The HP Photosmart 435 is mostly gets compared to compacts and super zooms. The HP Photosmart 435's top rivals come from Olympus (such as the FE-270) and Panasonic (such as the Lumix DMC-FZ200)

Competitor classes

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the HP Photosmart 435 compared to compact competitors include: it has a slightly wider wide angle lens (36 mm vs 38 mm) and has a viewfinder (tunnel vs none).

However, on average it has a slightly narrower aperture (f/4 vs f/3.1), has a much smaller screen (1.5" vs 2.5"), is much larger (mid size (117×57×40 mm) vs compact (90×63×31 mm)), takes slightly lower resolution photos (3.1 MP vs 7.1 MP) and is older (august 2003 vs august 2007).

Olympus FE-270

Olympus FE-270
4 years newer

Significant advantages of the FE-270 (vs the Photosmart 435)

  • Much larger screen: 2.5" vs 1.5"
  • Much smaller: Compact (90×63×31 mm) vs Mid size (117×57×40 mm)
  • Wider aperture: f/3.1 vs f/4

Significant disadvantages of the FE-270 (vs the Photosmart 435)

  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the FE-270 and Photosmart 435

  • Light weight: 122 g vs 190 g

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the HP Photosmart 435 compared to super zoom competitors include: it is slightly smaller (mid size (117×57×40 mm) vs professional size (125×87×110 mm)), is thinner (1.6" vs 4.3") and is significantly lighter (190 g vs 588 g).

However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4 vs f/2.8), has a much narrower wide angle lens (36 mm vs 25 mm), has a much smaller screen (1.5" vs 3"), has a significantly lower resolution screen (62k dots vs 460k dots) and doesn't have image stabilization (none vs lens).

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
9 years newer
$534

Significant advantages of the DMC-FZ200 (vs the Photosmart 435)

  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 1.5"
  • Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 36 mm
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs None

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FZ200 (vs the Photosmart 435)

  • Larger: Professional size (125×87×110 mm) vs Mid size (117×57×40 mm)
  • Significantly thicker: 4.3" vs 1.6"
  • Significantly heavier: 588 g vs 190 g

common strengths of the DMC-FZ200 and Photosmart 435

  • Fairly small: Professional size (125×87×110 mm) vs Mid size (117×57×40 mm)
  • Light weight: 588 g vs 190 g
  • Thin: 4.3" vs 1.6"