Canon PowerShot SX510 HS vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

49

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

46

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

Really small
Size
Standard size (104×70×80 mm)
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.8
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Super zoom

$199

Zoom More zoom
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Super zoom

$224

Zoom More zoom
Focus points Slightly more focus points
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$168 - $632

Aperture Wider aperture
Battery life Longer battery life
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$257 - $297

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Wide angle Better wide angle
Aperture Narrower aperture
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Super zoom

$317 - $319

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Size Larger
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38

Super zoom

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS
PowerShot SX510 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47
Lumix DMC-FZ47
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments