Updated (February 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS vs Nikon Coolpix L810

Nikon Coolpix L810 vs Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Winner
Nikon Coolpix L810

46

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

42

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L810

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/3200 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L810.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix L810 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$120 - $177

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$410 - $597 body only

$479 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Nikon Coolpix L330

Nikon Coolpix L330

Super zoom

$170

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX1 IS

Canon PowerShot SX1 IS

Super zoom

$938

Screen size Much larger screen
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$679

Screen size Much larger screen
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
Zoom Less zoom
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Super zoom

$725

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L810
Coolpix L810
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX20 IS
PowerShot SX20 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments