As well as being compared against other compacts, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX35 is also often compared to travel zooms, ultra compacts and super zooms. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX35's top rivals come from Panasonic (such as the Lumix DMC-FX30 and the Lumix DMC-ZR3) and Samsung (such as the WB350F)

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Panasonic DMC-FX35 compared to other compact competitors include: it has a much wider wide angle lens (25 mm vs 30 mm) and is slightly smaller (super compact (95×52×22 mm) vs compact (98×55×24 mm)).

However, on average it has a slightly smaller screen (2.5" vs 2.7") and is older (january 2008 vs january 2009).

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX30

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX30
1 year older
$325

Significant advantages of the DMC-FX30 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FX30 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 28 mm vs 25 mm

common strengths of the DMC-FX30 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Super compact (95×52×22 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.9"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS15

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS15
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the DMC-FS15 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly larger screen: 2.7" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FS15 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 29 mm vs 25 mm

common strengths of the DMC-FS15 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Super compact (97×54×22 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.9"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH3
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the DMC-FH3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly larger screen: 2.7" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FH3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 28 mm vs 25 mm
  • Significantly larger: Compact (98×55×24 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Slower max shutter speed: 1/1600 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second

common strengths of the DMC-FH3 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Compact (98×55×24 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.9"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS5
similar age

Significant advantages of the DMC-FS5 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FS5 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much worse wide angle: 30 mm vs 25 mm

common strengths of the DMC-FS5 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Super compact (95×53×23 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.9"

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS3
similar age
$393

Significant advantages of the DMC-FS3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FS3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much worse wide angle: 33 mm vs 25 mm

common strengths of the DMC-FS3 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Super compact (95×53×23 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Good image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Lens
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.9"

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Panasonic DMC-FX35 compared to travel zoom competitors include: it is much smaller (super compact (95×52×22 mm) vs compact (114×65×25 mm)), is thinner (0.9" vs 1"), is slightly lighter (160 g vs 216 g) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/2000 of a second vs 1/1300 of a second).

However, on average it has a much smaller screen (2.5" vs 3"), doesn't have a touch screen, has a CCD-family sensor (CCD vs CMOS) and is older (january 2008 vs january 2014).

Samsung WB350F

Samsung WB350F
6 years newer
$499

Significant advantages of the WB350F (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 2.5"
  • Has a CMOS-family sensor: CMOS vs CCD
  • Has a touch screen

Significant disadvantages of the WB350F (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much larger: Compact (114×65×25 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Significantly heavier: 216 g vs 160 g

common strengths of the WB350F and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Compact (114×65×25 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Very thin: 1" vs 0.9"
  • Very light: 216 g vs 160 g

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR3
2 years newer

Significant advantages of the DMC-ZR3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly larger screen: 2.7" vs 2.5"

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-ZR3 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much larger: Compact (98×55×26 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1300 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second

common strengths of the DMC-ZR3 and DMC-FX35

  • Very small: Compact (98×55×26 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Very light: 159 g vs 160 g
  • Very thin: 1" vs 0.9"

compared toUltra compact competitors

Generally, compared to ultra compact competitors the Panasonic DMC-FX35 has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.3 vs f/2.8), has a significantly smaller screen (2.5" vs 2.7"), is slightly larger (super compact (95×52×22 mm) vs ultra compact (97×54×19 mm)), is older (january 2008 vs july 2009) and is thicker (0.9" vs 0.7").

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX65

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX65
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the DMC-FX65 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the DMC-FX65 (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • None found

common strengths of the DMC-FX65 and DMC-FX35

  • None found

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Panasonic DMC-FX35 compared to super zoom competitors include: it is significantly smaller (super compact (95×52×22 mm) vs professional size (123×87×106 mm)), is thinner (0.9" vs 4.2"), is significantly lighter (160 g vs 595 g) and much longer exposures (60 seconds vs 15 seconds).

However, on average it has slightly less zoom (4x vs 50x), has a much smaller screen (2.5" vs 2.8"), has a slightly lower resolution screen (230k dots vs 461k dots), slightly lower maximum light sensitivity (1,600 ISO vs 6,400 ISO) and doesn't have a screen which flips out.

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
4 years newer

Significant advantages of the SX50 HS (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Much larger screen: 2.8" vs 2.5"
  • Has a CMOS-family sensor: CMOS vs CCD
  • Has a flip-out screen

Significant disadvantages of the SX50 HS (vs the DMC-FX35)

  • Significantly larger: Professional size (123×87×106 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Significantly thicker: 4.2" vs 0.9"
  • Significantly heavier: 595 g vs 160 g

common strengths of the SX50 HS and DMC-FX35

  • Fairly small: Professional size (123×87×106 mm) vs Super compact (95×52×22 mm)
  • Light weight: 595 g vs 160 g
  • Thin: 4.2" vs 0.9"