Updated (January 2013): Compare the Fujifilm FinePix S8300 vs Nikon Coolpix L820

Fujifilm FinePix S8300 vs Nikon Coolpix L820

Winner
Fujifilm FinePix S8300

55

Nikon Coolpix L820

50

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix S8300

Great zoom
Zoom
42x
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
480 fps
High ISO
Light sensitivity
12,800 ISO
Great battery life
Battery life
500 shots
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L820

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
921k dots
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light

galleries

Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix S8300.
Explore our gallery of 30 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L820.

competitors

Fujifilm FinePix S8300 Competitors

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$178 - $180

Weight Lighter
Longest exposure Significantly longer exposures
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Super zoom

$360

Zoom More zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L830

Nikon Coolpix L830

Super zoom

$169

Wide angle Better wide angle
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies

Nikon Coolpix L820 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L830

Nikon Coolpix L830

Super zoom

$169

Wide angle Better wide angle
Zoom More zoom
Light sensitivity Worse maximum light sensitivity
Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$257

Zoom More zoom
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$188 - $229

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Fujifilm FinePix S8300
FinePix S8300
Fujifilm

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments