Updated (January 2012): Compare the Canon Powershot S100 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Canon Powershot S100 vs Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Winner
Canon Powershot S100

57

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

44

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon Powershot S100

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2
Really small
Size
Compact (99×60×28 mm)
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Size
Really small
Compact (105×59×28 mm)
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
220 fps
Thickness
Thin
1.1"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Powershot S100.
Explore our gallery of 32 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20.

competitors

Canon Powershot S100 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S110

Canon PowerShot S110

Pro digicam

$299

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
GPS No built-in GPS
Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$656

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot S95

Canon PowerShot S95

Pro digicam

$279

Lowest price Cheaper
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Travel zoom

$249 - $278

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Travel zoom

$340

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Canon PowerShot SX720 HS

Travel zoom

$268 - $329

Zoom Much more zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Canon Powershot S100
Powershot S100
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
Lumix ZS20
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments