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

43

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L810

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Macro focus
Great macro
0.0 cm
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

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

$205

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$179

Battery life Much longer battery life
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Size Larger
Nikon Coolpix L820

Nikon Coolpix L820

Super zoom

$180

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

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$369 - $449

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Zoom Much more zoom
Aperture Narrower aperture
Canon Powershot SX40

Canon Powershot SX40

Super zoom

$269

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Size Larger
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

Super zoom

$322

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Zoom Significantly more zoom
Aperture Narrower aperture

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L810
Coolpix L810
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX20 IS
PowerShot SX20 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments