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

36

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
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

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 L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$190

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Weight Slightly lighter
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$390 body only

$359 - $397 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Faster autofocus
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix B700

Nikon Coolpix B700

Super zoom

$339 - $447

Zoom Much more zoom
Movie format Higher resolution movies
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH8

Compact

$327

Screen size Much larger screen
Aperture Wider aperture
Continuous shooting Shoots slower
Canon IXUS 165

Canon IXUS 165

Travel zoom

$180

Aperture Slightly wider aperture
Lowest price Significantly cheaper
Continuous shooting Shoots slower
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$405 body only

$349 - $397 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Image stabilization No image stabilization

discussion

Nikon Coolpix L820
Coolpix L820
Nikon

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments