Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150

50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48

46

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
220 fps
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48

Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150.
Explore our gallery of 19 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$499 - $598

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Pro digicam

$640 - $798

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V

Super zoom

$634

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
GPS Has a GPS
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48 Competitors

Sony CyberShot DSC-H400

Sony CyberShot DSC-H400

Super zoom

$268

Zoom Much more zoom
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Aperture Narrower aperture
Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$638 with 18-55mm lens

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Battery life Much longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50

Pro digicam

$1,199

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
External flash Supports an external flash
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Lumix DMC-FZ150
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48
Lumix DMC-FZ48
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments