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

Great battery life
Battery life
400 shots
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/4000 of a second
Long exposures
Longest exposure
60 seconds
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix P310

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
921k dots
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
Focus points
Many focus points
99
Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm

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-LX3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Pro digicam

$341

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Size Slightly smaller
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Pro digicam

$400

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Wider aperture
Sensor size Slightly smaller sensor
Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850 (Lumix DC-GX800 / Lumix DC-GF9)

Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850 (Lumix DC-GX800 / Lumix DC-GF9)

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Battery life Much shorter battery life

Nikon Coolpix P310 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix P300

Nikon Coolpix P300

Pro digicam

$169

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Lowest price Cheaper
Nikon Coolpix P330

Nikon Coolpix P330

Pro digicam

$340

GPS Has a GPS
Sensor size Larger sensor
Battery life Shorter battery life
Nikon Coolpix P340

Nikon Coolpix P340

Pro digicam

$504

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Sensor size Larger sensor
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
Lumix DMC-LX5
Panasonic

Report a correction
Nikon Coolpix P310
Coolpix P310
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments