Updated (January 2013): Compare the Nikon Coolpix L820 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20

Nikon Coolpix L820 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20

Winner
Nikon Coolpix L820

35

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20

28

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix L820

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20

Size
Really small
Compact (100×56×28 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.1"
Weight
Light-weight
178 g
Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds

galleries

Explore our gallery of 30 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix L820.
Explore our gallery of 15 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix L820 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$220 - $229

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

$205

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

$198

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

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20 Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$285 body only

$360 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$343 body only

$576 - $630 with 18-135mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Screen size Much larger screen
Size Significantly larger
Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Canon PowerShot SX710 HS

Travel zoom

$240 - $299

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Size Slightly larger

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20
Lumix DMC-FH20
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments