Updated (February 2012): Compare the Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V vs Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR

Tie
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

53

Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR

52

Tie

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Really small
Size
Prosumer size (122×87×93 mm)
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Thin
Thickness
3.7"
 

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
320 fps
Light sensitivity
High ISO
12,800 ISO
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Screen size
Large screen
3"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V.

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX540 HS

Canon PowerShot SX540 HS

Super zoom

$399

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Lowest price Much cheaper
Aperture Narrower aperture
Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Canon PowerShot SX520 HS

Super zoom

$267

Zoom More zoom
Lowest price Much cheaper
Aperture Narrower aperture
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Super zoom

$397

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
GPS No built-in GPS

Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Competitors

Fujifilm FinePix HS25 EXR

Fujifilm FinePix HS25 EXR

Super zoom

$525

Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Lowest price Cheaper
Light sensitivity Worse maximum light sensitivity
Fujifilm FinePix HS10

Fujifilm FinePix HS10

Super zoom

$900

High-speed framerate Higher speed movies
Weight Slightly lighter
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen
Fujifilm FinePix HS50EXR

Fujifilm FinePix HS50EXR

Super zoom

$500

High-speed framerate Higher speed movies
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Size Larger

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
Sony

Report a correction
Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR
FinePix HS20 EXR
Fujifilm

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments