Updated (January 2011): Compare the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

52

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

38

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.5
Large screen
Screen size
3.5"
Really small
Size
Super compact (99×56×20 mm)
Thin
Thickness
0.8"
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
220 fps
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
10 fps
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 Competitors

Olympus Stylus 1

Olympus Stylus 1

Pro digicam

$500

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Much larger
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Travel zoom

$649

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX90

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX90

Compact

$256

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
Screen size Much smaller screen

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$250 body only

$900 with 14-45mm lens

Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
External flash Supports an external flash
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Travel zoom

$649

Zoom More zoom
Size Smaller
Fastest shutter speed Much slower max shutter speed
Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ10

Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ10

Travel zoom

$372

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Aperture Wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78
Lumix DMC-FX78
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10
Lumix DMC-ZS10
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments