Nikon Coolpix L820 vs Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Winner
Nikon Coolpix L820

35

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

31

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L820

In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Size
Really small
Compact (106×63×33 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.3"
Weight
Light-weight
233 g
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX280 HS.
Explore our gallery of 30 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L820.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix L820 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$189 - $229

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$257 - $297

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L830

Nikon Coolpix L830

Super zoom

$169

Wide angle Better wide angle
Zoom Slightly more zoom
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Travel zoom

$299 - $379

Zoom More zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$279 - $299

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Aperture Wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$198 - $229

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX280 HS
PowerShot SX280 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments