Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 vs Nikon Coolpix L820

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

48

Nikon Coolpix L820

43

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Great battery life
Battery life
540 shots
Shoots RAW
Supports RAW
Better editing
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L820

Size
Really small
Prosumer size (111×76×85 mm)
Thickness
Thin
3.3"
Weight
Light-weight
470 g
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 30 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L820.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$444 - $598

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$274 - $298

Zoom Much more zoom
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V

Super zoom

$388 - $448

Viewfinder size Much larger viewfinder
Zoom Significantly more zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Nikon Coolpix L820 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$159 - $197

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Zoom More zoom
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$185

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Weight Slightly lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L830

Nikon Coolpix L830

Super zoom

$150

Zoom Slightly more zoom
Wide angle Slightly better wide angle
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Lumix DMC-FZ200
Panasonic

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments