Updated (February 2012): Compare the Casio Exilim EX-ZR200 vs Nikon Coolpix P510

Nikon Coolpix P510 vs Casio Exilim ZR-200

Winner
Nikon Coolpix P510

49

Casio Exilim EX-ZR200

43

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P510

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
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
 

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim ZR-200

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

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Casio Exilim EX-ZR200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P510.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix P510 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$179 - $197

Battery life Much longer battery life
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix P610

Nikon Coolpix P610

Super zoom

$290 - $427

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Aperture Narrower aperture
Nikon Coolpix P530

Nikon Coolpix P530

Super zoom

$277 - $279

Macro focus Better macro capability
Battery life Longer battery life
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Casio Exilim EX-ZR200 Competitors

Casio EX-Z3000

Casio EX-Z3000

Travel zoom

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Touch screen Has a touch screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Casio Exilim ZR400

Casio Exilim ZR400

Travel zoom

$193

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
True resolution Significantly lower true resolution
Samsung WB110

Samsung WB110

Super zoom

$331

3D Takes 3D photos
Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Nikon Coolpix P510
Coolpix P510
Nikon

Report a correction
Casio Exilim EX-ZR200
Exilim ZR-200
Casio

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments