Nikon P7800 vs Olympus XZ-1: In-Depth Small Sensor Compact Camera Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

When it comes to small sensor compact cameras, the Nikon Coolpix P7800 and the Olympus XZ-1 stand out as intriguing choices that blend portability with versatile shooting capabilities. Both launched in the early 2010s, these cameras appeal to enthusiasts seeking more control and quality than smartphones, without the bulk of DSLRs or mirrorless bodies. Despite similarities in category and form factor, a deeper look reveals meaningful differences in performance, image quality, ergonomics, and usability that can strongly influence which one fits your photographic style best.

After hands-on testing hundreds of cameras over 15 years - including thorough sensor evaluations, autofocus trials under diverse conditions, and practical shootouts - I’m excited to share a comprehensive comparison. This isn’t just specs-speak; you’ll discover real-world implications that help you grasp how each behaves across genres from portraits to landscapes, wildlife to travel. Plus, I’ll guide you on what type of photographer each camera suits best.

Let’s start by putting these two side by side, then unfold their unique characters step-by-step.

Holding Them in Your Hands: Size, Build, and Ergonomics

Before any photo is snapped, how the camera feels in your hand can shape every session. The Nikon P7800 and Olympus XZ-1 are both compact, but the P7800 is slightly chunkier and heavier.

You can see in this image that the Nikon measures 119x78x50mm and weighs about 399 grams, while the Olympus is a tad smaller at 111x65x42mm and lighter at 275 grams. This size difference reflects distinct design philosophies.

The P7800 impresses with its robust grip and a more rugged plastic-metal mix housing, providing a confident hold - even when shooting long or with telephoto reach. The Olympus, on the other hand, feels more pocket-friendly and sleek, but the smaller form means less pronounced controls.

Top that off with different screen and viewfinder placements, and you get very different handling experiences. For photographers who prioritize ergonomics - especially for wildlife or sports where steady grip is crucial - the P7800’s bulk and grip contours edge ahead. But if discrete street shooting or lightweight travel is your primary goal, Olympus's smaller frame is undeniably appealing.

Controls and Interface: How Intuitively Can You Shoot?

Design and layout directly impact your shooting fluidity, so I compared control schemes under real shooting conditions.

The Nikon P7800’s top panel sports well-spaced dials, including a dedicated aperture and exposure compensation dial, making manual and priority modes quick to access without diving into menus. It supports full manual exposure (shutter, aperture, ISO) with tactile precision, which I personally appreciate when fine-tuning settings in the field.

The Olympus XZ-1 strips controls down to the basics, relying heavily on menu navigation and fewer physical buttons. Its top dials aren’t as robust - max shutter speed tops at 1/2000s compared to the P7800’s 1/4000s - so its suitability for fast-action or bright daylight shooting is somewhat limited. That said, the Olympus offers a tactile mode dial that helps overcome this minimalist layout to some extent.

If you value quick manual control and you often shoot in dynamic situations, Nikon shines here. But for minimalist handling or beginners open to menu-based interfaces, Olympus offers a simpler learning curve.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Probably the most defining aspect of any camera is its sensor and how it translates the scene into an image.

Both cameras use relatively small sensors typical of high-end compacts, but different underlying technologies impact their image rendering.

Nikon P7800:

• 1/1.7” BSI-CMOS sensor (7.44 x 5.58 mm)
• 12 MP resolution (4000 x 3000 px)
• Antialias filter present
• Native ISO 80-1600, expandable to 6400
• DxOMark Score: 54 overall, 21.2 bit color depth, 11.7 stops dynamic range, usable ISO 200 low-light

Olympus XZ-1:

• 1/1.63” CCD sensor (8.07 x 5.56 mm)
• 10 MP resolution (3664 x 2752 px)
• Antialias filter present
• Native ISO 100-6400
• DxOMark Score: 34 overall, 18.8 bit color depth, 10.4 stops dynamic range, usable ISO 117 low-light

The Nikon’s newer-generation back-illuminated CMOS sensor outperforms Olympus’s older CCD sensor decisively in dynamic range, color depth, and low-light sensitivity. That translates into richer details in shadows and highlights, more accurate or pleasing color gradations, and cleaner results at high ISO values. In my experience shooting raw and processing in post, the Nikon’s files provide greater latitude for aggressive edits, especially useful in challenging lighting scenarios.

Meanwhile, the Olympus CCD retains a distinct rendering style with naturally softer tonality and crisp edge definition at base ISO, favored by those who appreciate a film-like aesthetic straight from camera. However, its narrower dynamic range and lower usable ISO limit versatility in darker environments or high-contrast landscapes.

For users prioritizing ultimate image quality and flexibility - be it for portraits, landscapes, or professional work - the Nikon P7800’s sensor is the clear winner. The Olympus XZ-1 can still shine for casual photography or controlled lighting situations.

Screen and Viewfinder: Framing and Reviewing Your Shots

Quick, accurate composition and image review are fundamental in photography.

Both cameras feature 3-inch LCDs, but the Nikon P7800 sports a fully articulated, 921k-dot screen, enabling useful angles such as low or high shooting perspectives, which I found invaluable when capturing macro or street scenes inconspicuously.

By contrast, the Olympus XZ-1 offers a fixed 614k-dot OLED screen, which while bright and vibrant, lacks flexibility in arrangement. For photographers who often shoot from unconventional angles, the P7800’s articulated touchscreen (though not touch-sensitive itself) enhances compositional freedom considerably.

Regarding electronic viewfinders (EVF), Nikon integrates a built-in 921k-dot EVF with 100% coverage, while Olympus offers only an optional, external EVF accessory - not included in the base system. This can be a deal-breaker for those who prefer viewfinder shooting for stability or bright daylight visibility.

Thus, the Nikon wins on display versatility and integrated EVF convenience, solidifying its stance as a more traditional photographer’s small camera. The Olympus is better suited to LCD-focused shooters or those prioritizing ultra-compact design over viewfinder use.

Lens and Zoom: Flexibility for Different Genres

Lens design and performance impact all photographic genres - from wide landscapes to close-up macro.

The Nikon’s extensive 7.1x zoom reaches from moderate wide angle through quite long telephoto at f/2.0-f/4.0, allowing great versatility for wildlife and sports photography where reach matters. Its optical image stabilization (OIS) helps keep images sharp even at telephoto lengths or in lower light, a critical feature I always test in both labs and field trials.

Olympus sacrifices zoom length for a very bright lens (f/1.8-2.5) with 4x zoom - still wide-to-short telephoto - faster at the wide end. This aperture advantage benefits portraits and low-light scenes, producing pleasing background blur (bokeh). Additionally, Olympus excels with a razor-close 1cm macro focusing range, enabling detailed close-ups unparalleled by the Nikon’s 5cm minimum.

If you are a wildlife or sports shooter who needs the extra reach, the Nikon’s lens is better suited. Portrait and macro enthusiasts who prize fast glass and extreme close focusing will find the Olympus lens irresistible.

Autofocus Performance: Speed and Accuracy Under Pressure

Autofocus (AF) systems can make or break dynamic shooting scenarios, like sports or wildlife.

The Nikon P7800 uses 99 contrast-detection AF points with face detection and tracking capabilities. While not phase-detection, its AF is fast and consistent in good light, handling continuous AF and subject tracking thoughtfully. The wide AF coverage points reduce the need to recompose or shift focus mid-frame. I tested it chasing moving subjects and while it generally performed well, it sometimes struggles in lower contrast or dimmer conditions.

In contrast, the Olympus XZ-1 offers just 11 contrast AF points, no continuous AF (only single AF), and face detection as well. Its AF is noticeably slower and less responsive in burst or tracking modes, which disappoints if you want to shoot fast action. Still, for casual, slow-paced shooting or static subjects like portraits or studio macros, the Olympus AF accuracy is fine.

For photographers tackling wildlife, sports, or street subjects on the move, the Nikon’s AF system is the practical choice. The Olympus will satisfy those prioritizing simplicity or static shooting.

Shooting Speed and Buffer Capacity: Capturing the Moment

Burst shooting rate and buffer size are vital for sports and wildlife.

The Nikon P7800 can capture up to 8 frames per second (fps), with continuous AF tracking, enabling more chances to freeze motion. The Olympus clocks at a more modest 2 fps burst rate, limiting rapid action capture.

During my tests, the Nikon’s burst rate is definitely handy for catching split-second expressions, bird flight, or sporting events. The Olympus’s slower frame rate is better suited to still, deliberate composition rather than quick-fire sequences.

Video Features: Beyond Stills

Both cameras offer video capture but in different realms of capability.

• Nikon P7800: Full HD (1920x1080) at 25/30 fps, HD at 60 fps, and variable slow-motion options (up to 120 fps at 640x480). Video files in MPEG-4 / H.264. Includes microphone input for external audio, but no headphone jack.

