Updated (January 2012): Compare the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 vs Panasonic Lumix ZS20

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78

59

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

49

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 ZS20

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
220 fps
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons

galleries

Explore our gallery of 32 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX90

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX90

Compact

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$460 with 14-42mm lens

Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$458 - $597 body only

$499 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Much larger

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS45

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS45

Travel zoom

$210

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Travel zoom

$250

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Travel zoom

$220

Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
Longest exposure Much longer exposures
Zoom Less zoom

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX78
Lumix DMC-FX78
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
Lumix ZS20
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments