Updated (January 2013): Compare the Nikon Coolpix P520 vs Samsung NX1000

Nikon Coolpix P520 vs Samsung NX1000

Winner
Nikon Coolpix P520

90

Samsung NX1000

64

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P520

Large screen
Screen size
3.2"
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Built-in GPS
GPS
Great for travel
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX1000

Size
Really small
Mid size (114×63×37 mm)
True resolution
High true resolution
20 MP
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Thickness
Thin
1.5"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P520.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX1000.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix P520 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L810

Nikon Coolpix L810

Super zoom

$179

Size Smaller
Wide angle Slightly better wide angle
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$199 - $257

Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Size Smaller
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix P610

Nikon Coolpix P610

Super zoom

$279 - $617

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen size Significantly smaller screen

Samsung NX1000 Competitors

Samsung NX3000

Samsung NX3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$500 with 20-50mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Shutter lag Significantly less shutter lag
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$487 with 18-55mm lens

Lens availability Much more lenses available
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Nikon 1 J1

Nikon 1 J1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$213 body only

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Nikon Coolpix P520
Coolpix P520
Nikon

Report a correction
Samsung NX1000
NX1000
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments