Updated (February 2012): Compare the Nikon Coolpix P310 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 vs Nikon Coolpix P310

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
Nikon Coolpix P310

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
Long exposures
Longest exposure
60 seconds
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P310

Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
Focus points
Many focus points
99
Weight
Light-weight
194 g
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix P310.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Pro digicam

$576

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Wider aperture
Sensor size Slightly smaller sensor
Nikon Coolpix L340

Nikon Coolpix L340

Super zoom

$170 - $177

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Pro digicam

Sensor size Significantly larger sensor
Aperture Wider aperture
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization

Nikon Coolpix P310 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix P330

Nikon Coolpix P330

Pro digicam

$325

GPS Has a GPS
Sensor size Larger sensor
Battery life Shorter battery life
Nikon Coolpix S9300

Nikon Coolpix S9300

Travel zoom

$349

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
GPS Has a GPS
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Canon EOS M

Canon EOS M

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$375 - $779 body only

$549 - $899 with 15-45mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Built-in flash No built-in flash

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
Lumix DMC-LX5
Panasonic

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix P310
Coolpix P310
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments