Updated (January 2012): Compare the Casio Exilim EX-ZR100 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Panasonic Lumix ZS20 vs Casio Exilim ZR100

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

59

Casio Exilim EX-ZR100

46

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
Really small
Size
Compact (105×59×28 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Thin
Thickness
1.1"
 

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim ZR100

Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
40 fps
Battery life
Great battery life
450 shots
Size
Really small
Compact (105×59×29 mm)
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
1,000 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 5 sample photos taken by the Casio Exilim EX-ZR100.
Explore our gallery of 32 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Travel zoom

$260

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Travel zoom

$249 - $269

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
GPS No built-in GPS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Travel zoom

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Zoom Significantly more zoom
GPS No built-in GPS

Casio Exilim EX-ZR100 Competitors

Casio Exilim EX-ZR200

Casio Exilim ZR-200

Travel zoom

$315

Battery life Longer battery life
Lowest price Cheaper
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly slower
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Autofocus Faster autofocus
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$348 body only

$426 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Size Much larger

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
Lumix ZS20
Panasonic

Report a correction
Casio Exilim EX-ZR100
Exilim ZR100
Casio

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments