Updated (January 2012): Compare the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

Panasonic Lumix ZS20 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

Tie
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20

36

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

34

Tie

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix ZS20

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

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/2.8
Battery life
Great battery life
400 shots
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47.
Explore our gallery of 32 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20.

competitors

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
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

Travel zoom

$525

Longest exposure Much longer exposures
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
Zoom Slightly less zoom
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 DMC-FZ47 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ40

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ40

Super zoom

$480

Screen resolution Lower resolution screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$250

Zoom Much more zoom
Wide angle Much better wide angle
Size Significantly larger
Nikon Coolpix L810

Nikon Coolpix L810

Super zoom

$199

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Wide angle Better wide angle
Aperture Narrower aperture

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20
Lumix ZS20
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47
Lumix DMC-FZ47
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments