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

51

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

43

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
Size
Really small
Compact (105×59×28 mm)
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

Olympus Stylus SH-50 iHS

Olympus Stylus SH-50 iHS

Travel zoom

$250

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Zoom Significantly more zoom
Size Much larger
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Pro digicam

$840

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Aperture Wider aperture
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix FX80

Panasonic Lumix FX80

Compact

$277

Size Slightly smaller
Fastest shutter speed Significantly faster max shutter speed
Screen size Much smaller screen

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 (Lumix DMC-TZ80)

Travel zoom

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Panasonic Lumix ZS30

Travel zoom

$210

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60

Travel zoom

$251

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

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