Updated (February 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS vs Nikon Coolpix L810

Nikon Coolpix L810 vs Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Winner
Nikon Coolpix L810

45

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

42

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L810

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
Great macro
Macro focus
1.0 cm
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Size
Really small
Compact (106×61×33 mm)
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L810.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix L810 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$179 - $197

Battery life Much longer battery life
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Size Larger
Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$185

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Nikon Coolpix L820

Nikon Coolpix L820

Super zoom

$150

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Weight Slightly heavier

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$265 - $279

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Aperture Wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Canon PowerShot SX280 HS

Travel zoom

$240

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Lowest price Cheaper
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS

Canon PowerShot SX240 HS

Travel zoom

$269

Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Lowest price Cheaper
GPS No built-in GPS

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L810
Coolpix L810
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
PowerShot SX260 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments