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

56

Casio Exilim EX-ZR100

44

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
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
 

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim ZR100

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
1,000 fps
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
40 fps
Battery life
Great battery life
450 shots
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm

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 DMC-TZ60

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Travel zoom

$251

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Travel zoom

$220

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Travel zoom

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Casio Exilim EX-ZR100 Competitors

Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000

Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000

Travel zoom

$269

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Supports RAW Shoots RAW
Size Significantly larger
Casio Exilim EX-ZR200

Casio Exilim ZR-200

Travel zoom

$263

Battery life Longer battery life
Continuous shooting Shoots much slower
Fujifilm FinePix F550 EXR

Fujifilm FinePix F550 EXR

Travel zoom

$169

GPS Has a GPS
Supports RAW Shoots RAW
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
Lumix ZS20
Panasonic

Report a correction
Casio Exilim EX-ZR100
Exilim ZR100
Casio

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments