX100 was $650 at the time when I paid $400 for a P7700. That's a massive price difference at this end of the camera market. The RX100 might be smaller but it lacks a ton of the features that the P7700 has and The RX100's larger sensor is really let down by its necessarily slow lens.

Actually, you make a very poignant statement at the end of your first paragraph. Zoom range, controls, and retractable lens were major selling points on the P7700 for me.

2 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (11 months ago)

So the Nikon P7100, the 7700's immediate predecessor, is reviewed here and is dinged for its optical viewfinder. Not praised because it at least has a viewfinder, but has it listed as an actual con.

And now the Canon's optical viewfinder is praised here as a benefit.

3 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (11 months ago)

Which means DPReview is comparing Apples and Oranges with thier stated preference of a viewfinder.

Thier bias shouts that this comparison should be between cameras both with or without a viewfinder.

Also Nikons CLS makes the P7700 the professional's compact.
You can take my word for it.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (11 months ago)

I think you may need to read the P7100 review more carefully. The viewfinder is listed as a Pro: "Optical viewfinder can be useful in certain situations/lighting conditions (and extends battery life)". Only its poor coverage is listed a Con ("Optical viewfinder coverage is relatively low at approximately 80%").

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (11 months ago)

So the P7100 viewfinder is listed as a con because its coverage is low at approximately 80%.

To be consistent, then, every other review needs to rate viewfinder coverage. For example, the P7700 needs to have as a con its viewfinder coverage at only 0%.

A feature almost no camera in this space possesses- an eyelevel viewfinder- gets listed as a con in the P7100, but is ignored in other models.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (11 months ago)

As Andy points out, it was included as both a Pro and a Con in the P7100 review.

Pros and Cons are a list of factors you might want to consider when looking at a camera. It's not a case of subtracting the cons from the pros to conclude whether the camera is any good.

If you find an optical viewfinder useful, then the pro will be much more significant than the con, if you're not that fussed about having a viewfinder, the fact it's rather small and inaccurate is worth knowing.

5 upvotes
PeterBM
By PeterBM (11 months ago)

G15 announced Sep 2012, reviewed Nov 2012
P7700 announced Aug 2012, just reviewed here May 2013

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (11 months ago)

The G15 was available to us before we got swamped with cameras from Photokina, the P7700 wasn't.

The P7700 was covered in considerably more depth than most sites ever offer, in December 2012, along with all its other immediate peers. It made more sense for us to cover all the cameras in depth rather than focus just on the Nikon, at the expense of the others.

5 upvotes
horsth
By horsth (11 months ago)

What's going on here. The Canon G15 gets gold with 76%, the Fuji X20 only silver with 77% ??

3 upvotes
alaska_tim
By alaska_tim (11 months ago)

"There is no direct link between the overall score and the awards: they are not given automatically to cameras reaching a certain threshold. Crucially a camera can get an award even if a camera with a higher overall score didn't."

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

8 upvotes
JustDavid
By JustDavid (11 months ago)

I was hoping that the Canon v Nikon limited world view is only an issue with printed magazines who are more or less paid by these two... And it's just cought up with DPR too... :(

4 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (11 months ago)

Yes. To help balance it, DPR reviews could borrow an idea from the Photography Blog: last page of every camera review, titled "Main Rivals," lists several alternatives. Helps a great deal to navigate among all the existing choices.

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

The difference between a 28-200mm and a 28-140mm zoom is not that great. It is only 30% closer vertically and horizontally.

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

Or a reduction from 12MP to 6MP and a reduction from an aperture of f/2.8 to f/4. If you can live with 6MP at 200mm on the G15, you don't give up much of anything to the P7700.

2 upvotes
chj
By chj (11 months ago)

Hmm, the end rankings don't match the review for me. The Nikon seems far inferior in so many aspects of performance. The main difference is zoom. As far as higher quality at low iso, at low iso, just about any camera gives good image quality.

3 upvotes
Prairie Pal
By Prairie Pal (11 months ago)

Yeah, I just don't get why Nikon insists on putting under-powered processors in their P-series. There must be some group at Nikon who are okay with that kind flaw, but anyone there who takes pride in their work has gotta be rolling their eyes. The only thing that kept me from flinging my P7000 into the lake was trade in value against the G12.

4 upvotes
J D Tranquil
By J D Tranquil (11 months ago)

Thank you, Jeff. I've been a fan of yours for years and I'm glad to see your reviews here. Your reviews influenced my purchasing decision on some very good digital cameras. I'm very happy to see this head-to-head format and hope it continues.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
alaska_tim
By alaska_tim (11 months ago)

I couldn't agree more. I got about 4 pages into this review and said to myself, "Did Jeff Keller write this?" Upon checking, I saw that of course he did.

4 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (11 months ago)

Thanks, much appreciated! Glad my style is still recognizable in my new home here at DPR!

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (11 months ago)

A couple more reviews and we'll buy you a chair.

2 upvotes
bigdaddave
By bigdaddave (11 months ago)

How can the RAW image quality on both cameras be worse than the jpeg? Can you not, by default make the RAW IQ look exactly like the jpeg, but also improve on it substantially? A bit silly.

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (11 months ago)

A lower score for Raw doesn't mean the image quality is worse than JPEG, just that it's not great compared to some other camera's Raw files.

If anything, you'd expect there to be greater variance between Raw scores than between JPEG ones, since even a limited Raw file will have enough data to produce a good JPEG, whereas a more flexible Raw file's benefits may not be easily incorporated into the camera's JPEG output.

4 upvotes
photoreddi
By photoreddi (11 months ago)

Disappointing review based on this unbalanced comparison from p. 7 :
> "If you want to give the G15 a little more telephoto power, fear not: Canon sells a 1.4x teleconverter, which brings the telephoto end of the focal range to 196 mm equivalent - essentially up there with the P7700."

No, it's not up there with the P7700. Besides probably degrading the image quality slightly, according to Lensmate the required LA-DC58L adapter ($39) vignettes at the wide end with filters and the TC-ED58E 1.4x lens ($195) has no filter threads.

At B&H's prices (P7700 == $389, G15 == $449) to equip the G15 with the adapter that gives it a reach of 39.2-196mm (unfortunately no, it doesn't go from 28-200mm like the P7700, you need keep swapping the adapter on and off to cover 28-196mm). For this reduced convenience the price is now $679 for the G15 and still only $389 for the P7700, a $290 saving. And with the added lens, the G15 is now larger and heavier than the P7700 instead of a bit smaller.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (11 months ago)

To me one stop gain is far more useful than 200 mm equivalent on a camera like this you are not shooting sports or birds. 140 mm is more than enough. Actually I would have liked a 24-110 better for a general purpose camera

3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Yes, it would be nice if these started at 24mm (equiv.). Guess an LX7 would do nicely. Cheaper, too.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 154
12