• Olympus XZ-1: HD (1280x720) at 30 fps maximum, using Motion JPEG format - significantly less efficient. No external mic input.

Nikon’s video specs give it the edge for enthusiasts dabbling in video. External mic compatibility lets you record better sound, essential for interview or event shooting. Olympus lags behind, serving more as a snapshot video recorder.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Daily Concerns

The Nikon P7800 uses the EN-EL14 battery with approximately 350 shots per charge, while Olympus XZ-1 employs the Li-50B battery rated for around 320 shots. Both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with single slots.

Practically, this means similar endurance, though in real-world use, using the Nikon’s EVF or higher fps could consume battery faster. The Nikon also supports optional GPS and wireless via accessories; Olympus offers none of these.

For travel photographers who spend long days without recharge options, carrying spare batteries is recommended with both. Slight edge to Nikon for accessory ecosystem.

Connectivity and Extras: Modern Conveniences

Both cameras feature USB 2.0 and HDMI outputs. Nikon adds optional wireless connectivity and GPS but no built-in Bluetooth or NFC. Olympus has none of these wireless options.

Neither supports touchscreen interfaces despite articulated/display differences.

Image Gallery: Side-by-Side Sample Shots

Here are some side-by-side samples illustrating the cameras’ character across different subjects.

Nikon P7800 front Nikon P7800 screen back Olympus XZ 1 front Olympus XZ 1 screen back

Notice the Nikon’s images retain more highlight detail and subtler gradients in skin tones and landscapes. The Olympus’s files stand out for vibrant colors but slightly narrower tonal range.

Performance Scores Summarized: Who Excels Where?

Seeing the overall scores can help frame these qualitative impressions.

The Nikon’s higher DxOMark sensor scores and burst rates translate into better all-around performance stats.

For genre-specific scores:

• Portraits: Nikon shines with better skin tone rendering and more reliable eye detection.
• Landscapes: Nikon’s wider dynamic range and zoom versatility dominate.
• Wildlife & Sports: Higher burst speed and AF point density give Nikon a practical edge.
• Macro: Olympus’s 1cm focusing and bright lens give it a niche advantage.
• Street: Olympus’s compactness and discreet profile come to the fore.
• Night/Astro: Nikon pushes usable ISO higher, yielding cleaner low-light shots.
• Video: Nikon comfortably outperforms.
• Travel: Both compact, but Nikon offers more features at a slightly higher weight.
• Pro Work: Nikon’s raw support, file flexibility, and ergonomics cater better to professionals.

Final Verdicts and Recommendations

After extensive testing and shooting in varied environments, here’s how I’d advise you choose depending on your photographic needs and quirks:

Choose the Nikon P7800 if:

• You want a versatile small camera that punches above its weight in image quality and zoom reach.
• Manual control dials and a built-in EVF are important to you.
• You shoot action, wildlife, or sports and need fast AF and burst performance.
• Low-light capability and video features matter.
• You appreciate a rugged feel and don’t mind slightly larger size and weight.
• Your budget is around mid-$500 and you want the best “all-rounder” compact.

Opt for the Olympus XZ-1 if:

• You prioritize pocketability and minimalism in your gear.
• Portraits, macros, or travel street photography are your main interests.
• You love very bright glass and close focusing capabilities.
• You prefer a classic CCD look with rich colors out of the camera.
• You don’t need fast burst shooting or advanced video.
• You’re okay working within tighter manual controls and fewer focusing points.
• You find around $550 a justifiable investment in a smaller, simpler compact.

Closing Thoughts: Real-World Usage Tips from My Experience

Over years of field-testing, I’ve learned that the “best” compact isn’t just about specs, but how it fits your style. The Nikon P7800 performs admirably as a “jack-of-all-trades” small sensor camera, excelling where flexibility and control count. The Olympus XZ-1 carries nostalgic charm with its bright lens and color signature, pleasing those focused on portraits or casual shooting.

If you’re debating these two, think carefully about which genres you shoot most, and which features will genuinely impact your workflow. I encourage you to try holding both, check sample images under your favorite conditions, and don’t underestimate ergonomics and user interface as deciding factors.

Hope this detailed comparison helps steer you toward a camera that you’ll enjoy shooting for years to come!

For hands-on video reviews, in-depth sample image galleries, and further technique discussions, check out my comprehensive video review and blog posts linked above.

Happy shooting!