Updated (January 2013): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS vs Nikon Coolpix L820

Nikon Coolpix L820 vs Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

Winner
Nikon Coolpix L820

36

Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

30

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L820

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS

Size
Really small
Mid size (111×73×44 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.7"
Weight
Light-weight
291 g
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/3200 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX160 IS.
Explore our gallery of 30 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L820.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix L820 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$215 - $257

Zoom More zoom
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L810

Nikon Coolpix L810

Super zoom

$255

Weight Slightly lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$130 - $159

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Weight Slightly lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Canon PowerShot SX160 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS

Travel zoom

$200

Weight Slightly lighter
Lowest price Cheaper
Battery life Shorter battery life
Canon PowerShot SX150 IS

Canon PowerShot SX150 IS

Travel zoom

$236

Aperture Slightly wider aperture
Lowest price Cheaper
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Canon EOS M

Canon EOS M

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$367 - $779 body only

$549 - $899 with 15-45mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Built-in flash No built-in flash

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX160 IS
PowerShot SX160 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments